Have you ever tried to get "buy-in" from others or have others tried to get it from you? The other day I was coaching a client I'll call Larry. Larry was telling me how he had gotten his co-worker Patrick to "buy-in" to his plan for handling a sales event. Patrick said he'd go along with Larry's plan, but after the meeting, Larry said that his "win" felt hollow; he had this nagging feeling that it wasn't genuine. Sure enough, as the weeks passed, Patrick didn't do what he had agreed to and Larry ended up spending several more meetings with Patrick. Eventually Larry learned that Patrick had concerns about the plan. Larry also learned something important about getting "buy-in".

Getting Buy-In and Losing Commitment. What Larry learned is that by getting buy-in he often lost what he really wanted: commitment. When you're trying to get others to "buy-in", you've already developed a solution to sell them. Your goal becomes getting others to agree with what you've already decided is the best solution for you and them, rather than engaging in a conversation in which you jointly develop a solution with them. If you're seeking buy-in you can't afford to be curious; you might learn that others have information or needs that don't match the solution you're selling - then you're stuck. If you're like Larry, you may have experienced the failure of success; you may be able to persuade others to buy-in to your solution even when they still have unaddressed concerns.

Crafting Solutions to Create Commitment. Internal Commitment is a core value of the Skilled Facilitator approach. It is a state of mind in which you feel personally responsible for the choice you make. You are committed to the choice because it is intrinsically compelling or satisfying, not because you are rewarded for making the choice or penalized for not making it. Internal commitment is so valuable because it reflects a sense of ownership and a strong motivation to make something happen.

I first learned this at camp as a teenager. As I "supervised" a group of campers, the camp director, who was a social worker, told me, "Roger, people support what they help to create." Years later I learned why this is true. It's not because people are participating that leads them to support a group decision; it's that when they participate productively, the solution the group agrees to meets peoples' needs. To generate commitment in a group, I believe you need to ensure that everyone has the same relevant pool of information, that everyone has expressed their interests, and that the solution incorporates the relevant information and meets people's interests.

This means shifting your mindset from selling to crafting a solution with others. Rather than going into a conversation with a pre-packaged solution you will try to sell to others, it means going into a conversation being clear about your interests and being as curious about others' interests as you are passionate about your own. Then together you can identify your interests and craft a solution that addresses them.

It Doesn't Have to Be Their Idea; It Simply has to Meet their Needs. Have you ever thought that the way to get people committed to your solution is to have them think it was their idea? If so, you've probably asked them some questions that, if they answered "correctly", would lead them to suggest the very solution you had already thought of. Many people use this manipulative strategy (which they can't be transparent about with the client) because they mistakenly believe that others have to come up with the solution to be committed to it. They don't; the solution simply has to meet their needs.

My clients who are facilitators often make this mistake; you may too. For example, a facilitator wants to use a set of ground rules to help a group work together. She has a set of ground rules that she would like the group to use and mistakenly believes that the group will find the ground rules more desirable if they come up with them on their own. As a result, the facilitator asks the group, "What ground rules would you like to have for working effectively together?" privately hoping that the group will identify ground rules that the facilitator uses. If the group doesn't identify the facilitator's ground rules, the facilitator subtly tries to get her own ground rules in place, either by asking more leading questions (like "would it be good to have a ground rule about sharing your reasoning?), rephrasing the group member's suggestions, or finally, if all else fails, suggesting some of her own.

I believe that group members don't have to develop their own ground rules to be committed to using them; they simply need to make an informed free choice to use them and believe that the ground rules meet their needs. As a group process expert, I have a clear idea of what kinds of ground rules lead to more effective group behavior (it's our "Ground Rules for Effective Groups"). Part of being accountable to the group means sharing my ground rules with them and explaining my reasoning for using them. Then I ask whether people have any concerns about using these ground rules and whether there are other ground rules that they would like to suggest using. In this way, I am transparent about and accountable for my thinking, I'm curious about their thinking, and together we can commit to a set of ground rules that meets all of our needs.

What are your thoughts about creating internal commitment? Please share them with us and others at the Mutual Learning Action Group.

Roger Schwarz 2005