Teams often mistake compromise for collaboration, leading to average outcomes. True collaboration requires balancing high assertiveness (people speaking their mind directly) with high cooperativeness (openly listening to others). It is not about meeting in the middle.
Related Insights
Relying on consensus to make decisions is an abdication of leadership. The process optimizes for avoiding downsides rather than achieving excellence, leading to mediocre "6 out of 10" outcomes and preventing the outlier successes that leadership can unlock.
Don't pitch big ideas by going straight to the CEO for a mandate; this alienates the teams who must execute. Instead, introduce ideas casually to find a small group of collaborative "yes, and" thinkers. Build momentum with this core coalition before presenting the developed concept more broadly.
Jacob Collier explains that beautiful music relies on controlling dissonance (tension), not just playing pleasant notes (consonance). This applies to teams: leaning into creative tension and resolving it leads to a more meaningful outcome than avoiding disagreement altogether.
In disagreements, the objective isn't to prove the other person wrong or "win" the argument. The true goal is to achieve mutual understanding. This fundamental shift in perspective transforms a confrontational dynamic into a collaborative one, making difficult conversations more productive.
People often confuse empathy with agreement. In collaborative problem-solving, empathy is a tool for understanding. You can completely disagree with someone's perspective while still working to accurately understand it, which is the necessary first step to finding a solution.
To introduce a new idea, a leader shouldn't dictate terms. Instead, they should pose it as a discussion topic and listen to the language the team uses (e.g., "cost of living" vs. "inflation"). Adopting their terminology builds shared understanding and makes people feel heard, which enables collective action.
When a big-picture leader communicates with a detail-oriented team, friction is inevitable. Recognizing this as a clash of communication styles—not a personal failing or lack of competence—is the first step. Adaptation, rather than frustration, becomes the solution.
The most effective client-agency partnerships are not the easiest, but the most honest. They are characterized by clarity, mutual trust, and a willingness to have frank conversations. This directness, rather than constant agreement, is what leads to breakthrough creative work.
Gaining genuine team alignment is more complex than getting a superficial agreement. It involves actively surfacing unspoken assumptions and hidden contexts to ensure that when the team agrees, they are all agreeing to the same, fully understood plan.
Solely measuring a team's output fails to capture the health of their collaboration. A more robust assessment includes tracking goal achievement, team psychological safety, role clarity, and the speed of execution. This provides a holistic view of team effectiveness.
