#12: Dispute Resolution
Strategies on decisiveness from Jeff Bezos
Last week I discussed the first of two topics Lex and Jeff Bezos discussed on tactics to create a culture of decisiveness within an organization. Today, I'm going to cover the second topic they discuss: dispute resolution. The conversation is sparked by Lex asking Jeff to explain his phrase "disagree and commit".
In Jeff's response, he lays out 3 dispute resolution tactics. One that he implements within his organizations, and then two that we often see in society that are really bad.
Disagree and Commit
Compromise
The Stubborn Winner
Disagree and Commit
Here's how Jeff describes his framework for disagree and commit:
Disagree and commit is a really important principle that saves a lot of arguing. It's very common in any endeavor in life, in business, and anywhere you have teammates. You have a teammate and the two of you disagree. At some point you have to make a decision. In companies we tend to organize hierarchically, so whoever's the more senior person ultimately gets to make the decision. So, ultimately the CEO gets to make that decision, and the CEO may not always make the decision that they agree with, so I would often I would be the one who would disagree and commit.
One of my direct reports would very much want do something in a particular way. I would think it was a bad idea. I would explain my point of view. They would say "Jeff, I think you're wrong, and here's why". We would go back and forth and I would often say "You know what? I don't think you're right, but I'm gonna gamble with you and you're closer to the ground truth than I am. I have known you for 20 years, you have great judgment. I don't know that I'm right either. Not really, not for sure. All these decisions are complicated. Let's do it your way."
But at least then you've made a decision. And I'm agreeing to commit to that decision. So I'm not going to be be second guessing it. I'm not gonna be sniping at it. I'm not gonna be saying I told you so. I'm gonna try actively to help make sure it works. That's a really important teammate behavior. There's so many ways that dispute resolution is a really interesting thing on teams. And there are so many ways when two people disagree about something, even, I'm assuming in the case where everybody's well intentioned, they just have a very different opinion about what the right decision is.
There's some fascinating parts to Jeff's response here. First, I love how he points out that even as the CEO, he may not always make the decision that he agrees with, and that he's the one who will disagree and commit. I can only imagine the types of decisions at a company the size of Amazon that Jeff had to disagree and commit to. It's easy to disagree and commit to small decisions that don't have a huge impact on the bottom line, but to have the humility to do that at the highest levels of a giant organization is awesome to see.
I also like how he takes the time to describe what he calls good "teammate behavior" here. Once that decision is made, as a good teammate you don't second guess it, hit people with "I told you so", or snipe at it after. In fact, as a good teammate you're going to do everything in your power to make damn sure that what you disagreed with turns out to be successful.
While Jocko doesn't use the exact phrase "disagree and commit", he often describes this exact tactic when he talks about building trust up the chain of command. As follower leaders (building trust up the chain of command), we often find ourselves in the position of not 100% agreeing with a decision being made. When this is the case, it is still our responsibility to own that decision. To disagree and commit, and on top of that to muster everything in our power to accomplish that mission even if we disagree on certain points. I made the mistake many times as a young professional of not fully committing to decisions that I didn't agree with, and it led to me not gaining the trust or leadership capital I hoped to gain within the organization. If you hope to gain trust and influence, be willing to disagree and commit.
Compromise
Here's how Jeff describes compromise:
In our society and inside companies, we have a bunch of mechanisms that we use to resolve these kinds of disputes. A lot of them are, I think really bad. An example of a really bad way of coming to agreement is compromise.
So compromise:
Look, we're in a room here and I could say "Lex, how tall do you think this ceiling is?" And you'd be like "I don't know, Jeff, maybe 12 feet tall." And I would say "I think it's 11 feet tall." Then we'd say "you know what? Let's just call it 11 and a half feet." That's compromise. Instead, the right thing to do to get a tape measure or figure out some way of actually measuring, but getting that tape measure and figuring out how to get it to the top of the ceiling and all these things, that requires energy. The advantage of compromise as a resolution mechanism is that it's low energy, but it doesn't lead to truth. And so in things like the height of the ceiling, where truth is a noble thing, you shouldn't allow compromise to be used when you can know the truth.
A few things stick out to me here.
First, I think it's worth noting the clarification Jeff adds on at the end. Compromise is not always a bad thing, but in situations where truth is something that can somewhat objectively be measured, compromise is not the solution.
Second, I love how Jeff points out the fact that compromise is a low energy mechanism. Things often tend to slip down the path of least resistance, and if we're not keeping an eye on that we can let ourselves get into bad, low energy habits.
Lastly, I'm reminded of the importance of metrics and doing our best to find ways to measure the things that matter within an organization. If you don't have a culture of measuring things, like the height of the ceiling in this case, its so easy to fall into a culture that is grounded in opinion and assumptions rather than truth.
The Stubborn Winner
Jeff says:
Another really bad resolution mechanism that happens all the time is just who's more stubborn. Let's say two executives who disagree and they just have a war of attrition, and whichever one gets exhausted first capitulates to the other one. Again, you haven't arrived at truth. And this is very demoralizing. So, this is where escalation comes in. Never get to a point where you are resolving something by who gets exhausted first. Escalate that. I'll help you make the decision. Because that's so de-energizing and such a terrible, lousy way to make a decision.
You want to try to get as close to truth as possible. Exhausting the other person is not truth seeking.
We've all experienced this one to the point there's no need to expand on what Jeff pointed out. One thing that does stick out to me as a leader though is I need to be aware of my influence on others. I think at times, as leaders, if we are the ones to be stubborn, that war of attrition can be won very quickly. If I'm too attached to one of my ideas a subordinate may only try once or twice to convince me otherwise before folding their hands in this war of attrition. That's dangerous. It's also why Jeff mentions later in the podcast that he always speaks last at meetings to make sure that he doesn't say something that may change someone's perspective on a problem before he hears it.
Conclusion
Jeff points out several times on this topic the importance of having a culture where escalating disagreements or disputes is not uncommon. If you're innovating, doing things that have never been done before and experimenting with how to do things best, it's inevitable that you are going to have people disagreeing on the best approach to a particular problem. Not only is this not a bad thing, it's what you want within your organization. However, if we don't have effective dispute resolution tactics within our organizations, we will fail to have a decisive company that is able to execute at a high velocity.
For more content from Jeff on this topic, check out the "High-Velocity Decision Making" section of the Amazon 2016 Letter to Shareholders.
