Hierarchy, voice and decision-making

Teams differ in how they relate to authority. In some working cultures, people expect to challenge the boss openly and see that as engagement. In others, people show respect by deferring to the person in charge, especially in public, and raise concerns privately or through someone else. In a state agency, these patterns meet a formal hierarchy of classifications, supervisors and managers, plus labor-management roles. A supervisor who says "my door is always open" may assume the invitation is enough. For some team members, speaking up to a supervisor in front of peers may feel inappropriate no matter how often they are invited.

Decision norms vary too, and deciding is one of the eight scales on Meyer's Culture Map. Some teams expect to reach broad agreement before a decision is made, which can take longer but brings people along. Others expect a leader to decide quickly and the group to adjust afterward. People used to one often misread the other. Someone expecting consensus may see a fast top-down decision as disrespectful; someone expecting a leader to decide may see a long consensus process as weak leadership. Brett and colleagues found that conflicting decision norms were a frequent source of friction in multicultural teams.

Team psychological safety connects these threads. Amy Edmondson defined it as a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. In her field study of work teams, psychological safety was associated with learning behavior, such as asking questions, seeking feedback and discussing errors, which in turn was associated with performance. For leaders, this means voice is not a personality trait to hope for. It is a team condition leaders shape through structure and response.

Practical designs help. Make decision rights explicit: for each type of decision, say who decides, who is consulted, and whether the decision is final or open to revision. Build in several ways to contribute: written input before meetings, round-robin turns, small-group discussion, and anonymous input for sensitive topics. Ask for the strongest case against a proposal before deciding, and thank the person who raises a concern in front of others. Follow up privately with people whose views you have not heard, without singling them out. Separate these team practices from formal channels: concerns about discrimination go to EOAD, concerns about contract rights go through labor relations, and workplace conduct concerns go through HR.

Fictional case: Terrence, a DSD section manager, leads a team that includes long-time staff and several recent hires from other states and countries. At a planning session he asks, "Any objections?" and hears none, so the plan moves forward. A week later, a recent hire, Anjali, tells a peer she saw a serious problem with the plan's data source but felt it was not her place to contradict the manager in front of senior staff. The peer passes this along to Terrence.

For one decision your team will make this month, write down who decides, who is consulted, how input can be given in writing, and whether the decision is final or open to revision. Share it with the team before the meeting.

On your team, who speaks up in meetings, and whose views do you mostly hear another way or not at all? What in the structure might explain the difference?