Leaders as Prophets in Suits

Slide1I envy prophets. They just stand on a street corner and tell us when the world will end.

Their message fits on a piece of cardboard. They have low overhead and never have to compromise.

Anyone can be a prophet. You just need a message and courage to share it.

But effective prophets have short careers on the street. People notice them.

Once enough people recognize them, prophets get invited to apply for hospital leadership, or to run for election. After moving from the street corner into an office, prophets find that life gets complicated.

Simple, prophetic messages raise complex questions. For example: How do we prepare for the END? How should healthcare be organized?

Prophets find leadership filled with complexity, ambiguity, and tradeoffs.

Only dictators experience leadership without compromise.

Recently, a Member of Parliament described his dissenting opinion on a major decision to me. The majority often voted against his positions.

I asked how he survives, since Members usually do not get to write dissenting opinions. I wondered: How does he decide to stay and risk being seen to support bad decisions?

“If I leave, then no one will speak to these issues,” he said.

Democracy is Messy

A representative, constitutional democracy must hear all views, and the majority must follow a constitution. It prevents mob rule by majority. The constitution sets rules that a majority cannot break.

What happens when a democracy must make an either/or decision like: Do we go to war?

The country finds out what everyone thinks, not just the majority, a special interest, or elite group. Leaders seek counsel from experts on the issue. The decision must fall within the ambit of the constitution (for example, slavery is not open for discussion).

Then leaders make a decision.

Once the country decides to go to war, it goes together.

Minority Voice & Influence

Minority leaders face two options:

1) Be true to their message and remain a fringe voice.

2) Try to compromise their message to gain access to where groups makes final decisions.

This struggle has played out in every country, and every Boardroom, since humans started working together.

It forces people in leadership to do 3 things:

1) Know what they believe, what they will never compromise.

2) Get comfortable with ambiguity and complexity.

3) Remain flexible, and humble enough to change their mind.

Number 1) sets limits and protects leaders from becoming a sycophant to power. Number 2) develops wisdom and diplomacy. Number 3) keeps leaders grounded, human.

Every decision, no matter how minor, forces prophets-cum-leaders through these 3 steps.

Have I crossed the line?

Is this wise?

Am I rigid and blind?

Prophets in Suits

Prophets have life easy. They live in a black and white reality and hope that people hear their message.

Sycophantic leaders have life easy, too. They just identify popular opinion and go with the flow.

But every organization needs courageous leaders with vision. All leaders are prophets in a sense. They are prophets in suits. Leaders without vision should not be in leadership.

We need courageous people, inside every organization, to speak with courage, and to lead with conviction, wisdom, and humility.

We need prophets in suits with courage to stay, especially when their message is not heard.

Sometimes you will land with the majority, at other times not. All people can do is trust that you acted with integrity.

Regardless of the issue, no one wins if people with minority opinions leave every time they sit on the short side of a vote.

 

 

11 thoughts on “Leaders as Prophets in Suits”

  1. I understand the reasoning of why the board must appear united once they have debated and come to a decision. This should only apply to the decision to bring the deal to the membership for a vote. If the board had voted to accept the deal without ratification, then the board members could be expected to support the deal. But they haven’t accepted the deal, they have asked us to decide and they are not giving us all of the information needed to make that decision. If the OMA is only going to present positive aspects of the deal, and silence the people we should most be able to count on for guidance, then they are not fulfilling their duty to act in our best interest.

    1. Thanks for this, Craig.

      In order to share it with members, the board had to endorse the deal. I’ve been told that in order to stay free of accusations of bargaining in bad faith, the OMA must endorse the deal to members. You might find the tone more balanced at the roadshows. I’ve heard comments like, This is a treading water deal.

      Thanks for sharing!

      Shawn

      1. The deal can be endorsed while still bringing up the negative aspects. We do this with our patients daily. I may “endorse” a treatment plan, but I have a fiduciary duty to discuss the risks and side effects of that plan. I believe the OMA owes us the same.

  2. Shawn, thanks for putting this out there.
    We all recognize that OMA Board Directors may at times find themselves in a difficult predicament.
    However, the question needs to be asked why is it that the OMA does not allow its Board members to speak their mind after a decision has been arrived at?
    There are certainly organizations, companies and associations out there that allow this latitude to their Directors in an effort to foster transparency.
    Why can the OMA not adopt such a policy?
    The absence of such a policy promotes member suspicion, speculation and outright paranoia, which cannot be a good thing for the organization.

    1. Good point, Ken.

      Could you send me an email of the organizations that allow this? So far, I have not found any. Ideally, the organization itself would take the time to offer a dissenting opinion on contentious issues. Otherwise, parties tend to polarize on the issue; it becomes the YES versus the NO group. I believe an opportunity exists to set yourself up as one that is balanced and can address both sides. You will probably find more of that tone at the roadshows.

      Every decision creates opportunity for minority voices. We would not get much done if we had to re-hash every decision again. However, on really big issues, I think a formal dissenting opinion would actually strengthen the process.

      Thanks again!

      Shawn

  3. Shawn:
    You can look to the Supreme court decisions.
    They do allow the minority view judge to state their reason when they publish the final verdict.
    I remember many years, in the CPSO disciplinary decision, they did print out the opposing member’s reason .

    Thanks posting and admire your courage.

    Michael

  4. Shawn:
    Look to the Supreme Court of Canada.
    They do publish the reason from opposing judge’s view why he/She disagree with the majority view.

    Michael Cheng

    1. Good point, Michael!

      I was thinking of the SCC in suggesting dissenting opinion.

      Thanks again!

Comments are closed.