"I won't take yes for an answer" has been variously attributed to everyone from Groucho Marx to Samuel Goldwyn, but now Harvard Business School Professor Michael Roberto says there's management wisdom in it.  True leaders, that is to say, cultivate constructive conflict, from which arise sounder decisions.

While this may strike all us enlightened, post-command-and-control types as obvious, in the real world it is still honored mostly in the breach.   Consider the recent sacking of Phil Purcell of Morgan Stanley.  Here's The New York Times on his management style:

"He was ruthless, autocratic and remote. He had no tolerance for dissent or even argument. He pushed away strong executives and surrounded himself with yes men and women. He demanded loyalty to himself over the organization. He played power games. He had little contact with rank and file. Is it a surprise that he was loathed by many executives?"

Or this, from the veteran of decades of Wall Street wars, Jim Cramer:

"Now it is well known on Wall Street that Purcell never managed down, just up, catering to the board in a way that made many people—including yours truly—think that he would have to commit a homicide to lose the support of these mostly handpicked backers. I personally loathed the guy, having done about $30 million in business with his firm without ever so much as a thank-you, let alone an acknowledgment of me or my firm’s existence as a client. I was small-fry for Purcell. We were all small-fry, I later learned."

Why do organizations continue to go astray in this way?  Consider the culture of yes, the culture of no, and the culture of maybe.

The culture of yes:  The most obvious and perhaps prevalent species of this managerial dysfunction is when all smile and nod at proposals or during meetings and then retreat to their offices to voice their objections, undercut the phony "consensus," and ensure that nothing moves forward.  This is indeed the "yes" that means "negotiations have commenced."

The culture of no:  Famously, at IBM before Lou Gerstner arrived, anyone involved in a decision could "fail to concur," and the initiative would be scrapped.  Archaic as that sounds—and it was barely 15 years ago—a stylishly mod version, comfortably enthroned in a position of honor in the large tent of P.C.'ness, is today's "precautionary principle," which holds that virtually any uncertainty about consequences of an innovation should preclude its embrace unless and until its proponents can prove against all objections that it will do no harm.   Cost/benefit?  Mature judgment?  Responsibility?  Out the window.

The culture of maybe:  My personal favorite, because it finds fertile ground in the mindset of lawyers.  This has also been nicknamed "paralysis by analysis," and is the attitude that all the facts must be on the table before one can decide.  "A good plan now beats a great plan tomorrow?"  Sure, pal.

This leaves us with the practical challenge of encouraging candid, frank exchanges.  A good place to start is with the leader staying mum on what he or she thinks, and instituting and reinforcing a fair (think "due") process where all viewpoints can be heard.  Of course, the leader must ultimately take responsibility for decision and action:

"Leading a fair process does not mean trying to satisfy everyone in terms of the ultimate decision that is made. Instead, it means creating a process in which leaders have demonstrated authentic consideration of others' views."

Crucial to maintaining open debate at a high level is disciplining those who break the rules: Those who mount ad hominem attacks, undercut arguments in private or "offline," or who refuse to participate. In other words, a key leadership trait is enforcing the debating rules.

Before you next need to arrive at a consultative decision, take a look at the whole article.