Bottom Up Leadership

Role of Enabling Leadership Language

June 17, 2008 – 4:00 pm

Bottom-up Leadership Language

In today’s exciting world of equality and diversity, the quicker we learn to describe our organisations and our role in ways that truly show the value of your and others contributions.

The Organisation

Your organisation is likely to have a vision and mission to describe what it is about and how its people are its most important asset. To make this a reality we need to accept that hierarchies will exist for some time in the future as there are very few truly ‘flat’ organisations around. However, we can stop talking about levels to describe the different job accountabilities. The notion of going UP to the boss or DOWN to the shop floor may be physically correct, however, it contains the in-built message of superiority/inferiority to many. Instead we can describe going to see/meet with named person or if not known the persons position title. Likewise when people talk about going down several levels they could talk about going out to or along to meet the person this being a more descriptive message.

Using descriptive language

In fact the more descriptive we become in our use of language the better able we will become in dismantling the disempowering language of traditional organisations. The more we learn to be descriptive, the greater the possibility that it will make a positive difference in the organisation, without having to fight the traditionalists. Like minded people will naturally see the benefits of being clear of what they contribute and that everyone in the organisation is in fact also a contributor. Therefore, everyone has a part to play in its success and the clearer we are in knowing how our part adds to this success the better able we will be to make an effective contribution. Our confidence will grow and we will be able to interact with all colleagues in a manner that demonstrates our ability to be part of the success along with everyone else.

Eliminating underperformance

Another real benefit of this descriptive organisation would be constructively dealing with under-performance by a colleague. Being clear about what we need to do to add value to the colleagues we serve and having agreed what we expect from colleagues who serve us any weaknesses in the system should be readily identified. If the issue is a question of capability, lack of knowledge, motivation, or attitude the cause or causes can be pinpointed and the appropriate action taken to assist the person to improve their performance. If the expected improvements are not forthcoming the person could be moved to a position more in line with their capability or alternatively removed from the organisation. If the later case was the outcome it would have been achieved using a process that gave the person every opportunity to meet the job outputs expectations through training and the support necessary to succeed.

Termination would be a last resort as the organisation would have taken care in selection for the position that the person had the necessary capability as well as motivation to succeed in the position

Colleagues and familiarity

The description of colleagues as STAFF is a throwback to olden days with its military connotation of Officers and Other Ranks out of which grew the terms Managers and Staff to suggest a similar relationship. In fact a gap between a manager and staff is actively encouraged by organisations and many training programmes in the belief that a manager can’t become too close to her/his staff. The perceived concern is in familiarisation creeping into the relationship thus making control and discipline of ‘staff’ unworkable.

However, this notion needs to be critically challenged as evidence from successful organisations shows that building constructive relationships throughout the organisation enables capability to grow for the benefit of all. Constructive relationships encourage confidence to grow as the knowledge that all colleagues are willing to help in whatever ways that are needed. Respect for each individual is at the core of these relationships as everyone demonstrates that they value the contribution being made. Should the contribution not be as expected or to standard the person would be constructively confronted with the evidence and asked questions to clarify that they actually knew what was expected of them. This process avoids making judgments until satisfied that the person has the knowledge and capability to perform to the agreed standard and has not achieved what is required. In this case the focus would be on helping the person to achieve the agreed standard as quickly as possible or to reassign them to work more in line with capability.

Master or Servant

In my view there is an urgent need to change the ‘master/servant’ relationship that is sustained by the ‘boss/staff’ terminology. In today’s world every organisation needs the contribution of all to achieve their goals particularly as there are very few ‘super persons’ who have all the answers. It is becoming a fact that almost everyone is dependent on the work of other people to actually accomplish goals. Therefore, when a potentially unnecessary senior/junior relationship is created the tendency is for the ‘senior’ to place less value on the opinion or views of the ‘junior’. This could be a mistake as many have discovered as the ‘junior’ often has a very clear perspective on the issue with potential solutions that could make the difference. Viewing others as colleagues irrespective of their position in the hierarchy can be a powerful way to release the talent and creativity that everyone has latent within them.

The BUL language

Here are some suggestions for changing the status of relationships in hierarchical organisations:

Traditional Language BUL Language

• Executive/boss/manager team leader
• Staff colleagues
• Going up/down levels going to….
• Going down to the shop floor going to the shop floor
• Taking leave going on holiday
• Talking to the ‘troops’ colleagues/team members
• Take it up to top management take it to …….
• “They” will not agree with… I will check to see if (name) agrees
• “People under me” my colleagues/team members
• Work for work with

Traditional language is endemic in many hierarchies where there are still some managers discourage colleagues using their first name and want to be referred to as Mr/Ms/Mrs to differentiate them from their other colleagues. The effect of traditional language on most of the team is to reinforce that they are inferior to those who consider themselves to be superior. This will eventually create a compliant culture where trust, openness, creativity, will be in short supply much to the disadvantage of the organisation. The eventual outcome in terms of productivity is an increasing level of mediocrity.

BUL language will help to create a culture in which everyone wants to be a part of the organisation and to make a contribution based on their talent. The language is designed to communicate respect of each person and that they are valued. Enabling leaders actively encourage everyone to work in ways that demonstrates respect for each other. This practice is based on the concept of Carl Roger’s unconditional positive regard (upr) when you demonstrate respect for everyone irrespective of their status. The aim is to stop being judgemental about people as in many instances you let your ego contaminate the perspective of the person. The good news is that you can learn to relate to others in an upr manner with the aim of gaining insights about the person you are interacting with. The goal is to actively listen to understand what the person is saying (and not saying) as a way of developing a constructive relationship.

Engaging everyone

The mission of enabling leaders is to create the environment in which everyone involved actively wants to play their part as self-motivated contributors. I will explore more of this mission in the next blog.

Tom