← BEFORE

When teams are trying to determine the next steps for acting on decisions, there is a considerable amount of back-and-forth.

During these sessions, there was a frequent degree of friction. At the very least, it led to subtle yet unproductive exchanges, and in the worst cases, it gave rise to arguments that only left people feeling depleted without much headway.

AFTER →

With an objective of raising team productivity around following through on decisions, we set out to reduce the frequency and intensity of friction during team sessions.

Upon clarifying input from team members, we learned that the leading reasons for flare ups were when individuals began to feel either inadequate or misunderstood. Hence, we collaboratively established that there needed to be a method of interaction that engaged people’s strengths and helped communicate more clearly.

We devised a straightforward method for understanding the “problem-solving strength and preference” of an individual so that everyone was aware of how they could mutually contribute to each session. For example, one team member was naturally skilled at identifying potential issues and preferred to brainstorm around visionary topics, whereas another was geared entirely towards operational, task-oriented thinking.

Once the strengths and preferences were organized, a “quick summary” was created. This provided an enjoyable reference for mindfully harnessing one another’s strengths and communicating according to each other’s preferred way of problem solving. The solution not only led to a mutual appreciation of one another’s value, but it also helped teams engage with raised morale and understanding.

The result was much more rapport and respect around producing the necessary steps for delivering on corporate decisions. This meant less time tangled in conflict and more time collaborating and getting things done.

Excerpt from “quick summary” reference

← BEFORE

There are many times when implementing corporate decisions requires bringing individuals on side, and this implies the need to present ideas, insights, or plans in ways that resonate with the intended audience.

However, when trying to come up with compelling presentations, there was too much ambiguity around how to maximize its appeal.

AFTER →

We began by collaborating with key members of leadership and their teams to obtain feedback and opinions on presentations – especially the ones with complicated content.

Some said the presentations had too much data, others said they were too “lofty”, and others said that they weren’t detailed enough. In short, everyone thought that presentations need to be improved.

The true problem, however, was that different people needed to see content in the way they preferred, or it didn’t resonate with them.

Hence, we created a simple guide that helped presenters identify people’s “preferred presentation narrative”, and anyone could use it to ensure that presentations were designed based on the preferences of the intended audience.

This resulted in heightened levels of clarity for the production, presentation, and adoption of content. The greater benefit was found in having less friction in bringing others on-side when delivering on corporate decisions.