DISCERNMENT - WHAT IS THE RIGHT ACTION?


DISCERNMENT—WHAT IS THE RIGHT ACTION?

It is self-evident that leaders who have multiple channels providing them with feedback on the impact of their policies, programs, management style, and processes are in the best position to effect continuous correction, improvement, and growth. The channels can consist of a mix of formal and informal reporting processes, internal and external auditors, task forces and consulting teams, open door policies and ombudsmen, and other vehicles within the constraints of an organization’s resources.

When these channels provide clear and consistent feedback, there is a strong chance that the information is both valid and important. Course corrections or even transformation may be needed. Leaders ignore this information at their peril even, or especially, if it flies in the face of their cherished beliefs. At other times, the feedback is inconsistent and represents a range of divergent views that do not necessarily invalidate the leadership’s core strategy and methods of operation but do throw them into question. How should a leader respond to these discordant streams of information?

The very act of leadership often puts leaders out in front of their organizations or constituents. Acting only on the input or feedback of followers or peers would negate the act of leadership itself. Yet it is dangerous to simply ignore these voices when they strongly diverge from a leader’s perceptions or each other’s. Further analytical tools can be brought to bear upon the issues, but even these do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence of the right course of action. In the face of this, leaders are left at the core juncture of the leader’s role: which way to go? At this juncture, there is a great temptation for leaders to stick with their beliefs, to “go with their gut” and to “hang tough.” If they prove to be right, they are heroes. If they prove to be wrong, the organization and its people can pay a heavy price. How do leaders make sure they are striking the right balance between following their internal guiding lights and listening to the concerned voices of courageous followers?

At such points, leaders need to shift gears and make concerted efforts to sort out which beliefs and actions are well grounded and which may be misguided. This process can be described as discernment. Quakers use this term for the process of distinguishing what is a “true calling” and what is ego-driven activity. Though, in contrast to Quakers, we are not necessarily invoking a spiritual dimension, it is useful to make the distinction between purpose-driven and ego-driven acts. Is a policy, strategy, or set of behaviors truly serving the common purpose, or has a leader or leadership team become so invested in it that pursuing it is now primarily serving other needs? For example, the need to remain in charge, to be right, to feel important and powerful, to be successful and handsomely compensated, or to protect themselves? While these possible motivations are rarely if ever admitted, too often they play a disproportionate role in ill-advised leadership actions.

It is far preferable for leaders to sort out their motivations themselves before events overtake them and force the issue. If transformation is needed, leaders who resist change until their backs are to the wall, and only then frantically act to save their positions and/or organizations, are harshly judged as having done too little, too late. The desire to retain the status quo when it confers on us power, prestige, and rewards is understandably strong. It acts as a powerful filter that cancels out the gravity or urgency that others see in a situation. But timing in leadership is hugely important. We rarely get second chances on the big issues.

The process of discernment requires a deep level of examination. The process is more than one of just weighing options. It is a soul-searching attempt to distinguish between what course is driven by self-interest, pride, or attachment to a particular strategy, project, or individual and what course is driven by an overriding service to the common purpose.

The difficulty of discerning our true motives should not be underestimated. We want to believe that we are good people. To support this belief, we are prone to constructing persuasive rationalizations that allow us to feel comfortable with our decisions and actions. Significant issues may also be at stake regarding our reputation, security, or financial compensation. It is often advisable to seek the help of others in this process. It may be a trusted adviser or a cross section of trusted advisers. Leaders or leadership teams who seek help must have confidence in the confidentiality of the process to allow them to be fully honest.

Discernment requires asking ourselves, or allowing others whom we trust to ask us questions such as these:

What hierarchy of values should be governing this decision? What core conflicts in values are occurring?

What would a picture of success look like if the common purpose were well served in this matter?

Will taking a course of action to which the leader is inclined pose any undue risks to the common purpose?

What habits, self-interest, or ego-driven factors exist that may be competing with the best interests of the common purpose?

Are any perspectives, information, or ethical issues being devalued because they conflict with these factors?

Is the leader’s inclination or behavior in this matter a specific instance of a larger pattern that should be examined?

In the final analysis, leaders must act. They must do so when they do not have all the information they would like, when their motives are mixed, and when they cannot be fully certain that what they are doing will best serve the organization. The process of reflection and consultation cannot be allowed to lead to paralysis. Decisions always carry risk. But leaders have the responsibility to know themselves, as well as their organizations, and always to act with the best interests of the common purpose in mind. This does not mean that their own legitimate interests cannot be served, but it does mean that, consciously or unconsciously, these must not take dominance over the common good. This is a high standard to live up to, and groups are fortunate to have leaders who meet it and followers who help them do so.




The Courageous Follower. Standing Up to & for Our Leaders
The Courageous Follower: Standing Up to and for Our Leaders (2nd Edition)
ISBN: 157675247X
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2003
Pages: 158
Authors: Ira Chaleff

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net