The gradients of the agreement are not just a voting process. The use of the language of color gradients, combined with collaborative dialogue, will allow a group to quickly identify the level of support for a proposal to ensure that each member has the opportunity to express their ideas and better understand what is important to each member. Through this collaborative decision-making process, the team will develop a solution that will provide broad, enthusiastic support and improve the engagement and likely success of the resulting decision. And use the same technique for each target. Then, the one who chose the right balance between the ambition and the consent of the team. The exercise is simple. Use a flipchart, draw different five levels of the chord: “Endorse,” “Agree with reservations,” “Mixed feelings,” “Disagree but go with the majority” and “Block.” Ask team members to tick a tick at the level where they feel good, as shown in the example below. Hello guys, in this post, I want to show how to build match within your team, a little exercise I learned from the book “Facilitator`s Guide to Participatory Decision Making” by Sam Kaner. Using match gradients, it is useful to write color gradients on a flipchart and hang them in the meeting room. After using gradients multiple times, a group can use numbers to represent the different gradients – z.B. 1 to “fully support” and 8 for “strong object” as in the following example: to illustrate how to use the gradients of the match scale in the team`s decision, we classify team assistance levels as state, lukewarm, or stronger.
While the majority of team members have strong objections, it is clear that there is no support for the consideration of the proposal. Use the ladder on the paperboard and mark each person`s voice. So ask everyone to explain why. Next, ask those who disagreed the most about how the proposal could be amended accordingly. Check with the group to make sure there is an agreement before making any changes. Repeat the appeal and change process if necessary. As an “official” leader, I wanted to take the team to an early stage for critical team decisions. For me, the decisions had a direct impact on the functioning of the team. In general, I wanted the approval of the whole team with these types of decisions before proceeding. There are two ways to think about using color gradients. First, you can use color gradients at the beginning of a team meeting to see the initial support and adequacy on this topic before participating in long discussions.
Of course, if there is enthusiastic support, you can quickly move on to other topics. If there is lukewarm, lean or ambiguous support, you know where to focus your discussion. The second time you use colors is after investing time in exploring the problem and giving all members enough time to express their ideas, excitement or concerns. Collaborative dialogue takes time and requires skillful expression and listening. Once you`ve had that trading period, you can re-draw and see where the team is getting off. If there has been a significant movement or communityization of support, then you may be ready for a final decision. If this is not the case, it shows that more time and work is needed to address the concerns expressed. While I agree that the gradient model is complicated, I don`t want to exterminate it completely. I like to use sometimes simpler models and more sophisticated models at other times. And I agree that there is no point in overcompensate – if so, the gradient on complexity in relation to the situation.