Actually, doing that means everyone getting a balanced say. Two way street. If you make it one way, it is all on you, and when that team says that, you get al

Actually, doing that means everyone getting a balanced say. Two way street. If you make it one way, it is all on you, and when that team says that, you get all the credit. Good or bad, and the team knows it. Will definitely throw you under a bus, given cause. If you make it a balanced discussion, everyone taking shared ownership, then it is on everyone. The difference shows up in two places: One, bad call. The team can come together, own it, and letting the bad call go is not so rough. The follow on discussion is rational and productive. The other one is getting that different point of view. Having that discussion sets great expectations. Being challenged, getting better, all that is welcome. A team that does this successfully tends to congeal and do extremely well. Play it how you want to play it, but I definitely prefer to have it all on the table, open, team discussion, frank, high value. Mix in a reluctance to blame and shame, favor choices outcomes and data and you get a team that can weather the good and bad, everyone helping everyone too. The lead is responsible for cultivating that culture, empowering people, resolving conflicts, etc. Also owns team business meetings, data, all that. Just saying.