Leadership (9)
Sharing leadership responsibilities
Führungskräfte stehen heute ganz anderen Herausforderungen gegenüber als noch vor wenigen Jahren. Im neunten Teil unserer Serie zum Thema „Führung“zeigt BOB DIGNEN diese neuen Schwierigkeiten auf und macht Vorschläge, wie sich unternehmerische Ziele mit geteilter Verantwortlichkeit erreichen lassen. usiness leadership is in a state of crisis. The age of the leader as superhero is coming to an end, and a new definition of leadership is required to move us forward. One that respects the needs of a younger generation that is increasingly looking to values and practices beyond the mantra of profitable growth.
In this article, we look at six key challenges for leaders today. Taken together, they mean that classical models of leadership are no longer adequate. It is time for a definition of leadership based on collective responsibility — what we call “shared leadership”.
Challenge 1: The knowledge gap
We live in an increasingly complex business world. New technologies are threatening established business models. Regulatory changes are interfering with and reconfiguring the business landscape. Customer behaviour is tracked in detail, forcing organizations to rethink their core processes to remain customercentric. Indeed, organizations are in a state of almost continuous transformation, constantly changing their internal structures. No leader can therefore claim to properly understand the internal reality of their organization, or the external realities that affect it. Vision statements may give an illusion of control, but modern organizations are largely unpredictable and uncontrollable. Leaders no longer have the knowledge and insights to lead in a classical sense.
Managing the knowledge gap. People in formal leadership roles need to rebuild their identities away from narrow business expertise. They need to become polymaths, whose knowledge and talents include diverse areas such as mathematics, science, the arts, sport and even religious or spiritual thinking. Such knowledge can create a more holistic basis for informed decision-making. And at a more basic level, leaders simply need to become more curious, asking more questions to test their view of reality.
Leaders can compensate for their own deficits by surrounding themselves with individuals who possess complementary talents and knowledge. This means creating a form of “anti-culture”, in which norms are less valuable than a (sometimes uncomfortable) interaction of individual insights, without obvious rules.
Structures and processes need to be built that support new modes of interaction and collaboration. And fixed roles and job titles need to become more fluid, with groups of individuals exploring together how best to cooperate on specific tasks and deliver as yet undefined results.
Career development needs to be measured not just by technical expertise but by broader multifunctional and multidepartmental cooperation. Learning and development (L&D) could become a vibrant platform where people from different parts of a company meet, learn together, share ideas and create a collective corporate intelligence. This can then be used to inform better decision-making.
Challenge 2: The remoteness issue
We live in an international age. We all now have to work with colleagues or business partners who are located far away.
VISION STATEMENTS MAY GIVE AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL, BUT MODERN ORGANIZATIONS ARE LARGELY UNCONTROLLABLE
Team members frequently voice their frustration with the inability of leaders to be present enough, to provide clarity on what has to be done and why, and to be an inspiration to team members who work long, hard hours without knowing exactly how — or whether — their contribution matters.
Leaders, however, simply cannot be in enough places enough of the time to do the cheerleading that is expected of them, and that they sometimes expect of themselves. Traditional “leading by presence” is no longer possible.
Managing remoteness. Too many leaders underestimate the value of visiting key locations and stakeholders, claiming the lack of time and the necessary travel budget. But if you wish to occupy a leadership role, you need to see frequent travel as a necessity and recognize that it shows respect, allows knowledge exchange and keeps you grounded in organizational reality.
At the same time, you need to become very competent at virtual communication. Quality audio- and videoconferencing is possible, and videoconferences can be as good as — if not more effective than — face-to-face meetings if participants are prepared and disciplined (see Business Spotlight 6/2018).
Formal communication cycles, such as regular weekly or monthly meetings, need to be combined with telephone calls and emails simply to check in, just as you would if you were in an office. Such informal virtual encounters are essential to maintain alignment. Leadership can also be exercised through local leaders. Indeed, building a team of trusted and skilled local advocates is one of the most critical success factors for leading virtual teams successfully.
Challenge 3: The authority paradox
During leadership training, I like to provoke participants by saying that
organizations no longer exist, and that we live in a world of “disorganizations”. I do this to highlight the dysfunctionality of many organizations: inadequate budgets are allocated to strategic projects; poor IT systems don’t support international operations; and there is a high level of competition between the different parts of an organization (“silos”) and between different leaders.
This is an uncomfortable truth for leaders today. They are no longer sovereign. Instead of kingdoms, they have territories in which others are allowed to ride and cause damage. They have responsibilities for lands not yet fully explored, but dotted lines of responsibilities transverse the floors of their castles. This makes clear to them every day that they can no longer decide alone. They can often feel like puppet kings.
Managing the authority paradox. We live in a complex world in which nobody can own the truth. Collective decision-making, in which dominant authorities are challenged by those with creative ideas, is likely to be optimal. So, leaders need to let go of leading and embrace a more collaborative decision-making process.
This means listening to the insights and needs of others, requiring extra time commitment and better time management. It also requires a climate in which people feel able to offer challenging insights and points of view. This climate is the “zone of psychological safety” identified by Google as critical for highperforming teams. Strangely, it may also mean embracing more traditional modes of authority in crisis periods. Upward escalation becomes a valid tool when the petty kings atop their silos refuse to collaborate. For many modern leaders, such escalation may feel uncomfortable, even an admission of failure. In the future, it will become an essential tool.
Challenge 4: The diversity dilemma
The degree of diversity that we encounter can increase dramatically when working internationally. And there is still no firm consensus across cultures as to the attributes and behaviours of “good” leaders. The only safe assumption when leading a diverse international team is that some members of the team will find your style highly problematic and may even reject it. You need to resolve the problem that you are unlikely to get everyone to buy into your vision of leadership.
Managing the diversity dilemma. Leaders need a good understanding of the different beliefs and values about leadership in their team. If you don’t know people’s expectations of you as a leader, how can you meet them? You can discover these expectations both formally in a workshop or informally over a coffee, by asking a simple question: “What is good
leadership for you?” Flexibility is also essential when handling diversity. This may mean being directive when you would prefer to empower others, if that’s what others prefer. It may also mean delegating tasks that you know you could do faster and better yourself, if that’s what motivates others. Perhaps the killer strategy for managing difference is to prove its advantage in decision-making. Of course, it’s important to take the time to integrate different ideas and perspectives into key decision-making processes. But openly celebrating the positive outcomes is the smart add-on. This proves the value of all that painful listening to people who have challenged your own ideas.
Challenge 5: The sustainability risk
Many organizations are involved in a “war for talent” to recruit the leaders of tomorrow. Succession planning is a critical activity, identifying those who can step up once the current leader is promoted, retires or is removed. As paradoxical as it sounds, developing a person with the skills to replace you is a key activity of leaders. Without this focus, organizational performance becomes dangerously dependent on the current leader(s). Future potential leaders then don’t acquire the necessary skills and experience to manage transformation, as they are blocked by the incumbent expert.
Managing the sustainability risk. Surprisingly few leaders have a clear development path for their direct reports, and few view the management of professional learning as a priority, seeing it as the responsibility of another department. But leaders who want to encourage sustainable personal development should have a kick-off meeting with direct reports at the start of each year to set targets for personal development, job enrichment and delegation. They should also use monthly conversations that integrate aspects of coaching, mentoring and training to track progress. They need to ensure that everything is linked to a proper understanding of the individual’s intrinsic motivations, which, in the end,
LEADERS NEED TO IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE WHO COULD REPLACE THEM
will drive their full commitment to the process. Interestingly, a younger generation is emerging for whom intrinsic motivation is less about working and more about living, less about earning and more about enjoying, less about profit and more about social impact. Sustainable engagement may require a recalibration of leadership and business values at a fundamental level.
Challenge 6: The democratic demand
There is always a risk when we entrust leadership to others. They acquire an element of control over our professional and personal destiny. The more we allow others to lead, the more potentially dangerous they become. And we increasingly realize that leaders will fail us if they are given too much power and respect.
Managing the democratic demand. Part of the solution lies in sharing information. Leaders need to offer more transparency, accountability and involvement in the leadership of their organizations, so that enough people can participate in the leadership process. Although we live in a world of data overload, more information can still be more useful than less information. I know of CEOS who write a weekly newsletter to their staff to update them on company news, important developments and key decisions, and include a forum for posing questions.
In a shared leadership model, however, there is also an imperative for “followers” to stop blaming leaders, and instead to engage with them, learn from them and challenge them. If not, you get what you deserve.
FOLLOWERS NEED TO STOP BLAMING LEADERS AND ENGAGE WITH THEM
There is, however, a real elephant in the room among all this talk of democracy: salaries. If we really want to talk about democratic ideals — the sharing of decision-making and open information exchange — then we may need to reduce the remuneration disparities that exist. The greater the elite status granted to those in leadership roles, the more likely this elite will protect its position. Leadership then becomes the act of protecting the institution of leadership. Now, that’s not sharing, is it?
Conclusion
Leadership is something that we can all own in the workplace. It does not need to be done to people, but can be exercised with others. And in an increasingly complex business world — in which multiple sources of information need to be collected, and multiple ideas discussed — it is no wonder that shared leadership is now emerging as a key future model. It is time for you to get involved. If you don’t, you’ll be handing control of your destiny to others. Is that really what you want?