Tell Them and Turn Them Loose...
The
unlimited and unquestionable authority leaders and power-hungry rulers was
significantly (and historically) challenged in 1215 when King John of England
was obliged to sign the Magna Carta.
This document forced him to accept that his authority was not absolute. It was a turning point in the history of
leadership—and a turning point in the history of followership (Kellerman, 2012,
p. 8). By limiting the king’s power, the
subjects were emboldened with authority and rights.
Since
that time, many events have unfolded that continued to empower followers and
citizens alike. From Martin Luther King,
Jr. to women’s rights all the way to today’s push for same-sex privileges;
followers have been challenging leaders for change. All of these events highlight the power of
people. Whether it is equal rights or
basic human freedoms, the truth remains:
Progress rises from the masses. Leaders
must learn to let go and followers must find the courage to take the
initiative.
Leadership
experts Jim Kouzes & Barry Posner (2007) said, "Your task as a
leader is to help other people reach mutual goals, not your goals, and to get
there with a sense that we did it together. As the leader, your job is to make sure
everyone sees themselves as a part of the larger mission, and your language
needs to reflect that sense of being part of the team” (p. 245). I’ve taken those words to heart and as a
result, every other Saturday, I facilitate a group of
twenty to thirty men who gather to discuss the challenges men face every
day. Topics include integrity,
character, marriage, finances, anger, and love.
The group consists of leaders from NASA, active-duty military,
education, and IT. Last Saturday, in an
attempt to demonstrate the power of individual decisions, teamwork, and
perspectives, I conducted the “Who Needs Leaders” experiment with 24 men.
What
did this exercise mean to you and how did it impact your understanding of chaos
theory.
From the beginning
of the experiment, I realized three immediate lessons. First, the directions had to be clear and
specific. Secondly, the less I told them
the better they responded. And lastly,
people want to succeed more than my desire to see them succeed. Looking at each of these lessons in detail
helped me understand chaos theory, its implications on leadership, and how “leaders
strengthen others when they make it possible for constituents to exercise
choices and discretion” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p, 270).
First, in
the early stages of explaining my desires, I realized that the directions had
to be clear and specific. As stated in the
instructions, I watched each person’s nonverbal behavior and knew that above
everything else, I needed to be clear.
Already upsetting the normal routine of our bimonthly meeting, the men
were not going to respond favorable to a misdirected and confusing
assignment. By clearly articulating the
instructions, and after answering a few minor questions, the men were ready to
move. While this morning would be
different than years past, they were motivated to get underway once the
directions were finished.
Another
insight gained through the experiment was that I needed to keep my instructions
short. It was immediately clear that the
men were not interested in listening to a lecture. If there was an assignment—in this case, an
experiment—they wanted to “get busy” and complete their task. Going on-and-on about my class assignment and
my school schedule was not only boring to them, but was frustrating them as
they stood poised and ready to begin.
Lastly,
and most importantly, I realized that the men—feeling competitive and
empowered—wanted to figure out the task.
They were more interested in ensuring their individual choices were
quick, accurate, and allowed for ease of maneuverability. Sliding, dodging, laughing, and a few mumbles
of frustration as their designated man moved, caused them to flow almost in
concert to an overarching goal. Though
each man focused only on himself and two others, it seemed from my elevated
vantage point (standing on a stage) that there was a systematic synchronicity
happening among the men.
With just
under three minutes of elapsed time, they all settled into their positions and
agreed equilibrium had been met. Taking
their word for it, we sat back down and I began to explain a few things that
this exercise demonstrated to us as men.
First, it was a visual representation of the teamwork they possess. Each man kept eyes on two other men while
they moved in-and-between one other. I challenged them with this insight in the
area of accountability. I used it as an
example to keep an eye out for one another while maintaining a good proximity
for relationship.
I also
told them that this experiment demonstrated that they have the ability within
them to figure out difficult problems without being provided detailed information.
It gave each man an extra boost of
confidence and increased awareness.
Include
the implications that this has on strategy.
Whether it’s hockey or health
care, education or financial services, the public or private sector, for a team
of people to have a positive experience together, they must have shared goals
that provide specific reason for being together (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p.
233). Historically, strategy development
was seen as an ability of C-suite personnel while lower level employees merely
executed. This experiment and further
readings within Obolensky’s (2010) Complex Adaptaive Leadership demonstrates that the
ability to construct strategy lies within each person. Rather than developing strategy in a
tight-fisted environment, senior leaders should learn to develop strategy form
the bottom-up.
When leaders allow the workers
to build the strategy along with them, implementation is a smoother process as
those who helped develop the path forward already have buy-in and
understanding. By providing a few simple
rules, some boundaries, ensuring the purpose is clear, and providing feedback,
leaders can create an integrated strategy that encompasses every level of performance.
Steve
Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York, N:
HarperCollins Publishers.
Kouzes, J.M., & Posner,
B.Z. (2007). The leadership challenge.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. Burlington,
VT: Gower Publishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment