For a long time, when I was young and idealistic, I believed that I was pretty good at seeing all sides of an argument, considering the alternatives on their merits, trying to see things from an opposing point of view, and I believed that was a Good Thing. As I grew older and more experienced, the first belief remained true. Indeed, if anything it strengthened, but I found it increasingly difficult to think it was positive.
A jump to the left, and a step to the right…
Opposing points of view appear to have hardened and become more extreme. From near universal outrage over, well, anything and everything to the polarisation of politics, we seem like we’re more divided than ever. Barely a generation ago, 30% of Democratic Party supporters could have comfortably ‘fitted in’ within the spectrum of the Republican Party, and 36% of Republicans could have reasonably got on within the Democrats. By 2014, this overlap had become marginalised to under 10%. I Reckon that in 2020 it might be even lower.
While I get that makes for clear choices in a 2-party system, what hope is there for compromise and constructive governing for the whole electorate? Not much. Being nuanced or sympathetic to alternative viewpoints doesn’t seem like a prized quality in this arena.
What did we say before?
In my professional life, I’ve seen senior people taking increasingly fixed and seemingly immovable positions on questions of strategy, creative and indeed tactics that should be well below their pay grade. It’s as though, when a client (or indeed, more senior person) asks for an opinion, anything less than an immediately and wholly categorical response is unacceptable. Simplify everything down to three key bullet points (yes, it is always three), irrespective of the task. And Heaven help us if at any point during a project (however protracted), we might, for a fleeting moment, think about going back on anything we had said before. No ma’am, we stick to our story, don’t make the clients think we are less than 100% certain of everything…
Decisions, once made, should stay that way
Not only are people taking aggressively strong stands on almost everything, but there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of them ever conceding a point, let alone changing their mind. In my memory the Inciting Incident behind this trend was in 1980, when the relatively new and somewhat beleaguered Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher created a memorable catchphrase that defined a large part of her approach to policy.
Evidently in 1980 the media and, by extension, the mainstream political mindset was that to change policy was a sign of failure and weakness, and Mrs T was not having that.
But I Reckon that proper leadership reveals itself by adapting and recalibrating itself when it has to, when new information or circumstances emerge that question a previous choice, when the original paradigm is actually interrogated rather than bluntly and repeatedly reasserted.
A small example of responsive leadership
Since reopening in September, our younger daughter’s secondary school has managed the complexity and restrictions of COVID-19 extremely well. Their approach has made sense and been communicated well.
Because ventilation is a key factor to mitigate the risks of infection in classrooms, the school had accepted that students might need additional layers over their normal school uniform, and allowed (dark) blue jumpers, sweatshirts etc. Until last week when, with no notice, it was removed; no extra jumpers at all, wear coats if you need to.
Our 15yo was royally annoyed by this for a host of decent reasons and we wrote to express this to the school. This seemed like the wrong hill to die on: many families had specifically bought clothing for this purpose. Wearing a thick winter coat (of any colour) during class can make it harder to work and concentrate (etc).
Within 24 hours we had a reply from the Deputy Head, the man who had taken the decision. Full and frank, he briefly explained the intentions and process behind the change (the whole senior leadership had agreed), and then, more fully, the aftermath.
To say it went down badly would be an understatement…
Their decision upset not only students (already fed up with restrictions and protocols), but also parents and staff (who had been working for weeks to enforce the clear dark-blue-only rule, and now had students pissed-off about something utterly avoidable). And so, the leadership team were acting to reverse the decision, and to apologise.
The openness and simplicity of his response to us was a breath of fresh air. The good intentions behind the decision were stated, but quickly left behind. The impact on the school and its ability to function smoothly and happily was the important issue, not the egos or status of the senior team.
I’m not saying every decision subjected to criticism should change: that way chaos and confusion lies. But I Reckon leadership is about listening (thanks to Selina for reminding me of that!), and it is a mark of leadership to recognise when a rethink could be the best way to achieve the overall objectives. Leaders should keep their eyes on the prize, but also know that there is often more than one way to reach it.
What I Reckon 