"Conflict can destroy a team which hasn't spent time learning to deal with it." – Thomas Isgar

Are times when no matter how much it deliberates, the executive team hits a decision making stalemate, and it is up so the CEO to be a tie-breaker. This is a difficult position to be in, because it results in the CEO being the killjoy of everyone’s ideas.Harvard Business Review calls this the dictator by default syndrome.

How can teams be expected to reach a collective decision based on individual preferences, anyway?

Majority wishes can clash when a group of three or more people attempts to set priorities amongst three or more items. Take the example below.An executive team is trying to decide on the most appropriate location for the company’s annual meeting. The individual team members have reached an impasse, and the CEO (or the head of the office) has to step in and break the impasse. As you can see, whatever decision the boss makes, the majority of the team is rooting for a different option. And here is where he or she is considered a dictator.

Is this a problem of leadership or teamwork? To combat this scenario, we see companies using team-building and communication s exercises, teaching executives to be assertive and clearly communicate their own point of view. Well, the fact is that arriving at a collective preference on the basis of individual preferences is a faulty model for the consensus process.

When the CEO is forced to choose one of the options that the executive team is weighing, only a minority of the executives will agree with the decision. This means that no matter which option is selected, it is likely to be different from most of the majority groups’ preferred outcomes.Is there a voting method that can overcome this? No, not really. Allocation of points to alternatives or rank-ordering choices don’t offer more buy-in from the executives who have gotten themselves stuck at this impasse.

So here is the rub; as the CEO (or the decision maker), it is in your best interest to give your executive leaders the tools they need to solve issues together before they reach an impasse. If you get to the “fork in the road” situation, you are not only made into the dictator by default, but you are unlikely to have buy-in from a majority of the players, which is a key ingredient.

Here is what you can do. Start by acknowledging that the executive team is, in effect, a legislature.Each member represents its constituency, whether that is marketing, accounting, or human resources. It is difficult for them to divorce themselves from that role. The fact is that many decisions are directly linked to resource allocation, and each executive is working for his or her own electorate.

Teams and their CEOs should spend time understanding these conditions that typically give rise to an impasse. Once they understand why they have trouble making decisions, they can adopt some tactics to minimize the potential of a standoff.

· First, the group should articulate clearly what outcomes they are seeking. It is uncanny how often people think they are talking about the same thing, when in fact, they are not. One may be talking about revenue and the other net profit.The propensity for miscommunication is so common that it its worth taking time to make sure that the goals are well-defined.

· Next, set up a scenario that provides a range of solution options, not just the simplistic accept, reject or defer. Give yourselves many “shades” of outcomes.

· Don’t automatically accept a road block. A constraint may or may not be hard and fast.It may be movable. It is worth investigating options that everyone had assumed would not be accepted. There may be a creative way around the (perceived) road block.

· Get an initial sense of where the group stands by taking a nonbinding vote or a casual survey before meetings, in order to identify areas of agreement and disagreement as well as the potential for a deadlock. This method also allows the group to take the options that no one will support off of the table even before the meeting begins, saving time and energy for viable options andproductive brainstorming.

· Rather than engaging in discussions about how to give feedback or learning how to have assertive discussions, make sure that both sides of each option are voiced. –A devil’s advocate can be a productive way of further articulating what is desired—or not desired.

· So now we have a situation that has broken away from the “binary” solution, and has been branched off into a range of options, all road blocks have been thoroughly investigated for their veracity, and non-viable options have been rooted out before the meeting even begins. We also have an atmosphere that values the devil’s advocate, which will further elucidate each option.

· And here is the final step: Use your discussions to devise new options that preserve the best features of the existing ones. Break down the array of options that you now have, and reframe them to preserve original intent. Whenever the urge to set up another binary option (either/or, yes/no), step back and reassess the options again.

This method should keep the dictator by default situation from popping up at all.It also gives your executive team a better chance at successful decision making. They will be able to move the company forward, living up to the CEO (and their own) expectations.