Step 6: Get Everything on the Table: 100 Percent Information, Zero Percent Debate

Overview

This same progeny of evils comes From our debate, from our dissension.

—William Shakespeare

If debates are raging in your business or organization, you are wasting time and money. You're also destroying the goodwill needed to make great decisions and realize outstanding results.

Western culture has mistakenly elevated debating to a high art form. We have debate clubs, debating societies, and even debates to help select among political candidates. But debate is a dead end for getting things done.

Staking out positions and squaring off in verbal duels have high costs:

1. Debate polarizes positions. Rather than having everyone search for the best option together, debate forces each side to advocate its own case. This resembles the ancient gladiator battles. The emphasis is on making points and winning rather than on finding the best solution.

   Remember how the operations and maintenance groups at the industrial plant bickered before they began the ten-step process? (See the example in Step #2.) When problems arose, the finger-pointing began. The operators complained that the maintenance department didn't keep the unit in good repair. Maintenance charged that the operators pushed the equipment too far. As the debates ensued, the ego stakes rose. Who was right? Who was wrong? Whose career would advance? Whose would suffer? Meanwhile, problems festered without the benefit of the best thinking that could come about only when both groups worked together.

2. Debate hides rather than discloses important information. Were you ever part of a high school debate team? I remember preparing for my high school debates by filling index cards with the key points supporting my position. I also anticipated opposing points of view and had facts, figures, and expert opinions to rebut them. The game was to make the best case for my position and hope that the other person didn't score on my areas of vulnerability. In fact, I often knew the weaknesses of my position better than my opponent. But it wasn't my role to disclose all of the facts. My role was to win.

   The same is true in many organizations. It's not that people can't see the bigger picture. Rather, it's that the process people use to decide issues doesn't encourage it. Advocates know the dark underside of their positions, but because they fear losing, they don't disclose all that they know, even though it would help find superior solutions.

3. Even the "winners" lose. With the passage of time and some perspective, it's clear that most gladiator-style victories are short-lived. The losers in corporate power struggles or public elections regroup and continue their battles to regain "face." The victories are fragile because they lack commitment to shared success. Meanwhile, organizations and communities suffer from suboptimal decisions or decision gridlock.

Winners and losers do not make good learners.

Debating is a good game but a bad model for sorting out issues with other people. In business, the highest purpose isn't to see who wins but to build the best results together. We need to separate egos from issues in order to get great results.

It's time to recognize debate for the fear-driven dynamic that it is and adopt a better process for resolving tough issues. It's time to say no to debate.