When President Obama didn’t give immediately a press conference after the failed bomb attack on Christmas day he was criticized for not talking to the country. (He did, three days later.) Before that, Obama was criticized for taking too long whilst trying to make a decision on the US-strategy in Afghanistan. (It took about three months.)
In short, his critics wish he would make his decisions faster, react quicker. They sense indecisiveness and weakness, qualities they don’t appreciate in their President. (Qualities which certainly aren’t desirable in any leader, for that matter.)
I think there can be a different reason for a time delay in decision making processes: some leaders want to do it properly.
Information Processing
To be objective is desired and necessary for leaders, and at the same time it is only human not to be. But wouldn’t it be nice if all leaders were aware of the responsibility they have in terms of the outcomes of their decisions? If they could only look at a problem from more than one angle, if they had the ability to overcome their bias, misperceptions, prejudices and fears, and I they were able to form their very own opinions?
Authentic leaders have been described to do just that: avoid following popular opinions and instead come to their very own conclusions about an important matter. They seek alternatives where possible before making a commitment, and try very hard to develop a balanced point of view about a problem. In order to do just that, leaders need the ability to critically assess a situation – as well as their own positioning in it. And all that – takes a little more time than firing away with words, actions and orders on the first hunch.
Authentic Decisions
The ability to recognize that one’s own perspective can always be prone to paradoxes if not errors is called “balanced processing of information”. The term ‘balanced’ refers to the attempt of balancing one’s own viewpoint with inputs from others in order to avoid falling into the trap of self-righteousness. Especially for leaders it is crucial to see the whole complexity of an issue because it can help minimizing the risk of overseeing important information. To balance information is also useful when it comes to anticipating the consequences of one’s action or the outcome of moral dilemmas.
Now, I think it can be as important how a leader came to a certain decision as the actual outcome of the decision making process. In that sense, making an authentic decision means all the above, as opposed to basing decisions on nothing but belief.
In very complex situations, leaders cannot possibly anticipate all results, consequences, changes and future developments. But they can certainly try to doing so by collecting information and making a careful assessment before making a decision. Can they think too much, and take too long, miss important opportunities and fail by doing so? Yes, of course! But equally, they can fail by not thinking things through properly.
Perhaps you agree with me that a talk to the nation only hours after the failed bomb attack would have set the USA in panic mode. Maybe you also think that the war in Afghanistan is a very complex issue and you are glad that Obama took his time before his decision about the military strategy.
It makes me think that he took these matters very, very seriously. And sometimes, that is all a leader can do.
Resources:
Avolio, B.J. et al., 2009. A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 764–784.
Eigel, K.M. & Kuhnert, K.W., 2005. Authentic Development: Leadership development level and executive effectiveness. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa, eds. . Authentic Leadership Theory and Practice: Origins, Effects and Development. Monographs in Leadership and Management. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 357-385.
Luthans, Fred & Avolio, Bruce J., 2003. Authentic Leadership Development. In Positive organizational Scholarship. Berrett-Koehler.
May, Douglas R. et al., 2003. Developing the Moral Component of Authentic Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247-260.
No comments:
Post a Comment