4 ms·

This is a very reasonable default way of operating, and the effort that goes into helping those you're leading understand and build agreement with the path we'r

This is a very reasonable default way of operating, and the effort that goes into helping those you're leading understand and build agreement with the path we're taking together is IMO one of the key traits of a good leader - but anyone who has been in a leadership role for a long time will probably have had an interaction with a colleague where someone they're leading either lacks so much of the bigger picture that the nuances can't possibly all be explained in sufficient detail right now, or for situations involving personnel perhaps aren't allowed to be explained, and the answer in those situations will sometimes be "I need you to trust me even though you don't feel like you fully understand or fully agree". Hopefully those situations are extremely few and far between. But some of the hardest conversations any leader will have, especially when the default _is_ to keep discussing until everything is mutually transparent and understood, are going to be on this theme. I've had some colleagues handle that handle that situation well, and others for whom it has been a real challenge and sets the relationship back.

JohnBooty 3y ago
That's very well said. Thank you. I agree so much. But some of the hardest conversations any leader will have, especially when the default _is_ to keep discussing until everything is mutually transparent and understood, are going to be on this theme. Yeah. And ultimately, it's just a maturity and practicality issue, quite honestly. It is not practical for 100% of team members to be in 100% agreement 100% of the time. And even the most egalitarian manager can't necessarily explain 100% of the reasoning behind 100% of decisions to 100% of the team members 100% of the time. And hopefully each individual team member will realize they are not correct 100% of the time either. Even if those are the ideals to which we aspire. There are times when we should dig in and defend our decisions to the death (hopefully, figuratively speaking!) but these battles should be chosen and fought carefully and not reflexively. I think most people generally understand this, most of the time. Spectrum or otherwise. Which is why I find the linked article so misguided and even insulting. The notion that those on the spectrum are hardwired to be incompatible with authority and everybody else just needs to accept this is just so wrong.

JohnBooty 3y ago

That's very well said. Thank you. I agree so much. But some of the hardest conversations any leader will have, especially when the default _is_ to keep discussing until everything is mutually transparent and understood, are going to be on this theme. Yeah. And ultimately, it's just a maturity and practicality issue, quite honestly. It is not practical for 100% of team members to be in 100% agreement 100% of the time. And even the most egalitarian manager can't necessarily explain 100% of the reasoning behind 100% of decisions to 100% of the team members 100% of the time. And hopefully each individual team member will realize they are not correct 100% of the time either. Even if those are the ideals to which we aspire. There are times when we should dig in and defend our decisions to the death (hopefully, figuratively speaking!) but these battles should be chosen and fought carefully and not reflexively. I think most people generally understand this, most of the time. Spectrum or otherwise. Which is why I find the linked article so misguided and even insulting. The notion that those on the spectrum are hardwired to be incompatible with authority and everybody else just needs to accept this is just so wrong.