We shall always seek agreement to take better decisions
To make good decisions, CEOs need the courage to seek out disagreement. Alfred Sloan, the longtime CEO and chairman of General Motors, once interrupted a committee meeting with a question: “Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here?” All the committee members nodded. “Then,” Sloan said, “I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what this decision is about”.
The Brook's law states that when a person is added to a project team, and the project is already late, the project time is longer, rather than shorter. Brooks’ law is recognized as applicable to any complex endeavor involving lots of people interacting together, not just software engineering.
We need to think about failure differently.
I’m not the first to say that failure, when approached properly, can be an opportunity for growth. But the way most people interpret this assertion is that mistakes are a necessary evil. Mistakes aren’t a necessary evil. They aren’t evil at all.
They are an inevitable consequence of doing something new (and, as such, should be seen as valuable; without them, we’d have no originality). And yet, even as I say that embracing failure is an important part of learning, I also acknowledge that acknowledging this truth is not enough.
That’s because failure is painful, and our feelings about this pain tend to screw up our understanding of its worth. To disentangle the good and the bad parts of failure, we have to recognize both the reality of the pain and the benefit of the resulting growth.
According to Edward T. Hall, the environment becomes a dimension of culture, it incorporates manifestations related to the concept of body, space and sensation. The researcher defines this concept by the notion of proxemics, a scientific discipline studying the signifying organization of space and the study of the relative positions of interlocutors. The space of each individual is composed of four spheres revolving around the individual:
1 ° The intimate sphere is 45 cm in diameter around the individual: it implies physical involvement;
2 ° The personal sphere is measured between 45 cm and 1m35 around the individual: this distance is to be found during a particular conversation;
3 ° The social sphere is measured between 1.20m and 3.70m around the individual: it is the distance observed during friendly and professional interactions;
4 ° The public sphere is measured at a distance equal to or greater than 3,70m around the individual: it is the sphere dedicated to exchanges with a group.
The closest surface to the individual is an emotionally strong area that is usually referred to as the individual security perimeter. The size of this space varies according to the cultures. The social status of the interlocutor is also to be considered: one is closer to a peer than a superior or a subordinate. There is therefore a link between spatial distance and social distance.
If you give a good idea to a mediocre team, they will screw it up. If you give a mediocre idea to a brilliant team, they will either fix it or throw it away and come up with something better.