Leadership Is Language

What you can learn

L. David Marquet argues that inherited command-and-control language can discourage the collaboration leaders say they want. He examines how different ways of asking, discussing, and committing affect a team's ability to think together and take responsibility for its work. [1]

The immediate value is noticing that a question may contain a preferred answer. When a leader asks for agreement after announcing a decision, quieter participants may reasonably conclude that objections are unwelcome. Language can open space for relevant information, particularly from people closest to the actual work.

Read critically

Better wording cannot substitute for genuine power to speak, sufficient resources, or protection against retaliation. A team will notice if invitations to disagree are followed by punishment. Different situations also require different degrees of direction; an emergency is not the same as a planning meeting.

This is best for managers, hosts, teachers, and volunteer coordinators who are prepared to change what they do after hearing an answer. It is less useful when treated as a script for making predetermined choices appear participatory.

A seven-day value experiment

At the next low-risk planning meeting, present the problem and constraints before stating your preferred solution. Ask each participant what you may be missing, and allow a short period of private thinking before discussion.

Use the existing meeting time and a shared note. Do not ask people to criticize a colleague publicly or pretend that a decision is open when it is not. Record one concern that changes the plan, who owns the next step, and how the group will check the result. Ask afterward whether participants felt able to contribute. The benefit is a decision improved by information that might otherwise have stayed silent.

Discuss: What would your team need to see before believing that you genuinely want disagreement?