Part of this doesn't make sense. It says the executive is supposed to have a meeting a ratify the one decision. But right before that it says that the two people disagree.
It seems to imply that those two people are magically going to agree to something before the meeting.
Is the idea that they are forced to either compromise or cancel all of their plans? It seems like a common outcome might be for them to pretend to agree and then go back to their own section and just do what they want.
I feel like there needs to be some kind of verification to ensure that different perspectives are actually being integrated rather than people just talking past each other. Also, sometimes just mashing two ideas together creates a third idea that doesn't work even though either one of the two original could work. Also, even if they come up with a viable idea, someone has to check that they are actually implementing it.
I think the article might be a little bit of a simplification. Sometimes an executive needs to integrate different perspectives and choose a direction that neither party could see.
It seems to imply that those two people are magically going to agree to something before the meeting.
Is the idea that they are forced to either compromise or cancel all of their plans? It seems like a common outcome might be for them to pretend to agree and then go back to their own section and just do what they want.
I feel like there needs to be some kind of verification to ensure that different perspectives are actually being integrated rather than people just talking past each other. Also, sometimes just mashing two ideas together creates a third idea that doesn't work even though either one of the two original could work. Also, even if they come up with a viable idea, someone has to check that they are actually implementing it.
I think the article might be a little bit of a simplification. Sometimes an executive needs to integrate different perspectives and choose a direction that neither party could see.