I have become increasingly aware of how many rules have been created in response to actions by the minority that have a major impact on the innocent majority. It is becoming increasingly clear that the majority need to take closer notice of what is going on in order to begin to take action to stop the rot. Instead of penalising the majority we need to get the appropriate authorities to take action against the deviant minority. Instead of passing a law, regulation, rule or new procedure to stop the majority from committing the deviant act the deviants should be confronted in ways that encourage them to stop or be penalised instead of everyone else being subjected to more and more unnecessary controls.

Almost every rule is in response to deviant behaviour

For example are we really aware of how many rules that impact on our freedom have been instituted through the inappropriate action of someone else. If you travel by air the security processes you need to go through tend to create a great deal of tension for passengers even before they fly. The following are just a few examples of the hassle factors common place at airports:

·         Removing liquids of over 100ml

·         Placing liquids and gels in clear plastic bags

·         Removing computers, jackets, belts, shoes before going though the scanner

·         Severe weight restriction on carry-on luggage

·         Long queues at the check in and security due to the additional amount of information that now needs to be compiled before you fly

Although, like most travellers, I want to feel safe and secure in the knowledge that sensible precautions have been taken. However, when I think about the cost of all this additional security created by:

·         the aftermath of 9/11

·         one person had a small ‘bomb’ in his shoes

·         several other individuals were perceived to be about to mix some ‘ordinary liquids whilst on board a flight to make a ‘bomb.

Thinking about the bureaucracy that we encounter every day made me wonder just how many other regulations and rules that we all encounter are stimulated by the actions of a deviant few. The frightening answer is that there are a massive number and they are increasing every day as society and organisations fail to effectively deal with those who deviate as it is easier to impose regulations on everyone else.

Cost of organisational deviance

It is now not surprising to find that the level of complexity in both private and public business has reached a point where most leaders have great difficulty even understanding the impact of the various external and internal rules imposed on their organisation.

Government, of all flavours, have a tendency to legislate at every opportunity to control and achieve conformity in most instances where addressing those who had deviated would remove the need for the laws and regulations. A similar scenario exists within most organisations where internal rules have been imposed to control the actions of just a few that have deviated from the agreed way of doing things. Unfortunately the enabling functions of HR, IT, and finance functions have been placed in the unfortunate position of being made responsible for creating most of the rules and regulations. Although there is a need for some regulation, the current magnitude of rules and procedures that have been introduced to ensure effective control and governance is achieved, is excessive.

Stopping the rot

It saddens me that it often requires the intervention of a consultant to encourage top management to listen to the ideas and opinions of the people who produce the products and serve the customers. You only need to spend a little time with these colleagues to learn of their frustration at the lack of action they experience on the things that they know will improve productivity and service. However, they soon become disillusioned as no one in management appears to want to listen to what they have to say and this results in the opposite of what they want – low productivity and poorer service.

The challenge is for bottom-up leaders to connect with these producing colleagues in authentic ways to encourage them to share their views and to engage them in sorting out the issues that make their work more difficult than it should be. The more the productive colleagues feel respected and their contribution valued the greater the opportunity to address the actions of the deviants. Bottom-up peer pressure can be much more effective than rules imposed by management as we are more likely to enrol an increasing number of people willing to take on the challenge.

Leading the way

The opportunity is for bottom-up leaders to actually provide the kind of leadership that most colleagues fervently wish for, they want a leader who:

• actively engages all colleagues in making things happen to plan
• sorts out the systems, processes, and procedures that create mediocrity
• demonstrates respect and values everyone’s contribution
• provides effective help when colleagues under-perform
• confronts inappropriate behaviour in an enabling way designed to get the perpetrator to improve their behaviour
• encourages everyone to play an active part in achieving the organisations purpose
• recognises, applauds, and rewards truly effective contributions from colleagues
• seeks ways to assist colleagues to maintain and improve their performance capabilities.

The unambiguous aim is to enable all colleagues to feel valued and constructively involved in ways that produces the best desired outcomes. This is certainly one way of getting everyone on the same page and working together in ways that negate any dysfunctional behaviour emerging, simply because all colleagues are committed to achieve for their own and others benefits.

Encouraging the best from everyone

In my next post I will focus on ways to demonstrate value for all colleagues as an effective way of encouraging them to give of their best talent and effort for the good of all.

Tom

Like many observers and commentators I have every confidence that the flexible working regulations that are coming into force in many countries can be of significant benefit to all involved in organisations. Giving team members the opportunity to work from home or agree other different working arrangement such as a four day week can pay real dividends for organisations. However, it requires a mindset shift from the ineffective command/control mode of needing to see that everyone is working to one of trust based on agreeing the outputs required from each arrangement. A second benefit is in gaining the wholehearted commitment of those who gain more flexible arrangement that enable them to be more family oriented as well as achieving a healthier work/life balance. It also creates the opportunity to be closer the these team member when they are together as this opens the door to some real personal learning that benefits both the organisation and team members.

Learning from those who know

The bottom-up leader recognises that the knowledge of what is the most effective way of doing the work usually resides with the people who do the work. This is why they are always willing to be involved with members of their own and other teams as this is their way of learning about how things are done and could be improved. By working with the teams they gain explicit insights into the how things are done as well as seeing how the processes could be improved.

Other benefit of working with teams is in the first-hand feedback on:

• how clearly the goals/targets have been communicated
• how achievable the goals/targets are in relation to the team capability
• does the team have the necessary materials and equipment
• do they obtain regular constructive feedback on performance
• how effective the training and development is for each team member
• the effectiveness of management and supervision
• when work practices should be changed as they are no longer effective

It is interesting to note that the leaders who work closely with their team often do so without broadcasting the successes they achieve as well as the difficulties they overcome. The media tends to be full of comments on how disengaged a significant number of managers and team member are and that this is the main reason for poor productivity. Therefore is was very encouraging to read of some organisations who are implementing some bottom-up leadership practices.

Leading the way

From the early 90’s a number of New Zealand companies have experimented with ways to engage and inspire their employees in ways that encourage them to be committed to providing quality service and products. The following are only a few of the organisations that invested significantly in shaping cultures designed to engage the best of efforts from their leaders and team member:

• Woolworths NZ
• Comworth Systems
• Telecom NZ
• BCL
• Christchurch City Council
• NZI Insurance
• The Warehouse Limited
• Environment Canterbury Regional Council

The results were mixed as the general business environment was still mainly driven by a top-down command/control philosophy. Even allowing for this each of the organisations listed achieve significant and measurable improvements in engagement and productivity.

Current examples

Getting close to those who do the job and know the ins and outs of what is going on has become a new focus for top management as the following two examples from New Zealand illustrate.

The first example comes from a major airline where top management regularly spend time working in different parts of the business. Some very valuable feedback and insights are gleaned when working in customer facing roles alongside the professionals. One valuable insight was the simple recognition that an issues discussed with middle managers appeared to be at odds with the information coming from those actively involved in the situation. This is not really surprising as we all tend develop different perspectives on an issue and the closer you are to it the reality is more first hand rather than second or third hand. Therefore by being closer to the issue and receiving input from others a much better understanding can be gained from which to generate a number of option on how to deal with the issue.

The second example concerns a major Bank where the executive team all regularly work in another area of the Bank for a day. The executive invest their day working with their team members in the branches. The first hand experience in the branches has enabled the executives to implement changes that were suggested by the team with resulting improved performance. It gives the teams in the branches the opportunity to relate to the executives in a non-hieratical way that openly encourage the sharing of views and opinions. The goal is to create a culture of collaboration and sharing.

The UK experience

A series called “back to the floor” programmes were launched in which a number of top executive spend a week on the shop floor in their organisations. In most instances the learning was perceived to be powerful in illustrating just how little the executives really know of what was going on in their organisations. Some faced a degree of hostility about the way a downsizing had been done as well as others being told how inept some other changes had been handled. One of the clear messages communicated to the executives was that they needed to spend more time with their employees in the different parts of the organisation to obtain a real grasp on what is needed to improve morale and performance.

This is only one of what I perceive to be many initiatives that are going on all the time to find a formula that enables executives to be better informed and equipped to provide effective leadership. There are many examples reported of poor decision making based on vested interest that resulted in employee alienation and reduced performance. In such a competitive global environment this approach to leadership is just committing a commercial folly. It is now being generally recognised that no one person has all the answers irrespective if they are at the top or somewhere else in the organisation. The need is to connect with others who have the expertise to add value to the process of accomplishing successful outputs.

Recognising and valuing others

My next post will explore the critical importance of recognising the contribution made by all team members and thus valuing the effort they are making to produce the best outcomes for their organisation.

Tom

Becoming a people focused bottom-up enabling leader can create difficulties in relationships when other leaders are comfortable with the way they operate in their current environment. To illustrate some of the challenges I share the following three examples from my experience without disclosing who the people involved are.

Scenario 1 – picture a manager’s office in which everything has a place and everything is in its allocated place. Her structured and disciplined work practices were applied to all the staff in the department. They also knew that it would be career limiting if any one of them attempted to change any of the process or practices without her explicit agreement. Enter a new office cleaner at the weekend who has been instructed by the contractor to make certain every surface is carefully dusted. He goes about his work diligently and needs to move a lot of files, furniture, and other personal odds and ends in most of the offices including the manager’s office. Monday morning the manager enters her office, freezes, goes red, and rushes out into the department and demands to know who had the temerity to make the changes. Of course no one had the faintest idea and to cut a long story short she was unable to effectively function for nearly a week until she put everything back in its ‘rightful’ place.

Scenario 2 – a well respected operations senior manager is appointed to manage a new division that had been set up to produce a high tech product for a new market. He was in his late 40s, somewhat reserved and formal in his management approach. This was typified by the formality of his dress along with the fact that he preferred to use surnames rather than first names. The majority of the team in the new division were young engineers, marketers, and salespeople who generally interacted with each other in an informal manner. Within six weeks a significant number of the team advised the group CEO that they could not work with the manager. They found him to be formally stiff, uncommunicative, judgmental, and to micro-manager in a way that delayed important decisions. Although the manager was given nearly two months intensive coaching very little behaviour change emerge and the CEO decided to offer the manager early retirement on the basis that he appeared unable to change his lifetime managing behaviour.

Scenario 3 – A new manager was appointed to manage a highly effective team in a customer facing service area that included handling customer complaints and returns. The new manager had recently graduated with an MBA and had worked in retail during her college and varsity vacation periods. The previous manager had introduced a number of very simple to manage systems that had enabled his team to become one of the highest performing in the business. Within the first week the new manager stated that she intended to introduce more rigorous systems to replace ones that she considered lacked a discipline approach. Although her team demonstrated that the existing systems actually worked and was easy to manage she pushed ahead and introduced, what her team called, “academic” systems that were very complex and took much longer to administer. Ten weeks later the manager was confronted by a demotivated team who told her that the new systems had dramatically reduced their performance. They told her that they wanted the old systems reintroduced and if this was not done immediately they all intended to seek opportunities in other departments. The manager refused and within another two weeks all but two of her team had transferred out.

Locked into own paradigm of leadership

In each scenario the leader/manager demonstrated an apparent insensitivity to the needs of their teams. Their behaviour communicated that they were clearly focused on meeting their own needs ahead of also meeting the needs of their teams. The mindset of these leaders/managers demonstrated an apparent reluctance to adapt to the changing circumstances and situations and they are not alone in this regard. In addition to the examples above I could add cases illustrating bullying, greed, vested interest, verbal and psychological abuse, intimidation, etc. Interestingly enough many of these behaviours are found in all types of organisation but are particularly prevalent in those single-mindedly focused on the bottom line.

Challenging the hierarchy

This is why I perceive it will be very difficult to change a traditional hierarchy into a people focused bottom-up leadership organisation. The main restraining force would be due to the high level of vested interest in organisational leadership determined to retain the status quo. Many of the leaders/managers have committed a significant amount of energy and effort to get to the positions they have and are certainly not prepared to accept changes that could be perceived to diminish their status, power, and benefits.

However, there are an increasing number of managers and leaders who know that change is actually inevitable due to the intense global competition and the uncertain global economics. Particularly if they want to remain competitive and retain their most effective people they will have no option other than have leaders able to create an engaging environment. For example the high cost of fuel has made shipping so expensive that a number of American manufacturers are closing their plants in Mexico, India, and China in order to increase manufacturing at home. Just imagine the difficulty they could encounter attempting to recruit genuinely engaged employees who not many years ago were laid off when organisations moved their manufacturing offshore.

Learning to change

As I meet with many different people as I work around the world it amazes me how few have actually thought about the future in terms of what they need to learn to keep up with development. I have encountered very capable people being made redundant or being fired because they had allowed themselves to believe that they were indispensable because of their knowledgeable, skill, sales record, or length of service. The fable of the Boiled Frog often comes to mind as a very useful description of what happens when a person sticks their head in the sand and becomes blinkered to the world changing around them.

Being bottom-up enabling leaders makes the difference as curiosity and adaptability are two of the characteristics that facilitate their ability to change. They are continually scanning both the global and local environments to keep in touch with what is changing and the value it adds or not. Taking risks is an accepted part of succeeding and they recognise that there will also make mistakes, however, the difference being what they learn from each mistake that enables them to avoid making the same mistakes again. This process gives them the confidence and thus a willingness to try new things as a means of adding to their capability skill set and marketability.

Taking action without approval

Part of their risk taking involves taking action to create a working environment based on bottom-up enabling leadership principles and practices without waiting on approval. This is based on their confidence in being able to construct, with their teams, an environment that fully engages everyone in ways that add measurable value to their organisations. They accept that some disapproval may be expressed by the more traditional managers, however, this does not distract them from continuing to actively involve all their colleagues in an enabling process.

Life long learning process

Bottom-up leaders are keenly aware that being effective is about continually developing their skills to enable them to keep adding value irrespective of the barriers that they encounter in organisations. There are a number of barriers and my next post will deal with some of them and suggest ways to negate their power to derail progress.

Tom

There are many answers given to this question simply because there is not a single definition that fits all types of leaders and situations. Many seek a ‘silver bullet’ solution with the belief that there should be a standard model that has a ‘one size fits all’ capability able to meet the needs of every situation. However, leadership ranges from dealing with relatively simple to very complex issues and therefore those charged with leading will need different capability sets.

Bottom-up leadership is about accomplishing results by using processes that enable all the people involved in achieving a goal or outcome to contribute in an effective manner. The leadership provides clarity on where the people currently are, where they desire to be in the future, and what needs to be done to make the journey a reality. This involves creating a vision and enrolling others to work together because they are committed to make it happen. Achieving commitment comes from a combination of people leadership with an appropriate task focus. Providing a frame of reference built on a simple leadership model with the desirable leader capabilities is an important part of laying out the leadership landscape.

Leadership frame of reference

It would appear sensible to have a leadership model to help form a useful frame of reference for those wishing to be bottom-up leaders. One simple model puts forward the notion that positive leadership styles range from Directive to Participative with Expressive and Reflective in-between. This model proposes that leadership needs to be both people and outcome focused. However, the styles selected should be those that best fits with the needs of the team accountable for achieving a desired outcome.

It is interesting to note that authors of current published articles on leadership contend that the main focus must be on people if the key performers are to be retained in organisations to ensure that the desired outputs are effectively achieved. The goal of the people centred bottom-up leader is to achieve results WITH people in a collaborative environment. Therefore, the message being sent to organisations is for them to look very carefully at the leadership styles being demonstrated by their current leadership cadre. The message should be unmistakable in terms of actively encouraging all leaders to develop and apply a people oriented leadership approach. Bottom-up leaders have this specific people focus and the way they apply their leadership style is described as follows.

Bottom-up leader’s skill set

The following are a number of key capabilities associated with being a bottom-up enabling leader:

1.      Interacts with all in a genuinely authentic manner.

2.      Treats all people with respect based on the principle of demonstrating unconditional positive regard.

3.      Actively encourages developing the capability of all team members in ways that enables them to achieve the best possible results.

4.      Demonstrates a passion for collaborative working in order to harness the collective knowledge and wisdom of the team.

5.      Have a clear focus on what needs to be achieved and the processes needed to inspire the team to achieve the outcome.

6.      Prepared to change direction when the evidence shows that the current strategy is not working as planned.

7.      Generates at least three options on how to solve an issue that confronts the team and selects the best one to implement.

8.      Uses every opportunity to improve personal performance through active learning and discovery.

9.      Continues to develop self-awareness as a means of improving ability to interact in ways that produce consistent positive outcomes.

10. Demonstrates willingness to take the tough decisions when needed

11. Confronts underperformance when it happens with the aim of assisting the person to improve

12. Demonstrates an active interest in getting to know each team member in ways that build constructive relationships

Being a people focused leader could require a significant shift in values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour from the traditional bottom line task focused leader. The evidence presented in leadership articles suggests that as most organisations are hieratical their leadership is based on ‘command/control’ around task achievement. This presents a major challenge to any leaders thinking of becoming more people centric in their approach to achieving truly effective outcomes that benefit all their stakeholders.

Facing the challenges

Bottom-up leaders are keenly aware that being effective is about continually developing their skills to enable them to keep adding value irrespective of the challenges that they encounter. I will explore some of the challenges and how to deal with them in my next post.

Tom

The bottom-up leader knows that working with colleagues in constructive ways will produce truly effective results. This is because their environment is designed to encourage an exceptional level of engagement from everyone. This can be achieved even allowing for the fact that many people in organisations, based on their experience, would consider the notion of achieving 100% effective engagement unrealistic and unachievable. They know that people are motivated differently and consider that this makes it almost impossible to really get them to make a 50% contribution on average. Of course this would be a fairly objective reality from their perspective due mainly to the overall ineffectiveness of organisations they have work with to treat their people in an appropriate manner.

People want to do a great job

There are very few people who start each morning with the goal of screwing up in ways that create havoc for their colleagues and the organisation. In fact 95%+ of people employed in organisations truly want to do a good job and to be recognised and rewarded in an appropriate manner. The smart organisations aim to achieve this by making certain that the following is in place for each team leader/member:

·        Team leaders always make themselves available to meet, greet, and help new team members ease themselves into the organisation.

·        Provided with a workplace or location where they can safely leave personal belongings.

·        Introduced to the team members they will be working with.

·        Shown how the mission/purpose of the organisation links to the contribution they are going to make.

·        Time is made to clearly explain what they are expected to achieve

·        Supplied with the materials and equipment they need to their work well

·        Given the opportunity to do their best work every day

·        Receive regular feedback on performance including recognition/praise for work well done

·        Shown that their views and opinions will be heard and valued.

·        Given the opportunity each month to talk with their team leader about their performance/progress.

·        Provided with opportunities to learn and grow at work by team leaders who encourage their development.

It would be pretty obvious to anyone in a leadership position that to have the above in place should enable everyone to achieve high performance. However, it no longer surprises me when I learn of new employees arriving and nothing has been done, simply because of a breakdown in internal communications. In fact many managers expect most of the above to be attended to by HR and this is the greatest mistake they can make as they are fully accountable to make certain that each new team leader/member is quickly integrated into the team by them.

The ingredient that is essential is the active involvement of team leaders/members who are committed to assist each new team member succeed. To make this a reality all leaders need to recognise that this is their accountability and that they need to be intimate aware of what is going on in their areas of accountability.

Knowing what is going on

Most sensible leaders know that they just don’t have all the information they need to be truly effective in their role. Here we have the compelling reason to actively involve others in the information sharing process as a means of being informed about the key issues. This is more easily achieved when the culture is free of blame/finger pointing and encourages open and honest sharing of views and opinions. However, when people feel that they are not valued or trusted they will naturally be unwilling to share their perspectives on the issues being confronted by leaders.

The bottom-up leader instinctively knows that the answer to most issues can be found by dialoguing with the team members who are actively involved in dealing with it. They just don’t stop there as they also know that other colleagues could have a perspective that would add more shape to finding a workable solution. By building a picture based on the inputs from a range of people the team leader is usually in a position to identify three potentially workable options. By dialoguing the options with other team leaders the most likely solution would be apparent and this would be tested with the team members before implementing. The effectiveness of dialoguing is unlikely to be truly effective in a hierarchical organisation due to the checks and balances put in place by formality and status levels.

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 subordinates. One of the myths that still permeate organisations today that continually reinforce the need for an emotional distance between managers and staff is familiarity. The fear that many managers have is about how to discipline people if you have a friendly relationship with them. The answer frequently given is – “with great difficulty”. However, there is another side to the coin that when a constructive relationship exists, a manager would be able to confront a team member in a manner that produces a positive outcome. This is simply due to the relationship being robust enough to enable both parties to handle issues that are affecting performance or the relationship.

The new reality for today’s business is one of creating a working environment in which everyone involved is encouraged to work together in a supportive and constructive manner. As competition gets fiercer for business and good people it makes good sense to find ways that enable everyone to do their best work. This is achieved when the person knows clearly what they are expected to achieve, are capable of doing the work, have all the resources needed to achieve the agreed outputs, and receive regular constructive performance feedback. When this is done in an enabling way by demonstrating belief that the person can achieve and provide all the assistance necessary an increasing number of the team will reciprocate.

Eliminating underperformance

Another real benefit of a bottom-up led organisation would be is ability to constructively dealing with under-performance by a colleague. Right from the time people start with the organisation the aim is to make it abundantly clear to them what they are there to accomplish. The list of factors above is used as a checklist to ensure that all team leaders and members are equipped to contribute their best effort. When someone appears to be underperforming or their behaviour is dysfunctional their team leader would confront the situation as soon as it was apparent.

The process would involve dialoguing with the person firstly to identify if they are aware of the issue and secondly if they perceived it to be unacceptable. This is a critical part of the confronting as it avoids the team leader making judgments on performance that may not be accurate and could lead to conflict. Obtaining the perspective from the person enables the team leader to determine the most effective way of dealing with the issue with the aim of assisting the person to return to the required standard in an agreed timeframe. If this does not happen then the disciplinary process would be initiated as the bottom-up leader does not accept mediocrity on the team.

Getting the right people in the right seats on the bus

Jim Collins the author of ‘From Good to Great’ presents compelling stories based on five years research of effective organisations. One of the clear messages from the great companies was about making certain that you have the right people in the business and he used the above metaphor to describe this. The message is very strong in that having one wrong person on the bus or in the wrong seat will quickly or eventually lead to performance mediocrity. Therefore the bottom-up leader works hard to build the capability of all the team by making certain that they are fully informed about their own performance and how this relates to the organisations performance. Engaged team members are those that are informed, feel in control of their contribution, sees how it adds value to the desired outputs, and is recognised and appropriately rewarded.

The challenge of being a different leader

If you are an enabling leader you are also likely to be embracing many of the practices of a bottom-up leader. I will focus on how to develop the capabilities to be a bottom-up leader in the next post.

Tom

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

The Traditional Mindset

The goal of being a bottomup leader is to learn self-leadership and thus take control of your life in ways that meet your expectations and provide the life you want for yourself and those you care for. Raising your awareness of what and who could interfere with your journey to self-leadership is a critical part of the learning process. Developing a bottomup leaders mindset will help you to make a real and constructive difference to those you interact with. This blog gives a brief description of the traditional mindset about the concept of “boss” and how thinking this way can potentially reduce your confidence and personal power.

I therefore want to explore in this blog the less positive consequences of the ‘Top Down’ type of organisation before turning to focus on the benefits of ‘Bottom up’ leadership. Although there are truly good and effective things happening in hierarchical organisations this is countered by the many less effective consequences of hierarchical leadership.

How often have you heard the following comments?

v “I will need to take it to a higher level”

v “I’ll go down to the shop floor to tell the troops…”

v “THEY just don’t care about us”

v “Keep that to yourself, don’t let the boss know”

v “Don’t let the ‘troops’ know about that issue”

v “THEY don’t like to hear any critical feedback however accurate it may be”

v “The boss just won’t agree with that!!!”

v “We never get real information on what is going on until after the event, for example we don’t know the organisation is in trouble until redundancies are announced thus failing to give us the opportunity to do something constructive to avoid the outcome””

People who are in a variety of relationships in organisations of all types are lulled into a Superior/Inferior mindset by the language used to describe their relationships. The term ‘boss’ is generally employed to describe the role of the person who is in ‘charge’ of one or more ‘subordinates’. This language is intended to communicate superiority and power due to the perceived ‘control’ that ‘managers’ can exercise over others. In most organisational cases the ‘boss’ has in fact to report to another person who is his/her ‘boss’ who is perceived to have more power than they have. Therefore as you move up or down the hierarchy the power invested in each position is perceived to be greater or less than the person above or below them.

The Hierarchy – learned power position

This power structure is an interesting notion perpetuated by organisations as an effective way to control the actions and behaviour of most people in the organisation. However, the cost of this perceived level of control is the diminishing of the capability of many of the people involved to be truly effective. It also sets up unrealistic expectations of those appointed as leaders or managers in that they are somehow expected to be exceptional performers in their new roles without or with minimal real and effective training. This tends to push them in applying the skills and approaches they learned from their ‘bosses’ with often disastrous results. This can be evidenced by the number of articles and books written about office abuse including, bullying, harassment, intimidation, excessive workload, inappropriate work assignments, long hours, all leading to increasing negative stress levels..

The Struggle for Power

Most leaders are aware of the less effective outcomes from a ‘command – control’ type of organisation yet continue to subscribe to it in the way they behave. This may be due to the ‘master/servant’ relationship being ingrained in our DNA. Therefore, we ‘naturally’ fall into one or other of the roles depending on where we are in the organisations ‘pecking order’ or those we relate to who are perceived to have less or more power than we have.

From early life right through our schooling to the time we get involved in paid employment we have encountered the influence of the ‘parent/child’ relationship. We always appear to be in a situation in which we are seeking to be more empowered than others, or they are attempting to be more empowered than we are. Thus the struggle for power tends to often be centre stage in either an overt or covert manner.

The ‘defence cycle’ in operation

Irrespective of whether the power struggle is in the open or hidden it takes place all the time and the less secure you are the greater the potential impact can be. Being uncertain and feeling insecure is often a signal that we send to others that gives them perceived ‘permission’ to act more powerfully and in ways that diminish our power. This is often called the Defence Cycle in that we go round and round attempting to deal with the inappropriate behaviour from others whilst feeling increasingly inadequate and powerless. We become pessimistic in ways that influence out mind to see only the negative in situations that may in fact be less so. However, we have trained ourselves to only see/hear the negative and thus to interpret all interactions as threats and in turn we respond in a defensive manner with fight or flight behaviour. This is why many people in organisations are less productive than they could be as there is limited motivation to seek ways to improve.

I will describe in future blogs how bottomupleadership offers a constructive process that can enrol people in an effective manner to make the changes that have the potential to help the organisation more easily achieve its goals with significantly fewer people being stressed and demotivated. I will start describing how this can be achieved in my next post.

Tom Jaap