I recently read an interesting article that appeared in the Ivey Business Journal written by Keith Grint. It's an older article, but the concepts that Grint discussed really resonated with me. I've posted several times about Grint's leadership framework involving wicked versus tame problems (see "Tame the Chaos?" for the most recent post on this framework). The article ("Leadership Ltd: White Elephant to Wheelwright") starts with what I think is a profound concept, "Business history tells us that leaders don't have to be perfect. But they must recognize that their imperfections, their limitations, for example, will doom them to failure unless they rely on their subordinates and followers to fill in the gaps."
Unfortunately, at least according to Grint, we often assume (or at least expect) that our leaders are going to be perfect - they are always going to make the right decisions and they always know the right thing to say or do. Given this pedestal that we tend to place leaders upon, there is no problem that can't be solved with strong leadership. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato believed in the concept that all leaders should be philosophers ("philosoper-kings"), writing in The Republic, "Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils." In other words, our leaders should be the wisest individuals with the greatest knowledge, skills, and morals.
Grint talks about "white elephants" in this context. White elephants were considered sacred in the ancient countries of Southeast Asia (Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia in particular). To possess a white elephant was regarded as a sign that the monarch ruled with justice and power and that the kingdom would be blessed with peace and prosperity. Because they were considered sacred, white elephants were not used for labor (and were therefore expensive to care for), so a gift of a white elephant was also considered to be both a blessing and a curse. The gift was a blessing because the white elephant was sacred and a sign of the monarch's favor and a curse because the recipient now had an expensive-to-maintain animal that could not be given away and put to practical use doing work (this is where our modern usage of the term "white elephant" as a gift that is of little practical use and can't be easily given away). Here, Grint refers to leaders who are assumed to have sacred, perhaps even mythical powers to solve problems, yet are unable to do so, as white elephants.
Grint goes on with a classic 2x2 matrix, with the degree of independence and autonomy (with respect to the leader's followers) on the horizontal axis and commitment to a shared goal (again, with respect to the leader's followers) on the vertical axis:
The top left quadrant describes "White elephants" (similar to Plato's philosopher-kings), who have an almost mythical or divine hold over their followers (high commitment, low autonomy). Grint refers to the followers in this quadrant as "Disciple Followers". The main problem here, as alluded to above, is that leaders are rarely, if ever, perfect. In other words, the "Disciple Followers" provide "Constructive Consent" to follow their leaders, even when the leader is not perfect and what may be detrimental to the group or organization.
The bottom left quadrant describes "Emperors" (low commitment, low autonomy), the hierarchical, usually authoritarian leaders who rule with the proverbial iron fist. Importantly, the leader doesn't have to be authoritarian here - for example, if the leader's subordinates (what Grint calls "Irresponsible Followers") blindly follow their leaders, they are providing what Grint refers to as "Destructive Consent". For example, the followers may know that their leader is making the wrong decision, and yet they provide their consent by not speaking up or refusing to go along. Whenever individuals blindly follow their leaders, we create conditions that are ripe for the phenomenon of groupthink, defined as the tendency for individuals who set aside their own personal beliefs or adopt the opinion of the rest of the group in order to reach consensus (even when the group consensus is actually the wrong decision or approach).
The bottom right quadrant describes "Cat Herders" (low commitment, high autonomy). Here, there is really no leadership at all and the fully "Independent Individuals" (note that they are no longer called "Followers" as there is no leader to follow) provide "Destructive Dissent" by virtue of the fact that they are just doing what they want to do without commiting to the goals of the group or organization.
The top right quadrant describes "Wheelwrights" (high commitment, high autonomy). Here are the "Responsible Followers" who provide their "Constructive Dissent". They recognize that nobody is omniscient and omnipotent, and when the leader is making the wrong decision they speak up and redirect the leader to move in the right direction. The "Wheelwrights" create a psychologically safe environment where followers can feel comfortable raising their concerns. Just as important, Grint suggests that "Wheelwright" leaders utilize a distributed leadership model ("Deference to Expertise"), depending upon the problem at hand, similar to a rowing team in which the leadership often switched between the coxswain, the captain, the stroke, and the coach, depending upon the needs of the situation at hand.
Grint further talks about the Prussian military general, Helmut von Moltke (von Moltke was Chief of Staff of the Prussian Army for 30 years from 1857-1888), who believed in a decentralized model of leadership. As Grint writes, "..a central commander in Berlin, or even a few kilometers behind the battle, had no way of understanding, let alone controlling, what was happening in each and every sector of the battle. The result was a system of leadership rooted in general directives, not specific orders; strategic aims, not operational requirements." Note that this is the same philosophy that underlies the World War II era German Wehrmacht military doctrine of "auftragstaktik" and the modern U.S. military doctrine of "commander's intent", as well as the High Reliability Organization principle of "Deference to Expertise". The concept here is that frontline leaders are provided with a set of overarching goals and objectives, as well as guardrails in which they have free reign to exercise their judgement and seize the initiative rather than waiting for approval from their superiors.
Grint ends the article with a story once re-told by legendary NBA basketball coach Phil Jackson about the 3rd century BC Chinese emperor Liu Bang. Jackson apparently used the example in his book, Eleven Rings: The Soul of Success (I just placed it on hold at our local public library). Liu Bang rose up from humble origins to become emperor - he was neither noble by birth or an expert in military affairs. Once, at a state dinner, someone asked a military general named Chen Cen why Liu Bang was the emperor. Chen Cen replied with a question, "What determines the strength of a wheel?" The guest replied, "Is it not the sturdiness of the spokes?" Chen Cen responded, "Then why is it that two wheels made of identical spokes differ in strength? See beyond what is seen. Never forget that a wheel is made not only of spokes, but also of the space between the spokes. Sturdy spokes poorly placed make a weak wheel. Whether their full potential is realized depends on the harmony between them. The essence of wheel-making lies in the craftman’s ability to conceive and create the space that holds and balances the spokes within the wheel. Think now, who is the craftsman here?"
Grint explains the "spaces between spokes" analogy further, "While the spokes represent the collective resources necessary to an organization’s success and the resources that the leader lacks, the spaces represent the autonomy for followers to grow into leaders themselves. In sum, holding together the diversity of talents necessary for organizational success is what distinguishes a successful leader from an unsuccessful one. Leaders don’t need to be perfect, but they do have to recognize that their own limitations will ultimately doom them to failure unless they rely upon their subordinate leaders and followers to fill in the gaps." The lesson here, be a wheelwright.
No comments:
Post a Comment