By Jim Parke |
A major programme’s steering group receives information suggesting that a delivery partner’s progress reports may be unreliable. Its chair cannot decide the matter alone. Some members want independent assurance; others fear that commissioning a review would damage a working relationship on which the programme depends. The discussion turns to the partner’s reputation and the disruption a review might cause. The question the group actually has to answer—what process is fair and proportionate—gets lost.
This is a hypothetical example. The leadership problem is familiar to anyone who has chaired a board, council or programme steering group. The chair is accountable for helping the group make a sound decision without possessing every vote or the executive power to impose a result. The task is especially difficult when the subject controls information, resources or long-standing relationships within the organisation.
A chair can be entirely right to insist on due process and still fail to bring a group with them. In that situation, leadership is less about delivering a persuasive speech than about designing a decision people are willing and able to make.
Decide the process before the merits
When a concern is serious, participants often begin by asking whether they believe it. That may be an understandable reaction, but it risks requiring the governing body to decide disputed facts without testing them. A decision to obtain independent advice or commission an inquiry with a defined scope is different from a finding against a person or organisation.
Start by stating what is known, what remains unverified and what decision is actually before the group. It might be whether the matter falls within the body’s remit, whether urgent protective steps are needed, or who should assess the information. Identify any conflicts of interest, confidentiality requirements and procedural obligations. A chair with a close relationship to the person or organisation concerned may need someone else to chair that item. If the information is a protected disclosure, the law may restrict sharing the discloser’s identity or details likely to identify them; establish the applicable rules before circulating material or debating its source. Record who has authority to make each decision. Give those affected a fair process without presuming that the concern is baseless.
The sequence matters. A body can authorise an initial, independent assessment with clear terms of reference, then return to decide whether a fuller investigation is warranted. That approach may preserve options while treating everyone affected fairly. The precise process will depend on the organisation’s rules and the nature of the concern; a chair should obtain appropriate advice rather than improvise an investigation around the meeting table.
Notice how power enters the room
Formal roles do not tell the whole story. A chair may control the agenda but depend on colleagues for every resolution. A delivery partner may not vote but may influence the information members receive, the expertise on which they rely and the relationships they fear disrupting. Long service can build genuine trust and valuable knowledge. It can also make scrutiny feel like a personal betrayal.
The chair should ask which voices are missing from the discussion and whether those present can express doubt without paying a social or professional price. Amy Edmondson’s research describes psychological safety as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. It does not mean agreement or freedom from accountability. It means someone can say, “I do not know,” “I see this differently,” or “we need more evidence,” and have that contribution considered.
In a high-stakes meeting, silence is especially ambiguous. It may express agreement, discomfort, caution or a belief that the outcome is already fixed. A chair who mistakes it for consensus may close the question before the group has examined it.
Slow down agreement that arrives too easily
Irving Janis used groupthink to describe how the pursuit of agreement can displace critical examination. The term should not be applied to every decision with which we disagree. It is useful when members avoid testing assumptions, discount contrary information or treat dissent as disloyalty.
Several simple disciplines help. Circulate the question and relevant material in advance. Ask each member what further evidence would change their view. Invite someone to articulate the strongest case against the emerging position. Separate a first discussion from the final decision when time and risk permit. Record unresolved questions alongside the resolution, not just in the chair’s private notes.
These steps are not a licence to delay indefinitely. A time-limited assessment can make a difficult decision possible sooner than repeated meetings in which the same untested positions harden. The chair should set a return date and specify the evidence the group expects to receive.
Take emotion seriously without making it the test
Members may worry about reputational damage, staff morale, public confidence or fairness to a colleague. Telling them to put those feelings aside rarely makes them disappear. A better question is what concern each emotion points to, and how the proposed process will address it.
For example, commitment to a delivery partnership and the need for reliable reporting need not require opposite votes on whether to gather facts. A properly designed assessment protects against unfair accusation as well as against the failure to examine a credible concern. Marianne Lewis, Constantine Andriopoulos and Wendy Smith’s research on organisations confronting competing demands describes a both/and approach. Applying that thinking here means holding the relationship and accountability in view while seeking a workable response to each.
That framing must be genuine. A chair should not use “both/and” language to disguise a predetermined outcome. They should explain how confidentiality will be maintained, what independence means in practice, when the partner will be heard and who will review the initial findings. The process earns trust through its design, not through reassurance alone.
Know what the chair can change
A chair cannot manufacture courage or consensus. They can make the choice clearer. They can commission advice within their authority, propose a staged resolution, ensure conflicts are disclosed, protect the integrity of records and keep the group focused on the organisation’s duties. Where the body declines to act, the chair should ensure the decision, reasons and dissent are accurately recorded and consider what obligations remain under the governing framework.
The chair should also examine their own conduct. Frustration at delay may be justified, yet visible impatience can make uncertain members less willing to admit what they do not understand. A technically sound argument may fail because the group first needs to know that the proposed process will be fair. Listening to that concern does not require accepting inaction.
The useful test is not whether the chair wins the meeting. It is whether the group can say, with reasons, what it decided, what evidence it considered, what it still does not know and who will act next. In major programmes, where sponsors, boards and delivery partners often share power, that is central to the leadership task.
Further reading
- Amy Edmondson (1999), “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly.
- Irving Janis (1972), Victims of Groupthink.
- Marianne Lewis, Constantine Andriopoulos and Wendy Smith (2014), “Paradoxical Leadership to Enable Strategic Agility”, California Management Review.
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission, “Company officer obligations under the whistleblower protection provisions” (for qualifying corporate disclosures).
Related on Projects Asia-Pacific: Who decides when a major programme changes?.