A consulting team that I headed collected extensive information from his vice presidents regarding the Senior Vice President’s leadership behavior. Much of this information was quite critical of him. After reporting the information back to him (which he received quite openly), the team met with all of his subordinates and himself at a retreat site and presented an oral summation of the interview data. The immediate and highly emotional reaction of his vice presidential reports to this presentation was an absolute and unqualified rejection of everything that the consulting team had said: “[Senior Vice President], you are a wonderful leader! How could the consultants have so grossly distorted the facts!”
Other members of the consulting team and I began to wonder if we were at the right meeting or if we had been set up. After about twenty minutes of kill-the-messenger, one of the vice presidents who had been quiet spoke up. He took a deep breath and then stated that “the information being presented by these people is accurate. I’ve talked with many of you in my office or in the hall about these very issues. I’m tired of beating around the bush. Let’s bring this stuff out in the open!”
There was a short pause. Everyone looked at the senior vice president for his reaction. He appeared to be somewhere between neutral and appreciative of the vice president’s candor. The other vice presidents then began cautiously to state their own concerns and verify that the information contained in the oral report was accurate. The meeting was productive and tangible steps were taken to alleviate some of the personal and structural problems that this group of financial leaders faced.
The vice president who first spoke up exhibited organizational courage, as did the Senior Vice President who contracted with the consulting team in the first place to present their critical report (without editing) to all of his vice presidential reports. Perhaps both men were simply tired of the old way of operating and were willing to take risks in order to change things. The American school, with its enduring optimism, might suggest that both men felt sufficient job security to take a chance (Quad I: Internal).
