Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter (20 page)

He set broad parameters for the debates. He insisted, “I expect your best thinking here. Everyone should feel not only welcome to speak up, but an obligation to speak up. You can expect us to be thorough. We will be prosecuting assumptions and asking ourselves the tough questions.” Then he officially launched the first of several debates.

He sparked the debate through a series of bold questions: “Should we be in the academic space?” and “What would success require?” After each question, he let the team jump in, and he let the debate proceed.

As the discussion was beginning to reach a settling point, he pushed harder, asking people to switch sides and argue against their previously stated position. He chimed in, “Chris, switch sides with Raza.
Raza, you’ve been for this idea, you now argue against it. Chris, you now argue for it.” They would switch roles, which felt awkward for a moment or two, but soon they’d begin to pound the issues from the other vantage point. Or to broaden people’s perspectives, he asked his people to assume roles outside of their functional area. Lutz persisted, “Teresa, you’ve been offering an international perspective on this, now look at it with a domestic hat on.” And “Lee Anne, you’ve been looking at the technical issues. I want you to debate this from the marketing perspective.” The team stepped away from their positions and a new set of sparks erupted. Lutz loved to stir up controversy and would become noticeably disappointed if the debate wasn’t charged and the sparks weren’t flying.

The team listened passionately to the rich and different perspectives. They challenged one another’s assumptions and often their own. They happily dropped the polite professionalism that typifies so many corporate meetings and took on the challenges with an almost ferocious appetite. This was a high-stakes approach to a high-stakes decision.

In the end, the organization decided that they would pursue the academic market, and they spent the next two years repivoting the business around students and academia. The business expanded their reach from 1,500 corporate training partners to 4,700 academic partners—three times the scale in just two years. It is currently set to become the biggest reach driver of their now-profitable business.

Lutz did not leave debate to chance. He knew that while creating a debate is easy, creating a rigorous debate requires a deliberate approach.

THE THREE PRACTICES OF THE DEBATE MAKER

In our research we found that Multipliers did three specific things very differently from Diminishers when it came to decision making.
While Diminishers raise issues, dominate discussions, and force decisions, Multipliers: 1) frame the issues; 2) spark the debate; and 3) drive sound decisions. Let us examine each of these in more detail.

I. Frame the Issue

Our research showed that Debate Makers know that the secret sauce of a great debate is what they do
before
the debate actually begins. They prepare the organization for the debate by forming the right questions and the right team and framing the issues and process in a way in which everyone can contribute. The process is broken down below.

Define the Question

Tim Brown, the chief executive and president of IDEO, the famously innovative global design consultancy firm, said:

Multipliers use their own know-how to shape the way people look at issues. They have the ability to frame the questions in a way that nobody else would have thought about. They sift through a variety of factors to identify the right issues and spend time formulating the right questions. These questions:

• Unearth and challenge the assumptions that entrench the organization in old patterns and thinking;
  
• Surface the fundamental tensions and tradeoffs to be considered in a decision;
  
• Force people to examine the facts and confront reality;
  
• Ensure multiple perspectives on an issue.
  

As Tim Brown said, “The right questions aren’t just kind of lying around on the ground to be picked up and asked.”
⁶
The work of the Multiplier is to find the right issue and formulate the right question, so others can find the answers.

Form the Team

Multipliers ensure a great debate by having the right people in the debate. Potential candidates for a great debate include:

• Those with knowledge or insight needed to inform the issue
  
• Key stakeholders for the decision
  
• Those with responsibility for driving the outcome of the decision
  

Assemble the Data

Multipliers identify the decision-critical data that needs to be gathered and analyzed prior to the debate. They ask others to come to the debate armed with relevant information so they are prepared to contribute. When Tim Cook, the COO of Apple Inc., assembles a team to debate an important business decision, the team knows they are expected to gather and thoroughly analyze the data in advance. Tim’s team understands that when they offer their opinions, those opinions need to be informed by fact, not anecdote. One member of Tim’s management team is known for bringing in a box of extra backup data with him to these debates—just in case.

Frame the Decision

In preparation for the meeting itself, Debate Makers define what needs to be addressed, why it is important, and how the final decision is expected to be made.

The What.
Multipliers explicitly state what question needs to be addressed.

The Why.
They shed light on what is happening in the environment that is prompting the need for the debate, and they lay out the stakes involved.

The How.
Multipliers take time up front to clarify the decision-making process and establish roles, including their own. They answer questions such as:

• How long will we have to make the decision?
  
• Who will recommend?
  
• Who will decide?