Page 74 - The Green Building Bottom Line The Real Cost of Sustainable Building

HR PRACTICES AND PROCESSES THAT MAKE SUSTAINABLE VALUES STICK 53

Setting the tone for empathy from the top leadership and making empathy the top-
most agenda item for that leadership team get the green glue flowing broadly and
deeply throughout the company.

DECISION MAKING

A company that shapes its values from the bottom up, shapes its organizational
design as a series of concentric circles built around values, and fosters a notion of
empathic leadership is bound to have a different approach toward how various issues
are deliberated and how decisions are made. On the one hand, there was a strong mer-
itocratic element running through the company, a desire to structure decision-making
processes in such a way that the very best thinking floated to the top. On the other
hand, there was also a strong democratic element running through the company, a
belief that the best thinking floated to the top only when everyone was empowered to
be part of the debate. Too strong an emphasis on meritocracy could mean that the
decision making fell to the strongest or most dominant influencers at the company.
Too strong an emphasis on democracy could mean that decisions were reached when
the lowest common denominator was found. The challenge is to find a golden mean
between these two extremes.
Three primary concepts are drawn upon by Melaver, Inc. to help shape this golden
mean: interdependence, subsidiarity, and consensus. Interdependence, used in the con-
text of this particular company, tends to mean that a great deal of independence is
afforded each and every individual at the company to make decisions, but the price of
this independence is the strong expectation that individuals will draw upon other eyes
and ears among colleagues to obtain different perspectives on a given issue.
Subsidiarity holds that decision making is pushed downward to the level closest to the
actors most intimately involved in a particular issue or project or policy. Taken
together, interdependence and subsidiarity are used to leverage the small, entrepre-
neurial nature of the company and to empower all staff members to shape the direc-
tion of the company. Balanced against these two concepts is the practice of consensual
decision making, which called for (and still requires) considerable practice.
Consensus is often misunderstood. It means we can all agree to implement a deci-
sion. That does not mean everyone agrees 100 percent, but that everyone can live
with the team’s decision. If anyone is not in agreement, then the discussion contin-
ues until some type of agreement is reached. Process is important in gaining a con-
sensus decision. Most leaders would rather decide and direct as opposed to build
consensus. The experience at Melaver, Inc. was no exception. It was fun to watch the
transition of the team trying to work toward consensus, as people began to open up
and trust one another.
One trick of the trade in our consensus-building processes was the use of green–
yellow–red cards. Each member of the management team was provided with a set of
these cards. As discussion progressed on a particular issue, the facilitator would check
with the group from time to time to see whether consensus was being reached. A green