Solution-Building™: An Introduction, Part 5
Last week I started on the subject of ego and talked about the positive value of ego and how that could contribute positively to a group decision-making or problem-solving effort. This week I will turn to the Dark Side of ego (with apologies to George Lucas).
Ego can be thought of as a measure of self-confidence. Last week I wrote about what to do when someone whose lack of ego, which can be perceived by others as a lack of self-confidence, does not contribute to the effort for a number of reasons, some of which I listed. This brings up an interesting question: can a person have an ego AND lack self-confidence? I think it’s very possible. In fact, a part of a healthy ego is knowing what you know and, more to the point, what you do not. I think it is possible to have a well-developed ego and be very self-confident in your abilities and expertise in your particular field but have no self-confidence in areas about which you have no, or only general, knowledge.
Self-confidence can also manifest itself in the other direction: the opposite of lack, which is a surfeit of that characteristic. High self-confidence, which can of course be seen as a high level of ego, can be very useful in some circumstances. Battlefield commanders are one example; they have to make rapid decisions in fluid situations and need the confidence to do so. One may, however, seriously question the decisions that place them into those situations.
In the (we hope) less lethal situation of making a group decision in a business setting, too much ego can get in the way of, or even prevent, reaching effective decisions. By “too much ego” I mean a level of ego that manifests, among other things, as an attitude that the person is correct and everyone else should simply agree with them. It can arise from some psychological issues as well, such as a need to be seen as intelligent, capable, a mover/shaker, a person who “is going places,” or any number of other characteristics that I am sure you readers of this blog can add to the list. Analogously to the “healthy ego” I spoke of in the last entry, I will call this an unhealthy ego, meaning one that interferes with the concepts of commitment, objectivity, and courtesy I discussed earlier.
Ambition plays into a lot of this. We are taught in a number of ways that we need to rise within our profession and that to do so we have to be seen as better, quicker, and smarter than others in the organization, as people who have good ideas, and can be decisive and solve problems others find difficult. We forget that no one has all the good ideas or is able to solve all the issues and make good and effective decisions all the time.
How can all this prevent reaching effective decisions? One way is for the person who is determined to have his ideas constitute the decision that he so dominates the discussion that a proper consideration of anything other than what he is proposing is blocked. When someone decides he will support no other decision or idea than his, he will find many ways to criticize and negate other ideas and thoughts that work against them.
Sometimes this will take the form of simply and persistently not accepting other ideas or any criticism of his. Other times it may come out as displays of anger, sarcasm, or insults. If the person is a senior manager, he may use his position to essentially demand a rubber stamping of a predetermined decision.
When open discussion is stifled by any of these behaviors, the inevitable result is that good ideas that could add to the information base needed to make a decision are lost, ignored, or otherwise not considered. There is no consideration of how alternatives may be integrated and combined to facilitate developing the decision or solving the problem.
What is the effect of this unhealthy ego behavior on other members of the group? In my experience, they quickly figure out that whatever they offer up will be dispensed with by one of these routes and many will stop actively participating. Some will continue to push for consideration of alternatives, with varying, but usually limited, success.
Another way that a person with an unhealthy desire to have his and only his ideas accepted is the reverse of pushing his in the ways I have discussed above. He could withhold his ideas from the group or, worse, withhold valuable information that the group may need. Why would he do that? One reason is to watch the group struggle and perhaps even be unable to come to an effective endpoint. He then steps in and rescues the situation, making himself look better in the eyes of his senior managers. This is related to ambition, the desire to impress and advance.
One final way that this can happen is that if the person does not get his ideas accepted fully, he can sabotage the decision after it is made. There are several ways this could happen. He could simply not implement whatever is needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the decision. He could make it clear to his staff, and others, that he does not support the decision because he knows it will not deliver the desired result. In other words, he can undermine the decision and make sure that it will not deliver the desired results, and let it be known that his idea would have worked.
In other words, an unhealthy ego can make it hard to build a solution that is both effective and supported by the group.
This is why it is critical to the success of Solution-Building that ego be kept in check, or at least the side of ego that impedes our willingness and ability to look objectively at every idea no matter how it is offered or who offers it up.
How do you deal with a member who displays the behaviors being described above? While it may seem desirable to simply not have them participate, this may not be possible.
Clearly there needs to be a set of ground rules for making effective decisions and for solving problems in a group setting. Those ground rules need to deal with all the issues we have been discussing for the past several entries to this blog. It is critical that all participants accept these ground rules and follow them.
Beginning with the next entry, I will lay out and explain the rationale for a set of nine rules that form the basis of Solution-Building.