The
most "primitive" driving force behind leadership is obedience. In that position, the leader wants
followers to do what the leader wants. The separation of 'thinking' and 'doing'
that is created in this way results in a low involvement of the employee, and a
behavior that is not seldom focused on their own benefit. In addition, they can opt for ' dropping out' (resulting mainly in survival behavior),
or get connected (resulting in calculated obedience). In both cases of course they
try to take advantage of the leader's favors as a 'reward'. In this vision the leader is superior in
terms of content (we may hope) and on this too narrow basis we try to serve the organization in
its mission. Psychopathic leaders meet these criteria, but they are
not the only ones.
Many
leadership concepts that have recently seen the light of day put another motive
at the center: good relationships. In this setting, a respectful relationship
is the basis for good cooperation. Concepts such as 'serving leadership' and
'shared leadership' fit into this approach. They create the opportunity to pursue the
goals of the organization in the collaboration between management and employee. This is of course much more productive and
sustainable than the obedience model, because much less energy is lost in the
opposition between leader and employees. If the leader is strong in the ‘content’,
then this added relationship focus is a positive attempt to reconcile content and relationship and to
avoid the negative effects of the obedience model.
To
develop good leadership, a third dimension should be added to cooperation: the
future. Both management and employees should have the same focus on the mission, strategy and
planning of the organization. In this way, the collaboration is
targeted, and is able to realize the organizational assignment in a sustainable
way. To achieve this, a great deal of participation will be
needed to create that communality. Simon Sinek’s focus on ‘why’ perfectly fits
in this dimension.
If
these three dimensions of cooperation are integrated into leadership (content,
relationship and future), then a pressing fourth dimension continues to demand
attention: the values. These are the criteria we use to "direct" our
actions. The condition is that other behavioral motives are no
longer given priority (survival, self-interest, emotions, etc. ). Values are only relevant for determining
behavior if the person in question functions beyond the ego needs. Maturity is a condition for this (see
elsewhere on 'maturity'). In organizations that pursue sustainability,
leadership focused on values becomes a fourth necessary dimension of
leadership.
Two
things become important here: the selection of values and the translation
into 'collective behavior'. The second element (translation) assumes that the manager becomes a culture-creator,
based on values that have been translated into principles. As soon as there is agreement on these
principles (by using an appropriate method of participation in selecting and
formulating them), the cooperation between management and employees, and between
employees, the co-operation can be based on respect for the underlying values. That this result provides extra
involvement and sustainable cooperation seems to be a generally accepted idea. A major challenge presents itself in the
selection of values.
' Chremastics ' is the art of becoming rich. In a stock market driven economy,
organizations quickly become a means to serve financial stakeholders in their chremastic objectives. But the problem also arises in organizations that are not listed on the stock exchange, but are led by people
who use the organization solely or mainly for their (financial or psychological) prosperity. If business leaders in such organizations
start to determine the 'core values', then they will make a ' chremastic' or ego-selection '. The values that serve their purposes
will appear in the list. And if universal values are chosen, they often get a
different interpretation by chremastic leaders. Especially if those values are not subsequently translated into concrete principles, the sought-after
internal 'connection' will not grow. But moreover, in the actual behaviors and
choices that are made, a difference will be felt between the way these values
are experienced. Managers who are not value-driven in their own lives, but rather ego-driven,
will lose their credibility at this point, especially with those who are
value-driven. But yes, if we keep things vague enough, it is
easy to agree. If that happens consciously, we speak of manipulation.
An
example: loyalty is often highly valued by leaders. What they mean is often docility (loyalty to
the leaders). Real loyalty relates to the mission of the
organization, and that can be very difficult if the leadership exhibits ego
behavior. Those who rely heavily on loyalty often have something
to hide at the level of values.
The 'capitalist gap' becomes very clear when the concept of 'creating
shareholder value' is set as the central task of an organization. Would that still form the basis for a
course in business administration and management?
Good
leadership requires an integrated whole of content, relationship, future and
values, and all of this in a constructive and consistent balance, in every situation. And the values should be
universal, and not ego-driven if the need to bond people.
Hugo
Der Kinderen
30-10-2018
No comments:
Post a Comment