We ask the tricky questions and challenge the status quo- so that you don’t have to!
Within the highly regarded and revered domain of “collaborative leadership”, leading by consensus has been long upheld as the current gold standard. This pursuit of consensus and amiability, however, often clashes with the reality in real-world situations, where decisiveness is a necessity for impactful change or improvement. These two contrasting approaches, consensus leadership and decisive leadership, therefore, represents this inherent tension and what is a practical challenge for leaders across all industries, not just in healthcare.
While achieving unanimous agreement and collaboration might seem ideal and achievable, the reality is that often we overlook the adverse consequences of group think, when this occurs. When there is a desire or an overarching aim for cohesion above all else, it often can overshadow the need, imperative and urgency for innovation and actual effectiveness in leadership action. Understanding the nuances of these two contrasting approaches is important for leaders seeking to navigate this delicate balance, not lose the intent of building engagement, and still be able to achieve timely and meaningful results for the organisation.
Consensus leadership, at its core, epitomises inclusivity, harmony and collaboration. It aims to collate input, often in the form of opinions, from all stakeholders to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard and considered, before the leader or leadership team in question arrives at a decision. We particularly note the frequent use of well-worn phrases such as “the key to getting buy in is to ensure broad consultation” here, as it is with this sentiment that path is often pursued. The goal of building a collective sense of ownership and commitment within the team or the organisation is regarded as the ultimate priority.
Particularly in healthcare though, this is problematic if this collective harmony building is to the detriment of patient care or timely intervention to ensure patient safety. While the consensus and collaborative approach to decision-making can foster a sense of belonging, it may in fact not be the most ideal approach to effective decision-making and is certainly not without its challenges.
A frequently observed hazard of the requirement for unanimous agreement is that it often tends to water down ideas and to slow down the pace and sense of urgency for taking action. In order to accommodate everyone’s opinions, the final decision may have to inevitably become a compromise that in the end fails to really satisfy anyone. The process of reaching unanimous agreement is often slow, cumbersome, and ultimately often leads to mediocrity, since bold, innovative ideas end up having to be ‘diluted’ or made palatable enough to appease a diverse range of perspectives and opinions. Additionally, the very act of aiming for unanimous consensus can inadvertently create an environment or culture of risk aversion, as any opposing views or opinions are often consciously or unconsciously suppressed, in order to align the group dynamic of maintaining harmony and preventing conflict at all costs.
This notion of group-think is such that individuals in a group setting often tend to gravitate towards conforming to perceived norms that are upheld through the dominant group dynamic, even if they were to personally disagree with the direction being pursued. A fear or anxiety for being excluded or for being seen as uncooperative and ‘uncollaborative’ can have a detrimental effect on an individual’s ability to critically evaluate a problem or to make appropriate judgements and analysis. This then leads to the individual feeling discouraged to speak up any opposing views or thoughts they may harbour. Because of the lack of any dissenting opinions and alternative thoughts, this could then lead to creating an ‘echo chamber’ within a group where flawed ideas or decisions just continue to be propagated as the majority opinion.
This is a concept that has been particularly humorously highlighted, in the familiar phrase that “A camel is a horse designed by committee.” It reflects the underlying danger of over-compromising in order to appease the masses and ending up with an outcome that is often neither effective, inspired or even entirely relevant, to resolving the problem that preceded it. Gilbert K. Chesterton sums up these common challenges of committee leadership failing to achieve anything that is truly meaningful or impactful, with his witty yet pertinent remark, “I’ve searched all the parks in all the cities, and I could find no statues of committees”.
Decisive leadership, however, aims to prioritise clear direction and swift action and therefore may stand in direct contrast to the collaborative nature of consensus-driven leadership. This is certainly not to imply that decisive decision-making disregards input from others or does not actively seek their opinions, but rather it places a greater importance on the leader’s ability to analyse information themselves, to make an informed decision, and inspire others to act to implement the decision. This approach isn’t about dictatorial rule, but more about the leader taking responsibility, assuming accountability for resolving the problem at hand and taking the initiative to make the necessary decisions whilst not being restricted by having to be seen to “be collaborative”, particular at those time when consensus may be seeming elusive or counterproductive.
Decisive leadership is of course, particularly critical in situations that require rapid, effective and efficient responses, such as during crises or when needing to seize fleeting opportunities. It can be particularly effective in settings that encourage experimentation, or hold innovation as cornerstone of their practice, since this type of decision-making then allows for calculated risks to be taken and quick implementation of new ideas, without being bogged down by the need to please every stakeholder.
Whilst this may seem ideal from an efficiency and effective perspective, it is important to acknowledge that decisive leadership also comes with its own risks. If executed poorly or conducted in a way that purposefully excludes key stakeholders, it can obviously lead to a lack of buy-in and resentment from those who feel their opinions have been ignored. The key here lies in not rigidly pursuing consensus but taking individual leadership accountability to leverage the individual leader’s expertise and experience to take decisive action, even if those decisions may not have been arrived at through collaboration and input by all. In order to be an effective leader, they must develop the skillset that is needed to firstly understand the situation, then to take action that appropriately balances proactive decisiveness with active listening and collaboration. The skill lies in making sure that the team and other stakeholders feel heard and valued for their input and accept that their recommendations may not be directly adopted or agreed with.
Ultimately though, the most successful and most effective approach to leadership is not rigidly adhering to one model of decision-making, but in understanding the nuances of both and knowing how to adapt to achieving this balance accordingly. A strong leader recognises that context is always critical. In some situations, consensus-building may be required to foster team unity and gain long-term buy-in, particularly if timely action is not an urgent priority, while in others, decisive thinking and action is essential in order to navigate and respond effectively to complex challenges if they are to achieve timely and impactful results. The key is for leaders to assess each situation, be able to discern what is required in order of priority, and to not be hesitant or afraid to proceed with the appropriate approach with a clear understanding of the advantages and potential dangers. The outcomes of leading effectively, is to foster an environment that straddles the right balance between cohesion and critical thought. By leveraging the unique strengths and relevant input of a team, yet making your own informed, impactful decisions as a leader, without feeling restrained by the need to accommodate everyone’s opinions. Such finesse requires leaders to be agile, strategic, and being aware that true leadership is not about seeking comfort, being likeable or winning popularity contests, but about achieving the right and timely solution to the problem or challenge that they are accountable for.
Contact AIHE today to discuss bespoke solutions to your unique leadership challenges.
Subscribe for regular updates on industry insights and expert analysis.