Most of us have heard the story of President Abraham Lincoln and his cabinet as they pondered signing one of our country's most historic documents...
When he brought in the Emancipation Proclamation, President Abraham Lincoln polled his Cabinet. The Secretary of State stood and uttered his "Nay" unmistakably. The Secretary of the Interior followed suit. The Treasury Secretary and so forth: all against. Lincoln heard them each in turn. Then Lincoln raised his hand and said... "The Ayes have it."
It's a classic example of vision and values driven leadership. Even within a democracy, there are times when the captain of the ship has to pull rank to make tough and potentially unpopular choices. For Lincoln, signing the Emancipation Proclamation required just such an undemocratic, executive decision. If President Lincoln had allowed his cabinet's vote to prevail, would there be 50 united states today?
The NAYs Have It What happens when the opposite scenario occurs? I'm referring to cultures where a single "no" from anyone can torpedo an idea and a 100% majority is required for action. In effect, with just a single voice of dissention, the nays have it. Isn't this what occurs with leaderless teams? In absence of leadership, we have group cowardice. Collaboration is critical, but not at the expense of granting veto power to any and all naysayers.
Who's Captain of the Ship?
In my travels, I frequently find organizations where no one is willing to act as Lincoln did. Despite the presence of executive titles, no one takes responsibility for the direction of their ship. Instead they have Consensus Driven Leadership, which too often means no leadership at all. Reactive behavior is the norm and pro-activity is the exception. Rudderless ships may survive without sinking, but will struggle to reach their destination. While consensus driven decision making exists in all types of organizations, those with multiple partners like professional service firms and family owned businesses are even more likely to fall prey to the all or nothing approach to taking action and innovation. When you grant veto power to all naysayers, where is the leadership? Whose agenda is acted on? The word executive comes from the verb execute. Aren't executive decisions supposed to be about proactive execution?
The next time you see a single, uninspired naysayer attempt to torpedo a significant positive initiative, ask yourself three questions:
* What is the goal that we are working to achieve?
* What kind of executive skills and behaviors does this situation demand?
* What would Honest Abe do?
To learn more about this author, visit Tom Lemanski's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
|
|
Tom Lemanski
(Visit Tom's Website)
Tom Lemanski is President
of Vista
Development, a strategic development
firm in metropolitan Chicago Illinois. As
a Business Catalyst and Executive Coach,
Tom works with executives in growth
orientated organizations to help them to
overcome their internal obstacles to
growth and achievement. He has recently
launched a new site Executive Talent Assessments with
new resources for making more informed
hiring and promotion decisions.
|
|
|
Tom Lemanski's
Complete
List Of
Business-Coach
Articles
|
|
If you enjoyed this article, get Tom Lemanski's Complete List of Business-Coach Articles For FREE!
|
|
|
|
