I really enjoyed this one - especially the part about not needing to either agree or disagree with every decision.
People rarely retrospect themselves - how often did you disagreed with a decision and was proved wrong?
In ‘Extreme Ownership’, they have a great chapter about it. People too often focus on the ‘disagree’ part. They mention that you should do the maximum on your side to understand the decision and BELIEVE in it. If you trust your manager (if not, you should switch a job), and they believe it’s the right decision - understand why, and then commit.
When you come to your team, you should have all the answers to your concerns - why the leadership team thinks those are less critical.
They key part is that you need to work hard to understand the full picture in this case, and not just disagree and commit.
an effective technique that I have seen used is to ask questions and approach it from a curiosity perspective. Ask why is it done this why? Would it not be better this way? Can you explain to me the logic behind this? Help me bridge the gap? Then counterpoint would it not make sense to do it this way.
Non-materialMaterialCriticalYou think that a decision is wrong, but you're not certainNo actionEnsure your feedback is consideredEnsure your feedback is consideredYou're 100% certain a decision is wrongLet someone knowChange the decisionQuit
I really enjoyed this one - especially the part about not needing to either agree or disagree with every decision.
People rarely retrospect themselves - how often did you disagreed with a decision and was proved wrong?
In ‘Extreme Ownership’, they have a great chapter about it. People too often focus on the ‘disagree’ part. They mention that you should do the maximum on your side to understand the decision and BELIEVE in it. If you trust your manager (if not, you should switch a job), and they believe it’s the right decision - understand why, and then commit.
When you come to your team, you should have all the answers to your concerns - why the leadership team thinks those are less critical.
They key part is that you need to work hard to understand the full picture in this case, and not just disagree and commit.
an effective technique that I have seen used is to ask questions and approach it from a curiosity perspective. Ask why is it done this why? Would it not be better this way? Can you explain to me the logic behind this? Help me bridge the gap? Then counterpoint would it not make sense to do it this way.
The formatting for this looks weird
Non-materialMaterialCriticalYou think that a decision is wrong, but you're not certainNo actionEnsure your feedback is consideredEnsure your feedback is consideredYou're 100% certain a decision is wrongLet someone knowChange the decisionQuit