WHEN THE SAILORS COMMAND THE ADMIRALS: CONSTITUENCY DECISION MAKING

Peter Drucker said that constituencies were different in business than in politics. Essentially they were single issue groups who did not always seek to make their company or organization successful, profitable or effective. (Sometimes whistleblowers start out this way and that’s not a bad thing. Why they operate and where they end up is the true test.)

This is pure legislative leadership, building on Jim Collins. Every individual has a veto – equalling a majority of one.

Back to Xenophon ... how would you like to be a general when any soldier could countermand your order?

Constituencies present a penultimate solution. They fall short of real effectiveness. They are prone to manipulation and shirk external results. The lead agitators (one quails at “leader”) enjoy being players. Their processes create internal results and not meaningful Outsides. It is a form of organizational gaming – the gadfly syndrome reigns. Quakers, who allow the one-person veto, at least claim that you must choose whether your stand is a matter of principle or preference, and expect that “clear hearts” are needed to move on. But true constituencies stall and lock up organizations.

This is power seeking opacity and therefore toxic.

No good comes of it.

Originally published on September 7, 2010

Tags:

In Business, Crisis, Leadership, Peter Drucker Tags constituency, Jim Collins,legislative leadership, meaningful outside, Peter Drucker, Quaker, Xenophon