“Consensus negates leadership.” That quote comes from Margaret Thatcher, former UK Prime Minister, also known as The Iron Lady. But consider her definition of “consensus”:
“Consensus is the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects.”
It sounds like an abdication of leadership. But there is certainly a place for consensus-based decision making in life and work. I believe Thatcher’s point was that sometimes leaders must take a stand on a direction forward rather than relying upon the sometimes-fickle whims of the crowd.
In those times, a leader plants a flag on the hill, states a clear belief in the right thing to do, and persuades others to follow up the hill. It implies leading from the front to make the case for WHAT needs to be done and precisely WHY. At the same time, this approach does not negate the need for engagement, input and buy-in from those who follow to determine HOW it will be done.
Leveraging trust and good conflict to shape joint decisions
Our firm has a point of view on the definition of leadership:
“Leadership is the exercise of influence that flows through relationships to co-create coordinated movement by a group of people toward a shared goal.”
In that sense, consensus is one way of achieving coordinated movement. What makes consensus powerful is the commitment that is a natural byproduct of a group of people deliberating together over what they believe is the best path forward. It is that commitment to the final decision which is the predictor of the likely success of the decision’s implementation.
Patrick Lencioni’s classic book, The Five Dysfunctions Of A Team, describes a progression of great team work: trust that enables good conflict that enables true commitment to the joint decision, which then enables mutual accountability to implement the decision.
| Trust ➝ Good Conflict ➝ True Commitment ➝ Mutual Accountability |
So, to the point of consensus: Imagine that you, as a leader, walk into a room with your team to discuss a problem that must be solved together. If there is good trust in the room (the product of lots of relationship-building), you can lead a principled discussion of the problem and available ideas/options. This could be a lively, even passionate discussion, but if it’s based on trust it will reflect a good will intent by all to find the best path forward.
With that picture in mind, think about your posture as you enter that room. You may have a clear opinion, or no clear opinion, of the best decision. Your voice in that room, as the leader, is positionally strong. You could choose to set the stage, frame the problem, and then facilitate a group discussion, encouraging everyone to share their ideas while holding your own point of view toward the end.
As emotions rise and rabbit trails emerge, you quietly redirect people back to the points they have agreed on so far and bring them back to the original path. In my experience, most teams end up deciding by consensus instead of a vote: The leader calls the question in a way that everyone agrees to move in a given direction that reflects the majority view. In the case of a true deadlock, as a last resort, it falls to the leader to break the tie and make a call.
Unless people have a chance to “weigh-in” with their ideas they may not be able to “buy-in” to the ultimate decision a team makes.
Earning buy-in from opposing perspectives
Why would minority opinions agree to commit to a path that conflicts with their views? Because their voice was HEARD and CONSIDERED by the others.
Rational human beings do not expect to get their way in every disagreement, but so long as they have their “day in court” to make their case, and it is genuinely on the table with the other ideas under consideration, most people can agree and commit to the group’s decision.
Commitment means, “I will share the ownership of this decision and do my part to support its implementation as a member of the team.” Contrast Commitment to Compliance, which means, “I will comply with this decision and follow the new path when team members are watching, but behind their backs I will not be supportive of, or compliant with, it.”
If a team decision doesn’t come after open discussion, and can only be reached by a vote, compliance tends to be the default posture of those who lost the vote. Lencioni says it well: “Unless team members weigh in, they cannot buy in.”
Leaning into a shared purpose
Politics has been called “the art of the possible.” Margaret Thatcher was a leader in that world, where influence is often wielded with sharp elbows. Compromise is a very effective option to achieve incremental steps forward, and effective political leaders are able to articulate a compelling, overarching vision into which to package numerous policy ideas. As I think of Thatcher’s quote, the story I hold is that she was making the case for strong, visionary leadership that argues for a clear direction forward with a unifying purpose.
In healthcare, I see effective leaders using a simple, clear, unifying WHY as the lens through which they focus their leadership. They aren’t sticking their finger up in the air every day to see which way the winds of public opinion are blowing as their compass. Instead, they state clearly what they BELIEVE is the unifying purpose of all the work their teams are doing, and making the connection of the Decision of the Day to that unchanging shared purpose.
The children’s hospital CEO who constantly reminds his team of their purpose to provide “better service to every child, every day,” should frame the Decision of the Day within that purpose: “How will this decision provide better service to every child every day?” Today he may throw down that challenge as a redirection of some intramural competition between departments that is causing providers to forget the whole reason they are here.
Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II are cited as three world leaders who won the Cold War by espousing a big, shared vision. They led from the front in terms of WHAT needed to change and WHY. There were plenty of debates back home around the HOWs!
Every leadership strength can be overplayed or underplayed. As a leader, find your voice. Find your way to effectively exercise the influence of your voice in calling your faculty to come together and move forward in a direction you are committed to. And watch them begin to follow you, because the litmus test of leadership is always measured in followers!
