orglearn.org

Sometime back a friend asked me if I could come up with a leadership anagram. Bearing in mind that in reality our leadership or management style is probably somewhere along a continuum between despotic through democratic to laissez-faire perhaps the following anagram extremes can at least serve as reminders of the best and worst of us.

SO WHICH ONE IS MORE LIKE YOU? – (ACCORDING TO THE STAFF?)

Leadership Anagram (new thinking)

L ove of followers is demonstrated
E mpathetic with individuals at all levels
A ble to create vision & achieve the mission
D emocratic decisions & communicates
E mpowers & encourages others
R esilient, overcomes setbacks
S haring, provides for followers needs
H opeful, positive & future driven
I ntelligent, uses the head and heart
P ersistent, sticks to the task, never gives up

Despotic Anagram (old thinking)

D ictatorial & commanding
E valuates rather than values
S uspicious and cynical
P ower seeking & taking
O ppresses differences
T otal control seeker
I ntrustive & instructive
C old and calculating

“THE WORLD THAT WE HAVE MADE AS A RESULT OF THE LEVEL OF THINKING WE HAVE DONE THUS FAR CREATES PROBLEMS THAT WE CANNOT SOLVE AT THE SAME LEVEL AT WHICH WE CREATED THEM” – Albert Einstein

I assume we are all a bit of a mixture of both leadership styles at different times however it would be interesting perhaps to do a 360 degree analysis on our management approach to see how we are viewed by others we deal with… or would that be a bit too stressful?

Hofstede’s findings in full can be found on the web and I recommend them as a great way to start thinking about the differences you may encounter in a multicultural or international workplace.

In a particular it can explain why many around us (that come from high uncertainty avoidance societies) show anxiety about an uncertain future particularly in times of change and how change induces stress (and often aggressiveness) and why for some formal rules and structures are protected to reduce risk. New ideas on ways of doing things for some can be seen as little more than, not to be tolerated ‘deviant’ behavior. Uncertainty avoidance individuals who feel relatively threatened will strive to believe in a common set of absolute truths (“the way we did it in the past”), with time focus being the now and the past and the traditional hierarchy seen as determining their wellbeing. These individuals will constantly seek direction from a trusted leader in the hierarchy and avoid personal responsibility because mistakes are seen as ‘sins’ that will exact punishment.

Although here again I have been discussing societies in general some families I believe produce these types of individuals in all societies so when looking to influence others around us we must be conscious of these traits. Again it is best to ask (tactfully) to understand another’s motivation rather than assuming.

If we add to a work situation a “masculine society”, assertive, materialistic, quantity of life individual who is trying to lead/manage and associate with a; sensitive, relationship oriented, group-welfare valuing, ‘quality of life’ driven flock of people, you can see why difficulties occur. A great example; many hotel GM’s are Austrian, who rank as no 2 in the world in masculine orientation. Imagine an Austrian GM trying to deal with a Thai workforce that rank at no 44, i.e. have a more “feminine” or relationship approach to life.

Part 6 final and back to main orglearn blog

At work there are many different situations where you need to influence others particularly as a manager or leader. So which influence strategy is most appropriate in each situation. Here is a quick basic checklist.

Situation

• There are conflicting views or needs between you and others

• There is a genuine opportunity for give and take for mutual benefit

• Is this likely to be a relatively non-emotional situation

• You have the power to offer rewards and punishments

Strategy: Negotiate win-win outcomes

Situation

• Common purpose cannot be seen or is missing in this situation

• Others lack enthusiasm or understanding of what you need to be done

• Commitment is critical to the success of your influence objective

• Your influence objective has the capacity see see a better future

Strategy: Paint a verbal picture (see earlier post!)

Situation

• You have an undeniable and valid need in this situation

• Is it reasonable that the other person could meet this need

• Compliance more important than commitment in this situation

• You have legitimate authority to act

Strategy: State expectations

Before I go on…

Direct page viewers can go to main blog to check out other posts by clicking on the white “orglearn.org” in the header panel above!

If you think you don’t have enough influence at work and need to seek a place of greater scope take a look at the free resume form!

To continue…

Situation

• Others involved are other rational about this situation

• You are non-emotional and businesslike about this situation

• You hold valid facts and/or data to support your position

• Those who you wish to influence understand work ramifications

Strategy: Convince with logic

Sure situations are never purely one or the other however if you think about your situation and the other players, a correct mix of influencing strategies should improve your chances of obtaining successful outcomes.

Group (G-) versus Team (T-) Characteristics

G- Usually managed by an all-powerful unquestioned strong willed formal leader
T- Leadership is shared and rotated in accordance with expertise and required outcomes

G- Individual accountability for results (particularly mistakes), responsible for self-alone
T- Members are accountable to each other and responsible for all individuals

G- Individual’s primary motivation is to please those in power (usually by sucking up)
T- Team vision drives a desire to satisfy the recipient of team’s output, the customer

G- Individual work projects are encouraged and the basis for reward
T- Collective work projects to cope with modern complexities and maximise potential

G- Efficiency takes priority over effectiveness, ‘what a good little employee, working late’
T- Effectiveness priority, collective work, on budget, on time and the best customer solution

G- Effectiveness is judged purely by output of the individual’s limited area of responsibility
T- Effectiveness is judged by the team members ability to contribute to team synergy (1+1>2)

G- Work tasks tend to be delegated (or abdicated) to individuals that are ‘controlled’
T- Participative meetings and shared work and adult cooperation are the norm

G- A group really only crystallizes at critical moments for particular selfish endeavours
T- A team will be working to a plan and continually function until the mission is completed

G- Focus is on maintaining relationships and only doing enough tasks to remain accepted
T- Focus is on a shared vision driving tasks and where relationships are ‘properly’ managed

SO WHY DO PEOPLE JOIN (AND ENCOURAGE) GROUPS? REASONS LESSER PEOPLE FORM GROUPS (G-) AND AVOID TEAMS (T-)

G- Being part of a group can mistakenly lead us to the belief that membership will provide ‘defensive security’ and help us through the feeling that we are not alone (“misery enjoys company”)
T- Security is correctly based on expertise and proving our worth through competence, commitment and contribution

G- Opportunity for status and becoming ‘important’ through recognition based on association with those perceived as powerful or ‘in’
T- Status is based on respect and recognition of the individual’s perspective, competence and contributions to the wellbeing of all

G- Increased self-esteem and confirmation of self worth through association with the powerful, self worth only through others verification
T- Self-esteem and satisfaction through positive achievements brought about through continuous effort and belief in oneself

G- Affiliation is a basic need, even the most inept individuals crave some social acceptance, regardless of the personal cost
T- Inclusion only occurs if we are able and needed to improve the team’s outcomes and each member’s individual results

G- Our need for power/strength (found in numbers) or at least NOT wanting to feel or be powerless
T- Need to accept being empowered to accept responsibility based on expertise and the resultant earned trust

G- Help with personal goals through a pool of individuals often at the cost of our integrity
T- Personal goals only achieved through alignment with team goals and freedom built on mutual respect

SOME NASTY GROUP BEHAVIOURS THAT LIMIT SUCCESS

• Conformity is the basis for membership (demanded) to ensure acceptance, particularly by the powerful, which also destroys creativity, diversity and progress
• Status based on inequitable favouritism which breeds discontent with those on the ‘outer’ and leads to overly compliant behaviour
• Unimportant or peripheral behaviours become norms, ‘that’s the way we do things here’
• Personal credit is highly prized (and sometimes stolen), which often hides the real talent and diminishes any chance of building on shared ideas
• Role-playing in line with a set of expected behaviour patterns, which means plenty of form with minimal/no substance
• Social loafing where members don’t work as hard in the group as when alone, e.g. useless meetings (talk fests)
• The ‘mushroom principal’ flourishes, where members only pass on good news or what the powerful want to hear
• ‘Sucker effect’, hard workers feel as if they are suckers and the rest are having a relatively free ride
• Free-riding by capitalizing on the group’s willingness to suffer shortcomings because of loyalty
• Mooching off of group where the weak are able to suck from the strong in return for adoration
• Little or no effort to achieve a result, just do the minimum to stay out of trouble and in favour
• Importance of identifiably with the group subjugates competence as a success factor
• Groupthink means undesirable emotion based decisions rather than those based on intellect

KILL THE GROUP AND FORM SOME TEAMS

No teamwork at your place perhaps it time to move on… take a look at the free blank resume form!

MORE NASTY GROUP BEHAVIOURS THAT LIMIT A COMPANY’S SUCCESS

I guess the biggest problem with groups is that they inevitably succumb to the evils of ‘groupthink’. Groupthink leads to an illusion of invulnerability, rationalization of all opposing points of view (and unproductive behaviour), a belief in the group’s inherent morality, a stereotyped view of ‘the enemy’, direct pressure to conform, self-censorship (don’t speak the truth), the illusion of unanimity and the emergence of self-appointed ‘mind guards’.

The overwhelming need for agreement with the group position can be so strong that it outweighs a rational look at all of the evidence needed to allow ‘fair-mindedness’ i.e. rational behaviour versus a primarily emotional approach. Loyalty or desire to lead or to follow is paramount, non-disclosure, the tendency to ‘play your cards’ close to your chest destroys the requirement to be truly open and initiative and high energy towards leading (even enjoying) today’s rapid change is stifled by a desire or belief in not needing change in order to make good decisions.

Finally groups can quickly become gangs and indulge in gang behaviour and the associated bullying. According to the experts, gangs, diffuse role definition, have limited cohesion, foster impermanence, have minimal real consensus of norms, have shifting membership, often suffer from disturbed leadership and provide a limited definition of membership expectations.

NO WAY TO RUN A BUSINESS YOU SAY… IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!

Refs:

http://users.ipfw.edu/bordens/social/group.htm

http://www.the-idler.com/IDLER-01/12-20.html

refs:http://rock.uwc.edu/psych/psy330/outlines/groups.htm

Ric (orglearn) **Link for direct page viewers return to main career success blog to check out other posts!

Have a quick think about your organization, do your project ‘teams’ or departments really operate as teams or are they merely less than effective, riddled with politics ineffective groups?!