As a Xerox trainer in the 80’s, the Xerox Corporation gave me the opportunity to go through their “Leadership Through Quality” program. I jumped at this chance to learn about the “Problem Solving” and “Quality Improvement” processes – something the company was known for. Because the implementation of these processes required a steady diet of meetings, Xerox also tucked into the program a module that outlined various meeting tools to make sure these little get-togethers ran efficiently. It was a brilliant move because if a group couldn’t hold meetings effectively, those amazing processes would quickly be lost.
In one of those follow-up meetings, one of the most challenging moments of truth came when the group had to reach consensus. To help this part of the process along, groups were taught how to brainstorm, and truly expand their thinking. When this was done properly, the ideas would flow so fast and freely that it required two scribes to capture the barrage of great ideas. That was the fun part. Contracting these thoughts to reach a single idea was the difficult part.
We taught all kinds of methods to contract a list of ideas, including techniques like grouping and weighted voting. Despite our best efforts, it was rare for a group to reach 100% consensus on one idea. The solution was a common filter – five words that were as follows: “Can you live with it?”
Sounds simple enough, doesn’t it? Those five words were used over and over again to help those groups that simply could not reach consensus. It was often pointed at the few dissenting members, and frequently, in a low, depressed moan, the holdouts would grunt, “I guess so; yes. I can live with it.”
I’ll bet you can guess what came next. If the implementation of that idea was successful, the group would be praised and all members took credit. If the idea was not successful, however, the first words you would here from the “can you live with it” folks were, “I never liked that idea to begin with!”
So Xerox pulled a fast one. In 1987, Xerox quietly changed those five simple words and redefined their version of consensus. In doing so, they redefined what a true professional compromise really meant. We went through every training manual we had, and removed the previous “Can you live with it?” words that defined consensus, and replaced them with four new words.
The four words that became our new filter for consensus were this: “Can you support it?” This was a much more powerful filter because it required true backing. Once the group agreed that they could all support a given idea, there was no one turning on the group later if the idea was not successful.
What’s more, we made sure to tell groups that when these four new words were used, they were to be used with a careful explanation. We wanted true consensus, but not at the risk of missing critical information. If a dissenter knew of information that the group was unaware of, and truly could not support it for that reason, they had to let the group know. We wanted to make sure that no consensus filter, tool or vote would ever be used as a weapon to achieve agreement.
Consensus is tricky because it frequently requires supporting ideas that are not your own, and often requires supporting ideas that you don’t like as much as others. When you learn a realistic filter to use to determine consensus, you learn when you need to let an idea go and support the will of the group, and when you need to stand your ground, despite the will of the group. That distinction is the key, and from that, we can all learn when to hold on to an idea, and when it’s necessary to let go of an idea to help a group reach consensus.
Thanks Rob for a great blarticle. We get more done when we reach a consensus and we keep the team together by supporting the consensus. Brilliant!
I will definitely work to incorporate this in my life!
Thanks,
Allison
It’s such a tough situation to be in when you’re balancing an idea you are passionate about with the will of the group. That small filter helped me to find that line so we know when to fight, and when to fight another day. Thanks for posting Allison!
Grasshopper continues to grow wiser by the day 🙂
I’m a man who has made lots of mistakes… but the one mistake I don’t make is playing the victim and blaming others. There are lessons in everything we do – good and bad. The challenge is to stop, and figure out what they are! Always great hearing from you Ron.
Great blarticle, Rob! For me, it was also timely…thank you!
Jon
From the man who taught me what it is to be a business coach, I’m glad to have provided something timely for you my friend. Thanks so much for posting Jon!
A really good clarification of the difference between “living with it” and “supporting it”, Rob. Too often people give the lip-service head ob which indicates they’ll live with it, and then do their utmost to sabotage “it” later. This is something we should all bake into our vocabulary.
Oh I think I came face to face with that guy who gave lip-service to ideas he didn’t support… in the mirror. I’m proud to say I was not a sabotage guy, but I did carry an unfortunate smile when the idea I gave lip-service to did not succeed. We learn, we evolve, and we grow. Thanks for the post Nick!
Oooh-la-la-la-la-la!
Can I ever ID with this one! I hit upon saying, “I can attach my heart to that!” I love, “Can you support this?” as real consensus vs “settling”.
To me, “can you live with that?” carries a sense of being bullied into “settling/resigning” for a cottage when what you want is a castle. Behind this fake agreeableness is the thought, “it’s all I’m going to get because it’s all I can see there is”, OR, OR “What can I expect? It’s all I deserve to get”.
Interesting comment Edia. You flipped the script here and looked at this from the side of an aggressive group. Well done! You are absolutely right. Too often groups become impatient with members who want to patiently consider all options, and have the, “Can you live with it?” filter thrust upon them. Now we have a filter to thrust back. Great post Edia!
Great article. And there are times– emergency, crisis, short time frame– when consensus is NOT the thing to do. Action is needed NOW. What makes this step work is if the team agrees–ahead of time– who owns NOW action. And the leader who says “NOW”needs to back it up with “why”.
Thanks, Rob
I love this post. I love it because in the program I used to teach for Xerox, after we taught Problem Solving and Quality Improvement processes, and the tools to run meetings we ran a simulation to bring it all together. Guess what was at the heart of the simulation? An aggressive timeframe, and that timeframe allowed us to see how groups really work under pressure. Sometimes there were option to extend time, and other times solutions were needed NOW. It became a great learning lesson for the groups… and the instructors. So glad you posted this Eileen!
Rob,
You hit it out of the park again! Too often, when I am asked if I can “live with it,” I blithely agree to go along and get along. But my heart’s not in it. I just want to keep the business moving forward. In an effort to move (anywhere!), we settle. It’s not bullying or salesmanship…sometimes it’s pragmatism. But “Can I support it?” Whole different ballgame! Now, folks can be active participants of the process. We can work together on any idea that gets the group’s backing…and support. Now THAT is something I can really live with. Thanks for such an insightful start to the weekend!
Jennifer
Well Jennifer, it looks like we’re cut from the same cloth. What’s more, I see many who struggle in corporations, often losing their jobs because they cannot determine when to fight for an idea, and when to let it go. That filter helps the group, and it helps us because often times this filter removes our desire to be right, and puts in our desire to make sure the group gets it right. Thanks for a great post!
I love the idea of support a decision with a “can you support it” as opposed to the “can you live with it” stance. Seems like the first is related to HELPING (solution) and the latter is related to SETTLING (problem). Being a part of the solution is better than being a part of the problem. Great job BLart’ing Rob! xo
You see this the way I see this, and that’s from the political side of things. If my idea is a better one, but the will of the group says differently, unless I know for a fact the group the idea is doomed, I like being part of the solution. We’ll live to fight another day. Thanks for the post Doug!