Sometimes a good idea for the highest-ranking member of the group to speak last. If you're in a group discussion and the CEO expresses an opinion early on, everyone tends to align with them and the conversation dies pretty quickly.
I've experienced both and felt frustrated with both, so it's definitely not as easy as it sounds.
On one hand, the CEO talking last makes a lot of sense. You don't want people immediately aligning.
On the other hand, people know the CEO will talk last. This also has an effect, as lots of people won't commit to an idea. They'll express a vague and vanilla opinion just so we can get to the CEO's opinion and not alienate themselves.
Takes a strong group of people to tackle a problem together, share opposing perspectives, and come out stronger than they got in.
You mention a couple of interesting points. The first is the role of authority. A CEO or any other person in the room with high formal or informal authority is likely to have strong influence on the discussion. One pattern I encourage to use for them is to ask curios nonjudgemental questions. Again, this might be easier if there is a visual artifact to discuss. The question moves from "YOU have to explain yourself" to "Can anybody explain THIS DETAIL to me more". Of course a lack of psychological safety can taint any interaction with leadership. But not putting people into the spotlight might help. A big problem for leadership often is to not know the full context and details. Going with them through a (high-level) model helps them to understand if other people have a clear enough picture, or if leadership might bring another aspect or can point out a missing area, which is important. Generally that needs a movement from a presentation to a collaboration mode, which I know is for many organizations quite unusual.
Another point is the heavy leaning on opinion. Pretty quickly we tend to speak our mind, which is often just an opinion. Multiple visual artifacts can formalize these opinions and can be discussed or even better validated. As you describe often we end up with an A vs. B and want to converge on the spot. Showing that there are different views, which might be right or wrong can be a first step to start to validate them, without leaning completely on gut feeling.
Christoph, I'm a fan of your writing and have read all your previous newsletter posts. Unfortunately, the AI-generated image at the start of this article was an instant energy drainer and couldn't continue reading it fully
Thanks Bülent for this honest feedback. I'm of course experimenting around with my articles, so this is valuable feedback. Would you prefer no visuals for such an article or would you love to have different visual support?
Sometimes a good idea for the highest-ranking member of the group to speak last. If you're in a group discussion and the CEO expresses an opinion early on, everyone tends to align with them and the conversation dies pretty quickly.
I've experienced both and felt frustrated with both, so it's definitely not as easy as it sounds.
On one hand, the CEO talking last makes a lot of sense. You don't want people immediately aligning.
On the other hand, people know the CEO will talk last. This also has an effect, as lots of people won't commit to an idea. They'll express a vague and vanilla opinion just so we can get to the CEO's opinion and not alienate themselves.
Takes a strong group of people to tackle a problem together, share opposing perspectives, and come out stronger than they got in.
You mention a couple of interesting points. The first is the role of authority. A CEO or any other person in the room with high formal or informal authority is likely to have strong influence on the discussion. One pattern I encourage to use for them is to ask curios nonjudgemental questions. Again, this might be easier if there is a visual artifact to discuss. The question moves from "YOU have to explain yourself" to "Can anybody explain THIS DETAIL to me more". Of course a lack of psychological safety can taint any interaction with leadership. But not putting people into the spotlight might help. A big problem for leadership often is to not know the full context and details. Going with them through a (high-level) model helps them to understand if other people have a clear enough picture, or if leadership might bring another aspect or can point out a missing area, which is important. Generally that needs a movement from a presentation to a collaboration mode, which I know is for many organizations quite unusual.
Another point is the heavy leaning on opinion. Pretty quickly we tend to speak our mind, which is often just an opinion. Multiple visual artifacts can formalize these opinions and can be discussed or even better validated. As you describe often we end up with an A vs. B and want to converge on the spot. Showing that there are different views, which might be right or wrong can be a first step to start to validate them, without leaning completely on gut feeling.
Christoph, I'm a fan of your writing and have read all your previous newsletter posts. Unfortunately, the AI-generated image at the start of this article was an instant energy drainer and couldn't continue reading it fully
Thanks Bülent for this honest feedback. I'm of course experimenting around with my articles, so this is valuable feedback. Would you prefer no visuals for such an article or would you love to have different visual support?
Hi Christoph, yes, the visual support with those lovely & simple Miro-like yellow post-its that can communicate so much through their simplicity
Interesting, it immediately stood out for me too. But I don't hate it.