Almost everyone wants progress. More homes. Better infrastructure. Reliable energy. A stronger economy.
But agreement becomes harder when progress moves from a national ambition to a local decision. That’s because the benefits of progress are often widely shared, however the costs can be concentrated among relatively few.
At IMI’s recent National Leadership Summit, the discussion about rewiring Ireland repeatedly returned to the need for collaboration across institutions, clearer priorities and the ability to deliver complex infrastructure.
But there is another dimension to that challenge. Leaders need to become better at managing competing, legitimate interests. A major investment might benefit an entire economy while creating disruption for a particular community. An organisational transformation might improve performance while requiring one department to relinquish resources or authority.
Neither situation can necessarily be resolved through better communication alone. The leadership task is to make the trade-offs visible. Who benefits? Who carries the risk? Whose concerns have been heard? And where can the approach be changed without compromising the overall objective?
This isn’t an argument for giving everyone a veto, nor does consultation guarantee agreement. It is however about recognising that delivery depends not only on the strength of the plan, but on the legitimacy of how decisions are reached.
Ireland’s ambitions will require difficult choices. So will the transformations taking place inside organisations. Leaders who have the skills to acknowledge competing interests, negotiate constructively and maintain trust will be better equipped to make those choices.
When you ask people to support progress, how clearly have you explained what it will cost them?
