By LaPora Lindsey

There’s a common misconception many fall for, whether you’re on the frontlines or sitting in a C-suite: We assume that what we see is the whole story of the problem. 

It’s not.

Most workplace issues are layered, tangled, and touched by more departments than we realize. And so the challenge is that many times you can’t see past your own view unless you intentionally seek to have conversations with people outside your immediate scope.

So, why does this matter?

When problems arise and you rush to solutions, the majority of the time those solutions are… partial fixes. They’re based only on what you know or from where you sit. But when you open up cross-departmental conversations, you create a chance to understand the bigger picture.

And that changes everything. Even if you don’t walk away with a perfect solution, bringing in other insights gets you something far more powerful: buy-in, clarity, and a more accurate understanding of what’s actually happening

The research that backs this up.

In a 2024 McKinsey & Co. study, one company assumed—as many do—that the CEO should be the ultimate decision-maker. But through deeper examination, they realized something critical: the people most affected by the outcome weren’t even in the room.

What looked like confident leadership was actually incomplete leadership.
Decisions were efficient, sure—but not always effective. The company uncovered blind spots they didn’t even know existed because they were only listening to the top, not across.

To correct course, they implemented the DARE model, a decision-making framework that ensures the right people are involved at the right levels—without creating a free-for-all.

• D-Deciders are those with a final vote.
• A-Advisers have input and help shape the decision.
• R- Recommenders offer perspectives and present the final fact set.
• E-Executors carry out the decision.

The article also pointed out something important: when teams are given the right tools and structure, they can be incredibly innovative. But innovation alone isn’t enough. You have to make sure the process itself moves the organization forward, not backward.

The DARE model does just that. It avoids the trap of “too many cooks in the kitchen” by organizing who contributes what, when, and why. It’s not about making everyone weigh in on everything. It’s about making sure the right voices are heard at the right time.

And when that happens, teams stop guessing—and start building real, sustainable solutions.

Here’s what this looks like in real life.

When we forgo conversations and assume that the data is all that is needed, we run the risk of making blind decisions. And I saw firsthand what that can do to morale. I worked at a company that was big on data backed decisions. Based on data, we, the front line employees would find out how well we were doing, quantitatively. If the numbers weren’t up, we weren’t successful. A part of this was the environment, some workplaces need to be heavy on the data. But the other part was a lack of curiosity from leadership. Myself and others tried to have conversations based on our experiences. We wanted to share the gray areas that the black and white facts often did not account for. Leadership shut us down every time. Within three months, 20 people quit—including me. Not because we weren’t performing, but because no one asked us what we thought. No one listened.

The assumption was: “We have the data, so we have the full story.” But data can’t explain why something’s happening. It can’t share fears, frustrations, or lived experience. Only people can do that.

When those at higher levels have access to data apart from those on the frontlines, but not conversations, it leads to a blind assumption that you now have the whole story. But quantitative data can only take you so far, it can tell a story over time, but it cannot tell the why or how, or share thoughts–only people do that. 

To that point, on the flip side I’ve worked in environments where I, as a frontline leader, was the decider. My department head acted as my adviser, colleagues as recommenders, and I often executed the final plan. That clarity made decisions faster and more grounded, because roles were clear, and different voices were heard.

Every person in the workplace holds value. So when challenges arise, the default shouldn’t be to tap only a chosen few. It should be to include those directly impacted and those indirectly affected. How that happens may look different in your organization versus another and so the goal isn’t a direct replication, but rather a closer examination of how cross departmental conversations work and how to make it work for you.

Data gives you information. People give you understanding.

And inclusive conversations? They give you solutions that stick.