Sometimes, what we see as our being decisive can, in fact, shut down important discussion. That’s what we take away from “Arrogant, Abusive and Disruptive — and a Doctor,” a New York Times article by Laurie Tarkan about how domineering doctors shield themselves from information that challenges their diagnoses and, in the process, can make life-threatening errors. While doctors certainly believe in the Hippocratic oath, their unwillingness to encourage dissent is a major problem.

We realize that some of the material in the Times piece could be dismissed as carping, that someone could just as easily write an article in which doctors complained about nurses, hospital administrators and even patients. Someone could also write about the incredible stresses doctors face and about how they sometimes need to make snap judgments. Still, if we’re the ones in the emergency room, we’d like to think that a doctor would be willing to consider all possible issues and not cut off a nurse who’s trying to save our lives.

We think executives can learn from the Times piece about the dangers of glossing over possible problems, even if companies mostly just deal in money and not life-and-death situations.