Skills

Silence should not be viewed outright as unproductive behavior by members who do not participate in team discussions. Silence is reasonable when a team member is in general agreement with what is being said, has no contribution to make, or needs to hear more before commenting. However, team members may be quiet for other reasons, and their silence may be detrimental to the team’s efforts. It will be up to team members to encourage the participation of their quiet colleagues.

Some team members may raise issues which are not relevant to the issues under discussion. This can be counter-productive to the team members’ ability to work together and achieve their mission. When people keep raising irrelevant issues, the meeting gets off track and off schedule, and other team members become frustrated. For example, at times, a team member may try to get the team to revisit theories that were previously rejected because the data did not support them.

It is very common that team members may hold side conversations during a meeting. While these conversations can become a minor annoyance, they can also be extremely disruptive to the process if not brought under control.

A good meeting is an open exchange of ideas. As the team discusses and debates the ideas on the table, there may be conflict. In these situations, it is important to view the conflicts as one of ideas rather than of people and feelings.

Throughout the project, team members will exchange many ideas and consider many suggestions before they solve their quality problem. Very few suggestions will contain the entire solution. More likely, it will take the best parts of many suggestions to solve the problem. Disagreements are expected, but outright summary rejections must be prevented. If members feel their suggestions will be ridiculed or dismissed, they may stop making any suggestions. The team should work to avoid this problem and alleviate it when it occurs.

Often a project team is comprised of individuals who represent different levels of authority within the organization. The presence of the more senior members may inhibit other team members. (The presence of a technical expert may also have a similar effect.)

Defining the difference is the first step when negotiating differences. When difference arise, the parties involved hold opposing fixed positions on at least some portions of the issue at hand. Defining the differences makes it possible to uncover the specific needs, concerns, or objectives underlying the fixed positions.

Exploring alternatives is the second step in negotiating differences. It is usually a judgment call as to when to begin exploring alternatives. The judgment is based on how well it appears the differences have been negotiated thus far. If difficult emotions have been subdued, exploring alternatives is probably the next step. Because people are more likely to be committed to carrying out solutions they have thought of themselves, it is often a good idea to let the other person offer alternatives first.

The third and final step in negotiating differences is to confirm agreed next steps. When it appears that a mutually acceptable decision has been reached, it is important to close the discussion by summarizing the agreements made throughout the negotiation.

During a quality improvement project, decisions are made continually as the team moves toward its two major decisions: the cause of the problem and the appropriate remedy to solve it. These decisions depend on many smaller decisions the team makes as it proceeds with its mission.

A team reaches consensus when all team members can support a particular choice. Some members might not favour the choice, but they can proceed on the basis of the choice, and not one will oppose it. In other words, decision by consensus does not require: • Agreement by all • A majority vote • Complete satisfaction by everyone

Multi-voting, Nominal Group Technique, and Selection Matrixes can give a result – a selected decision. Because they are structured and provide equal participation for all team members, they help build consensus, but they do not guarantee consensus. Once a decision has been proposed from one of these methods or from simple discussion, consensus must still be achieved.