Consultation and Leadership - Leaders like Nelson Mandela knew instinctively when NOT to consult …!

For those who have been glued to television screens to follow the various commemorations of the life of the former South African President, a frequent refrain will have been the leadership he displayed when negotiating the end of the apartheid regime.

The story is told that at critical moments in the lengthy dialogue, Mandela deliberately avoided consulting his colleagues in the ANC. There are suggestions that both FW de Klerk and Mandela at times had to negotiate bilaterally, without recourse to their wider constituencies … or stakeholders. Indeed it is a finely balanced judgement as to when to go back to one’s wider group, and when to move forward without their endorsement. Experts in conflict resolution recognise the need to balance legitimacy of a negotiating position with the opportunities to achieve genuine and deliverable compromise.

True leadership is often about managing this balancing act. And it raises really interesting questions about when and how to consult.

On the one hand, a popular modern trend is to seek to involve as many people as possible in major decisions that affect them. It is supposed to foster a sense of joint ownership of a problem; it secures a broader base of support for what you want to do. As an example, consider the recent Neighbourhood planning initiative in England, where a Referendum is held to ensure that a local community truly supports the plan. Some consultations occur because decision-makers concede that there are stakeholders out there that know more about the issue than they do – and who see the value of taking informed advice at various times during policy-making; a lot of routine Government consultation falls into this category.

Let us be frank; it comes in for criticism. There are many people out there who argue that consultation of this kind is a ‘cop-out’ - resorting to asking people’s views over and over again instead of providing the smack of firm leadership and getting on with it.

So the alternative argument is about trusting the leadership to take key decisions on your behalf, accepting that they will need to be answerable at some stage and in some way. Going back to Mandela, had he failed to produce a settlement, he would surely have lost a degree of support. Or even if the settlement turned out to be less popular in time, his reputation would have suffered. Note how many Conservative backbench MPs continue to complain that David Cameron failed to consult them at the time of the Coalition negotiation – in contrast to LibDem MPs – who actually were given a voice.

Trust in leaders is not a plentiful commodity; there are not many Mandelas around! Council leaders, NHS Chief Executives, Police & Crime Commissioners or even Private Sector Directors all know this. That is why they may use consultation to cover their backs and forestall criticism that they have acted without listening to colleagues or customers. How many of them, we wonder have great ideas that they think will work, but hesitate in the knowledge that their stakeholders may be more dubious, more cautious or maybe frightened to act?

The Victorians who built our great cities, who laid railway lines over the country, who built our water supply systems and other long-lasting infrastructure relied on a somewhat corrupt Parliament to legalise their constructions. Today, those who argue for High-speed Rail, Nuclear energy, Wind Farms, Waste plants Airports complain that our passion for public engagement and consultation can delay or frustrate them. They plead for that firm leadership that does not feel the necessity to ask the public all the time.

In reality there is a middle way. Like other strong leaders, Mandela was trusted fundamentally because his supporters had confidence that he knew enough about their interests and their preferences. In other words, they delegated the tactics to him, sure in the knowledge that their wider views had been heard sufficiently in the past.

We can apply this to modern day policy-making. Leaders are normally trusted only if they have spent long enough developing the relationship with their own key stakeholders. Asking people what they think is only one small part of relationship-building, which is why Councils, NHS bodies or even Government departments that launch a consultation with little or no preparatory dialogue, secure embarrassingly small responses and learn next to nothing that helps them.

If we want to develop infrastructure, reduce conflict in communities, or change public policies that affect millions of people, (ie anything that’s really hard to do) we need leaders that can establish credibility, understand stakeholder interests and demonstrate that they can be trusted to act decisively when the moment is right. It’s consultation in its widest sense – listening and being influenced.

TRIGGER POINTS

• Do you sometimes over-consult? Is there scope for more leadership in your organisation?
• Do you have a way of measuring trust in your organisation or its Leaders?
• Some of these issues will be considered in next year’s Seminar – Public engagement & the Growth Agenda – London – 25th Advance bookings now possible
• If you enjoyed this Topic, you may also enjoy:-
• – Topic 243 Consultation for bigger builders
• – Topic 232 Defining your neighbourhood
• – Topic 214 Consultation’s role in policy-making
• – Topic 189 Strength or Weakness

This is the 251st Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement