This week we continue our series on participatory, or collaborative, leadership structures by describing a scenario that really happened. Here goes…
“With rank comes privilege” was the statement made in an executive staff meeting of an organization after a discussion as to how subordinates were to proceed with a directive which clearly had one set of rules for the lower rung of the leadership ladder and another for the upper. The department heads, who reported to the executive staff, were to follow policies for the good of the organization from which their supervisors were exempt. After a question regarding the fairness of such a directive, the above statement was made. Then, four of five executive staff members agreed, and the meeting proceeded by ordering lunch. This is only one example of how this organization, although filled with a common sense of mission and a celebrated and lengthy track record of content staff and constituents, displayed the traits of a bureaucratic or pyramidal management style which had been long used by the top executive, resulting in a growing, underlying frustration and an inability for all to function in a psychologically safe environment. Because of this, there was a lack of intellectual, emotional, and creative freedom. According to Argyris (1962),
bureaucratic or pyramidal values lead to poor, shallow, and mistrustful relationships. Since these relationships do not permit the natural and free expression of feelings, they are phony or non-authentic and result in decreased interpersonal competence. ‘Without interpersonal competence or a psychologically safe environment, the organization is a breeding ground for mistrust, inter-group conflict, rigidity, and so on, which in turn lead to a decrease in organizational success in problem solving.’
In the example, too much emphasis had been placed on rank and the top-down distribution of influence in the organization, which is typical in an organization with a pyramidal leadership structure. As Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson (2008) state, “Basic to these concepts is the notion that power and authority should rest in the hands of a few at the top of the organization, and thus, those at the lower end of the chain of command are strictly controlled by management or the system itself.” Field observation showed that there had been a prevailing tendency for the top executive to disregard input if it comes from those in a lower position and inflate the value of input if its source is someone in a higher position. This approach became a breeding ground for self-importance and a blinding to reality in many circumstances, thus harming the leader’s judgment. I. D. Couper (2007) furthers this point when he states,
When I believe that everything depends on me, or that I am the only person who can do the job, or that I am the best at doing something, I become impotent in my leadership and in my practice. If I feel very important, I become less critical of myself and less able to evaluate myself. I no longer face and learn from my mistakes. The chances are that my mistakes will thus be repeated. An inflated opinion of ourselves makes it difficult for us to view ourselves honestly: the mirror becomes the instrument of deceit, as in the old fairy tale, always proclaiming us the fairest of them all. If I feel very important, I am not open to learning from others. I take on knowledge, perhaps, but the most profound learning comes through the questioning that follows the identification of our own needs. It is difficult to be aware of needs if we are enamored with our own importance. Others do not feel able to reflect the truth back to us because we will not hear or we react defensively. If we are blind to our areas of weakness, we cannot prepare ourselves for the problems that they will cause. Thus, I believe we become impotent in our leadership if we are too filled with our own sense of importance.
With all this in mind, the lesson we should take from this example is that there is no room for inflated self-importance within a collaborative leadership team, and although there is, in reality, rank and rank-appropriate privileges, each person on a team should still possess the same level of respect from each other, and be provided a voice in each discussion and in the decision-making process. Gone should be the days of a single autocratic leader making all the decisions in a self-imposed vacuum, for, as the old adage states, “two are better than one” and “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”
Next week, we’ll begin to explore some of the principles a leader can implement to capitalize on the value of a collaborative approach to leadership.
Lead well.