You are here: Home>Collections>Consensus

The fight club

Rajiv Banerjee Jul 22, 2005, 09.18AM IST

At various points in his career, Dwight Eisenhower was commander-in-chief of the allied forces in World War II, the president of Columbia university and the President of the United States. And if Eisenhower were to be paradropped into today's corporate jungle and asked to lead an organisation, he would make for an ideal CEO. So says Harvard Business School's Michael Roberto, author of Why Great Leaders Don't Take Yes For An Answer: Managing For Conflict And Consensus.

"He was not a great field commander or military strategist, but his greatest strength was building an organisation and leading a team. That's what great CEOs are all about, they know how to build an organisation and lead the team," says Roberto. Roberto's selection of Eisenhower stems from his penchant for history and biographies, which he has put to good use, drawing lessons out of important incidents and events and relating it to business. "People learn effectively if they are put outside their comfort zone, outside of what they are learning. So I started to develop the case studies to stimulate more learning in my classroom," he says.

Roberto's book has case studies ranging from the illfated Mount Everest expedition in 1996 to the Columbia space shuttle disaster and the aborted Bay Of Pigs invasion, with each event highlighting the importance of inducing constructive conflict within a team and then leading it to a consensus. Important lessons emerge out of these incidents for CEOs, because even though the leader has to take the decisions, he has to cultivate a sense of debate amongst the team, else all he'll get is yes men. "In most organisations one cannot expect conflict to emerge naturally. There are too many barriers that make people reluctant to speak. As a leader, one needs to force it to happen," says Roberto.

While talking of inducing conflict and consensus, one would be tempted to make the assumption that the CEO or the leader would be relegating his authority and leaving it to his team members to take the final call. But doesn't the buck stop with the CEO? Yes, it does, says Roberto and it will always be that way. He says that it's not about advocating team decision making, but about the process by which leaders make decisions. A fair process gives others a genuine opportunity to influence the final decision. "If a CEO has given consideration to their views and taken a decision, the team is more likely to support the leader even if they don't agree. That's the litmus test," he says.

Roberto, however, warns CEOs not to get into what he calls the charade of consultation, where the leader consults even as he has made up his mind. "The team members will see through it. It's better off then for the CEO to announce it rather than engage them. It will do more damage than good," he says. In the path to inducing constructive conflict, it's more the skills and capabilities which come to fore, rather than any leadership style of functioning.

Most leaders, says Roberto, focus on getting the right answers, rather than asking the right questions, which will encourage the employees to come out with creative ideas. A leader has to question the team and form a critique. The second skill which Roberto advocates is learning the art of restraint before announcing a decision. "If a CEO announces his views at the onset, chances are that the opinions may not be candid and may be tailor-made to what the leader has said. Therefore restraint is needed. It doesn't mean that a leader is not decisive, it just means that he waits for a few moments to allow people to speak freely before announcing his decision," says Roberto.

But even when the CEO has managed to stimulate conflict and arrived at a consensus, chances are there could be some simmering discontent amongst the team members. That discontent often arises out of the final call taken or even the nature of the debate which has taken place. CEOs have to be well aware of such a pitfall as a lingering sense of discontent can affect team morale in the long run. Roberto says that a CEO has to follow up with his team after an important decision is taken to ensure that there is no personal animosity and drive home the message that a decision has been taken keeping in mind the interest of the company.

Chuck Knight, who was the chairman of Emerson Electric for three decades, was a CEO who was renowned for having a strategic training process called confrontation by design. "He loved to induce conflict and create debate within each business unit of the company," he says. At the end of the meeting, during the informal dinner with the business unit, Knight used to sit with the business head and gauge whether the conflict had become personal and how it had affected the team. "Knight would try to repair the damage. He made it a point never to leave the conference without attending the informal dinner meet," says Roberto.