Why do we argue about words and not outcomes?

Differences are everywhere and one can always find data to back the story you want to believe or promote.  We know that any story at an extreme makes fantastic click-bate and headlines which are designed to absorb your attention. Extremes make a point, but they also help to (re)-enforce bias which creates gaps, separation and divisions.  

Directors are responsible for outcomes but often we get lost in a particular preference for a method, an approach, trusted processes, specific technologies, policies and personal bias. We are blinded and unable to see that we share a common goal or intent, desiring the same outcome. However, we hold on to experience that means we passionately believe we know the best approach. 

By way of example, working from home for some leaders remains an unacceptable long term solution.  Preferring workers to be in an office that is paid for and that staff can be managed and seen.  The outcome is that we desire that workers deliver the work that they are given to do.  When access to the tools or machines meant that a central resource made sense due to size and cost, the workplace made sense.  When there is a lack of space at home so a worker is unable to perform their duties, an office makes sense.  For knowledge workers working from home can increase productivity, however, how do we know we are doing the right thing?  

How do we as a board leave our experiences and preferences at the door and work together for the same outcome? Perhaps it is time for us to agree on the outcomes we desire and the principles that we will use first?   

Competition, price, quality, market share and trust are not outcomes or destinations.