By Jeff Bell.
Many people believe that for leadership to engage, we need to be of the same mind.
That this is a pre-requisite for harmony and success.
Maybe this is limited, if not misguided.
We are surrounded by opposites: gender, age, religion, politics, race, buyer and seller, footy teams…But let’s not get hung up about them. Acknowledge them. Even turn them to advantage.
It starts with leadership—the leader sets the standard.
Central to this is that we set our secular values, which we describe, explain and demonstrate—if these are documented and illustrated with indicative behaviours, followers will know what they are up for and, if they agree, will develop trust in us and our direction—without this trust, nothing worthwhile can happen!
It is also imperative that we are humble—acting with a calm determination; not relying on charisma or positional power. Connecting with all stakeholders at a personal level creates enormous energy among those we are working with and for. This means making things happen through personal action and influence, rather than relying on the vanity of position or persona.
In terms our role in the discussions, we need to put aside our ego and our pride. We need to concentrate on the merits of the case before us. There is nothing about stamping our foot to get our way or sulking off when things seem to be turning against us.
We need to lead the discussion by putting ideas on the podium, not individuals.
In my recent posts I have considered the impact of our cognitive biases, giving rise to the premortem and the postmortem. Structured discussion can help us overcome our shortsighted ways, temper our biases and lead us to better decisions.
And we need to base our discussions on opposing points of view. It doesn’t mean we have to identify with them or believe them, we need to consider so that we can find our way to better decision making. Further, we need to be prepared to listen for and to hear everything. As a methodology, we can:
- Remember to work within our value set, while exercising humility (including, “I may be wrong”).
- Open with dialogue—ask people how they are feeling about the matter at hand.
- State the values that appear to be at play in this situation.
- Define the points of contention (and agreement). What sides have been taken? Then dig. What may lie below?
- Determine what is at stake, what do people stand to lose (or gain?). Is the discussion at the level of values, at organisation, or of systems, or of process or of personal interaction? The higher the stakes the more subjective the discussion is likely to be.
- Set the ground rules for discussion. As a minimum: everyone to listen intently; make no personal attacks; be fair; be humble.
- Encourage the open expression of all points of view; throw in others that haven’t been mentioned.
- Summarise the common ground—and the most serious points of contention.
What do we do with this rich vein of discussion? Honour it with a decision. We will need to consider and choose from:
- Consensus—whereby we need the agreement of everyone in the discussion. This will also mean that some or all must give up something that they initially wished for, but now see that the outcome is more important than that wish. This requires a high level of trust, leadership and give-and-take by all parties. It may be beyond some.
- Complex vote—each of the parties to the discussion evaluates the various criteria and scores according to, for example, importance and performance.
- Simple vote—an agreed-upon proportion makes the decision.
- Consultation—input from the group, then one person or a subset decides.
- Command—decision is made by one party, acting within their authority, for obedience by the majority. The commander may allow a subordinate some discretion in applying the directive.
If we can accept that there is attraction to be found in opposites, we should also be on the lookout for too much of the same. I have also mentioned in recent posts the short comings of groupthink.
Do likes repel?