[marcinzm]

>Conformity for its own sake is pointless to me, and something that will often lead to wrong decisions.

The point is usually that a unified wrong decision executed as a team is better than disparate better decisions executed separately. Of course, like everything there's nuances but the overall point is there can be advantages to simply executing a unified solution.

[pbhjpbhj]

There's a difference between doing something and pretending it's the best idea though. Not allowing dissent sounds dangerously like setting yourself up for a fall that all the sycophants around you saw coming but were afraid to mention.

Like I say to my kids: you don't have to like it, you just have to do it. I absolutely encourage expression of disagreement though (and do change my mind sometimes when disagreed with).

I suppose if your management is primarily about being in a power-trip then projecting the idea that all reasonable people agree with you is essential.

[marcinzm]

Your kids giving feedback is good, you and your wife arguing in front of the kids about their bed time isn't.

[pbhjpbhj]

I disagree about the latter - unless you mean "rowing" ("having a row": basically talking without logical progression, just to have a go at each other, being pejorative, shouting and such; would be rowing) arguing (as in presenting a logical argument, noting our premises) can be informative and demonstrate that people can disagree and come peaceably to a compromise.

Of course some parents might not like to give away the logic to their bedtime decisions for fear of manipulation. The struggle is real.

It helps in our family structure we have a decision maker who ultimately has to bear the responsibility for the final decision; this is a normal thing in companies, but it can be replaced by a vote in coops (and in families).