Anytime an argument starts over who’s right or who’s wrong, it should serve as a warning that something is missing, and that rejection is the next likely step. It should also trigger the same question in everyone’s mind: How might what I don’t know impact what I do?

Mutual exploration is critical whenever people don’t agree on what they hear, see, or believe. The value of one bit of information cannot be fully assessed until it has been pooled with other seemingly disconnected pieces and examined openly.

Preventing rejection should be viewed as the basis for learning. To be successful you must first understand the risk involved in any given situation and then strive to minimize the risk of rejection by seeking confirmation both before and after you make a decision.

The biggest challenge you’ll face throughout your life is how to make decisions with the greatest knowledge of your future, organize to carry out these decisions, measure the results, and make improvements to ensure better outcomes. This is best accomplished by adhering to the following principles of high-performance:

• Rejection is viewed as a learning tool when it occurs.
• Risk stimulates creative thinking and builds confidence.
• Change is the natural pathway to continued success.
• Critical thinking generates new ways to use old resources.
• New learning opportunities and creative processes are the norm.

The recurring problem in most organizations centers around the lack of opportunity for those who do the work and interact with the end user to discuss problems, assess progress, and develop strategies. After all, they’re in the best position to determine what works and what doesn’t. Given the opportunity, they could also explain why things are not working and what to do about it.

When followers are fearful of bringing up troublesome issues in front of their leaders, they gather covertly to assess their situation and discuss how best to fix the problem themselves.

Here’s an example of how that played out for a manufacturer of automobile windshields that had recently invested $85 million in new a state-of-the-art fabrication plant using robotic technology. For the most part the programming and testing had gone smoothly.

Quality checks showed that standards were being met or exceeded on every production line, but one. Rejections were still running very high on the tempering line. A string of experts had been brought in to identify the cause of the defects, but the source of the problem had eluded them all.

After yet another quality expert had left empty handed or empty headed as the frustrated line workers would claim, a group of check-point operators were overheard teasing each other about having to “buy the beers” because their crew had lost the “pulling contest.”

Apparently, two of the supervisors on the night shift were making friendly bets as to which crew could pack the most pieces. It was later discovered that to build up the numbers one of the supervisors would sometimes slip in faulty pieces that should have been rejected.

Later, after the official tally had determined a winner and the supervisors were gone, the crews would pull the substandard pieces and toss them in the recycle pile. The two crews were also running bets themselves as to which supervisor would order them to pack the most rejects.

Rather than alert quality control to the game their supervisors were playing, the crews had instead created a game of their own. Sadly, the company ended up the loser because both sides of the leader-follower equation would rather play games than fix the problem.