CHAPTER 2 Are You a Benevolent Dictator? You Should Be!

“Nothing strengthens the judgment or quickens the I conscience like independent responsibility.”

—Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
American 19th century women’s rights leader

In running a country, democracy (more specifically, a republic) appears to be the best thing going to date. However, in running a business or project, my experience has shown that the benevolent dictator style is the most effective.

A benevolent dictator leads by actively soliciting information and opinions from project members and others—listens, then demonstrates the leadership, courage, and boldness to personally make the right decision and stand accountable for that decision.

A benevolent dictator also holds his or her subordinates accountable for their decisions; they, in turn, hold their subordinates accountable for their decisions; and so on. In other words, everyone is encouraged and expected to make the decisions that affect their own domain of responsibility—and to stand by them.

When defining a benevolent dictator, I am not talking about micromanaging. Micromanaging occurs when a leader chooses to make decisions for anyone and everyone within the leader’s influence. The micromanaging “leadership” style is highly offensive; it neither teaches the importance nor capitalizes on the promise of accountability. It should only be used in rare instances, for very short periods of time, and in cases where the reason for doing so is clearly understood.

Many organizations and projects attempt to operate on either consensus or democratic rule. Consensus, which has been overhyped for years, can be an ineffective tool in managing teams and projects. Consensus is obtaining buy-in from a team by adjusting the final decision to a position with which everyone can live. For other than the most highly trained teams, consensus often causes the most important decisions to be compromised, i.e., watered down. In an attempt to satisfy all team members so that they buy into the team’s decision, the solution is often non-optimal and, frankly, is often without vision and personal commitment. Consensus can drive mediocrity.

What’s that? You say there is personal commitment in a consensus-driven team because everyone had a say in the decision? Yes, everyone had an opportunity to speak their mind, but my experience shows that many don’t speak up or they are quick to compromise or live with someone else’s proposal—even if they feel it is weak. It is not unusual for the most reserved and shy members of a consensus-forming team—often those not heard from—to be among those who have the best ideas. Moreover, many members of a group consensus don’t feel personally committed. They hide behind the facade of the team.

What do I mean by personal commitment? Personal commitment is when you, personally, are charged with making a decision and then you, personally, are held accountable for the outcome of that decision. Teams cannot feel this level of accountability; only individuals can.

What about using the democratic voting process? Projects or organizations that consistently reach decisions by democratic rule frequently can be more ineffective than those reaching decisions through consensus. Why? Because the majority vote is usually enough to lock in a decision. Unfortunately for the bigger picture—say a project—everyone with a vote to cast is looking out after his or her own personal interests or the personal interests of the team he or she represents. Consequently, the right business decision for the project can easily be overlooked or dismissed.

You might be asking about now, “If the benevolent dictator concept is so effective, then why don’t more leaders adopt this style of leading?” The biggest reason is that to be a benevolent dictator we have to make decisions that will, at times, be unpopular. Many of us have a hard time making decisions that are criticized by others. In fact, the primary reason project managers fail is because they are too soft and have difficulty making the tougher decisions. (See Chapter 8, Are You Too Soft?)

I often hear project managers and resource managers say they cannot adopt the benevolent dictator approach because they have a serious shortage of project members and employees with the good business sense—the leadership skills—to make the tough decisions expected of a benevolent dictator. I strongly disagree! For most of us, I believe we do have the people we need; they just haven’t been trained properly. After all, they watch how we manage and imitate our styles.

All of us need to be trained, coached, and mentored in the skills and behaviors that make for the most effective leaders. Nearly everyone will rise to the expectations that we set for them, provided that we constructively nurture them along the way. If you want your project to be run like a business where decisions are made based on what’s best for the business, and you want your project members to consistently take accountability for their own actions, then teach and encourage the powerful benevolent dictator concept at all levels of a project and organization. It’s good leadership and it’s good business!

Let’s Talk: Questions & Answers

Q2.1　　　　Why do you say that everyone on a project should behave as a benevolent dictator? Doesn’t this role belong exclusively to the project manager?

A2.1　　　　Let’s look at a project of 15 members. There is one project manager, say four team leaders, and 10 team members. The project manager and the team leaders operate as benevolent dictators within their domains of responsibility. They have project members assigned to work under their direction. They are held accountable for the performance of their teams and the quality and timeliness of their deliverables. However, the 10 team members, although not leaders of other people, find themselves working with many people from across the core team or from outlying areas such as the human resources department, contractors, vendors, procurement, and IT. The team members are accountable for their own performance and for the plethora of decisions that they must make on a day-to-day basis. They, too, are benevolent dictators within their own domains of responsibility. When this technique is in place and is working well, it complements teamwork, not distracts from it.

Q2.2　　　　You say that micromanaging should only be used in rare instances, for very short periods of time. When is it okay to micromanage?

A2.2　　　　Say a project is in deep trouble. It has no project manager or had a highly ineffective project manager who has been relieved of his or her duties. The newly assigned project manager may need to direct activities on a day-to-day basis until the project can be replanned, roles and responsibilities are clearly understood across the project team, and key processes such as change control and routine tracking meetings are underway.

Another example is when a person is weak at performing his or her duties and another person must specifically and closely direct and oversee the actions of the ineffective performer.

Q2.3　　　　Are you saying that consensus should never be used and should always yield to the benevolent dictator approach?

A2.3　　　　If a team can reach consensus and the decision is truly the best business decision, then the outcome is fine. However, the project manager should not be satisfied with a solution that everyone can live with if that solution is not the best business solution. The project manager should have the goal of the team reaching consensus, even if that means planting “seeds” throughout a team discussion and allowing others credit for the seeded ideas. However, as a general rule, if consensus cannot be reached, the project manager should not hesitate to ensure that the best business decision is chosen, even if that means not everyone is happy with the outcome.

“There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn’t mind who gets the credit.”

—Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States

Q2.4　　　　Won’t a team reaching consensus more likely come up with a better solution than any one person can, including the project manager?

A2.4　　　　Go back to the definition of a benevolent dictator. The benevolent dictator “actively solicits information and opinions from … others.” This means that a project manager recognizes that, more times than not, the collective knowledge/experience/skills of the team surpass that of the project manager. The project manager needs to tap into that knowledge base in search of the best outcome. If the project manager will be held personally accountable for the final decision, then he or she will not yield easily to the group’s consensus. Instead, he or she will actively participate and ask thoughtful and probing questions to help ensure that the very best solution is derived.

This is an example of how the benevolent dictatorship concept helps drive personal accountability instead of deferring decisions to a body of people. If you, as project manager, have to defend the team’s consensus-derived decision, you will take a far more serious and active role in ensuring that the consensus is, indeed, defendable.

Q2.5　　　　If a project manager is trapped in a micromanagement style or consensus-style organization, what can he or she do?

A2.5　　　　In many cases, those who micromanage do not want to micromanage. They do so out of what they believe to be necessity. If you are being micromanaged, look first at your own actions to see if they are causing the negative attention to be spotlighted on you. Some examples: Are you consistently missing commitments? Are you failing to take the lead on resolving key issues? Are you failing to seek help when needed? Are you failing to keep your project sponsor, client, or resource manager informed of key news?

If you suspect that you may be the cause of the problem, then seek help from a mentor, your resource manager, or your project sponsor. Whether or not you feel that you deserve the micromanaging, professionally confront the micromanager and discuss what you can do to break free of the current level of micromanaging. Learn what actions and behaviors he or she needs you to exhibit to back off. Set small, short-term, very specific, and measurable goals so that it will be apparent whether or not you have reached them. Incrementally improve your credibility with the person micromanaging: maintain rapport in an attempt to read—and meet—his or her needs better.

If you are a project manager trapped in a consensus-style organization, you have control over whether or not that style is used on your project. When working outside your immediate project, if you are the lead person on an issue, assert the benevolent dictator style. If you are not the lead person, then you have the opportunity to influence the consensus-run group of which you are a member.