Avoid Wasting Time on Small Team Decisions
Making decisions as a team can be crazy-making.
We can spend hours - I mean multiple meetings - debating something only to find out later that we were mostly wasting our time. We may have had a nagging feeling that something was off, but we couldn’t quite put our finger on what or why. At the end of the process, when a decision has been made, it often turns out that the debaters didn’t actually care deeply about their perspective. They just disagreed. And they had that disagreement in the group setting, effectively investing a ton of company time and emotional energy in something that none of them actually cared very much about.
How can we do less of that?
I learned a simple framework from my pastors (Chris Scott and Greg Steward). It’s the 1 to 3 decision making framework. It’s beautifully simple. You can explain it in 30 seconds, and everyone can use it in the next 30 seconds. Then, you have valuable information on how to triage the situation.
Here’s how it works. On any issue or decision, simply rank how much you care about it on a scale of 1 to 3.
1 = I don’t have much opinion on this. I’ll be OK either way.
2 = I have a reasoned opinion about how this should be, and I care. But I can flex if need be.
3 = I have a strong opinion on this, and I think this is critical for our organization.
That’s it. When a decision or controversial issue comes up, just have the key players rank it on a scale of 1 to 3. Within 60 seconds, you know how important this decision is to the people in the room, and that tells you whether it is worth spending time working it out.
You might also learn that only a few people really care about it, so the best choice might be to table the issue while those two come to a mutual decision. You could also ask those folks to prepare a case for why others should care about this decision by explaining the implications. In other circumstances, you may find that the only person who really cares is the decision maker, so you just ask that person to consider the input of others and free them to make the decision.
Over time, this becomes a short-hand for discussion. How should we arrange the chairs for the big meeting? “I’m a 1 on that.” Should we hire a designer for a new logo? “That’s a 2 for me.” I’m thinking about offering a discount to a potential customer. “Mike is a strong 3 against discounts.”
This also helps people express their opinions more easily and clearly. For example, instead of saying, “Whatever,” someone might think about it and say, “I’m a 1 on that.” This increases their investment in the decision.
As you ask for rankings about a wide variety of issues, you will also learn more about your team. If someone is a 3 about everything (or most things), that tells you and them something about how they are showing up and how willing they are to compromise or to bend. If someone is almost always a 1, then that could be a clue that they don’t actually feel safe sharing their opinion. You will also gain clarity about what you really care about and why.
Interestingly, our Wisdom Partners cofounder Charles Jolley has often used a similar 1 to 3 ranking on hiring decisions, but with a different twist.
1 = I don’t think this person is right, and I’ll fight against hiring them.
2 = I think this person is pretty good, but I won’t fight to hire them.
3 = I think this person is great, and I’ll work to convince everyone else we should hire them.
This also provides a helpful shorthand that enables the team to get clarity on mixed perspectives quickly.
The 1-to-3 framework enables us to quickly discern and express how we feel or think about a decision. Then, we can assess the group temperature and move forward with more clarity. Try it out on your next team decision, and let us know how it goes.
