When we are in meetings, we use a tool for what we call "dotting." It allows everyone to convey what they are seeing and how each person is behaving in real time. You can look at a screen and see, in color, how people are seeing each other. You... see who thinks something is the most arrogant thing, or the stupidest thing, or that you aren't being considerate. When you see that visualization in real time, you are forced to ask yourself: How do I know that I’m seeing it the right way? How do I know that I’m not the wrong one? You realize you are just one of those dots in that line and in that grid. It causes you to go above yourself and provides perspective. Once you see how everyone else is seeing the situation, it raises a fundamental question: Together, how do we know what’s best? Just because an idea is in your head doesn’t mean it’s best. To make the right decisions, we have to look past our own individual assumptions and work together to find the truth.show more

who revealed my color on the screen, show me his hands

The real shift there isn't the tool, it's that someone built a system where disagreement shows up as data instead of politics. I've seen plenty of rooms where the loudest certainty wins by default. Curious what happens when the dots genuinely split and no one wants to be the one who moves first.

The hardest part of good decision-making may be realizing that our own view is only one part of the picture.

dotting just digitizes hierarchy, real time sentiment is only a readout of who controls the room

try dotting in your own meeting once and you'll find out half the room has been silently vetoing your roadmap for months.

I really agree with this. You and @Kamoflawless are two accounts I follow because both of you remind people that good judgment starts with challenging your own blind spots.

That kind of visibility is useful, but the real breakthrough is what happens after the dots appear. A map of perceptions only improves decisions when leaders reward dissent instead of treating disagreement as disloyalty; otherwise the tool simply makes the hierarchy more legible.

The room can see you. That doesn’t mean the room is right.

Fact

Truth seeking

A tool like this is most likely only as honest as the most senior person in the room allows it to be. When a junior person rates the boss low and nothing bad happens, people start telling the truth. The first time someone pays for an honest dot, the scores drift upward and the room learns to be polite. So what keeps it honest? The boss going first, and taking a low mark in public.

Dotting? What kind of work culture do you belong to? I don’t even understand why you’d need this type of tool. In my experience, kindness, respect and open communication in a professional workplace meeting isn’t that difficult.

Love the dotting concept. Real-time read on how people see each other is powerful. @mozlyxy would appreciate this too.

instant way to ruin a Wednesday morning meeting

Quantifying interpersonal friction has operational elegance, but macro history rarely bends to internal consensus. Allocators may map peer sentiment in real time, yet structural capital cycles, energy constraints, and debt compounding remain entirely indifferent to how neatly a boardroom scores human fallibility.

This is great, we need this as an app👏👏