There is a perception by employees that organisations are purely bent on profit and will stop at nothing to deliver those profits. Management make decisions which are short term, and as leaders exploit their own people. In his book, The Accidental Investment Banker, Jonathan A. Knee, speaks to the “IBG YBG” (I’ll Be Gone You’ll Be Gone) ethos. “All across the Street, personal relevance was now achieved not by excelling at being a team player or some other quaint notion. The goal was to do deals, generate revenue, and be noticed”. In essence people made decisions today, and the repercussions were not of concern as between the team the logic was, “by the time it hits the fan, IBG YBG”. Where does this leadership style come from?
“The behaviours that drive leadership style are linked to our genes”. This was the school of thinking in a study presented by the British Psychological Society Annual Conference in Brighton 2009. The jury is still out for me as to whether leaders are born or can be made. What is unquestionable is that different organisations need different types of leadership styles (as they have different types of people). Similarly, different organisations need different types of leaders at different times.
In some organisations, a military mind that marshals a certain type of behaviour on the production line is effective in getting the desired output. In other organisations, a charismatic, celebrity type leader can make things happen. In yet other organisations, a humble leader with professionalism can succeed by putting the organisation first rather than herself/himself. There is no wrong or right answer, just what works and it will be a function of the people in the organisation and their fit to the style. As a manager I don’t know how well trained you have been to manage and what your style is and whether it is working. What I do know is that today, where the job requires conscious intellectual activity (thinking, reasoning, remembering, imagining), the best fit person for the job does not want a leadership style that is:
· “micro-managing”
· “keeping the staff on a tight leash”
· “directive and looking over the shoulder during execution”
The stereotype is endless, but we all know the style in question here.
Theoretical type education or previous experience may have given one enough to deliver on the technical requirements of one’s job. What have you really been taught about managing people? Meritocracy was adopted as a way to take away the problem of organisations bestowing leadership positions as a favour or through nepotism to the undeserving. What has yet to be mastered is the art/science of how leaders are developed and then how to best place those leaders.
So in theory, the company looks at everybody’s performance relative to their peers. Based on individual achievement (or worse a reactive retention strategy), “the best” are head and shoulders above the rest and are therefore promoted. They become managers who are expected to lead people. Unfortunately, there is no basic leadership education or course. We can’t read a manual, or get a degree to learn how to manage people in a corporate environment (just like there is no how to guide to be a parent). This is an on the job training outcome. Most leadership styles are therefore learnt from the experience of observing other leaders around you. So who are your influences around you and what habits are you picking up? Do they allow the individual to play to their strengths to get the best out of them or do they have a broad brush approach which is their style? Is their style working? Is their style appropriate for you to adopt?
You need to ask yourself these questions and understand your environment to know what is working and what is not if you want your team performing in the super achiever bracket. People are very focused (some that is) on consciously up skilling themselves technically. This is not the case when it comes to being in touch with the inner self or understanding and embracing humility without compromising a strong will and/or desire. If you don’t have a strong sense of self, and therefore an ability to manage yourself, how will you be effective in managing others?
A mechanical process might be limited in terms of how one gets to the end game. Managing efficiencies on a larger scale in that scenario, it might make sense prescribing how the job should be done. By contrast where there is thinking involved “many roads lead to Rome”. You have to be open minded enough that you give a context and the desired outcome; then accept that your staff member might come up with a solution that gives the desired outcome which will have a different methodology to yours.
What is really happening when you protest to a solution proposed that gives the desired outcome? Particularly when it is evident that it does not hinder other activities (to the best of your knowledge), and is compliant with the organisational policies? Is it your ego you are defending? What is threatening about your staff member actually thinking and executing, rather than being the type to simply turn the wheel (happily at that)?
Employee retention is a critical success factor in organisations reaching their desired goals. Most people want to play for a winning team (some people are plain right happy to tick along), yet our actions when in the team do not seem to support that mind set. Research has shown that people leave their jobs because of their managers (as opposed to being disillusioned about the organisation). That would imply that the manager is acting out of alignment with the perceived values of the organisation. We need to help the manager to be appropriate in style for managing and leading her/ his team. “Those who build great companies understand that the ultimate throttle on growth for any great company is not the markets, or technology, or competition, or products. It is one thing above all others: the ability to get and keep enough of the right people” Good To Great by Jim Collins.
It is about survival of the fittest, but if your leadership style is not embracing and accepting of what is, you will only retain and attract a certain type of people to your organisation. An organisation of “yes baas” type people has the same future that dinosaurs had back then; massive and dominating but going nowhere slowly. People realise more and more that they have choices today. The more choices people have, the easier it is for them to execute those choices and move on (normally the great people). It’s not about the money, these are people who are motivated and want to achieve. They do not want to be demotivated by their leadership.
There was a time when “my way or the highway” was threatening enough and the good old South African employee would respond with a “vasbyt” approach. People now are more on the side of “nothing ventured, nothing gained”. They will take that highway, and you will have your way which will be a fraction of what your organisation’s potential is. Learn to lead and take it upon yourself to understand yourself and your team and what works. You will be blown away at what your team will deliver if they are given the latitude to self actualise. You are no different in terms of what you expect from your own leadership.
I suggest you take 10 minutes and see the following discovery on motivation (scientific research explained with great animation). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=player_embedded
No comments:
Post a Comment