Clare Short’s description (to the Chilcot inquiry) of the way cabinet meetings were run when Tony Blair was prime minister sounded horribly familiar. She claims that an open discussion about the decision to invade Iraq was impossible and that, when she attempted to ask some awkward questions, she was told to shut up.

I have observed many board meetings where decisions went through “on the nod”, ostensibly without any reservations. In fact, in my experience, it was comparatively rare for board members to raise objections. What usually happened was that dissenters kept quiet in the meeting and grumbled afterwards about not having the opportunity to speak up. Had they been assertive they could have created the opportunity – but that takes courage. At least Clare Short, if she is to be believed, attempted to speak up only to be shouted down.

The trouble with deference is that decisions, even big ones where much is at stake, don’t get the scrutiny they deserve. A persuasive leader and a submissive board of directors is a recipe for disaster. The decisions are only good if the leader is right – and no one individual can be right all the time. The checks and balances provided by collective responsibility, provided it is exercised, come to the rescue.

I was once hired by a CEO who was desperate for someone to challenge him. He was surrounded by sycophants who tended to agree with everything he said. He invited me to attend his board meetings and play devil’s advocate. He hoped that if I demonstrated this behaviour his directors would see how useful it was and start to emulate me. In practice, there were two problems with this approach. First, I used to sit in the meetings, listening to the CEO waxing lyrical about his latest idea, and think to myself: “That’s a good idea, I like that”. It is very difficult to disagree with someone on demand when in fact you are in agreement! Second, my attempts to play devil’s advocate were counter-productive. The sycophants were so appalled that someone had the audacity to challenge their leader, they rallied round and supported him with even more enthusiasm than they had before the introduction of a common enemy; namely me!

The experiment failed and after a three-month trial period I did the honourable thing and called a halt to the project.

Despite my failure, I remain convinced that sycophants are dangerous.