The effectiveness of nurtured dissent.

The worst part about being senior is juniors don't tell me the truth.

It's not like they're outright lying or anything.

It's more like they don't openly voice their POV, hold back info, or more insidiously, just go along even though they have something else in mind.

It's weird because the better I got at my job, the more senior I became, the more responsibility I got, the more influence I gained over others, the more hesitant others became at sharing their honest opinion, the worse the outcomes became, the worse I got at my job.

It's a big problem for me-- arguably, the most important problem because the only way to get really big things done is through a real conviction of others.

And the best way to earn that conviction is by first giving everyone the opportunity to voice their dissent.

I get it, though.

If you on the more junior side, the cost of disagreeing and being wrong always outweighs the reward/convenience of staying quiet and sharing in the credit of something going right.

There's also the underlying, self-reinforced assumption that senior people are more senior because they know better and that's why they're more senior.

It's also awkward AF to argue with your boss.

I'm pretty sure a top-down, chain-of-command, zero-dissent system is easier.

But I'm also pretty sure it's stupider over the long-term.

And I'd rather be collectively smarter with more difficulty than stupider with more convenience because I fundamentally believe:

1. All great thinking is borne from a great diversity of thinking.
2. Not feeling comfortable speaking your mind everyday, sucks everyday.
3. Nobody benefits from ineffectiveness.

I'm not sure it's true, it's just what I believe.

And over time, I've found three practices help create the smarter, harder way of working I prefer.

1. Absolute safety.

The first part of safety is nobody is ever criticized, second-guessed or punished for having a different POV. Unless proven otherwise, the governing assumption is that all dissent stems from a good faith intent of improving outcomes for everyone (vs. evil, ego or politics).

The second part of safety is, if and when the outcome is bad, the most senior person accepts accountability. This is stated rule.

Ultimately, this backstop is the only way for everyone to embrace, that on average, there is more to collectively gain than individually lose by speaking up.

It sucks, but it's why senior people are paid more.

2. Unlimited POVs, one decision.

Generally speaking, I've found the more talented the team, the more they disagree. The collision of multiple valid opinions is a feature, not a bug of smarter brains.

The most senior person's responsibility is to navigate difficult debate and always, always, always land on a decision.

Ideally, a decision that everyone is happy with, but at minimum, one that everyone understands despite their disagreement.

Just because everyone has an equal opportunity to voice their own thinking, does not mean everyone can go rogue.

Dissent in thinking, together in action.

It's hard AF, but it's why senior people are paid more.

3. Reasoning as the highest currency.

With so many POVs, everybody must align that logical, linear reasoning is the pinnacle determinant of any decision.

Almost by definition, the more complex a problem, the less hard data and precedent will be available. Reasoning must rule.

While everyone is entitled their POV, everyone is also responsible for explaining and defending their 'why' with whatever evidence that is available.

Reasoning trumps charisma, eloquence, loudness, and yes, seniority as well.

It's annoying to be the one probing and probing everyone's reasoning, but it's why senior people are paid more.

I'm pretty sure these practices will improve your effectiveness.

But let me know if you disagree.

///