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.

I was Wrong about Influence. Early in my career, I believed influence in a decision-making meeting was the direct outcome of a strong artifact presented and the ensuing discussion. However, with more leadership experience, I have come to realize that while these are important, there is something far more important at play. Influence, for a given decision, largely happens outside of and before decision-making meetings. Here's my 3 step approach you can follow to maximize your influence: (#3 is often missed yet most important) 1. Obsess over Knowing your Audience Why: Understanding your audience in-depth allows you to tailor your communication, approach and positioning. How: ↳ Research their backgrounds, how they think, what their goals are etc. ↳ Attend other meetings where they are present to learn about their priorities, how they think and what questions they ask. Take note of the topics that energize them or cause concern. ↳ Engage with others who frequently interact with them to gain additional insights. Ask about their preferences, hot buttons, and any subtle cues that could be useful in understanding their perspective. 2. Tailor your Communication Why: This ensures that your message is not just heard but also understood and valued. How: ↳ Seek inspiration from existing artifacts and pickup queues on terminologies, context and background on the give topic. ↳ Reflect on their goals and priorities, and integrate these elements into your communication. For instance, if they prioritize efficiency, highlight how your proposal enhances productivity. ↳Ask yourself "So what?" or "Why should they care" as a litmus test for relatability of your proposal. 3. Pre-socialize for support Why: It allows you to refine your approach, address potential objections, and build a coalition of support (ahead of and during the meeting). How: ↳ Schedule informal discussions or small group meetings with key stakeholders or their team members to discuss your idea(s). A casual coffee or a brief virtual call can be effective. Lead with curiosity vs. an intent to respond. ↳ Ask targeted questions to gather feedback and gauge reactions to your ideas. Examples: What are your initial thoughts on this draft proposal? What challenges do you foresee with this approach? How does this align with our current priorities? ↳ Acknowledge, incorporate and highlight the insights from these pre-meetings into the main meeting, treating them as an integral part of the decision-making process. What would you add? PS: BONUS - Following these steps also expands your understanding of the business and your internal network - both of which make you more effective. --- Follow me, tap the (🔔) Omar Halabieh for daily Leadership and Career posts.

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?

  Facilitation… making space for those not in the room. It happens more often than we’d like. You design a strategic planning session. The date is set. The room is ready. And then some board or staff members cannot attend. I facilitated two in-person strategic planning sessions for a nonprofit where this happened. Session 1 was a full day. Nine board members and senior leaders attended; unexpectedly, seven other members could not attend on the day. Using the Technology of Participation Strategic Planning process, we developed five-year goals, identified key challenges and strengths, and drafted initial strategies. The group left energized and aligned. One member said, “I am amazed at how much we accomplished and with such unity in such a short time.” Three weeks later, Session 2 brought together seven people from the first session and the seven who had not attended. The purpose: affirm the goals and finalize strategies and a one-year action plan. It could have unravelled. It didn’t. Why? Because we intentionally designed for the absent voices. Here is what made the difference: 1️⃣ Name who needs to be involved. At Session 1, we asked: Who needs to be part of the next conversation? Who will reach out? 2️⃣ Personally connect. Absent members were contacted and walked through the key discussions and decisions. 3️⃣ Send a clear session report. No surprises. No vague summaries. 4️⃣ Provide structured reflection questions. Using the ORID framework: • What questions do you have? • What stood out? • What are you pleased about? • What concerns you? • What do you agree with? • What needs to change? 5️⃣ Open Session 2 with equal voice. We began by inviting all participants, new and returning, to respond to the report. 6️⃣ Frame absent members as offering “second thoughts.” Not critics. Not disruptors. Contributors. 7️⃣ Take the time. We spent 2.5 hours discussing the previous decisions, an hour longer than planned. It was worth every minute. The result? Most goals were affirmed. A few were refined. Some wording shifted. The group quickly created a one-year action plan because they were fully aligned. Involving absent board or team members is possible. But it does not happen by accident. Design it as intentionally as you design the original workshop. When you do, people feel heard. 😀 Work feels honoured. 👏 And decisions hold. ✔️ How have you handled “not everyone was in the room” moments?  

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.

One of the biggest dilemmas leaders face is this: “Do I make the decision myself, or do I involve others?” ➕ Too much participation can be slow, messy, frustrating. ➖ Too little leads to information gaps, misalignment, rework. The key is recognising that not all decisions are created equal, and your approach should shift depending on whether the decision is simple, complicated, or complex. Here’s the guide I use with leaders 👇 🔊Tell: Be directive Make the decision and inform others. Use this when speed is essential, outcomes are predictable, or there’s broad support. Participation here slows things down. Ask yourself what value participation will bring. 🧑🔬 Consult: Seek expert input You still make the decision, but you do it with better information. This is ideal when the decision is complicated and expertise will materially improve the quality of the outcome. Ask yourself what expertise do you need to make the decision. 🤝 Co-create: Decide collaboratively Bring stakeholders together when no one individual sees the full picture. Best for complex, ambiguous situations where involving people surfaces important perspectives, reduces risk and increases alignment. Ask yourself how can we help each other make a good quality decision. 🤯 Why this matters Decision-making is time-consuming and messy at the best of times. Choosing the right method for the right situation reduces friction, speeds execution, and builds coherence across the system. Have you every leaned into participative decision-making unnecessarily, or made a unilateral decision that went wrong? Tell me about in the comments 👇

40 people walked into a room with 40 different versions of the future in their heads. By the end of the day, they were building one. This month I facilitated a Vision and Growth Planning Summit for Westside Waldorf School. The morning opened with 40 voices. By afternoon, a working group of 20 got into the specifics. The day closed with a two-hour board session where decisions got made. The group got smaller as the work got sharper. By design. What made it work? Here's what I've learned, and what you can steal for your next strategy and planning session. 1. Listen before you enter the room. Stakeholder conversations are where the real agenda gets built. Depending on the project, that might mean a few weeks of conversations or several months. Talk to the decision-makers and the people closest to the work. 2. Co-design the session with the key leaders. Collaborate on the structure, the flow, the goals. It takes more time and iteration, it's almost always more effective. When leaders help shape the day, they show up as champions, not just participants. 3. Invite people to state their intention. There's science behind this. Set the context first: the vision, the stakes, what this day is for. Invite each person to share their intention. It shifts the room from a group of individuals into a community with shared purpose. Every time. 4. Name the common ground before you explore the differences. Surface the shared goals first. Name them. Let the group refine them. When people know what they agree on, they can disagree productively on everything else. 5. Create a home for every idea, issue, offer, and ask. Designate space on the wall for the key themes. Direct people to write and post. The quiet thinkers and the big talkers contribute in roughly equal measure. Nothing gets lost. The room stays on track. 6. Don't leave without next steps. A beautiful conversation that ends without clarity is a missed opportunity. Use dot voting, round-robins, or ranked choices. Build the action plan together, in the room, before anyone leaves. 7. Communicate out, or the good ideas die. Two things need to happen. First, a warm message back to all participants capturing the highlights. This isn't just documentation. It's fuel. It keeps momentum alive. Second, a full report to key leaders: the specific ideas generated, the priorities surfaced, the action steps, the 90-day plan. Together, they help turn a great day into a lasting shift. I'm so fortunate to get to work with committed, intentional, inspired leaders like Evan Horowitz and Anjum Mir. Strategy and planning sessions are one of the highest-leverage investments a leader can make. Done well, they don't just create a roadmap. They create belief in the vision, in each other, in what's possible. If you're preparing for a planning retreat, a leadership summit, or an organizational pivot and want to think through your approach, let's connect. #StrategicPlanning #Leadership #OrganizationalTransformation

Is there anyone who doesn’t relate to the expression, “Yet another meeting that should have been an email?” “Decisions are the lifeblood of organizations, and meetings are where important business decisions often happen,” yet only 37% say that their company’s decisions are high quality and timely. McKinsey & Company poses three questions to improve the quality of meetings and the quality and speed of emergent decisions: Should there even be a meeting?  Eliminating unnecessary meetings is a boon to productivity. Examine whether recurring meetings established to make decisions have become redundant to other decision making forums or just space for discussion without resolution. Where recurring meetings are needed, relook frequency and decision rights (consulting others doesn’t necessarily require a meeting). A chief of staff can look at meetings across the enterprise to identify areas of redundancy and confusion, and opportunities to streamline. What’s the goal of the meeting?  Meetings need not only a topic but a purpose: To share information? To discuss? To make a decision? If it’s the first, the meeting can have pretty much as many attendees as you want, because the communication is largely one-way. If it’s discussion, the meeting should have a structured agenda of discussion topics for typically 8-20 attendees to actively dialogue. Decision making meetings typically only need 6-8 attendees to follow an actively facilitated, structured agenda of the decisions to be made. Otherwise, these meetings can drift into hours of discussion without taking action. A chief of staff or someone acting in this capacity can coordinate pre-read, run the meetings to allow sufficient discussion and debate to get to a better decision, make sure the right people are in the room, and ensure follow-up. Does everyone at the meeting have a role?  Clarity of roles is important for speed and agility. There are other acronyms and nomenclature, but McKinsey uses DARE: - Decision maker(s): The only one(s) with a vote and the responsibility to make the decision as they see fit - Advisors: Have an outsized voice because they have a big stake in the decision - Recommenders: Do the analyses, explore alternatives, recommend a course of action - Execution partners: Ask questions or raise issues that may hinder implementation.  While few get a vote, they all get a voice. Who shouldn’t be in the room? Tourists, who may to be may involved later, but not during the decision making process, and Guests, who, unless they fall into one of the DARE categories, can be included outside the meeting.    #decisionmaking #meetings #productivity #facilitation