consensus | CorporateIntel

As we struggle through a difficult time of turmoil and division, I’m reminded that one of the least tangible yet most important responsibilities of leaders is to bring out the best in others. When we think about business leadership, we often think about strategy, alignment of goals, proper resource allocation, facilitating healthy debate around key issues, and maintaining team focus on high-impact initiatives that matter despite the noise.

Sometimes we lose sight of a more important task: inspiring others to reach the full potential of their talent. While the verb “inspire” is about as amorphous as it gets, another version of it might be coaching, or encouraging, or shaping, or mentoring. These days as a boss, I think more than half the battle is keeping people cooperative and positive, guiding them to circumvent negativity and work together even where differences in viewpoint creep into conversation.

Going deeper, I think about the best bosses I’ve worked under, and how their very different styles brought out the best in me.

While the input and output of these great bosses were different, their intentions were the same. Their goal was to get me to achieve things I wouldn’t have achieved without their direction. They wanted me to do the best work of my career with their guidance. They never took credit for my work, they got it as a macro by default. Like a baseball coach, each saw talent on the playing field and wanted to see more wins than losses.

Consider a tale of two bosses.

One was relentless in expecting the most of me. He was extremely competitive and wanted me to be more competitive. He was highly creative and wanted me to be more creative. He was troubled by mediocrity and wanted me to refuse it at every turn. He was perpetually prepared for a crisis and wanted me to embrace the mandate of rising above obstacles without excuse. He wanted me to expect more of myself. The notion of being indefatigable comes to mind.

The other was a master of collaboration and consensus. He wanted constructive dialogue and insisted I encourage it. He believed teams were stronger than individuals and wanted me to suppress all the egos in a room. He believed in building the best products in the world, but reminded me no end that if a product burned out a team, losing the team wasn’t worth it. He wanted me to be open to unusual or counterintuitive ideas. The notion of being empathetic comes to mind.

These two role models held commonalities, particularly of character. Neither of them ever lied to me. Both of them were ceaselessly demanding of my results, never satisfied, yet they never berated me even with the toughest feedback they offered. Both were tolerant of honest mistakes and noble failures, yet I knew that well wasn’t bottomless. They were happy to be proven wrong with data and facts (well, maybe not happy, but they welcomed it as important learning). They each displayed a unique sense of humor, entirely different in tone, but pointedly more pronounced in darker moments that required lightening.

Both of these bosses applied correct approaches in my mind, and while if ever put together they would have ardently disagreed on style, their synthesis lives in me. I believe they saw bits of themselves in me, chances to fix wrongs in their own failings. They knew I could do better, be better, and they took personal reward in seeing my potential realized.

I believe all of us are complex combinations of the conflicting inputs we receive over time, positive and negative. In that evolution, we come to form our own unique style of leadership. The key point here is to remember what we are trying to do is help others realize their own significance in the brief time we share with them.

To bring out the best in others may be the hardest thing we do. Like all difficult things, when we see the result we know it was worth it. We also learn repeatedly that style is content, how we lead in troubled times is as or more important than our intentions. Integrity is as contagious as its opposite. When we aspire to a higher purpose, we can lift each other to an otherwise unimaginable shared vision.

_______________

Photo: Pixabay

Last week more than eighty corporate CEOs signed and published a manifesto, agreeing that our nation needs both spending cuts and revenue increases to move forward. It was a simple, clear statement, meant to advise Congress and our soon to be elected President that it is time to break the stalemate. Here is the text that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, October 25, 2012, reprinted for convenience:

“Policy makers should acknowledge that our growing debt is a serious threat to the economic well-being and security of the United States.

It is urgent and essential that we put in place a plan to fix America’s debt. An effective plan must stabilize the debt as a share of the economy, and put it on a downward path.

This plan should be enacted now, but implemented gradually to protect the fragile economic recovery and to give Americans time to prepare for the changes in the federal budget.

In order to develop a fiscal plan that can succeed both financially and politically, it must be bipartisan and reforms to all areas of the budget should be included.

The plan should:

Reform Medicare and Medicaid, improve efficiency in the overall health care system and limit future cost growth;

Strengthen Social Security, so that it is solvent and will be there for future beneficiaries; and

Include comprehensive and pro-growth tax reform, which broadens the base, lowers rates, raises revenues and reduces the deficit.

The recommendations of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission, which saved $4 trillion and addressed all parts of the budget, provide an effective framework for such a plan.

The plan should be conducive to long-term economic growth, protect the vulnerable, include credible enforcement mechanisms to ensure that debt reduction is achieved and leave the next generation better.”

Strangely the formation of this consensus among competitors from a sample of highly influential business leaders on multiple sides of the political divide did not receive more attention. No, it’s not a perfect proclamation or unusually eloquent, but it could be a spark to ignite meaningful pressure on those in our government who need it most.

Perhaps there is too much noise out there to hear the unified voice of corporate direction demanding an end to party stalemate. Agree or disagree with the particulars, but it is time for the entire population to embrace the same demand. No action by Congress is not a reasonable response to the Fiscal Cliff we face together. No deal in Congress means all Bush-era tax relief will be eliminated at the end of 2012, while across the board federal budget cuts will be mechanically enacted in virtually all areas of non-entitlement or interest expense as a result of sequestration in our failure to address the debt ceiling. Both parties agreed late last year to sequestration in the event that well-considered budget policy could not be deployed on a line by line basis, with expected care and diligence applied to the hard decisions that have to be made rather than whacking the morass with a machete. You would think dedicated, elected officials would have long ago embraced the gravitas of their charge. Sadly, the time for surgical precision is quickly running out.

Any common ground has to agree that the Fiscal Cliff is not worth any ideological mandate. The nation cannot afford a repeat of last fall’s debt ceiling fiasco, which in my opinion was one of the worst failures of democracy and representative government in a generation. We need to get back to business.

As I have written before with respect to innovation, building a consensus is not the same as caving to compromise. There is cop-out compromise and there is collaborative compromise. Cop-out compromise means walking away from one’s core values, abandoning that which is fundamental to being constructive, the undermining of sound judgment. Collaborative compromise arises from acknowledgment of the real prize — progress that likely cannot include every single designated component serving an agenda. Collaborative compromise is guided by consensus, a combining of good ideas around an agreed set of goals articulated and guided by sound leadership. The eighty-plus CEOs who delivered their move-ahead manifesto understand how to build a consensus because they have to do it everyday to hold teams together, get stuff done, and create economic value.

When compromise means abandoning one’s truest values to survive then I agree that is not a good definition to support, but I don’t see that in our economic dialogue in Washington. If compromise means reasonable give and take to support a well-advised consensus as illustrated in the CEO Manifesto, then it is time for our government to compromise. More than time. It is the essence of representative democracy. It is what they were elected and hired to do.

We must get back to business. People need to work. Government services have to be provided so we don’t bump into each other. Taxes need to be fair and they need to be paid. Credit markets need to flow. The economy needs to function. All of this underlies the free markets we cherish.

No candidate should ever take your vote for granted, you award it as your precious right. Reasonable action by Congress is overdue. Contact your representatives now. Tell them that walking us over they Fiscal Cliff will cost them their authority. Sequestration means they didn’t do their jobs. Demand leadership, demand shared vision. We need to overcome the impasse immediately following the Presidential Election.

Let’s get on with it. Back to business.