The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates is famous for championing the power of cooperative, argumentative dialogue to stimulate critical thinking. His approach eventually dubbed the ‘Socratic method’, involved one person asking questions and the other answering, until together only one hypothesis was left. The discussion could get heated, but both parties understood that they were challenging each other in service of a greater truth.
So it’s safe to say that in a start-up, challenging well established thinking doesn't always sit well with people and founders. But in my opinion having constructive, heated debates are not only good idea to harness constructive conflict, its critical for the decision making process.
A start up can’t effectively set a strategy or decide direction if you’re unwilling to grapple with tough questions and some disagreements over ideas.
Great founders thrive on disagreements because it gives them the information, they need to improve their ideas before they reach the word.
If the Boss can’t be challenged safely, then no one can and its probably a dead end of the creativity for the company.
Comments