Some leaders can’t help themselves.
Their need for control encourages them to insert themselves into matters they have delegated to others.
Other leaders interfere to prevent unintended consequences, maintain a high standard of quality, or ensure consistency with the team strategy or the organization’s values.
Still other leaders opine because they feel critical information has been overlooked, or they believe that the risks haven’t been fully considered. Whatever the reason, leaders who veto a group decision make a bold call to assert their decision rights and reverse course.
Exceptional circumstances demand extraordinary measures. Good leaders reserve their veto power for situations and decisions that would irreparably harm the organization or undermine a major initiative.
Because the long-term consequences of a veto can have profound effects on team morale and culture, good leaders never negate a decision simply because they disagree with it or prefer a different outcome.
A veto means the leader can’t live with a decision others have painstakingly invested their time, energy, and creativity to make.
A veto says loudly that the leader believes they are smarter, wiser, and more clairvoyant than the team entrusted with the decision. Overriding a collective effort and choice communicates negatively about the power and status of the leader.
Unless the group becomes convinced of the leader’s wisdom for standing in the way, a veto will erode trust, diminish future participation, and leave the impression that the team’s input is undervalued.
Team members experience frustration and often disengage in future decision-making. That’s why good leaders use their veto power sparingly and never more than once in a great while.
A leader who vetoes decisions frequently will destroy the desire of the team to do great work and to reach quality conclusions. When they are forced to veto a decision because of the extreme consequences, good leaders clearly explain the reason for standing in the way.
They make the case why the decision shouldn’t stand. The best leaders even go one step further. They ask the team to withdraw their decision based on their argument. If they are reluctant, the leader refrains from the veto.
The logic is straightforward: If the leader’s advocacy lands as it should, most groups will ask for more time to consider the issues raised by the leader, making the veto unnecessary.
When this occurs, it can actually strengthen the team dynamic, as the group involves the leader and reengages around the data and options. Vetoes are a last stand against harm.
A leader who asserts their decision rights for any other reason is taking a big gamble. Even when they use a veto, good leaders explain why. When was the last time you vetoed a decision delegated to others?
Do your best not to make it a habit. Your credibility as a leader depends on it.
