Managing Leadership^®

There has been growing interest recently, albeit in fits and starts, in the capacity for self-management – even self-organization – of groups. As it happens, the most profound thinking on the topic was offered by the great Mary Parker Follett nearly a century ago, and it has scarcely been appreciated, much less meaningfully approached, by any of her successors.

But they are intrigued, and seek to plumb the depths of the possibilities these concepts open up. After all, such mechanisms are liberating not for staff alone, but for managers themselves, enabling the latter to focus more intelligently and profoundly on their real work.

And yet it is worth bearing in mind that, as positively empowering and liberating as mechanisms for self-management appear to be on the face of it, they are not inevitably constructive. Organizations have aims, and these arise legitimately from owners or their representatives – not from their employees.

Accordingly, when experimenting with this sort of thing, managers must struggle both to unleash the dynamics of self-management, and work to discipline them to organizational aims. How might they do that?

A short while ago, we discussed the importance of goals in the overall mechanism of organizational leadership. We connected them with the instinct to self-management that arises when people collect together in the collaborative pursuit of a larger joint goal. But we noted that it is possible – even probable – that these are insufficient (a group and a goal) in and of themselves to promote sustained action on a tasking in the absence of senior managerial intervention.

The reason for this is that while people naturally want to get moving on a job they’ve been given, they may have a difficult time gaining actionable traction in the absence of two things that only management can provide. One of these is the communication of organizational purpose and goals, and the connection of the specific tasking with these.

The other is the cultivation of a workplace environment that actively encourages and supports the practice of self-management. It does this in general terms through the establishment of policy, training, and provision of organizational support. Specifically, it does it by providing a managerial chain of support and guidance for the action team.

That is, the managerial intervention isn’t directive in the traditional sense. Rather, it is a proactive approach to designing the organization and its operational policies in a way that constructively exploits the natural instinct to collaborative action of its staff.

We’ll take another look at what this means next, by examining another of Mary Parker Follett’s important insights. See you then!

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of approaching seemingly compelling and promising ideas with care, please see these two items, both from the Wall Street Journal: One is a book review by Adam Keiper which contests the increasing insistence from brain scientists that their recent discoveries are unlocking the deepest secrets of the mind. The other is a perceptive column by Lee Gomes, describing the dangers of what he calls the Synapse Equivalency Fallacy.

—

Did you know that as a subscriber to this blog (by either RSS reader or email), you are entitled to a free download (.pdf format, 344KB) of the first chapter from Jim’s critically-acclaimed book, Managing Leadership? Download your free chapter now! (Even if you haven’t subscribed, yet - download it anyway! - (and then subscribe!))

—

Thank you! Today’s is the 500th post on this site. I want to thank all of you for your visits and dialogue over the years. I hope you will join me in looking forward to many more.

Technorati Tags: self-management, self-organization, manager, management, owner, employee, organization, leadership, workplace, policy, training, Mary Parker Follett, Wall Street Journal, Adam Keiper, Lee Gomes