Hierarchical leadership
If you consider that our world view evolves, leadership too must evolve. The kind of leadership that was appropriate in Saxon times, ‘warrior chief’, is very different from the kind of leadership that was appropriate in Victorian Britain, ‘patrician and controlling’.
The kind of leadership that was appropriate in the freebooting 1980’s and 1990’s, ‘creative and individualistic’ is very different from the kind of leadership that is appropriate to lead with the multi-layered commercial, social, spiritual and environmental challenges we face today.
What kind of leadership is appropriate today as we shift from post modern to whatever is next, from industrial to knowledge based business, from control to empowered?
What kind of leader is going to inspire today’s more self- actualised and caring staff for whom ethics and meaning are as important as the size of their pay packet?
Our traditional view of leadership is that leaders are appointed to a hierarchical position at the top of a pyramid, which is generally part of a series of interlocking pyramids that ascend to a rather blurry space at the top called “shareholders” or the “electorate”.
We seem to be addicted to the concept of hierarchy even in families, very often. In our society there appears to be an almost universal acceptance that hierarchy is the only valid social structure. ?However hierarchy creates some fundamental challenges, in that while it works well in very focussed circumstances, crisis and disaster for example, it works less well in many other situations.?There are three fundamental challenges with hierarchy:
1: Leadership - inevitably where a fixed hierarchy is adhered to (e.g in a business, a country or a family) you do not get the most appropriate leader most of the time. We all have strengths and weaknesses and a single person cannot possibly be the best leader in every situation.
2: Workload - As we take responsibility for more people’s lives, either as employees or an electorate, we increase our workload. Pretty quickly the workload becomes so intense that we spend all of our time dealing with minutiae and have no time, energy or brain space for creativity, strategy or work/life balance.
3: Follower-ship - where people abdicate their own responsibility to another on a permanent or semi permanent basis. Follower-ship inevitably diminishes the identity of the individual by allowing them to limit their responsibility. We all blame politicians for failing to deal with the issue of the day (climate change, crime, terrorism, education, health and so on) rather than realising our responsibility and doing something about it.
Challenges can also be caused by appointment of leaders which although not endemic to hierarchies seems to afflict many of them. They tend to fall into three categories:
1: ‘Yes’ men - in the military leadership classic “On the psychology of military incompetence” Norman Dixon clearly articulates the problem. Leaders who are not fully secure in themselves tend to promote people who are supporters rather than leaders. In other words there is a tendency to promote people who are good at doing what they are told rather than leading. These “supporters” lack initiative or leadership skills and end up both channeling responsibility to their leader and failing to support their charges.
2: Skill based promotion - because we are so devoted to hierarchy in many organisations the only kind of promotion that exists is to become a ‘manager’. Thus the best designers, or engineers or accountants often get promoted to management positions not for their management skills, but for their craft skills. The consequences are that their craft skills are lost to the business, both they and their staff are unhappy with the situation and the organisation suffers.
3: Political - hierarchical organisations often suffer from highly political cultures where the ambitious often win over the truly effective. Political operators make sure that those who influence their career progression get to hear about them and their results and they get promoted. The consequences are that those with a talent for their jobs rather than politics fail to progress and those who do get promoted care about themselves and are focussed on pleasing their boss, with this focus they are unlikely to be the best managers of people.
Young and dynamic organisations will often promote the most entrepreneurial, creative, self motivated and caring people to leadership positions. As these organisation mature they often find it difficult to maintain the stimulating and trusting kind of culture in which these individuals perform best and they either leave or switch off.
Authentic leadership
If we are to have fully functional, optimised communities, in business, government or any other organisation the culture, structure and leadership must be designed to enable every member to contribute to the maximum.
The most inspiring and influential leaders are rarely appointed or elected, they emerge when their passion and their abilities coincide with an issue that creates enough energy (usually in the form of anger) to step up and make a difference. Mohandas Gandhi, Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela (only later elected), Martin Luther King Jr., Bob Geldof, Jamie Oliver for example.
There is a sweet spot where our passions and abilities coincide with an energising issue, if we can pursue this purpose and dedicate our lives to it we can achieve the most amazing things.
This is authentic leadership and is totally different from the hierarchical leadership that we are most familiar with. Authentic leaders emerge when their passion and abilities coincide with an anger that is shared by a group. Authentic leaders are focussed on their purpose rather than their ego.
Gandhi for example started out as a strong supporter of empire and studied for his law exams in London. He had a passion for the truth and fairness, he was quick witted, wise and persuasive. It was his experience of the inequities of empire in South Africa that developed his anger for British rule. When he returned to India he found his own anger was shared by many and was continually fanned by imperial behaviour. Gandhi brought his ability, his passion and his anger together around the purpose of self rule for India. Following the achievement of independence Gandhi was somewhat disillusioned that popularity for his principles of non violence and fairness did not persist more under self government.
A non hierarchical community is not without leaders, it is full of leaders. Leadership flows dynamically around the community in the way that it flows around the football pitch during a match. Leadership vests transiently with an individual because of location, ability, knowledge and so on. When a significant issue faces a community the opportunity always exists for a leader supported by the community, as opposed to one supported by their boss, to emerge.
Authentic leaders are responsible to their community not to their boss. Authentic leaders guide their community without seeking to control it. For authentic leaders success lies in the empowerment of their community and of individuals within it, not in self aggrandisement. ?It is a popular myth that politicians and business people are leaders. Generally speaking they are not, they are followers. Show a politician a bandwagon and they will jump on it, show a business person a market and they will follow it. Our opportunity is to explore our leadership potential bringing together our passions, abilities and anger to create and support markets and bandwagons which inspire change and energise communities within and outside our organisations.
How might Authentic Leadership benefit your organisation or team. Authentic Transformation can offer the facilitation and mentoring to help you become an authentic leader or create an authentic leadership team. contact neil@authentictransformation.co.uk for a chat or a coffee.