Balance Inquiry and Advocacy to Unlock Collective Intelligence

A software team was stuck debating their product roadmap. Half the team pushed for immediate feature releases; the other half feared technical debt. Meetings always ended with polite applause and no plan.

Then their new agile coach, Nina, introduced a simple routine: each side would state its proposal and the data driving it, then the other side would ask for those data—no objections allowed. They’d repeat until both sides could articulate each other’s views accurately. Finally they’d propose one experiment to resolve the debate—a short spike on a prototype feature.

At first, discussions were awkward. Some asked “hostage” questions—“If my proposal is wrong, does that mean you’ll drop your plan?” But soon, everyone grew curious rather than defensive. They unearthed hidden assumptions—about timelines, user needs, and architectural risk—and saw how each idea had merit in a different context. They combined both visions into a single, phased experiment that delivered fast feedback and slow technical debt.

That one practice of balancing advocacy with real inquiry reshaped their entire process. Today, they no longer argue in circles. Instead, they co-create experiments that clarify assumptions, turning every debate into a stepping stone rather than a stumbling block.

When you hit a debate, state your view with its underlying data, then ask teammates to probe your reasoning without arguing. Echo their main points back to confirm and then co-design a quick experiment to test your combined ideas.