Make Better Decisions with a ‘Challenge Network’

When we have more information, we make better decisions

I have one particular client, a husband and wife team, who often call me when they’re at odds over a business decision and need me to act as a tie-breaker or objective third party before moving forward.

The conversation usually begins with something like, “We’re having a disagreement, and you’re on speaker.”

Oh, good! What could go wrong?

It wasn’t until I read Adam Grant’s most recent book, Think Again, that I realized I was a part of their informal challenge network.

Grant begins the book by defining two different types of conflict; relationship conflict and task conflict. Relationship conflicts are “personal, emotional clashes that are filled with not just friction but also with animosity.”

On the other hand, task conflicts are “clashes about ideas and opinions,” which, as you might expect, can be a good thing. While relationship conflict is usually damaging to a team’s performance, task conflict has been linked to higher creativity and better decision-making.

When my clients call mid-argument, they’re not mad; they’re just… heated.

Their disagreements are intense, but they’re not hostile. They push each other to do better because they believe in each other, not because they want to tear one another down. They refuse to settle for solutions that are ‘good enough’ when they know the other can do better.

In short, they are masters of task conflict.

Grant argues that to make better, more compelling decisions, you need to partake in more task conflict like the disagreements my clients often have. To experience more task conflict, you need to surround yourself with what he calls a challenge network.

According to Grant, a challenge network is “a group of people we trust to point out our blind spots and help us overcome our weaknesses. Their role is to activate rethinking cycles by pushing us to be humble about our expertise, doubt our knowledge, and be curious about new perspectives.”

A challenge network is not to be confused with a support system. A support system is a soft place to land inhabited by people who encourage us, commiserate with us, and always tell us we’re right. There are lots of sunshine and rainbows there.

But, when we’re problem-solving or making big decisions, a support system isn’t what we necessarily need. A support system validates our beliefs, while a challenge network pushes us to rethink them.

And, as Grant says, “we learn more from people who challenge our thought process than from those who affirm our conclusions.”

So, as someone interested in making better decisions and finding more compelling solutions to problems, how can we build our own challenge networks?

Grant recently appeared on Tim Ferriss’ podcast, The Tim Ferris Show, where the two discussed their approaches to doing just that.

Below are four considerations for assembling your challenge network.

Define who you’re looking for

Before filling any position, it’s essential to know what you’re looking for — and what you’re not. In the book, Grant explains that he looks for “disagreeable givers” for his challenge network because “their intent is to elevate the work, not feed their own egos. They don’t criticize because they’re insecure; they challenge because they care.”

And because disagreeable people tend to be more skeptical and challenging in all scenarios, they’re not afraid to speak up and tell us what they really think.

Equally important is what you are not looking for. When it comes to writing, Ferriss says he “can’t have cheerleaders as editors, at least proofreaders.” Why? Because cheerleaders affirm the work as it is today, while disagreeable givers challenge you to rethink where the work could be and elevate it beyond its current state.

Formalize your expectations

Ferriss likens Grant’s approach to formalizing his challenge network’s expectations to that of a debate team. Members of his challenge network are asked to disassemble the argument he’s making, even if that’s not how they personally feel.

For example, Grant explains how he uses a challenge network of his students when writing a book. “Their job is to violently disagree with every word that I write. Really try to poke holes in the evidence, in the logic.”

Grant has also gone back to thank those who have been long-time members of his challenge network and enlist their help far into the future.

I just wanted you to know that I consider you a founding member of my challenge network.

I know I’m not always as receptive to your criticism as I would like to be, and sometimes that’s probably frustrating for you, but I keep coming to you because I know I need it. And I value it even if I don’t like it.

I want you to keep providing that, because that’s one of the central roles that you play in my life, and you’ve made my work infinitely better.

How formal you decide to make this is entirely up to you. The point is to ensure people are aware that you want them to poke holes in your ideas, even when your reactions in moments of feedback say otherwise.

Force a response

Reflecting on his writing challenge network, Ferriss shares the need to force some people to give him the critical feedback that they might otherwise prefer not to give.

Instead of asking, “What would you change?” he’ll say something like, “if you have to remove, say 20% of this chapter, which 20 percent would you remove? Gun to the head. You have to cut 20 percent.”

By rephrasing the question slightly, he doesn’t leave them the option to opt-out of the tough stuff. On the flip side, he might also ask something like, “if you could only save 10% or 20%, what do you think I should absolutely keep in?”

Similarly, Grant shares that he’ll often step off stage after giving a talk to someone telling him it was great. This is the response of a cheerleader, which isn’t particularly helpful to him. In that case, he says he’ll give people more of a push to provide him with feedback that’s actually helpful.

So I’ll always say, ‘What’s the one thing I can do better?’ Sometimes they say, ‘Well, nothing.’ I feel like I have to push them a little bit.

So I guess I’ve gotten a little edgier about this over the past few years, and I’ll say, ‘Huh. You know it’s funny, I thought you had higher standards than that. You couldn’t find a single thing I could improve on? You really think this is perfect? Come on.’

And then if they won’t give me anything, I will criticize myself out loud. I’ll say, ‘Look. Here are the three things that I think I did poorly. Tell me if you agree with any of those, and then what I’m missing.’

I’ve never had somebody just completely punt at that point. They always offer something.

Even though my clients say they’re calling me over a disagreement, they’re really calling me over a debate. And, yes — there is a difference. While disagreement feels personal and emotional, a debate is strictly about ideas.

Grant says that “simply framing a dispute as a debate rather than as a disagreement signals that you’re receptive to considering dissenting opinions and changing your mind, which in turn motivates the other person to share more information with you.”

And, when we have more information, we make better decisions. The only question left to answer is — who will you include in your challenge network?

Not a member of Medium yet?

Join here to directly support my work and get access to every story on Medium. You can also subscribe to my free newsletter or connect with me on Linkedin.