"Internal Debate. External Unity." = We're lying to you.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

"Debate" and "dissent" are two different things. "Debate" and "unity" are not incompatible, and it is entirely possible, if everyone's an adult and gets along, to debate internally, present a unified position externally, and not lie about it. It's fairly easy, actually.

I agree. And noted it. I also then said it was inevitable that there would be internal debate that did not end in unity, but dissent. And a person in power would have to make the final decision which wouldn't be unity. They may not hate each other over it but one guy would be thinking we made a mistake here and picked the wrong guy - or made the wrong move. Like the alleged storming out of the draft room rumor went.

[JoeF]

 

"Debate" and "dissent" are two different things. "Debate" and "unity" are not incompatible, and it is entirely possible, if everyone's an adult and gets along, to debate internally, present a unified position externally, and not lie about it. It's fairly easy, actually.

Tom has it here. If there are smart people involved who operate from a stance of organizational health first and personal desire second -- debate rarely rises to dissent. Marrone was the engineer on the development team who had to win every argument; the senior sales rep who thought the company could not survive without her/him. Folks like that need to be purged...I think we have a more debate than dissent team now.

[GG]

 

"Debate" and "dissent" are two different things. "Debate" and "unity" are not incompatible, and it is entirely possible, if everyone's an adult and gets along, to debate internally, present a unified position externally, and not lie about it. It's fairly easy, actually.

 

 

Yup, it's when you get a petulant member, who wants to make sure that the world knows that he disagrees, is when the trouble starts. Usually people like that are fired.

[Kelly the Dog]

Tom has it here. If there are smart people involved who operate from a stance of organizational health first and personal desire second -- debate rarely rises to dissent. Marrone was the engineer on the development team who had to win every argument; the senior sales rep who thought the company could not survive without her/him. Folks like that need to be purged...I think we have a more debate than dissent team now.

I agree wholeheartedly. But just think about it for a second. There is a MUCH greater chance that there is dissent over who is the very best player to take for the team as a whole at 5 or 25 or 50 in the NFL draft than there is unity. Think of your own ideas for the draft and arguing about it wit guys here or you watch the games with. Everyone has a different opinion and usually strong one. Plus drafting is guesswork as much as science, but it's very important to your team.

 

I'm sure it happens on every team. That's why there needs to be clear demarcations.

 

 

Yup, it's when you get a petulant member, who wants to make sure that the world knows that he disagrees, is when the trouble starts. Usually people like that are fired.

Or opt out.

[JoeF]

I agree. And noted it. I also then said it was inevitable that there would be internal debate that did not end in unity, but dissent. And a person in power would have to make the final decision which wouldn't be unity. They may not hate each other over it but one guy would be thinking we made a mistake here and picked the wrong guy - or made the wrong move. Like the alleged storming out of the draft room rumor went.

At some level you have to get a long with your co-workers. I am a firm believer that there has to be some common vision and a culture of mutual respect among a leadership team. If you start every debate with a reaffirmation of the vision and make everyone relate the debate to how it furthers meeting the vision-- it then grounds the debate on a tactic or an individual move so that it doesn't deteriorate into dissent. This is fully possible.

 

Make every debater clearly relate their opinion to the common vision--it quells the uprising. My sense is Marrone, Whaley and Russ never agreed on a vision and Marrone wanted all the power...

 

Also reaffirm mutual respect for the core leaders often...how? It may seem stupid but when I have been in a position to build a culture -- I start every senior staff meeting making each individual around the table praise something another individual has done. When doing skip levels -- I always ask an two level down report to start with praising their boss before we get into the discussion about what needs to improve. It sets a context and takes the edge off.

 

Results--low turnover, more respect, great results....

[GG]

 

Or opt out.

And save the bosses a lot of money.

[Kelly the Dog]

At some level you have to get a long with your co-workers. I am a firm believer that there has to be some common vision and a culture of mutual respect among a leadership team. If you start every debate with a reaffirmation of the vision and make everyone relate the debate to how it furthers meeting the vision-- it then grounds the debate on a tactic or an individual move so that it doesn't deteriorate into dissent. This is fully possible.

 

Make every debater clearly relate their opinion to the common vision--it quells the uprising. My sense is Marrone, Whaley and Russ never agreed on a vision and Marrone wanted all the power...

 

Also reaffirm mutual respect for the core leaders often...how? It may seem stupid but when I have been in a position to build a culture -- I start every senior staff meeting making each individual around the table praise something another individual has done. When doing skip levels -- I always ask an two level down report to start with praising their boss before we get into the discussion about what needs to improve. It sets a context and takes the edge off.

 

Results--low turnover, more respect, great results....

I have a great friend AKC who used to post here all the time. I watch the games with him every week. One of my favorite people. We get along awesome.

 

I don't agree with hardly anything he says about the Bills and often violently disagree.

[NoSaint]

I agree. And noted it. I also then said it was inevitable that there would be internal debate that did not end in unity, but dissent. And a person in power would have to make the final decision which wouldn't be unity. They may not hate each other over it but one guy would be thinking we made a mistake here and picked the wrong guy - or made the wrong move. Like the alleged storming out of the draft room rumor went.

except, some can be adults and realize "not my first choice" does not equal "the wrong choice" and storm out.

 

its a pretty fundamental theory - from large organizations to parenting, you keep the debate private and stand behind the final decision. i suspect where last year went off the rails was atleast 1 party not being willing to come together unless he was the guy winning. i know you get all that (and acknowledged it several times already). its odd to publicly state it in a press conference -- but i think that unity was being undermined not just publicly with you and i being witness, but the staff at OBD, and players catching a lot of it -- and when they dont see a united front, its not good.

[JoeF]

I have a great friend AKC who used to post here all the time. I watch the games with him every week. One of my favorite people. We get along awesome.

 

I don't agree with hardly anything he says about the Bills and often violently disagree.

You share a common vision of the Bills winning the Super Bowl....you disagree on tactics all the time Disagreements escalate in a 1 to 1 ratio to beers consumed I bet....

 

Another point--I also understand Marrone here...I left a senior job in July after 7 highly successful years because the board diverted in both tactics and vision from where I wanted to go next....I in essence took my contractual severance and left...I am a Marrone!!! Oh God...

Edited January 15, 2015 by Formerly Joe F

[Kelly the Dog]

You share a common vision of the Bills winning the Super Bowl....you disagree on tactics all the time Disagreements escalate in a 1 to 1 ratio to beers consumed I bet....

Internal unity. External debate.

[Dan]

"Debate" and "dissent" are two different things. "Debate" and "unity" are not incompatible, and it is entirely possible, if everyone's an adult and gets along, to debate internally, present a unified position externally, and not lie about it. It's fairly easy, actually.

Precisely.

 

As everyone should know.... You can never trust what is formally presented to the public in a news conference. No person or organization ever wants to air their laundry and real opinions about an issue. That's why any firm's facebook page and blog crap is always run by a PR person.

 

They're not spouting lies, necessarily. Just spinning it and stating things in a way that are legally, politically, and marketing wise going to advance everyone in a positive light. That's why Russ will never say what he really feels about Marrone, for example. It's just not smart to do it.

 

I don't read those 4 words as internally disagree, externally lie about it. I see it more as... Internally we disagree and debate. But, then whomever has the final say, makes a call, and the final decision gets made. At that point, get on board and externally support it, because that's where we're going and it does no one any good to show public dissent.

 

What it sounds like to me is someone, formerly with the Bills' organization, was a bit immature and thought it should all be his way and didn't have a problem with people knowing he disagreed. And that attitude causes problems throughout the organization. Essentially, its never good to let the kids see mom and dad fight.

[DC Tom]

I agree wholeheartedly. But just think about it for a second. There is a MUCH greater chance that there is dissent over who is the very best player to take for the team as a whole at 5 or 25 or 50 in the NFL draft than there is unity. Think of your own ideas for the draft and arguing about it wit guys here or you watch the games with. Everyone has a different opinion and usually strong one. Plus drafting is guesswork as much as science, but it's very important to your team.

That's where being an adult comes in. You don't always get your way. You deal with it.

 

I have to do this sort of thing all the time in my job, as a leader. You have any idea how easy it is to get five strong-willed programmers to agree on anything? You give each of them a chance to be heard, guide them to discussing things in terms of "risk" and "reward" instead of "good" and "bad," and if they don't reach a consensus on their own you say "Okay, I understand what you're all saying, and here's the direction we're going in, because of..." You get unity with disagreement. No one lies or dissents, because even those who disagree understand the decision and buy in to the trade-offs.

 

And that works anywhere. Because in general, people don't want things their way as much as they want to know they're respected. It's only when you get douche rockets like Marrone who DO want everything their way and DON'T respect anyone else that it doesn't work...and like GG said, those people tend to not last.

 

It also works well in a management team organized on non-linear lines...like Pegula seems to have organized his team.

[Dan]

Another point--I also understand Marrone here...I left a senior job in July after 7 highly successful years because the board diverted in both tactics and vision from where I wanted to go next....I in essence took my contractual severance and left...I am a Marrone!!! Oh God...

I would say that there's nothing wrong with that. Unless.... You publicly stated your problems and trashed the board on your way out the door.

 

Take it back to the Bills... Schwartz just quit because he and Rex don't see eye to eye. But, he didn't trash any one, create a negative situation, he just said I'd like to move on. And no one thinks he behaved poorly. Because, he didn't. He was professional to the end.

[JoeF]

I would say that there's nothing wrong with that. Unless.... You publicly stated your problems and trashed the board on your way out the door.

 

Take it back to the Bills... Schwartz just quit because he and Rex don't see eye to eye. But, he didn't trash any one, create a negative situation, he just said I'd like to move on. And no one thinks he behaved poorly. Because, he didn't. He was professional to the end.

Thankfully I was more mature (not that some part of me wanted to be an !@#$). If I would have had Bill Polian's number I may have called him.

 

To the external world it was time for me to go. Accomplished what we had set out to do as an organization and team.

[papazoid]

imagine going to shea's for a play.

 

prior to the performance they announce the understudy will play one of the lead parts.

 

they also let it be known that the actor was not wanted by the director but loved by casting and the producer.

 

enjoy the show.

[Kelly the Dog]

That's where being an adult comes in. You don't always get your way. You deal with it.

 

I have to do this sort of thing all the time in my job, as a leader. You have any idea how easy it is to get five strong-willed programmers to agree on anything? You give each of them a chance to be heard, guide them to discussing things in terms of "risk" and "reward" instead of "good" and "bad," and if they don't reach a consensus on their own you say "Okay, I understand what you're all saying, and here's the direction we're going in, because of..." You get unity with disagreement. No one lies or dissents, because even those who disagree understand the decision and buy in to the trade-offs.

 

And that works anywhere. Because in general, people don't want things their way as much as they want to know they're respected. It's only when you get douche rockets like Marrone who DO want everything their way and DON'T respect anyone else that it doesn't work...and like GG said, those people tend to not last.

 

It also works well in a management team organized on non-linear lines...like Pegula seems to have organized his team.

I'm not talking about any of that tough. I know that already. That's the way it works and should work in any decent office or industry. My post and point is, why say those words, especially after your team was thrown in turmoil over internal-debate-external-unity-which-was-really-external debate-and-blow-up, with the national media jumping all over you for being a mess.

 

I know it's a little thing and doesn't matter, they should just shut up about it and say they all try to work together to get a consensus. I parse words for a living so this kind of thing bothers me more than most. But the phrase "external unity" implies deceit to me, even though we all know that is what is really going on and how the sausage is made and that it isnt mostly deceit.

imagine going to shea's for a play.

 

prior to the performance they announce the understudy will play one of the lead parts.

 

they also let it be known that the actor was not wanted by the director but loved by casting and the producer.

 

enjoy the show.

Exactly. You can't tell the truth. But IMO the Bills are saying "the understudy" is performing tonight but we all agreed he was better than the star and guy you love and paid to see.

[juno999]

Precisely.

 

As everyone should know.... You can never trust what is formally presented to the public in a news conference. No person or organization ever wants to air their laundry and real opinions about an issue. That's why any firm's facebook page and blog crap is always run by a PR person.

 

They're not spouting lies, necessarily. Just spinning it and stating things in a way that are legally, politically, and marketing wise going to advance everyone in a positive light. That's why Russ will never say what he really feels about Marrone, for example. It's just not smart to do it.

 

I don't read those 4 words as internally disagree, externally lie about it. I see it more as... Internally we disagree and debate. But, then whomever has the final say, makes a call, and the final decision gets made. At that point, get on board and externally support it, because that's where we're going and it does no one any good to show public dissent.

 

What it sounds like to me is someone, formerly with the Bills' organization, was a bit immature and thought it should all be his way and didn't have a problem with people knowing he disagreed. And that attitude causes problems throughout the organization. Essentially, its never good to let the kids see mom and dad fight.

This. Internal debate is good. It fosters an exchange of ideas. However when the call is made, it is final.

[JoeF]

That's where being an adult comes in. You don't always get your way. You deal with it.

 

I have to do this sort of thing all the time in my job, as a leader. You have any idea how easy it is to get five strong-willed programmers to agree on anything? You give each of them a chance to be heard, guide them to discussing things in terms of "risk" and "reward" instead of "good" and "bad," and if they don't reach a consensus on their own you say "Okay, I understand what you're all saying, and here's the direction we're going in, because of..." You get unity with disagreement. No one lies or dissents, because even those who disagree understand the decision and buy in to the trade-offs.

Just curious ... is TSW where you come to vent your frustrations and beat up on us minions? This is like an epiphany for me...

[Big Turk]

 

Whaley said these same four words, too.

 

I totally understand it. I guess I agree with it. But I can't see how it is wise that they say those four words in public. It's basically admitting we're lying to you some or a lot of the time. Even if we know that happens, and I totally understand why they have to. It seems to me that it's not very smart to say it.

 

Now granted, sometimes the internal debate will create unity. Or since all five - let's say, between Rex, Doug, Terry, Kim and Russ - may come to a group decision this is definitely what's best for The Bills and for us, then the external unity is genuine.

 

But there is going to be a lot of times when it will not be internal unity. Terry and Kim, or Doug, or Rex, are going to have to put their foot down and say, "This is what needs to happen." And Rex won't get the draft pick he wants because Doug has the final say. Or Doug won't get the free agent he wants because Rex wants a different guy and Terry intercedes. That's inevitable.

 

But then when they say it was all of our decision they are lying to us.

 

It doesn't matter of course. It doesn't affect what's on the field.

 

Unless it does.

 

The "external unity" concept was in place last year. They all said they wanted the Watkins trade. It seems that Marrone didn't. It added to the disconnect, then the arguments, the tension, and to the players that played in the games. Maybe to wins and losses and the playoffs. And ultimately, to the opt-out. (Thank the Lord!!!)

 

So the lie of "external unity" which wasn't unity at all, did affect the team. I don't think it's a good idea to do it. How can we believe a lot of what they say about, say, top draft picks.

 

Discuss.

 

P.S. I shouldn't say "the lie" affected the team, because of course it didn't. But the internal discord did affect the team. And they lied to us about it. And now are announcing they are going to do it again.

 

Not necessarily. Basically I see it as meaning that everyone will get their chance to speak their mind and give input into a situation, then they will make a decision and that will be the decision they go with as a group, without guys getting pissy or upset their suggestion or the guy the wanted wasn't chosen...

Edited January 15, 2015 by matter2003

[Malazan]

So...we're finally running out of things to complain about?