Send to KindleWhy are executives less than willing to hear things from their subordinate leaders?
There’s an interesting phenomenon in the military. Often called the revolving door, it is common for military retirees to quickly return as civilian consultants. It makes a lot of sense for both the retiree and the military to continue to use expertise gained over many years. Here’s the really interesting part though. In many cases, the retiree, who may have become very frustrated with senior leadership’s apparent inability to accept their attempts at making improvements, find that those same leaders now seek out their advice and counsel.
While this example tends to be unique to the military (but not entirely) it is an illustration of something that is not uncommon in any leadership situation. Specifically, leaders tend to be less willing to accept advice and counsel from subordinates, while often seeking out the same assistance from outsiders. This is a great thing for those of us in the consulting business, but can be a bit frustrating for the subordinates in the organization. So why does this happen?
There are several reasons leaders don’t listen to their subordinates. The first is, quite frankly, their own insecurity. The thought that “if I take my subordinates advice on this I’ll appear weak and become vulnerable” becomes a governing fear, even though the opposite is usually more likely. People tend to respect a leader who will listen to, and seriously consider all opinions before making a decision.
Next is just plain ego. The higher a leader goes in the organization, the more they should guard against becoming ego driven. Ego tends to drive a “not invented here” mentality. The leader thinks, “If I didn’t think of it, then it must not be the best idea; after all, I know more than anyone else.” By the way, this problem isn’t restricted to individuals. Groups and even large organizations can fall prey to this as well; to their own detriment.
Third, there is an odd, almost symbiotic relationship between leaders and consultants. The leader usually has chosen the consultant, is paying him or her directly, and so has an expectation that the consultant is going to provide good advice and counsel. What’s really odd about this is that the leader is probably paying his or her own people even more in the long run. There’s a perception though that the consultant is costing money and therefore should be provide a return on investment.
All this is not to say that a leader should not utilize the expertise, experience, and especially the outside view a consultant can provide. That would be foolhardy. But just as silly is using a consultant at the expense of the leader’s own people and the experience and expertise that already exists within the organization.
