For years the public has been at the forefront of demanding greater results, transparency and accountability from the leaders it engages. Over time, this has fed through directly into key decision making e.g. the hiring activities of leaders at the highest levels, where the importance attached to an individual’s actions are emphasized. This is a good start.
However, in order for the public to achieve the desired results, it has to strike a balance between empowering their leaders to act and its psychological demands for them. We are all for transparency and accountability. In some ways, the idea of the wisdom of the crowd is contradictory when it comes decision-making in leadership.
On the issue of governance, if the practices employed are not good enough, they may fail in yielding the intended results or impede leadership. In the case of transparency, an ill-informed debate or contribution will water down the importance of the process of transparency.
There is therefore a need to rethink 'the wisdom of the crowd'. Many leaders in key positions are clearly frustrated because of the failure by the public to strike a balance between Leadership and the wishes of the appointing public.
A case in point is the recent call for a referendum in Greece to determine the way forward given the economic problems that the country is facing. From the outset, a key question arises - Does the public have the information to make financial decisions?
Certainly, the Greek public may only care about keeping their jobs and having no pay cuts while the issue of being part of a larger union - the European Union is secondary. In my view, there may therefore be little or no economic value in seeking the popular vote on this. Here are some pointers that would be helpful in striking the right balance in the future.
First, Create leaders, give them power
In theory, leadership by consensus, a.k.a. the wisdom of the crowd is an attractive idea. The fact that so many people have an interest in the actions of leaders, and the fact that leadership relies on ideas that are as likely to come from the public as they are from a peer; means that every idea that emanates from the appointing public should be welcome. Not always.
Leadership, like anything else in business, benefits from a free hand and access to power as much as it does from feedback. However, ‘micromanaging’ leaders is definitely counterproductive, given the fact that leadership is about innovation, decision making and at times it entails doing things differently.
Keep leaders, keep them on their toes
At the higher levels, in the private and public sector, the governance and accountability objective is to keep leaders, but not to let complacency set in. Undoubtedly, critiques should be offered - as the goal is to have more leaders than managers and to ensure that leaders serve without excesses.
Traditionally, leaders let their game slip in some areas after some time and at this point intervention is necessary to avoid widening the gap between strategy and outcome. Keeping leaders is important in ensuring the continuity. It is important to keep in mind that in most cases Strategy implementation is adversely affected when leaders do not stick around for long.
Keeping it Real
Of course, leaders are hired, appointed or elected to serve rather than lord it over people. Therefore, they should be selfless and committed to the good of all by thinking of the organization as a whole at the corporate or nation level. However, once the leadership is in place, we should allow them a free hand to make decisions. The leadership we put in place does not need us to second-guess them at every move they make. They have a level of discretion and the public should have a level of trust.
However, leaders too should develop critical strategies for navigating through their days in leadership roles, as this may be what determines success or failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment