a good story

The best arguments in the world won't change a person's mind. The only thing that can do that is a good story.

Richard Powers

The Overstory. W. W. Norton & Company, 2018, p. 336.

only the leader can make execution happen

An organization can execute only if the leader's heart and soul are immersed in the company. Leading is more than thinking big, or schmoozing with investors and lawmakers, although those are part of the job. The leader has to be engaged personally and deeply in the business. Execution requires a comprehensive understanding of a business, its people, and its environment. The leader is the only person in a position to achieve that understanding. And only the leader can make execution happen, through his or her deep personal involvement in the substance and even the details of execution.

The leader must be in charge of getting things done by running the three core processes - picking other leaders, setting the strategic direction, and conducting operations. These actions are the substance of execution, and leaders cannot delegate them regardless of the size of the organization.

How good would a sports team be if the coach spent all of his time in his office making deals for new players, while delegating actual coaching to an assistant? A coach is effective because he's constantly observing players individually and collectively on the field and in the locker room. That's how he gets to know his players and their capabilities, and how they get firsthand the benefit of his experience, wisdom, and expert feedback.

It's no different for a business leader. Only a leader can ask the tough questions that everyone needs to answer, then manage the process of debating the information and making the right trade-offs. And only the leader who's intimately engaged in the business can know enough to have the comprehensive view and ask the tough incisive questions. 

Only the leader can set the tone of the dialogue in the organization. Dialogue is the core of culture and the basic unit of work. How people talk to each other absolutely determines how well the organization will function. Is the dialogue stilted, politicized, fragmented, and butt-covering? Or is it candid and reality-based, raising the right questions, debating them, and finding realistic solutions? If it's the former - as it is in all too many companies - reality will never come to the surface. If it is to be the latter, the leader has to be on the playing field with his management team, practicing it consistently and forcefully. 

Specifically, the leader has to run the three core processes and has to run them with intensity and rigor. 

Larry Bossidy & Ram Charan 

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done by Larry Bossidy & Ram Charan with Charles Burck. 2002. Crown Business, NY, NY. p. 24, 25

expanded self-awareness

Expanded self-awareness... is one of the most important outcomes of any feedback process. People with little self-awareness are often puzzled by the behavior of others toward them. They might wonder, “Why do people not include me in their casual conversations?” “Why do I end up in heated arguments?” “Why was I not chosen to lead this project? I know more than the person they selected.” When a 360-assessment is carried out as described above, the leader is able to compare their self-ratings to the ratings from others. Having ratings from multiple people (we recommend at least a dozen) provides greater evidence that this is much more than just one person’s opinion. Combined with accountability, this evidence serves as a strong impetus to change.

Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

"What Makes a 360-Degree Review Successful?" Harvard Business Review. December 23, 2020

ontological humility

Fred Kofman wrote a great chapter called Ontological Humility in his book Conscious Business. Here’s an excerpt:

Ontological humility is the acknowledgement that you do not have a special claim on reality or truth and, that others have equally valid perspectives deserving respect and consideration. This attitude is opposed to ontological arrogance, which is the claim that your truth is the only truth.

Even though it may make sense intellectually that people have different perspectives, most people do not naturally act from this understanding, especially in the midst of disagreement or conflict.

When you remember your criticism may be wrong, you’ll offer it more humbly. You will challenge others in a way that invites a reciprocal challenge, and you’ll be more likely to see things from the other person’s point of view.

Kim Scott

"How to give humble feedback," by Kim Scott. Radical Candor. Accessed August 17, 2022

life is not fair

Life is not fair. If you think it is, you are sorely mistaken. What you've got to do in politics is be sure that what you say can be justified by principle, by argument, and to put it across. As I always say, never follow the crowd. Make up your own mind and get the crowd to follow you. 

Margaret Thatcher

The Loudest Duck: Moving Beyond Diversity While Embracing Differences to Achieve Success at Work by Laura A. Liswood. Wiley. 2010. p.125

having better arguments

THE BETTER ARGUMENTS PROJECT—a civic initiative founded by Allstate, The Aspen Institute, Facing History and Ourselves, and the Bezos Family Foundation to help bridge divides—was built on the belief that arguments are fundamental to healthy civic life. To effectively address divisions in our society, it proposes we have better arguments, not fewer.

The project characterizes better arguments as emotionally intelligent, rooted in history, and honest about power imbalances. Using five principles for engagement—taking winning off the table, prioritizing relationships, paying attention to context, embracing vulnerability, and making room to transform—the project provides a framework for people to engage with each other on divisive issues.

"How Do We Build a Better Society? Have Better Arguments" The Atlantic (sponsored by Allstate)

See also: https://betterarguments.org/

great simplifiers

Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate, and doubt to offer a solution everybody can understand.


Colin Powell
"50 Inspiring Quotes on Leadership for Everyone" Time. July 1, 2015

the necessity of compromise

I've known and admired men and women in the Senate who played much more than a small role in our history, true statesmen, giants of American politics. They came from both parties, and from various backgrounds. Their ambitions were frequently in conflict. They held different views on the issues of the day. And they often had very serious disagreements about how best to serve the national interest.

But they knew that however sharp and heartfelt their disputes, however keen their ambitions, they had an obligation to work collaboratively to ensure the Senate discharged its constitutional responsibilities effectively. Our responsibilities are important, vitally important, to the continued success of our Republic. And our arcane rules and customs are deliberately intended to require broad cooperation to function well at all. The most revered members of this institution accepted the necessity of compromise in order to make incremental progress on solving America's problems and to defend her from her adversaries.

That principled mindset, and the service of our predecessors who possessed it, come to mind when I hear the Senate referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body. I'm not sure we can claim that distinction with a straight face today.

John McCain

"Sen. McCain Calls For Compromise In Return To Senate Floor" NPR 7/25/2017

unleash ideas

Global team leaders who unleash idea... are those who: 1)ask questions, and listen carefully; 2) facilitate constructive argument; 3) give actionable feedback; 4) take advice from the team and act on it; 5) share credit for team success; and 6) maintain regular contact with team members. Members of global teams whose leaders exhibit at least three of these behaviors are more likely than global team members whose leaders exhibit none of these behaviors to say they feel free to express their views and opinions (89% vs 19%) and that their ideas are heard and recognized (76% vs 20%).

Sylvia Ann Hewlett

"Creating a Culture Where Employees Speak Up" Harvard Business Review. 1/8/2016

the talk goes back and forth

It is surprising how often we simply react to what someone else has said or done. Two people will often fall into a pattern of discourse that resembles a negotiation but really has no such purpose whatsoever. They disagree with each other over some issue, and the talk goes back and forth as though they were seeking agreement. In fact, the argument is being carried on as a ritual, or simply a pastime. Each is engaged in scoring points against the other or in gathering evidence to confirm views about the other that have long been held and are not about to change. Neither party is seeking agreement or is even trying to influence the other.

Roger Fisher, William L. Ury & Bruce Patton 

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (The Harvard Negotiation Project). Penguin. 2011. P.54