Ged: [00:00:00] Welcome back to Card Cast where Milan and I pick a topic at random from a deck of cards just like this. Let’s shuffle the pack and see what pops out today.
Milan: Okay.. Big debate versus big decisions. I think that the term came from, I wanna say Kim Scott, but I’m actually not perfectly, I’m actually not perfectly sure. The whole idea behind this one is, is a diamond cart, right? So it’s about value, about using your time effectively.. And in this particular case, like how many times do we hear that, okay, we had this meeting and the only outcome of that meeting is agreement that we will have another meeting?
Ged: Which is, which can be [00:01:00] annoying. It could be frustrating ’cause. We wanna wanna get to a decision, don’t we?
Milan: Well, not necessarily,
Ged: Mm-hmm.
Milan: That there’s the, there’s the important piece that not every meeting, not every interaction has the objective of. Reaching a decision because we might not be ready for that. The purpose might be to explore options so we can sleep on it and then arrive at the decision later.
Right. When we were talking about the, you know, when we had the, the two cart episode, if you remember, that ended up being on haste and hesitation when we were talking about the right timing of decisions. This is a part of it, right? Like, hey. We know decision needs to be made. We also know we don’t need to make it yet. However, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do anything in the meantime. And one of the things we can do is we can debate, right? That’s where the big debate comes, which is let’s bring all the information we have, [00:02:00] let’s have a discussion on what we still don’t know and what we need to discover. But we are, that is the purpose of us getting together and working, for example, because it might not be that, Hey, we have to decide A, B, C. On the other hand, when we do, you know, when the time comes it’s really good to have an objective and say, Hey, no matter what, you’re coming out with a decision, right? Because now is the time to have it the debate has been had, everything was done, all the information was already brought forward.
There is nothing new entering the picture. All we have to do today to decide. So it’s all about setting the objective of why are we getting together in the first place? In the first place?
Ged: Yeah. Yeah. This is a, this is a new one to me. I’m not familiar with this model and you know, you know me, I’m a model guy, so I’m intrigued by a new model that I haven’t come across. So, in effect, you’re saying that. You need to make it clear upfront, you know, are we debating or are we deciding? And then you [00:03:00] keep those two apart.
’cause I mean that’s, that’s, that’s not something I’ve practiced before. I mean, for me when I’m, when I’m working with a leadership team, I want to be very, very clear on what the outcome is. And it is normally a decision. And what you are saying is, well, you actually, you’ve gotta separate the two, you’ve gotta have the debate.
Then take a break and then make the decision afterwards, you know? And, and are you actually advocating for separate meetings for the debate and the decision? It sounds like you are.
Milan: I think that, you know, it’s a different mindset.
Ged: Mm-hmm.
Milan: It’s a different way of thinking about it. So the, the, what intrigued me about this was really because if you say, Hey, we’re not deciding, we’re just debating. That gives you freedom, you freedom to explore because you’re not committing to anything where you’re saying, Hey, you know. We’re saying that because we’re exploring it, you can play devil’s advocate if that’s what, what needs to happen, right? You can look for the gaps. You can look for you know, additional information. You can [00:04:00] say, you know what, we actually don’t know enough about this and we have time. Let’s go explore and then come back. So you are with removing the pressure of making a decision. The purpose of that is making sure that when the time comes, the decision is as good as it can be. So I, I found it very, very intriguing. I used it a couple of times and really calling people, Hey, are we deciding today? Or are we just, you know. And, you know, the just almost looks like it’s a diminishing or demeaning, but it isn’t, right? It is a really, really important homework. You can say, okay, are we preparing for the decision? Are we setting ourselves right for the decision? Is that what we are doing? Or is it like we kinda need to know at the end of the day or at the end of the
Ged: Hmm.
Milan: What are we doing here, right? What, what needs to happen? What is the action that needs to be driven?
Ged: So you, you can bring a different frame of mind to those two different scenarios, can’t you? So, you know, when you’re debating, it’s like, okay, let’s explore the [00:05:00] options. Let’s look at what the possibilities are and, and debate those, you know, the positives and the negatives, the pros, the cons so that we, we work it through, you know, we, we, we work, we explore all the possible options and ideas and opportunities. And that takes the pressure away, you know, maybe the pressure of time to actually make a decision. Now, now, when you separate these two out, are you, are you thinking, okay, let’s go and have a coffee and come back? Or are you saying no, you’ve gotta give it a day or a few days before you come back to make the actual decision?
How, what’s the, what’s the continuum of the break?
Milan: Depends, right? You could, you could do it and say, we actually need to make a decision at the end of the day, but this is not a time, let’s first, you know, have the debate part without trying to do the decision. You know, the, the other, the other concept that enters this the of advocacy versus inquiry. Is, are you fighting for a particular [00:06:00] outcome or are you figuring out what you actually want to fight for eventually? Right. So I think that the, the. Intentionality of how you are going to use your brain that setting for that particular outcome is important because again, our brains are a complicated things, right, and they. They like to work in a particular way at a particular time, right? You can be creative or you can be defensive, or you can fight, or you can fight. You generally cannot do more of those things at the same time. So I think that the whole idea of, okay, let’s, let’s get in a particular mode. Like we, we talked about this.
That’s why we do good news in the beginning of the meeting to put the mind into the right place. ’cause we’re, we’re using our consciousness, we’re using our brain as a tool and. As such, you know what? Setting it up for the best possible [00:07:00] outcome and the best possible condition for the job at hand can be really powerful. And for that, first we need to decide what is the job at hand and as specific about it as possible and say, Hey, you know, we’re just exploring. Just think about how brainstorming works. You really don’t, when you’re doing brainstorming, you’re throwing ideas on the
Ged: Yeah, no decisions. Yeah.
Milan: It’s exactly the same principle.
You’re just
Ged: Yeah.
Milan: Goes. Even if you think it’s stupid, even if you know it’s stupid, you still put it there because that’s how your brain might be operating. They’ll filter later. We’ll cluster later and we’ll figure it out later in a different way. Everything goes, and this is the same thing.
If you specify, okay, this is the purpose. This is why we’re getting together, this is the mindset in which we want to be. In order to achieve the best outcome, then you have the freedom to actually do that without all those limitations and thinking about [00:08:00] the consequences of the decision because you’re not making the decision yet.
Ged: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So if we were to summarize those two different sort of, you know, frames of mind, you know, the, the debate is about bringing everything together or look at, you know, bringing out all the. Pros and the cons, the advantages, the disadvantages, and in developing that line of thought or that line of exploration amongst all the people in the meeting. And in contrast, the big decision part of it after the gap is about bringing those together so that the, the people in the room can make a shared decision on the best way forward. Is, is, is that about right?
Milan: So you know, the, to put it very, very simple, when we are do, when we are having debate, we are exploring or developing options,
Ged: Mm-hmm.
Milan: When we are in the decision mode, we’re committing to a path. Through making a choice, Two very different states of mind, two very different [00:09:00] approaches. So separating them in time, even if it’s by five minutes,
Ged: Yep.
Milan: Right? Could be very, very beneficial. I. For the quality of that final outcome, which is the decision, which is the choice being made and which is also for the you know, I will tell you for the cohesion of it, because the debate can be the part when we have the healthy conflict, you know, where we are figuring out all of those things.
But when we are decisioning this, you know, disagree but committed, this is what we’re doing, this is where we’re, this is where we are going, everybody has been hurt. And, and sometimes it’s more important to be heard than to be to win.
Ged: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah.
Milan: I said what
Ged: Hmm.
Milan: To say, I’m not being ignored.
Yes. The team made the the decision that now I am free to commit to you because I was hurt. It’s not like, you know, if I, if only I was able to say this, [00:10:00] maybe the decision would’ve been different. You know, we want to remove that and. Having the debate part gives you the freedom.
Ged: So that notion of disagree and and commit.
Milan: Yeah.
Ged: Yeah. Yeah. So, so the reason you can’t have. The two in the same meeting is that you’re either gonna be suppressing debate because you feel pressured to make a decision now, or you’re not gonna be in the right frame of mind to make the right decision if it’s done too close to the debate.
Hmm.
Milan: If it’s mixed together, you know, I think that too close is a different piece. But the, the thing is that, so we are deciding this, no, no, no. But we should really take this into consideration. Okay. Let’s go back like, you know, think about the altitude change in those conversations. And you know, you said you’re not familiar with the framework, but I’m sure you’re familiar with the experience when it goes badly, right? When you have the team. When you have the team constantly switching between the two, it’s like, okay, no, we decided no, no, [00:11:00] we shouldn’t have decided because we didn’t take this into consideration. Oh, you are right. So maybe we should go that way. Right? And then you are using that energy to constantly like, okay, so are we making a choice and commitment and think about the consequences or what is actually happening here. So if we can be clear about it upfront. This is what we’re doing today. This is what the outcome, like,
Ged: This, this is,
Milan: Doing, when we are doing our plannings, right? What do you start with? One question, one objective,
Ged: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Milan: Are we here today? What is the outcome? What is it that we’re trying to do?
It’s, it’s a similar thing. It’s literally just setting up expectations for what’s going to, what’s going to come out today. So we can check against it and say, did we achieve that? Or is there anything left to do?
Ged: This is actually making a lot of sense ’cause I’ve felt in some of my sessions I’ve maybe pushed too fast for a decision and kept that decision. Made that [00:12:00] decision too close to the debate. So maybe I’ve sort of, you know, pushed them to end the debate a little bit early and then not taken a pause between there and the decision.
I mean, my line of questioning is often, you know, once they’ve had the debate, I say, okay, who’s question, sorry, who’s decision is this? Who’s accountable to make the decision? And I often felt that, that maybe they’re not quite ready to make that decision at that point. Maybe we should have taken a break.
Maybe we should have taken a break.
Milan: Then, you know, the, the debate can be lively. We can be screaming at each other and that’s good. Right. That’s awesome. Maybe, and it depends on the cultural mix in the room, but,
Ged: Yep. Mm-hmm.
Milan: You have people who just love that part of the conflict, but you don’t want that conflict as a part of the decision. It can be part of the debate because it’s harmless at that point, but, you know, and different personalities can show up. But you know, this also allows you to make a decision in a, in a calm and organized manner because, okay, we’ve finished our debate. Now. Let’s take a methodical [00:13:00] break. So everybody chilled, fuck down a little bit.
Right now, the time is going to be to make a decision. Everything’s on the table. So let’s do it. You know, if you go to to decisive the book, right? Because the, there can be a step in between ’cause you have the debate or you have the, you have the exploration, you have the inquiry part, and then what you do. Is to decide how to decide, right? What is the method of the decision? You just said that. Who’s accountable to making this decision? Is it all of us? Is it the ceo? Is it this person? Like. Is it, is it a subset? And you know, we just delegated the decision. Oh, Shannon would kill me for that word, but you know what I mean? You know, do we, do we entrust, you know subset of the team with making the decision because it’s their ownership, you know, and all of those things. And, and we want, we want that. And then maybe we actually don’t need to be all [00:14:00] in in the room or whatever that is. Or we say, you know what? The debate was reliable.
We have a whole bunch of things. We need to put it on the, on the board and do the pros and cons of the two options, and we need little more time because, you know, one of the things are real love if, if you have two options, you don’t have options, right? If you have two options, you do not make a decision. You create a third option first. Right. You look for others, right? Yes or no questions are, are very, very limiting. So you want to give yourself the space and the freedom to take that a bit further.
Ged: Yeah, you, you referenced a book there. I didn’t quite catch the name. Is that the book on decision making decisions?
Milan: Yes. Yes. The, the book is called Decisive..
Ged: Decisive. Okay.
Milan: It’s, it’s from a chip and then you know, you remember, the power of movements,
Ged: Yep. Mm-hmm. Okay. Okay. Okay. Interesting. And [00:15:00] you, you, you made a point about, you know, Shannon not liking you. Use the term delegate and look and that, I think the issue she has is not delegation per se, but making, making it clear that you are delegating to people who want to take ownership, but that’s a separate cut.
Milan: Well, we, we did have the conversation. It was delegation versus abdication. Right?
Ged: Yeah. Mm-hmm.
Milan: That when she’s talking about, and rightfully hates the term, she’s looking at it from the abdication point of view, which,
Ged: Yep.
Milan: Know, I am of the school that you can delegate. Well,
Ged: Yeah. Mm-hmm. You just need to, you just need to build a team that wants to take things off your plate.
Milan: Oh yeah.
Ged: Yep.
Milan: Would give you an a plus for that one.
Ged: Yeah.
Milan: The
Ged: The key thing here is, yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So, so the key thing here is, you know, being very conscious and very, very clear about what we are doing in the meeting. Are we debating or are we deciding? So you actually announce that at the beginning of the meeting. This [00:16:00] meeting is about debating, this meeting is about making a decision.
Having already had the debate that you are that specific about it? Yeah. Okay.
Milan: Absolutely. When you know, when it comes to big decisions, like, you know, let, let’s also be honest, it, it is all context dependent,
Ged: Mm-hmm.
Milan: Like. You know, decision, what we’re going to have for lunch is probably at a different level than a you know, strategic direction of the company or a major hire or anything like that, right? So you give it the energy it requires within the timeframe that is given to you by circumstances, right? Or by, by outside forces. But that’s it. And you are being very, very. Like, Hey, are we deciding? Are we ready to make the decision? Like those are all valid questions. Yeah. I think we are ready.
No, I don’t think we are ready because we are missing this part, right? You learn so much about the dynamics of the team as well. If you start [00:17:00] just naming things like that, right? Rather than assuming, oh, we should be ready to make a decision now, so let’s make it you see the drop drop, right?
Ged: Yep. No, I, I, I like this model and I think I can certainly use it. I think I, there are, there are many situations where you’d wanna separate those two things out, those big debates and those big decisions.
Yeah. You were really, really fluid there. You were really, really, now that, yeah. You, you were in the zone there. That was great. That was great. Mm-hmm.
Milan: No, this is I love this stuff, right, because it’s really once, once you start talking about the borderline between, you know, leadership and psychology, it’s like, honestly,
Ged: Yeah. Yeah. That’s your, that’s your happy space. Yeah. Mm-hmm.
Milan: That’s my hap that’s my happy place. Yeah.
Ged: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Should we jump straight to was it
Milan: We need to do the post intro.
Ged: [00:18:00] Indeed we do. Yeah. Yep. So do you want me to lead this one in?
Milan: Sure. Yeah. What? Because, hey, you said you’ll learn something new, so sell it.
Ged: Okay.
Milan: Have a
Ged: Mm.
Milan: Then off you go.
Ged: Mm-hmm.
So Milan and I have just finished recording a new episode, big Debate versus Big Decisions. Now, this is a new one to me, and this is the notion of separating debate from the decision making process. So being very upfront at the beginning of a meeting. This meeting is about debating or. This meeting is about making a decision, having had the debate.
So Milan, anything you want to throw in on there on top?
Milan: Yeah, I think so. I think that that really, the understanding of. What we are having a conversation about and with, with what a desired outcome and really can’t think about it is there are like two dimensions, right? Is the debate and [00:19:00] decision, and there is the inquiry and advocacy, right? Which is more about how you show up to that conversation and I’m trying to learn something new.
I’m trying to push for a particular outcome which. Neither of them is wrong, as long as it’s time properly. So we touched on all that. We mentioned a couple of books that people might be interested in and yeah, we both learned something new, which is fantastic. Excellent.
