"Leaders need to invite disagreement, not just expect it. When the invitation to offer their opinion is not clear, teams will assume you don't want it. Leaders often don't realize that their status can unconsciously silence dissent. No matter how often leaders stress that no one will be punished for disagreeing, their own zeal, conviction, intelligence, and energy can be intimidating."
"Mei had received some bracing feedback during her Bonfire Moment. Her team said that she always responded to objections with defensiveness. We could see that she was brilliant but very measured in how she shared ideas. As we discussed these issues, Mei realized that some of the behaviors that had made her effective in her prior job as an analyst were now hurting her ability to lead."
Leaders must explicitly invite disagreement because ambiguous invitations lead teams to assume dissent is unwelcome. Leader status and personal qualities like zeal, conviction, and intelligence can unconsciously silence team members despite assurances against punishment. Open-door policies alone do not reliably draw out dissenters. Cultural norms of deference to power or equating disagreement with being disagreeable require deliberate change. Practical tactics can reduce defensiveness and encourage candid feedback; for example, a Singapore leader began arriving less prepared and lowering personal investment in proposals to create space for true challenge and better ideas.
Read at Big Think
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]