6 | Not Everyone is Invited into Strategic Conflict

Read the lesson.

Welcome back.

Today what we’re going to emphasize is WHO gets to be at the strategic conflict table.

Let’s start with the purpose of strategic conflict.

It’s purpose is to make the best decisions possible by getting everyone’s input, data, thoughts, perspective, information on the table, so that the decision make is set up to make the best, most informed decision.

Now, let me be clear. The decision maker’s job is not to make everyone happy. I remember a recent conversation I had with a CEO and i started counting how many times she said “they weren’t thrilled” because of how often she said it.

Courage is required in leadership.

Because 100% of decisions will involve others who are not happy with that decision.

Notice the percentage: 100%.

Meaning - every decision you make as a leader will involve people “not being thrilled” with that decision.

So - this brings us to the topic of today: who gets invited to the strategic conflict table.

There are three characteristics I lean on to decide who gets to join me in strategic conflict:

1. People who are NO people.

2. People who wake up thinking about the mission.

3. People I trust.

Let’s start with the first descriptor: People who are NO people.

In other words, YES people should NOT be invited.

They do not help elevate decisions.

Yes people simply build up the ego of the decision makers which creates an unhealthy level of decision making.

The people at the strategic conflict table are their to provide information and data relevant to the decision or problem at hand. They are there to yes bring their thoughts, perspective. Yes sometimes thoughts, perspectives, data, input will align with the decision maker’s thoughts, perspectives. However, that’s not the goal.

Which brings me to my second point of who should get invited to the table: thinkers, not just doers. Sometimes I’ve seen leadership tables designed with task masters. I know they’re more of the doers of the company because they sit quiet, waiting to see what the decision is and then to be told what to go and do. In other words, they are not showing up to contribute thought to the decisions. They are not bringing in expertise. Yes, they feel like they’re part of the leadership team, but if they’re not contributing to the back and forth of the decision, pushing back, speaking up, asking for clarity, listening, then they are not carrying any ownership.

When I’m designing leadership tables for strategic conflict, I want the people at that table to be the kind of people that wake up thinking about the same problems I’m thinking about.

If I am giving authority to people who wake up not thinking about the problems I’m thinking about - that’s on me.

And let me be clear - the people who don’t wake up thinking about my problems as a leader, aren’t any less than. They just don’t get the right to speak into decisions that I wake up owning the consequences of.

I want people who want to be in the trenches with me.

That’s the essence of comrades.

The size of your strategic conflict table should match the number of people who care about the mission and who you trust in their thinking.

Which brings me to my third and final point: Trust.

I’ve seen way too many leaders lead “Leadership meetings” with people they ask for input and never actually listen to. It’s like the leader wants to feel the essence of camaraderie without embracing the courage or level of humble respect to truly listen to others.

I remember I called a founder I was working with after a meeting. In the earlier meeting, he presented a shift he was thinking about and opened it up for input. Others, people I had come to know as truly bought into the mission, leaned in, gave input. And the founder responded with defensiveness, justification and more of him talking.

We’ve discussed already that the decision maker should listen, ask questions and get as much data and information out of the table as possible.

And then go make a call.

This founder did the opposite. For anyone who pushed back, he spoke over, he cut off and then went on a riff for ten minutes. His desire was to be understood rather than understand. The root of all this was the lack of courage to trust others with the vision and mission. To trust others enough to truly listen, stay curious, seek to understand and possibly see a perspective they see that you haven’t even thought of yet.

So to wrap up, not everyone gets invited to the strategic conflict table.

If you have yes people at the table, you need to either set the expectation for them to come in with original thought or they won’t get to keep their seat.

If you have people who are not all in on the mission and just sit quiet, you need to either set the expectation for them to speak up or they won’t let to keep their seat.

If you have people you don’t trust their input, you need to either have 1-1 conversations where you can clear the air and build trust, or you shouldn’t invite them to the table.

This may be harsh, but the quality of decisions made is based on the degree of information that gets brought to the table.

Every seat at the strategic conflict table is an earned seat.

What a gift. What an opportunity.

On that note, that’s all for today!

I’ll see you soon.

(audio coming soon)