3 ms·

During the Grove era, Intel practiced "consultative decision making". The leader of the meeting owned the decision. The leader consulted all the meeting parti

During the Grove era, Intel practiced "consultative decision making". The leader of the meeting owned the decision. The leader consulted all the meeting participants. Then the owner of the decision makes the decision (NOT NOT NOT voting.) One person owns the decision. As a participant, you get your chance to make your case. After the decision, you either "agree and commit", or "disagree and commit". To disagree and not commit is to undermine, and that is a "career limiting move". > Sometimes an executive needs to integrate different perspectives and choose a direction that neither party could see. Exactly why "disagree and commit" is so important. The decision maker is expected to have the integrated perspective that you may not have. edit: Added clarification

avinium 7y ago
This approach is really appealing to me, it sounds like a good way to cut through all the dancing around egos. In retrospect, though, is this effective?
- dbcurtis 7y ago
  Absolutely it is effective. Of course, it presupposes consultative decision making as a cultural norm. The idea of a single person owning any decision cuts a lot of crap, blame-shifting, and responsibility-dodging. The idea that you are expected to gather input from those that have it, and synthesize that into the best decision you can, makes information flow up the organization where it does some good. The “disagree and commit” works both ways. I once had an issue that I felt very strongly about and made a “disagree and commit” phone call to a VP 3 levels above me on an issue I had been intimately involved in. I stated a coherent case. He heard me out with respect. I executed a plan I disagreed with. Life went on. Also, in cases where I was the decision-maker, when things went bad, I knew who to go to when creating Plan B. When you own the decision, you own the recovery plan. —- Edit to add: W.r.t. egos, the cultural norms play a role there, too. At the time I was there, people outside Intel viewed Intel people as arrogant — but inside the company that exact same behavior was not viewed that way at all. Being very direct and expecting clear thinking was just the way we interacted. It was kind of an inside joke that once you had absorbed Intel meeting culture, going to, say, a PTA or church board meeting would drive you nuts and you had to be careful not to seem abrasive when all you were trying to do is surface issues in a clear and cogent way.
  - avinium 7y ago
    That's fascinating, and exactly the type of working environment I'm looking to create. Outside the US, I think we (rightly or wrongly) view American working culture as blunt and direct. From what you've said here, Intel seems like a very good case study to learn from.

avinium 7y ago

This approach is really appealing to me, it sounds like a good way to cut through all the dancing around egos. In retrospect, though, is this effective?

dbcurtis 7y ago
Absolutely it is effective. Of course, it presupposes consultative decision making as a cultural norm. The idea of a single person owning any decision cuts a lot of crap, blame-shifting, and responsibility-dodging. The idea that you are expected to gather input from those that have it, and synthesize that into the best decision you can, makes information flow up the organization where it does some good. The “disagree and commit” works both ways. I once had an issue that I felt very strongly about and made a “disagree and commit” phone call to a VP 3 levels above me on an issue I had been intimately involved in. I stated a coherent case. He heard me out with respect. I executed a plan I disagreed with. Life went on. Also, in cases where I was the decision-maker, when things went bad, I knew who to go to when creating Plan B. When you own the decision, you own the recovery plan. —- Edit to add: W.r.t. egos, the cultural norms play a role there, too. At the time I was there, people outside Intel viewed Intel people as arrogant — but inside the company that exact same behavior was not viewed that way at all. Being very direct and expecting clear thinking was just the way we interacted. It was kind of an inside joke that once you had absorbed Intel meeting culture, going to, say, a PTA or church board meeting would drive you nuts and you had to be careful not to seem abrasive when all you were trying to do is surface issues in a clear and cogent way.
- avinium 7y ago
  That's fascinating, and exactly the type of working environment I'm looking to create. Outside the US, I think we (rightly or wrongly) view American working culture as blunt and direct. From what you've said here, Intel seems like a very good case study to learn from.