The value of vantage points in decisions
Photo by Ross Sneddon on Unsplash
Recently I was asked to participate in a cross-functional project with one of my clients. The project was a little outside of my typical work, but my unique vantage point was the reason given to include me. To provide some more context, this is a company I’ve worked over several years. I’ve completed a range of different engagements for them, and I think it’s fair to say that we have very high levels of trust and respect. Over the time we’ve worked together, the company has grown significantly (and hopefully so have I).
When introducing me to new team members, they often refer to me as an external-internal. I’m well-known to the team. I work across multiple teams and projects, so I have access to information about what’s happening without being too caught up in the day-day. This role gives me a unique vantage point from which to view the team and the issues they are confronting.
There’s plenty of evidence to suggest a team that includes a broad range of individual backgrounds, personalities, and experiences will reap the benefits of diversity. It occurred to me that vantage point is also a valuable lens on diversity in teams – one that is intentional on the participant's part.
You might be thinking, ‘that sounds a bit like De Bono’s Thinking Hats’. At one level, you are right – in that it’s a decision to take an intentional perspective. In this case, rather than being a functional perspective, it’s one based on proximity.
Depending on the nature of the conversation, you might consider introducing perspectives such as:
The Privileged – the people who have relevant information that others don’t have access to
The Insider – the people responsible for or directly affected by a decision
The Adjacent – the people with whom the Insiders must collaborate to action a decision
The Interested Party – the internal colleagues and friends of the Insiders and Adjacents who have a vested interest in the outcome of the decision
The External-Internal – those who work closely with the team but are not officially part of it and who have less agency in the result of a decision
The Unrelated – those who have no background or interest in the decision and who can bring a “clean mind” to the conversation
In deciding which perspectives to invite to the table, I encourage you to ask questions like:
What might we be missing? (If this is difficult to answer, it might suggest the need for additional perspectives)
What are the risks if we miss something important?
How much time do we have to make this decision? What is the likelihood that more insight or more time will yield a better result? What are the implications if it takes longer?
How might the realisation of the decision be improved if we include broader perspectives now?
Of course, there are trade-offs to be made here. The more complicated you make the process with any project or decision, the longer it is likely to take. The ability to assess the value of introducing more perspectives comes with experience and might require some trial and error to find what works best in your team.
The next time you bring a team together to solve a problem, consider how you might introduce perspectives based on proximity and see what additional value you can create.