Got Full Team Buy-In?

Let’s say you’re a player on a major league baseball team.  You’re one player on a 25-man roster.

Before the season, the team meets in the locker room and agrees:  Our goal for this season is to win the granddaddy prize of all… the World Series. 

And everyone pledges his personal 100% best effort. 

Later that day, you overhear two players talking in hushed tones about how they love the life of a famous professional athlete and the piles of money they make, but they don’t feel a strong need to win a World Series.  Too much work, discipline and sweat, they say. 

The fame and money are enough for them.  But a World Series?  Not a big deal.

Now, after hearing that… what would you do? 

If your answer is:  “Hey, to each his own.  They’re entitled to their opinion.  It’s just two players.  I won’t make a big deal out of it.  We can probably win anyway, even if they only give 50%” …

… then you just became an accomplice to their half-hearted effort.

Which means you share their guilt for inferior team performance.   

Am I being too harsh?

Absolutely not!

Their opinion does not make them bad people.  But it most definitely makes them ill-fitted for the achievement-driven team they play on.

I’ve said this for many years:  Most people think there are 3 options regarding commitment to a team’s mission, goals and values:

1. Buy in, support them fully, and stay on the team 
2. Don’t buy in, don’t support them fully, and leave the team
3. Don’t buy in, don’t support them fully, and stay on the team

Wrong!  This is preposterous.  There is NO third option.

There are only 2 options.  The first 2.  (1) Commit and stay, or (2) don’t commit and leave.  Period.

Way too many teams — in business, sports, academia, politics, you name the field — allow members to remain on the team who are not fully bought in, not supportive of majority decisions. 

This detonates the team’s forward progress.  Why?  Because silent saboteurs are working quietly — under the radar — against the team’s purpose.

LESSONS & ACTIONS FOR YOU:

As a leader, you may be wondering…

Does full buy-in and support mean no one is allowed to disagree? 

Answer:  Good heavens, no.  In fact, quite the opposite.  Disagreement is a healthy and necessary part of making high-quality decisions.  It must be encouraged. 

To that end, high-performing teams need to constantly ask: What could go wrong?  What if our information is incorrect?  How can we recover from a setback?  What are the early warning signs of distress?  Who will stay on top of progress and let us know if trouble is brewing?  And then create contingencies to allow for such adversity.  

BUT… please understand…

Disagreement before a decision is made is VERY DIFFERENT FROM lack of buy-in after a decision is made.

The first is positive, helpful, and welcome.  The second, negative, destructive, unwelcome.

Why?

Because disagreement before a decision is made leads to:

• Healthy, productive dialogue
• Exposure of all vulnerabilities
• Examination of multiple options
• Clear understanding of potential dangers
• Smarter and better-informed final decisions

Whereas lack of buy-in and support after a decision is made leads to:

• Senior leaders moving in different directions toward non-converging outcomes
• Lousy implementation of important goals
• Misuse of scarce resources
• Confusion among general staff who sees “mom and dad” not in unison
• Employees successfully playing one leader off another to get their way
• Low morale among staff who feel “Even our leaders don’t believe in our direction, so why should I?”
• Non-achievement of the strategic plan

[For clarity, I should point out here, I’m referring to decisions the TEAM is empowered to make.  Not those that are leader-only decisions.  That’s another discussion for a different day.]

So, what do you suppose is the single-most essential team member behavior that will drive your strategic success?

Well, after leading 200+ high-stakes strategic planning retreats for mid-market companies, a crystal-clear answer emerged (long ago) for me: 

It’s this:  each team member’s willingness and eagerness to have rich, robust, honest dialogue about your important strategic opportunities and problems… followed by FULL team buy-in and support of majority decisions.

Or said another way…

If, after thorough group discussion and debate, a high majority of members is strongly in favor of moving in one particular direction, those few who feel differently should either fall in line with eager support and buy-in to that majority decision… or be willing to leave the leadership team.  (Not necessarily leave the company.)  

[By the way, leaving the team under such circumstances is by no means a disgraceful decision.  To the contrary, it’s a noble, respectful, high-integrity decision.]

But there’s even more that’s required. 

It doesn’t stop with eager buy-in to the strategic plan.  It goes further.  All the way to communicating with employees.

For example:  Let’s say a senior leader is challenged about a team decision after the meeting — by an upset, disagreeing employee who was not at the meeting.  There’s a wrong way and a right way to respond.  He/she should NOT say:

“Yeah, you’re right.  In fact, I was one of the few dissenters on this one.  I didn’t buy in to that decision at the meeting, even though I said I’d go along.  The truth is, I still don’t agree now, and I’m reluctant to support it with my actions.” 

To me, that’s conduct unbecoming of a senior leader.  Insubordination.  And should be penalized as soon as discovered.

Fact is, you had your say.  You just didn’t get your way.  That’s life.  Get over it and get on board.  Or be respectful of the team and leave.          

So how should you respond to that employee’s challenge?  Maybe something like this:

“I’m glad you brought that up.  It shows courage, and we need plenty of that.  You know, in our senior leadership meeting, we didn’t all agree at the beginning of the discussion either.  So, we talked it through, let everyone have their say, examined multiple options, considered the upside wins and downside risks of each, and had quite a vigorous debate.  In the end, after much soul-searching and dialogue, we all arrived at a decision that we feel serves the greater good of our company and all its constituents.  And we agreed to support it fully and implement it to the best of our ability.  All of us.  Unified.  That includes me.  Can we count on YOUR support?”

Now that’s how a truly committed leader answers such a difficult and challenging question.      

In the best-seller “Good To Great”, Jim Collins and his research team arrived at this conclusion after studying a 30-year history of spectacular companies as compared to above-average ones: 

One of the crucial elements in taking a company from good to great is somewhat paradoxical.  You need executives, on the one hand, who argue and debate — sometimes violently — in pursuit of the best answers, yet, on the other hand, who unify fully behind a decision, regardless of parochial interests.

Reiterating this point further, in his book “The Winner Within”, NBA basketball player, coach and general manager Pat Riley said:

There are only two options regarding commitment.  You’re either in or you’re out.  There is no such thing as life in between.

Let me say it one more way, a bit differently:  A mediocre plan with 100% support from top leaders will achieve greater implementation and success than a brilliant plan with only partial buy-in.

(Obviously, you want both… a brilliant plan AND 100% buy-in… but you get my point.) 

Let’s bring closure to the baseball story from the beginning.  How should you handle it? 

First, have a private discussion with the 2 players to see if their minds can be changed and their support can be garnered.  If not, tell them you have an obligation to take it to the manager.  And if needed, to the team.  Then do what you say.  Even if it means the players are benched or traded.  Remember, the ‘higher purpose’ a leader worth his salt must serve is the greater good of the team or organization, before the individual.   

Okay, so here’s the bottom line…    

Over time, your top leaders will discuss a myriad of strategic subjects for which the team is empowered to decide.  During those dialogues, members should state facts, vocalize their views, and be heard.  Then, take a straw vote to see where team members stand on options for action. If it’s close, you need more discussion.  But if it’s heavy in favor of one option, and only a few in favor of another, then it’s incumbent on ‘the few’ to either:  (1) let go of their position and eagerly support the vast majority, or (2) if they can’t or won’t, leave the team.    

If one of your team members gets magnetically stuck to her position and has difficulty letting go, you as leader must step in, close the discussion, lay out her 2 options, and get her commitment one way or the other.  Just don’t belabor the group dialogue any further.  It’s over. 

In life, we don’t win all our battles.  So leaders and teams cannot pussyfoot around when driving for group consensus.  Nor when expecting vigorous support of those consensus decisions.

In.  Or out.  Pick one.

By Rick Houcek, President, Soar With Eagles, Inc.

Rick Houcek facilitates off-site strategic planning retreats, helping CEOs and Leadership Teams create high-impact plans that overcome the crippling effects of lousy execution (the single biggest cause of plan failure) - and get successfully implemented! His dynamic Power PlanningTM strategic process drives action through his Escape-Proof AccountabilityTM system. It’s ideal for small and mid-size businesses. To bring this potent weapon to your team, contact Rick by phone, email or fax. Visit his web site at www.SoarWithEagles.com. And ask about his 100% No-Risk Guarantee.