Weekly Business Insights from Top Ten Business Magazines | Week 317 | Leading & Managing Section | 2

Extractive summaries and key takeaways from the articles curated from TOP TEN BUSINESS MAGAZINES to promote informed business decision-making | Since September 2017 | Week 317 | September October 6-12 , 2023

Five Ways Leaders Can Turn Pushback Into Progress

By Phillip G. Clampitt and Bob DeKoch | MIT Sloan Management Review | October 09, 2023 

Extractive Summary of the Article | Listen

Effectively responding to pushback may well rank as one of the most important competencies that leaders can possess, and it’s especially critical during times of transition.  Resistance to an organizational policy, directive, or decision can take many forms, ranging from voicing concerns and raising questions to active opposition and sabotage.

Effective leaders think of pushback as an opportunity to boost their team’s learning while moving their organization forward. The objective should be to increase people’s understanding and build support by tempering both advocate enthusiasm and contrarian pessimism. This deeper level of understanding, while not necessarily satisfying to all in the moment, fosters a climate of candor, humility, adaptation, and trust, thereby subtly steering pushback away from latent disruptive tendencies. 

Drawing on decades of research, C-suite observations, and interviews, the authors have identified the major mistakes leaders make when encountering pushback and offer five guidelines to help them better respond.

Leaders make three primary mistakes when facing ambivalence, disagreement, or resistance:

1. Suppressing uncertainty. Pushback increases uncertainty when questions are raised that might not have immediate answers or perspectives are introduced that might have recently emerged or been sidelined or overlooked. Some leaders respond to uncertainty-induced pushback by marginalizing concerns, offering placating assurances, or invoking authoritarian voices. Such practices offer false certainty that undermines trust in the long term. Even if they don’t know the answers now, leaders can provide an operating level of certainty by discussing how they will find those answers. 
2. Ignoring power dynamics. Leaders with positional or acquired status directly or subtly influence the nature of the pushback. Highly authoritarian power structures tend to drive pushback underground. Likewise, more subtle power signals can suppress open discussion of legitimate concerns. Effective leaders take active steps to mitigate disruptive dialogue because they recognize that inherent power dynamics greatly influence the quality of any discussion.
3. Assuming that the loudest voices represent a consensus. Pushback takes many forms: Some of them are obvious, like complaints or employee petitions, while others are more subtle, like queries in meetings or a lack of engagement.  When the loudest or most politically powerful voices dominate the discussion, such dynamics often create an inaccurate impression of the level of support or divisiveness. Effective leaders recognize the peril at either extreme: the enthusiasts glossing over concerning issues or the contrarians undermining potential support. 

Leaders also take active countermeasures that reflect the following guidelines:  

Set ground rules for the conversation, orient the team about pushback opportunities, select the right forums and settings, focus on educating before advocating, and signpost inflection points.

3 key takeaways from the article

1. Effectively responding to pushback may well rank as one of the most important competencies that leaders can possess, and it’s especially critical during times of transition. Effective leaders think of pushback as an opportunity to boost their team’s learning while moving their organization forward. The objective should be to increase people’s understanding and build support by tempering both advocate enthusiasm and contrarian pessimism.
2. Leaders make three primary mistakes when facing ambivalence, disagreement, or resistance:  suppress uncertainty, ignore power dynamics, and assume that the most vocal represent consensus opinion 
3. Ative countermeasures are: set ground rules for the conversation, orient the team about pushback opportunities, select the right forums and settings, focus on educating before advocating, and signpost inflection points.

Full Article

(Copyright lies with the publisher)

Topics:  Leadership, Decision-making, Teams