I don't think I fully agree with the sentiment here.
Over-consultation (to the point nothing gets done sensibly, or at all) is bad, but so is under-consultation.
One aspect of this is that being hidden behind the closed doors (and not allowing anyone in) is comfortable and convenient but not necessarily helpful to the outcomes of a project, including through overly autocratic decision-making (which inevitably results in inadequate risk-taking) and increased stimulus to making the decision-making room an echo-chamber and throwing out anyone who shows any signs of healthy critique or dissent.
Another aspect is that I personally would not have had a decent career in the industry had I asked too many permissions for being in the room I thought I needed to be in. Sometimes I just was there, and sometimes it led to great outcomes that would have otherwise not happened!
Absolutely agree about autocratic decision making. You'll certainly not find me advocating for that - and, indeed, find plenty in this series arguing against it! I'm absolutely not arguing for top-down decision-making. We don't want to go back to decision making by Hippo (Highest Paid Person's Opinion).
I also absolutely agree about the need for diversity.
However, there is an issue in large organisations of far more people being involved in projects than are needed. This is doubly inefficient. Firstly, it increases the numbers with de-facto veto power. Secondly, it prevents those people from leading their own work, because they've tagged on to someone else's.
But it's a good debate - nothing in life is binary (except computer code) - both perspectives are true for different circumstances.
I don't think I fully agree with the sentiment here.
Over-consultation (to the point nothing gets done sensibly, or at all) is bad, but so is under-consultation.
One aspect of this is that being hidden behind the closed doors (and not allowing anyone in) is comfortable and convenient but not necessarily helpful to the outcomes of a project, including through overly autocratic decision-making (which inevitably results in inadequate risk-taking) and increased stimulus to making the decision-making room an echo-chamber and throwing out anyone who shows any signs of healthy critique or dissent.
Another aspect is that I personally would not have had a decent career in the industry had I asked too many permissions for being in the room I thought I needed to be in. Sometimes I just was there, and sometimes it led to great outcomes that would have otherwise not happened!
Absolutely agree about autocratic decision making. You'll certainly not find me advocating for that - and, indeed, find plenty in this series arguing against it! I'm absolutely not arguing for top-down decision-making. We don't want to go back to decision making by Hippo (Highest Paid Person's Opinion).
I also absolutely agree about the need for diversity.
However, there is an issue in large organisations of far more people being involved in projects than are needed. This is doubly inefficient. Firstly, it increases the numbers with de-facto veto power. Secondly, it prevents those people from leading their own work, because they've tagged on to someone else's.
But it's a good debate - nothing in life is binary (except computer code) - both perspectives are true for different circumstances.