A Multiplier creates debate – facilitated, rigorous and purposeful debate takes place before decisions are made.
The author recounts a situation where a team is encouraged(/directed) to switch sides in the debate, or a participant is given a different functional role. E.g. two members were asked to swap places in a for-against debate, or a person from the HR department was asked to imagine themselves in the engineering department, or from one locale (Tokyo) to another (Munich). This created opportunities for people to broaden their perspectives as well as see the issue from different angles. The team was also encouraged to challenged each other and pushed one another to be intellectually rigorous – no lazy assumptions or fallacies were allowed to pass muster.
This one I struggle with because trustees get criticised often for "not listening," usually from people who disagree with us. Often, I think, it's only because they don't have the full picture as we do; but a fair few of them seem deliberately/wilfully obstinate and obdurate even when presented with additional information. (I'll write about the dog people in another post and perhaps post some of the messages I received.) I don't usually have enough spoons or time to debate them... It doesn't mean they are bad people; I'm just far too tired to be gracious and patient.
OK, back to the book.
Diminishers make decisions and present all the answers, usually by themselves or only with the counsel with a small handful. The author calls them decision-makers, and puts Bush Jr. as a prime example of one, especially since he literally dubbed himself "The Decider." Diminishers also tend to raise issues without any focus and like to dominate the airspace.
Instead, Multipliers ask the right questions and spark the right debate. Wiseman helpfully gives an example of a wrong question:
"Where should we cut the budget?"
A better question is:
"Which should be cut from the budget: option A or B?"
A good debate question is one where the answer and options are clearly defined.
The next part is most interesting: you assign a position to each person and have them prepare their argument. Give them time to research and refine their positions before coming. This goes against the common wisdom of "don't come with your mind made up," but I suppose you could try to have both? The positional argument is just homework; it might not be the ultimate position the person takes.
The sort of meeting and discussion the author describes here requires a high level of trust amongst participants. I wonder, also, whether having these types of discussions creates higher levels of trust – if everyone is seen to swap ideas, make arguments on all sides and aren't attached to ideology or opinions, then you could generate increased levels of feelings of safety for one another.
Finally, the group is guided to collectively own the decision, since folks have advocated for multiple positions through the process. Co-ownership of decisions is a strength of consensus-building as we do in cohousing, but a huge weakness inherent in Robert's Rules.