Does Agreement Matter? – Mental Models in Teams
Teams can examine competing mental models without reaching full agreement. Senge describes open inquiry in which members test assumptions and help the person responsible make a better decision, even when some members continue to disagree.
THE IDEA
DOES AGREEMENT MATTER?
It’s important to note that the goal in practicing the discipline of mental models is not necessarily agreement or convergence. Many mental models can exist at once. Some models may disagree.
All of them need to be considered and tested against situations that come up. This requires an organizational “commitment to the truth,” which is an outgrowth of personal mastery. And it takes an understanding that we may never know the whole truth. Even after considering the mental models, as O’Brien says, “we might all wind up in different places. The goal is the best mental model for whoever happens to be out front on that particular issue. Everyone else focuses on helping that person (or persons) make the best possible decision by helping them to build the best mental model possible.”
Although the goal may not be congruency, the process leads to results nonetheless when it works. “We don’t mind if meetings end with people pretty far apart,” O’Brien says. “People put their positions out and even if you don’t agree with them, you can recognize their merit because they’re well considered. You can say, ‘For other reasons, I’m not going in your direction.’ It’s amazing, in a way; people pull together better this way than they would when they are driven to come to agreement.” In particular there is little of the bitterness that typically wells up when people feel that they knew best, but never got a chance to make their case. It turns out that people can live very well with the situation where they make their case and yet another view is implemented, so long as the learning process is open and everyone acts with integrity.
“We don’t have any anointed mental models,” says O’Brien, “we have a philosophy of mental modeling. If we went out to the field and said, ‘this is the authorized mental model for handling situation 23C,’ we’d have a problem.” Similarly, imposing a favored mental model on people, like imposing your vision, usually backfires. There may be a temptation for the loudest person, or the highest-ranking person, to assume that everyone else will swallow his or her mental models lock, stock, and barrel in sixty seconds. Even if his mental model is better, his role is not to inoculate everyone else with it, but to hold it up for them to consider.
Many find the de-emphasis on reaching agreement and congruency surprising. But I have often encountered statements similar to O’Brien’s from members of outstanding teams. This belief that “we’ll just talk it out and we’ll know what to do” turns out to be a cornerstone of the alignment that is fostered through “dialogue,” the heart of the discipline of team learning.
When to use it
Strategic planning sessions where diverse opinions are surfacing.
Cross-functional team meetings to align on product features.
Classroom discussions where students are encouraged to present different theories.
Conflict resolution in organizations by focusing on understanding different mental models rather than forcing agreement.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Team Disagreement on Market Strategy
A marketing team is split on whether to focus on digital ads or print media. Instead of forcing a vote, the team leader encourages each member to present their mental model of the customer's behavior. They discuss the assumptions behind each model and test them against data. Even though they don't fully agree, they collectively support the decision to run a small test for the digital strategy, with the understanding that the print model may be revisited based on results. This approach reduces resentment and fosters a learning culture.
Product Design Team with Conflicting User Models
In a software company, designers and engineers have different mental models of how users will interact with a new feature. Through dialogue, they share their models and recognize the merits of each. The team decides to implement a flexible design that accommodates both user behaviors, even if it's not the perfect solution for either model. The openness allows for continued learning and adaptation.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Recall a team decision where you felt your perspective was not heard. How might applying the discipline of mental models have changed the outcome?
In your organization, is there pressure to reach agreement quickly? How can you create space for multiple mental models to be considered?
Think of a time when you imposed your mental model on others. What was the result? How could you have instead held it up for their consideration?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Fifth Discipline The Art Practice of the Learning Organization (Peter M. Senge)