(Excerpted from Innovative Leader, the monthly publication to stimulate creativity and productivity. For subscription information, e-mail speakers@thinksmart.com)

Imagine, for a moment, that you're trying to solve a difficult problem and are almost ready to embark on a costly and risky direction. Since you feel a bit insecure about the decision, you want some more input, and decide to stage a meeting with the people you're closest to, the people whose inclinations are simpatico with yours.

Such a "meeting of the like-minded" is a common approach with several advantages. You trust these people and enjoy the pleasant feeling of cohesiveness you get from meeting with them. If they don't endorse your solution, they'll probably be able to persuade you to seriously consider their reservations. Furthermore, if these people support you in your decision, you'll feel more confident of having made the best choice.

Perhaps the key advantage is this: You hope to avoid the all-too-frequent personality battles that plague the meetings of your larger group. These battles are not only unpleasant; they also confuse issues and side-track discussions.

Invite the "Troublemakers"
But let's play devil's advocate for a moment. Even though the difficult nature of this decision requires creative thinking, you have selected colleagues who all think along the same lines as you.

The meeting may be comfortable, but I think it will be too comfortable. If I need creative input, I look for synergy that develops from an assembly of diverse minds. That means going out of my way to choose people who don't necessarily get along with my ideas (or with me), but who also have expertise in the area and interest in the problem.

It is these people who help me see things from a different perspective. Some are "troublemakers," people who seem to provoke others. Some have a history of poor ideas. But they do challenge a group to reach further for a solution, to consider more ideas before settling the matter.

Over and over, I've seen important ideas originate in meetings marked by substantial arguments and emotion. And even if everybody didn't agree with my ultimate decision, I could pursue it more comfortably because it had passed a hazing far more intense than what my "buddies" were capable of exerting.

And there's another advantage: Once the final decision is made, all sides will understand the rationale for it. Since the troublemakers were involved, they're less likely to stew over the decision, even if they disagree with it. Bitterness will not dominate their attitude and interfere with their productivity.

The greater the problem, the more you need diverse input. Diversity frequently leads to misunderstandings and conflicts, but diversity of attitudes and opinions is essential to top-flight decisions. As a manager, it's your role to get a lot of input, and to keep the discussions focused on the problem, not on the personalities.

That may not be easy, but it's crucial.