Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter (21 page)

As a result of properly framing the issues, every person knows what is at stake, what is expected of them, and the level of honesty and rigor that will be required of the group as a whole.

In illustrating how Debate Makers frame the issues, let’s return to Lutz at Microsoft. Recently Lutz needed to make a tough budget cut decision, so he pulled his lieutenants together for a debate. According to a member of his management team, “He teed up the issue and set the context for the meeting: ‘We are here to answer a tough question: What is the best way to take 20 percent out of our budget?’” He went on to explain the need for action. He was fully transparent. He didn’t hoard information. He just shared openly that HQ had requested a certain amount of budget back and why. Then he outlined the process: each person needed to explain where the money should be taken out of the organization and why. Once it was debated fully, he would make the final decision. They debated for more than two hours, during
which time he played the role of facilitator, ensuring that each member of his team debated the issues rigorously.

When a decision is high stakes, Debate Makers require everyone’s best thinking. They know people will do their best thinking if the issues are framed well and defined, and the questions of the debate are clear. They know that the debate will be richest if it is based in facts, not opinions, and that it takes foresight to gather the right information.

Because they take time to prepare and frame the issue, Multipliers are able to leverage more capability from their people than their Diminisher counterparts. Multipliers ensure people don’t waste their brainpower and enthusiasm “spinning” on tangential issues. By framing the debate in terms of key questions within a clear context, they are able to foster motivation and readiness and help elicit 100 percent from their people. Multipliers love debate, but they debate with a purpose. They know what they want out of the debate and what they want out of the people involved. Multipliers aren’t just debaters; they are Debate Makers.

II. Spark the Debate

After framing of the issue, Multipliers spark the debate. Through our research and coaching work with executives, I have observed four elements of a great debate. A great debate is:

• Engaging:
  The question is compelling and important to everyone in attendance.
  
• Comprehensive:
  The right information is shared to generate a holistic and collective understanding of the issues at hand.
  
• Fact based:
  The debate is deeply rooted in fact, not opinion.
  
• Educational:
  People leave the debate more focused on what they learned than on who won or lost.
  

How do you lead this type of debate? There are two key elements that couple and form the yin and the yang of great debate. The first is to create safety. The second is to demand rigor. Multipliers do both.

The Yin: Create Safety for Best Thinking

How do Multipliers create a safe climate for people’s best thinking?

They do it by removing fear. They remove the factors that cause people to doubt themselves or their ideas and the fear that causes people to hold back. One senior manager we interviewed told us about his current boss, “Amit has strong opinions but he lets the discussion happen
before
he expresses that opinion.” And further, “You know where you stand with Amit. He maintains a balance of respect but is also brutally honest if something doesn’t make sense. I’ve never gotten into trouble telling my manager what I think.”

Another executive we’ve worked with knew that she had a reputation for being smart and strong willed, and that she could be intimidating. A direct report has noticed a recent change in her: “When the group is debating an issue, Jennifer makes it a point to hold her views until the end. She gives a chance for each member of her executive team to express his or her views before she adds her own.”

Multipliers create safety, but they also maintain pressure for a reality-based, rigorous debate. Multipliers make sure everyone is wearing a seat belt because they are about to put their foot on the accelerator.

The Yang: Demand Rigor

How do Multipliers demand rigor?

They ask the questions that challenge conventional thinking. They ask the questions that unearth the assumptions that are holding the organization back. They ask the questions that cause the team to think harder and to dig deeper.

They ask for evidence. They aren’t overly swayed by opinion and emotional arguments; they continue to ask for evidence that would
confirm a point of view. And they ask for evidence that might suggest an alternative point of view.

They pursue all sides of the issue. When the group moves too quickly toward agreement, Multipliers often step back and ask someone to argue the other point of view. Or they might make the argument themselves. They make sure all the rocks are turned over.

When the senior management team of a European online distribution company met to discuss whether to add a new feature to their online store, there was strong support for the idea among the team. But the CEO wasn’t satisfied with intuition and wanted to drive more rigor into their collective thinking. He asked the senior executive team whether the new feature would actually drive higher sales. At first there were opinions, but the CEO wanted data and wanted to know what the facts proved. The executive team began to dig into the facts in a summary analysis. Again the CEO dug deeper. He asked the group to go country by country, poring over the data to look for an answer to the questions.

As one executive who was present said, “Nobody got away with their own opinions.” The group wrestled with the issue until they finally concluded that they didn’t have enough information yet to make a clear decision, and they identified what additional data they needed. This company’s leader kept the debate going by demanding rigor and sound decision making.

According to one of his management team members, Jim Barks-dale, former CEO of Netscape, was well known for saying, “If you don’t have any facts, we’ll just use my opinion.”

Sue Siegel, as president of Affymetrix, led the company through a moment-of-truth decision in 2001 by using the power of facts and openness to harness the full brainpower of the organization.

Affymetrix produced microarray technologies that allow scientists to analyze complex genetic information. The company had been public for three years and had grown steadily to 800 employees. Sue received some troubling news from customers that there were some problems
with the GeneChip microarrays that could potentially render inaccurate results, but only for a minor portion of its applications. As president, she would have to make one of the toughest decisions that the company would face in the next several years: should they recall the product?

Sue was herself a veteran executive of the life sciences industry and had deep knowledge of the underlying technology and issues. But instead of relying solely on her own understanding of the situation, she went beyond the management hierarchy and reached deep into the organization for data and for insight. She went straight to the people who understood the issues and let them know she needed their input.

She then convened a larger forum of several layers and management. She framed the magnitude of the issue and the potential impact to the company. She laid out a couple scenarios and then began asking questions. She ensured that the group thought through the decision from every angle: “What is the impact on our customers?…What is our legal obligation?…What is the financial impact?” Sue asked for data and their recommendations. The group then debated for two arduous days. After several debates, she asked the management team to weigh in, and then they made the decision to recall the product. The next day, Sue boarded a plane to present at the Goldman Sachs financial conference in Laguna Niguel attended by over 1,000 analysts, shareholders, and industry experts to tell them about their mistake and their decision.

The product recall was a financial setback for the young organization, adversely impacting market cap for two quarters and sending it from Wall Street darling to leper overnight. However, with the company staff behind the decision, they were able to execute the decision with conviction and explain it to their customers and to the market. This allowed them to rebound quickly to regain their market position and exceed their market cap. In fact, the product recall became a turning point in building deep customer relationships and respect for employee input that would become the hallmark of the company. In
the four years that Sue led the company following the product recall, Affymetrix continued to grow sales and beat expectations for both revenue and earnings.

Sue Siegel led this organization successfully through one of its toughest decisions because instead of turning inward, she reached out and utilized the full intelligence of the organization to make a decision that was grounded in full disclosure and fact, and in the best interest of their customers.

The following chart summarizes some of the practices Debate Makers use to create safety while also demanding rigor:

CREATE SAFETY FOR BEST THINKING (THE YIN)

• Share their view last after hearing other people’s views
  
• Encourage others to take an opposing stand
  
• Encourage all points of view
  
• Focus on the facts
  
• Depersonalize the issues and keep it unemotional
  
• Look beyond organizational hierarchy and job titles