The army has always been a terrific metaphor for teams in the corporate world. Military life is full of fascinating stories of leadership and teamwork. And discipline is often the hallmark of all those great endeavours. We’ve all heard stories of how the leader’s wish was the team’s command—‘Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die’.
Leaders love the stuff about discipline and obedience. If you eavesdrop on a boardroom discussion, you will almost always find a leader feeling great when his team echoes his strategies and ideas. There’s a word for it—often misused—‘alignment’. That’s the feeling of having everyone agree with the team leader’s ideas. A leader recognizes that unless his team is in sync—in alignment—execution of the strategy will suffer. So alignment is critical once an action plan has been agreed upon. But seeking it too soon can often mean that a team is headed down the wrong path—albeit in complete alignment!
How a leader responds to the dissenting voice can often be the true mark of leadership greatness. Does he snub the dissenting voice? Is the rebel made to feel like the non-aligned guy, the perennial doubter? Or does the leader embrace the dissenter and strive to understand his point of view? Do leaders recognize the power of the dissenting voice?
While all leaders realize the need to allow opposing viewpoints to be debated and discussed, they often subconsciously create an environment where falling in line is seen by the team as the convenient, preferred option. As a subordinate speaks up to express his opinion, the leader begins to squirm uncomfortably and tends to present the examples of the other folks in the room—who are ‘aligned’ to his viewpoint. It immediately creates an atmosphere of ‘who’s right’ versus ‘what’s right’. And that snuffs out the debate. Mind you, this is not always intended, but over time this becomes the behaviour into which the team lapses. The advantage of having a team of leaders lies in their collective wisdom, and often colossal mistakes and errors of strategy can be avoided by engaging the whole group and leveraging its pool of intelligence and experience. By suppressing that, leaders weaken themselves. It’s one thing to seek alignment after a decision is taken. It’s quite another to seek alignment without healthy debate. Simply put, there are times when you need alignment. And times when you don’t.
There’s a little known story involving an army of soldiers that may hold an important leadership lesson for us. It’s the story of what happened one stormy night way back in 1850 on Angers Bridge over the River Maine in France.
Angers Bridge is still remembered for that tragic night of 15 April 1850, when it collapsed under the weight of 478 French soldiers who were marching across it. There was a thunderstorm that night, and the strong gusts of wind made the suspension bridge sway from side to side. As the soldiers marched together in complete harmony, matching step for step, they caused the bridge to vibrate and oscillate even more. And, as a result of the resonance, the anchoring cable got dislodged from the concrete mooring. The bridge came crashing down. As many as 226 soldiers died in what came to be known as the Angers Bridge tragedy. Though the collapse occurred during a thunderstorm, engineering experts were convinced that it was the cadence—the synchronized steps—of the marching soldiers and not the storm that had caused it. And since that day, it’s become a practice for armies to break step when they are crossing a bridge. They are encouraged, nay, mandated, not to march in lockstep whilst crossing a bridge.
Leaders around the world would do well to take a leaf out of the Angers Bridge tragedy. Even in a discipline-driven organization like the army, there are times when it must break step. Dissonance is vital, as the soldiers must not all fall in line. An army marching in unison is a great spectacle and represents the power of disciplined teamwork. But equally, there are times when marching in that manner can prove deadly. The soldiers need to break step. Failure to do that can often spell doom.
As a leader, it seems natural to assume that the team must be disciplined in its execution of tasks. But leaders must also remember that there will be times when we need to cross our own Angers Bridge. Allow dissent and make room for dissonance.
Your team will only emerge stronger. And guess what, so will you.
A leader recognizes that unless his team is in alignment, execution of the strategy will suffer. But seeking alignment too soon can often mean that a team is headed down the wrong path—albeit in complete alignment!
It’s one thing to seek alignment after a decision is taken. It’s quite another to seek alignment without healthy debate. How a leader responds to the dissenting voice can often be the true mark of leadership greatness.