1

The Noisy Minority

From Loud Voices to All Voices

Beverly Nance

It is this spontaneous interlocking of ideas

which is the magic of dialogue, and a key
to successful learning organizations.

Robert L. Masten

A
s a beginning principal, I fell victim to two underly-
ing assumptions. First, in an effort to be collaborative, I
assumed I needed 100 percent agreement to move for-
ward on a decision. Second, without input to the con-
trary, I thought the loudest and most assertive teachers represented
the majority opinion. These underlying assumptions, sometimes
called mental models (see Figure 1.1), prevented me from hearing
all perspectives and allowed a vocal few to maintain the status quo.
As a teacher, collaboration with colleagues was effective. We
talked about what we wanted to accomplish, discussed what was
best for students, and sought unanimous agreement on decisions.

Kohm-PrincipalsWhoLearn pages.in3 3 5/9/2007 12:14:14 PM

 4 P R I N C I PA L S W H O L E A R N

Figure 1.1
Mental Models

Mental models are assumptions that people make about the world.
These assumptions, based on previous experience, provide lenses
through which we see and interpret events in our lives. The lenses
we create help us focus attention on information that is impor-
tant to us and cause us to ignore other information. New experi-
ences influence us to examine our assumptions and change mental
models, often by including information previously ignored. Mental
models become problematic when people think they are the only
possible truth. As Senge notes, We always see the world through
our mental models and our mental models are always incomplete
(1990, p. 185).

Source: From The fth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization by
P. M. Senge, 1990. New York: Doubleday.

Those who had differing opinions spoke up and shared their thoughts. We
learned together and built positive relationships.
As a new administrator, I approached collaboration with teachers in
the same way. I presented an idea and asked people to share their thoughts,
suggestions, and recommendations. Some people spoke; many did not. The
process usually ended with a vote regarding implementation. Later, regard-
less of what decision was made, a few people always stepped forward to
express their concerns or disagreement. I found this frustrating; why didnt
they speak up before the decision was implemented, when I had asked for
input?
I discovered that there is a simple explanation. As human beings,
we learn to speak, often by the age of 2. As we grow up, we begin to use
conversation as a means of communicating. We believe we communicate
effectively, that we know how to do it well. Why not? On the surface it
seems to work. We speak and people respond. They speak and we respond.
The only problem we notice is that sometimes our audience does not seem
to understand what we said, or we are surprised when they disagree or later
react differently than we expect.What I have learned is that effective conver-
sation is an art. Protocols for effective conversations exist to ensure that all

Kohm-PrincipalsWhoLearn pages.in4 4 5/9/2007 12:14:14 PM

 The Noisy Minority 5

individuals at the table offer their perspective, that people listen for under-
standing, and that everyone hears the intended message.
This chapter discards the two underlying assumptions and proposes a
shift in thinking. First, collaboration does not imply reaching 100 percent
agreement. Instead of using voting to determine the level of support for a
decision, we will examine consensus building. Consensus does not imply
a unanimous vote or that everyone got their first choice. It does indicate,
however, that everyone agrees to support a decision and not sabotage it.
In majority voting, unless the decision is unanimous, many people win,
but some people lose, feeling no commitment to accepting the final vote.
Implementation of a decision can be at risk if people do not support it. The
process of consensus building can be more effective than voting and create
less difficulty when implementing a change effort. Strategies exist to help
a group to listen to all voices, express differing ideas, reach consensus, and
make decisions. Fist-to-Five is a tool that allows people to express concern
but agree not to sabotage a decision.
Second, a few loud voices do not represent a majority opinion. Team
learning, one of the five disciplines in organizational learning, emphasizes
the need to hear all voices.We will examine two strategiescheck-in and
using guidelines for dialoguethat help engage all members of a group in
conversation. We will also look at two types of conversationdialogue and
discussionand discuss how each is necessary to reach a decision that repre-
sents the input and support of all members of the group.

BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR CHANGE

When I became the principal of a suburban middle school, I encountered
a faculty with low morale. The previous principal, who had been on the
job only eight months, was found guilty of a serious crime and fired. The
assistant superintendent served as the interim principal for the next four
months.The faculty had had three principals in two years.When I arrived as
the fourth, they were emotionally drained and had little trust in leadership.
Teachers were prone to retreating to their classrooms for safety and stability.
In an effort to begin rebuilding a sense of community, I decided to host
an all-faculty dinner at a local restaurant. I wanted teachers to regain their
sense of optimism, re-establish former relationships, and build new ones with
me. I took this idea to the school governing body, the Team Leader Coun-
cil (TLC), whose members represented every grade-level team and every
department. I was sure that this group of faculty leaders would be thrilled. I
did not expect a long debate.

Kohm-PrincipalsWhoLearn pages.in5 5 5/9/2007 12:14:14 PM

 6 P R I N C I PA L S W H O L E A R N

However, while some teachers thought the dinner might be a good

idea, some were lukewarm and a few vocal faculty members were adamantly
opposed to the event.They did not want to give energy to the school beyond
their daily teaching. For this vocal minority, an evening spent with colleagues
represented just another day of work. I was shocked. It never occurred to me
that going out to dinner together would be either threatening or unwanted.
I was discouraged but decided to table the idea and let them think about it.
Perhaps they would talk with each other over the next few days about how
enjoyable the event might be.
The next week I suggested the idea again, only to hear the same people
negate it. This time, however, there were a few faculty members actually
advocating for the event. The conversation soon became a debate of who
was right and who was wrong. That was not the climate I wanted for our
first faculty social event. I tabled the conversation again. After the meeting
finished, a few senior faculty members took me aside to offer some advice.
Judy said, Bev, there are some people on staff who will always vote No. If
you wait for a unanimous vote on this decision or any others, we will never
move forward. The majority of the staff wants to go. Make the event volun-
tary and see who signs up!
I put the idea for a staff dinner on the TLC agenda again the follow-
ing week. This time, I asked the team leaders to take the idea back to their
individual teams, have a conversation to determine interest and support, and
return the following week for a final decision. It was at this meeting that I
first discovered the value of consensus. If a large number of people were in
favor of the dinner, and others agreed not to sabotage it, we would hold the
dinner. I would pay for the event, and attendance would be voluntary. The
decision was easy. Most of the staff indeed wanted to go and were excited to
begin raising morale and creating a new sense of camaraderie. Almost every-
one came. A staff dinner became an annual event. Most important, the fac-
ulty learned that I would listen to all perspectives before making a decision,
and I learned that consensus was a tool that could help us move forward.
These new understandings proved to be helpful as we later moved through
more substantive changes.
In most situations, taking a vote sets up adversarial conditions. Someone
wins and someone loses. Consensus, on the other hand, gives everyone a
voice. We know that we may not have full agreement, but everyone under-
stands that we will go forward with the decision and no one will impede its
implementation. Building consensus also softens the loud voices. Without
this skill, we sometimes feel as if we are held hostage to the opinions of
those who speak loudly and with intensity. Before we learned how to reach

Kohm-PrincipalsWhoLearn pages.in6 6 5/9/2007 12:14:15 PM

 The Noisy Minority 7

consensus in our school, decisions represented a vocal minority. Learning

about consensus allowed us to lift other voices up while not shutting down
the few. It gave a forum to all.

USING FIST-TO-FIVE TO I MPROVE COMMUNICATION

Fist-to-Five is an easy and effective way to determine the strength of consen-
sus in decision making (Fletcher, 2002). When a group comes to consensus
on a matter, it means that everyone in the group can support the decision;
they dont all have to think its the best decision, but they all agree they can
live with it. Using Fist-to-Five in response to a proposal allows everyone to
see how much support there is for the proposal, as well as any strong oppo-
sition. This tool is an easy-to-use way to build consensus among diverse
groups.

The Fist-to-Five Process

In the first step in the Fist-to-Five technique, the team leader issues a
proposal to the group and asks everyone to show his or her level of support.
Group members respond by showing a fist or a number of fingers that cor-
responds to their opinion, as follows:

z Fist: I vote no, blocking consensus. I need to talk more

about the proposal, and I require changes for it to pass.
z One finger: I still need to discuss certain issues and suggest
changes that should be made.
z Two fingers: I am more comfortable with the proposal but
would like to discuss some minor issues.
z Three fingers: Im not in total agreement but feel comfort-
able to let the proposal pass without further discussion.
z Four fingers: I think its a good idea/decision and will work
for it.
z Five fingers: Its a great idea, and I will be one of the leaders
in implementing it (Fletcher, 2002).

Group members who show four or five fingers will actively support the
decision. Group members who show one or two fingers indicate that they
still have questions and concerns that must be addressed before a final deci-
sion is made. They should be given the opportunity to state their objections,
and the proposal should be opened for more discussion. If there are any fists
held up, the issue is revisited and perhaps temporarily tabled. No decision is

Kohm-PrincipalsWhoLearn pages.in7 7 5/9/2007 12:14:15 PM

 8 P R I N C I PA L S W H O L E A R N

allowed until the fists disappear. Teams continue using the Fist-to-Five pro-
cess until they achieve consensus (each person showing a minimum of three
fingers) or determine that they must move on to the next issue.

Implementing Fist-to-Five
Fist-to-Five came in handy in our school, particularly regarding inter-
nal decisions with yes or no resolutions. One such case involved deciding
who could attend middle school dances.
Our school held a dance every fall and spring.Traditionally, only 7th and
8th graders were allowed to attend. During the same year we learned to use
the Fist-to-Five tool, 6th graders circulated a petition proclaiming their right
to attend those dances. The 6th grade TLC members put the issue on the
weekly agenda so that teachers at all grade levels could examine the pros and
cons. For 6th grade students, the issue was one of fairness. For the faculty, it
was an issue of appropriateness and safety. A lengthy conversation was not
necessary.We recognized that 6th graders are not as physically or emotionally
mature as 7th and 8th graders. We also knew that the older students looked
at the dances as a rite of passage and would resent the attendance of younger
students.
In our TLC meeting, a motion was made that we not allow 6th grad-
ers to attend dances with 7th and 8th graders. Instead, they could design an
event of their own, perhaps a dance, a night of games, or another creative
event.We used Fist-to-Five to determine consensus on the issue.The major-
ity of hands showed fours and fives, with only a few threes and twos. Using
this process allowed us to efficiently make a shared decision.

Preventing Problems Using Fist-to-Five

Fist-to-Five can also forestall decisions that will later cause problems.
That same year, someone on TLC raised the issue of bus duty and how the
rotation of supervisory personnel was decided. After about 20 minutes of
conversation, a motion was made requiring every staff member to serve on
bus duty for at least two weeks during the year. Teachers would schedule
their duty in advance, and four would be available to serve every week. We
called for a Fist-to-Five. The majority of hands showed fours and fives, but
one hand was a fist.That fist belonged to the TLC member who represented
the physical education department and teachers who served as coaches or
activity sponsors after school. I asked him if he would share his reasons for
opposition. He apologized for not speaking up earlier, but he had not real-
ized that he might be the only person who strongly opposed the suggested

Kohm-PrincipalsWhoLearn pages.in8 8 5/9/2007 12:14:15 PM