The president engaged in a debate about troop levels with a reporter that became so heated that his face turned red. This is the scene that David Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times, said made him feel uncomfortable but which the president welcomed. He said he was enjoying the discussion. Brooks, speaking PBS’s NewsHour, argued that Bush had been ill-served by a his aides who seldom, if ever engaged in such debates; and as a result allowed the president to go unchallenged.
Brooks raises a serious point about leadership. Followers have a responsibility to challenge their bosses, especially about issues that affect the future of the organization. However, most subordinates seldom feel comfortable in challenging their bosses for a simple reason: they fear they might be sacked. Therefore, it falls to the leader to create conditions for dissent to occur. Here are three ways to make it happen:
Invite discussion. Subordinates, unless they are naïve or foolhardy, will not engage in oppositional discussions with the individual who has control over compensation and promotion without permission. Bosses, therefore, need to ask their people for their ideas as well as their opinions.
Ask for push-back . The general was very disappointed. His subordinates were busy doing everything he had asked of them except for one important thing: none had disagreed with him. The general was George C. Marshall, then Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army and he made it clear that he expected junior officers to voice views contrary to their commander.
Debate vigorously . Disagreeing with a superior does more than demonstrate spine it enables the leader to argue the merits of his idea. Such discussion should challenge the leader, as well as her direct reports, to argue the merits of the idea. If the idea is strong enough, it will withstand debate. If not, it should be modified or discarded. Leaders who have the guts to put aside what they think is a great idea because they have been persuaded it may not be so great after all demonstrate strength of character.
Dissension is to be encouraged certainly, but leaders do have a right to expect that they have the last word. While leaders may have an obligation to listen to opposing view points, as long as they hold authority for decisions, they have the right to expect the final word. Those who cannot abide with the decision then have the choice to acquiesce or leave.
Recall the example of Jerry ter Horst, press secretary for Gerald Ford. Ter Horst so disagreed with Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon that he felt he could not continue in his position. Ter Horst resigned. Ironically if Ford had listened to his press secretary, a man he had known for years, he may have won election in 1980. But Ford knew what he had to do and as he saw the spared the nation further continuation of “our long national nightmare.” Dissent may have its price, but it must be encouraged.
Source
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_cov ... ical_wrap/
Brooks raises a serious point about leadership. Followers have a responsibility to challenge their bosses, especially about issues that affect the future of the organization. However, most subordinates seldom feel comfortable in challenging their bosses for a simple reason: they fear they might be sacked. Therefore, it falls to the leader to create conditions for dissent to occur. Here are three ways to make it happen:
Invite discussion. Subordinates, unless they are naïve or foolhardy, will not engage in oppositional discussions with the individual who has control over compensation and promotion without permission. Bosses, therefore, need to ask their people for their ideas as well as their opinions.
Ask for push-back . The general was very disappointed. His subordinates were busy doing everything he had asked of them except for one important thing: none had disagreed with him. The general was George C. Marshall, then Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army and he made it clear that he expected junior officers to voice views contrary to their commander.
Debate vigorously . Disagreeing with a superior does more than demonstrate spine it enables the leader to argue the merits of his idea. Such discussion should challenge the leader, as well as her direct reports, to argue the merits of the idea. If the idea is strong enough, it will withstand debate. If not, it should be modified or discarded. Leaders who have the guts to put aside what they think is a great idea because they have been persuaded it may not be so great after all demonstrate strength of character.
Dissension is to be encouraged certainly, but leaders do have a right to expect that they have the last word. While leaders may have an obligation to listen to opposing view points, as long as they hold authority for decisions, they have the right to expect the final word. Those who cannot abide with the decision then have the choice to acquiesce or leave.
Recall the example of Jerry ter Horst, press secretary for Gerald Ford. Ter Horst so disagreed with Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon that he felt he could not continue in his position. Ter Horst resigned. Ironically if Ford had listened to his press secretary, a man he had known for years, he may have won election in 1980. But Ford knew what he had to do and as he saw the spared the nation further continuation of “our long national nightmare.” Dissent may have its price, but it must be encouraged.
Source
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_cov ... ical_wrap/




Calendar



