DOING THE RIGHT THING RATHER THAN BEING RIGHT

Truth be told, most of us are very quick to express our views. We've thought about an issue, and we know what the answer is—or at least we think we do. Our focus is often to convince everyone else why we are correct. There is a flaw in this thinking: it's based on the assumption that our opinion is the “right” one.

Over time, I have come to the conclusion that there are, in fact, multiple perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, and even multiple “realities” to consider. Allow me to present a hypothetical situation that brings this concept alive for me. At the intersection of two streets, there is a person standing on each of the four corners. Suddenly, two cars collide in the intersection. Each of the four people is absolutely certain that he or she knows exactly what happened. Each person's view of the accident, however, will depend on what she saw from a particular angle or vantage point, as well as her accumulation of assumptions, biases, and preconceived ideas—everything from her view on how “safe” the intersection is to her attitude toward, say, teenage drivers. Thus, when the police officer investigating the accident speaks to the four eyewitnesses, the result may be not only four different opinions of what happened but four different “realities.” For the investigating police officer, speaking to all four people is essential to putting together a complete picture.

The same concept applies when you are the leader—whether of a team, a department, or an entire company. By pursuing balance, you follow your natural instincts to grow and learn by talking with others, giving your curious mind room to explore the possibilities. When you couple the practice of self-reflection with the discipline of balance by seeking input from many people, your leadership is elevated. You not only improve your success rate when it comes to making good, well-thought-out decisions but also demonstrate that you are committed to doing the right thing rather than being right. In order to become balanced, you must first dismiss one big myth: that the leader is the all-knowing person with all the answers.

When I was the CEO of Baxter International, I realized that I would never have all the answers. When making a decision, rather than relying only on what I knew personally, I found it to be both helpful and necessary to solicit input from everyone on my team. Understanding the perspectives of each of the ten senior executives on my team greatly improved my ability to come to the best possible decision. In fact, I realized over time that, as the leader, I did not have to know the solution; rather, my task was to recognize when a particular perspective offered by one of my team members was the best answer.

It makes sense that those who are closer to a particular situation have a different perspective than I do because, as the leader, I'm often one step removed from it. If I have ten of the right people on the team (assume for now that they are the right people for the team; we'll discuss this further in Chapter Six), it is critical to know what each of them thinks. Listening to each team member brings another incredible advantage to any leader: it helps create a phenomenal team. When input from everyone is sought and discussed, each person knows that he or she has an impact on the leader's decision making. Team members feel appreciated, knowing that the leader wants to understand their point of view.

In reality, this doesn't happen in many organizations. The person who is making decisions is viewed as being in “output mode.” Even if team members are asked for their input, they are often left with the impression that the boss hears only a portion of what they say, or is not really listening at all. And, if the last time the boss changed his mind was in 1973, it's no wonder that people doubt his sincerity when he asks for feedback. In these organizations, team members often feel left in the dark about the rationale behind the boss's decision. All they know is that they've been given a directive to carry out, with no understanding as to why.

I experienced this firsthand early in my career when my colleagues would meet with the boss about a particular project they were working on. When I asked about the boss's reasons for making a certain decision, my colleagues would often shrug their shoulders and say, “How should I know? Do you think the boss tells me why he made that decision?” Later on, when I became one of the bosses, I remembered that experience and vowed to pursue balance in all my decisions. For example, when I became president of Baxter, I often had to make decisions regarding product launches. Although it was my call, I always sought input from my team. If we were discussing where in Europe to launch a new product, one team member might have suggested France and another Germany. After open and thorough discussions, it was time for me to make a decision. After all, it is the job of the leader to make the final decision in a timely manner after taking in all the input. If, say, I chose Spain, I never had to worry that my team members left the meeting shaking their heads, wondering if I had pulled that idea out of the blue. Because of our discussions, they knew the rationale and could explain it, even if they originally held a different opinion—and sometimes still did.

Many leaders believe that if team members do not get their way, they will feel unhappy or disgruntled. I don't agree. I have faced situations in which the majority of my team held one opinion while the final decision I made was totally different. I never felt outnumbered, believing that I had to give in to the majority—unless, of course, that viewpoint turned out to be the best option. Leadership is not a democracy. My job as the leader is to seek input, not consensus. If decisions are made simply by vote and majority rules, the company wouldn't need me. But even in situations in which the decision I made was the opposite of what the majority recommended, I never had to worry about whether they felt heard. I always made it a point to repeat back what I heard them say and thank them for the input. Then when I made my decision, I explained my reasoning and why I was not doing what they recommended.

As a leader, I have found that as long as team members are able to present their views, challenge the opinions of others (including mine), and receive a good explanation of why a particular decision was made, they are satisfied. I believe that if you examine each potential suggestion and scenario, you can arrive at a decision with confidence that it is the best possible action. Your team members will understand that it is up to you, the leader, to make a final decision. If you deferred to your team every time a decision needed to be made, they would start asking themselves, “Why do we need him?” What team members desire above all is to be part of a fair process and to understand why a particular decision is being made.

Of course, even as you draw upon the best your team can offer—their input and point of view—you must still move quickly. Inherent in the decision-making process is the need for another kind of balance: you are seeking enough input to make a decision aligned with your values and those of the organization, while also avoiding “analysis paralysis.” If there are ten people on a team and you had to wait for every person to offer an opinion, not much would get done. Seeking input should not be an excuse to slow down or procrastinate. The reality is that there is a business to run, competitors to face, and technology that is always changing.

I can think of countless examples of when I had a decision to make and a deadline to do so. I can remember times when I called my team in for a 2:00 meeting to discuss a new development, and let them know that a decision had to be made by 2:45. I was committed to listening to my team and making sure that everyone in the room or conferenced in by phone was heard. At the same time, the team members knew that if they had something to say, it needed to be presented in a convincing way in the next forty-five minutes. At 3:00, I didn't want to hear from someone who had a list of points that should have been raised earlier. However, if at 3:15 someone learned something critical that wasn't known at 2:45, that was a different story. Being a leader entails performing a continuous balancing act: getting the best perspectives from the team and making decisions with a reasonable sense of urgency. Pushing things off for a week to avoid making a decision is not the answer.

As a leader, you will face many situations in which you have to make a decision with less than perfect information or when all the variables are not known. You cannot wait until things become crystal clear because it's rarely going to be that way. However, if you find out down the road that you've chosen the wrong fork, you should take the necessary steps to make a midcourse correction rather than sticking to a faulty decision just to keep going. The goal, after all, is not to be right but to do the right thing.