Most accessibility advisory committees include people from many different walks of life. They bring varied backgrounds, experiences and perspectives. In this chapter, you will find information about proven approaches to effective teamwork.

Tips for building a strong team

Here are some tips on coming together as a team. You may also consider arranging a training and orientation session for your accessibility advisory committee.

Establishing ground rules

Set some ground rules up front. They may help your committee work as a strong team. And you may avoid the problems that committees can sometimes run into when they have no guidelines.

Ground rules can include formal procedures, such as rules of conduct guided by your municipality’s procedural by-laws. They can also include informal procedures. There is no one set of ground rules. These guidelines will help your accessibility advisory committee get started.

The committee will:

  • Agree on how members will conduct themselves.
  • Send out agendas and other materials required for the meeting at least two weeks ahead of time so all members can come prepared.
  • Always begin and end meetings on time.
  • Ensure all members and guests introduce themselves at every meeting.
  • Maintain confidentiality as a team. The team’s processes are the team’s business. Don’t discuss these matters outside of the team.
  • Summarize and clarify all team decisions at the end of each meeting.
  • Celebrate successes and have fun!

Members will:

  • Arrive on time and be prepared for the meeting. For example, they should have reviewed the agenda.
  • Remain open to all ideas.
  • Speak in order. No side conversations, no muttering, no interrupting.
  • Use “I” statements.
  • State assumptions up front.
  • Avoid finger-pointing or assigning blame for problems. Every problem is a committee problem.

Check your team’s progress

Even with ground rules in place, committees go through growing pains and different stages of development. Working in teams takes time and patience. It is rare for a newly formed group to instantly work well as a team. Here are some signs that your team is growing strongerfootnote 1

  • There is an informal, comfortable and relaxed atmosphere when you are together.
  • Members have a high degree of confidence and trust in one another.
  • Members co-operate and work well together.
  • Members listen to one another and respect differences.
  • Constructive criticism is frequent, frank and comfortable.
  • The team embraces the free sharing of ideas and feelings.
  • No one dominates the meeting.
  • Each person’s skills and contributions are acknowledged and respected.

Understanding how a committee works

Groups and group members all play different roles as they work together to achieve common goals. The effectiveness of any group depends on the ability to balance between task and maintenance functions. The following may help your committee identify and distinguish between the two.

10 task functions of teams:

  1. Initiating activity: suggesting new ideas, new definitions of the problems and new solutions or a new way to organize material.
  2. Seeking information: asking for clarification of ideas, requesting more information or facts.
  3. Giving information: offering facts or generalizations, relating one’s own experience to group problems to illustrate points.
  4. Giving opinions: stating an opinion or belief concerning a suggestion or one of several suggestions, particularly concerning its value rather than its factual basis.
  5. Elaborating: clarifying, giving examples of developing meanings, trying to envisage how a proposal might work if adopted.
  6. Co-ordinating: clarifying relationships among various ideas or suggestions, trying to pull ideas and suggestions together or trying to draw together activities of various sub-groups or members.
  7. Summarizing: pulling together related ideas or suggestions, restating suggestions after the group has discussed them.
  8. Testing feasibility: applying suggestions to real situations, examining how practical and workable an idea may be, pre-evaluating decisions.
  9. Checking standards: assessing group decisions or results against group standards and goals.
  10. Diagnosing: determining sources of problems, appropriate actions, and the main roadblocks.

8 maintenance functions of teams:

  1. Encouraging: being friendly, warm, responsive to others, praising others and their ideas, agreeing with them and accepting their contributions.
  2. Gatekeeping: trying to make it possible for all members to make contributions by saying things like “we haven’t heard from John yet.”
  3. Setting standards: stating standards for the group to use in making decisions, reminding the group to avoid decisions which conflict with group standards.
  4. Following: going along with the decisions of the group, somewhat passively accepting the ideas of others, serving as audience during group discussion and decision-making.
  5. Expressing group feeling: summarizing the group atmosphere, describing reactions of the group to ideas or solutions.
  6. Testing consensus: asking for group opinions to find out if the group is nearing consensus or a decision, sending up trial balloons to test compromise solutions.
  7. Harmonizing: mediating, reconciling points of view, finding compromises.
  8. Reducing tension: draining off bad feelings by jesting or putting a tense situation into a wider context.

Tips for solving problems

All organizations and committees face challenging problems at times. They must find creative methods to solve these problems, make decisions and focus on reaching their goals.

Problem solving is a set of activities designed to generate, implement and evaluate solutions. It’s about creating choices. Here are some things to remember when solving problems:

  • Don’t press or bicker about your own views. Present your position logically. Then listen to the reactions of other members and consider them carefully. Try to get underlying assumptions out in the open so the team can discuss them.
  • Don’t look for a winner or a loser in each discussion. Look for the most acceptable alternative to all parties.
  • Did you know disagreements can help the group’s decision? It’s true. With a wide range of opinions there is a greater chance the group will come up with more effective solutions. So don’t change your mind just to avoid conflict. Value differences of opinion. They are natural and to be expected. Seek them out and try to involve everyone in the decision-making process.

Problem solving revolves around finding new ideas. Brainstorming, conducting surveys and holding discussion groups are three ways to do this.

Brainstorming

One person or a group can brainstorm ideas. It requires a setting where people are free to think out loud. They can blurt out as many ideas as possible within a specified time period. No one can evaluate or criticize their ideas during this time.

This approach encourages the free flow of ideas. Ideas are simply recorded. They are only evaluated later.

Surveys

Surveys tap into the ideas of a large group of people. Surveys present people with the problem and ask them to choose from a series of solutions.

Discussion groups

Discussion groups, made up of those directly involved in decision making, should avoid quick judgments. They should stay focused on the problem – not on the personalities of people involved in the room.

Tips for making decisions

Once you have some ideas to consider, there are several ways your committee can approach the final decision. These include straw polling, voting and consensus.

Straw polling

Straw polling asks for a show of hands on an idea, but you can find other ways to make it accessible for everyone. For example, you can combine verbal and visual signals.

In most cases, straw polling is a quick check that can save time. To make it work, the group needs to agree on a set of signals everyone will use throughout the meeting. These signals enable people to gauge how others are reacting. Signals also provide feedback for a speaker who is trying to work with a large group.

Voting

Voting is a decision-making method that works best for large groups. To avoid alienating minorities, the group can decide to pass a motion only if it gets a two-thirds majority. Or, the group could decide to combine voting with consensus.

Large or more formal groups generally follow “Robert’s Rules of Order”. Some groups limit the privilege of voting to people who have come to three or more consecutive meetings. Voting usually means deciding between X and Y. Sometimes voting allows a blended solution, part of X and part of Y.

Consensus

Consensus aims at bringing the group to agreement by addressing all concerns. It does not require unanimity. Consensus can take longer than other processes but it fosters creativity, cooperation and commitment to final decisions.

7 steps to reaching consensus

An effective consensus process aims at bringing a group to mutual agreement by addressing all concerns. How do you get there?

Trust is a key prerequisite. If your group adopts consensus as a decision-making method, you do not have to use consensus of the whole group to decide everything. You can (and should) empower individuals, committees, or task forces to make certain decisions.

Here is a sample outline of an approach you could use during your meetings:

  1. A presenter states the proposal. Ideally, a written draft has been distributed before the meeting.
  2. The group discusses and clarifies the proposal. No one presents concerns until this step is complete.
  3. The facilitator then asks for any legitimate concerns. If there are none, the facilitator asks the group if it has reached consensus. If there are concerns, the recorder lists them where everyone can see them. The group then tries to resolve each item on the list.

Legitimate concern: a definition

Consensus means substantial agreement of members, without persistent opposition, by a process that considers the views of all members in the resolution of disputes. Unanimous decisions are not necessarily required to achieve consensus.

For consensus to work properly, everyone must understand the meaning of “legitimate concern.” In simple terms, it is the possible outcomes of a proposal that might:

  • cause harm to the organization or the common good
  • conflict with the purpose or values of the group.

Consensus will not work properly if concerns come from ego or vested interests, or from unstated tensions around authority, rights, personality conflicts, competition or lack of trust.

  1. The presenter has first option to:
    • Clarify the proposal
    • Change the proposal
    • Explain why it is not in conflict with the group’s values
    • Ask those with concerns to stand aside.

By “standing aside,” a person indicates a willingness to live with a proposal. By “crossing off a concern,” a person indicates they are satisfied with clarifications or changes.

  1. If concerns remain unresolved and concerned members are not willing to stand aside, the facilitator asks everyone to focus on the group’s common purpose and values. The group may need to go through a special session to review concerns and resolve conflicts.
  2. The facilitator checks again to see if those with concerns are willing to stand aside or cross off their concerns. If not, the facilitator asks for more ideas to resolve the concerns. The process continues until everyone finds the proposal acceptable or stands aside. Often the solution is a “third way.” It lies between either/or, or yes and no.
  3. If time runs out and concerns persist, the facilitator may:
    • Conduct a straw poll
    • Ask those with concerns once more if they will stand aside
    • Ask the presenter to withdraw the proposal
    • Contract with the group for more time
    • Send the proposal to a sub-group
    • Conduct a vote, requiring a 75% to 90% majority.

At the conclusion of the process, the facilitator states the outcome clearly.

Tips for resolving conflict

Conflicts sometimes arise when people bring different beliefs, experiences, and values to a committee table. Even where members agree on an overall goal, some strongly disagree about the best way to achieve the goal.

Conflict can become a problem if not properly managed. It can harm the otherwise positive working relationships between committee members. Conflict can also spread like wildfire. It may start with one or two members, but quickly affect others. This can lead to a dysfunctional committee.

That’s why it’s vital to deal with conflict quickly and carefully. Here are seven tipsfootnote 2:

  1. Treat each other with respect.
  2. Recognize diversity. Understand and value members’ different backgrounds, perspectives, cultures, languages, training and points of view.
  3. Confront the problem. Discuss it with the other person. Choose a place where you both feel comfortable. Speak calmly.
  4. Describe the problem in clear, concrete terms. Be specific. Avoid language that will escalate the situation. Focus on the behaviour, not the person. Use the word “I,” not “you.”
  5. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Listen carefully. Try to imagine how the other person sees things. Then explain how you see the problem. Be quick to express any changes to your views as you talk things through.
  6. Explore other solutions. Take turns offering new ideas. Don't judge the other person’s ideas. Think and talk positively.
  7. Agree on a solution you both understand and can live with. Work to find a win-win solution. Be committed to resolving the conflict.

Establishing subcommittees

Creating a subcommittee can be an effective way to focus on a specific issue. For example, a subcommittee could focus on issues related to the standards related to the AODA and IASR. A subcommittee could also help move projects forward in these areas.

Like the full committee, a subcommittee may require terms of reference. This document will lay out its mandate, membership, deliverables and timeframes.

Tip

One municipality includes the option of subcommittees in its accessibility advisory committee’s Terms of Reference:

“The Advisory Committee may form subcommittees and working groups as may be necessary to address specific issues, noting that clerks do not provide secretarial support to these groups. These subcommittees and working groups shall draw upon members of the advisory committee as well as outside resource members as deemed necessary. The chair of the subcommittee and/or working group shall be a voting member of the advisory committee.”

Is your team geared for participation?

Will your committee adopt a participatory style? Or will it fall into the pitfalls many conventional groups do? The following chartfootnote 3 illustrates the difference between the two. Of course, many groups will fall in between the two.

Participatory groups

  • Everyone participates, not just the vocal few.
  • People give each other room to think and get their thoughts all the way out.
  • Opposing viewpoints are allowed to coexist in the room.
  • People draw each other out with supportive questions: “is this what you mean?”
  • Each member makes the effort to pay attention to the person speaking.
  • People listen to each other’s ideas because they know their own ideas will also be heard.
  • Each member speaks up on important issues. Everyone knows where everyone stands.
  • Members can accurately represent each other’s points of view – even when they don’t agree with them.
  • People refrain from talking behind each other’s backs.
  • Even in the face of opposition from the person in charge, people are encouraged to stand up for their beliefs.
  • A problem is not considered solved until everyone who will be affected by the solution understands the reasoning.
  • When people make an agreement, it is assumed that their decision still reflects a wide range of perspectives.

Conventional groups

  • The fastest thinkers and most articulate speakers get more airtime.
  • People interrupt each other on a regular basis.
  • Differences of opinion are treated as conflict that must either be stifled or solved.
  • Questions are often perceived as challenges, as if the person being questioned has done something wrong.
  • Unless the speaker captures their attention, people space out, doodle, or check the clock.
  • People have difficulty listening to each other’s ideas because they’re rehearsing what they want to say.
  • Some members remain quiet on controversial matters. No one really knows where everyone stands.
  • People rarely give accurate representations of the opinions and reasoning of those whose opinions are at odds with their own.
  • Because they don’t feel they have permission to be direct during the meeting, people talk behind each other’s backs outside the meeting.
  • People with conflicting, minority perspectives are commonly discouraged from speaking out.
  • A problem is considered solved as soon as the fastest thinkers have reached an answer. Everyone is then also expected to get onboard regardless of whether all members understand the logic of the decision.
  • When people make an agreement, it is assumed that they are all thinking the exact same thing.

How effective is your committee? Questionnaire

Forming a strong team can take time as the team evolves through recognizable stages. The following questionnairefootnote 4 may help you assess what stage your team has reached. It is based on a model of group development proposed by Bruce Tuckman. There are a several models in existence, but the Tuckman model is seen as the most established and remains widely used. This model has become an accepted part of thinking about how teams evolve, based on four stages:

  1. Forming: team members are introduced.
  2. Storming: the team transitions from “as is” to “to be.” This stage is recognized as the most difficult.
  3. Norming: the team reaches consensus on the “to be” process.
  4. Performing: the team has settled its relationships and expectations.

It is good practice to check on the stage of your committee periodically. With experience, your committee will be able to manage the shift through the different stages more easily.

The following questionnaire contains statements about teamwork. For each one, rate how rarely or how often your team displays each behaviour using the scoring system below.

Scoring system

  • Almost never: score 1 point
  • Seldom: score 2 points
  • Occasionally: score 3 points
  • Frequently: score 4 points
  • Almost always: score 5 points

For example, if you rate item one as “occasionally,” give your committee 3 points. Record your answers on the scoring sheet that follows these statements.

  1. We try to have set procedures or protocols so that meetings are orderly and smooth (e.g., reduce interruptions, give everyone an opportunity to have their say).
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  2. We are quick to get on with the task at hand. We do not spend too much time in the planning stage.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  3. Our team feels that we are all in it together. We share responsibilities for the team’s success or failure.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  4. We have thorough procedures for agreeing on our objectives and for planning the way we will perform our tasks.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  5. Team members are afraid to ask others for help.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  6. We take our team’s goals literally and assume a shared understanding.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  7. The team leader tries to keep order and contributes to the task at hand.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  8. We do not have fixed procedures. We make them up as the task progresses.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  9. We generate a lot of ideas, but we do not use many because we fail to listen to them. Or, we reject them without fully understanding them.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  10. Team members do not fully trust the other members. We monitor others who are working on a specific task.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  11. The team leader ensures that we follow the procedures, do not argue, do not interrupt and keep to the point.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  12. We enjoy working together. We have a fun and productive time.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  13. We have accepted each other as members of the team.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  14. Our team leader is democratic and collaborative.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  15. We are trying to define the goal and what tasks we need to accomplish.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  16. Many of the team members have their own ideas about the process. Personal agendas are rampant.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  17. We fully accept each other’s strengths and weaknesses.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  18. We assign specific roles to team members (e.g., team leader, facilitator, timekeeper, note taker, etc.).
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  19. We try to achieve harmony by avoiding conflict.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  20. The tasks are very different from what we imagined. They seem very difficult to accomplish.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  21. There are many abstract discussions of concepts and issues. Some members are impatient with these discussions.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  22. We are able to work through group problems.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  23. We argue a lot even though we agree on the real issues.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  24. The team is often tempted to go above the original scope of the project.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  25. We express criticism of others constructively.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  26. There is a close attachment to the team.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  27. It seems as if little is being accomplished with the project’s goals.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  28. The goals we have established seem unrealistic.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  29. Although we are not fully sure of the project’s goals and issues, we are excited and proud to be on the team.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  30. We often share personal problems with each other.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  31. There is a lot of resistance toward the tasks at hand and approaches to improve quality.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)
  32. We get a lot of work done.
    • Almost never (1 point)
    • Seldom (2 points)
    • Occasionally (3 points)
    • Frequently (4 points)
    • Almost always (5 points)

Scoring sheet

In the chart below, mark the score of each statement on the questionnaire. When you have entered all the scores for each question, total each of the four columns at the bottom.

Forming stageStorming stageNorming stagePerforming stage
1.2.4.3.
5.7.6.8.
10.9.11.12.
15.16.13.14.
18.20.19.17.
21.23.24.22.
27.28.25.26.
29.31.30.32.
Total:Total:Total:Total:

Results

The lowest possible score for any stage is eight (Almost never). The highest possible score for any stage is 40 (Almost always). The highest of your four scores indicates which stage you think your team is most like. If your highest score is 32 or more, it is a strong indicator of the stage your team is in.

The lowest of the three scores is an indicator of the stage your team is least like. If your lowest score is 16 or less, it is a strong indicator that your team does not operate this way. If two of the scores are close, you are probably going through a transition phase, except:

  • If you score high in both the Forming and Storming Phases, then you are in the Storming Phase.
  • If you score high in both the Norming and Performing Phases, then you are in the Performing Stage.

If there is only a small difference between three or four scores, then this indicates that:

  • you have no clear perception of the way your team operates, or
  • your team’s performance is highly variable, or
  • you are in the Storming Phase (this phase can be extremely volatile with high and low points).

Footnotes

  • footnote[1] Back to paragraph Adapted from Iowa State University Extension’s “Group Decision Making Toolkit.”
  • footnote[2] Back to paragraph Adapted from the Centre for Collaborative Planning’s Collaboration: Concepts to Consider Guide.
  • footnote[3] Back to paragraph Adapted from Kaner, S. (2007). Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making.
  • footnote[4] Back to paragraph This questionnaire was adapted with permission from D. Clark, 2004. It is presented as a training tool only, and it has not been formally checked for reliability or validity.