Encouraging Team Support

As Duarte grew, I’d hear feedback that decisions were made too slowly, which confused me. In reality, we didn’t have a system to recognize when the team was asking for a decision. We thought they were just informing us, so decisions would languish. We weren’t ignoring them, failing to act, or even making incorrect decisions... We just didn’t realize a decision needed to be made in the first place. It dawned on the exec team that the lack of clarity during the conversation is what slows teams down. Leaders and teams can share the same language for decision-making. Much of it is about shaping recommendations that actually lead to the right type of action and making the urgency clear. Here’s the shift that changed everything… We started mapping every decision against two factors: urgency and risk. Low risk, low urgency: Decide without me. Your team runs with it. Low risk, high urgency: Inform on progress. They update you, but keep driving. High risk, low urgency: Propose for approval. They bring a recommendation, and you decide together. High risk, high urgency: Escalate immediately. You're in it together, right now. Once my team understood which quadrant a decision lived in, they knew exactly how to approach me. And I knew exactly what my role was. The framework gave us a shared language. People can’t act on ideas if they don’t understand how decisions are made. Leaders should define how recommendations move from idea to approval to action. That transparency keeps progress from stalling. Remember: One of the biggest threats to your company isn't a lack of good ideas. It's a lack of clarity. #Leadership #ExecutiveLeadership #OrganizationalCulture #DecisionMaking

"Conversational Agents as Catalysts for Critical Thinking" Now this is good use of LLMs. A conversational AI acting as a devil’s advocate can improve group decision-making by subtly reshaping social dynamics, challenging dominant opinions and enabling more inclusive perspectives. There is great potential in AI "nudging" more useful human group collaboration, in everything from student work through board discussions. There has been some interesting work and research in the space, but it is limited and there needs be more. This research study (link in comments) showed: 🧠 AI enhances decision quality and process satisfaction. The AI-generated counterarguments led to significant improvements in how participants rated the decision-making process (5.10 to 5.55) and outcomes (5.31 to 5.89) on a 7-point scale. These gains came without significantly increasing cognitive workload, suggesting AI can enrich discussions without overburdening participants. 😊 Juniors felt more heard, seniors stayed satisfied. Junior (minority) members saw the biggest boost: process satisfaction rose by 0.76 and outcome satisfaction by 0.88. Meanwhile, senior (majority) members maintained high satisfaction across both conditions, indicating the AI helped juniors speak up without alienating others. 🙅♂️ AI reduced pressure to conform. The system’s devil’s advocate role legitimized dissent, encouraging minority opinions and mitigating groupthink. Juniors reported feeling “less isolated,” with the AI helping to shift group norms toward more inclusive deliberation. 🛠️ Success depends on timing, tone, and adaptability. The system worked best when its counterarguments were well-timed, empathetic, and contextually aware. Its greatest impact was not in changing decisions, but in enabling more open, balanced, and confident dialogue—especially from those with less power in the room.

Let’s stop romanticizing input. Start professionalizing decisions. Because a team that hears everyone but can’t converge isn’t inclusive but indecisive. I see it all the time: 1. Teams bring bold, diverse perspectives to the table. 2. They brainstorm, debate, expand thinking. 3. But when it's time to choose - silence, hesitation, power grabs, or rushed consensus. The biggest problem I see in companies is that they treat decision-making as a moment, not a discipline. That’s where I focus in my work with leadership teams: Not just on hearing more voices, but on building the muscle of inclusive decision-making as a repeatable process that turns diversity into direction. Here’s how we do it: 1️⃣ Make decision rights explicit.  Who decides? Who contributes? Who needs to know? 2️⃣ Separate idea generation from commitment. Diverge first. Converge second. 3️⃣ Create a decision rhythm. Clear steps, check-ins, and closure points. 4️⃣ Build psychological safety to challenge, not just speak. No point in diverse ideas if no one can question the status quo. Because diverse ideas only create value when a team knows how to decide together. P.S.: Does your team know how to end a conversation with a decision and not just more ideas? —————————— 👋 Hi, I’m Susanna. I help organizations build high-performing, inclusive cultures by turning psychological safety and diversity into business strategy. Let’s work on how your teams & leaders think, feel, and decide - together.

💡 Compromise machine 🚀 A large language model (LLM) can help groups to reach a consensus by producing statements that are clearer and fairer than those written by humans. A chatbot-like AI tool developed by Google DeepMind has shown promise in helping people with opposing views find common ground. In an experiment with online discussion groups, the AI, named the "Habermas Machine" after philosopher Jürgen Habermas, synthesized diverging opinions and produced summaries that participants preferred over those written by human mediators. The AI was designed to foster compromise by incorporating multiple perspectives into a unified statement. In the study, 439 UK residents were grouped into small teams and discussed various public policy issues. Their opinions were fed into the AI, which generated overarching summaries that reflected the entire group's viewpoints. Participants were able to rank and critique the AI's statements, which were then refined into a final version. In a comparison, participants rated the AI's summaries as more representative, fairer, and clearer than those written by human mediators. External reviewers agreed, also giving higher marks to the AI's summaries. The research extended to a larger, demographically representative virtual citizens' assembly. This showed that after interacting with the AI, group agreement on controversial topics improved. The AI-mediated approach was not only time-efficient but also excelled in incorporating dissenting voices, making it more scalable than traditional methods. The experiment focused on four research questions: 1️⃣ Does AI-mediated deliberation help people find common ground? 2️⃣ Does AI-mediated deliberation leave groups less divided? 3️⃣ Does the AI mediator represent all viewpoints equally? 4️⃣ Can AI mediation support deliberation in a citizens’ assembly? While the study highlights the potential for AI to assist in democratic deliberations, it also underscores the importance of ensuring representative participation and fostering good-faith contributions. If properly implemented, tools like the Habermas Machine could significantly enhance collective decision-making across various domains, including policy debates and conflict resolution. By facilitating compromise and promoting inclusive dialogue, the AI offers a promising solution to foster collective action in an increasingly divided world. Do the risks outweigh the benefits? It depends on the context and safeguards in place. The benefits are compelling, especially in terms of efficiency and fairness. However, the risks, particularly around ensuring representative participation and preventing manipulation, are real and significant. I would love to hear your thoughts! #AI #LLMs

Is your team tapping into collective wisdom or falling into groupthink? 🤔 🫶🏼 Groupthink occurs when a group's desire for harmony and agreement causes members to ignore different opinions, avoid critical thinking, and make poor decisions just to keep the peace. ☝🏼Collective wisdom happens when the aggregated opinions, knowledge or predictions of a diverse and independent group of people leads to more accurate decisions. To shift a team from groupthink to collective wisdom, the decision-making process should be structured to encourage open communication, critical thinking, and the value of diverse perspectives. How to facilitate this shift? 📝 Individual pre-work: Ask members to independently analyze the issue and prepare their opinions before group discussions. This can help prevent initial ideas from dominating the conversation. 😈 Use rotating roles ... such as "devil's advocate," "fact-checker," and "process observer" to various members, rotating these roles to ensure balanced participation and a critical examination of the group's decisions. 🧠 Use brainwriting instead of brainstorming So the ideas can get first generated individually, then shared and discussed as a group What methods have you found effective in encouraging independent thinking and open dialogue in group settings?

Most leaders say they want honest feedback. Netflix actually built systems for it. Angela Morgenstern spent years at Netflix during their massive shift to original content, scaling from 20 shows to 1,000+ annually. What she learned about "farming for dissent" (and more) could transform how you approach decision making. The problem: Most organizations accidentally punish honest disagreement. People learn to stay quiet or tell leaders what they want to hear. Netflix built specific mechanisms that made dissent safe and expected: 🔸 Memo-driven culture with transparent commenting: no fancy presentations, just clear rationale with open document-driven discussions. 🔸 Product Strat meetings where farming for dissent was the point: senior forums designed for debate before decisions. 🔸 Informed Captain model: the person closest to the problem gathers different perspectives, then decides. The result? As Angela put it: "If you really hold truthfulness as a North Star...then you really have to work on forums where people feel like they can be direct and honest with the right set of consequences." Three things you can try today: 1️⃣ Switch one weekly presentation to a shared doc. Ask your team to comment with questions and disagreements before you meet. 2️⃣ Explicitly ask for dissent. Before your next decision, say "I need someone to argue the opposite view" -- and be grateful when they do it! 3️⃣ Separate debate from decision-making. Give teams time to gather input, then make it clear when the discussion shifts to decision mode. Netflix's global expansion from Silicon Valley to creating hits in Spain and Korea wasn't just about content strategy. It was about building a culture that could learn, adapt, and scale through honest conversation -- and adapt globally, another story in this week's column! 👉 Read on: https://lnkd.in/ge4Ej8VH What's one forum where your team could benefit from more honest disagreement? #culture #decisionmaking #feedback

Stuck on a Big Team Decision with differing views ? Here’s my take on how to get everyone on the same page... During my career, I have been in so many meetings where the team just can't agree on the next move. It’s tough to move forward , but it doesn’t have to stay that way. Based on my personal expereience, here are 10 simple steps that have helped me to bring people together when opinions are all over the place: 1) Start with real talk. Let everyone speak openly. People need to feel heard before they’ll be open to compromise. 2) Make sure we’re all talking about the same problem. Clarify what the decision is really about — you’d be surprised how often that gets fuzzy. 3) Find common ground. Even if the ideas differ, the goal is usually shared. Starting there works. 4) Bring in the facts. Opinions matter, but data and anecdotes keeps things grounded. 5) Set clear decision rules. Know in advance how you’re going to decide — By vote? Consensus? Leader’s call? I have used all three at different times ! 6) Look at all the options. Go wide before you go deep. Don’t shut down ideas too quickly. I found this the hardest to do. 7) Build some middle ground. You probably won’t please everyone — but you can often find a “good enough” option most can support. 8) Get a fresh pair of eyes. Sometimes an outside voice or expert view helps cut through the fog. 9) Make the call. After all the input, someone’s got to decide. Don’t drag it out forever. As a leader, the buck stops with you. That's Ownership . 10) Circle back later. Check how it went. What worked? What didn’t? It’s all part of your personal learning for next time. I’ve found that some of my best team moments came after tough decision-making sessions — when people felt heard, respected, and aligned again. Would love to hear your experience and insights on how you handle decision gridlock in your team... #Leadership #Teamwork #DecisionMaking #Coaching #management

I created this simple decision-making framework because I kept seeing the same pattern in leadership teams: Decisions getting stuck because no one was clear on what kind of decision they were actually making—or who should own it. Even with tools like DARCI, teams were getting tangled before they even got to roles and accountabilities. They weren’t aligned on the core type of decision at hand. So I started using this three-question decision framework to help leadership teams, boards, and managers clarify decision-making upfront—and it's been a game-changer. When teams skip this clarity, they end up: 📌 Spinning in swirl and misaligned conversations 📌 Overloading executive teams with operational decisions 📌 Leaving staff unclear if they’re supposed to decide—or wait This simple framework helps teams slow down to name the decision type first, then get the right people at the table. I’ve seen this help boards and leadership teams clarify governance, empower managers to lead in their lane, and reduce frustration across levels.

Earlier this year, I facilitated a strategy session where one person’s voice dominated while quiet team members retreated into their shells. Halfway through, I paused, put everyone into small groups, and gave them roles to pick up. Here's how it works: 1️⃣ Assign Roles: Each small group had a Questioner, Connector, and Synthesizer. - Questioner: Probes deeper and asks clarifying, “why?” and “how?” questions. - Connector: Links ideas across people, points out overlaps and sparks “aha” moments. - Synthesizer: Distills discussion into concise insights and next-step recommendations. 2️⃣ Clarify Focus: Groups tackled one critical topic (e.g., “How might we streamline on-boarding?”) for 10 minutes. 3️⃣ Reconvene & Share: Each group’s Synthesizer distilled insights in 60 seconds. The result? Silent participants suddenly spoke up, ideas flowed more freely, and we landed on three actionable priorities in our timebox. Next time you sense a lull in your meeting/session/workshop, try role-based breakouts. #Facilitation #Breakouts #TeamEngagement #ActiveParticipation Sutey Coaching & Consulting --------------------------------------------- ☕ Curious to dive deeper? Let’s connect. https://lnkd.in/gGJjcffw

In 2025, let’s look to 𝐀𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐩 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: 𝐋𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐱 “We cannot avoid or stop behaviors if we do not first recognize they exist.” – Doug Shannon In business, one of the most insidious traps a team can fall into is the 𝐀𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐱, a situation where a group collectively agrees to take an action that no individual member actually supports. Coined by Jerry Harvey, this concept illustrates how fear of standing out or disrupting group harmony can lead to decisions that serve no one’s best interests. This is also why you will see me talking about “Brave Spaces” where leaders should build in a innovation mindset where failure can occur, yet, improve communication and collaboration to pivot and drive towards a sustainable solution. Imagine this in a corporate setting: a team greenlights a new AI initiative, even though each person secretly believes it’s not the right move. Maybe the project feels too rushed, the use case unclear, or the data insufficient, but no one speaks up. 𝐖𝐡𝐲? Because everyone assumes their concerns are unique, and they go along to preserve unity. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭? A costly, ineffective project that stalls innovation and frustrates stakeholders. Here’s how AI-powered solutions can help: 1. Uncover Hidden Consensus AI systems can analyze meeting discussions, employee surveys, or project feedback to identify common concerns or misalignments within a team. These insights empower leaders to address hesitations before decisions are finalized. 2. Foster Data-Driven Decisions Making Generative AI tools can simulate outcomes based on different decision paths, giving teams a clear picture of the potential risks and benefits. This creates a more objective basis for agreement, reducing reliance on the dreaded groupthink. 3. Empower Individual Voices AI-driven collaboration platforms can anonymize input, ensuring everyone has a chance to contribute ideas and express concerns without fear of judgment. This can surface diverse perspectives and prevent silent dissent. Recognizing and Solving the Problem: The 𝐀𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐱 teaches us that silence doesn’t always mean agreement. For organizations embracing AI, the key is to actively use these tools to bring hidden dynamics to light. By doing so, companies can avoid decisions that lead to “less than desirable” outcomes and instead align their teams toward truly impactful goals. 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲: The views within any of my posts, or newsletters are not those of my employer or the employers of any contributing experts. 𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲 👍 this? Feel free to reshare, repost, and join the conversation. Gartner Peer Experiences Theia Institute™ VOCAL Council InsightJam.com PEX Network IgniteGTM