<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Bruce Wilsons Notebook</title>
    <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com</link>
    <description>Observations of a coach/trainer/facilitator about the mental game of business.</description>
    <generator>Feeder 1.2.2.1 http://reinventedsoftware.com/feeder/</generator>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:12:41 -0700</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:12:41 -0700</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>The one page (two sided) consensus tool &quot;cheat sheet&quot;</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_061606.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[My previous Notebook entry describes the benefits and limitations of the five-degree consensus process that I recommend to clients who use consensus decision making as part of their repertoire of business skills.In this entry I offer you a downloadable chart plus a condensed, one-page explanation of how to use a consensus scale which you may want to print out for your own use or e-mail to friends and co-workers for their use. (If you're really hard core, print the chart on special white-board paper for laser printers. Then you can mark and erase right on it as much as you want.)DOWNLOAD IT HERE: > Using a five-degree consensus scale to reach consensus: the cheat sheet 
http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/consensus-cheat-sheet.pdf
(in PDF Acrobat format)When, again, is a consensus process particularly appropriate? See my Notebook entry from December 8, 2005 for a more detailed answer to this question. 
http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_120805.php

In general, a consensus process may be valuable when:    * you want a proposal examined carefully. A consensus process pushes people proposing a course of action to clarify their reasoning and pushes others to wrap their minds around the proposal, encouraging everyone to understand it, ask questions, and offer input.     * you fear weak follow-through, and thus you want to secure support up front or quit before setting a decision up for failure. A consensus process pushes everyone in a group to assume responsibility for a decision, including follow-through down the road.     * you aren't in a desperate hurry. Although a rapid decision may be reached by consensus, for speed alone you're frequently better off assigning a qualified solo decision maker. ]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:12:41 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">the-one-page-two-sided-consensus-tool-cheat-sheet</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Reaching Consensus -- using a five degree consensus scale</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_052506.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A simple consensus process can reveal whether the members of a group agree about a proposed course of action while promoting discussion that can lead to agreement.Polling a group using a five degree consensus scale "takes the temperature" of a group, instantly demonstrating when a proposal requires no further consideration either because it already has universal support or because opposition is overwhelming. When consensus for or against a proposal does not already exist, the scale identifies whose concerns need to be addressed and their degree of difference from others in the group, so that an effort can be made to close the gap or abandon the attempt to reach consensus.]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 May 2006 21:37:01 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">reaching-consensus-using-a-five-degree-consensus-scale</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Balancing cost and quality in decision-making</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_032906.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[There is an apparent conflict between making decisions efficiently, which is to say, using a low-cost process for decision making, and making efficient decisions, the decisions that are most likely to lead to good quality results.....Your best practice will be to remain aware of the potential tradeoffs between efficient decisions and efficient decision-making. Make strategic choices somewhere between the two extremes, accept the potential downsides of your choices, and be prepared to deal with pitfalls should they appear. ]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:02:21 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">balancing-cost-and-quality-in-decisionmaking</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Too much talk, not enough action: how to switch it around</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_030306.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In certain organizations people are always going to meetings where practically nothing gets decided. All talk and no action--what's going on?Action isn't always better than talk. Sometimes the best solution to a problem is to do nothing. But when action is needed, or when talk is getting in the way, it's time to scan for obstacles like these in your organizational culture. ]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:14:39 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">too-much-talk-not-enough-action-how-to-switch-it-around</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>When to use Consensus for decision making</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_120805.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The choice of how a decision will be arrived at should take into  account the issue and the people involved in an effort to minimize  the cost and maximize the quality of the decision. But many  businesspeople automatically make decisions in whatever way they feel  most comfortable, or simply perpetuate the ways in which decisions  have been made before, without looking at the fit between the  decision and the decision-making style. ....Strictly speaking, a consensus requires the unanimous consent, or  approval, of everyone participating in the decision. Partly because  each participant has veto power over the decision, participation in  a consensus decision-making process gives each participant a strong  sense of joint responsibility for the process and the decision. Every  participant receives both motive and opportunity to give their blood  for the cause.While the word "consensus" has a touchy-feely sound to some people,  in practice it is no more and no less than a specialized wrench for  the well-equipped business toolbox. To clarify the value of consensus  decision making it helps to compare consensus to command, delegation,  and democratic decision-making styles in terms of advantages,  disadvantages, and how responsibility for a decision is distributed.  ....Tool summary: When to use consensus for decision making.- Use the command style for decision making when decisions are needed  very quickly, as in a crisis, and one person will be able to make  decisions effectively.- Use delegation to increase efficiency and maximize the contribution of  every team member.- Use a majority vote to include a large number of people at relatively  low cost.- Use consensus when you want high quality input and commitment, with  follow-through, from a group. 

AUDIO LINK:  http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_120805.mp3]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:02:27 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">when-to-use-consensus-for-decision-making</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A recipe for motivating and bonding: ask for a story</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_111105.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Although we habitually point out and emphasize differences in culture, education, income, employment, and experience, in the ways we are "wired" beneath the surface to organize information and make decisions, we're much more alike than we are different.Here is a communication tool I call "ask for a story." It's based on the observation that just about everybody makes an effort to feel successful and effective when they are responsible for accomplishing something. A near universal way to tap into someone's motivation is to simply ask them for stories about themselves, which helps increase their interest, focus, and commitment while building bonds between them and their listeners. ]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:57:20 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">a-simple-satisfying-recipe-for-motivating-and-bonding-the-ask-for-a-story-tool</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Predicting Confrontations; Intuition in Decision Making; and De Becker Pros and Cons</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_101805.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This is Part 2 of a two-part series based on the book The Gift of Fear, Survival Signs that Protect Us, by security consultant Gavin De Becker. In this entry I examine the business implications of De Becker's "tipping point" analysis for predicting confrontations, and his observations about the role that intuition plays in decision making, then I close with pros and cons about the book from a business reader's perspective.]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:52:54 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">predicting-confrontations-intuition-in-decision-making-and-de-becker-pros-and-cons</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Identifying Basic Needs That Lead To Confrontations</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_091405.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Business decisions are influenced by more than money and expertise. One such influence is the passion that people have for their work, their organizations, their workforce, and their customers. Unfortunately, the same passions that lead to outstanding results can also lead to devastating conflicts. As a result I am always on the lookout for techniques that help channel or convert business passions from destructive to constructive ends. In Part 1 of this "Notebook" entry I examine threats to basic needs that can lead to confrontations. ]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">identifying-basic-needs-that-lead-to-confrontations</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Deliberate Charisma: a built-in feature of the brain-face connection</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_080305.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[You doubtless know that your body language can trigger emotions in other people, sometimes with a positive effect (for example, people around you will feel more cheerful if you seem happy) and sometimes with a negative effect (people around you will feel more anxious if you're upset). To the extent you can select your own body language you can choose the emotional effect you have on the people around you. I'm calling this "deliberate charisma," although it's probably better known by the emotional intelligence term "resonance". Here's the trick: you can quickly and easily reverse engineer your own body language simply by remembering the sight of someone else's body language. ]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">deliberate-charisma-a-builtin-feature-of-the-brainface-connection</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What do we mean when we say someone is being their best self?</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_062905.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Recently someone translating the book Primal Leadership asked me to explain what the authors meant by the words "best selves", on page 197. (Primal Leadership is a book about emotional intelligence that looks at the impact of leaders' emotion-handling skills on their business relationships.) I think the translator's question is rather interesting: off the top of your head, what do you think it means -- and how would you explain it to someone who doesn't speak the same language as you? There are three things about it I find especially interesting.]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">what-do-we-mean-when-we-say-someone-is-being-their-best-self</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Strategies For Leveraging Emotions In the Workplace</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_060705.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Do you have strategies for getting the most out of emotions in your workplace--strategies for yourself, for the work force, for the leaders in your organization, for your customers?]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">strategies-for-leveraging-emotions-in-the-workplace</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What person-product relationships tell us about exceptional leaders and sellers</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_042905.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Donald Norman is a leading authority on the relationships people form with products. He has spent decades pursuing research and insights into product design, finding himself along the way working with many of the world's greatest design experts, participating on government commissions, and even receiving an audience with Pope John Paul II. Norman makes two interesting points about person-to-product relationships that intrigue me when applied to person-to-person relationships.]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">what-personproduct-relationships-tell-us-about-exceptional-leaders-and-sellers</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Coaching for consequences connects decision makers&apos; results to their choices</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_040605.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[An increasingly popular leadership and sales style is the coaching (or facilitative) style. Among the advantages of this style are that it encourages people to explore their own motives, make choices and take action. A key component of this style involves pointing out the likely consequences of actions, or what I call "coaching for consequences." I have two stories for you to illustrate this concept. (Each paraphrases an actual situation I've encountered.)]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">coaching-for-consequences-connects-decision-makers-results-to-their-choices</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Articulating what&apos;s on your mind and what&apos;s on other people&apos;s minds improves everybody&apos;s choices</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_033005.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[To be articulate is to be clear. And by clear I mean that you understand what you are saying, the person you are communicating with understands what you are saying, and the understanding you have and the understanding they have match pretty closely.

Effective leaders, sellers, and negotiators go one step further: they are not only skilled at articulating their own thoughts, they are skilled at articulating what others are trying to say, whether or not what they are saying is particularly clear to begin with. ]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">articulating-whats-on-your-mind-and-whats-on-other-peoples-minds-improves-everybodys-choices</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Asking for permission, listening, and holding off on disagreement helps leaders and sellers facilitate decisions</title>
      <link>http://www.wilsonstrategies.com/notebook_032305.php</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Here's a simple rule of thumb for effective communication: in any important conversation (and every business conversation) ask yourself: who is this about? Another way to put it is: who has to make a choice here? When you want to lead, sell something, or reach agreement with someone, someone besides yourself has choices to make. It's going to be "about them" at least half of the time. You can't control their decision -- if you did it would be coercion, not leadership, sales, or negotiation -- but you can facilitate by asking for permission, listening more than you talk, and showing respect even when you hear what you don't want to hear. The following example of poor communication style, and the advice I gave the communicator, applies equally to leaders, sellers, and negotiators.]]></description>
      <author>notebook@wilsonstrategies.com (Bruce Wilson)</author>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">asking-for-permission-listening-and-holding-off-on-disagreement-helps-leaders-and-sellers-facilitate-decisions</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
