Author: Don McMinn

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.

Five frogs sat on a lily pad; one decided to get off. Now how many frogs are on the lily pad?

We mustn’t confuse intentions, resolutions, plans, and decisions with action.

• Intending to do something doesn’t change anything.
• Planning to do something is not synonymous with doing it.
• Deciding to do something is not the same as doing it.
• Action is the sine qua non of change and the precursor to progress.

Granted, planning and action are mutually dependent. Action without planning can be ineffective and inefficient. Abraham Lincoln said, “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.” Good planning increases the effectiveness of action. But planning without action is just wishful thinking. 

Business consultant Peter Drucker said, “Ideas don’t move mountains; bulldozers move mountains, but ideas show where the bulldozers have to go to work.” Until you hear the rumble of the bulldozer and feel the resistance of the dirt, you haven’t bridged the gap between planning and action. 

Planning, by itself, can be deceptively easy—even enjoyable. Jerry Brown, former governor of California, said, “The reason everybody likes planning is that nobody has to do anything.” All great ideas must inevitably evolve into work.  

After you have planned, it’s helpful to immediately do something toward reaching the goal; this kickstarts momentum. Indira Gandhi, former prime minister of India, said, “Have a bias towards action – let’s see something happen now. You can break that big plan into small steps and take the first step right away.” All projects can be broken down into small, actionable tasks. Identify one and get started.

Maintain proper balance. Plan your work and work your plan. 

I ask again: how many frogs are on the lily pad?