Fork, Don't Merge: Why I Prefer A Variety of Options Over Early Agreement

Today, I want to share my concerns about a trend I’ve noticed in many companies: jumping to agreement too quickly when debating solutions.

It feels like teamwork, but I’ve seen it dull good ideas and lead to weak results. Instead, I’ve found that forking ideas early, letting them grow separately before blending them, works better.

Here’s why I prefer this approach, based on what I’ve learned from working with teams.

Why Early Agreement Sucks

I’ve been in meetings where ideas are discussed early and consensus drives what options are further explored, and which aren’t.

The intent is good, and everyone wants to feel heard, but it smooths out the bold edges that make ideas stand out. It’s like mixing everything together before the pieces have a chance to take shape. You end up with something vague and hard to build on.

In my experience, this approach muddies the direction that great work needs. A strong plan or product comes from a powerful vision, not a patchwork of compromises. When every step needs group approval, the result feels like leftovers from a negotiation, not something purposeful.

The best breakthroughs I’ve seen usually come from one person’s bold idea, not a group averaging out opinions.

Plus, focusing on agreement early can make you miss the bigger picture. Teams get stuck arguing over details and lose sight of how they fit together. I’ve had moments in projects where I realized too late that stepping back could have sparked a better solution.

And when you mix in multiple senior people, consensus-driven approaches often derail entirely. Strong personalities and competing priorities clash, stalling progress and diluting ideas further. Things take forever, progress is painful, and meetings soon start to feel meaningless.

Why Forking Ideas Works Better

Instead, I’ve learned to encourage teams to fork ideas early on. Let people explore different angles, theories, or prototypes separately, giving each one room to grow.

This approach has worked for me time and time again. When you create a range of options, you’re more likely to find something truly strong. It turns brainstorming into a space for bold ideas, quick experiments, or deep dives into possibilities others might overlook.

Bringing in senior people here is a strength: their diverse experiences and perspectives lead to a richer variety of forks, each with unique depth.

Once those forks have developed, share them with a decision-maker. They can review the options, pick the best one (or combine a few if it fits), explain the choice, and get everyone on board. Blending only happens here, after real exploration, so the final direction builds on the best of all paths.

Keeping Options Open for Better Decisions

What I love about this is how it keeps all ideas alive until the responsible person sees them. Leaders often have a broader view, shaped by strategy or instinct, that teams might not consider. If you narrow things down too soon to reach agreement, those perspectives miss out. I’ve kicked myself before for dropping a risky idea early, only to realize later it could have been perfect for the bigger goal.

By producing and sharing a wide set of ideas, you let leaders make thoughtful choices. They can see connections, weigh trade-offs, and pick with confidence. It also builds trust, teams know their work reached the top without being watered down, which makes the final plan feel fair and exciting.

How Leaders Can Encourage Variety

Sometimes, though, I’ve noticed leaders push for being presented a single agreed-upon option. I think this can come from a desire to avoid blame: if a decision goes wrong, they can point to the group’s consensus and say it was the only reasonable choice. Having multiple options challenges that safety net, but it leads to better decisions.

As someone who’s led teams, I’ve learned it’s my job to ask for variety. I don’t just want good ideas; I want a wide range of them, different in risk, style, and scope. Holding teams to that standard sparks creativity that doubt or group pressure can squash.

If I even hint that I prefer safe ideas, people will hold back and play it safe, cutting out bold options to avoid pushback. That cautious approach has killed more great ideas than I’d like to admit. Instead, I try to make forking the norm: celebrate unusual and bold ideas, give them space, and see what new possibilities emerge.

Ultimately, though, if a company makes it unsafe for a decision maker to sometimes be wrong, they can only be expected to play it safe and avoid bold proposals. Everybody is self-serving, so companies should ensure the right alignments are in place, not to encourage errors of omission only to avoid errors of commission.

When Agreement Makes Sense

I’m not against agreement, it’s valuable, just not at the start. Save it for the end, after you’ve explored the forks and chosen a path. Then, it’s great for getting everyone aligned and moving forward smoothly, built on a foundation of deep thinking.

In my experience, forking ideas early, waiting to judge them until the end, and then committing fully leads to stronger results. It respects the original spark, uses leadership’s insight, and avoids the drag of constant compromise.

Next time your team faces a big decision, try letting the ideas diverge for a while. You might be surprised by how much stronger the outcome is.