Who are you calling a flip-flopper?

By Andrew D. Green in collaboration with Kevin McDermott

There should be no worse moment for a public figure than when they are found to have contradicted a position they held previously. We leap to call them flip-floppers. Not just inconsistent but bad characters. “Gotcha!” we yell.

And yet we all nod sagely when we are reminded of the time when John Maynard Keynes was accused by a critic of inconsistency. “When the facts change,” said Keynes, “I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

So which is it — flip-flopper or flexible thinker? The answer matters because in an age as volatile as this one a capacity to recognize when facts change will be a survival skill.

Exhibit A might be the treatment of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and its evolving guidance during the Covid pandemic. We are watching science happen in real time, and the science is changing. The guidance should change. Some nonscientists find this upsetting.

We do not like to hear that what we used to think is no longer operational. We would all like the facts to stop moving. But they do not. Especially lately.

Pressed to hold our ground

Our preference for certainty feeds a conviction in our natures that holding our ground is strength. It follows that conceding error is perceived as weakness. And so we hold on to our positions despite ample evidence that they are wrong.

For high-visibility leaders, a change of mind can be particularly fraught in an era of social media, an era when it feels like no one reads more than headlines. The penalty for admitting error in this context is typically derision. The consequence can be an abiding fear of putting one’s foot wrong.

If we are afraid to acknowledge that choices made in the past are not working, the temptation to let problems fester will be strong — just at a time when the operating environment may demand a new direction.

When the world changes it does no good to argue with the facts. It does no good to complain “That can’t be so.” Eventually the facts win anyway. When they do leaders will need all their credibility to draw upon.

The challenges of changing our minds might be proportionate to the relative maturity of an organization. A startup is expected to do multiple pivots. It is experimental. Its cost are lower, fewer jobs are at stake, far less money is at risk.

In an established organization that has enjoyed past success a change of mind is harder. People lose their jobs for being wrong.

Senior leaders are expected to know the right answer. Always. Just as important, they are expected to project that they know the right answer. They are held accountable for results, and that’s fair.

How to change your mind

We all enjoy stories of swashbuckling corporate executives betting the farm, rolling the dice, taking the plunge. But big organizations are run with care. Senior executives seldom come in on a Monday morning and announce a major change in direction, as Mary Barra did when she announced that GM would stop selling vehicles with internal combustion engines and go all electric by 2035.

If a public change of mind becomes necessary what is the right way of going about it?

Start by having already built a reputation for credible leadership before conditions require it. Waiting for a crisis to begin earning credibility will be too late. Forthrightness should already be a habit. When you are afraid to be candid even your supporters know it.

The fact base for changing beliefs needs to be clear to the audience we want to persuade. This is especially so when reexamining assumptions that previously supported “the way we have always done things”. If we become convinced that the world has moved on we need to provide evidence.

Essential to turning a corner is making that turn feel credible in the way we talk about it. For one thing we need to think about the context in which we make our arguments.

When leaders change their minds they call upon their colleagues’ capacity to deal with the uncertainty and ambiguity. They acknowledge the difficulties a change in direction may bring. Good leaders are honest about the short-term discomfort. Part of painting a compelling vision of the future is showing your audience how they will be part of it. It pays to remember that the best people want to be asked to do hard things.

A discussion of timeframes is important. If I present myself as a visionary that obliges me to outline where the organization is going and how I plan to take it there.

The difference between flip-flopping and a wise change of mind is consistency of conviction. A leader who proceeds from a place of conviction can accept the near-term discomfort of being called a flip-flopper. They take the heat when conditions require a turn into the wind.