In the previous post I suggested that a wide gap exists between popular conceptions of organizational leadership and how people experience it day-to-day. I also suggested that this is due, in large part, to the continuing dominance of a view of organizational dynamics based on scientific rationality, control and predictability.
This deep-seated belief that there is 'one best way' – if only we can find it - is reflected in the ongoing search for pre-packaged ‘best practice’ solutions; universally applicable ‘n-step’ models; and so on. And the problem is compounded by the taken-for-granted assumption that leadership is exercised and performance delivered through the exception-al actions of individual leaders – the supposed heroes (and occasionally villains) of the organizational world.
Mismatch between rhetoric and reality
The fact that this framing of organizational leadership fails to accord with people’s everyday, practical experience of life in organizations (including managers’ own) makes it no less powerful in influencing their perceptions, interpretations and evaluations of what’s going on and how they are supposed to respond. The theory must be ok (one might think) – otherwise why would it persist? We just need to do things better and get them right next time and all will be well. In this way, unhelpful patterns of thought and behaviour become ever-more-firmly embedded.
Shifting the patterns
Here, I want to challenge these established conceptions of what's actually going on in organizations - and what that means in terms of the ways in which we think and talk about leadership practice. I've therefore set out below seven possible shifts in the ways that we conventionally make sense of leadership in organizations. And, as suggested in Informal Coalitions, if the conversations change so will the outcomes that emerge.
1. From elite practice to emergent property
Leadership would be recognized as an emergent property of people in relationship, not as an elite practice confined to individuals at senior levels in organizations. That is, it would be understood as a complex social process enacted by many people in the normal course of their everyday interactions; rather than as a rational, scientific endeavour practised by a few gifted and formally appointed leaders.
2. From individual dynamism to interactional dynamics
The approaches to selecting, developing and recognizing the contributions of formal leaders would shift considerably. The focus would be on the complex dynamics of interaction and the implications of these for leadership practice (i.e. on organizational dynamics), rather than on the current preoccupation with the traits, styles, competencies and so on of individuals who occupy formal leadership positions (i.e. on the so-called ‘best practice’ attributes of individual actors).
3. From controlling to contributing.
Those in formal leadership positions (as well as others who prescribe leadership behaviours or commentate upon their performance) would accept that they were not in control of organizational outcomes. As powerful participants in the ongoing process of social interaction, they would of course be contributing to those dynamics and outcomes in important and influential ways – whether intentionally or not. But they would not be in control of them. The concept of leadership and the expectations of others about the nature and omnipotence of the role would thus be substantially different from those which shape today’s understanding and rhetoric.
4. From diagnosis to dialogue.
The currently dominant view on leadership, based on a rational-scientific model of organizational dynamics, assumes that strategic and operational challenges can be dealt with by expert diagnosis – whether a leader’s own or that offered by specialist advisors. In contrast, an informal coalitions perspective would see it as inappropriate to look at organizations through a scientific lens; with its evidence-based explanations, rigorous analytical methods, and claims of predictability and certainty of outcome. Instead, it would recognize that knowledge in a social process is co-created through the everyday conversations and interactions that take place locally – between specific people, at specific times and in specific circumstances. Ongoing dialogue, focusing on joint sensemaking-cum-action taking, and seeking to tap into people’s collective wisdom, would therefore be seen as the essence of strategic and operational leadership.
5. From standing out to standing in.
Today’s conception of organizational leadership assumes that this is provided by someone (or a cadre of people) with outstanding ability - individuals who ‘stand out from the crowd' in terms of their intellectual capacity, charisma, vision, courage, risk appetite, and so on. It is seen as being exercised by standing apart from the minutiae of the action to see and address the “big picture” from a position of objectivity. Instead, from an informal coalitions viewpoint, a central element of the formal leadership role would be one of ‘standing in’ – that is, actively participating in the conversations around import-ant emerging issues (as Ralph Stacey might describe it). This means paying attention to what’s going on in the day-to-day conversations and interactions that comprise the organization; seeking to shift the patterns and content of interactions in organizationally beneficial ways.
6. From certainty to curiosity
The search for, and expectancy of, certainty and predictability would be replaced by the valuing and practice of curiosity. That is, there would be a preference for leading through questions, rather than a presumption that the leader’s role is to provide all of the answers; a capacity to embrace uncertainty and to accept a position of ‘not knowing’; a focus on noticing and exploring underlying patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving; and an ability to articulate these in ways that resonate with staff.
7. From colluding to confronting
Realizing the above shifts in thinking and practice would bring with it an increasing tendency for people (and particularly leaders) to confront - rather than collude with - the basic myths that sustain current management orthodoxy. The central illusion, that an organization’s fortunes can be assured if managers take action in line with the latest ‘recipe for success’, would be less in evidence than at present. Metaphorically, people would be much more wiling to ‘tell the emperor that he (or she) was not wearing any clothes’ – and the ‘emperor’ would be keen to listen! This tendency for people to confront rather than collude with policies and practices that run counter to their lived experience would also extend to the exposure and exploration of other shadow-side themes and behaviours, where previously these would have remained hidden and undiscussable.
A radical shift or more of the same?
The above statements reflect radically different assumptions about how organizations work from those that currently inform mainstream descriptions of, and prescriptions for, leadership practice. But these accord much more closely with today's experienced realities of organizational life – including what leaders and others do in practice.
It is in the give-and-take of real-world interaction that the capacity exists for new patterns to form and change to arise. This happens whenever sensemaking breaks out of existing channels and novel conversational themes arise. And so, if a sufficiently powerful coalition of support were to grow up informally around themes such as the seven set out above, these might emerge from the shadows and enter the mainstream. If not, the tendency will remain for current narratives - and the flawed assumptions on which these are based - to continue to shape people's understanding of leadership performance and development.
Comments