In the end, people who join our idea-meritocracy agree to abide by our policies and procedures and the decisions that come out of them, just as if they had taken a dispute to court and had to abide by its procedures and the resulting verdict. This requires them to separate themselves from their own opinion and avoid getting angry when a decision doesn’t go their way. If people don’t follow the agreed-upon paths, they don’t have the right to complain about either the people they disagree with or the idea-meritocratic system itself.
In those rare cases where our principles, policies, and procedures fail to make clear how a disagreement should be resolved, it is everyone’s responsibility to raise that fact so the process can be clarified and improved.
Remember: Principles can’t be ignored by mutual agreement.
Principles are like laws, you can’t break one simply because you and someone else agree to break it. Remember that it’s everyone’s obligation to speak up, own it, or get out. If you don’t think the principles provide the right way to resolve a problem or disagreement, you need to fight to change the principles, not just do what you want to do.
The same standards of behavior apply to everyone. Whenever there is a dispute, both parties are required to have equal levels of integrity, to be open-minded and assertive, and to be equally considerate. The judges must hold the parties to the same standards and provide feedback consistent with these standards. I have often seen cases in which the feedback wasn’t appropriately balanced for various reasons (to hold the stronger performer to a higher standard, to spread the blame). This is a mistake. The person in the wrong needs to receive the strongest message. Not operating this way could lead them to believe that the problem wasn’t caused by them, or was caused by both parties equally. Of course, the message should be conveyed calmly and clearly rather than emotionally to maximize its effectiveness.
Make sure people don’t confuse the right to complain, give advice, and openly debate with the right to make decisions.
Everyone does not report to everyone. Responsibilities and authorities are assigned to individuals based on assessments of their ability to handle them. People are given the authority that they need to achieve outcomes and are held accountable for their ability to produce them.
At the same time, they are going to be stress-tested from both directions, i.e., by those they report to and by those who report to them. The challenging and probing that we encourage is not meant to second-guess their every decision but to improve the quality of their work over time. The ultimate goal of independent thinking and open debate is to provide the decision maker with alternative perspectives. It doesn’t mean that decision-making authority is transitioned to those who are probing them.
When challenging a decision and/or a decision maker, consider the broader context. It’s important to view individual decisions in the broadest possible context. For example, if the Responsible Party being challenged has a vision, and the decision being disputed involves a small detail of that overall vision, the decision needs to be debated and evaluated within the context of that larger vision.
Don’t leave important conflicts unresolved.
While it’s easier to avoid confrontations in the short run, the consequences of doing so can be massively destructive in the long term. It’s critical that conflicts actually get resolved, not through superficial compromise, but through seeking the important, accurate conclusions. In most cases, this process should be made transparent to relevant others (and sometimes the entire organization), both to ensure quality decision-making and to perpetuate the culture of openly working through disputes.
Don’t let the little things divide you when your agreement on the big things should bind you. Almost every group that agrees on the big things ends up fighting about less important things and becoming enemies even though they should be bound by the big things. This phenomenon is called the narcissism of small differences. Take the Protestants and Catholics. Though both are followers of Christ, some of them have been fighting for hundreds of years, even though many of them are unable to articulate the differences that divide them, and most of those who can articulate the differences realize that they are insignificant relative to the big important things that should bind them together. I once saw a close family have an irrevocable blow-out at a Thanksgiving dinner over who would cut the turkey. Don’t let this narcissism of small differences happen to you. Understand that nobody and nothing is perfect and that you are lucky to have by-and-large excellent relationships. See the big picture.