> It says the executive is supposed to have a meeting a ratify the one decision. But right before that it says that the two people disagree.
Yes. If the two people agreed, there would be no decision to make; everyone would just do what they already agree is the right thing to do.
When the two people disagree, the purpose of the meeting is for them to come to agreement on what to do before the meeting, and then explain to the executive at the meeting why the thing they agreed to do is the right thing to do. That means they have to figure out something they can agree on.
> Is the idea that they are forced to either compromise or cancel all of their plans?
The idea is that each of them wants to do something, but the two things are different, and neither of them can do anything until they've agreed on a decision and gotten the executive to ratify it. If neither of them wanted to do anything not already agreed to, then, again, there would be no decision to make.
> It seems like a common outcome might be for them to pretend to agree and then go back to their own section and just do what they want.
And then they get fired because the executive is their boss and knows what they said they would do, and it's their job to do it.
> I feel like there needs to be some kind of verification to ensure that different perspectives are actually being integrated rather than people just talking past each other.
That's what the meeting is for. If they can't convince the executive that they've done this, they have to go back and try again.
> Sometimes an executive needs to integrate different perspectives and choose a direction that neither party could see.
I don't see why this couldn't be suggested at the meeting--and of course this would result in a "go back and try again" outcome, but this time with extra input from the executive on what they might want to try.
Yes. If the two people agreed, there would be no decision to make; everyone would just do what they already agree is the right thing to do.
When the two people disagree, the purpose of the meeting is for them to come to agreement on what to do before the meeting, and then explain to the executive at the meeting why the thing they agreed to do is the right thing to do. That means they have to figure out something they can agree on.
> Is the idea that they are forced to either compromise or cancel all of their plans?
The idea is that each of them wants to do something, but the two things are different, and neither of them can do anything until they've agreed on a decision and gotten the executive to ratify it. If neither of them wanted to do anything not already agreed to, then, again, there would be no decision to make.
> It seems like a common outcome might be for them to pretend to agree and then go back to their own section and just do what they want.
And then they get fired because the executive is their boss and knows what they said they would do, and it's their job to do it.
> I feel like there needs to be some kind of verification to ensure that different perspectives are actually being integrated rather than people just talking past each other.
That's what the meeting is for. If they can't convince the executive that they've done this, they have to go back and try again.
> Sometimes an executive needs to integrate different perspectives and choose a direction that neither party could see.
I don't see why this couldn't be suggested at the meeting--and of course this would result in a "go back and try again" outcome, but this time with extra input from the executive on what they might want to try.