Hi Reader,
Almost every day I complete several New York Times games with my 9 and 11 year olds kids.
And each day I am astounded by:
- How differently each of our minds work
- The neuroplasticity of kids
- It actually takes all three of us to complete the puzzles each day
My son is not afraid to just "go for it" in Connections and is often correct. My daughter processes out loud and it is just enough of a "spark" for my "connection" brain to get us to the next step. I am not smarter than they are, I simply have more experience with generational references and historical events.
Bottom line: It would take me 3x longer to complete the puzzles without them and I would be 5x more frustrated!
We know that "two heads are better than one" and we don't always invite in additional viewpoints... because we are:
- Too busy and already feel behind
- We have already made up our mind and don't want to entertain additional opinions
- Or just plain tired and it feels easier to keep moving forward
And sometimes we do "invite" feedback in a meeting and everyone smiles and agrees and we green light the project.
Which brings me to my recent podcast conversation with Elena Armijo.
She reminds us that if everyone is smiling and agreeing then we have a trust problem!
Healthy teams know how to engage in generative conflict.
The kind where people feel safe enough to challenge an idea, build on someone else’s thinking, offer a different perspective, or admit they see something differently.
The kind of conflict that actually leads to better ideas, stronger innovation, and wiser decisions.
And none of that happens without trust.
Better outcomes happen when we are solving together, just like a New York Times puzzle.
Listen to the podcast below.
Always in your corner,
Megan
