Recently,
quite a bit of attention has been given to introducing more autonomy and
self-management in organizations. It is a necessary counter-movement against
years of top-down management of people in an obedience model. However, there are both proponents and
opponents concerning these strategic choices, and they each seem to have
well-founded arguments to support their optimism and pessimism, respectively. To bring some clarity there, it seems
useful to analyze the tension between the pros and cons in the following way.
To
make the transition from traditional top-down leadership to more autonomy, the
existing leadership must first of all be willing to ‘let go’. That is not only a matter of trust, but
also of vision. If the decision is made to let things go, then we can
hope that this is a fair intention; the WILL is certainly present. But that is not yet a guarantee of
success. Being able to let go is important so as not to get
disappointments on the part of the employees. And that ABILITY is largely a matter of
personality. Controlling personalities, perfectionists, paranoid
and manipulative people and leaders with a theatrical personality (the
dream model of an entrepreneur) have a hard time with this. But sometimes a superior level of
knowledge and insight on the side of the leader makes
it very difficult to put that aside and leave decisions to a team that is
clearly on a different level. The available patience, time and resources
will then determine.
If
there is a difference on the management side between ‘’wanting and ‘being able’,
a well-thought-out method of follow-up is needed, which should preferably be
agreed on by all involved. There is certainly room here for a 360 ° evaluation,
but also for regular advice from a third party (an external coach).
In
addition to letting go, ‘grasping’ on the employees' side is also an important
point. It is naive to assume that they always want and can do
that. The WILLING is very often present, at least with people
who have not nestled themselves in the comfortable 'follow position' because of
the former leadership and want to stay there. After all, in the obedient position, you
don't have to take any responsibility, and that
is always safer. WANTING to grasp will therefore be a matter of
existing culture, but also of the maturity level of the employees. The latter relates to the fundamental life
focus on growing or comfortable survival. Elsewhere (1) the maturity development process is
described in more detail.
In
addition to WILLING, a level of ABILITY is also
very relevant here. And probably those two levels are a bit apart,
possibly in both directions. After all, it is perfectly possible that
people underestimate themselves and have an unjustified fear of arranging
things for themselves. A serious attempt may allow them to grow significantly,
learn a lot and even discover existing competencies.
A
common problem in this area is that people who overestimate themselves in their capacity for self-management. That is good for building self-confidence,
but it often brings disappointing results. And it is very difficult to admit that one
has overestimated oneself and then to take the consistent decision to give
the power back to others. Common stumbling block in self management are:
-
the lack of knowledge and vision,
- skills
in decision making,
- inability
to deal with complexity,
- short-term
focus,
- no
policy thinking but instead operate more from advocacy
- disability
in social skills to work constructively and effectively together with
colleagues.
These
are just a few examples. The motivation behind the desire for self-management
is often in the frustration of being patronized. And that is of course a false
motivation, leading to serious failure.
It
will be the responsibility of the existing management to judge the existing competences accurately as possible, to communicate openly about them and to make
basic agreements with those involved. These agreements will necessarily relate to the results to be achieved and the frameworks,
limits and principles to be respected. It will certainly also be necessary to
agree on an evaluation methodology and authority to evaluate and, if necessary,
adjust the agreed room for autonomy. Part of these agreements could be about
the support that a team receives to help them in their pursuit of autonomy, and
with which limits in resources and time.
Conclusions:
- The WILL on both sides must be
sufficiently close to each other to get started; there can be no open space between the
two, causing a very disturbing misunderstanding.
- The ABILITY on both sides will determine
whether the project is successful. Here, it will mainly be a matter of realistic
estimations, make proper agreements, and above all determine the correct
approach for evaluation and adjustment.
- And above all: installing autonomy requires good (better) leadership.
This
is perhaps one of the reasons why such processes often fail. This is certainly the case if the
leadership's motivation for considering the introduction of self-management is
based on the frustration about one's own leadership failing. In that case it is not wise to put many
responsibilities and powers in teams. Your own failure as a leader will then hit you in the back of the head like a boomerang.
Hugo
Der Kinderen
15 December 2018
(1) In another contribution in this BLOG
"How people develop their maturity" this is discussed in more detail. An even more complete description is available upon request.
No comments:
Post a Comment