You know the pattern. Someone pitches an idea and the room lights up. Not because the idea is brilliant, but because of who said it. Same room, different person, similar idea. Silence. Or worse, polite dismissal.
This happens everywhere and research groups are no exception. Maybe there’s a senior colleague whose every suggestion gets immediate traction. Or a collaborator from a prestigious institution whose half-baked thoughts become everyone’s priorities.
Meanwhile, ideas from others barely register. Not because they’re worse. Because they come from the wrong mouth. This is favoritism dressed up as consensus.
The problem isn’t admiration. Respecting someone’s work is fine. The problem is when that respect becomes a filter. When you stop evaluating what’s being said and start evaluating who’s saying it.
Patrick Lencioni calls this “politics” in teams. The moment people realize that relationships matter more than contributions, they stop contributing. They play a different game. Or they check out entirely.
As a leader, you have to watch for this. Not just in others. In yourself.
Ask: When was the last time you pushed back on someone you admire? When was the last time you championed an idea from someone you barely know? The fix isn’t complicated. It just requires intention.
Name the dynamic when you see it. Redirect attention to the substance of what’s being proposed. Ask for input from those who haven’t spoken. Create moments where ideas are evaluated without names attached.
Good research depends on the best ideas surfacing. Not the loudest. Not the most connected. The best.
That only happens if people believe they’ll be heard based on what they bring, not who they are. If they don’t believe that, you’ve already lost some of your best thinking. You just don’t know it yet.
— João
This happens everywhere and research groups are no exception. Maybe there’s a senior colleague whose every suggestion gets immediate traction. Or a collaborator from a prestigious institution whose half-baked thoughts become everyone’s priorities.
Meanwhile, ideas from others barely register. Not because they’re worse. Because they come from the wrong mouth. This is favoritism dressed up as consensus.
The problem isn’t admiration. Respecting someone’s work is fine. The problem is when that respect becomes a filter. When you stop evaluating what’s being said and start evaluating who’s saying it.
Patrick Lencioni calls this “politics” in teams. The moment people realize that relationships matter more than contributions, they stop contributing. They play a different game. Or they check out entirely.
As a leader, you have to watch for this. Not just in others. In yourself.
Ask: When was the last time you pushed back on someone you admire? When was the last time you championed an idea from someone you barely know? The fix isn’t complicated. It just requires intention.
Name the dynamic when you see it. Redirect attention to the substance of what’s being proposed. Ask for input from those who haven’t spoken. Create moments where ideas are evaluated without names attached.
Good research depends on the best ideas surfacing. Not the loudest. Not the most connected. The best.
That only happens if people believe they’ll be heard based on what they bring, not who they are. If they don’t believe that, you’ve already lost some of your best thinking. You just don’t know it yet.
— João