How’s your organisation’s leadership?
That is likely to be anything but an easy question. Especially if you are
the organisation’s leader! And it is not made any easier by the fact that
leadership is one of those words. You know, one of those "big" words that mean
something different to each one of us. A word used to describe a concept that
covers a multitude of different qualities, characteristics and capabilities,
and that is more often judged by perceptions: by feelings rather than logic.
Even so, it is pretty disturbing to read reports that research by Harvard
Business Press indicates that only 31% of global executives are confident that their
leaders have the right leadership skills. Initially you might, (in a moment of
rare optimism) ask if this could possibly be an indication of unheard of
modesty and self-doubt on the part of leaders. Then you think that it is more likely
to be directors assessing their own CEO, which is still a depressing thought
for it doesn’t say much for the cohesion at the top. Nor does it inspire much
confidence if it is a judgment of business leaders generally.
It turns out, however, that they are describing the abstract concept of
leadership rather than the personal capabilities and shortcomings of
executives. It seems that nearly half (43%) see leadership development as the
most significant factor in driving business transformation. Interestingly (and
some might say encouragingly), this desire for leadership seems to be directed lower
down the organisation and specifically at middle management level. At last the
drive for distributed leadership is gathering momentum. If only these people
could see the paradox here!
Distributed leadership demands good leadership from the top! That is because the essence of leadership is:-
- A clear vision and sense of purpose;
- Mutual trust.
Both of these are diametrically opposed to command-and-control management,
which still tends to dominate management practice even if it no longer does
management theory. Thus you have a situation where behaviour actually runs
counter to what you are trying to achieve. If you want distributed leadership
then you have to change behaviour and create an environment that fosters it.
So how do you do that?
Actually it is not as difficult as
you think. In fact many of the underlying themes of employee engagement shine
the light in this direction, especially if you take as your definition of
employee engagement “How consistently motivated people are to do
the best they can for themselves, their manager, their team and customer while
they are at work.”
If you are not careful you could fall into the trap of thinking that this simply
equates employee engagement with motivation. In a way it does, which is why you
need a greater appreciation of motivation and the fact that it is innate and
individual. That is why you need to understand and build the three essential
intrinsic motivators described by Dan Pink in his book ‘Drive’: Autonomy;
Mastery and Purpose.
Linking these to leadership you can readily see purpose is common to both,
while mutual trust is an almost automatic and self-perpetuating outcome of
autonomy and mastery. The ability to get on with one’s work without constant
meddling, monitoring and measuring will invariably create a greater commitment
on the part of the employee, while that will in turn result in greater mastery
and therefore greater trustworthiness.
What better way is there of creating this than through employee ownership?
It is the catalyst for creating common purpose and facilitating an environment
of trust, where people can have greater
autonomy and management has to do less monitoring, measuring and
managing. If you looking for leadership you really don’t need to look any
further.