Hopefully those situations are extremely few and far between. But some of the hardest conversations any leader will have, especially when the default _is_ to keep discussing until everything is mutually transparent and understood, are going to be on this theme. I've had some colleagues handle that handle that situation well, and others for whom it has been a real challenge and sets the relationship back.
But some of the hardest conversations any
leader will have, especially when the default
_is_ to keep discussing until everything is
mutually transparent and understood, are
going to be on this theme.
There are times when we should dig in and defend our decisions to the death (hopefully, figuratively speaking!) but these battles should be chosen and fought carefully and not reflexively.
I think most people generally understand this, most of the time. Spectrum or otherwise.
Which is why I find the linked article so misguided and even insulting. The notion that those on the spectrum are hardwired to be incompatible with authority and everybody else just needs to accept this is just so wrong.
rather than a senior colleague telling a junior
colleague to do something "because I say so"
There are a lot of other contexts where it seems wildly impractical.
Should Linus have explain to you and negotiate your right to be (or not) a Linux kernel committer? Should a crossing guard at an intersection negotiate with every car?
Should an air traffic controller negotiate and explain with every given aircraft? Okay, maybe we could treat the role of ATC as an education issue during pilot training and certification, so nobody has to "blindly" obey. But what if I don't want to obey even in an informed way? What if I think the certification process sucks? Why submit to the FAA's authority in the first place? They don't own the sky!
Ideally, we should all have individualized speed limits on roadways, too, based on our skill, the weather conditions, and the vehicle we're driving at the moment. And yet we recognize that this is just sort of impractical.
There are a lot of issues with negotiation that get awfully intractable if we scale them up past much more than two people.
There is a minimum speed limit and a strict set of laws governing your driving behavior.
So no, you don’t get to pick your own specially negotiated arbitrary driving speed or negotiate your own special individual set of driving laws.
German driving requirements (exams, licensing, etc) are said to be quite strict as well relative to many other countries and again, I am not aware of any part of this process where you are permitted to set your own personalized driving laws (but only if you have deemed your assigned personalized negotiator to be worthy of that authority)
In short, a spectacularly poor choice of example (on multiple axes) to illustrate your point.
If it’s any consolation this is a common mistake. I suspect people in Germany are often amused and baffled by others’ tendency to point to the Autobahn as some sort of lassiez-faire libertarian “do whatever you want” zone.
Negotiation as equals and on the merits of the matter at hand. For example, rather than a senior colleague telling a junior colleague to do something "because I say so", the expectation would be that they actually provide justification for their decision, and to persuade you rather than simply overrule there is disagreement. Ditto for a parent, teacher or other authority figure.
And that where there is unresolvable disagreement (and one persons decision has to be followed despite lack of consensus), that there is accountability around that decision, and that the results of it are taken into account when resolving future disputes. In other words, authority is earned not decreed.