Steve Jobs once used an interesting analogy. It is perfectly reasonable to spend time arguing about which route to take to San Francisco when everyone wants to get there. The argument becomes pointless if one person wants to go to San Francisco and another secretly wants to go to San Diego.
Something similar happens in leadership teams more often than we realise.
Differences of opinion are part of almost every important meeting. People bring different experiences, responsibilities and perspectives to the table, so disagreement is both natural and useful. A good debate can expose assumptions, reveal risks and improve the quality of a decision.
Yet some discussions take a very different turn. A comment about the issue is taken personally, positions harden, frustrations surface and occasionally tempers flare. We are quick to attribute such behaviour to ego or organisational politics. Sometimes that may be true, but in my experience most people mean well and genuinely want to contribute. The problem may lie somewhere else.
We may be arguing about the route without first agreeing on the destination.
Most leaders are reasonably good at problem solving. We identify the problem, consider alternatives and look for a solution. What often gets less attention is agreeing on what we are actually trying to achieve. It sounds obvious, which is perhaps why we assume agreement exists when it does not.
Take something as common as choosing a senior leader for an important role. One person may be looking for someone who can deliver immediately. Another may be thinking about what the business will need three years from now, while someone else is concerned about the message an external appointment will send to internal talent. Everyone may be discussing the same candidates, but they are not necessarily trying to solve the same problem.
This is where apparently rational discussions can become surprisingly difficult. Each person may have a perfectly reasonable argument, supported by evidence and experience. But if those arguments are being made against different definitions of success, more analysis will not necessarily produce agreement. It may simply make everyone more convinced that the others are missing the point.
Agreeing on the destination does not mean eliminating disagreement. In fact, disagreement can become more useful once people know what they are collectively trying to achieve. Different views can then be tested against a common goal rather than becoming a contest between individual positions.
There is also a very human element to these conversations. People want to be heard, particularly when they care strongly about an issue. A leader does not have to accept every dissenting view, but dismissing it too quickly or cutting someone off can turn a difference of opinion into something personal. Acknowledging another person’s concern is not the same as agreeing with it. It simply keeps the disagreement where it belongs, on the issue rather than on the person.
Experienced leaders know that collaboration and competition will always coexist in organisations. People have different responsibilities, priorities, incentives and ambitions. Complete alignment is neither realistic nor necessarily desirable. The objective is not to make everyone think alike. It is to make sure that when people disagree about how to get somewhere, they have at least had an honest conversation about where they are trying to go.
When a discussion keeps going in circles, another round of arguments may therefore not help. Before producing more evidence, defending positions more vigorously or searching for another compromise, it may be worth asking a more basic question:
Are we actually trying to get to the same place?
