|
“The only thing that interferes with my learning,
is my education.”
Albert Einstein
|
Naturally, power-driven leadership has had its use in the survival
of the species and of organizations. Primitive
human societies were also based on this type of leadership. It is remarkable that
even today through the film industry (1) that kind of leadership
is still being portrayed and is being accepted by many as a kind of universal
standard. This usually changes
when they are on the employee's side under such leadership and feel the effect
on their sense of well-being and functioning. So we skip this most
primitive of visions, and focus on the more recent insights, that have evolved
since the creation of some form of management-thinking.
Paradigm
1: authoritarian leadership
As
the oldest "modern"
paradigm, we refer to "Scientific Management " thinking,
described
by authors like F. Taylor (USA) and H. Fayol (France) during the
first industrial revolution. In this way of thinking, the ‘image of man’
is simple: people have physical needs and are looking for a way to meet them. So we assume that the main
question that drives employees is: "pay me well". The employee's stomach
must be filled, and as long as there is hunger (physical needs), there is motivation. It is therefore a vision
that sees the motives of people close to the primary needs. The consideration of the
organization is also fairly simple and materialistic. The kind of "mental contract" that arises between the
two parties, employee and organization, is therefore a purely
physical relationship. Moreover, this is based on the employee's
need to get an income, and the relative dominant position of the
organization (employer) to provide employment. The result is that the style
of management is authoritarian. It is based on the right to use his
"rented" (see the phrase " hiring a few hands") labor
capacity for one's own plans. The use of the concept of 'renting' is
already an improvement on the old model of 'ownership', that was creating slave
relationship.
In
this paradigm the leader strives for obedience, based on
his (legal) power. The
employee does not even have to know the plans of the management, he will discover
what is expected of him through the instructions he gets. The performance will
deliver the promised financial compensation, as long as it is sufficiently
productive and meets expectations. The method
used is that of
punishment and rewarding, with the emphasis on punishment. Negative,
undesirable behavior in particular must be linked to unpleasant consequences. In this way we try to
eliminate unwanted behavior. The effect of this approach is clearly a
temporary and reactive check. As long as the pressure of control is present, there
will be obedience, but also no better and no more than that.
Through the insight that Transactional Analysis (2) has
given us, we understand that this
parent-style provokes quite a few child responses. Employees specialize in
creating the impression that they are working, but always have excuses ready to
defend themselves against critical questions. This model continues
because people with a dominant character and with technical knowledge are
promoted to management positions. The best bricklayer becomes the foreman. This
principle removes the best technicians from their work and does not necessarily
appoint good leaders, rather on the contrary!
|
|
|
“The more I study the
world,
the more I am convinced of the inability
of brute force to create
anything durable.”
Napoleon
Bonaparte
|
It will not surprise us that in the context of " Scientific Management " the first ‘law of Parkinson’ is formulated fairly quickly: the so-called " Peter Principle ." ( "People tend to be promoted until they reach their level or incompetence, and than stay there".) Because of this promotion mechanism, the described leadership style is anchored into the organization, and change is counteracted because the paradigm in anchored in the management culture.
2-
Paradigm 2: benevolent authoritarian leadership
The
by now famous “Hawthorne” Experiments at General Electric
showed what many already felt: people are also motivated by positive attention. This leads to a new
paradigm in management and leadership: Human Relations thinking. People appear to have
not only material needs, but also emotional needs. They not only have a
stomach, they also have a heart. They have social and emotional needs, and
these must be met. The
question from employees is not only "pay me well", but also
"treat me well". If you want something done from people,
you have to be kind to them. In the meantime, you continue to have the
right to demand compensation for their wages.
|
“When you say or do anything
to please,
get, keep, influence or control anyone or anything,
fear
is the cause and pain will be the result…”
(Byron Katie)
|
This
shift leads to the benevolent
authoritarian style. The
aim of the management is to combine obedience with a good feeling among
employees. We are not going to give
them a reason to complain. We ensure a nice workplace, we are polite
and, with regard to motivation, we will concentrate primarily on the so-called “satisfiers”, elements
that should primarily eliminate displeasure. The method designated
for this continues to be ‘punishment and rewarding’, but with much more
emphasis on the ‘rewarding’. Even with the training of animals, the positive effect of this
paradigm shift can be seen. It is sometimes hard to believe that, despite
this evidence, some people cannot make the shift to paradigm 2. They are clearly
standing in their own way.
Applying
this style leads to a reactive control, but significantly less temporary than
in paradigm 1. The promotion criterion shifts to people with social impact and manipulators. Social impact refers to
the smooth type that can get along well with people and is therefore accepted
as a person. Manipulators are the
ideal characters to get obedience to the boss's plan in addition to their
kindness.
Here
too, this promotion criterion will ensure that you get a certain type of
leaders that will multiply themselves. It should therefore not be surprising that
many people and organizations remain stuck in these older paradigms, both in
their thinking and in their actions. And perhaps in reverse order: doing
determines thought! There
is a connection with a frequently noticed reality. Manipulators appear to have a
disproportionate chance
of a leadership position. And this could even have to do with the criteria for
promotion in this paradigm: the art of "pleasing" in relationships, but
with a dominance in the background.
3-
Paradigm 3: talent management
People
who are a bit "tuned in" in the evolution of management thinking have
meanwhile taken the step to the third paradigm. The image of man is once
again the basis of our belief system. In this paradigm we see people as
autonomous personalities, unique in their being and in their abilities. The implicit question
that we suppose our employees ask is: "Use me well," or in other words,
have respect for my unique qualities. We arrive in the Human Resources thinking:
man is seen as a resource for productivity through its unique features, and we
will intelligently use those.
The
style of leadership shifts to a kind of " talent coaching". We primarily want
insight into the competencies of employees. This insight must often come from external
agencies that release a test battery on employees in order to provide the basis for successful
integration into the organization through the assessment report. Through the understanding that
people, besides having a stomach and a heart, we will convince them with this
'independent expertise report’. The leader's ambition is therefore to
create conformity between the individual competencies and the content of the
position, read: added value in the organization. This comes down to the simple principle: the
right man (or woman) in the right place. The recent interest in
personality models such as MBTI and, even
more simply: the 'insights' model, where personalities are approached with a
color code, fit into this paradigm. We are not far from the 'Axenroos’, a model that is used
in primary schools to support children in their identity development.
The
effect of this way of thinking and
acting is stronger than in the
previous paradigm. The
reason is simply that employees obviously benefit from a job that is in line
with their competences. Not only is the benefit
greater for the organization, but it is also an advantage for the employees. You can expect that he / she likes to do that job, and is good at it. A proactive effect may
thus be expected. People
don't stop doing their job because the boss isn't here for a while, they start doing
it for themselves too. In this way of thinking, human development
is mainly seen as competence development. We make systems for
this, and this thinking becomes the basis of an HR policy. Recent appeared in the press
as a result of a study that concluded that around 55% of organizations in
Flanders "already" use competence thinking. (3)
In
this vision, who is promoted to a leadership role:
people with a social impact, credible and reliable. They can have a bit of a boyscouts
approach: through positive confirmation and ‘pep talks’
addressing people in their
competencies. It is clear that the
universal human need for respect and appreciation is addressed. So it means a whole lot
of progress compared to paradig 2, that’s for sure.
4-
Paradigm 4: Coaching leadership
The
contours of a fourth paradigm are gradually taking shape, but actual
publications, seminars and management training courses is still largely in line
with paradigm three. The
image of mankind that could set us on the right track demands not only seeing
people as unique, but also seeing them as equal partners. They have their own free
will and make choices in their lives. They may be interested in
developing
in a certain direction,
and they seek meaning. Their question is to make a meaningful
contribution to a larger whole. They also have a mission in their lives
(unless, of course, they are unlearned by a traditional leadership that suppresses
all these ambitions as unrealistic dreams). Anyway, people want to
be respected in more than their competences; in their ambitions,
vision, development opportunities, unique work-life balance, etc.
The
'learning organization' concept (4) behind the collaboration we have in mind, brings
mutual engagement between people and organizations to a spiritual level:
the 'why' is important (mental contract).We get a bond at the
level of the assignment, mission, and in this way we address the strongest and
most sustainable drivers in people. The leadership that corresponds to this,
is at the same time inspiring, connecting, coaching
and fundamental. (5). It’s a way of
dealing with people that creates room for autonomy and development (empowerment) and is based on
agreements instead of instructions or docility. Thinking and doing are
not separated ('thinkers' and 'doers' - thinking like it was introduced in
the "Scientific Management" and in former military
models, based on power thinking). It is only when accepting this paradigm
that respect is payed to the insights of the Transactional Analysis because
agreements between equal parties involved (albeit with a different role) replace the compliance
that was present in all previous paradigms. (2) What is clearly a
condition for working in this paradigm is a strong emphasis on the role of the
manager as a culture-creator. It is therefore in this paradigm that
extra attention must be paid to the competencies in order to reach agreements
at this level.
The
leader's ambition is to develop employees, not only their competencies, but
also their maturity, and with that their sense of responsibility,
self-fulfillment, freedom of thought ... The method is 'empowerment'. The
leader learns to let go in order for the employee to give space and autonomy to engage in
cooperation. While the rolls continue
to be different, an increasing partnership has grown, making
increasing productivity to mutual satisfaction possible. In this way, a permanent proactive influence of leadership
must result. People continue to
contribute, even if the management is not there, or makes mistakes. They are not only
prepared to change, they are the engine behind the change, because they also want to grow
and support the company’s mission. Who is promoted in this model: people with
more wisdom than reason, who can put themselves in perspective and put
themselves at the service of the whole. They can create teams and productive
cultures. The most important
condition for this is that they have overcome their ego needs and put
themselves in a service role. Elsewhere the role of maturity for
developing good leadership is described (5). People with limited
maturity cannot offer leadership at the level of paradigm 4, that much becomes
clear. Their ego needs get in
the way of being a coach. Note that the definition given by Hersey & Blanchard
(situational leadership) to coaching is the following: steering + supporting. This thinking fits perfectly in paradigm 2.
|
"He who knows a lot about others, can be smart.
But he who understands himself is more intelligent.
He who is master over others can be powerful.
But he whomasters himself is even more powerful."
Lao Tse
|
5)
Paradigm 5: Self-management
Especially
since the publication of the book by Laloux (7), a new way of
thinking about leadership has been growing. We take the leadership
away from an individual and place it with the group. Terms that fit into this
are 'self-managing teams', 'shared leadership', 'self-regulation' in all its
varieties. It is an ambitious idea
to fully place the responsibility for a team or organization in the group, and
the question is whether this is a feasible situation. Although the literature
mentions spectacular results in this area, the future will have to prove
whether it is not rather the fourth paradigm that was used. After all, it is already
foreseen that empowerment allows appropriate autonomy for teams, operations, employees, etc. to be agreed upon and
evaluated, initially by those involved themselves.
In
order to properly estimate the feasibility of this paradigm, a sharp insight
must be obtained into what exactly the object, and therefore the added value, of
leadership is. But we will also have to
gain a realistic insight into human behavior, so that not only can a selection
be made of sufficiently mature people for such an
organization or team, but also about how to deal with limitations in that area. The question is
therefore whether sufficient competencies can be developed in a team or
organization in order to be able to develop the required breadth and depth in
the professional field with sufficient knowledge, insight and skills, both for
the short and the long term.
To
investigate the feasibility and conditions of paradigm 5, I have written a
number of separate texts. (8) The more insight is
gained into the possibilities and limitations of human behavior, the more this
seems to lead to the conclusion that paradigm 5 offers possibilities on a small
scale and with a very strict selection of those involved. One can get close to it in practice, but then
I suspect that this is by the grace of an inspiring leader who brings in the
right things at the right time to develop the desired group dynamics. And then we are in
paradigm 4. The famous story of Ricardo Semler could be an example of
this? (9)
These 5 paradigms occur in
practice as a mixture, of course with certain accents. They are supported by the
"dominant coalition", an internal network of people who determine the
"policy color". Their unwritten consensus works like a
sieve to select certain systems, practices and proposals until they fit within
their paradigm mix. They
also have been working at a magnet that attracts
certain systems, practices and proposals. Paradigms therefore have
a major effect on reality. They are difficult to change because, due
to the associated criteria for the selection of leaders, a majority of managers
have emerged who are implicitly in favor of the existing paradigm. This policy culture
(vision) acts as a magnet to curb changes in this area. With a thorough renewal
of the management, it could be that the magnet starts to work in reverse and
supports the progress towards a higher paradigm. But then the
coordination must be clearly focused on the new paradigm. This does not mean that
paradigms can only change due to this magnet effect. But that is a separate
issue! This overview may
perhaps serve as a basis for self-analysis or diagnosis.
Hugo
Der Kinderen
December
16, 2018
(1) A good example of
"heroic leadership" is the film " Bravehaert ", which portrays the historic moment
where the Scottish independence was fought
under the leadership of William Wallace.
(2) See a separate text hugoderkinderen.blogspot.be, a brief introduction is' TA - How easy
collaboration?
(3) See a short contribution
on this hugoderkinderen.blogspot.be
'under the title' Working with competences'
(4) The 'Learning Organizations' concept was launched by Peter Senge , The Fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning
organization, Double D ay Currency, New York, 1990
A learning organization is one that developed itself collectively by focusing on mutual
learning. This obviously requires
more than a learning attitude or learning process from the leaders.
(5) Principal leadership was
launched as a concept by Stephen Covey , Principle Centered Leadership , Simon & Shuster , London, 1992
(6) See a separate text on
'hugoderkinderen.blogspot.be' under the title: How people develop their
maturity.
(7) F. Laloux , Reinventing Organizations, Lannoo Campus, Tielt , 2015
(8) See 'hugoderkinderen.blogspot.be':
(9) R. Semler, Maveric, Cornerstone,
2001
No comments:
Post a Comment