Two people arguing about a decision (at least past the point where any new information is emerging) is a bad sign. I’d ask myself a few questions:
(1) Has the incentive system within your company encouraged competition, not fostered cooperation? If your bonus depends on you being “right,” you’ll fight hard to be right all the time.
(2) Similar to (1), but has the company set up an artificial status system? If you have “junior” and “senior” people, the “senior” person will want to maintain their status by being “right.” Best not to have those formal “junior” and “senior” labels at all. They mean absolutely nothing. In my very first interview out of school, the team lead (he was not a boss—a sure sign of a good leader) asked me if I knew how to do something. When I explained the same technique they were using now, his response was: “Damn, I had hoped that they’d figured out a better way to do that by now!” He would have been overjoyed if I knew something he didn’t, “junior” or not.
(3) I find that it’s best if the final decision not be made by either of the people who are arguing. You get better results if both people present their case to the team as a whole, and the team makes a collaborative decision. Not only does it remove ego from the equation, but it also requires the people with the ideas to clarify those ideas to the point where they can be effectively presented. The team uncovers any fuzziness. Also, it requires the team to be in a position to make the decision, so it encourages a culture of learning. Siloed skills are never a good idea, in my experience. They do nothing but create dependencies, bottlenecks, delays…, and ineffective arguments.
It’s also important to realize that argument, in and of itself, is a good thing. A psychologically safe environment is one in which it’s not only okay to disagree without repercussions, but it’s encouraged. The problem is the argument devolving into the personal. That tends not to happen with a collaborative team. The team will collectively correct the problem. If everybody’s in the habit of making collaborative decisions (with consent, not consensus), then the unhelpful sorts of arguments (e.g., personal) tend not to happen.
Finally, it’s never a good idea for a manager to decide—that’s just seen as taking sides. It’s the manager’s job to help the team learn how to make decisions, not to make the decision.
Interested in a consulting, or a custom talk, or full-on class for your organization? Contact me! I still have some slots open in the current quarter. Email me at allen@holub.com, or:
I invite you to consider a paid subscription. Paid subscribers have told me they appreciate my thoughts & ideas & would like to see more of them. Your subscription helps ensure that (and you also get office hours and a discount on my next class 😄).
A recommended meeting practice is to have the most junior team members share their thoughts first, progressing up the hierarchy, so that everyone—especially those who might feel intimidated—has the opportunity to express their point of view before hearing from their more senior colleagues.
——
Few resources:
- “Why Jeff Bezos Always Speaks Last (and So Should You)” (Inc.), which explains how having juniors speak first prevents the filtering or suppression of junior viewpoints by senior voices
- “Getting Juniors to Speak Up” (Admired Leadership), describing how effective leaders ask less experienced or junior members to contribute first to counteract the tendency to remain silent
- “5 tips for running inclusive meetings” (Apolitical), which offers the reverse seniority speaking order as a strategy for inclusive participation