Every question can be boiled down to 5 levels of acceptance
and buy-in. Many tough and profound questions are so complicated that a
simple "yes-no" polarity isn’t adequate to express our position on the
question. In these instances, a weighted (1 to 5) decision-making model scale can uncomplicate and better articulate the stakeholder's positions. The scale is:
1. I love it. I insist on it. I can’t live
without it.
2. I prefer it. I like it. But I can live without it.
3. I am neutral on the question. I have no preference.
4. I prefer not to do it/support it. I don’t like it.
But I can live with it.
5. I hate it. I insist against it. I can’t live with it. I veto it.
It is easy enough to poll ourselves and the people around us with this scale. The group or the couple has more work to do on the issue if the poll finds that there are simultaneous 1s and 5s. This polarity means that 100% consensus hasn’t been reached. Also, the group needs to pay attention if there is a considerable split between the 2s and the 4s. A moderate but universal split of opinion should be resolved. If we’re near a 50-50 split, then we haven’t finished the work.
The important feature of this scale is this: Anyone who wields the 1 or 5 card takes considerable responsibility and force on the question. They have played a trump card. The 1 and 5 should be used carefully. And thoughtfully. They are powerful. And, they should be played when necessary. The 1s and 5s in the room have a clarity on the question that the others must pay attention to.
The movie 12 Angry Men is a classic and is often times used
in management classes. We all remember Henry Fonda being the only hold
out against a unanimous guilty verdict in a trial of a young Puerto Rican kid
accused of killing someone with a knife. The other 11 were outraged at
Fonda’s position that the kid was innocent and insisted that Fonda change his
mind so that they could go home and leave the hot and stuffy jury room.
The tension mounted and Fonda had every reason to change his mind. But he
saw the issue clearly. Thoughtfully and methodically and respectfully he
made his case and ultimately got the entire jury to see it his way.
There’s plenty of morals of the story. The one most important to me, as a
leader, is to protect the dissident voice in the room and look for the truth in
that minority point of view.