How To: Renew Leadership Systems
Up until this point, I have been writing about the first of the five parts of making leadership more inclusive. Deconstructing leadership "prerequisites" and examining what leadership skills, traits, and abilities are necessary to the development and implementation of leadership is an important first step. If we are unable to recognize leadership around us, we run the risk of devaluing the contributions of others who may not fit a widely adopted and perhaps narrow view of leadership. Now that we have that out of the way, let's move on...
In order to make leadership more inclusive and accessible to all, I believe we must examine our leadership systems. What are some examples of leadership systems? Someone, at some point, developed a system we help to perpetuate each and every day. Whether we work in higher education, business, non-profit, medicine, etc. we all fit into a structure that has been created in order to complete our expressed mission and purpose. We all have a boss. Some of us may even be the boss to other people. Each sector of the system has certain parts that have expectations attached to it. Theoretically, individuals "at the top" of a hierarchical system are responsible for setting a particular direction and engaging with individuals "beneath" them to realize the vision. Some of these systems may be based on the positional power of those at the top of the hierarchy, while others may be based on other factors such as tenure, personality, or popularity.
In my work with college students, I see a variety of leadership systems at play. The individual or individuals who set the direction of a particular organization may not always be those with positional authority, but often those who may speak the loudest, have the most power derived from other sources, or have the relationships that enable an increased ability to steer the leadership system in a direction that prioritizes their individual or group values. When I have seen this over my years, the question I think of is, "what happens to those who are left out?"
I've had the opportunity to do a lot of student organization advising in my past and in my current position I serve more as a resource or consultant to a variety of different organizations. One common problem that often is voiced during these consults is not necessarily recruiting new members, but how to retain them. When I am asked to share my thoughts about successful strategies for retention within organizations, I feel like I am expected to share my "top 10 tips" or something that would be more of a quick fix. The truth is I don’t have a list. I just have one question, "why would anyone want to be a part of your organization?” After some defensiveness or some shock, typically there aren’t many specific answers to my question.
This is why I reject the "leader/follower" paradigm. I don't think people walk into an organization looking for a leader that is so charismatic...so inspiring...that they just have to be a part of it. Don't get me wrong, that would certainly help some feel excited about being a member of a particular organization, but I think at the core, people are looking for more. Is this a place that will value my contributions? Is this a place where I can make a difference? Will I be heard? Is this a place that is consistent with my values? Will this provide me an opportunity to gain something I might want? These deeper questions are at the heart of why someone would want to join any organization whether it is for fun or to make a living.
Unfortunately, some of our leadership systems can unintentionally push these questions to the background. Our leadership systems might be created to specifically produce certain outcomes we have been accustomed to creating. Whether this is a product or an event, practices become traditions and departure from the well established norm becomes increasingly difficult with each passing year. There may be nothing specifically wrong with the product or event, but the process that is implemented to get there becomes stale when others are simply cogs in a larger machine designed to create a specific predetermined outcome.
So how might these systems be constructed to focus on providing people a voice in the process? Would these systems actually produce anything? I think yes! Many of you who know me have heard me tell the story of my opportunity to be involved in the creation of a non-hierarchical leadership system within the residence halls at the university I attended for my undergraduate education. This experience prompted a path for me I am still on which has produced many great experiences replicating similar systems along my professional journey. These systems built in collaboration, reflection, discussion, and shared decision making. The position of "president" did not exist! Each position within the leadership structure had a specific role to play, but more importantly they had to engage in group discussion to build a consensus plan of action.
The three examples of this type of system I had a part in creating produced some amazing results. The products produced were fine, but the process the members engaged in to create the product produced very specific experiences with certain competency areas that are essential to leadership and extremely useful in any future leadership experience. These types of systems are not always easy to manage and defining the direction may take longer, but if these experiences are designed to be educational first, and product focused second, I think the longer road to getting there is worth traveling.
The concept of non-hierarchical systems doesn't have to be kept for student organizations and residence halls. There are many examples of creative entrepreneurs experimenting with different types of leadership structures that focus on collaboration and direct communication. Someone shared with me a recent Harvard Business Review study that found at the most successful companies within the United States, employees reported a high level of comfort speaking up work. In other words, employees at all levels felt like someone would listen if they shared an idea. They felt their thoughts and unique gift would be valued and celebrated; that they were more than cogs in a machine.
Authors Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom wrote a book I love called The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. I referenced this book in an earlier blog post and I highly recommend getting it if any of what I have written intrigues you. This book explores many different examples of how organizations (lots of corporate examples) have adopted "starfish" qualities to gain a competitive edge. To explain the analogy, the authors’ contend there are two types of organizations: “spiders”, which have top-down and rigid leadership and “starfish”, which relay on relationships and communication. Organizations like e-Bay, General Electric, Toyota, and General Motors have used these principles to tap into the potential of their people to create gains for their organizations and the people who make it happen. All of these gains are based on the idea that in a more open system, people will feel compelled to contribute.
We live in a world that still needs ideas. These ideas come from people at all levels of a wide variety of organizations at work, on our campuses, and in our communities. These ideas can lead down extraordinary paths and provide everyone within an organization opportunity to learn and grow. If our leadership systems sometimes stand in the way of these ideas being voiced, we should challenge ourselves as leaders to let go of whatever systems we rely upon and create more open systems that have the ability to unlock the potential that exists within us all.
I would love to read any examples or thoughts from others in the comments section!
In order to make leadership more inclusive and accessible to all, I believe we must examine our leadership systems. What are some examples of leadership systems? Someone, at some point, developed a system we help to perpetuate each and every day. Whether we work in higher education, business, non-profit, medicine, etc. we all fit into a structure that has been created in order to complete our expressed mission and purpose. We all have a boss. Some of us may even be the boss to other people. Each sector of the system has certain parts that have expectations attached to it. Theoretically, individuals "at the top" of a hierarchical system are responsible for setting a particular direction and engaging with individuals "beneath" them to realize the vision. Some of these systems may be based on the positional power of those at the top of the hierarchy, while others may be based on other factors such as tenure, personality, or popularity.
In my work with college students, I see a variety of leadership systems at play. The individual or individuals who set the direction of a particular organization may not always be those with positional authority, but often those who may speak the loudest, have the most power derived from other sources, or have the relationships that enable an increased ability to steer the leadership system in a direction that prioritizes their individual or group values. When I have seen this over my years, the question I think of is, "what happens to those who are left out?"
I've had the opportunity to do a lot of student organization advising in my past and in my current position I serve more as a resource or consultant to a variety of different organizations. One common problem that often is voiced during these consults is not necessarily recruiting new members, but how to retain them. When I am asked to share my thoughts about successful strategies for retention within organizations, I feel like I am expected to share my "top 10 tips" or something that would be more of a quick fix. The truth is I don’t have a list. I just have one question, "why would anyone want to be a part of your organization?” After some defensiveness or some shock, typically there aren’t many specific answers to my question.
This is why I reject the "leader/follower" paradigm. I don't think people walk into an organization looking for a leader that is so charismatic...so inspiring...that they just have to be a part of it. Don't get me wrong, that would certainly help some feel excited about being a member of a particular organization, but I think at the core, people are looking for more. Is this a place that will value my contributions? Is this a place where I can make a difference? Will I be heard? Is this a place that is consistent with my values? Will this provide me an opportunity to gain something I might want? These deeper questions are at the heart of why someone would want to join any organization whether it is for fun or to make a living.
Unfortunately, some of our leadership systems can unintentionally push these questions to the background. Our leadership systems might be created to specifically produce certain outcomes we have been accustomed to creating. Whether this is a product or an event, practices become traditions and departure from the well established norm becomes increasingly difficult with each passing year. There may be nothing specifically wrong with the product or event, but the process that is implemented to get there becomes stale when others are simply cogs in a larger machine designed to create a specific predetermined outcome.
So how might these systems be constructed to focus on providing people a voice in the process? Would these systems actually produce anything? I think yes! Many of you who know me have heard me tell the story of my opportunity to be involved in the creation of a non-hierarchical leadership system within the residence halls at the university I attended for my undergraduate education. This experience prompted a path for me I am still on which has produced many great experiences replicating similar systems along my professional journey. These systems built in collaboration, reflection, discussion, and shared decision making. The position of "president" did not exist! Each position within the leadership structure had a specific role to play, but more importantly they had to engage in group discussion to build a consensus plan of action.
The three examples of this type of system I had a part in creating produced some amazing results. The products produced were fine, but the process the members engaged in to create the product produced very specific experiences with certain competency areas that are essential to leadership and extremely useful in any future leadership experience. These types of systems are not always easy to manage and defining the direction may take longer, but if these experiences are designed to be educational first, and product focused second, I think the longer road to getting there is worth traveling.
The concept of non-hierarchical systems doesn't have to be kept for student organizations and residence halls. There are many examples of creative entrepreneurs experimenting with different types of leadership structures that focus on collaboration and direct communication. Someone shared with me a recent Harvard Business Review study that found at the most successful companies within the United States, employees reported a high level of comfort speaking up work. In other words, employees at all levels felt like someone would listen if they shared an idea. They felt their thoughts and unique gift would be valued and celebrated; that they were more than cogs in a machine.
Authors Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom wrote a book I love called The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. I referenced this book in an earlier blog post and I highly recommend getting it if any of what I have written intrigues you. This book explores many different examples of how organizations (lots of corporate examples) have adopted "starfish" qualities to gain a competitive edge. To explain the analogy, the authors’ contend there are two types of organizations: “spiders”, which have top-down and rigid leadership and “starfish”, which relay on relationships and communication. Organizations like e-Bay, General Electric, Toyota, and General Motors have used these principles to tap into the potential of their people to create gains for their organizations and the people who make it happen. All of these gains are based on the idea that in a more open system, people will feel compelled to contribute.
We live in a world that still needs ideas. These ideas come from people at all levels of a wide variety of organizations at work, on our campuses, and in our communities. These ideas can lead down extraordinary paths and provide everyone within an organization opportunity to learn and grow. If our leadership systems sometimes stand in the way of these ideas being voiced, we should challenge ourselves as leaders to let go of whatever systems we rely upon and create more open systems that have the ability to unlock the potential that exists within us all.
I would love to read any examples or thoughts from others in the comments section!
Comments
Post a Comment