Stop telling and start the listen–clarify–debate–decide–persuade–execute–learn loop
Many teams try to go faster by skipping steps. A leader hears a problem, jumps to a decision, and announces it. People nod in the room and drag their feet later. The fix is not more authority, it’s a better sequence. First you listen, then clarify the problem in plain words, then you debate ideas, decide who decides and when, persuade those who’ll do the work, execute, and finally learn. It’s a wheel, not a line.
Picture a noisy standup where everyone talks past each other. The manager calls a listening session instead. Sticky notes fill a whiteboard with user pains and constraints. Coffee cools but the data gets real. Then a one‑pager goes out that simply says, “The problem we’re solving is X,” with two or three candidate approaches. People mark it up until they agree on the wording. Only then do they debate. The decider is named, the clock is set.
When a path is chosen, the leader doesn’t assume agreement. They explain the decision to the doers using emotion, credibility, and logic, acknowledging how folks might feel (“We’re tired; this simplifies our week”), why the decider is credible, and the chain of reasoning. Execution starts. A calendar ping for a 20‑minute review is already set, so learning isn’t lost in the rush.
This loop works because it reduces hidden dissent and misalignment costs. Behavioral economics tells us that people are more likely to commit to decisions they helped shape or at least fully understand. Cognitive load drops when definitions are clear before arguments start. The time you spend up front gives you back days of clean execution and saves you from slow, silent resistance.
Pick one thorny issue and invite the folks closest to it for a short listening session. Capture facts and pains, then write a crisp one‑pager clarifying the problem and options. Time‑box a debate, name a decider, and set a decision date everyone can see. After the decision, explain it to the people who will actually do the work using emotion, credibility, and logic so they can buy in. Schedule a brief learning review now, not later, to close the loop. Try this once this week and notice how much less friction shows up during execution.
What You'll Achieve
Internally, move from hero decisions to system thinking. Externally, reduce rework, surface dissent early, and create smoother execution with faster learning cycles.
Spin one GSD cycle this week
Hold a listening session
Invite the people closest to the problem. Say, “I’m here to listen.” Capture facts, constraints, and user pains. No decisions.
Clarify before debating
Write a one‑page brief that defines the problem and candidate ideas in plain language. Share it for edits until people nod at the same definition.
Time‑box a debate, name a decider
Run a focused debate, switch roles if needed, and make sure everyone knows who is deciding and by when.
Persuade the doers
After the call, explain the decision to those who’ll execute using emotion, credibility, and logic. Show your work.
Execute and schedule a learning review
Block 30 minutes to review what worked and what didn’t, then feed insights into the next loop.
Reflection Questions
- Which step do I usually skip when pressure rises—and what’s the hidden cost?
- Who is truly closest to the facts, and how can I pull decisions toward them?
- What is the one sentence problem statement everyone can agree on?
Personalization Tips
- School: Teachers listen to student complaints about late lab starts, clarify constraints, debate fixes, decide on a new setup routine, explain why, run it for two weeks, and review tardy rates.
- Retail: Shift leads clarify a stockout problem, debate vendor options, decide locally, explain trade‑offs to cashiers, try the new plan, then check sales and returns.
Radical Candor: Be a Kickass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity
Ready to Take Action?
Get the Mentorist app and turn insights like these into daily habits.