Multiple Voices — A Menta-Morphosis Magnifier

Introduction:

The Magnifier Disciplines are the final major component of our Menta-Morphosis Mind Software system. These are a set of habits which, when conscientiously applied, make the thinking process more effective. Like a magnifying glass makes things look bigger and clearer, so too these habits enlarge the results, the impact and the effectiveness of our thinking processes.

Magnifiers are optional.  If you have the time and the inclination, one or more can be superimposed on the thinking process to create even better results.

Magnifier #2: Multiple Voices

To reach the best solution, we apply the greatest possible quantity and quality of knowledge, wisdom and insight to the process. One practical way of doing that is to engage other people in the process. In the Multiple Voices Magnifier, we intentionally bring other minds into the thinking project.

Proverbs 15:22 “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed “

Two heads are better than one.

This is the discipline of adding power and depth to our thinking process by involving others.

Where to Use It:

As you plan a thinking project, ff you have the time and resources, attacking a thinking project with a team, as opposed to by yourself, will always be more effective.

Howver, if you are working through a thinking project by yourself, there are specific places in the algorithms that are especially suited to bringing in additional points of view.

Specifically, you can use this magnifier:

1. To expand the input via more people. For example, we can break a beginning question into sub-questions or break an idea into its component parts.
2. To group think the brainstorming process.
3. To seek verification for each step. After you complete a step, have someone else review your work and make suggestions before you move onto the next step.
4. To trial balloon your solutions.

What’s a trial balloon? 

This is a technique that brings additional voices into a project at a specific spot in the project. When we have arrived at a point where we think we have the solution, we share it with a couple of people who will be affected by it and ask them to think it over and get back to us with their thoughts.  They may have some ideas or concerns that we haven’t yet processed and will provide us with an additional point of view. It is particularly helpful when we are engaged in a thinking project by ourselves.

Here’s an example.  In my consulting work, I often am involved in helping a client company create a new compensation plan for the sales force.  When we think we have the plan we want, before we announce it, we trial balloon it.  We share it with a couple of salespeople and ask for their response.  This gives us an opportunity to bring ‘multiple voices” in the project just to make sure that we haven’t missed something.

Pros and Cons:

The benefit is that we add other points of view to the conversation, expecting a richer solution. The problem is that it takes more time and, with the wrong people can be unpredictable.

This is where a diversity of backgrounds and different life experiences and perspectives can create ideas and see things that one person, on their own, generally can’t.

How to:

1. Accept your responsibility to achieve the outcome. Understand that the responsibility for the solution is yours, not the others you bring in.  They are there to add input in specific places along the way, but the ultimate responsibility is yours.
2. Select your other voices carefully. Ideally, you’ll have good thinkers, sober and conscientious people who can express themselves well.

If you are assembling a group, consider a heterogeneous team, composed of a variety of ages and experiences, etc.  I’ve found that a group of six to eight is ideal.   Select people for their range of perspective and ability. If you suspect the solution may involve changed behavior, involve the people thus affected.

3, Be careful of compromise and the “flock reaction.” The flock reaction occurs when an idea catches on with people jumping on board because it makes them feel good, even though there is no significant basis for it. Rather than focusing on the idea, agreeing with the others becomes the motivation of the group.

In a compromise, the group splits into sub-groups who advocate for one position or another. Each side gives up some aspect of their position in order to come to an agreement. While it may look positive, compromise promotes a situation of differing agendas.  It is better used in a negotiation between two opposing sides.  In Menta-Morphosis, the group strives for a solution as a unified objective.

4. Rather than compromise, strive for consensus.

Consensus

         According to the Collins dictionary, consensus is a “General agreement among a group of people.” Consensus is the process of coming to a decision by incorporating everyone’s positions.  People are more likely to implement decisions that they accept, and consensus makes it more likely that they will accept the decision.

With a vote, there are winners and losers – inevitably some of the people are disappointed with the outcome.  Consensus has no losers and no winners.  It elevates the decision to a higher level than the personal agendas and emotional reactions of the people involved in making the decision.

One way to understand it is to see it in action. At one point, I was one of two elders in a small non-denominational Christian church.  We were seeking to find a new evangelist for the congregation.

When we found the person, we asked the congregation (some 80 people) to affirm that selection. The ‘vote” was lopsided—74 affirming.  But, instead of taking that for the decision, we decided to seek consensus and went to talk with the six people who had withheld their approval.  We spoke with each, listened to their concerns, and made a couple of changes to the evangelist’s job description as a result.  One more go around produced 100% affirmation.

We could have accepted the vote, but then we would have had a small minority who disapproved of the new person.  Instead, we spent the time and effort to seek them out, listen to them, respond to them and incorporate some of their concerns where we could.  The extra month or so it took to do that was time well spent in the long run of the congregation.

When we reach a consensus, everyone involved will be able to commit to one of these four statements:

1. I agree with the decision and will work to implement it.
2. I agree with the decision but will not work to implement it.
3. I can accept the decision.
4. I disagree with the decision but will not sabotage it and accept it.