Year: 2020

I recently had a tiff with my adult daughter. I had asked her opinion about a particular statement and when she responded, I pushed back on her thinking. She replied, “Dad, why do you ask my opinion and then argue with it?”

This same type of conversational misunderstanding also happened at work. Having analyzed this problem, I realize that in these situations I have been miscommunicating my intent. I need to be more clear about the type of conversation I’m wanting to have. When initiating certain conversations—particularly when I’m asking for input—I now consider three options.  

Scenario 1—What is your opinion?

When I ask for someone’s opinion, I shouldn’t disagree with or challenge their thoughts. I just need to listen carefully. If I ask someone, “What did you think about the political debate that was aired last night?” that’s not an invitation to discuss politics. I shouldn’t counter what is said, I simply need to listen. 

This is passive conversation; while differing opinions may be expressed, there should be no pushback or resistance. The conversation is informative but not challenging.   

Scenario 2—Let’s have robust discussion about a particular topic.

In this scenario, I’ll seek your opinion but I’ll feel free to challenge your thoughts and you can challenge mine. I’m wanting to dig deep into a subject, not to prove who’s right and who’s wrong, but to better understand a situation. Let’s challenge each other and we’ll both end in a better place. The goal is not to win an argument but to learn. I will probably begin the conversation with a slight inclination but not a firm position. At the end of our discussion I may think differently. But I need to wrestle with our thoughts to get there. I will challenge your thinking; please challenge mine. The goal is not to win an argument but to learn. If I challenge a statement you make, I’m probing for deeper understanding. I’m not attacking you, I’m investigating our thoughts. 

Some people are not comfortable with this type of conversation.

My mistake has often been in initiating this type of conversation without clarifying the rules of engagement. In the future, if everyone knows what I mean by robust discussion I might begin by saying, “Let’s have robust discussion about a particular topic.” If someone is unfamiliar with the term, I could say: “I’d like to talk about a particular topic with you. I have some solid ideas and opinions about it, but want to explore other sides to the issue.  I value your thoughts and input. I need a sounding board. Please speak openly and so will I.” 

Scenario 3—Let’s debate.

In this setting, we’ll take opposite sides of an issue and each of us will try to prevail. We both think we’re right so we’ll try to prove each other wrong. Neither of us will probably change our mind as a result of the conversation, though we might walk away with some doubts about our position. 

There’s a proper time and place for each type of conversation. 

Scenario 1 conversations are casual, courteous, and help develop relationships.

Scenario 2 conversations are intentional and focused, and promote clarity and learning. 

Scenario 3 conversations are typically inappropriate for informal conversations. When debate is desired, it should be formally set up and regulated.  

In my weekly blog posts, I’m obviously expressing my personal opinion. But I truly value and enjoy having robust discussion about the issues I proffer. So please hit the comment button and tell me what you think.

Benjamin (my five-year-old grandson), and I were arm-wrestling on the bed. Benjamin took a short break, crawled to the corner of the bed, and whispered a prayer, “God, give me strength to beat Papa.” When he returned to the tournament, I bowed my head and prayed, “God, give me strength to beat Benjamin.” He went back to his prayer corner and prayed, “God, don’t listen to Papa’s prayer.”

Benjamin always wins our arm-wrestling contests (as well as thumb-wars), so hopefully his faith in God and the efficacy of prayer was affirmed. But the incident did disclose an interesting conundrum. How does God negotiate conflicting prayer requests? For instance, organizers of a Fourth of July parade pray for good weather while local farmers are praying for rain to end the drought. 

Abraham Lincoln spoke of this mystery in his second presidential inaugural speech—and also proffered an answer. 

On March 6, 1865 (about five weeks before the Civil War ended), Lincoln addressed a divided nation. In his speech he said, “Both (North and South) read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.”

There’s a higher principle at work, and Lincoln expressed it well—the Almighty has his own purposes.

This should not discourage us from praying—after all, the Bible teaches “by prayer and petition, make your requests to God”; but we’re wise to frame our requests knowing that “our God is in heaven, he does what he pleases.” 

We wouldn’t want it any other way.

When praying, I avoid prejudicial requests. I don’t pray that UT Austin will beat Oklahoma in their annual football game, though I may pray for the safety of the players. I don’t pray about the weather; it is totally controlled by God. I avoid giving God advice, or telling him what he should do. And, I don’t pray for his aid if it might harm someone else.

Also, my prayers are shorter than they used to be. Ecclesiastes teaches, “Don’t be hasty in bringing matters before God. After all, God is in heaven, and you are here on earth. So let your words be few.” Sometimes, long public prayers seem unnecessary. (Relative to long public prayers, someone once said, “If your prayer is short, I will pray with you. If it is long, I will pray for you. If it is extremely long, I will pray against you.”)

Our best option is to embrace the sovereignty of God and keep our prayers simple. I often pray, “God, be God in my life and in the lives of those I love.”

 

One of my favorite leadership mantras is: All of us are smarter than one of us. Get the right people in the room and let them discuss an issue or a decision that needs to be made, and their collective wisdom will exceed the wisdom of any one individual. Imagine the difference between one person taking an IQ test and the same test being answered by a group of intelligent people. The group will usually prevail.

When intelligent, informed, and engaged people meet to discuss important issues (in board meetings, weekly staff meetings, casual conversations), how can we best tap into the collective intelligence of the group? 

Two ground rules will help: Encourage people to speak candidly, and insist that everyone vocalize their thoughts.

The first rule—the freedom to be truthful and straightforward—should be part of the culture of your group. It should be the default setting. Robust dialogue [link] will eliminate groupthink [link]. People shouldn’t have to wonder, if I speak my mind will I be excommunicated from this conversation? As a leader, how can you know if robust dialogue is an acceptable practice in your organization (or in casual conversations)? That’s easy to assess: If it’s not happening, it’s not deemed acceptable.

The second rule—everyone contributes to the conversation—simply means that every person should speak.

Sometimes, in a group discussion:

• • The first person to speak sets the tone and direction of the conversation.  
  • The person who speaks the longest may overly influence the discussion.
  • Someone who has a winsome personality or is overly passionate about her opinion may inordinately sway others.
  • The person who has tenure or is the eldest member of the group may have a disproportionate impact.
  • Some people may be hesitant to express thoughts that are different from the perceived consensus. 
  • Some people may not be mentally engaged in the conversation. They’re being mentally lazy, letting others wrestle with the issue.  

The antidote to these hurdles is for everyone to vocalize his or her thoughts. For instance, if there are eight people in the meeting, eight different voices should be heard. And I’m suggesting more than just giving everyone permission to speak; insist that everyone speaks. If someone prefers not to, it’s okay for him to pass, but he needs to verbalize that preference.  

These two provisos will increase the likelihood that the wisdom of the group will prevail. 

In 1997, managers at Samsung didn’t question a $13 billion investment that would take the company into the automobile industry because the idea’s champion, Samsung Chairman and CEO Lee Kun-Hee, was a forceful personality and a car buff. When Samsung Motors folded only a year into production, Lee wondered why no one had expressed reservations [Teams That Click, page74].

Robust discussion (RD) occurs when everyone in a group is allowed, encouraged, and even required to give their unfiltered input on issues. RD is beneficial because: Every idea or plan will be improved upon when submitted to the unfiltered wisdom and input of others.

Robust discussion is not just the right thing to do; it is the best thing to do. It’s not just politically correct, it is practically helpful.

The prelude to RD may sound like this: 

• It’s when the boss says, “I’ve got an idea and I would really value everyone’s input; I want you to be totally honest.” 
• It’s when a team member says, “My division is thinking about offering a new service, but before we get started, I want to hear your thoughts about it.” 
• It’s when a staff member feels the freedom to say, “I think we’re going in the wrong direction on this project.”

Bossidy and Charan teach that robust dialogue is based on openness, candor, and informality.

• • Openness—people are not trapped by preconceptions; they’re open-minded.
  • Candor—people express their real opinions. Truth is valued more than harmony.
  • Informality—informal dialogue invites questions, mental experimentation, and creative and critical thinking. Formality suppresses dialogue and leaves little room for debate. 

RD will help to maintain a transparent and healthy workplace. It’s amazing how often there’s an elephant in the room that no one is willing to acknowledge. Clarke and Crossland warn, “Every time your team avoids the critical ‘real issues,’ you lose. Every time the discussion outside the meeting room—physical or virtual—is dramatically different from the discussion inside the room, you lose.”

Often, we avoid challenging dialogue because we value unanimity and harmony. But when we ignore the tough issues, we inadvertently dilute any sense of consensus; true alliance is achieved only when all the major issues have been identified and wrestled with. Consensus is good, unless it is achieved too easily, in which case it becomes suspect.  

Leaders must be intentional about establishing RD as standard practice in the organization. Don’t just give your team permission to engage in RD, insist on it. A Hay Group survey found that, in general, people are less inclined to give constructive feedback to higher-status individuals. That’s why they must be given permission and even encouraged to speak up.

Here are some ground rules for healthy RD:

1. Everyone should be honest and frank with their comments but also kind and considerate. Don’t be timid about speaking your mind but don’t be tacky and rude.
2. When you proffer an idea and people begin to hack at it, don’t be insecure and defensive; we’re not critiquing you, we’re commenting on the idea. Don’t be “thin-skinned.” 
3. On major issues, everyone needs to speak. Often, those with an outgoing personality will speak first and most, and those who are quiet and reserved will be reluctant to speak. By soliciting everyone’s thoughts, all voices are heard. Furthermore, those who are most opposed to an idea may be silent in the meeting but sabotage the idea later on. By soliciting everyone’s opinion, potential critics are forced to speak up.
4. Assure everyone that opposing thoughts will not be punished. RD will not flourish if people think their frankness may be used against them. Even affirm those who express opposition. 
5. RD is helpful in making good decisions. Make it clear that, following RD, a decision will be made that may or may not align with everyone’s input. It’s an exercise in both open communication involving individual preferences and opinions and consensus-building that should lead to communal support.    

As a leader, it takes a lot of emotional maturity and fortitude to establish RD as an integral part of your organization. If you’re insecure, narrow-minded, or domineering, RD will be unsustainable.  

How do you know if RD is an acceptable practice in your organization? That’s easy to assess: if it’s not happening, it’s not deemed acceptable. If you seldom hear phrases like, “I don’t agree with that” or, “What’s another alternative?” or, “Could we discuss that further?” or, “I don’t feel comfortable with that”— RD is missing.

Feedback is a gift. It’s a way of giving help. A vigorous feedback system will strengthen you and your organization.