The best teams have an environment where they CAN communicate openly and freely to share their insights and ideas without fault. I've been in organizations where they would take our vote on an issue and end up going in another direction. I like the idea of debating the ideas because the team members viewpoints get heard and strongly considered. I LOVE the critical rule to attack ideas and not the individual.
Hi Anthony. Taking a vote, in a setting like you describe, is usually the sign of a leader not being able to work consensus effectively. Leaving a little less than half the group feeling disenfranchised on a decision probably wasn't received well, even if the vote wasn't ignored, right?
Bingo! Many felt unheard and that the vote was a sham. Something to appease us and make us feel like we had a say in what would affect the future of the company. Needless to say, it was a pivotal moment that proved to be detrimental for the health of the company. It's survived but with much stunted growth.
Wow—fantastic insights. I genuinely appreciate this article. If I could throw a cherry on top, I would like to add one step before a full-fledged debate: I ask each team to start by stating the position of their "opponent" as strongly as they possibly can—no criticisms, just praise and an honest effort to highlight the merits of the other side.
I think I stole this idea from Jeff Bezos… though I can’t quite remember. (But I stole it.)
I recently wrote an article about "tough conversations" that also applies to debates. I’m relatively new to Substack, so I’d love any feedback or (if warranted) support. Thanks again!
The best leaders embrace the tension, knowing that clarity comes from collision, not complacency.
Very true, Robert. That friction can be the start of a deeper and more trusting relationship.
The best teams have an environment where they CAN communicate openly and freely to share their insights and ideas without fault. I've been in organizations where they would take our vote on an issue and end up going in another direction. I like the idea of debating the ideas because the team members viewpoints get heard and strongly considered. I LOVE the critical rule to attack ideas and not the individual.
Hi Anthony. Taking a vote, in a setting like you describe, is usually the sign of a leader not being able to work consensus effectively. Leaving a little less than half the group feeling disenfranchised on a decision probably wasn't received well, even if the vote wasn't ignored, right?
Bingo! Many felt unheard and that the vote was a sham. Something to appease us and make us feel like we had a say in what would affect the future of the company. Needless to say, it was a pivotal moment that proved to be detrimental for the health of the company. It's survived but with much stunted growth.
Wow—fantastic insights. I genuinely appreciate this article. If I could throw a cherry on top, I would like to add one step before a full-fledged debate: I ask each team to start by stating the position of their "opponent" as strongly as they possibly can—no criticisms, just praise and an honest effort to highlight the merits of the other side.
I think I stole this idea from Jeff Bezos… though I can’t quite remember. (But I stole it.)
I recently wrote an article about "tough conversations" that also applies to debates. I’m relatively new to Substack, so I’d love any feedback or (if warranted) support. Thanks again!
🔗 https://curiousleaders.substack.com/p/tough-conversations-without-conflict?r=2ldy4w