Selecting a new team member is often a balancing act. Your leadership style is a main factor in making those decisions. Once you have identified whether or not a group of candidates is qualified, what is your determining factor? Will they blend in with the team or offer a stark contrast?
Looking at the picture above, will you hire another shade of gray, or will you go out on a limb and bring in that attractive cyan color? This decision boils down to two divergent leadership styles. Are you a leader who looks for consensus?
What would you have done?
A week or two ago, NBC hired Ronna McDaniel (Former Republican Party Chairperson) as a political analyst to contribute to their news shows. If you were to list the qualifications for a job, I’m sure running one of the two political parties for the past six years would be enough to be considered qualified. However, when her hire was announced, the on-air talent (used very loosely here) threw a hissy fit. Not only did they voice their opinions, but they did it on national television. There was major discontent among the workers, accusing senior management of getting it wrong, and telling the audience that they didn’t stand behind the decision.
NBC executives had a binary choice: Either they would stick with the decision because it was good business, or they would melt under the pressure from the other hosts and reverse their decision.
Leadership Conundrum
What would you have done at that moment? Take the politics out of the decision, if you were in senior management and had made this hiring decision, would you stay with it or reverse it?
Your gut feeling tells you what type of leadership style you lean towards.
Like NBC, you have a binary choice. Do you want to be a decision-maker or a consensus-builder? In the NBC example, who is leading the organization? The team seems to have more power than the executives. So, what are the executives paid to do if they only take orders from their subordinates?
Being a leader who relies on building consensus to make decisions can come with several risks:
Time-consuming process: Building consensus often requires extensive discussions, negotiations, and compromises. This can take a lot of time, delaying decision-making and potentially resulting in missed opportunities.
Difficulty in achieving unanimity: Getting everyone on board with a decision can be challenging. Some team members may have conflicting interests or priorities, making it hard to reach a consensus.
Compromising on quality: In the pursuit of consensus, leaders may be tempted to compromise on the quality or effectiveness of the decision to please everyone involved. This can lead to suboptimal outcomes or solutions that don’t fully address the issue.
Risk of groupthink: Group dynamics can sometimes lead to groupthink, where individuals suppress their opinions or dissenting viewpoints in favor of conformity. This can result in decisions that lack critical evaluation or consideration of alternatives.
Potential for resentment: If certain team members feel that their concerns or perspectives are not adequately considered in the consensus-building process, it can lead to resentment and a breakdown in trust within the team.
Lack of accountability: When decisions are made through consensus, assigning responsibility or accountability for the outcome can be problematic. If things go wrong, this ambiguity can lead to finger-pointing or a diffusion of responsibility.
Ineffectiveness in crises: Consensus-building may not be feasible or practical in urgent crises requiring quick decisions. In such cases, a leader who relies heavily on consensus may struggle to take decisive action.
Stifling innovation and creativity: Consensus-building prioritizes maintaining harmony and avoiding conflict, which can stifle innovation and creative thinking. Ideas that challenge the status quo or push boundaries may be overlooked in favor of safer, more conventional approaches.
Dependency on leader’s influence: The effectiveness of consensus-building often depends on the leader’s ability to influence and persuade others. If the leader lacks credibility or authority, garnering support for decisions through consensus may not be easy.
Risk of decision paralysis: In situations where consensus cannot be reached or where there are too many conflicting opinions, the decision-making process may become paralyzed, leading to indecision and inertia within the team or organization.
Yes, being authoritarian has risks, too. We need to use the style that fits the situation many times. However, it would be best to stick to it when you have decided. Otherwise, you look weak, and as the old saying goes, the inmates are running the asylum. I’ve written about the styles of decision-making before, so if you would like to review the article, go back and do so.
Remember, the most significant loss of leadership is the loss of respect. Having your team push you around is a sign of disrespect. Don’t let it happen to you.
What style are you most comfortable with?
One last thing.
This is completely unrelated to today’s article, and I promise not to do this to you often, but I’m placing a GoFundMe link below. Our High School Robotics team came in 2nd in the State Championships this weekend, and earned a trip to Houston for the World Championship. Now, they need money to help the entire team travel and stay in Houston for a few days.
Why is this important? Because out of all the team activities that our schools teach, this is one that teaches skills that are needed in the future workplace. I love football and baseball, but less than 0.02% of those kids will ever earn a living playing professionally. 100% of the kids on this team will most likely be involved in Robotics in the future.
I hope you can help.