3 Reasons to Stop Playing the Blame Game

Do you not like slip-ups and mistakes? Nobody does! So it`s easy to blame somebody else when something is going wrong: Why not mark out an easy target inside or outside your project team to take the blame?

Your personal view is regularly not the true one. You usually get different perceptions if you talk to other people about the same situation. So you could blame yourself if you hold on to your own view!

If you stop playing the blame game...

... you will stop preventing yourself and your project team from learning and improving. Cicero taught us, that “any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error".

... you can free yourself of negative emotional feelings that usually disturb the inner balance of your mind.

... you will support easy project collaboration by doing regular exercises to give up being the continuous judge and jury.

To change the game we could analyze the situation and figure out what we can influence and change on our own.

Stop playing the blame game is an essential personal foundation to establish an error management culture that enhances the speed of innovation in your organization.

Foto: © WavebreakMediaMicro - Fotolia.com

The Concept of Lazy Consensus in Projects

Lazy Consensus means to assume common sense between people that are communicating until you learn that there is a dissent. You don`t discuss and approve a plan or a suggestion unless you get other signals or hints. That practice helps you to get on with your teamwork and not become inefficient because of endless discussions.

You can operate on lazy consensus if you are sure that there is no important dissent – but only if you are equally prepared to roll back as soon as a valid disaccord is raised.

If you identify dissent you should move to a concept of active consensus creation, sometimes even use techniques of conflict management.

To apply this concept you need some explicit or implicit rules:

·         Everybody can assume consensus unless anybody gives a signal of disagreement
(J: Nearly all human beings practice this procedure as long as they trust each other)

·         Anyone with serious concerns has to put them up for discussion. It´s not o.k. to do so in a hidden way.

·         We discuss each serious concern that arises before getting on with the meeting or work in an appreciative mode on eyelevel.

·         Silence indicates implicit consensus

It is important to consider the cultural background of all people involved, if you want to rely on these rules. A lot of cultures are not used to address concerns without the fear of loosing ones face. In that case, it’s crucial to give explicit instructions to be open and possibly confrontational, too.

To work in the mode of lazy consensus, it`s mandatory to create a culture of trust, appreciation, mindfulness, listening to each other and openness.

Approving these implicit rules will give the parties involved regular opportunities to detect and address dissent: ask for feedback from time to time with open questions.

The advantage of the concept of lazy consensus is that a group is always able to move forward: very quick, when there are no objections - and a little slower with a learning curve when there is a valid concern to be discussed. That usually saves a lot of time und prevents endless discussions - even if not everybody is able to express her specific opinion. It also helps avoiding resistance because of concerns from important stakeholders not being heard and considered.

You can even rely on this concept if formal and informal leaders, who dominate the decision making process, enjoy acceptance of a group. Assess regularly if that acceptance is, in fact, given.

Foto: © chalabala - Fotolia.com

3 Simple Steps to Create Consensus in Projects

In order to develop a good working atmosphere, get the necessary buy-in of all parties involved or simply make better decisions there is always a need of consensus in project teams.

Finding consensus is not only a thing of big decisions. Usually it´s a crucial point for each daily meeting and discussion: e.g. it`s important to find consensus on the agenda, goals and roles, about processes and products.

Of course you could apply a decision making process or complex conflict solving tools to each minor disagreement. But that costs a lot of time and is really annoying for all participants in the long run. In most cases of daily communication you can apply the “mode of dialog and lazy consensus”: in that case you assume consensus until you learn that there is a further disagreement.  

If you assume that there is any disagreement you should change to a “mode of clarification”. In this mode you stop arguing and change to ask questions and summarizing with the technique of active listening.

Use that simple scheme to create consensus:

1. Start with one single position (position A in my last post). Ask questions to understand the background of that opinion and summarize the argument through active listening. Ensure that everybody really understands that argument. In a lot of cases you will learn that there was only bad communication and no real disagreement. Therefore you can save the decision and move back to the mode of dialog and lazy consensus.
   
2. If the first position remains unaccepted invite another person to explain their probably opposing opinion (position B in my last post) and why exactly they can`t agree with that first position. Invite to ask questions in order to make sense of the new argument. Sometimes it´s necessary to understand two opposing positions when a solution appears without pressure. So save the solution and go back to the mode of dialog and lazy consensus.
   
3. If there are still opposing opinions, ask for the common ground of the different positions and summarize the common ground on which the opponents agree in a first step. Then look for differences and discuss only the differences. Invite all parties involved to be creative to bridge the gaps. Summarize one solution that would probably be the most accepted one and use another curve of that simple scheme if you don`t get an agreement.

If you were able to create consensus on that specific dissent: go back to the mode of lazy consensus. 

If you don`t succeed with this simple scheme you usually have to switch to more elaborate tools like a sophisticated decision-making process or conflict management.

foto: © Jürgen Priewe - Fotolia.com