Managing Leadership | The strategic role of the senior executive

The real vanguard

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

While there remains considerable resistance in certain quarters to the idea, the real advances enjoyed in the world since the advent of the industrial age have come from commerce, from business people who respond to market signals, which ultimately are sent by consumers. That is, progress has be driven from the bottom up, not from the top down.

People often associate the one approach with the putative “nation of shopkeepers,” England, and the other with the supposed pinnacle of elitism, France. Both depictions are caricatures that serve their purpose poorly. So, of course, it could only be a Frenchman who would be able to make perhaps the first clear-eyed observations of what was really going on. Consider this, by Voltaire, from his “Letters on the English:”

I need not say which is most useful to a nation; a lord, powdered in the tip of the mode, who knows exactly at what o’clock the king rises and goes to bed, and who gives himself airs of grandeur and state, at the same time that he is acting the slave in the ante-chamber of a prime minister; or a merchant, who enriches his country, despatches orders from his counting-house to Surat and Grand Cairo, and contributes to the felicity of the world.”

It seems pretty plain, stated that way. But the discussion continues, because one of the peculiar things about power flowing around society is that it creates its own markets. Markets are like vacuums; they demand to be supplied.

And there is a market for central control. That is, it too is often driven from the bottom up. It is provided by people who fear the buffeting and change that unfettered free market economics might subject them to – as well as the welfare and future of their families. So, of course, there are those more than happy to supply this market.

The presidential election this year in the United States will certainly give us plenty of opportunity to observe this. But as you are doing that, consider the degree to which your own organization resembles a society, with its own dynamics driving the currents of power around and throughout it.

Is it a central command economy? A democracy, of sorts? Are there conflicting markets for control, guidance, favor, support? Does power flow where it is needed?

As important as may be any answers you are able to generate for such questions, the reasons for them are even more important. Understanding those reasons will help you determine how functional your organization really is, how well designed it is to actually give productive expression to its purpose.

Perhaps your outfit will turn out to be a complex combination of top-down and bottom-up organization. Are there not good reasons for that? Can you manage the unorthodox nature of it?

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of bottom up generation of advancement, please see this fascinating piece, from The Economist, about how ordinary people like you and me – or our kids – are being successfully recruited to solve difficult problems in science. From the article: “Many of the best players were not scientists but were able to find the correct structure faster than computers.”

—

Note: My apologies to those who have commented on the posts of the past few days; each will get a response, hopefully by week’s end. Thank you for you patience.

—

More and more readers are viewing the new mobile-friendly version of the Managing Leadership Blog on their internet-capable phones and pocket computers, and you can, too! Just use the “Get Mobile Version” link at the upper right of this page to have the address sent to your device or, for those of you reading this in your email client or RSS reader, go to http://fdm8.com/managingleadership to view the site (you can visit it right here from your computer to get an idea of what it will look like on your portable device).

If you enjoy this way of accessing this site, you can sign up for text alerts (of new posts) to your phone simply by enrolling your number in the mobile subscription link, also at upper right on the sidebar of the main page. Why not try it now!

And if you prefer to continue viewing the site on your regular computer, then please do subscribe by email or RSS reader, so you’ll always get the latest posts!

Technorati Tags: industrial age, commerce, business, market, consumer, progress, England, elitism, France, Voltaire, Letters on the English, merchant, power, free market, presidential election, United States, organization, society, economy, democracy, purpose

Sphere: Related Content

Filed in Capitalism, Culture, Management, Organizational Leadership | | Comments (0)

A bridge too low

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

The “it can’t happen here” syndrome is persistent, and consistently defies experience. Why is that?

I recently read about a bridge in a developing economy that had been built too low for traffic to pass under it. The solution? Lower the road.

The question is, how long did it take them to realize they were building it too low? And, why did they finish it anyway?

But, of course, this can happen anywhere, and the developed world is filled with like examples. Terminal 5 is perhaps the most recent, but hardly a rarity.

And, events like these occur all over the world, at all sorts of levels, in all sorts of endeavors. From the military to politics to commerce, people seem to marry their ill-fated ventures, cross their fingers as tightly as can be, and simply hope that what they know will happen, won’t.

What’s at the bottom of this? Groupthink? The sense by an executive that too much personal credibility has been invested to back out? Shortsighted bootlicking by juniors? Starstruck “followers” who simply don’t think to examine what they’re being asked to do?

What sort of organizational cultures permit behaviors like those? What are your conjectures about this?

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of following through on more or less obvious disasters, here’s a glacially unfolding one for you: Rob Jacobs, author of Education Innovation, has offered an insightful glimpse at how we likely are mis-organizing something as simple and fundamental as our classrooms.

—

We appreciate your visits here very much, and would love to have you as a regular reader. Please take a moment to subscribe, either by email or via an RSS reader, using the options available just below or at the upper right. And welcome aboard!

Technorati Tags: experience, developing, economy, developed, Terminal 5, endeavor, military, politics, commerce, ventures, Groupthink, executive, credibility, bootlicking, followers, organization, culture, Rob Jacobs, Education Innovation

Sphere: Related Content

Filed in Culture, Ethics, Management, Organizational Leadership | | Comments (3)

Shades of Mary Parker Follett

Monday, May 12, 2008

I once saw a review of some writing by Mary Parker Follett by a modern day guru who professed hesitation about reading it, because he might discover that she anticipated some of his “work.” The truth is, very little new insight is available that cannot ultimately be traced directly to her.

For example (this isn’t where MPF comes in, yet), last December Steve Roesler, of All Things Workplace, published a brilliant essay I’ve been wanting to comment on called Inhibiting Change: Will We Grow Businesses in a Risk-Avoidance Culture. This piece is a fascinating integration of academic work on personality and psychology with the world of work, and if you missed it, please take a moment to view it now; Steve is brilliant at helping us establish context from which we can make sense of what is going on.

Another thing he does well is prompt intelligent and vigorous comment chains to his posts. Wally Bock, of Three Star Leadership, offered this one:

I think there are two other factors at play in risk-avoidance. One is that we insist on making failure/success activities out of what should be learning activities, also called experiments. The other is that we allow people to make decisions based on their position in the organization rather than their fitness to make the decision.”

“. . .we insist on making failure/success activities out of what should be learning activities. . .” Do any of you recognize that? It is a tendency that we all fall prey to, and it is a major contributor to the shortcomings of our talent development programs.

Here’s the Mary Parker Follett part: “. . . we allow people to make decisions based on their position in the organization rather than their fitness to make the decision.” This is vintage MPF; “vintage” because she saw this well over 75 years ago, and “MPF” because it is still viewed as so radical.

The phrase, “fitness to make the decision,” is interesting because it can refer either to ability or to location. For example, the decision might involve a technical matter, and we allow the technical expert in our organization to make it. I recently had a problem with my website, and the customer service representative didn’t hesitate to call in a technician with specific experience in the area. I happen to know that this isn’t their protocol, but she did it anyway in order to solve the problem right then and there.

Or, a decision might simply be begging to be made at one of the customer/vendor/competitor interfaces with your company, and we may want to authorize the employee at that interface at that moment to make the decision. Years ago, I was calling AT&T to get an 800 number. Somehow, I wound up talking with an engineer on an assignment deep in the bowels of the company. He was the one who was available, and on learning of my request, he didn’t redirect me; he simply pulled up the company database and worked with me to find a number I liked.

Mary Parker Follett was a lifelong student of how democracies organized societies in the United States; she came to business consulting late in her life, but brought many of her intelligent insights with her. Moreover, she was able to see many American and British organizations already employing them.

If you haven’t read her yet, see my review here, and pick up your own copy of the best compilation available of her work here.

—

Today’s tip: A main purpose of this site is to reopen the dialogue about the putative difference between a “leader” and a manager. It is interesting to see Miki Saxon, at Leadership Turn, doing just that, with a seven-part series on the topic starting here. She doesn’t reach my conclusions, but she conducts a rigorous, honest examination. Please stop over to see it.

—

Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.

—

Technorati Tags: Mary Parker Follett, work, insight, MPF, Steve Roesler, All Things Workplace, academic, personality, psychology, context, intelligent, Wally Bock, risk, learning, decision, organization, talent, development, program, technical, expert, customer, service, representative, experience, vendor, competitor, AT&T, engineer, United States, business, consulting, American, British, leader, manager, Miki Saxon, Leadership Turn, Three Star Leadership

Sphere: Related Content

Filed in Change, Mary Parker Follett | | Comments (3)

Book Review: Sync

Friday, May 9, 2008

One of the most fascinating things about the rapid advances being made recently in communications technology is watching how they enable people of similar or complementing interests and ambitions not merely to interact rewardingly and productively – but even to find each other so that they can do so. Indeed, many of the endeavors they discover themselves collaborating on only sprung into being on their connection. It is an intriguing network of serendipitous nodes, each glowing more or less brilliantly as they draw in new members and connections.

How does this happen? There are many who speculate on this topic directly – and ingeniously. Some of these have written books that we will review here, in time.

But I’ll just tell you now that my absolute favorite doesn’t really address this as a management or social topic at all. And yet I have found it to be the most insightful, actionably thought-provoking, and profitable book to read, from a manager’s perspective, of them all.

Steven Strogatz is a mathematician at Cornell University who studies physics and biology, among other branches of science. He is widely respected and cited by genuine experts in numerous fields, rather than merely his own – a distinct indicator of value. Those of you, for example, who have read The Black Swan will find Strogatz drawn upon for a major element of the book’s argument, by an author who is known for the free expression – and excruciatingly detailed and pointed enumeration of – his frank disapproval of the current crop of self-referential experts.

As you read Sync: How Order Emerges from Chaos in the Universe, Nature, and Daily Life, you will see for yourself why its author is not only spared that treatment, but is singled out for praise (which, assuredly, he has justly attracted from numerous other difficult corners, as well). The book is pure science, and you will do well to avoid unduly enthusiastic interpretations of its direct applicability to your own work as managers. But you will nevertheless find yourself making notes for further thought. It’s inevitable.

Sync takes on the increasingly popular impression that the most fundamental underlying character of the universe is that of entropy: decay, the slow unwinding of what was wrought by the Big Bang. Rather, Strogatz observes the robust drive in the natural world not to descend into chaos, but to self-generate order from it.

In particular, he tells the fascinatingly intriguing story of the science of sync. He describes it with engaging depictions of events in nature that we are all familiar with, but that take on wondrous new meaning in the context of the tale as he tells it. He begins to open our eyes to its hidden mysteries and importance with his description of how it was first discovered and elaborated.

And then, once you’re hooked – off you go, oscillating and synchronizing away as you see the science of sync building complexity from simplicity, order from chaos, meaning from little more than possibility. What’s more, you learn how the science, as it builds even upon itself, can come to span not just type, but space – even time.

Wouldn’t you – as a curious individual – like to understand how that happens in nature, and the implications it has for the path down which natural events might unfold? Wouldn’t you – as an alert manager – like to gain insight into how something like it might be happening around you in the broader society. Wouldn’t you like an opportunity to consider what such insights might offer you and your organization?

Sure you would. So, pick up your copy now. Mind you: don’t just thoughtlessly promote random oscillation all over the place. But do consider how you might arrange things to help generate collaboration from possibility alone.

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of great insights from intriguing stories, Nina Simosko has been running a series on lessons in leadership to be learned from unlikely sources or unpromising beginnings. Take a look; it will be well worth your while.

—

If you have enjoyed this post, please do join us by using the subscription links just below or at the top right of this page. And thanks - we look forward to your being aboard!

Technorati Tags: communication, technology, ambition, endeavor, network, insight, manager, perspective, Steven Strogatz, Cornell, expert, science, entropy, Big Bang, chaos, society, organization, Nina Simosko, leadership

Sphere: Related Content

Filed in Book Reviews, Management, The New Sciences | | Comments (3)

Shooting stars

Thursday, May 8, 2008

One of the most peculiarly persistent problems in management at all levels is the reluctance of managers to develop their juniors, out of a fear that they may outshine and, ultimately, outpace their seniors. It seems to me that there are three problems with this.

First, one’s skill as a manager should be measured by his or her ability to . . . well: manage. This includes, of course, managing staff.

You want to be able to develop your staff’s ability to think and act for themselves, whether within the parameters of specific authority, or, better, according to the spirit of clearly expressed goals. If you can do this, then you are extending the reach, capability, and productivity of your entire unit. How could your results not improve? How could you, as the unit manager, not be recognized for this?

But many managers insist on representing themselves to their seniors essentially as the unit itself, keeping their staff shuttered up in the department, and preventing them from gaining any freedom of maneuver or opportunity to shine that might cause them to dim the manager’s star, or even to rise above it. Productivity in such a unit may spike for a while, but ultimately, wider measures of efficiency, such as attendance behavior or turnover, will begin to precede a broad decline. How long do you think you can build a career on riding the crest of such waves?

Second, another critical skill of a manager is the ability to train his or her own replacement – or, at least, to develop the skills of juniors in ways that enhance their value to the firm, and the value of the firm to them. If you are promoted, for example, for your exemplary performance, but then your seniors discover that there is no one in your unit capable of taking your place, they may begin to reconsider their initial enthusiasm.

What you want them to do is to see flowers blooming all over your department. Rest assured that you won’t be lost in the crowd; you’ll be celebrated as the master gardener.

But too many managers think they need to be clearly – and singly - visible, rising majestically like oaks in the midst of lowly scrub or, even, general devastation. But of what organizational value is such stunted growth under the management of so self-centered a steward? Where is the majesty in so poor a realm?

Third, the problem often is a reflection of more than merely the ill-informed paranoia of insecure managers. It may be a realistic appraisal of what it takes to survive in a corrosive culture actively promoted by seniors. If this is the case, there is really little alternative to just firing your boss: find another position, in another firm.

Apprehensions such as those touched on above – from being outshone to outpaced – tend to be realized the more one fears them. But strong managers who seek out talent in their units and work to develop it do not weaken their individual reputation. Rather, they extend their reach and influence, enhance their individual and unit effectiveness, and broaden and deepen their network of constructive support even as it widens around – or even above and beyond – the mature, confident manager who is its source.

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of building networks rather than focusing on self-aggrandizement, please see this depiction of the glass ceiling in a particularly interesting case, as thoughtfully elaborated by John Phillips, author of The Word on Employment Law.

—

Have you noticed the blue “Sphere” icon, below? When you click on it, it will produce a window offering you content related to today’s item from other blogs and the regular media. Give it a try!

And, while you’re clicking around down there, don’t forget to subscribe, by email or RSS reader!

Technorati Tags: management, manager, authority, goal, capability, productivity, efficiency, turnover, career, skill, performance, organization, culture, boss, influence, network, glass ceiling, John Phillips, The Word on Employment Law