Just imagine if those you managed were more self-acting and self-directed, had greater levels of creativity and had (really) good interpersonal skills. Wouldn’t this make for a higher performing team enhancing organizational performance, not to mention having a positive influence on your effectiveness? Obviously, for many, the next questions are do such people exist and how do I get them to be my team? Continue reading
A recent HBR Blog post by John Kotter speaks to the confusion surrounding management and leadership. He continues by outlining three key mistakes people make in confusing management and leadership: 1) using the terms interchangeably; 2) using leadership to refer to those at the top of the hierarchy; and 3) thinking leadership is about personality characteristics (i.e. charisma). Let’s critically think about these mistakes to better understand their likely causes. Continue reading
Many elected public officials formulate legislation favoring those who provide large sums of money to them (in support of their election/re-election) irrespective of the legislation’s impact on the citizens—the collective ‘we’—they are elected to represent. What is the consequence of such action? Essentially there is no consequence! Why? Because those who could take action are reticent to do so since they too benefit from this quid pro quo system. So they cooperate—if not collaborate—with special interest. If lobbying weren’t effective, why else would the number of lobbyist have grown?
There are corporate executives who create and manage an organization that behaves in environmental and/or socially damaging (if not fraudulent) ways. More often than not this way of managing provides the executives and their minions significant material gain and the citizens of the country significant devastation. What is the consequence of such practice? None to very little! Why? Because those who could take action are reluctant to do so since they too benefit from the way things are. So they cooperate keeping things as they are. This is likely why regulating agencies and corporate boards overlook rather than provide oversight.
What’s operative in each? Self-interest maximization; a what’s in it for me orientation. In a socio-economic system that concerns itself primarily if not solely with self-interest—not the collective ‘we’, the interdependence of living systems and society at-large—the resultant quid pro quo arrangements determine the future we all will likely experience. It is no surprise that follow the money often leads investigators toward identifying the puppeteers.
We cooperate with the system—no matter how dysfunctional. In a democracy voting is the primary means for individuals to participate and thus cooperate with the system of government thus ensuring its continuance. In organizations striving to meet the measureable goals cascaded down from the top of the hierarchy is the primary means for individuals to cooperate with the system. A profit making and maximizing system, exclusively for those directing the game, is the order of the day—so fall in line, play the game.
We Can All Hope
So we cooperate while hoping that changing the players directing the game will change the game—hence our obsessive focus on leadership. Or is it we keep the game going thinking that once we get to the top of the hierarchy we will some how change the game. Unfortunately it hasn’t and it likely never will happen!
Hope involves seeing/envisioning a way for things to get better so many have hope for change. Some hope to return to the imagined better times of the past and others imagine a new reality. In either case, people hope that the future will be better than the present. Both are holding steadfast to an imaginary reality and thus not seeking to understand the why of what is. It is the present that is most correlated with the future, yet many seem to run from it.
Game Change Requires Mind Change
Nothing will change unless the system itself is fundamentally changed! You don’t change the game by continuing rolling the dice on your turn; this just keeps the game going. Cooperating with a system ensures its continuance.
We aren’t independent individuals whose sole purpose in life is to amass as much material wealth as we can—bumping into each other as we each strive to have it all for ‘me’. It is not that self-interest is not within our nature it is that self-interest is not the essence of our nature. However those directing things would have us believe that we are at base self-interest seeking because it best serves their self-interest—they benefit most when we all are concerned about what’s in it for me. This keeps people from coming together as we—divide and conquer works most times, but only in the short-term.
I remember (many years ago) being in a meeting where the president of a division of a company I was working for said, “look to your left and look to your right because 1 in 3 people won’t be here next year. “ What’s the message? It is not I want you all to work together, but rather I want each of you to worry about yourself. This president wasn’t seeking to foster an inspired collective we but rather bunch of me’s that could be easily controlled by fear.
I left the company within several months of that meeting. Eventually the division floundered, not because I had left but because the division was never able to actualize the potential among those it employed.
Unfortunately when individuals act out of their self-interest, when there is little to no concern beyond what’s in it for ‘me’—when a sense of caring stops at one’s own skin—then the destruction of either the organization or society (which includes all individuals) is inevitable.
So why is there hope? Could it be that because the absence of hope ushers in despair and so everyone is simply deluding him/her self to avoid feelings of despair? Rather than being hopeful, I suspect we’d all be better off if we got heretical.
Let me begin with a statement from a previous posting:
“When people are given the legitimate authority associated with a position in an organization’s (management) hierarchy, they are also necessarily entrusted with the development of those over whom they have been given formal authority. Sadly some become intoxicated with exercising power over others that they deny and ignore the responsibility for the care and concern of others. Upholding this latter responsibility is in large measure what separates the good leaders from the bad.” Continue reading
The paradigm that emerged in the 17th century set humankind as the conqueror and manipulator of all things for tangible ends. Moreover knowing something meant that it is expressible and explainable in the language of mathematics (i.e. numbers, measurements), as everything that was anything must be quantifiable and quantified if it is to be understood. Accordingly everything in the universe became an object to be measured and modeled into exact laws of cause-and-effect. Continue reading
When I say the word leader, quite understandably most associate it with the ‘one-in-charge’, the top person. Furthermore, since leader is synonymous with the one-in-charge, then leadership must be the actions of the one-in-change. That is when the term leadership is the focus—be it in academic journals or the popular press—its use is most often referring to people in positions of authority such as top executives or c-level managers in organizations or officials of rank in government. We could just as well talk about top management since the terms connote the same thing. Even so, everyone would prefer to be a leader than a manager—it just sounds better. Continue reading
Trust connotes many things. In one sense it speaks to the history we’ve had with other people when we say things like my experience shows he/she can be trusted. In another it reflects aspirations about one’s self in statements like I trust that I’d do the right thing if faced with that situation. An in yet another we often hear people say I trust things will workout for the better.
Though trust is related to notions of reliability, confidence, belief, faith and hope or expectation underlying these is the role trust plays in human development. It speaks to our need to counter balance an ever-present characteristic of our world, uncertainty. Consequently trust is the means of bringing a sense of order to an uncertain environment. Accordingly, when we are in an environment absent of trust, one wherein mistrust abounds, increasingly dis-ease overcomes us. Why is this so? Continue reading