During the Grove era, Intel practiced "consultative decision making". The leader of the meeting owned the decision. The leader consulted all the meeting participants. Then the owner of the decision makes the decision (NOT NOT NOT voting.) One person owns the decision. As a participant, you get your chance to make your case. After the decision, you either "agree and commit", or "disagree and commit". To disagree and not commit is to undermine, and that is a "career limiting move".
> Sometimes an executive needs to integrate different perspectives and choose a direction that neither party could see.
Exactly why "disagree and commit" is so important. The decision maker is expected to have the integrated perspective that you may not have.
> Sometimes an executive needs to integrate different perspectives and choose a direction that neither party could see.
Exactly why "disagree and commit" is so important. The decision maker is expected to have the integrated perspective that you may not have.
edit: Added clarification