Be clear in assigning personal responsibilities
I have seen people who agree on the major issues waste hours arguing over details.It’s more important to do big things well than to do small things perfectly.Be wary of bogging down amid minor issues at the expense of time devoted to solidifying important agreements.For example, if the responsible party being challenged has a vision, and the decision under disagreement involves a small detail, evaluate the decision within the context of the broader vision.The ensuing discussion resulting from challenging someone’s decision will help people understand all the considerations behind it.It can also be used to enhance understanding of others’ views and abilities and, over time, assess whether someone should be assigned a responsibility.It doesn’t mean there can’t be some designs in which a group oversees a person.But that’s designed and embedded in the organizational structure, specifying the people responsible for oversight who are chosen because of their knowledge and judgment.Debate, discussion, and teaching are all ways of getting in synch, but they work differently and the approach you choose should reflect your goal and the relative believability of the people involved.Not everyone should randomly probe everyone else, because that’s an unproductive waste of time.People should consider their own levels of believability and understanding to assess if the probing makes sense.As a guide, the most relevant people are your managers, direct reports, and/or agreed experts.They are the most impacted by and most informed about the issues under discussion, and so they are the most important parties to be in synch with.If you can’t get in synch, you should escalate the disagreement.Less experienced, less believable people will be included.They may not be necessary to decide an issue, but if you aren’t in synch with them, that lack of understanding will likely undermine morale and the organization’s efficiency.Conversely, if you are willing to be challenged, and others behave the same way, you can demand that all critical communication be done openly.Imagine if a group of us were trying to learn how to play golf with Tiger Woods, and he and a new golfer were debating how to swing the club.Would it be helpful or harmful to our progress to ignore their different track records and experience?Of course it would be harmful and plain silly to treat their points of view equally, because they have different levels of believability.While I believe this is true, it would be most productive if Tiger Woods gave his instructions and then answered questions.However, because I’m pretty extreme in believing that it is important to obtain understanding rather than accepting doctrine at face value, I also think the new golfer shouldn’t accept what Tiger Woods has to say as right only because he has won loads of tournaments and has years of experience playing golf.In other words, I believe the new golfer shouldn’t stop questioning Tiger until he is confident he has found truth.At the same time, I also think the new golfer would be pretty dumb and arrogant to believe he’s probably right and the champion golfer is wrong.So he should approach his questioning with that perspective rather than overblown confidence.It would be really bad for the group’s learning if all the people in the group treated what the new golfer and Tiger Woods had to say as equally valuable.I feel exactly the same way about getting at truth at Bridgewater.If the reporting ratios are organized as described in the principles on organizational design, there should be ample time for this.The challenges become greater the higher you go in the reporting hierarchy because the number of
Setting Pannel
Share
Google Plus
