Leadership Crossfires
No Hero in the Land of Gyro
Greece has been headlining business news for much of 2011. Despite only being the 32nd largest in the world, its debt load and entanglement with other European economies places Greece at the center of a global financial mess.
Tuesday, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou caught the world off guard. Only five days after an agreement was reached with all European Union leaders to provide Greece with bailout cash in exchange for budget reductions, Papandreou announced that he was putting the rescue agreement to a public vote.
World markets were freaked out and confused. Stunning, yes. But there isn't anything confusing about it. Papandreou reacted in a classic example of leadership crossfire.
Since Papandreou came to power two years ago, EU leadership has put pressure on him to balance Greece's budget. Austerity was the new normal for most European countries following the financial crisis of 2008. But the public in Greece was firing from the other direction. Several budget reduction plans were passed. And at each passing, segments of disgruntled Greek citizens protested in the streets—some of which turned violent.
Therein lies the crossfire. Papandreou was balancing the external pressure for Greece to get spending and debt under control with the internal pressure from the public who was crying "uncle." Papandreou knows that budget reductions are mission critical. They were the basis of his campaign two years ago. But he also knows executive decisions that move against the collective will of the people can breed their own forms of chaos.
The Leadership Crossfire
Caught in the crossfire, Papandreou ducked for shelter. Forcing the Greek people to vote on the rescue measures is his way of saying to his electorate, "get behind this plan as our last chance at staying solvent or YOU'LL be responsible for our bankruptcy."
What do leaders do when choosing between two bad options? Management journals and case studies almost always analyze the decisions of leaders with the benefit of hindsight. With hindsight vision always so clear, decisions often appear to be choices between a good and bad. Or effective versus ineffective. Or safe versus risky. But in the forward-looking reality of leadership decision-making, those decisions are more often: good versus better, bad versus worse, and risky versus mega risky.
The Leader-Follower Paradox
Knowing the thoughts and feelings of your followers is a sacred commandment of leadership. Whether you're an elected official, a CEO, or an HR executive, the collective intelligence of those under your command is smarter than you. Chill out; it's true.
Our firm is in the business of measuring employee engagement. Everyday, we see the fruits of companies that make employee feedback central to their culture. You could say we're invested in the idea of seeking the input of followers in executive decision making.
But seeking follower input does not mean that the job of the leader is to always make decisions based on majority vote of the followers. Leaders need to know what they're up against in terms of follower sentiment. But follower opposition is not enough reason to change a decision or a strategic path.
Engaging followers is a tug-of-war between casting vision and cross-checking that vision against the collective intelligence and will of followers. Stop thinking that some leaders are such brilliant visionaries and that followers naturally and consistently bow to his or her decisions. At best, that notion is fantasy. At worst, it's dangerous. (Think about the origin of the phrase "Drinking the Kool-Aid.")
Leadership is different than power. Power is the authority to act without anyone else's permission. Leadership is knowing when to exert power and when to assign power to others. Therein lies the essence of great leadership. Sometimes the best leaders execute the collective will of their followers. Other times, they act and work diligently to persuade followers to suspend the individual interests to support the cause. But in both instances, discerning the collective will of the people and the root causes of that sentiment come first.
This happens when heads of state battle over budgets. It happens when corporate leaders communicate strategy. It also happens when middle managers set timelines that followers deem too aggressive.
One of the single greatest skills of the leader is the discernment to know when to lead the people and when to follow the people. Unfortunately for Papandreou, choosing to follow the people in a moment of crisis puts his nation's economic and political future at risk.
Leadership crossfires call for resolute and decisive action. Lying down (like Papandreou did) only increases odds of casualties.
For additional insight about the role of employee input in executive decision-making, join us November 16 for a free webinar.
In other news, the term "Russian Roulette" is now called "Greek Roulette."