Effective decision-making: the case for structure over content
What's the point of sitting in so many meetings if we are terrible at them anyway?
But what if you could enhance the effectiveness of your team interactions and decision-making?
And no, having an agenda is not the answer.
Decisions decisions
Making decisions is an integral part of leadership.
The more complex the challenge, the more we need diverse perspectives to make the right call.
Generally speaking, it's safe to say that our meetings and decision-making at work revolve around content.
What's the right thing to do? Did we consider everything? What does the data say?
The best frameworks I've come across focus on structure, not content.
They help us stay true to our context rather than providing a step-by-step recipe.
They build the scaffolding from which we can grow and improve.
In this article you’ll learn about a theory that can help you elevate your discussions and decision-making.
Enters Structural Dynamics
Along with the Cynefin framework, I find Structural Dynamics to be a practical compass for navigating complexity.
One that you can actually use daily at work.
Structural Dynamics is an evidence-based framework for improving the effectiveness of human interactions.
David Kantor, author of Reading the Room, created it in the 70s.
It has since been developed further and also taught at Harvard Business School.
What's the bottom line?
When applying the structural lens, team members become aware of emerging patterns in their interactions.
A team can move towards more productive, inclusive, and meaningful discussions.
Psychological safety, team dynamics, and team effectiveness are more likely to improve.
On an individual level team members can look inside and reflect on their own contribution to interactions in various contexts or add multiple perspectives to their ideas.
The playing field
Now for the meaty part - what's under the hood.
You can think of Structural Dynamics as a board game.
Three elements affect the result of the game (i.e., the effectiveness of the interaction or decision):
The actions players can take
Often referred to as The Four Player Model, this is the most visible level of interaction.
This level looks at whether we're engaging in a productive discussion and whether we are limited by groupthink.
It includes four action stances that participants use during the interaction:
Move (initiates, gives directions, triggers)
Oppose (corrects, contradicts, adds tension)
Follow (explores further, expands)
Bystand (provides perspective, adds information).
Example for the 4 action stances (aka 4 player model)
Where on the board do players move
The second level is less visible though still easily observable.
This level looks at what unseen drivers stand behind someone's expressed idea or why is a team member triggered by something we said.
It includes three communication domains:
Power (efficiency, achievement)
Affect (feelings, connections)
Meaning (ideas, understanding)
Example for the 3 communication domains using a Move action stance
Players' tactics
The third level is harder to pick up and can shape how we perceive communication.
This level looks to answer questions such as whether there's a mismatch between how different team members might like to give and receive information.
There are three operating systems we can use:
Closed (rules, order, details)
Open (inclusion, consensus, agreement)
Random (people, improvisation, emergence)
Example for the 3 operating systems through the Move action stance
There's also a fourth level that I tend to overlook for the most part - players' previously played games.
More specifically, Structural Dynamics refers to it as childhood stories.
I overlook this level as I see it as a dark constraint (borrowed from Dave Snowden’s Estuarine Mapping) - something that has a visible effect but an unknown origin.
To me, It's a level best left to therapists than to business leaders.
5 key principles
Now that you know the core ingredients, let's examine a few guiding principles for you to consider:
Change interactions, not people
Structural dynamics looks at the systemic effects of human communication.
It's not about changing individuals as much as the linkages between them (i.e., how individuals interact).Look for patterns
Structural dynamics looks at speech acts to evaluate the interaction.
Speech acts refer to the individual speech - a word, expression, or statement.
These acts typically follow one another in a recognizable sequence that creates a pattern.Strive for balance
Structural roles are complementary - they need each other for effective interactions to take place.
Effective communicators can expand their repertoire as the situation requires by tapping into the acts that are missing at that moment.Avoid judgment
No speech act is better or worse on its own. As mentioned before, they work to complement each other, which means you need all for a healthy progression.With that in mind, each of them can take a conducive form if used effectively, or a destructive form if it's abused.
Take Oppose, for example - it's conducive if it's used respectfully to build up an idea through a little friction. But it can be detrimental if used as a toxic instrument.Context-specific
Our tendencies change when we switch contexts.
The fact that an individual or a team shows a specific pattern in one context doesn't mean it will carry to another.
Complex systems have many moving parts, all entangled with one another.
Any thought of strict categorization of people as 'x' is useless.
Workplace application
It's been very informative so far, but how can you use it in practice?
Here are a few ideas:
Discussions, team meetings, and 1:1s
Look for the patterns during a team discussion.
When you identify an unproductive sequence: point it out, balance it with your speech acts, or invite others to balance it with their speech actsWorkshop facilitation
There are a lot of ways to use Structural Dynamics principles to improve your workshops and meetings.
Improve your facilitation skills (e.g., recognize the action stances prevailing and invite the ones that are missing), plan exercises (e.g., each participant assumes an action stance), or design structure (e.g., replace start/stop/continue retros with move/oppose/follow/bystand).In a future article, I'll share an in-depth description of these use cases.
Ideation and idea validation
When dealing with complex challenges, where you can't know the correct solution upfront, you might need to probe a little or solicit multiple perspectives from experts.
How do you know if a suggested approach is good to try? You look to validate whether it could be right (cohesive), not whether it is right (correct).Try to pass your idea through the four lenses of the action stances: Move (why do we think it'll work, hypothesis), Follow (what data do we have to support it), Oppose (why might it not work and how would it look like when it doesn't), and bystand (the current situation, additional variables we should pay attention to).
Coaching and self-reflection
This suggestion can be relevant for self-reflection, for working with a coach, or when you coach a team member.
Look at the three levels and reflect on your tendencies and preferences in each.
Then, think of a specific context where you might face a challenge, e.g., interacting with your manager, leading team meetings, how you convey information to a team member, etc.).
Now you can evaluate the situation through Structural Dynamics and think about what you could do differently.Team cohesion
As an exercise to build up team dynamics or as an offsite activity.
Begin with each team member mapping out their tendencies.
Then, talk about them in a group setting.
Alternatively, you can think of the different levels as sections of a personal manual" to share with others.You can also identify if the team doesn't have a healthy balance and think of ways to artificially add more of the missing ingredients.
If you are looking for a more scientific way to map your tendencies, you can use a tool like bMaps, which provides a really good debrief that you can use for personal reflection or on a team level.
Alternatively, check out our info sheet for debriefing examples.
Example for the type of insights that surface from a bMaps debrief report for a specific context
Closing remarks
The goal of this article is not to get you "on the bandwagon" or convince you that this is the best theory.
Instead, it looks to expose you to a theory you probably never heard of.
One that you might find useful in various situations you encounter daily.
If this sparks you to experiment with one of the application suggestions above or merely be more mindful of communication patterns, that's a great value add.
