After a chilly Midwest spring weekend filled with tennis tournaments and outdoor chores, I was all set for a great pot of coffee this morning when much to my horror I discovered that I was in the midst of a coffee crisis.
In the rush of the weekend, I blanked out the need to run to the local roaster to restock, and was forced to break out my emergency stock. This coffee of last resort is something best left on the grocery store shelf in its pre-ground, encased in plastic, all the flavor removed glory. Oh well, it’s hot and caffeinated and will have to do for now.
Meanwhile, on to more important things than my momentary coffee crisis.
The Weekend Interview in the Wall Street Journal features retiring Chairman of Intel Corporation, Craig Barrett, and offers some interesting insights into the management practices of this 35-year silicon-valley veteran. The interview is entitled: “From Moore’s Law to Barrett’s Rules,” and the rules read as follows:
- “The business is bigger than the business”
- “Don’t mess with Moore’s Law”
- “Invest during hard times”
- “Consensus is good, except when it isn’t”
- “Follow the business, not Wall Street”
- “When something works, don’t reinvent it, reproduce it”
- “It pays to have good competitors”
While there is much wisdom in all of the rules (see the article for the detail), the one on Consensus strikes me as particularly important and often problematic for many leaders.
Like bad coffee, I’m not particularly fond of leading by consensus or even seeking consensus as a decision-making tool. I’ve long viewed managing by consensus as a “Tyranny of Mediocrity” approach to leading and making decisions. In seeking consensus, compromises are made that eliminate the more radical, revolutionary innovations and settle on solutions that make as many parties as possible happy.
My cold, callous and perhaps bad-coffee induced statement is that I don’t care if you are happy or unhappy about a key decision or direction. Your happiness, while nice, is your own responsibility, not mine as the leader, when it comes to running the business.
The right decisions often leave entire groups of individuals uncomfortable, because those decisions fly in the face of convention, demand change and often require the development of new skills.
General Eisenhower sought consensus on his decision to launch the D-Day offensive that ultimately led to victory for the allies in Europe. The lousy weather meant that logistics would be tough and more men would die. However the window was closing for timing and the element of surprise. Eisenhower’s generals were evenly split and it was up to him as the leader to make the call that would change the fates of so many individuals and nations. “We’ll go,” were his reported words as he stared out the window into the fog that was to complicate the day.
Now before you reach towards the keyboard to point out the errors in my thinking and wonder about how grumpy a person can get on bad coffee, at least consider that I didn’t encourage you to ignore individual or group opinions.
On the contrary, as the leader, it is your job to “seek first to understand” before you “seek to be understood.” Still, at the end of the day, for some issues, you must stare into the fog and decide on your own, in spite of your imperfect knowledge and the potential downsides of your decision. Relying on consensus may just prove too costly.
The Bottom-Line for Now:
I’ve watched and participated as an effective leader worked hard to understand the problem and the many ideas on resolving that problem. I’ve also respected the decision as that leader ultimately concluded on a direction that was based on his view of the issues, strategies and the potential impact on our customer and competitors, rather than solely on the opinions of his team. While my approach might have been different, I understood that once the decision was made, it was time to implement.
First-time leaders often make the mistake of assuming that they need to make everyone on their team happy by adopting a consensus style. I’ve observed this approach carried over into mid career and even in some cases used by senior executives. It has always struck me as an approach that is OK for the small stuff and horribly wrong for the big calls that rest on the shoulders of leaders.
Thanks to Mr. Barrett for pointing this out. Don’t let the Tyranny of Mediocrity be your legacy.
Great points Art,
one other thing I would add against consensus leadership, no one has a real stake in making it work. If three people present three different approaches and you munge them together to get “consensus”, no one wins. Sometimes one person has to win and the others lose. The kicker is that the person who “wins” is fully on the hook to make it work.
Personal responsibility is critical to making plans work. And as you point out, if people’s plans are heard and understood, if they care about the organization they’ll make the other persons plan work, because one day their plan will be selected.
My two cents worth,
Andy
Andy, your two cents are always worth at least a dollar! Thanks for jumping in and great reminder on the “stake” issue. It creates the “everyone wins but no one owns it” scenario that guarantees nothing gets done. -Art
Another downside of consensus decision making is that anyone who chooses can block decision by objecting. In natural cultures that value consensus, like some Native Peoples’ cultures, they have worked out ways to deal with that. But in corporate situations where consensus is the fad of them moment, no such sophistication exists.
Art,
Some provocative thoughts and a great post. I think you’ve framed the argument against mediocrity exceptionally well.
I think it’s helpful to also separate consensus from commitment. Eisenhower may not have had consensus, but he clearly had commitment. Without it, execution of the decision has no chance.
Everyone doesn’t have to agree, but they need to see reason and value in the path or they simply won’t follow it. After leaders make a decision, especially an unpopular one, they need to be able to communicate and support it in a way that inspires others to follow it even if they disagree.
Just a few more cents,
Randy
It seems to me that very few people in business actually operate on the basis of consensus decision-making, even if they say they do. In recent years it has become the politically correct thing to do and so the cynical me thinks that while we talk a lot about it, it just doesn’t happen, except, as Wally points out,in some aboriginal communities. Even then, I’m not so sure.
Like you, I have never been much of a fan of consensus decision-making. Whenever it was attempted around the tables I attended, I generally ended up wanting to hit somebody for being purposely obstructive (whether they were doing it on purpose or not).
I think that if you want to get commitment to something from as many people as possible the best you can hope for is “consensus with a twist”. This means that the majority of people agree and the rest, who don’t, are willing to live with the decision.
To your point, it is very much a situational thing. There are times when even thinking about getting consensus is ludicrous. And, there may be times when more time is available, that further discussion can make an ultimate decision richer.
Great post, Art. I hope you get your preferred coffee soon. Grumpiness does not become you 🙂
Wally, Randy and Gwyn, thank you all for adding in your expert and sage thoughts on the “consensus” topic. As usual, the comments of readers like you often outweight the value of my original post! Thanks!
Gwyn, I can assure you that I’ve remedied the coffee issue! -Art
Yes, Gwyn! Someone once asked Lee Iacocca if he practiced “consensus management.” When he said he did, the questioner asked for his definition of “consensus.” Iacocca’s response: “That’s where we talk about it and then I decide.” He’s not alone.