Mum Is Not The Word In Business Circles
A friend of mine, a CEO of a large manufacturing company, was once caught in a meeting with his Vice Presidents to decide on a crucial business matter. Less than an hour into the meeting, he realized he had to rush out to attend another Board meeting and that he had very little time on hand. So he began to rush up the issue, just when the meeting with the two VPs started and expressed his decisive opinion, leaving no room for any brainstorming, forget dissent to emerge.
Both his Vice Presidents, seasoned veterans in their respective fields, decided to keep mum. They kept their wise counsel to themselves and could not share it with my friend. The meeting wrapped up in under ten minutes, and contrary to everyone’s expectations, not a single, strategic issue could be closed that day.
At the board meeting that followed, the issue remained undebated, and my friend could not present any deep insight. He would have been infinitely well-prepared had he had a meaningful discussion with his VPs, prior to the Board meeting.
But a bigger question is - Did the VPs keep quiet out of courtesy to their boss? Or did they correctively perceive that since the boss was not in a receptive, listening mood, why should they create noise which would not be heard?
The truth, as we know lies somewhere in between.
Another well-known Founder & CEO of a start-up wanted to achieve many things, very fast. He hankered after fast execution, with or without his colleagues’ counsel. Soon enough, he found that some of his colleagues, whose opinions he greatly valued started leaving the company. He also found that he was often left alone to make many decisions unilaterally, while others chose to unquestioningly follow his diktats.
A progressive leader, he did not appreciate this kind of non-participation and started lamenting the fact that he had to take all decisions in splendid isolation, leading to fault lines in the execution, as usually happens with decisions that are not carefully considered by the whole team. The outcome was as expected - wastage of precious resources, time, effort and even, the company goodwill.
In both these case, silence of key executives cost the companies dear. And it wasn’t just the financial cost, it was also causing humiliation anger, resentment, and lack of trust in the employees, who felt choked and repressed if they are denied legitimate channels for expressing their opinions.
Silence may be considered courteous, a sign of modesty and respect for others, prudence, or decorum, but in this case, its limiting and frustrating.
Silence may be a golden quality for survival in a politically-vitiated business environment, but those who don’t speak up in times of need are also doing a dis-service to their organization. They may be only slightly better than those who speak in forked tongues.
I once reported to a CEO, a foreigner, not very fluent in English, who, in a very short span managed to change the face of the consumer durable market in India. He would speak less in meetings, but once he spoke, he was not open to any other opinions. Dogmatic? Opinionated? Arrogant?
Perhaps.
He once revealed to me at a vulnerable moment that he too realized that the reason every one kept quiet when he spoke was because he came across as extremely assertive. He confessed that it was difficult for him to change that habit. But he didn’t give up. I was witness to the fact that he started to invite two or three core people from his team to his chamber separately, before a crucial meeting with the rest of the staff.
He would start this ‘cabinet’ meeting with a preamble, saying “I may be faulted in what I have concluded, but this is my perspective on the situation….” Those words would immediately relax people, and they would open up and share their personal opinions on the issue at hand. He said being a foreigner, he knew very little about the Indian market, but with this approach and his realization, he gradually began to change in his habits.
I’ve realized that such situations are likely to arise where decision-makers allow themselves to be caught in a speed trap. Impatient for results, bosses may say “Let’s conclude, we have very little time. We will talk when we execute,” but the talking – serious, two-way communications, don’t happen.
Employees with different background, exposure, attitudes often hold divergent views on issues – and seeking out all these views and evolving a consensus can sometimes give depth and insight to senior leadership teams. Dissent, as a wag once rightly said, is the mark of progress. It should be discarded, or dis-owned.
It’s sad when these differences of opinions on professional issues don’t get discussed. Instead, they get lost or masked in the din of inane talk that adds no value to meaningful talk and doesn’t lead to any convergence of well-aired thoughts and ‘out of box’ ideas. Conformity is the path of the sheep. It’s not a path of the shepherd. Hierarchies can create silence syndromes, where the juniors feel inhibited in differing with their bosses. Or, worse, the bosses may feel embarrassed or threatened in confronting divergent opinions. If the knowledge economy demands pooling of resources, even intellectual, and dissolution of hierarchies, the process must start with the free flow of information, where ideas begin to emanate from every nook and corner of the organization and no one, not even the leader, wields a proprietorship over it.
Let’s not be mistaken in knowing that the burden of carrying the weight of unanimous decision can also weigh heavy on the leader’s shoulder. Ideally, they would want to share the responsibility and accountability of big decisions with their executive team.
The best quote on leadership is provided by the Chinese master, Lao Tzu, who said, “When the best leader's work is done the people say, 'We did it ourselves.'" In my opinion, a leader is a leader, when he succeeds in creating an office environment where differences are encouraged and expressed. And, he should not reserve his opinion till the end, for that may make his teammates feel that the chapter is closed. The boss’s writ is ruled and must be complied with at all costs.
That would be the murder of dissent and a sad outcome for the organization.
