Many of my clients know me as the “Meeting Mentor” or “Robert’s Rules expert”, when in fact my work is much broader than that. Indeed, as a facilitator, mentor and trainer, the best value I provide is in helping my clients build healthy foundations for Shared Decision Making (SDM), and in preventing, detecting and dealing effectively with team dysfunctions.

Just what do I mean by team dysfunctions?   Here are a few all too familiar examples:

• Members placing narrow interests ahead of collective interests.
• Politics overtaking common sense and core values and principles.
• Fear of change causing an instinctive retreat to the status-quo and rejection of fresh ideas.
• Confusion about roles and responsibilities making people overstep their boundaries
• Rules of order being overused or used for adversarial purposes.
• Backroom lobbying, “horse-trading” and backstabbing.
• Tensions and mistrust among elected members and senior administrative officers.
• The larger community being enraged by decisions made by its Governing Council or Board.

Even organizations that seem to be harmonious may have dormant dysfunctions, which are like ticking time bombs. An example is when members of a governing body operate on trust and therefore do not read reports carefully or scrutinize significant decisions (after all, staff know what they’re doing…).  As a result, fewer eyes and ears are paying attention and costly errors are made. Controversy erupts, everyone looks for guilty parties, and – of course –the trust that caused the dysfunction evaporates.

Dysfunctions often manifest themselves during meetings in the form of disruptive behaviours.  Frequently, the Chair’s tendency is to look for some kind of a procedural remedy to combat such behaviours.  These are the times when the “Robert’s Rules expert” might be called in, to answer questions like the following:

• How do we deal with a losing minority wanting to re-visit a decision again and again? 
• How do we deal with personal insults and verbal abuse? 
• Can we pass a motion to censure someone, and – if so – what’s the impact if it is adopted? 
• What do we do if a member has a clear conflict of interest and won’t acknowledge it?
• How can we protect our staff from subtle and insidious attacks during a public meeting, when they are not voting members and cannot speak for themselves? 
• How do we handle procedural nitpickers, who slow things down and force us to waste time? 

There are indeed procedural remedies for at least some of the above problems.  And although I am sometimes retained to write opinions or provide expert advice on such issues, I can’t help but wonder:  Is this the best investment of a client’s dollars?  Could it be that – by focusing exclusively on meeting procedures - the client and I end up treating the symptoms of the problem instead of its root causes?  Could it be that my advice – though technically sound – is only a stop-gap measure, and may entrench or even worsen the dysfunction that is at the root of the problem?

The best way to deal with a team dysfunction is to prevent it.  To do so, you need to build a healthy foundation for shared decision making, which – among others - includes the following components:

• A clear, compelling, and current mandate, which everyone is solidly committed to.
• A proactive and strategic approach to decision making.
• A deep commitment by everyone to use organizational resources with care.
• Processes that attract or recruit the right people to decision-making teams. 
• A solid orientation program, which develops sophisticated and empowered members, who recognize the gravity of their decisions and their fiduciary duties to the organization.
• Members who operate with due diligence and are prepared to express concerns about process-related issues (e.g.: conduct of meetings) and substantive issues (quality of decisions).
• Clearly written “rules of engagement”, explaining accountabilities of elected members, staff and committees, conflict of interest and confidentiality guidelines, and parameters of formal voting.
• A universal agreement to place collective interests ahead of narrow interests or politics.
• A set of values that everyone subscribes to, such as honesty, integrity, and good faith.
• Well-functioning feedback and communications systems to help prevent, detect (early) and deal with disputes and team dysfunctions in a timely and decisive manner.

It is clear that, with a solid foundation such as this, the likelihood of dysfunctions will diminish.  Putting your resources towards building such a foundation means you won’t have to invest much more later when a team dysfunction leads to costly disputes and possibly even litigation.