Chapter 9: Move to Action
“To do nothing is in every man’s power.” — Samuel Johnson
Core Challenge: Converting Dialogue Into Results
A full Pool of Shared Meaning doesn’t automatically produce action. Two failure modes at the end of a crucial conversation:
- Unclear expectations about how decisions will be made
- Poor follow-through on decisions that are made
Key Principle: Dialogue ≠ Decision Making
Don’t let people assume that because everyone participated in dialogue, everyone will participate in every decision. Separate the two processes explicitly. If you don’t clarify how decisions will be made, people will assume things — and get miffed when reality differs.
Cara & Rene example: Both agreed “a cruise” was a good idea in dialogue. Rene then unilaterally chose a specific cruise and paid a deposit. Cara was miffed — she’d agreed to a cruise in principle, not to this cruise.
Four Decision-Making Methods
| Method | Description | Best Used When |
|---|---|---|
| Command | Decision made without involving others (external forces or total delegation) | Low-stakes; one person has full trust/authority; external mandate |
| Consult | Decision makers gather input, then decide | You want ideas/buy-in but need efficiency; most situations |
| Vote | Agreed-upon percentage decides | Multiple decent options; efficiency matters; everyone agrees to abide by outcome |
| Consensus | Everyone talks until genuinely agreeing | High-stakes complex issues; everyone must actively support the outcome |
Caution: Consensus is powerful but easily abused. Only use when truly necessary — it’s expensive in time. Voting without commitment buy-in leads to losers resenting winners.
Four Questions for Choosing a Method
- Who cares? Who genuinely wants to be involved and will be affected? (Only involve them)
- Who knows? Who has relevant expertise? (Prioritize them)
- Who must agree? Whose cooperation or authority is needed? (Better to involve than to surprise)
- How many is it worth? Fewest people while still ensuring quality decision and sufficient commitment
Making Assignments — The Four Elements
Once a decision is made, assignments must be crystal clear:
1. Who?
Assign to a specific person. “We” means nobody. “Everybody’s business is nobody’s business.”
Even if multiple people are involved, appoint one responsible party.
2. Does What?
Specify exact deliverables. Fuzzy expectations → disappointment.
Howard Hughes example: Assigned engineers to “design a steam-powered car” with no direction → they built a functional giant radiator that would boil passengers in a crash. Hughes was so upset he had it cut into three-inch pieces.
Use Contrasting to clarify: “I don’t want X; I do want Y.” Point to physical examples and prototypes where possible.
3. By When?
Assignments without deadlines are not goals — they’re directions. Other urgencies fill the vacuum. Vague “somedays” produce guilt, not action.
4. How Will You Follow Up?
Every assignment needs a built-in follow-up mechanism:
- Simple check-in call or email
- Progress milestones linked to drop-dead dates: “Let me know when you’ve completed the research phase — by end of November”
- Next meeting review
Build an expectation for follow-up into every assignment.
Document Your Work
Don’t trust memories. After a crucial conversation:
- Write down conclusions, decisions, and assignments
- Record who does what by when
- Revisit notes at the next meeting
- Hold people accountable — if someone fails to deliver, that becomes the next crucial conversation (use STATE skills)
Accountability conversations create a culture of integrity.
Summary
Decide how to decide: Choose from Command / Consult / Vote / Consensus based on who cares, who knows, who must agree, and how many to involve.
Finish clearly with every assignment defined by:
- Who (specific person, one responsible party)
- Does what (exact deliverables)
- By when (real deadline)
- How will you follow up (built-in accountability)
Then document and review.