Consult, consult, but don’t overdo it

also looking at other cultures and also demonstrating how consultation is crucial in business.
Our Shona culture’s perspective on consultation is similar to the counsel Jethro gave to Moses in the Bible.
We are told that Moses used to judge his people alone from “the morning unto the evening” (Exodus18 v13-26) until his father-in-law Jethro advised him against the practice.
He said to Moses: “The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee: thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.’’
He counselled Moses to choose able men to judge small issues and only refer major issues to him.
The two issues, which arise from this are the issues of consultation, shared responsibilities and delegation.
Moses was preoccupied with the divine instruction (delivering the children of Israel from Egypt) that he misinterpreted it to mean that all things start and end with him.
This is similar to the common weaknesses of technocrats, entrepreneurs and athletes.
They sometimes do not want to share responsibility because they want to get all the praise.
In some instances they are neither able to let go of some of their responsibility nor willing to hear the opinions of other members of staff.
Information gathering and dissemination must buttress consultation.
Ideally, there must be free flow of information and ideas from the top to bottom and vice versa.
In Zimbabwe, most members of the management teams of companies go for strategic review retreats annually.
Political organisations host congresses towards the end of every year, where party resolutions will be passed.
Religious leaders in Zimbabwe take prayer retreats the first few weeks of the year to review their Christian calendar, others host retreats which they call deeper life conferences for pastors, elders and deacons and so forth.
All these are consultative processes though in some cases the members do not take them seriously.
Sometimes junior managers do not take these retreats seriously if senior management wantonly violate the strategic resolutions passed at such meetings.
Examples of violations are total disregard of the plan and it’s supporting budgets during implementation periods.
Do managers realise that departmental meetings, works council meetings, executive meetings, strategic seminars, board meetings and annual general meetings are part of the formal consultative management processes?
Advantages of consultation
Avoid latent pitfalls
Effective consultation enables the managers to avoid falling into latent pitfalls, which are caused by one’s biases.
Every human being is born with certain biases, which reduces objectivity in decision- making. So consultation enables the manager to get views from other members of staff. This improves the quality of decisions the manager makes.
Pros and Cons for any decision
During any consultative process the pros and cons for any action to be taken will come out provided it is not done in an intimidating environment.
Getting new ideas
At times when consulting on important issues you end up getting additional information, which is relevant to the business.
A lot of managers fail to get the information because they interrogate the suppliers of information or show that they have little respect for the suppliers of information.
No one enjoys being interrogated during discussions.
It is during consultation process that managers at times end up with creative and brilliant ideas (psychology.about.com/od/leadership).
Builds trust
Managers who spend time interacting with employees on the shop floor build trust, which enables the team to work together smoothly.
Once trust has been unlocked, employees will begin to volunteer information about the soft issues of the business.
At times managers do not access certain information because they are not in touch with the customers and other stakeholders
What destroys consultation process
Subordinates have a tendency to withhold information from a manager who interrogates unnecessarily and has a tendency to remind subordinates that he is more educated than them or has read more than everyone in the room.
Another pitfall is demonstrating arrogance to subordinates and even board members.
My experience has taught me that colleagues open up if they are made to feel that they have something to contribute.
Subordinates and even board members are politicians in some cases, they are very quick to avoid unnecessary confrontations.
If you demonstrate that their contribution is not valuable or its not highly regarded, they simply keep quiet and allow you to proceed even if your opinion is flawed.
Successful entrepreneurs are the most culprits in this category.
At times success goes into their heads and they forget to realise that success is always a collective effort not an individual effort.
Zimbabwe is littered with once very successful companies, which ended up under the care of curators/judicial managers or at worst under liquidation.
Managers who bully the board or subordinates are looking for trouble. They are not worthy of their trust.
Demonstrate insincerity during the process of consulting. Once subordinates feel that they are being taken for a ride they either feed you with wrong information or they withhold the information.
Sometimes managers at the top forget to be polite and courteous when consulting and this ultimately blocks information flow.
Instances where consultations are
counter-productive
There are few instances where consultations do not work. In stressful situations like military conflicts, it is not a practical approach to consult everyone (psychology.about.com/od/leadership).
When a company is under extreme pressure it might not be prudent to wait to carry out all consultations before acting on the current crisis.
Overconsulting is also counter-productive. It is costly and time consuming, Sometimes on the top decisions will not be taken which can derail important projects.
Overconsulting in most cases ends up as bureaucracy and no consulting results in autocracy. Bureaucratic organisations are slower in decision-making and are associated with inefficiency (http/encyclopedia2.the freedictionary.com).
Autocratic managers create dissension and animosity among team members, which impedes the smooth functioning of teams (psychology.about.com/od/leadership).
A balance has to be struck between consultation and quick decisions should the need arise.