Skip to Main Content

Podcast

Podcast Ep 58 | How to Leverage Collective Intelligence in Your Weekly Meetings

May 17, 2021

Col­lec­tive intel­li­gence is one of the most valu­able items on your week­ly meet­ing agenda.

Lever­ag­ing the col­lec­tive intel­li­gence of your team presents deci­sion-mak­ers with the oppor­tu­ni­ty to learn about impor­tant busi­ness data and facts, debate the mer­its of ideas and, most impor­tant­ly, make deci­sions to help the busi­ness thrive.

This week we’ll dis­cuss sev­en impor­tant aspects of col­lec­tive intel­li­gence and how to make it work well in your company.

EPISODE TRAN­SCRIPT

Please note that this episode was tran­scribed using an AI appli­ca­tion and may not be 100% gram­mat­i­cal­ly cor­rect – but it will still allow you to scan the episode for key content.

Brad Giles 07:09

This is such a great one. col­lec­tive intel­li­gence, the key to the week­ly meet­ing. So there’s a pre­scrip­tive gen­der for the week­ly meet­ing that most of us have read, and it con­tains this item called col­lec­tive intel­li­gence. And many of us have asked, What is col­lec­tive intel­li­gence? And why is it impor­tant? And so if you’ve got a one hour one, for exam­ple, hypo­thet­i­cal­ly, a one hour week­ly meet­ing, and you’re ded­i­cat­ing about 30 min­utes to this thing called col­lec­tive intel­li­gence? What is it? Why is it How does it work? So yeah, today we’re talk­ing about col­lec­tive intel­li­gence. And this is the key to the week­ly meet­ing. There are, we’ve spo­ken before about the week­ly meet­ing. And there are many impor­tant bits to it, look­ing at the num­bers, look­ing at the employ­ee and the cus­tomer data, a lot of those kinds of things. But then this is called col­lec­tive intel­li­gence. So we’re going to dig into what is it? Why does it mat­ter? a real­ly inter­est­ing chat about this time when you’ve got all of the brains in the room. And that’s real­ly to begin what we’ve got to start with, what is the def­i­n­i­tion of the word?

Kevin Lawrence 08:30

Yeah, and and let’s just start with most peo­ple nev­er get to col­lec­tive intel­li­gence, they get to col­lec­tive bore­dom. Yeah, ie, week­ly meet­ings are hav­ing this, imag­ine this bril­liant strat­e­gy. Let’s get the smartest peo­ple in the com­pa­ny. We’ll put them togeth­er in a room for 90 min­utes a week. And we’ll bore the hell out of them will make them sit and lis­ten to each oth­er ram­ble on with updates, and give 10 minute expla­na­tions for some­thing that could be cov­ered in 30 sec­onds. So that’s what we’re going to do. kind of sounds like lis­ten­ing to a pro­fes­sor, you know, some­times do lec­tures, but worse. So so that’s but in most meet­ings don’t ever get here. And this is the mag­ic oppor­tu­ni­ty. We don’t need your end­less Pow­er­Points. We don’t need the end­less feel graphs and charts. We do need some of that stuff. Yeah, way too much time is gone to col­lec­tive updates, which is a much nicer way than say­ing bore­dom than col­lec­tive intel­li­gence. So the key thing is, it’s a mas­sive missed oppor­tu­ni­ty. That gets bet­ter ideas, faster deci­sions, Alliance, peo­ple’s think­ing aligns teams, and it sounds like a build­ing up to be a lot. Because it is

Brad Giles 09:50

because it is because it is week­ly meet­ing is kind of when you pulse the busi­ness. You get all of the deci­sion. mica is all of the the bright peo­ple in the busi­ness in the lead­er­ship team nom­i­nal­ly this is you know, best prac­tice and apply­ing best prac­tice best into your sit­u­a­tion as you see fit. That’s the dis­claimer. But get all the bright peo­ple in the lead­er­ship team togeth­er, we go through the impor­tant key things in five minute punch­es like, okay, let’s give us the update is that red or green? What’s hap­pen­ing here? What’s hap­pen­ing there? So we’ve got that over about 20 or 25 min­utes. And then we move into this 30 minute col­lec­tive intel­li­gence where we’ve got, we’ve got through all of that stuff. We’re avoid­ing ram­bling, I love that word ram­bling, because I feel it so often in lead­er­ship team meet­ings, and it’s just like, time­out, that 10 min­utes sum­ma­ry, can you do it in 30 sec­onds? Because that’s what mat­ters. So but but but they have 10 min­utes. So they want to

Kevin Lawrence 10:54

use their time. Like they want their time. And it’s like, they don’t know that that time is low val­ue com­pared to a high­er val­ue thing lat­er. Yeah. Because they don’t have the dis­ci­pline to carve out the time for this.

Brad Giles 11:07

Yes. Carve out. So we’re allo­cat­ing 30 min­utes. And it’s the more

Kevin Lawrence 11:13

or more or more,

Brad Giles 11:15

okay, that’s a fair point, nom­i­nal­ly 30 or more. So if this means that we are assem­bling the lead­er­ship team, the col­lec­tive intel­li­gence of the busi­ness alto­geth­er, then the ques­tion is, well, how do we get the best return on invest­ment for that time? Well, we’ve got to pose the most impor­tant chal­lenges or prob­lems or ques­tions to those peo­ple in a high­ly struc­tured man­ner, so that we can resolve, rec­ti­fy, solve, answer those ques­tions or problems.

Kevin Lawrence 11:53

Yes, and I want to give an exam­ple, I got­ta give a shout out, like to my team, because they are real­ly good at mak­ing this hap­pen. And every week we do this, as I men­tioned, we do our meet­ing in the evenings, because we’re, you know, usu­al­ly work­ing dur­ing the day, and we can always be avail­able. And we’ve got some peo­ple on the East Coast, and it’s real­ly late for them. But we have actu­al­ly anoth­er type I just real­ized there, Brad is it some­times it’s prob­lem solv­ing, or, or work­ing through some­thing. Some­times it’s actu­al­ly shar­ing our most intel­li­gent ideas, ie as coach­es and con­sul­tants, the team will present some awe­some work they’ve done or a bril­liant mod­el, but no mat­ter. So some­times it’s about a deci­sion. And some­times it’s about actu­al­ly just get­ting smarter as a group. Yeah, yeah. And so that’s anoth­er angle. And again, every cul­ture and every team is dif­fer­ent, but it’s enhanc­ing the cog­ni­tive, or the, the abil­i­ties and under­stand­ing of the team deci­sions or oth­er­wise. So just sort of a side thought that just came to me. So let’s jump in, we got some points. So this, this, this, this, this, these meet this part of the meet­ing is insane­ly valu­able. and engag­ing. And, and real­ly smart, suc­cess­ful, peo­ple want to be a part of meet­ings where they get to use the brain. So but the first thing is to be aware of the val­ue of this time. Again, if it’s your senior team, it’s your moment. Well, it’s the most senior peo­ple with­in your team, because it’s you and your team, or your com­pa­ny, if it’s the exec­u­tive team does not it applies to all teams, though. It’s, you know, an hour to an hour and a half every sin­gle week, you got all the deci­sion mak­ers, they’re like, this is like prime prime prime time. And if you’re putting a num­ber on it over the course of the year, the num­ber adds up to be pret­ty sub­stan­tial as well. So it’s, it’s crit­i­cal, and there’s no, gen­er­al­ly it’s hard to get every­one in a room and oth­er times. And if you don’t have these debates, you kind of miss out on the oppor­tu­ni­ty for align­ment and progress.

Brad Giles 13:54

Yeah, yeah, I’m under­stand­ing that. I’ve seen many peo­ple say to what do we do for half an hour like? Well, what you do is my God, that so many peo­ple have said that, what do we do for half an hour in with the lead­er­ship team, like, we’re just going to pull up all prob­lems that we’ve got or what­ev­er? Well, under­stand­ing that this is a gift, this is a gift is 30 min­utes, and we need to make the most of it. But it’s a very, very expen­sive gift that can make the busi­ness posts so much faster. So don’t fall into the old rhythms of ram­bling and talk­ing about stuff just as they pop into your head. And, and so, I guess when you under­stand the val­ue of the time or the cost of the time, you can also under­stand the poten­tial of the time. So what if, every sin­gle week you solved a big prob­lem or To resolve the big issue or addressed a big chal­lenge that you’re fac­ing, or broke down and big oppor­tu­ni­ty, some­thing like there was one big thing. And you had a real­ly intense struc­tured debate every sin­gle week. That might sound a bit strange for the first few weeks. But when you get into that rhythm, you pulse so much faster.

Kevin Lawrence 15:23

Yeah, and togeth­er because you’re debat­ing and agree­ing around these, so it’s insane­ly valu­able. And it’s, it’s it’s insane­ly impact­ful 30 or 60 min­utes away. So num­ber two, is you got­ta agree on the ques­tions that you’re gonna debate. Like, what is the real ques­tion? And that’s, that’s the key. We watch teams try to do this. And they’ll just start talk­ing about some­thing. And we’re like, Whoa, whoa, whoa, time­out? what’s what’s, what’s an favorite ques­tion? What’s the ques­tion we’re try­ing to answer here?

Brad Giles 15:58

Yeah.

Kevin Lawrence 15:59

Right. What is the ques­tion? And it’s not what the idea is. And often, as you know, as coach­es and facil­i­ta­tor, we’re try­ing to boil things out, what’s the ques­tion? What are we try­ing to answer? And if you start with that, it locks every­one’s brain onto Okay, we’re try­ing to fig­ure out, for exam­ple, I might share with you ear­li­er with our team meet­ing we had ear­li­er today, how do we mea­sure the impact our firm is hav­ing on our clients? Right, and that is the ques­tion. And, and so as we dug into, we fur­ther refined the ques­tion. And then we had a debate and we went all over the road, we went over here and over there, what about this and, and, and, and it was going nowhere, and all of a sud­den, one guy goes, No, Brett on my team goes, I think it’s a direct impact an indi­rect, that’s what we’re look­ing for. Direct is what we can direct­ly see by the peo­ple that we direct­ly engage with. Indi­rect is the rip­ple effect that we’re hav­ing, by work­ing through those lead­ers on the whole orga­ni­za­tion. And, and, and, you know, and we don’t know which ones right? Yeah, but we know what we’re gonna pay atten­tion to both. Because there is a direct and there is an indi­rect and and and and the indi­rect it might be a bet­ter feel bet­ter num­ber because it’s big­ger, the direct is more tan­gi­ble will be might miss some of the point of it is debate, debate debate. We land­ed it, we built a mod­el, and then we actioned it. So is this one thing going to change the world? No. But that’s anoth­er thing our team is aligned around. It’s anoth­er thing that helps us to track the progress of our team in our firm. And we agreed on it, and that we can move on to what­ev­er the next thing is, and it’s the item is closed. And but but we need­ed all the brains in the room to get there and to align around it. Go ahead, Brad.

Brad Giles 17:57

And so what are the big issues that you need to resolve? So it’s, it might be worth keep­ing a run­ning list of poten­tial issues that you’ve got to resolve that, you know, you you need to actu­al­ly thrash out as a team. I love I love this quote by Albert Ein­stein. He says, If I had an hour to solve a prob­lem, I’d spend 55 min­utes think­ing about the prob­lem and five min­utes think­ing about the solu­tions. Now that’s Ein­stein, not you and I. Okay. Yeah, but but what it really

Kevin Lawrence 18:37

save and flip it around. I’d spend five min­utes fig­ur­ing out the question.

Brad Giles 18:42

Yeah. You know, how

Kevin Lawrence 18:44

much of an improve­ment it would be if peo­ple spent five min­utes try­ing to fig­ure out the damn ques­tion. Yeah, I was interesting,

Brad Giles 18:52

because huge improvement,

Kevin Lawrence 18:54

huge. When we don’t when we do a lot of our quar­ter­ly strap plant­i­ngs. There’s a lot of debates we have around key issues like a lot of col­lec­tive intel­li­gence. And it seems to be eas­i­er to have us run those parts of meet­ings, then then the then the team. But we spend time upfront, Scott was scop­ing out what are the dis­cus­sions we want to have? What is the ques­tion and actu­al­ly spend­ing time up front to get to the root of it? And it’s it’s actu­al­ly it’s work to fig­ure it out. When we do the work. It’s eas­i­er, but it’s work to fig­ure out,

Brad Giles 19:25

you got to have the right ques­tion if you’re going to spend 30 min­utes, which is very expen­sive and poten­tial­ly could cre­ate a great result spend­ing time as team under­stand­ing, right? This is the real ques­tion. What’s the real issue and this is the real ques­tion that we need to resolve as a team.

Kevin Lawrence 19:43

Right? That does makes it so much easier,

Brad Giles 19:46

but that does­n’t hap­pen on the day. Most of the time. I want to be real­ly clear about it. Most of the time. We want we want to think about it before­hand. We want to come with an opin­ion and also And this real­ly leads into num­ber three, we want to go before it before. Yes.

Kevin Lawrence 20:04

Okay, sor­ry. I would say before you do, I want to stay allow for the peo­ple that like to run a lit­tle loose and a lit­tle freestyle, right? That, you know, and I’m prob­a­bly I’m a lit­tle more freestyle than you, you’re a lit­tle more more more more orga­nized Reg­i­ment, Reg­i­ment, or both are good. But for those freestylers out there, it’s okay to lay down the ques­tion live in the meet­ing, I think there’s a lot of times when we can, espe­cial­ly on a week­ly, and if you can be pre­pared, it’s bet­ter in case some­times, but some­times it’s bet­ter to run with it. Right there in the moment. And and and it’s okay to do both.

Brad Giles 20:41

So the freaky weird part of me, which is quite a large part response to that by say­ing, I don’t want peo­ple to get 25 min­utes into a meet­ing, and then say, Okay, now we’ve got 30 min­utes for col­lec­tive intel­li­gence, what should we talk about? And it just falls down to an unor­ga­nized rebel? So we’re in the mid­dle, right.

Kevin Lawrence 21:05

And the freaky weird part of me would say is the way you if you run your meet­ing, right, you should be ask­ing about in our agen­das, you know, what are the chal­lenges or oppor­tu­ni­ties and flush­ing some of that stuff out ear­li­er in the meet­ing? So for exam­ple, in our agen­da, by the time we got there, we had, you know, sev­en things that we need­ed to talk about most of us, most of which are relat­ed to our quar­ter­ly rocks or quar­ter­ly goals. Yeah, we’ve already pre flushed the motor as as, as the great Jim Collins would say, you know, in the first part of that meet­ing, you’re min­ing for bru­tal facts, min­ing, it’s like a min­ing expert, expert expe­di­tion. And then in the col­lec­tive intel­li­gence, then you’re pro­cess­ing or deal­ing with some of those bru­tal facts that you need to debate. So, but yeah, you don’t want to sit there with it being crick­ets. But I think if you have the right agen­da, you’ve, you’ve flushed them out. Or, alter­na­tive­ly, as Brad would pre­fer. And I think it’s also a good dis­ci­pline, you pre decide these things. So you’ve got a week or two to get ready for it. And I agree, like even on ours, we are today on a meet­ing, we’re putting a cou­ple of weeks out some top­ics that we want­ed to dig into a lit­tle bit fur­ther, and then we’ll have time to be pre­pared. Okay. So back to num­ber three, Brad over to you.

Brad Giles 22:22

They pre­pared. Some­times things will pop up. And you need, like you’ve said the need to do it. But like in terms of a struc­ture being pre­pared. So if we know the ques­tion num­ber two, we know what the ques­tion is, then we move to Well, we’ve got to agree on a desired out­come. What is the out­come that we’re look­ing for from this meet­ing, we want to resolve this, we want to make a deci­sion on that we want to what­ev­er it is, what is the out­come that we need to get, and then allo­cate a pre­sen­ter to the top­ic. So as some­one who’s going to, let’s say, run or chair, the pre­sen­ta­tion, now that might mean that they’ll come pre­pared with two or three Pow­er­Point slides, for exam­ple, it does­n’t need to be 100 slides. But there is a suc­cinct clar­i­ty of the ques­tion. There may be sup­port­ing data to that, so that every­body in the meet­ing under­stands all of the the facts and the sit­u­a­tion and where we’re at. So some­one to come pre­pared and present and to kind of own that, and facil­i­tate that, that discussion.

Kevin Lawrence 23:39

Yeah. And on that they kind of lay down every­thing that we know, which is great. And what I have learned is, when you ask the head of r&d, to come make a pre­sen­ta­tion on this impor­tant deci­sion you want to make this is like their life’s work or reflec­tion. They want to give you a 60 minute pre­sen­ta­tion. And so here’s the pro tip. You tell how what­ev­er the time is on the agen­da 13 of it goes to pre­sent­ing two thirds as debate.

Brad Giles 24:12

Yes.

Kevin Lawrence 24:14

And you can even take it down to 20 a quar­ter present. So for exam­ple, we got a 30 minute slot for that crit­i­cal top­ic. Yep, we and we use timers like I set my phone as loud as it’ll go. We set a timer, you have 10 min­utes to present. And then there’s 20 min­utes to debate. And even with the 20 min­utes to debate, I’ll set the timer 15. So I’ve got a 15 minute buffer,

Brad Giles 24:38

because it always spills over a lit­tle bit and to wrap up to a sol­id close. So let’s go to a hypo­thet­i­cal sales man­ag­er is going to present on the under­per­for­mance of the geog­ra­phy. Yep. We’re going to the lead­er­ship team is going to talk about it. We’re going to allo­cate 30 min­utes in our week­ly meet­ing to it. We want you to To present all of the facts, all of the data for 10 min­utes for the first 10 min­utes, and then we’ll dis­cuss and debate it for the fol­low­ing 20 min­utes. And then this is the out­come that we want to, we want to either decide to a turn­around plan for that geog­ra­phy or we want to shut it down. That’s the deci­sion that we’ve got to make, right? That’s a hypo­thet­i­cal. Yep. Then what is the sales man­ag­er think? Like? How do I present all of the infor­ma­tion like, that is what we that’s his job.

Kevin Lawrence 25:29

That’s his job.

Brad Giles 25:30

I agree. But we want him to do, we don’t want anyone,

Kevin Lawrence 25:34

we want him to think for three hours, yes. and orga­nize for six hours, if need­ed, I’m exag­ger­at­ing. So that in eight to 10 min­utes, he can make a beau­ti­ful pre­sen­ta­tion only of only what matters

Brad Giles 25:48

is going, sor­ry. And going back. Okay, if he does­n’t come pre­pared, he’ll just sprout off opin­ions as they pop into his head. And it won’t be a mean­ing­ful dis­cus­sion. If instead, he comes in with that prepa­ra­tion that you’ve dis­cussed. This is the this is the trade data for the geog­ra­phy. This is what our com­peti­tors are doing. This is the the con­ver­sion rate,

Kevin Lawrence 26:18

clear­ly and suc­cinct­ly with what we or he shows us that he’s not as good as we thought he is. That’s a whole, you know,

Brad Giles 26:26

so we set a point­er to our job

Kevin Lawrence 26:28

to set them up to win.

Brad Giles 26:30

Yes. And

Kevin Lawrence 26:32

oth­er­wise, he’s going to make a 30 minute pre­sen­ta­tion, we’re going to run at a time, we’re not going to get a deci­sion, it’s going to be frus­trat­ed. So and in that case, you know, if it was some­thing that impor­tant, yeah, I would say, you know, eight to 10 min­utes to present, I would set a timer for eight, he’d be fin­ished pre­sent­ing by 10. And then we would just ask a lot of ques­tions. Yeah. Yeah. And debate and debate and debate. And and no way that’s a big deci­sion. But that’s, it’s just it. Also, when you tell peo­ple in advance, they pre­pare dif­fer­ent­ly. Some­times they present a lot of stuff. So it’s the end of the day we over present and under dis­cussed that is the root of this over present, under dis­cuss and col­lec­tive intel­li­gence is about dis­cussing, and ask­ing ques­tions. So I think that’s,

Brad Giles 27:19

that’s, and as some­one who’s done that, I love it when peo­ple come into the meet­ing. And they said, Well, before I saw that pre­sen­ta­tion, this was my opin­ion. And now that I under­stand the facts, I have a new opin­ion. Like, that is an out­come and record pre­sen­ta­tion. So let’s move on to num­ber four.

Kevin Lawrence 27:39

And I would say is, before you do, you know, if you’re real­ly want to have it real­ly want­ed him to nail it, I would tell him to run it by finance before he comes in. You’re one of my favorites. And some of the best, you know, cpmg com­pa­nies make a finance per­son be a part of any and every pre­sen­ta­tion. Because finance is the source of truth. The truth is num­bers in busi­ness. So if you want to real­ly dou­ble peo­ple’s odds have finance involved in the prepa­ra­tion, because finances, the source of num­bers are the ide­al source of num­bers. Any­way, just a side note. Okay, let’s move on num­ber four

Brad Giles 28:15

rules of engage­ment. So we’re com­ing pre­pared, but then how do we avoid the meet­ing descend­ing into anar­chie? How do we avoid the meet­ing descend­ing into peo­ple or threat­ens peo­ple? You know, get into argu­ments? Well, you know, we want to have a set of rules to say when we come togeth­er. This is how we play fair­ly. This is how we argue and debate fair­ly. And so for me, I’ve got a set of rules that I play by every time I present to a quar­ter­ly off site work­shop with the lead­er­ship team, I go through these three rules of engage­ment. So first of all, is bru­tal hon­esty, it’s incum­bent on you to say the things that need to be said. And no point walk­ing away say­ing we did­n’t talk about this, and we did­n’t talk about that. Num­ber two is no shame and no blame. So we’re not here to shame peo­ple. And we’re not here to blame peo­ple. And then num­ber three is dis­agree and com­mit. And that means that there may be things that you dis­agree with, that we as a team, agree to exe­cute, but you will com­mit to their suc­cess for exe­cu­tion. So those three things come from Jim Collins Good to Great when he analy­sis analy­sis or ana­lyze 1435 com­pa­nies dis­tilled them down to 11. Those were the traits that all of those 11 great com­pa­nies had in their lead­er­ship teams, those behav­ioral traits. And so that’s why that’s what we I use as the rules of engage­ment in the meet­ings that I con­duct. And that’s kind of what we advo­cate for here too.

Kevin Lawrence 30:03

Yeah, and, and, and those are all set, you can make up your own, it does­n’t mat­ter, we but­ton ones even in some com­pa­nies, when we work with com­pa­nies to devel­op these, when we do a lot of debat­ing, some peo­ple have a mech­a­nism where you raise your hand if you’re going to speak, but and you let the oth­er per­son fin­ish first. Oth­ers have one, like, leave it all on the table. ie, if every­thing is don’t hold back, and if you if you’ve held some­thing back, make sure you save it before the meet­ing leaves. Anoth­er one is is if you dis­agree after you leave the room, you com­mu­ni­cate back with the entire group. Yeah, but you’ve got a bit of an issue that needs to be dis­cussed. You don’t go and lob­by one per­son at a time. You know, there’s every every­body’s got dif­fer­ent things, you know, oth­er peo­ple anoth­er one where­as is it you know, that that once you and once you com­mit, you make sure you stay 100% sup­port­ive out­side the room and don’t under­mine every every­one’s got their own lit­tle glitch­es. But it’s super impor­tant. We have those rules of engage­ment. And you can just brain­storm what do we think we need to agree to, to be effec­tive debates, and and be an effec­tive team. It’s great to make sure that make sure Jeff ski was the coach of the mas­sive­ly win­ning Duke bas­ket­ball pro­gram. He coached the US men’s Olympic team, I think a cou­ple of times one is an assis­tant one is the full coach, out­stand­ing coach. This is what he does with all of his teams when he starts with them, espe­cial­ly the Olympic team, because he got the high­est paid ath­letes in the world. He can’t come in and tell them what to do. They make their own set of rules, includ­ing even how they respect the peo­ple that are clean­ing the lock­er rooms and tak­ing care of them. But it’s a it’s a won­der­ful team activ­i­ty. So the point of it is is to have 234 or five of these, his was actu­al­ly 12 on one of his sets he shared Yeah, but still to have a hand­ful of basic rules that we stick to and and I rec­om­mend, put them at the top of the agen­da for a while until they get burned into your DNA. Awe­some. Cool. Num­ber five. Help­ful Cas­san­dra’s. Brad’s look­ing at me fun­ny, cuz that’s not what we have writ­ten down in our prep notes. So Andy Grove, from Intel, in his book, high out­put man­age­ment has this thing called help­ful Cas­san­dra’s. And he made sure that there was one on every team or project he was part of. And this is the per­son that would tell him he had spinach in his teeth, or that he just had a real­ly bad idea. These are peo­ple that will often have con­trary opin­ions, and dis­agree with it and find the prob­lems and the holes and what­ev­er the hell it is that you have. And the point of it is, is you know, it’s very easy to sur­round your­self with peo­ple who and it’s fric­tion­less to sur­round your­self with peo­ple who agree with your bril­liant ideas, except for when you’re not that bril­liant. So you got­ta ask for and have peo­ple who will bring con­trary opin­ions and appre­ci­ate them. So he said, with­out that he’s in deep trou­ble. because too many peo­ple agree with him. And when he’s wrong, peo­ple still agree with him. But he always made sure there was a per­son on those teams that would call him on stuff I’ve got, I’ve got one per­son on my team, who is a mas­ter of this. And not only dis­agree­ing, but com­ing up with total ideas in way dif­fer­ent direc­tions, like, we’re all run­ning down the cen­ter of the road. He’s like 500 miles off to the left in anoth­er world. And it’s awe­some. It’s awe­some, because it cre­ates bet­ter debates, and it shakes things up. And not just Any­way, I’m going off with this one. So in need con­trary opin­ions, and you got to appre­ci­ate them and thank them for this guy to my team. I thank them all the time pub­licly, pri­vate­ly, even though I dis­agree with them a whole bunch. Yes,

Brad Giles 34:06

like rap­port now you’ll see debates, that’s the val­ue. So in the con­text of the week­ly meet­ing, what we’re and specif­i­cal­ly col­lec­tive intel­li­gence, we’ve had a per­son who’s pre­sent­ed and they have spent a sub­stan­tial amount of time hope­ful­ly, prepar­ing to present and we’ve got to find a gap in the next 20 min­utes where we’re debat­ing to say, okay, who has a dif­fer­ent opin­ion? Who can mount a case to chal­lenge what’s what’s, you know, been said here? It’s just a sim­ple ques­tion. But if we can plug that in there, it can make a real­ly big dif­fer­ence and you can unlock some shy­ness per­haps where peo­ple are think­ing some­thing but not say­ing it which is what we want.

Kevin Lawrence 35:05

Can peo­ple trade posi­tions against instead of four. So that’s, that’s some­thing that you can, it’s a tech­nique that you can try in terms of just shak­ing it up. So whether it’s an indi­vid­ual revers­ing argu­ments, you just got to look at the oth­er side some­times, or you could look at the option of not doing what you’re talk­ing about doing. So get con­trary opin­ions and appre­ci­ate them, val­ue them. And be care­ful that you’re not just shut­ting them down, which is easy to do. Num­ber six, was kind of cov­ered off a lit­tle bit by your rules of engage­ment, but it’s, you know, it’s it’s dis­agree and com­mit, or, you know, agree to dis­agree, which basi­cal­ly means, at some point, if you have all these awe­some con­trary opin­ions, not every­one’s going to agree, and if you go for con­sen­sus on every deci­sion, you prob­a­bly won’t make any, some, some you will. But at some point, you got­ta, you got­ta find a way to say, okay, dis­agree and com­mit, and some­one’s gonna call it and it’d be like, you know, Brad, if you and I dis­agree on it be like, okay, I’d say to Brad, Brad, can you? You know, I feel very pas­sion­ate about this. Can you live with sup­port­ing the way I’m propos­ing it? Yeah. And if Brad says no, okay, well, then we have to con­tin­ue. But some­times you just almost have to ask for sup­port to push ahead. Oth­er­wise, you get stuck. It’s it’s a, it’s a very impor­tant thing to do. So you don’t get lost in ongo­ing debate, espe­cial­ly for low val­ue or low impact things.

Brad Giles 36:38

There’s a there’s a, an ocean of dif­fer­ence between agreed to dis­agree, and dis­agree and com­mit. So agree to dis­agree means that we leave this argu­ment or this debate in an unre­solved state, and you main­tain your opin­ion, and I main­tain mine, the sea of dif­fer­ences that when we say dis­agree and com­mit, what we’re say­ing is, okay, I’ve voiced that I dis­agree with this. But as a team, I com­mit to the suc­cess­ful exe­cu­tion of this project. And some peo­ple, you know, have said to me in those types of meet­ings, okay, well, I’m going to agree to dis­agree. And I said, That’s not a clo­sure, okay? Because we’re walk­ing away with dif­fer­ent per­son­al­i­ties that lend it’s a sea of dif­fer­ence, like we can’t let agree to dis­agree. get in the way of dis­agree­ing com­mit, because the worst pos­si­ble thing that you can do is go six weeks into a 13. Week, quar­ter and say, Kevin, I told you that was­n’t gonna work any­way. Yeah. Cuz you

Kevin Lawrence 37:48

and by the way, when I was say­ing agree to dis­agree, I was hav­ing the same mean­ing of my mind as you’re dis­agree­ing com­mit. Yes. Is you agree to dis­agree, and you’re like, joined in har­mo­ny to push ahead. Yeah, but dis­agree. And com­mit is prob­a­bly a bet­ter dis­tinc­tion, because it has the com­mit part. It’s like, okay, Brad, Brad would say, Well, I dis­agree with what you’re say­ing. But I’m going to com­mit to it. And I’m going to work with you to make it hap­pen. Yep. Yeah. Which is agree­ing to dis­agree. It almost could still feel like a stand­off, which is not good. We do not want that. You want to say have said your piece? And let’s move on. Yeah. And let’s move on togeth­er and make it hap­pen. Yes,

Brad Giles 38:31

yeah. Again,

Kevin Lawrence 38:32

it’s also impor­tant and impor­tant, because that way you can call the ques­tion, as I men­tioned ear­li­er, and you can move on and some­times in a room, some­one’s just kind of said, hey, can can we can we can we can we can dis­agree, but still sup­port it. And then let’s move and com­mit to mov­ing on.

Brad Giles 38:50

Yeah. Again, to close that out. The worst thing that can hap­pen is you’re mid­way through a quar­ter and some­one’s active­ly under­min­ing the deci­sion, like the dam­age to Team har­mo­ny is is just awful. Okay. So on that sub­ject, let’s move on to the final num­ber sev­en, clar­i­ty on the deci­sion. So the objec­tive is we col­lec­tive intel­li­gence is to get an out­come every week. It’s a com­po­nent of the week­ly meet­ing, because we want to get an out­come. We want to get a pre­sen­ta­tion, we want to get an under­stand­ing of the facts, but we’re going in know­ing the answer that we want to get. So if we’re going in know­ing the answer that we want to get, we’ve got to get the answer. We’ve got to get the deci­sion. The rea­son that we’ve got all of the col­lec­tive intel­li­gence, all of the lead­er­ship team, some of the smartest or most capa­ble peo­ple in the busi­ness in the room is to get the answer. So don’t walk away from col­lec­tive intel­li­gence with­out the deci­sion or the answer. And, you know, here’s anoth­er lit­tle tip favorite of mine is, okay. So we’re going to add plan is to go and build a plan. One. Okay, so we’ve just come togeth­er as a group to, for the pur­pose of build­ing a 90 day plan, and your plan is that you’re going to go and build a plan. So we don’t want to not good enough. No, we don’t want to end a meet­ing like that say­ing, Okay, I’m going to go and build a plan, because like, it’s about decisions.

Kevin Lawrence 40:34

Yes. And I think on this, and as sim­ple as it sounds, what we find espe­cial­ly is in this in this COVID world, when we’re doing vir­tu­al meet­ings, is that you type the deci­sion on screen and peo­ple can see it, okay, here’s the deci­sion, because some­times peo­ple hear it, but they don’t hear it. Okay, Fred, is going to go and do X, Y, Z, by doing ABC by a cer­tain date. Right? But it’s lit­tle, we put it all on us know what I meant, and and how many times that’s helped us, because we’re putting these on screen, to be able to lock it down and say­ing here is the exact action who, what and when is going to hap­pen. It’s super impor­tant. So let’s have some sev­en awe­some points. So if we go back into the top, our whole thing is here is how do you lever­age the pow­er of the most impact­ful brands on your team? Right, and it’s this col­lec­tive intel­li­gence should be part of the week­ly meet­ing, the same dis­ci­pline should hold true in your month­ly and quar­ter­ly and annu­al meet­ings where you have robust debates to make impor­tant deci­sions. And so you don’t run through the first three here, Brad, you can do the rest, is that you know, aware of the val­ue of the time that is rare, impor­tant time, it could be the most impor­tant time of that week for that whole team agree on the ques­tion upfront, what is the ques­tion we are try­ing to answer, then be pre­pared. Ide­al­ly, if you’ve done it in advance, if it’s on the spot, do your best. If it’s in advance, some­one can come pre­pared with as much data and facts and under­stand­ing of the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion. And then rules a game for engage­ment. So you get every­body par­tic­i­pat­ing, you need every­one to be con­tribut­ing to the discussion.

Brad Giles 42:17

Yes, and then we are mov­ing to ask for coun­try opin­ions. So we want to get a diverse, we want to get dif­fer­ent opin­ions. We don’t want every­one to just go well, because Joe has pre­pared we need to do what Joe says we need to get dif­fer­ent opin­ions. And we need to ask for them. Who has a con­trary opin­ion through­out the meet­ing num­ber two, sor­ry, the next one. Num­ber six is it’s okay to dis­agree. But even­tu­al­ly we need to com­mit. So I men­tioned dis­agree and com­mit, we need to get com­mit­ment around the deci­sion. And we don’t need to have peo­ple who are, you know, agree­ing to dis­agree. That’s a it’s an awful, awful sta­tus in a lead­er­ship team. And then final­ly, we got to close the meet­ing by hav­ing clar­i­ty and speci­fici­ty on the deci­sion. And as Kevin so right­ly said, in the zoom world, write it on the screen, write it on the white­board, if you’re in a meet­ing room, say this is the deci­sion that we land on, and we all agreed. And that’s how you close out that week­ly, col­lec­tive intel­li­gence. What a love­ly head

Kevin Lawrence 43:28

it is. And one more thought I had there is that some­times one of the deci­sions is what you’re going to talk about next time. Right, the sub­jects of who is going to present what for debate the fol­low­ing week. Yeah, great con­ver­sa­tion. So thanks for lis­ten­ing. This has been the growth whis­pers pod­cast with my good friend Brad Giles, who you can reach at evo­lu­tion part​ners​.com​.au and myself, Kevin Lawrence, at Lawrence and co​.com. We hope you have an awe­some week and dial in those week­ly meet­ings to lever­age the biggest brains in your group and make some good things come out of it. All right. Have a good one. All the best.


Lawrence & Co’s work focuses on sustainable and enhanced growth for you and your business. Our diverse and experienced group of advisors can help your leaders and executive teams stay competitive through the use of various learning tools including workshops, webinars, executive retreats, or one-to-one coaching.

We help high-achieving leaders to have it all – a great business and a rewarding life. Contact us for simple and impactful advice. No BS. No fluff.