Build discussed this topic in detail with the help of the table group and consultant Margaret Heffernan. So our interest was aroused when we read, not so long ago, an article in the Huffington Post that dented the dominant view of orientation as a golden rule. In this article, Ryan McKeever, marketing director of the consulting firm De St Paul Aveus, proposes a model where orientation is not always the ideal target for the senior team. Orientation can be defined as “putting parties in the right relative position; adapt to establish an appropriate relationship or direction. Although a full consensus or agreement is not always possible when we are in conflict, there is always something to guide, depending on the willingness of both sides to seek it. To align, you need to be open to a certain degree of influence from each other. That`s a good article, Hanna. In the search for guidance removes personal effects from it, so that both parties can focus on the goal. As Christina said, it`s something that requires a little training, but it really helps to move the situation forward. Thank you! “The main force that influences the threshold between direction and agreement is trust within the team,” he writes. “While the issue of trust deserves its own conversation, more trust means that more risks can be tolerated without the need for everyone`s agreement.
Example: The acquisition of a product or business that has a significant impact on the focus, resources, customers and financial results across the company would strongly affect organizational risk. Although all team members (and their teams) are very affected, there is a high personal risk. Aspire to Unundt. You want to make sure that you don`t label disagreements as “not aligned with the team`s goals.” I have four steps for you. McKeever`s model, which he developed with the owner and partner of Aveus, Linda Ireland, shows when a high-level team should seek agreement rather than orienteering: in teams, we may feel that we need a 100% agreement or a total consensus to move forward. Instead of setting a goal of consensus or full agreement, the objective, if we focus instead on harmonization, is to find part of the situation to move towards a common goal or interest. My friend and colleague in this work, Miles Kierson, has written in detail on this subject. His point of view is to explain the orientation as a “decision-making orientation.” It describes the following hierarchy of possible directions for a decision:- McKeever: There is no firm line, because the line can move depending on the team and the context. But there are areas where the impact of change is generally greater and where an agreement should be sought: hiring an executive, mergers, entering a new market, regulatory or legal compliance, changes to the company`s infrastructure and operational extensions or contractions. Before we had GPS on our phones, which tell us to turn, with traffic updates, there were many more front seat discussions about “Why are you curved here” and “I never go that way”. In these differences, there was never any question of being misdirected. Although one person thought we should cross the river, and the other thought we should cross the forest, we were aligned with the destination; Grandma`s house for homemade cookies. McKeever and the overall idea of Ireland is that high-level teams must determine which decisions require an agreement in relation to the alignment.
In an interview with Build, McKeever discusses these and other aspects of his article. In the comments below, I`d like to hear how you`ll find the direction. Let me know that it is important that Outbrain`s profits are made in agreement with our publisher partners, while being with us for all our commitments. Finally, ask each team member if this is a commitment they would be willing to make. The commitment to direction could only be the most important decision you can make… The more