How to Prevent Irresponsible Decisions in Leadership

Last week, all seven members of Amnesty International’s senior leadership team offered to resign, according to the BBC. This was prompted by a recent investigation revealing a ‘toxic’ work culture, where irresponsible management was identified as the root cause of employee abuse and trauma, going back as far as several decades. Although the staff is probably highly motivated to fulfill the mission of the human rights organization, almost 40 percent of employees reported mental or physical health issues. These problems were attributed to managers who acted as bullies and set unrealistically high goals while being unsupportive of the employees expected to accomplish them.

Leadership changes often result from irresponsible decision-making. In 2018, almost 40 percent of CEO resignations at large international companies were prompted by integrity failures such as fraud, corruption, or other incidents of unethical behavior. In law firms—where rule compliance should be self-evident—things aren’t much better. In May, the International Bar Association released a report surveying thousands of lawyers in more than 100 countries. This revealed that 30 to 50 percent experienced some form of misconduct at the office. In more than 60 percent of cases, the culprits were those in a position of leadership.

Why do so many leaders make troubling decisions? It may be they just failed to take their human fallibilities into account. They might have relied too much on their own ability to objectively assess risks. Possibly they overestimated their ability to resist temptations that were thrown in their way, or considered complex decisions solely from their own perspective. These limitations of human judgment—as well as their consequences—only are intensified when people are promoted to a position with more power. Simultaneously, greater power diminishes the likelihood of being contradicted.

Many managers and CEOs rely on the expectation that any irresponsible decision they propose will be flagged up by the people they work with. But leadership misconduct often remains unreported. This was the case in 57 to 75 percent of the cases surveyed by the International Bar Association. Targets of bullying, sexual abuse, and other workplace misbehavior largely remain silent, even when problems have been present for many years and are common knowledge. Only rarely are those in a position of power requested to account for themselves, as subordinates fear the consequences of confronting them. The #MeToo movement has revealed high profile cases around the world, in art, business, and science, of leaders who maintained power while everyone around them knew they abused their power time after time.

There is an abundance of books and courses on leadership and how to encourage people to do what you want. This may seem to be a valuable skill but there's a catch. What would happen, for instance, if what you want is not really feasible or if your decisions are not well thought through? You may have exaggerated the benefits of a certain project, bent the rules to accommodate your plans, or ignored the lack of support for your favored strategy. Will there be someone left to point out the dangers of your chosen strategy if you manage to get everyone to follow your leadership? And would you still be prepared to listen to them when they did?

Power influences people’s judgment, according to many studies in psychology, neuroscience, and management. Once people are placed in a position of power they start to process information differently, experience different emotions and adapt their behavior. They focus on the big picture rather than the details and are more willing to take risks when taking action to achieve goals they consider important. Fortunately, there also is research showing that these negative consequences are not inevitable. When those in power are reminded of their responsibilities, they are less likely to take risks, are more open to input from others, and are more likely to take into account the implications of their decisions for others. This does not happen automatically, however. Explicit provisions are required to ensure that co-workers and subordinates voice their concerns to those who are in power.

A similar idea arises from the ancient Greeks and Homer’s Odysseus, the man of a thousand ruses. When Troy is finally taken by the Greeks after many years of siege, Odysseus goes home to Ithaca. His dangerous journey is full of adventures, each with its own moral. While passing the island of the Sirens, whose song spells ruin for sailors and ships alike, he orders his crew to stop their ears with wax. Odysseus himself is curious to hear the song, but knowing he might fall victim to its seductive power, he has the crew tie him to the mast. Odysseus makes it impossible to go to the destructive island, and he escapes from the Sirens who lose their magic powers.

The moral of the story is that people in positions of power are in danger of making bad decisions. Their leadership role makes them favor the big picture and focus on the achievement of important goals without weighing all the details, risks, and consequences of their choices.

Like Odysseus, good bosses will not trust in their own ability to withstand temptation but will take measures to avoid the danger zone. Self-imposed limits and regular evaluations by others can protect against irresponsible decision-making. Accounting for decisions made to third parties can help too. These roles can be taken up by colleagues and members of staff, a compliance department, a supervisory board, or an external supervising body. A boss who explicitly asks for critical comments and who learns to see those who provide them as friends instead of obstructive enemies shows responsible leadership and reduces risk.