I was observing a team meeting with a group earlier this year and it happened right before my eyes.
The team had just finished a robust discussion and had done great work to diagnose the cross-functional issue. The team leader had looked around the room and everyone was nodding in agreement about the context and cause – a new level of insight had been achieved.
Then they moved on.
To most observers, this would have looked solid and normal. By all indications, progress would have been forthcoming based on the dialogue that they had and the agreement that everybody showed. But I had seen this play out before.
I paused the meeting to ask a question: what specific action would they take based on that discussion and how would they know it was effective?
Do you know what happened next?
It’s Happened to Us Often
This only happens in 100% of the clients I work with: a team has a really great discussion and unlocks a new piece of insight. It takes a lot of effort to get to that shared insight, and the group has a momentary meeting plateau. It seems like something significant was achieved and it is so tempting to move forward.
Yet to be really clear, what has been achieved is the agreement around what the issue is and the mechanism that got us there.
What is missing is the continued work to develop a change in the system that ensures this problem stays behind us forever.
Here’s a specific example: I had a chance to work with a development team on a project that involved a new product that had been promised to pass a new, much higher level of mechanical shock and vibration than the team previously had to meet.
The unit was having trouble meeting the new spec, and every meeting had a similar pattern and conclusion. The device failure modes were reviewed and the prototype parts declared faulty. The working hypothesis was that when the production material arrives, all will be well.
This was a false hypothesis, and one that was eventually disproven, but the product had been launched for pre-order and massive customer backlogs built due to the team’s resistance to go deeper and reopen the design files to see if there were more fundamental issues.
A second example was with another team that was working on a new product that was intended to be marketed to state and local governments. Since the firm had a commanding share in one vertical, there was an assumption made that the distribution team would be able to market the new product with similar positive results.
The experience was much different than the core product. It turned out that this product went to a different department that had very different measurements and needs than their main product. By allowing themselves to stop short in their problem solving, the team missed their launch goals and the product line never made its benchmarks – eventually being sold to a competitor.
Back to Our Meeting
Three of the six people looked up and sheepishly asked what the question was. They had been processing the discussion at the “exception” level, meaning that they were just listening superficially and their body language of the nod of agreement was a red herring.
The two team members who thought they were on board disagreed when we starting to document actions and expected results.
It took about 10 minutes to agree to the cause and 20 minutes to work out a plan for a solution – a ratio that I see over and over.
Bottom Line
Building the muscle to push through that first micro agreement is a learned skill. It involves equipping a team through training and coaching so that they can see “the nod” and put together a plan that really addresses the root.
If that’s a gap you’d like to work on, please reach out at 847-651-1014, or use this link to pen a 20-minute chat directly into my calendar.
Related posts you can benefit from…
