3 ms·
> I would slightly adjust the reasoning. It is not to reduce ambiguity. It is to drive progress despite ambiguity. Is why the "consensus" principal is the most
by chipdart 2y ago
> I would slightly adjust the reasoning. It is not to reduce ambiguity. It is to drive progress despite ambiguity. Is why the "consensus" principal is the most frustrating for many people.
Not true. The whole leadership principles thing is designed to not require or expect any form of consensus. What you are expected to do is act, and be accountable for your own actions. The whole "disagree and commit" leadership principle is specially relevant to manage push back. Everyone is expected to do what's best, but regardless of whether there's consensus pushing one way or the other, once a call is made you're expected to fall in line and work towards a goal.
It the call was the right one or not, that's something to discuss during performance evaluation talks, because leaders are right, a lot. If you're not right a lot, or where it mattered, you might very well be promoted to customer.
- taeric 2y agoRight, I shouldn't have used the word "consensus." I certainly saw this more than makes sense while there, though. Some teams do not make progress as long as there are critical elements out there. I would not say you are expected to "fall in line," though. I would reword that that you are expected to do your part as well as you can. If the line is to fall, the reason for it falling should be neither a complete surprise, nor a result of you not working hard. Stated differently, don't keep concerns hidden, but also don't let your concerns prevent you from working hard.