First Steve, do not hate to disagree, I appreciate your disagreement. How
else will we cause the needed criticality in Leadership perspectives? So
in keeping with this theme I too must disagree with you.
Steve wrote:
. . . the nature of leaders is what is has always been: to tap into the
motivation of those they lead and get them focused on a common goal.
>From my perspective, this statement is bespeaks the industrial mindset
because it says, at least to me, that the job of the leaders is to get the
follows to do what they the leaders want them to do. The followers are
passive, and all that is required to do is for the leaders to accomodate
the follows in some way as to motivate them to do the leaders wishes. For
me, this idea comes closest to Situational Leadership (Blanchard's Model).
Steve's words "get them focused on a common goal." are the ones that I
have the most difficulty with.
First, Lets talk about motivation for a second. First, one of the core
assumptions of motivation is that it is an inner drive i.e, I cannot
motivate someone, A person is motivated to do something because of an
inner need to do either be in community with others, derive meaning from
their activities, or to be part of something wherein they may feel they
are doing something that makes a difference (be part of something
special). To follow one's bliss. To have a sense of purpose about one's
life. Senge uses the term Personal Mastery to say basically the same
thing. I base these ideas not so much on psychology but on mythology, an
understanding of the belief systems that pervade every society. So says
Joseph Campbell. This to me is real motivation.
Second, How many knowledge workers did Julius Caesar have working for him?
Hmmmmm, to use the battlefield metaphor to explain your perspective Steve
is most appropriate. It was on the battlefield where the ideas of
organization were born. Frederick II the Great of Prussia introduced
organization to the battlefield in the 1740's and it is still with us
today. Frederick's concept of organization was based on fear. The men
must fear the seargents and the sergents must fear the officers. How many
knowledge workers did Fred have working for him?
Tell me something Steve, in your opinion what means are at the disposal of
getting the followers focused on a common goal? Is manipulation allowed?
This is a problem I have with the industrial philosophies of leadership.
They presume the leader has perfect knowledge, can use any method at his
or her disposal, and where (in the case of situational leadership)
inconsistency is celebrated. See Jim O'Toole's "Leading Change." 1995
Jossey-Bass. The leader can do just about anything to get the followers
to follow.
These notions of leadership mask the true intent of industrial leadership
to command, control and direct the people placed under the so called
leader.
Recently in a Forbes Article Peter Drucker said that the models we use in
organizations are at least 50 years old. Models he said, are usually only
good for 30 years. They have outlived their usefulness. Senge said
basically the same thing in his recent Fast Company article. The
overriding reason for new models is that we live in a knowledge society
where the level of complexity is overwhelming.
We need new models. We must understand that leadership does not reside in
the leader, a popular psychological perspective. This perspective, in my
opinion is in error.
Leadership does not reside in any one person, it dances on the strings of
the bonds between people. It sits there next to social capital, things
like trust, integrity, honesty. Social capital forms the foundation for
leadership. Leadership is contained in a collective dynamic.
Ok, so then why is this different from what I presume you are saying. Let
me use an illustration. If we imagine for a moment that we are in an
organization and we recognize that a significant change must occur, we can
approach this change in two basic ways. First the leader can ask himself
or herself "What is it that I want to do?" In my opinion, this question
would form the basis for action according to Steve's perspective in which
the leader is trying to get the people focused on the common goal.
One might also approach this from another perspective. The question would
be "What is it that needs to be done?" This to me represents the essence
of collaborative leadership as I defined it. It is not the leader who is
getting the followers focused on the common goal. It is the leader and
his or her collaborators or partners working to derive a mutual purpose
and shared vision of what needs to be done.
Why is this important? Because knowledge workers are very different from
the farmers who became machine operators. I too have data. The Janz
study (one of the few on knowledge workers I might add) a thoroughly
researched piece of work on knowledge workers sets forth four factors
considered important by knowledge workers. They are autonomy,
interdependence, team development (having to do with purpose and vision)
and contextual support. The reference is given below.
Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team
effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development,
and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50, 877-904.
In speaking about autonomy I thought I might include a paragraph I wrote
about this.
Janz et. al.'s (1997) recommendations agree with Argyris' (1998)
perspective that employees must be involved in the defining of the work
before a high level of internal commitment (motivation) can be expected.
Organizations must adopt a mindset of subsidiarity from the outset so that
a proper appreciation for the work environment can be initiated. Drucker
agrees, "In the knowledge society the most probable assumption for
organizations-and certainly the assumption of which they have to conduct
their affairs-is that they need knowledge workers far more than knowledge
workers need them" (1994, p. 71). By the way Argyris article was in the
Harvard Business Review it was called "Empowerment: the emperor's new
clothes."
Leadership to knowledge workers is not about anybody getting them to focus
on a common goal. From a motivation perspective, it is about them
deriving the purpose, vision and common goals for their part in the
organization. But this requires that we make a presumption about people
wherein our theories espoused are directly reflected in our theories in
use. I like the ones I got from Phil Carroll formerly of Shell Oil. They
are: (1) People are Good, (2) People are Capable (3) People will do good
for themselves and their organizations if given the opportunity to do so.
I like to say what do you give a person, who has a BS or MS in computer
science or computer engineering or biotechnology. The answer is nothing,
they already have it. All you can do is give them a place to do it. And
oh by the way, if they don't like the place they are doing it don't be
surprised if they take their knowledge and go down the street to someplace
where the atmosphere is more conducive for their existence.
You say you have data Steve, what kind? Where from? Is it businesses
only? Is it quantitative or qualitative? Is a longitudinal study? What
is the time period used to determine leadership change and the impact on
the organization?
You see I too have data. Qualitative, longitudinal, (one year) and I can
show where those who chose to practice collaborative leadership made
impacts on the organization following one of my leadership simulation
seminars. You see Steve, I use realistic simulations not only to teach
this method of collaborative leadership but also as a test bed for ideas.
It is, in my opinion, the most complete microworld in existence. The
simulations have demonstrated that unless the leader and the collaborators
engaged in a mutually derived purpose leadership does not take place.
I wonder at this point if your data comes from the business world. You
know business thinks they own leadership, after all they have been the
most prolific in writing about it. But what about governement? What
about building community? What about ommunity policing? How about Aids
Research or Cancer Research? Don't we expect to find leadership in these
contexts as well? What happens when we are in a dynamic where a
significant stakeholder group is not being paid money for their loyalty?
What then, is this leadership a different color or a different
perspective? I think not!!! I think that creating collaborative dynamics
which provide for the unencumbered sharing of knowledge, where consensus
and influence are used to create an open environment where people are
engaged in a mutual purpose and shared vision is the essence of
collaborative leadership. It is not about just doing the leaders wishes.
The people of our knowledge society are on a journey. A journey towards a
greater sense of democracy. I do not make this assertion, Daniel Bell of
Harvard does in "The coming of the postindustrial society." Bell says
that each successive generation makes a leap from authority and control to
greater freedom. This forms the crux of the social tension we feel and in
many way of what you and I are writing about in our exploration of
leadership thought. I think he is right.
Maybe a better term than collaborative leadership would be democratic
leadership.
I am curious is this what you meant by collaborative leadership?
I await your next disagreement.
John Dentico
--"John P. Dentico" <jdentico@adnc.com>
[Host's Note: In association with Amazon.com, this link...
Leading Change : Overcoming the Ideology of Comfort and the Tyranny of Custom (The Jossey-Bass Management Series) by James O'Toole http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1555426085/learningorg
...Rick]
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>