Why we don’t all see the same business

My dad created our business simulation, Bissim in 1975. It’s had 51 years of continuous development, but in the 33 years I’ve known it, the scenario has only changed a little. And how teams of participants deal with the information (and each other) to make decisions has also been remarkably consistent.

There’s lots of information – definitely too much (but also not enough). And teams are given the ‘wrong amount’ of time. Too much time to just guess, but not enough for perfect analysis with complete information. And here’s the first tension. Some people need to read everything and more before they can possibly make a decision. Others want to jump in and start moving – comfortable making decisions ‘unencumbered by the facts’.

A second layer of difference is how people think and decide. Some are think-talk-think and need quiet space. Other are talk-think-talk and need to be discussing to process optimally.

A first task for every team is to understand the business they inherit. Everyone receives exactly the same information.

Yet they don't all inherit the same business.

Some see an exciting opportunity for growth. Others see a business that's financially vulnerable. Some immediately focus on customers and markets. Others are drawn to operations, costs or quality. The information hasn't changed, but the business each person sees has.

Our experiences, values, assumptions and natural optimism or caution all influence what we notice first, what we worry about most and what we believe should happen next. Faced with imperfect information and limited time, capable people can reach very different conclusions.

The team's next challenge is to turn those different perspectives into a shared understanding and a coherent plan.

That isn't easy.

Over time, I've become convinced that the differences themselves aren't the problem. In fact, they're often the team's greatest strength. The commercially cautious person may spot risks that everyone else has overlooked. The visionary may recognise opportunities that others dismiss too quickly. The financially minded person may prevent the business overreaching. The best teams don't try to eliminate these differences. They explore them.

Experience has taught us that disagreement isn't usually the problem. Unexplored disagreement is. The strongest teams don't aim for consensus first. They aim for understanding. Better commercial judgement then emerges, not because everyone thinks the same, but because the quality of the discussion helps the team see the business more completely.