Leaders, Don’t Take Yes for an Answer!
Dialogue, Discussion, and Debate are Essential for Making Good Decisions
Eighteen hours is all you have. That is if you’re climbing Mt. Everest.
Climbers begin their ascent from basecamp, located at an insane 26,000 feet above sea level, at the ungodly hour of 2:00 a.m. They climb through the night and early morning, reaching the summit mid-day and scrambling back down before sunset to the relative safety of basecamp.
Climbing expeditions on Mt. Everest follow this strict guideline: the two o’clock rule. The two o’clock rule states that any climber who’s not reached the summit by two o’clock in the afternoon abandons their ascent and returns to basecamp immediately.
No exceptions.
The reason for the two o’clock rule is simple. Continued climbing after this time poses a grave risk to climbers and their guides, causing both to descend from the world’s tallest mountain in total darkness beyond the eighteen-hour window of safety.
Tragedy Atop Everest
But on May 10, 1996, that rule was violated, and one of the deadliest tragedies on Everest occurred as a result.
Author John Krakauer was on this expedition and barely escaped with his life, telling the tale in his bestselling book Into Thin Air. Krakauer observed a passive dependency between the climbers and their guides, Rob Hall and Scott Fischer. Hall and Fischer presented themselves as invincible experts. Climbers were expected to be their unquestioning followers.
Even as the guides’ physical conditions badly deteriorated—Fischer particularly struggling to put one foot in front of the other—no one talked about the problem or suggested an alternative course of action.
Tragically, five climbers, including Hall and Fischer, perished as they descended in deep darkness, well past midnight, while a fierce blizzard enveloped the peak.
Why did this happen? How does it happen to us? Michael Roberto answers those questions in Why Great Leaders Don’t Take Yes for an Answer.
“Unfortunately, the experience of these climbers on the slopes of Everest mirrors the group dynamic within many executive suites and corporate boardrooms around the world. The factors suppressing debate and dissent within these expeditions also affect managers as they make business decisions. Inexperienced individuals find themselves demonstrating excessive deference to those with apparent expertise in the subject at hand. Plenty of teams lack the atmosphere of mutual trust and respect that facilitates and encourages candid dialogue.”
Leadership Paradigms: Old and New
For decades, we’ve worshipped the greatness of heroic leaders, men and women who are invincible experts, equipped with superpowers that allow them to solve all the problems they face. I refer to this as the old paradigm of leadership.
Here are its central tenets:
Leaders have all the answers.
Questioning leaders is an act of disloyalty.
Success comes from doing more of the same. Much more.
When team members question a leader in this paradigm, it’s viewed as an act of disloyalty. Who questions a hero with superpowers? You don’t do that! Keep quiet and obediently follow (to your death, if need be).
Fortunately, this old paradigm of leadership is being torn down before our very eyes. Its deconstruction has come from a series of leadership disasters similar to the tragedy that occurred atop Everest. In its place, a new paradigm is emerging with a new language to support it.
Here are its central tenets:
No one has all the answers.
Thoughtful questioning uncovers creative solutions.
Success comes from interaction, insight, and execution.
This new paradigm of leadership recognizes that no one has all the answers in the highly complex, fluid situations we find ourselves in, like a global pandemic and business shutdowns. In this paradigm, leaders view themselves as catalysts for sparking the genius of the entire team and leveraging that genius to uncover creative solutions.
Q2H and S2S or Q2S and S2H?
This new paradigm requires a new language to support it. A language that doesn’t drive or demean others, but one that encourages dialogue, discussion, and debate. Language like this fosters original, independent thinking—not passive dependency—and flows from a mindset that’s quick to hear and slow to speak, instead of the opposite.
These two mindsets are contrasted here:
While we may be able to fold laundry and watch television at the same time—or walk and chew gum at the same—we can’t speak and hear at the same time. It’s just not possible. No only that, to do one well, we must actively suppress the other. This means, in the new paradigm of leadership, we strive to listen before we speak instead of speaking before we listen.
I’m here to tell you that if this hard-core extrovert can learn how to do this, I’m pretty sure you can too. Here are three questions to ask team members as you learn this skill:
How do you view this situation?
What would you do about it?
What are we not considering?
These questions foster dialogue, discussion and debate, dethroning you as an invincible expert and helping you become quick to hear and slow to speak. They provide a path to leading with your ears and not your mouth, actively seeking input, asking for alternative perspectives, and mining for conflict.
In short, not taking yes for an answer. And as a result, not leading yourself and others to their demise on whatever mountain you’re climbing right now.
For more of my thoughts on leadership paradigms, here’s a September Take the Lead article:
George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, and the New Language of Leadership
Number One in Leadership Training!
The last month has been pretty exciting! The Kindle version of my book, The Ultimate Sales Manager Playbook, became a #1 New Release in Leadership Training on Amazon.
A BIG thank you to everyone who helped make this possible.
What’s that you say? You weren’t able to pick up your Kindle version? No worries! Just follow the link below, and it can be yours.
To get your copy, go to: Buy Bill’s book for Kindle
Photo Courtesy of David Mark from Pixabay