Originally published 8 September 2015. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
Just imagine. A major sporting event! One team, winning for much of the match, finds itself behind with only two minutes to go. It wins a penalty. Converting a penalty secures an honourable draw. The bolder option is to kick for position and the chance of outright victory if a subsequent score comes about. The crowd is deafening. You have 10-20 seconds to take a decision. Captaincy can be a tough task!
Readers of these Topics instinctively know the next question. Who do you consult? The Vice-Captain? The place-kicker? The whole team ? We actively encourage members and clients to involve and consult all key stakeholders. Indeed the harder the problem, the more we consult.
Sportsmen on the field of play – just like political leaders - have their own styles, and we know that the stereotype of a “strong” leader is not necessarily the most effective. In 2014, Professor Archie Brown of Oxford University wrote “The Myth of the Strong Leader” claiming that those with a more consultative, consensual style usually achieved more. So our sporting analogy presents the dilemma perfectly. Do you take a calculated risk by leading from the front? Or are you better waiting to consult your colleagues, and possibly take a more cautious, prudent path? Had this particular captain consulted, would the match result have been different?
The case against consultation is often that it makes decision-makers more risk-averse. Having stakeholder fears and anxieties uppermost in mind can, it is said, swing the balance of the argument away from the boldest or more ambitious course of action. This is partly because those with clear interest in the status quo often have a precise understanding of the disadvantages of proposals – whereas advocates of change are having to speculate. Consultation often is a debate between hoped-for advantages and well-known disadvantages. No wonder it often leads to ‘conservative’ decision-making.
Even the processes of consultation have a bias towards caution. We ask people to answer precise questions to a painstakingly bureaucratic narrative that explains the options. By then, though, choice has been whittled down by eliminating all those far-out, off-the-wall solutions that failed one test or another. We tend to attract the usual suspects who tend to say the same thing as they’ve always said, and we sanitise their collective responses into turgid reports, and even then can’t be sure decision-makers read them.
Okay, that’s an unfair caricature of what happens, but too often there is truth in this. Fortunately, there are other ideas around and in the dynamic world of social media, an
increasing opportunity to experiment with new ways of engaging people. It provokes a serious issue over depth rather than breadth of involvement, but can certainly access more contributions. To take one example, much of the hype around Jeremy Corbyn’s first Parliamentary set-piece with the Prime Minister came from his asking party members to send in their Questions. This is of course based, partly on the popular notion often called the wisdom of crowds, and is a second cousin to important recent developments like crowd-sourcing or even crowd-funding.
What might the crowd at Twickenham wanted the English captain to do last Saturday night?
For them, the instinct to ‘go for bold’ might have been very tempting. But they would be spared the personal responsibility that goes with the loneliness of the solitary leader/decision-maker. For him, maybe the optimum situation would have been the ability to take time out – just enough to pause and consider the options alongside trusted colleagues; in our language a key stakeholder or two ….!
Consultation may indeed bias against risk. But what it does is give those lonely decision-makers a wider information-base against which to make up their minds. Sometimes we call this the evidence-base, but it is not always quite as sound as is required. If they wish to move in radical directions, then it is as well if they realise the dangers, understand who will support them, and maybe the nature of the challenges that lie ahead.
Policy-makers; please take note.
TRIGGER POINTS
- Are there situations in your organisation where high-profile leaders have to take dramatic decisions with a temptation to take radical decisions with significant consequences?
- Is consultation in your organisation seen as biased towards a cautious outcome?
- The Myth of the Strong Leader was written by Archie Brown and published in 2014
- The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few ….was written by James Surowiecki and published in 2004
- These and similar themes will feature in the Institute’s Annual Conference 14th October at the Emirates Stadium, London.
This is the 282nd 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.