Are you arguing enough at work?
Ephraim Cohen
FleishmanHillard Global Lead for Data and Digital; Global Managing Director, Earned and Paid Media, Social Strategy and Content, Influencer
"I'll admit that I'm wrong a lot. It doesn't really matter to me too much. What matters to me is that we do the right thing."?
- Steve Jobs
"You a--holes can do what you want." - Also Steve Jobs
Several years ago, I met with a VC who wanted to discuss a marketing technology investment idea. After about 30 minutes of me pointing out a few risk areas but mainly focusing on the opportunity, he stopped me: "I know it's why it might be a good idea; I need you to poke holes in the idea. "He actively sought dissent to his business thesis to make the best possible, most risk-managed investments.?
Arguing, or rigorous debate, is how to arrive at the best creative ideas and solutions. It's why McKinsey Consulting promotes the value of having an "obligation to dissent." The obligation to dissent means the youngest person in the room is most equipped to disagree with the most senior and should be encouraged to do so.
Encouraging the debate that drives the best decisions may require reframing how you approach decisions. Leaders on down will say they want feedback but automatically get defensive when they get some. It's a natural reaction not to want your ideas criticized or rejected. Developing a frame of mind where what's most important is not being most qualified or correct but finding the right solution, or truth, is an important step.?
The focus on truth led the Wright Brothers to develop the Kitty Hawk (aka the Wright Flyer) with relatively little funding and no formal engineering education. The brothers argued in a particular way to find the truth. Each would take a side, argue, switch, take the other position, and debate it out with equal vigor. Arguing was not their core value - their core value was intellectual curiosity. That curiosity led to solutions not being considered or dismissed by larger, more well-funded, and more technically qualified teams.
Of course, the Wright Brothers didn't have to manage large teams, so it falls on today's leaders to create the right culture. Jim Collin's book Good to Great describes good to great leaders as Socratic moderators where "heated discussions" and "healthy conflict led to the best decisions. As importantly, discussions were not about leading people to a predetermined conclusion but how they found the right answers.
The Jobs quote above was rough but can be implemented as a principle per McKinsey or as part of a decision-making process. Jeff Bezos' had a disagree and commit rule. Meeting participants had to have well-thought-out arguments to the point of writing out positions (see the article on his memo writing approach). However, once debated, you might disagree but commit to supporting the decision. It was not about who was right or wrong. Instead, it was about working to find the best decision as a team and then committing as a team.??
We are often ill-prepared for a Wright Brothers debate team culture, as debating is commonly treated as a win-lose contest. What if high school debate teams shifted from competitions to exercises where each team had to switch sides? I've only seen this rarely, most recently via a High School class where students critiqued each other's debate skills not only on how well they argued but how well they took the other side's perspective into account.
领英推荐
If you're in the marketing and PR industry and spend time on Fishbowl, you'll see plenty of discussion around hating the creative ideas, brand, or communications strategies this or that team is pushing through. The posts spur two questions: first, did they take the time to understand the idea, or did they hate the idea of idea losing? Why don't I ever see a post around work cultures that talk about cultures that encourage robust, even loud, debate?
Indeed, on the agency side, a brainstorming or planning session has plenty of debate that can lead to excellent outcomes. However, that's different than having a structure and culture that allows for the discussion that drives the most creative and effective problem-solving.?
There are countless ways to drive a culture of rigorous debate. Here are a few rules drawn from the examples in this article:
While I'm not sure I'd advocate for the leadership style of Jobs or Bezos (actually, I am sure - I would not), their application of disagree but commit led to very positive changes. The quotes at the top were from Steve Job's opposing putting iTunes on Windows, the key to iTunes dominating the online music industry for years. By all accounts, Jobs also hated the app store idea. But, he disagreed and committed.?
And remember, rigorous debate should be ongoing. There's always a better way and decision out there. Otherwise, today's most advanced airplane would be the Kitty Hawk.?
I welcome your feedback and ideas.
Articles referenced
Corporate Communications ?? Content and Brand Reputation ?? First-generation College Graduate??
1 年"Treat your ideas as fodder, a healthy argument, not as a reflection of your thinking." It's hard, but it is this ??.
Vice President of Corporate Communications at Verisk
1 年Great piece Ephraim Cohen! You've made me reconsider how we're leading team brainstorms. The idea of clearly communicating an "obligation to dissent" is a great point to overtly emphasize.
Global Managing Director - Consumer Culture & EMEA Head of Brand & Lifestyle Marketing FleishmanHillard, Senior Partner
1 年I’m up for a good argument when we speak Monday if you are?
EVP at NAPS
1 年Back in the 1930s an editorial writer worked for teo NYC papers, one pro Roosevelt and one anti Roosevelt and wrote both ways brilliantly. One of my heros
Social Media Strategist and PR Professional at FleishmanHillard
1 年I am getting nostalgic for my high school debate days reading this article! It would have been so interesting if our coach made us take turns arguing both sides - what a good idea. Related, I love the idea of "always argue both sides with equal rigor and passion" in theory, but I wonder what kind of office culture creates the time for that kind of brainstorming, where you take turns making the case for Option A and Option B.