When someone gets the formal position of manager or leader, that
is an insufficient guarantee of effective cooperation with the team. The big question is whether the person
involved is being accepted as a leader. And in that area there are three
possibilities. Either:
(1) We do not accept this person in this role. The reason may be that there is
insufficient trust, or worse, that there are prejudices about the style and
behavior of this person, which makes the team resist.However, the team usually
does not have the necessary influence to cancel this appointment, resulting in
tension between the team and management that seriously undermines the proper
functioning. It will be a virtually impossible task for the manager
in question to reverse this conviction. The only possibility is to prove by facts
that the prejudice was wrong. But to have each team member revise their
opinion, not only time, but also a lot of communication will be necessary.
(2) The team is indifferent to the person
appointed. There is no negative condemnation, but also no reason
to be enthusiastic. People tolerate the person, but do not expect a
positive impact on their own functioning. They tolerate each other. In this situation there is also no
constructive cooperation. The impact that the leader has on the functioning of
the team will be limited. Only routine matters will go well, based on the intrinsic job motivation of
the team members. Changes will be difficult and there will be little or
no excellence in the team.
(3) The team reacts positively and
enthusiastically. The manager is seen as a relevant person who is
important for the functioning of the team, and for the team members he is a
source of safety, motivation problem solving, job satisfaction, etc. This leader can count on commitment and
involvement, on flexibility and willingness to change and learn. The vision and initiatives of this leader
will be considered relevant and receive the necessary positive (but critical)
attention.
So there are three options: rejection, tolerance or
acceptance. The question is how we acchieve the third option. And the answer is very simple: because the
leader gives the team (and employees) what they need in order to function
properly. This means that the team members experience their job
(assignment) as a source of satisfaction. It means not only safety, but also
recognition, opportunities, growth, success, a reference point, a sounding board, support ...
This effect is perfectly visualized in the work of the
famous horse whisperer Monti Roberts (1) . He calls the horse's decision to accept
the leadership of its leader: 'join up'. On this BLOG you can find a short
film that illustrates his method. Starting with a wild mustang, he manages
to lead the horse within 30 minutes. He simply gives it what it needs: safety
(the primary necessity in life for a horse – prey animal - herd animal). He shows with body language that he can take danger (pressure) away, and the
horse expresses his "join up" by positioning himself behind Monti,
head over the shoulder. The horse accepts the leadership.
Trying to get a real 'join up' from the team is a
great challenge for a leader, perhaps even a necessary condition for proper
functioning.
(1) Monti Roberts, The man who listens to
horses, Prometheus, 2008
Hugo Der Kinderen
No comments:
Post a Comment