A decision-making group in which those who don't get what they want continue to fight rather than work for what the group has decided is destined to fail... #principleoftheday (1/4)
...you can see this happening all the time in companies, organizations, and even political systems and nations. I'm not saying that people should pretend they like the decision if they don't, or that the matter in question can't be revisited at a future date. (2/4)
What I am saying is that in order to be effective, all groups that work together have to operate with protocols that allow time for disagreements to be explored... (3/4)
...but in which dissenting minority parties recognize that group cohesion supersedes their individual desires once they have been overruled.
The group is more important than the individual; don't behave in a way that undermines the chosen path. (4/4)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Almost every group that agrees on the big things ends up fighting about less important things and becoming enemies even though they should be bound by the big things. #principleoftheday (1/5)
This phenomenon is called the narcissism of small differences. Take the Protestants and Catholics. Though both are followers of Christ, some of them have been fighting for hundreds of years... (2/5)
...even though many of them are unable to articulate the differences that divide them, and most of those who can articulate the differences realize that they are insignificant relative to the big important things that should bind them together. (3/5)
Everyone does not report to everyone. Responsibilities and authorities are assigned to individuals based on assessments of their ability to handle them. #principleoftheday (1/4)
People are given the authority that they need to achieve outcomes and are held accountable for their ability to produce them.
At the same time, they are going to be stress-tested from both directions--i.e., by those they report to and by those who report to them. (2/4)
The challenging and probing that we encourage is not meant to second-guess their every decision but to improve the quality of their work over time. (3/4)
Whenever there is a dispute, both parties are required to have equal levels of integrity, to be open-minded and assertive, and to be equally considerate. #principleoftheday (1/4)
The judges must hold the parties to the same standards and provide feedback consistent with these standards. (2/4)
I have often seen cases in which the feedback wasn't appropriately balanced for various reasons (to hold the stronger performer to a higher standard, to spread the blame). This is a mistake. The person in the wrong needs to receive the strongest message. (3/4)
It is the rare dispute that is resolved to both parties' equal satisfaction. Imagine you are having an argument with your neighbor about a tree of theirs that has fallen onto your property. Who is responsible for its removal? #principleoftheday (1/11)
Who owns the firewood? Who pays for the damage? While you might not be able to resolve the disagreement yourselves, the legal system has procedures and guidelines that allow it to determine what's true and what to do about it... (2/11)
...and once it renders its judgment it's done, even if one of you didn't get what you wanted. That's just the way life is. (3/11)
There will come a point in all processes of thinking things through when you are faced with the choice of requiring the person who sees things differently from you to slowly work things through until you see things the same way... #principleoftheday (1/5)
...or going along with the other person, even though their thinking still doesn't seem to make sense. I recommend the first path when you are disagreeing about something important and the latter when it's unimportant. (2/5)
I understand that the first path can be awkward because the person you are speaking to can get impatient. To neutralize that I suggest you simply say, "Let's agree that I am a dumb shit but I still need to make sense of this, so let's move slowly to make sure that happens." (3/5)
When they're at odds, you should work hard to resolve the disagreement.
If you are about to make a decision that the believability-weighted consensus thinks is wrong, think very carefully before you proceed. #principleoftheday (1/4)
It's likely that you're wrong, but even if you're right, there's a good chance that you'll lose respect by overruling the process. (2/4)
You should try hard to get in sync, and if you still can't do that, you should be able to put your finger on exactly what it is you disagree with, understand the risks of being wrong, and clearly explain your reasons and logic to others. (3/4)