Ask individuals for feedback not groups

It’s not enough to ask the room what it thinks. A leader must ask individuals.

Imagine you’re one of a dozen presidential aids gathered to assist Kennedy in the growing Cuban crisis. You’ve had a week to consider current events and chart potential results from the available presidential responses. Earlier, in conversation with other aids, you discover the most popular approach is an invasion trained and funded in secret by American forces. You disagree but leave the issue unchallenged, planning to raise your concerns now, when you’re all gathered. One after another, the aids argue in favor of an invasion. You listen carefully to their arguments, but when the arguments are exhausted you’re still not convinced ((Marquardt, pg. 17-18)). What do you do next?

If you’re Schlesinger, you keep your mouth shut and are complicit in the decision to invade. But what if the president already knew you’re position? What if you’d written him personally? Then the responsibility is shared, for Kennedy, hearing only arguments for invasion, ought to have called you to share your dissenting arguments. Because the pressure is often too great for one person without authority to challenge his peers, Kennedy would have displayed greater leadership had he ensured all voices were heard by asking questions of each aid.

When leading a team, it’s not enough to ask the room what it thinks. Almost always, the response will be the most popular, and everyone who disagrees or has questions will remain silent, believing that their the only person who dissents. If a leader questions in this way, he’ll never uncover any other opinion than the one everyone thinks is popular. A few decisions made in this way may very well nuke the business, as the decisions around the Bay of Pigs invasion brought America close to nuclear war. Even when the leader is confident that everyone does agree, he must give each team member, in turn, a chance to ask questions and voice concerns. If, as in Kennedy’s case, the leader knows of questions or dissent, he must make sure it doesn’t remain in the dark but must, with the permission of the member who tells him, bring the member’s feedback before the entire group. Even better to have that member speak for himself by calling him out in a wise fashion.

I can understand Schlesinger’s hesitation to dissent in front of the team. If his goal is to advise the president, he might console himself that his purpose is to inform the president, not to convince his peers that his perspective has merit. However, the contrary perspective is often the most valuable of all. It isn’t even important that the final decision is shifted as a result of the perspective, for even if no one’s mind is changed the rebuttals often make the original argument stronger. My application is, therefore, to change the way I lead meetings at work. Instead of presenting my case and asking the room what they think, I will follow up with each member after the meeting. If there are questions or concerns, I will also make sure these get heard by the group, whether in another meeting or an email. This will help to encourage questions and make our decisions stronger.

References