Collective decision-making, transparency, ‘servant leadership’: The means to resurrecting Sri Lanka

Though theoretically, the voting citizens are the master, they are virtual slaves of the very master they elected

As Sri Lanka struggles to contend with the economic and social impacts of COVID-19, there is a growing view that the situation could have been significantly better had there been more decisiveness and transparency at a national leadership level. Similar sentiments are being expressed on the ban on importation of palm oil, the use of chemical fertiliser, and the fuel price hike.

Whilst, admittedly, ‘hindsight is 20;20’, one cannot deny that, at a national level, Sri Lanka’s decision-making in the last decade has been poor judging by the consternation created and the outcomes. The key decisions made have, in my view, lacked objectivity, lacked substance, have not been timely and have been poorly communicated. On the other hand, based on available information, the decision-making at the corporate leadership level has been significantly better in all these respects.

The Land Alienation Act of 2014, the termination of casino projects in 2015, the renegotiation/restructuring of the Hambantota Port project, the $ 480 million grant from the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the 19th and 20th Amendments to the Constitution of Sri Lanka, the lockdowns and border controls as responses to COVID-19, the ban on palm oil, the award of the East Container Terminal, the sugar tax, the ban on chemical fertilisers, and the Port City project are just a few of the key decisions made at a national level in the recent past. The purpose of this article is not to question the logic of the decisions, nor is it to assess how good or bad these decisions were.

It is accepted that the decisions will have different meanings to persons based on their beliefs and ideologies. As much as beauty is in the eyes of a beholder, the sagacity of the decision is in the mind of the affected individuals. Food to a capitalist may be poison to the socialist, while music in the ears of the pluralist is ‘noise’ in the ears of the secularist. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, we can take a view that decisions will be that much more objective, effective, and more acceptable, if certain behaviours are avoided and if the decision-making process recognises and embraces a few important fundamentals. 

My focus is on how the decision should be made. The principles, and process, to be followed. Empirical evidence confirms that the process by which a decision is arrived has a direct, and proportional, bearing on the efficacy of the decision.

The overuse of partisan politics is, in my view, the most fundamental flaw in decision-making at the national level. I cannot recall too many instances, in recent times, where a project started by one regime has continued undisturbed in the next. Stated simply, the incoming government proceeds to reinvent the wheel, while the outgoing government, whose members now sit in the opposition, sees a flaw even in the basic concept of the very wheel which they commenced as an invention. 

Once an election is over, is it too much to ask the President and the 225 members we have elected to parliament to discard their partisan mindsets and entrenched prejudices and discuss/debate issues with a view to determining what is meritocratically best for the country? If we do not adopt such thinking, Sri Lanka will continue to suffer from sub-optimal decisions. Decisions which are solely based on a blinkered party line or on the desires of a powerful individual/s. 

The members of parliament representing the rulers and the opposition must keep in mind that they are ‘free’ individuals with minds of their own, representing ‘Team – Sri Lanka’. A team that is playing, hopefully, for the country to emerge victorious. It is not unreasonable to expect some element of finetuning of the status quo of a strategy on a regime change. Differing views are inevitable. But the monotonous wholesale changes in policies are an overkill. Disagreement is healthy and, generally, value adding and developmental too. Debate, discussion, disagreement, and agreement are phases of a robust process. 

There is little value in having spineless, ‘Yes Men’ or illogical ‘No Men’ sitting in parliament. As much as the members in the ruling party should not blindly accept proposals tabled by their party leaders, the members representing the ‘opposition’ need not oppose everything just to be true to their title. Collaboration in the interest of the country is necessary. Checks and balances, open minds and freedom of expression are essential in founding a high performing team.

A shared vision

In my 50 years of experience in the private sector, it has been my experience that once a majority decision is reached, the entire team will, irrespective of their initial, or even current, opposing views, cooperate and lend their unstinted support towards pursuing a shared vision and a common goal. Decisions are, most of the time, based on a majority view of those appointed to manage the organisation. 

Effective leaders are those who are well-skilled in securing the buy-in of initial dissenters and/or dealing with persons who do not toe the line and disrupt progress. Leadership styles, whether they be at the national level or the corporate level, must be situational. The situation will decide whether it demands a participative approach or an autocratic approach.

In Sri Lanka, the majority in parliament has been bestowed by the voting public under a system of democracy. Though theoretically, the voting citizens are the master, they are virtual slaves of the very master they elected. The citizens are expected to monitor the performance of the government, assess whether their expectations have been met and then decide, through the ballot, who should represent their interests in the next parliament. 

The thoughts of Socrates, the Greek philosopher, on democracy are worthy of reflection in forming our opinions on the overuse of it. Socrates who was hugely pessimistic about democracy states that voting in an election is a skill, not a random intuition. And like any skill, it needs to be taught systematically to people. Letting the citizenry vote without a good understanding of the issues is (quoting Socrates) as irresponsible as putting them in charge of a trireme sailing to Samos in a storm. 

The appropriateness of democracy in decision-making, and the governance model employed, are topics on their own. Right now, my message is that the President and the 225 persons elected to Parliament must perform as ‘Team – Sri Lanka’. The President, and the Prime Minister, must possess the leadership skills to win the support of the public, the members of parliament and the implementers of the Government’s policies and decisions. Leadership does not equate to bulldozing neither does it equate to pandering and appeasement. Leadership encompasses transparency, integrity, empathy, caring, selflessness, and humility. In the last decade, have our national leaders displayed these characteristics? You be the judge. 

The non-involvement, or the negligible involvement of experts, key stakeholders and key support staff and the very minimal consideration of science, and data, in decision-making at a national level is identified as another serious weakness. An effective Chief Executive Officer is one who recognises, and accepts, that he is not an expert on every subject. He relies on subject experts, key stakeholder, statistics and data, science, and his team to formulate, and implement, strategy. Great leaders accept that their key role is that of an integrator. 

They inspire a shared vision, secure the buy-in of the persons affected by a strategy/decision and establish enabling structures, operating protocols, and environments for decisions to be made and operationalised. They facilitate the planting of the seed, its nurture, and the bearing of fruit. Unfortunately, at a national level, particularly in Sri-Lanka, the ‘know it all’ leaders tend to make decisions based on their whims and fancies rather on expert knowledge, science, and data.

When meritocracy loses its importance

In the above context, let us consider the plight of the Sri Lankan Administrative Services (SLAS). The SLAS is still a deep, and broad, reservoir of knowledge, expertise, and skills. The SLAS was, as we are aware, the successor to the Ceylon Civil Service (CCS) which was established by the British Government, mainly to collect revenue and to maintain law and order in the country. Until the early 1980s, the SLAS operated in line with best practice and in accordance with good governance principles. 

At its helm were well-educated, talented men and women who had qualified to be in those positions through competitive examinations. They were, in the main, generalists who took a holistic view of issues as opposed to the specialist personnel operating at the lower levels of the hierarchy. These top posts enjoyed great prestige and when coupled with the economic security, and status, of a government job, the competition for these posts was intense. Unsurprisingly, they attracted the cream of talent. The secretaries of each ministry were, and still are, at least on paper, the highest-ranking operating officials in that area. 

Unfortunately, since the 1980s, more and more of these officials have been appointed because of their political connections. The importance given to their ability and skills was secondary. The inevitable result of this dynamic has been a compromise of political neutrality and, even more importantly, a gradual deterioration of the quality of staff. These are the outcomes when meritocracy loses its importance. 

This said, I am still convinced that the SLAS still has in its ranks very innovative and committed individuals who, if given the opportunity of acting in accordance with their knowledge, and abilities, would contribute constructively, and positively, to decision-making at the national level. So, let us use them. Right now, most of them are relegated to being mere bystanders. They are unable to make their opinions heard because the subject ministers and/or the higher authorities opt to listen to the ‘Yes Men’ who are willing to do their bidding in their pursuit of self-interest. Interest which are often at a variance with national interests. 

The leadership at the national level, say the Cabinet, must act more like a Board in a private sector corporate. They must provide the high-level direction and leave it to the experts to strategise, and operationalise, it. The key role of the Cabinet or other Committee, amongst others, must be to regularly review the progress, monitor the actuals against the goals/objectives and initiate corrective action, as necessary. There is little gained by regretting the past. The past cannot be changed. We are where we are right now. The future beckons. Our national leaders must, as an immediate step, act in ways to strengthen the SLAS and bring it back to its old glory. However, with immediate effect, they can start involving the experts in formulating strategy, making policies, and implementing them.

The many instances of back-tracking which has happened on key decisions, recently, indicate a lack of sufficient, and proactive, dialogue with key stakeholders. Decisions made at a national level are, invariably, much more complex than those made at a corporate level. These decisions affect a diverse group of stakeholders, create scenarios which do not have precedents and, often, do not have many well-understood alternatives. The ‘big’ decision often consists of many sub-decisions. The interconnectedness and interdependencies of the sub-decisions make the assessment of the impacts difficult and make the estimation of timeframes arduous. The direct, and indirect, impacts of such macro decisions are so broad ranging, they do not easily meet the eye. Cause and effect identification is elusive. 

Therefore, it is imperative that key stakeholders are involved, from the very onset, in the formulation of the strategy, the creation of policy and the making of decisions. This will, for certain, minimise the risks emanating from the uncertainties described before. Whilst acknowledging that everyone considers himself to be an expert and everyone has an opinion and that not all of them are helpful, such stakeholder representation must, at the minimum, include those who have intimate knowledge of the subject area, are likely to be substantially affected by the decision and whose cooperation is vital for its successful implementation. 

There is nothing lost in listening, with an open mind, to stakeholder concerns. Yes – it will take some additional time upfront. But, the time, costs, and face, you save, post the decision are well worth this extra investment of time. Pre-empt a need to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. While there are many ways of skinning the cat, a possible sequence of actions may be; (1) Broadly scope the decision through an initial consultation with key stakeholders, (2) Get the experts to develop alternatives, (3) Present these alternatives to the key stakeholders. A broader representation than at stage one is normal, (4) Identify the risks, (5) Identify the critical success factors, (6) Establish a mile-stoned road map, (7) Establish the project implementation organisation/structure, (7) Press the ‘Go’ button, (8) Monitor, review, and revise.

The ongoing debates, discussions, confusion, contradictory explanations, ambiguous messages and, as stated earlier, back-tracking on decisions made, can be avoided, or minimised if there is greater involvement, ab initio, of experts and other key stakeholders in crafting policy and decision-making.

The concerns regard the non-optimal use of resources apply to the use of Big Data analytics (BDA) also. Governments, worldwide, including Sri Lanka, have unveiled plans for the use of BDA in finding solutions for economic and social problems. The initial focus has, very rightly, been on the construction of infrastructure, and the establishment of a regulatory framework, and platform, which enable open access to data. The next step, logically, has been the promotion of the use of such data in formulating strategy, policymaking and decision-making at both a national and corporate level. 

The ineffectiveness of the many policies announced, and decisions made, at a national level, in the past decade, indicates a severe paucity of structured analysis. It is essential that the government of the day uses concrete data than intuition and self-interests in formulating strategy, forming policy, and making decisions. The keener, and, careful analysis of the Big Data, and the ‘what-if’ simulations of the same, will help in eliminating misguided alternatives. It should be noted that the capturing, collecting, using, and the retaining of data must be done within clearly understood individual rights, legal and physical safeguards of privacy, data security, data relevance and how the data is used.

It is not enough to just make the right decision. The clear communication of a decision is as important as the quality of the decision itself. Studies, and surveys, indicate that the acceptance, and support, of the affected persons, and the public, of a decision, is positively correlated to the extents of transparency and sincerity they perceive as being present in the communication of the decision. Decisions made at a national level, generally, affect a lot of people. Whilst accepting that some will be happy and some will be not, a national leader will want his decision to be successful in terms of pre-defined criteria. 

A good leader

For this to happen, he must give considerable thought to how he communicates the decision. Credibility comes from speaking from the heart, genuinely and honestly. In this light, a good leader will ensure that he communicates what his constituents need to know with emphasis on how the decision will affect them personally. He will, also, be honest in disclosing to them what he does not know, what the risks are and how he plans to mitigate them. All in all, the message must be clear, be well-documented, lay out the rationale, be timely and be appropriately disseminated. Not all decisions are popular. They need not be popular. 

Personally, I believe that Sri Lanka requires a significant paradigm shift in her thinking if we are to come out of the morass, we have created for ourselves over the many years. I am a firm believer in the adage – ‘The bitter truth is sweeter than the sour lie’ and I have found that approach to be more effective in my leadership experiences. Contrary to unfounded belief, constituents respond more positively to truth than to statements which are aimed at pulling the wool over their eyes, or can I say, wool over their ears. 

Transparency is the mother of credibility. Looking at Sri Lanka’s COVID-19 experiences, there is a strong school of thought that suggests that we would currently be in a better position had our leaders been more transparent about its extent, more decisive in their actions and more effective in their communications. As I said earlier, ‘hindsight is indeed 20;20’. However, one cannot totally discard the veracity of the thoughts. 

Notwithstanding what has happened in the past, today is, surely, an opportunity for our leaders to right the wrongs of the past and embark on a new journey. As stated by Napoleon Hill, self-help guru and author: “Within every adversity is the seed of equal or greater opportunity”. Studies have shown that adversity enables learning, ignites innovation, unearths latent abilities, increases strength, and builds resilience. This moment in Sri Lanka demands that our national leaders, both the Government and Opposition, irrespective of their party affiliations, chart a new direction for our country. 

This moment provides our President, the Prime Minister, and his Cabinet a unique opportunity to review, and reshape, the Government’s organisation, operating model, decision-making process and culture in serving the citizens. As simple as it may sound, this is no easy task. Changing deeply entrenched human behaviours is herculean in its proportions. There are many things which seem impossible until someone attempts it. The top leadership must provide the tone. 

They must have the capacity to read the situation and employ the appropriate leadership style. And, as stated earlier they must display credibility through their behaviour. As readers, you may be asking yourself whether I have lost my marbles in even imagining that such a state is possible in Sri Lanka. Whilst acknowledging that the term ‘An Honest Leader’, is an oxymoron, experience has taught me that the moment you are ready to quit is usually the moment right before the miracle happens. I am, and will be, an eternal optimist.

Where do we begin. For a start, our national leaders must acknowledge that, other than when they seek the vote, they have been primarily adopting a ‘take it’ or ‘leave it’ attitude in their communications to, and dealings with, the stakeholders. Their behaviour, particularly in the last two decades, has, in the main, been bombastic and arrogant. Many moons ago it was veiled arrogance. Now, it is open arrogance. This must change. At a time when Sri Lanka is facing unprecedented challenges, the leaders will do well to follow the principles of servant leadership.

It was Robert Greenleaf who coined the phrase ‘servant leader’ in his essay ‘The Servant Leader’, where he described a leader as a being a ‘servant’ first and a ‘leader’ next. He argues that a person who desires to be a ‘leader’ first, does so because of a need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions. The ‘leader-first’ and the ‘servant-first’ are two extreme types. However, it must be noted that there are shadings and blends of these two extremes which give rise to an infinite variety of human nature. 

Service before self is paramount. Servant leaders focus on the wellbeing, happiness, and satisfaction of the community. Although, by title, they carry immense power, servant leaders share their power through delegation to, and empowerment of, their teams and constituents. Most importantly, they put their country’s needs above their own.

Even if takes a year, a couple of years, a decade or many decades, our national leaders must, immediately, put in motion the steps to improve the decision-making process, enable better communication and kick-start a mind-set transition in behaving as servant leaders if we, together, are to resurrect Sri Lanka. They owe it to the citizens. Project – ‘Resurrecting Sri Lanka’ must start today. 

(The writer is currently a Leadership Coach, Mentor and Consultant and boasts nearly 50 years of experience in very senior positions in the corporate world – local and overseas.)