Whether or not you’re a manager, I’m sure you’ve been in a meeting where old discussions went round in circles. Someone made a suggestion, and the team immediately started to hesitate and doubt. “What if it doesn’t work?” – “We could also do something completely different …” – “Let’s meet again and talk it through some more …” The main reason so many meetings and decisions aren’t backed by commitment is either that there’s a lack of clarity about the purpose of the meeting, or that the team doesn’t agree on that purpose.
We often think that commitment in a team is about agreement. That isn’t the case (G. Moorhead, 1991). Your team can easily be fully committed, even if you believe that, in a perfect world, things could have been done better. Agreement is fine, but waiting for everyone to intellectually agree on a decision is your sure route to mediocrity, delays and frustration. In a team, commitment is, paradoxically, about accepting and backing the decision that’s made – even when you don’t naturally agree, and especially when the optimal decision can’t be found.
You create commitment in your team by sharing your ‘why’ (S. Sinek, 2011). When you do, it’s important that you invest time and energy in telling the team about your ‘why’. The team needs the chance to turn the task’s or project’s ‘why’ over and look at it from every angle. The earlier you are in the work process, the more effort you should invest in sharing it. It doesn’t require you to be a great orator or a trained actor. Beyond time and energy, it requires you to be open and honest and to show a little vulnerability. That’s when your authenticity emerges – and, slowly but surely, your team will buy into your ‘why’.
As social beings, we’re naturally drawn to being part of something bigger. The feeling of belonging, of being connected and of feeling safe is fundamental to us. So your ‘why’ will meet a natural need in your colleagues (J. Hart, 2009).
We often think that commitment in a team is about agreement. That isn’t the case. Your team can easily be fully committed, even if you believe that, in a perfect world, things could have been done better.
If you have a ‘why’, you also have a ‘how’ and a ‘what’
When your ‘why’ has also become the team’s, you’ll find you build a shared commitment. Remember that your ‘why’ means you know why you do what you do. The bigger your ‘why’, the bigger your commitment. Creating a shared ‘why’ is the most important thing, but not the hardest. The hardest is your ‘how’ – or rather, daring to trust that what you’re doing is also the right thing. Your ‘how’ is the actions that make real what you believe in. After that comes your ‘what’, which is the result of your actions as a team (J. Hackman, 2011).
Once the team has bought into your ‘why’, the commitment needs to be steered into your ‘how’. You do that by having everyone put their ideas and views on the table, so every stone can quickly be turned over and discussed. If you can’t reach agreement within the time set aside, you’ll have to make a decision for the team. It will typically be the manager who makes the call, but not necessarily. If you’re the one making the decision, you don’t need to worry if the whole team isn’t 100% in agreement. Committed teams will automatically seek to do what’s best for the team. As people, we’re far more sensible than we often think. It’s a myth that teams have to get their way to commit to a decision. As long as the team has been heard and listened to, and a clear reason for the decision has been given, it will accept that its suggestion wasn’t the one chosen this time (L. Abrams, 2013).
Creating a shared ‘why’ is the most important thing, but not the hardest. The hardest is your ‘how’ – or rather, daring to trust that what you’re doing is also the right thing.
The upside-down pyramid
Imagine if Martin Luther King had said: “I have a plan” instead of “I have a dream”. Unfortunately, that’s often what leaders do. They start with the ‘what’ instead of the ‘why’. I was due to run a workshop for an organisation where the overall theme was trust. When I asked a project manager why they’d chosen trust as the theme, she answered: “It’s something the management chose.” Even though she was working full-time on their ‘trust project’, she wasn’t entirely clear on why trust had been given this extra focus. The upside-down pyramid happens when, as a leader, you spend most of your time communicating what is to be done how, instead of setting out why it should be done. The result is that most of your organisation knows what to do, but not why – and you can feel it in your commitment. It should be the other way round. You should spend your effort getting the organisation to buy into your ‘why’, and after that your ‘how’ and ‘what’.
An example from Steve Jobs of ‘why’, ‘how’ and ‘what’
Steve Jobs presented Apple’s new invention, the iPad. At the start of the presentation, he showed how the team had moved from ‘why’ to ‘how’ and on to ‘what’ (S. Jobs, 2010):
- The iPad project’s ‘why’: “Is there room for a new category between smartphones and laptops?”
- The iPad project’s ‘how’: “The device has to be far better at certain key tasks than a smartphone and a laptop.”
- The iPad project’s ‘what’: “To fill a new category, the device has to be better at browsing, emailing and so on than a smartphone and a laptop.”
Imagine if Martin Luther King had said: “I have a plan” instead of “I have a dream.” Unfortunately, that’s often what leaders do. They start with the ‘what’ instead of the ‘why’.
Here’s how to do it
- At the start of your meeting: decide when you’ll make a decision
If your meeting requires you to make a decision, the first thing you should do is agree on a fixed time for when you’ll make it. It’s easier to wrap up the discussion when there’s a clear deadline. Confirm to the team that the worst thing is paralysis, because you can’t make up your minds (E. Rassina, 2005). Make it clear to everyone in the room that very few decisions are irreversible, and that your course will probably need correcting along the way regardless. If time is your scarce factor – which it usually is – this old saying applies: “A fast, wrong decision is better than a slow, right one.”
- At the end of a meeting: create clarity about what you’ve decided
Once you’ve made a decision, end the meeting by agreeing what needs to be communicated on to others. Important information drowns because we don’t select what we email to whom. Instead, we send everything round to everyone. If everything is equally important, nothing is important. When you structure your agreements, it becomes clearer what you’ve agreed. That ensures everyone has the same understanding of your decisions.
“I’m not a leader – why should I take a stand?”
I meet this question often. Every committed organisation started with one person or a team who had a dream of creating something bigger than themselves. It’s easy to respond to a lack of commitment in the team with a lack of commitment of your own. Better to see it as your chance to help your colleagues move forward. Don’t lose heart, even if not everyone buys into your ‘why’ straight away. Your team has both ‘why’ types and ‘how’ types, and they’re motivated in different ways:
- ‘Why’ types are visionaries.
- ‘How’ types want structure and processes.
The two of you need each other equally: the ‘how’ type loses commitment without a ‘why’, and the ‘why’ type never gets off the ground without a ‘how’.
Sources and more inspiration
Group Decision Fiascoes Continue: Space Shuttle Challenger and a Revised Groupthink Framework
G. Moorhead, R. Ference & C. Neck, 1991, Human Relations
Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone To Take Action
S. Sinek, 2011, Penguin
In Tough Times, Help Your Team Remember Their Purpose
J. Hart, 2009, Harvard Business Publishing
Specify a Compelling Team Purpose
J. Hackman, 2011, Harvard Business Publishing
Study: Hearing Music as Beautiful Is a Learned Trait
L. Abrams, 2013, The Atlantic
Steve Jobs’ presentation of the iPad
S. Jobs, 2010, Apple
Indecisiveness and the Interpretation of Ambiguous Situations
E. Rassina & P. Murisa, 2005, Personality and Individual Differences
