What if your alignment meetings are just expensive procrastination?
Jared Christopher built Yellowfin BI's sales team to 340% revenue growth in two years without a single alignment meeting. Each regional director had complete authority with one rule: defend your decisions with data. While competitors held stakeholder sessions, Yellowfin shipped.
In this episode, Blima Ehrentreu, founder and CEO of The Designers Group, breaks down the difference between collaboration and consensus, why transparency has limits, and how to create psychological safety without sacrificing decision velocity. You'll learn when to gather input, when to make the call, and how to build values into your hiring process instead of your wall.
Founders trap themselves between two bad options: authoritarian decision-making where nobody weighs in, or endless consensus-building where nothing ships. The real question isn't whether to be decisive or inclusive. It's how to be both at once.
Being heard and being followed are different things. Project Aristotle, Google's research into high-performing teams, found that diversity of thought leads to better outcomes only when team leaders cultivate psychological safety. The critical component wasn't that everyone agreed. It was that everyone felt respected through the process. You listen to opposing views, explain your reasoning, name where you might be wrong, then commit and move forward. The team member might still disagree, but they felt heard and understood why you decided differently.
Most company values live in one of two places: on the wall or in a drawer. Values work when they're woven into how you hire and measure performance. If curiosity is a value, your interview scorecard should assess intellectual curiosity. If integrity is one of your values, you've got it wrong—that's like hiring people who breathe. Real values come from asking what your customers value and what traits your people need to deliver that.
Radical transparency sounds great until you're sharing that you might miss payroll in two months. One founder learned at forty employees when a team member said, "I don't want to know that. That's what you're paid to worry about." Your job as founder is to bear the company's anxiety, not distribute it to people who can't act on it. Give your team things to believe in, not things to worry about.
Technical founders often struggle with team dynamics because code does what you tell it to do and people don't. Design thinking offers a useful contrast—design work requires collaboration by nature. You need input from people with different perspectives. The same principle applies to strategic decisions. Diversity of thought leads to better outcomes, but only when the leader can hold space for disagreement without endless debate.
Clear authority doesn't mean dictatorship. It means everyone knows who decides, what input matters, and how decisions get made. One design firm operates across multiple locations with studio leads who have authority over their teams. They don't need permission to make decisions, but they need to be ready to explain their reasoning. This creates accountability without bottlenecks.
You know decision-making is broken when meetings multiply but decisions don't. Another warning sign: people stop disagreeing in meetings but complain afterward. The fix starts with clarity. Who decides? What input do you need? What's the timeline? Answer those questions before the meeting starts and most dysfunction disappears.
Decision-making isn't about choosing between being authoritarian or collaborative. It's about being clear on who decides, gathering input from people who see what you don't, then making the call and moving forward. Speed matters. So does respect. You can have both when authority is clear and psychological safety is real.
Watch the Full Episode on Authority Over Consensus with expert Blima Ehrentreu below:
Follow us to watch live on YouTube and LinkedIn or listen to episodes on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.