BLNW blog

There are as many ways to lead as there are situations in need of leadership.  Knowing what style to use in what situation is often what makes or breaks a good leader.  There is a reason that the best military and public safety leaders have a directive style that is almost paradoxically calming.  They are often working in dangerous and chaotic situations and need to help everyone get past their fears and focus all their attention on the situation at hand.  But, try using a directive style in a flat-organization with an inclusive decision-making culture, and that leader will prove to be completely ineffective.

For the past week I have been facilitating a consensus-based peer-review process for Americorps grants.  I have done this for the past 5 or 6 years, but this year has a unique twist.  In the past we have always been flown into Baltimore or DC and spent a long weekend together running through a marathon review process.  Review teams are matched based solely on professional experience.  Going in, none of us know the  personalities, work and communication styles of the team members with whom you are going to spend long days in an airless hotel room.  So I am never quite sure if I am walking into a minefield or a walk in the park.

This year, rather than flying east for a face-to-face review, we are working virtually.  Virtual work-teams are nothing new, and there are lots of free tools available to facilitate communication.  Remember however, that the “peers” with the experience to review Americorps grants are from the nonprofit sector, which often means access to only old and outdated technology.  In this case it means that one of my team members is still working with only a dial-up internet connection.

My team members are located in three different time zones.  Meaning that in any given conversation, we are likely to be in different states of functionality.  My early-morning calls catch the others around lunch time.  My early evening calls get them close to bed time.  Despite all of these barriers to success, this has been the most time effective review process I have ever facilitated.

As the facilitator, I don’t get to have an opinion about the applications we are reviewing.  My role is solely to keep the process moving and help the reviewers reach consensus.  When we have done the face-to-face reviews, my primary role has been matching body-language to words and keeping any one reviewer from taking control.  This year my role has primarily been to listen and keep my mouth shut.

In the absence of body language, vocal tones and words become paramount. And as the facilitator my role is to listen.  I need to hear what the reviewers cannot because they are talking to each other.  I need to pay attention when a reviewer goes unusually silent, or the conversation gets heated.  Then I need to decide what will resolve itself and when I need to intervene.

Over the past few conference calls, my reviewers have learned to expect my silence.  They have also learned to expect to hear me when the conversation just begins to slide sideways.  And now, they are learning to anticipate when I am likely to pipe up, and start dialing the conversation down themselves.  And that tells me that I have succeeded as a leader.

My mentor once told me that no one is indespensible, and that the true sign of success is a system in which one can seamlessly step away without destroying the whole house of cards.  My reviewers may appreciate when I step in to keep the conversation moving.  But they are also increasingly aware that if I were to be absent from a call, they would still be able to move the process forward.