|
I found this article pertinent as we head into building a team for our new company. I’m starting to understand the difference between consensus and consent. In consensus, as I am seeing it defined, there is a lot of effort in trying to get everyone on board, everyone agreeing to an approach. In consent, there is a listening to the group for those with an objection or alternative, but ultimately you are looking for a mix of yes and “okay to proceed” which isn’t the same as yes. It says more that there is a respect for the energy and enthusiasm that others are showing for an idea, a project, a name, and my heart says there is no need to apply stop energy to it, and I don’t have an alternative to consider.
I think this can work well in loosely coupled organizations. A person has an idea, and they can either champion it or seek co-champions or just promote it as an idea that someone else might adopt. Once there are champions for an idea, I think it is helpful to look not for consensus but for those willing to both support it and to “give it room to be tested” (to allow it to proceed). In that context, it is prudent to listen to and consider concerns and objections. And if the resources of the corporation are required, there does need to be a consensus majority of the board that votes to make those resources available, yet I think for this team that we want to look for ways to support and encourage the projects the team wants to pursue… as our primary mode of operation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Early To Rise [mailto:support@earlytorise.com]
Subject: 741- WHAT YOU NEED TO BE A GOOD LEADER
Message #741
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
"A leader is a dealer in hope."
Napoleon (Maxims, 1804-15)
TODAY'S MESSAGE:
A recent Harvard Business Review story confirms a point I've been arguing about leadership: Contrary to what most self-promoting business gurus are saying these days, successful leaders aren't consensus builders. Great leaders, the article says, have one thing in common: a burning desire to accomplish an important goal. Great leaders are not opposed to consensus building; in fact, they do it. But they don't wait until everyone is agreed on their mission to start accomplishing it.
* * * * *
WHAT YOU NEED TO BE A GOOD LEADER
Successful leaders want to achieve their goals, and they want to do so quickly. They see a goal as something good for everyone, but they understand that not everyone will immediately recognize its value. They also know they have a talent that most of their fellow workers lack: the gumption to take the lead. Rather than relying primarily on consensus building, therefore, they win over a few key people and then let the authority of their position do its share of the work in getting the job done.
As I'm writing this, I'm trying to understand why I do this. Why am I willing to throw my weight behind a project rather than get everyone to agree with me first? If my idea is truly a good one, why wouldn't I be willing to trust in a more democratic approach?
The answer has three parts.
First, I'm very excited about a project when I embrace it. I visualize it in its completed state and imagine all the benefits it will bring. This gives me a sense of enthusiasm that's not unlike the craze a child feels when he's fixed his heart on some new toy or movie.
Second, although I believe in my project, I am never 100% sure it will work. I've made mistakes in goal-setting before, and I'm afraid it could happen again. But rather than put off the achievement and never know, I'd rather push forward as fast as possible and find out.
Third, I don't believe in the value of a common judgment. I believe the validity of any goal or objective can't be determined by debate; it can only be found out by putting the idea to the test -- by doing it.
Since I'm so eager to see the goal realized and find out if my idea will work (and if it doesn't, get on with the next thing), and since I don't believe I'll know if it will work until I put it to the test, the only path that makes sense to me is to do everything I can to execute it as soon as possible.
Here's the process I recommend:
1. You get the idea. You sleep on it.
2. You relate it to someone whose opinion you trust. You go back and forth with him on it till the idea has been whipped into shape.
3. You try out the idea on one or several more people, preferably influential people who will participate in its execution. Again, you make whatever improvements make sense.
4. Backed by a strengthened, streamlined idea and the support of several key people, you use every trick in your bag and all the muscle you can muster to get the project done as soon as it can be done properly.
People decide to follow your leadership for two primary reasons: They trust your character, and they believe you have the ability to take them further. If you have trouble rallying the troops, ask yourself these critical questions:
1. "Is this idea one that will make things better for others (customers, constituents, clients, etc.), or am I pursuing it for some personal/selfish reason?"
2. "Have I given this idea a reasonable level of scrutiny? Have I subjected it to a critique by at least one person whose judgment I trust?"
If you want to be a great leader, the most important thing you can do is spend most of your time thinking about how you can make things better. Once you have an idea that you feel good about, enlist the support of several important and/or influential people and then drive, drive, drive it through.
* * * * *
DON'T CUT PEOPLE OFF WHEN THEY TELL YOU SOMETHING YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR
We said (above) that great leaders don't build consensuses. They get good ideas and they push them through. But to be sure they are good ideas, they usually subject them to the criticism of trusted colleagues. This early feedback process is critical to the success of any leader.
To make that process work, your feedback people need to feel that they can criticize you and you need to take their criticisms seriously. If either of those things doesn't happen, you might go ahead with a very bad idea.
Here's one example (from Leadership Strategies) of a feedback team that was afraid to say something:
"When Samsung Chairman Kun-Hee Lee decided to take Samsung into the car business, his senior leadership considered the $12 billion venture ill conceived … yet no one spoke up." The result: The business failed in two years and Lee was forced to pay creditors $2 billion of his own money.
Now here's an example of the other side of the situation -- not listening to your feedback team:
I was asked by my partner in a real-estate deal what I thought about a project. I told him, "Let's price these homes at less than a million. That way, if the market collapses, we won't be stuck in that lethargic $1 million-plus market." He didn't want to hear it. He said my talk about an economic turndown was not helpful. "Be positive," he advised me. So now we have more than 40 townhouses priced at $1.6 million or more with fewer than 40 qualified buyers looking at them.
|
