The most striking thing is not that this paradox exists. The fact is that it is thriving at a time when companies have never needed sound judgement more, nor have they ever taken such care in selecting their talent. However, once these talented individuals are in place, very few organisations actually give them the power to make decisions and the freedom to think differently.
A talented person is not recruited simply to carry out tasks. They are recruited for their judgement: that ability to assess an ambiguous situation, to offer well-founded counterarguments, and to make sound decisions rather than acting hastily. A rare quality, discernment is under threat from three underlying trends. Speed, first of all, which turns reflection into a luxury. Conformism, next, which makes dissent seem like an attitude problem. Finally, artificial intelligence, which delivers a smooth and plausible answer in a matter of seconds – one so convincing that we forget to question it. Yet thinking is not about producing an answer; it is about recognising which answer does not hold water.
The fact remains that sharp judgement is of no use if the organisation prevents it from being exercised. And this is where two obstacles arise in many companies.
The first relates to the decision-making process. Thinking things through properly gets you nowhere if every decision has to be referred to an ever higher level. Entrusting a role and a team to a talented individual, then insisting that every single decision goes through ‘as a precaution’ at the top, it’s not about rigour; it’s mistrust disguised as a process. Decisions belong where the information and expertise lie. A chain of command where everything flows upwards may seem robust. Above all, it is slow and fragile, because the day the top makes a mistake, no one has got into the habit of speaking up or feels they have the right to do so.
The second relates to speech. Expressing a dissenting view, asking a question to which there is no immediate answer, and offering a more nuanced perspective – these are the things that should be encouraged in companies. Yet employees who simply go along with the grain and never question anything are far more often valued, their silence being mistaken for commitment. But commitment and obedience are not synonymous: they are opposites. A committed team challenges, suggests alternatives and sometimes resists. An obedient team carries out orders and remains silent. The latter is easier to manage. It is also the one that will let its organisation crash straight into a brick wall without uttering a word.
None of this is irreversible. Letting decisions be made where the information and expertise lie: this can be organised almost overnight.
Contradiction, on the other hand, is a matter of courage. Perhaps the real challenge for companies is not to recruit better, but to accept being contradicted by the very people they have chosen.