David Pogue, the New York Times columnist, writes in Scientific American this month about the “hostile media effect.” This is a cognitive phenomenon where people who hold strong opinions about something perceive that media coverage of that topic is prejudiced, no matter how neutral the coverage actually is.

The same phenomenon happens in groups. People who hold strong opinions about something perceive that anyone who asks questions is biased against them, regardless of how neutral or innocent the questions are.

I saw it in action this week during a meeting of the executive team of a health care company. Ten people gathered in a large conference room overlooking San Francisco to discuss the strategic issues faced by the organization. I asked each person to reflect on these questions: “How is the health care environment changing in California? What are the most important opportunities for the company? What should be our priorities over the next year?”

For the most part, the ensuring conversation was excellent. One team member talked about the “triple transformation:” the realignment of state government, health care reform, and the emergence of community care organizations. Another said she was worried about trends in work force development and the growing need for people with expertise in integrated care. Yet another talked about the importance of marketing services to public agencies.

Then Michelle spoke. She was vice president of marketing, new to the management team. She started by saying: “In my old job, this would be called channel management.” Eyes turned to her. “In a dynamic environment, we need to look at each customer segment and provide a unique value proposition.“

A team member asked: “Can you give us some specific examples?”

“You’re missing my point,” Michelle said. “We need to think more like a business.”

“In what ways?” said the team member.

“We need to be more business-like with our customers. We assume our customers will be there tomorrow, when that’s not necessarily true.”

There was an awkward silence. I could feel the tension ratcheting up in the room. “Which customers are you referring to?” she was asked.

“All of them,” Michelle said. “It should be obvious.” She stared defiantly at her inquisitor.

After the meeting, the CEO asked for my impressions. “I thought it was a good, productive discussion,” I replied. “With one exception.”

“Are you referring to Michelle?” he asked. “That was classic. There should be a name for what she did.”

“There already is,” I replied. “It’s called the hostile media effect. She’s highly opinionated and perceives innocent questions as hostile to her.”

“Is it curable?”

“Only in cases where you can get them to eat a large piece of humble pie!”

Learn the habits of high performing organizations in my new book: http://leadingatlightspeed.com.

In a world where change is accelerating, where new products and services are developed in ever-faster cycles, the quality of decisions is ultimately the most important test of leadership. Ironically, many managers and leaders are still working with Old World decision-making skills, even while their companies are trying to succeed in a Light Speed world.

A critical skill that leaders must learn in a Light Speed world is how to juggle and manage complex decision processes. As I describe in my latest book, “Leading at Light Speed,” there are five – and only five – types of decisions: autocratic, consultative, consensus, delegated, and democratic.

To be effective in a Light Speed world, more decisions have to be made “consultatively.” In a consultative decision, one person or one group ultimately makes the decision – because it’s their responsibility to do so. In a consultative decision, the leader engages people up front, clarifies that it’s her role to ultimately make the decision, and then gains people’s input. She makes it clear that she is open to different ideas – and she actively creates opportunities for people to speak up. But there’s no expectation that consensus will be reached; instead, people are encouraged to make their case, listen to other arguments, and then listen and answer questions as the leader comes to a conclusion.

There are three keys to success in a consultative decision: First, the leader needs to say up front how the decision process will go and who will make the final call. Roles and responsibilities at each step need to be mapped out. Second, there must be regular updates to remind people when they’ll have opportunities to contribute. Third, it’s key to record the ideas and feedback so that people know their views were heard.

The advantages are obvious: Instead of everyone needing to agree before a decision is made, a consultative decision can flow smoothly to a conclusion. Because people can speak their minds, unfettered by the need to agree with everyone else, unconventional thinking has a better chance to be heard.

Contrast this to a consensus decision. When using consensus, everyone must agree – a much more difficult and time-consuming process. And to what end? Some would say the end is greater “ownership” in the decision. But our experience working with hundreds of different organizations is that people actually lose trust in consensus decisions for several reasons. First, people may have stifled their feelings in order to reach agreement, resulting in a “faux” consensus. Second, people may feel that they had to water down the quality of the decision in the urge to reach consensus. Finally, when people perceive their leaders failing to take responsibility to make decisions, they lose confidence and trust. What’s the point of leadership, they ask, if the people in charge don’t actually manage and make decisions?

Last week, I worked with the executive team from a large organization to help them learn how to manage decisions more effectively. The CEO turned to me afterward and said: “I realize now why we have so many problems with decision making in our company: We aren’t clear at all about how we are going to make a decision. So people simply assume it’s going to be consensus, or assume that the team asked to develop some recommendations is going to make the final call. This has been a huge eye-opener for me!”

One of the axioms of being a good consultant is this: Always tell the truth to your clients! Now this may seem like a no-brainer, but every one of us has experienced moments where we’ve wanted to refrain from telling the truth out of fear that we’ll offend. For a professional management consultant, telling the truth carries the additional fear of losing a client, with all of the financial consequences that entails.

I was reminded of this axiom while working with a large non-profit based in Los Angeles. I was hired to help the board of directors get clear on its governance role. The CEO felt the board was asserting too much control. But as I dug deeper, I found that the board had every reason to be concerned. There was no clear vision, no clear strategy, and the only action plans were on paper – no one truly owned them.

I met with the CEO and told him that my goal, above all else, was to help him and his organization be successful. I told him that, frankly, I felt the organization lacked direction. The strategic planning that the Board had done in 2007 had not resulted in a clear strategic plan. Nothing had not been captured on paper. The management team was off on its own, with no sense of coordinated action or accountability. Frankly, I told him, we needed to start at the beginning. I then looked at him, not sure what to expect.

“You’re absolutely right,” he said. “And I need you to say that to the Board – not once, but many times.”

I raised an eyebrow. After all, he was responsible for the lack of a plan, for the lack of coordination.

“You say that to the Board, and then help us develop a plan,” he said. “That will assure them that we’re on the right track.”

“I can’t do that,” I explained. “You have to carry that message. I can support you, but the Board needs to hear your commitment to making that happen.”

He paused, and then smiled. “No, you’re right again. I’ll let them know that we could have done better. And then I’d like to turn it over to you to facilitate a discussion with them. Can you do that?”

“I would be happy to,” I said. And that was the truth.

I work with a lot of public agencies and their Boards of Directors. Typically, my focus is on helping these Board develop a high-level scorecard that the Board can rely on for measuring the organization’s performance. This, in turn, will accelerate the organization to attain higher levels of performance.

The important thing about the scorecard is that it has to be balanced. It has to balance all the aspects of what is essential to the organization’s success – from financial sustainability to customer satisfaction, from product reliability to ethical integrity.

The organization’s core values are the things that, if the organization could speak for itself, it would say are most important to it. Each of them can be measured. A balanced scorecard will look at 8-10 different categories of core values and assign metrics and targets to each of them. A tool on our website called Developing Core Values explains this in detail.

An unbalanced scorecard, in contrast, will have too many metrics. They won’t be focused on outcomes, but rather on outputs. Too many of them will fall into one category, like financial. Other core values, like integrity or environmental stewardship, may be neglected.

Read Next Blog Article: “Corporate Leadership Development Program“

There are two conversations that leaders assume they can have once, and then be done with – at least or a while. Those are conversations about roles and goals. Many leaders assume they can talk about them once a year or so, and that’s enough. Or so they assume.

It’s my experience, however, that conversations about roles and goals need to occur all the time. As the leader, you may think you’re repeating yourself. Yet the people hearing your views about roles and goals are gaining important new information and insights each time.  Why? First of all, roles and goals often change, so people are often operating on old information. Second, by emphasizing roles and goals, leaders provide people the confidence that someone has the big picture in mind and is managing it.

Third, and most important, most of the conflicts inside an organization are about roles and goals. Who’s the final decision maker on this program or project? How are we measuring success? Talking about roles and goals gives people a forum to surface those conflicts and resolve them. Remember, communication breaks down because the appropriate conversations are not taking place. It’s the leader’s responsibility to know what conversations are essential – and to keep having them.

See our “Executive Leadership Development Program“