My 30-plus years in the C-suite, focused on philanthropy, policy, housing, community development, and impact investing across multiple sectors, have provided me with a multidimensional perspective and continuous learning experiences in decision-making.
Throughout my journey, I have navigated various institutional frameworks and individuals intent on shaping and influencing my perspectives. These are dominated by what I call "thought bullies" who use subtle or overt tactics to wield influence over our thoughts and actions. And while their motives may differ, no sector is immune to these activities, which I call the tyranny of false choices, or the tyranny of thought.
One problem in organizations today is that leaders sometimes suppress independent thinking through conformity and see the artificially limited choices as inevitable.
Maintaining the status quo is an appealing prospect. It typically requires little to no action and is easier to implement than change. We feel more comfortable with known elements than with unknown concepts. It is simpler to say, "We cannot," than to agree to implement changes perceived as higher risk.
The appeal of conformity lies in social, psychological, and, at times, physical factors that drive us to align our actions with others. It happens when we agree to go along to get along. This type of risk aversion may be influenced by concerns about disagreement and a desire to adhere to social norms.
Bureaucracies typically support systems that favor the status quo and tend to resist change. Institutionalists throw their weight behind their comforts, status, and privileges. Incremental change is achievable, but large-scale transformation requires extensive effort from nonconformists to act as a source of new data and information that opens new pathways to solutions.
But conformity's appeal comes with its drawbacks. Perhaps most concerning is that conformists often lack intellectual curiosity and humility, believing they know all that is needed or that they are not interested in additional inquiry. They default to the status quo and may seek to block or limit others' choices.
Barriers for changemakers have always been higher than the obstacles for conformists. Going against the grain may result in consequences such as institutional resistance, personal ridicule, diminished financial opportunities, isolation, and even physical danger. Although these external headwinds to original thought are considerable, they may not be as strong as your own resistance from within. When it's decision time, we often lapse into a mental tug-of-war that intensifies when the stakes are higher.
Give Outside-The-Box Thinkers Space To Share Ideas And Solve Problems
Leaders play a unique role in the creation and retention of culture, but they can't fix things alone. Organizations should identify valued behaviors and create incentives to facilitate them.
Some people in organizations possess a penchant for thinking outside the box and are sometimes called insurgents. Throughout my career, I have benefited from the independent thought and risk-taking of these individuals. The practice of making safe spaces for them has become a workplace norm for me throughout my career and across sectors. My job is to give them oxygen to openly share their ideas. Don't wait for them to find you; recruit them because they have much to offer.
Stiff organizational structures that stifle the free flow of ideas can diminish our decision-making capacity. They foster complacency and dependency, conditioning teams to wait on managers for ideas and direction. Why stick your neck out and invite risk when you can just wait on senior management for instructions? The organization itself bears the brunt of harm when it is denied access to fresh ideas, and when its employees lack opportunities for skill development and growth because they lack a sense of agency in decision-making.
Culture, more than structure, reveals how things truly work. Informal ways of working will give you better insight about work dynamics than the org chart. Structural rigidity will also rob you of the benefits of seeing every person as a potential problem-solver.
Making The Choice Between Courage And Conformity
As leaders, we need to reduce the tailwinds of the status quo, as well as the headwinds that impede nonconformists.It is your obligation to evaluate each case individually and monitor progress over a sensible timeframe. In addition, remember to consider the opportunity cost of a failure to act or to change direction.
Resist the temptation to step back or stand still, even when it seems attractive. Whenever independent thought is discouraged, conformity is advantaged, and you may pay a price. Simplicity and comfort have their strengths, but very often the road less traveled will be your best option for success.
The exercise of courage matters to businesses, organizations, and institutions of all sizes and scopes. And it is not limited to leaders but can arise at any level. It occurs when individuals and teams go against the herd to make difficult decisions.
When faced with the choice between courage and conformity, leaders should consider several factors:
- Know what matters to you. Not on a superficial level, but from a deeper well of your beliefs. This will help you to locate your purpose, giving you the inspiration to act. Each of us has an inner compass; the challenge is whether we choose to
follow it or allow ourselves to be distracted and distorted.
- Recognize how the tyranny of thought can trigger your default decision-making. That makes it easier to avoid and less likely that you will seek comfort and ease over change.
- View risk assessment in a balanced way. This approach allows you to best calibrate the consequences of your decisions. Risk is not de facto reckless.
- Recognize that emotions will influence decisions and require proper regulation. For example, fear will trigger a fight-or-flight response, enabling you to respond to threats, but it need not crowd out other important considerations. Sentiments are important, but they are not a finding of fact. Data, ideas, and
discourse are assets that enhance your decision-making.
- Think of every person as an artist. You have just one canvas for your lifetime, and what you paint will represent the choices you make in your defining moments. These occasions influence your beliefs and shape your perspectives. You get to decide the composition of your canvas. Will it consist of broad strokes with bright colors, or will it be tepid shades of gray? The palette we choose dictates the legacy we leave behind.
By questioning the status quo, we can significantly expand our options and ideas. Choosing between conformity and change will shape your life, so consider new and lesser-known options before you default to the most familiar concepts. Ask yourself what is important to you and your organization so that you can clarify your purpose. Knowing this will help you make the best decisions, even in the face of headwinds
that will affect your choices.
About Rey Ramsey
Rey Ramsey, author of The Tyranny of False Choices: A Guide to Authentic Decision-Making, is CEO of Centri Capital and Centri Foundation. He has devoted his career to building and leading social enterprises with a particular emphasis on housing equity and expanding access to technology in low-income communities. Rey is also President and CEO of the Nathan Cummings Foundation. He brings more than three decades of experience as an executive in the non-profit, public, and private sectors and has held numerous senior leadership roles, including as Oregon's Director of Housing and Community Services, President and COO of Enterprise Community Partners, Chairman of Habitat for Humanity International, founding CEO and Chairman of One Economy Corporation, and President and CEO of TechNet.
