This week I checked off one of my bucket list items: Serving on a jury.
Seriously.
I know, I readily admit I’m a nerd (some of you may argue a masochist).
I’ve been called to jury duty before, but never selected. Maybe my motivation was more of a pride thing … somehow making up for years of being the last kid picked for teams in P.E.
As a communicator, I found it fascinating to pick apart the testimony and opening / closing arguments to try to understand the underlying strategy.
In the end, our panel of 12 jurors deliberated for about an hour and came to a unanimous judgment including sums for damages. Out of everything, this was perhaps the most interesting and intriguing aspect of all: the ability of 12 strangers to come to a relatively quick consensus.
It made me wonder, how did that happen?
I mean, I’ve worked with many, many diverse groups before who took hours, days, weeks and months to come to a consensus that had far less impact than what we jurors were charged with.
What it came down to were some key communications strategies that I think could (and should!) be implemented for any consensus-building needs.
Clearly stated goal
After we heard two days of testimony, we were given the written charge from the judge. Our mission was clear: was the defendant negligent, and, if so, to assign monetary damages to the plaintiff. The guidelines were just as well-defined -- we had to base our judgment solely on the evidence presented.
How many times have you been in meetings where there was no real stated outcome? Or ground rules for discussion? Or where personal bias played into a decision?
Imagine how much more time we'd all have if meeting goals were that direct and focused.
Tone-setting
From the beginning, the judge explicitly set the tone for the time we would be spending together. She was gracious and appreciative of the time we were giving up to serve on the jury. She made jokes to put everyone at ease, but also highlighted the importance of our roles.
That tone trickled down to us as individual jurors once we were on our own. There was a genuine feeling of "we're in this together" that manifested in friendly banter, people eating lunch together and one guy making coffee for everyone else each morning.
How can leaders establish a tone of respect and camaraderie in order to help move people toward a shared goal?
Shared motivation
At least 10 of the 12 of us had to agree on each of the charges. After two full days of listening to testimony, our shared motivation to evaluate the evidence and come to an agreement on the charges was pretty high.
Yes, there was some disagreement. But we understood that our collective decision was most important. We were able to collaborate on a solution that everyone could agree to.
How can you help establish the importance of people reaching a common goal vs individual interests? It's important that everyone is heard, and dissension is OK. But how can we meet in the middle in order to move forward?
Yes, I survived jury duty (and even got a thank you mug and certificate from the judge to prove it!).
It wasn't terrible, despite all the negative hype. Can you say that about most meetings where you’re trying to come to a decision?