Nearly all the leaders I work with are clear on the importance of being challenged. They welcome such behaviour and value collaborative decision-making and feedback. They don’t want passive, compliant teams.
At the same time, very few of the people I meet have the courage to challenge their leader, even when they are convinced that mistakes have been made. Instead, they seem resigned and detached from their organizations. They believe that decisions from above cannot be challenged from below.
So, are leaders simply disingenuous, claiming to be open to being challenged when, in fact, they prefer compliance? Or is the problem with the followers, who operate with a victim complex, blaming the world around them for the frustration caused by their own inaction? Or is reality even more complex?
The challenges of leadership
The first step towards embracing the challenger role is to understand the challenges of leadership. I remember very well the words of a client who had just been promoted to the board level. I asked him what had changed as a result of his promotion. “People have stopped talking to me,” he told me. “Now, I don’t know what is going on.”
As you move up the corporate hierarchy, your understanding of organizational realities can actually diminish. This is not just because people are afraid to share inconvenient truths with you. More fundamentally, it is because you may not be able to understand what they are saying. The expertise of team members in their own roles outstrips the leader’s ability to understand these roles.
Added to this is a VUCA external world — volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous — that no leader can claim to master. In this reality, the challenger role is not simply an option; it is essential because we need multiple insights. Modern leadership thinking has, in part, recognized this in the concept of “shared leadership” (see Business Spotlight 1/2020), abandoning unrealistic, heroic leader concepts for more collaborative approaches.
Intelligent disobedience
So, if challenging the leader is essential, why don’t team members do it more often? Psychology plays a key role. People will say things like: “I don’t want to challenge unless I am totally sure that I am correct. I don’t want to look stupid.” They may also simply want to avoid conflict. Such feelings are totally understandable. Yet, in a world in which no one is master of everything, it is irrational to expect that we will always say “the right thing”. And attempting to avoid conflict at all costs is simply dangerous.
A more appealing approach to the idea of being a challenger is the concept of “intelligent disobedience”, a term first used in relation to strategic projects, where there is a frequent requirement to push back against unrealistic demands from the project sponsor. The key appeal here is that of being “intelligent” in our challenging. This requires not just good data but also critical thinking (see Business Spotlight 6/2020) and asking smart “why” questions to expose risks, flaws in logic or overlooked opportunities.
This is a key aspect of the communication skills of an effective challenger. It is not so much about contradicting others, having better or alternative data or finding flaws in what people have said. That is extremely difficult in conversations with leaders, even if data is better. Their frame of reference is often different from yours. They may be drawing on privileged information about strategy or key financial information, which makes it difficult for you to say something meaningful.
Also, correcting flaws in other people’s ideas is never an easy strategy. The same underlying self-esteem issues that make it difficult to speak out also make it difficult for people to listen. The psychological reactions of leaders and followers are more similar than we might think.
Challenging to support
If you are to be effective in your role as challenger, you need “mission clarity”. It has to be clear that you are challenging the leader because it is essential to do so. The message is this: “I challenge you so that we take the best decisions, not because I see you as being wrong.” The relationship aspect is also important: “I don’t challenge to criticize. I challenge to support you and the organization because I care. And I trust that you will engage with my ideas constructively.”
And finally, we need clarity on scope. Credible challengers don’t just push back on areas of self-interest, as they would then run the risk of looking like complainers. Instead, effective and useful challenges have to be broad and bring benefits to the person being challenged and/or to the organization.
Think of your role this way. Challenging another person’s behaviour can enable them to develop better habits. Challenging another person’s data can increase their analytical excellence. And challenging another person’s limits can inspire personal growth. All this can result in increased effectivity and/or profitability for the organization. So, why would you withhold such valuable help?
Challenging yourself
Negotiating your challenger role with those around you can be a smart strategy. This can legitimize your behaviour and create engagement and alignment rather than conflict. But if you want full buy-in and acceptance from others, you are going to have to walk the talk. It isn’t possible to claim the role of challenger without challenging yourself, being aware of your own limits and biases, and being a convinced but humble presenter of ideas.
You also need to encourage challenges from others. That may sound, well, challenging, but if you aren’t prepared to listen to those challenges, why should anyone listen to you?