What leaders can learn from Canberra’s decision-making paralysis
Posted on
Imagine this: you’ve just finished a meeting. Everyone has agreed on a sensible way forward and you think, “Phew, case closed! It’s sorted.”
The next day, an email lands in your inbox. It’s polite, professional, even constructive in tone. But as you read it, you get that familiar sinking feeling – the decision you thought was final is being quietly reopened. What seems like a simple request for clarification or extra input really has the power to destabilise everything and force you to revisit discussions, defend choices, and start all over.
Local leadership coach, Dr Kim Vella, says this cycle of agreeable behaviour in meetings followed by the re-prosecution of ideas is very common in Canberra, and the unfortunate result is that good ideas can go nowhere.
“It’s that typical email that opens with ‘Just revisiting this…’,” says Kim. “It doesn’t seem like disagreement; however, to those in the know, it’s often the start of a decision loop that keeps teams caught in motion without ever gaining momentum.”
“It happens because in complex policy environments, there are many leaders who don’t like to be direct and say no. So they indirectly circle the issue, deferring to process or requests for more advice before anything can progress. Over time, teams start to lose track of what has been decided, until they realise nothing has. Then they grow increasingly frustrated and fatigued by how little is actually being accomplished.”
Kim says that while saying ‘no’ can feel very uncomfortable – especially in workplaces where collaboration and consensus are highly valued – it’s a critical step in staying able to execute and deliver.
In his book, Never split the difference, author Chris Voss draws on his experience as a hostage negotiator to show that splitting the difference (compromising too quickly or meeting the other side halfway) typically leads to weak outcomes. Instead, saying ‘no’ can be an important starting point as it creates space for a meaningful conversation rather than a rushed compromise.
“This pattern is common in workplaces where saying no is seen as too disruptive, so it gets avoided. Leaders treat ‘no’ as the end of a negotiation, rather than the beginning. Yet no is really the perfect place to start. It allows you to create space for constructive conversations that examine risks and options,” writes Chris.
“It helps to realise that the ‘no’ never actually goes away. Just because you push it somewhere incognito doesn’t mean your omission won’t reappear later and with more severe consequences due to the level of inaction.”
Kim suggests taking a leaf from Bernie Mayer’s book Staying with Conflict, which reinforces Voss’s point that saying ‘no’ can serve as a key starting point in negotiation. Leaders might approach the challenge by asking themselves:
- Why is the idea being rejected? Are you worried about unintended consequences, protecting a personal interest, or lacking trust in the team?
- Why is saying no so difficult? Is it the emotional discomfort, or concern about the impact on relationships?
- What type of leader do I want to be? Do you want to be someone who struggles to articulate decisions, create clarity, or have the important conversations needed to deliver results?
“Saying no may cause a little constructive conflict, which is usually short-lived and necessary to reach a resolution that prompts productive action. It’s the opposite of never-ending decision loops that go nowhere and compromise a leader’s capability, and eventually their reputation,” explains Kim.
“The next time you’re tempted to stay quiet in a meeting and unravel a decision with a polite email later on, remember what it says about your leadership style. If you don’t want to move forward with something, say so. Then say why, and open the floor for discussion so you can get to a yes you can stand behind.”
To learn more about leadership coaching and public sector leadership workshops with Kim, visit Kim Vella Coaching.
