6
Ways to Challenge Your Leadership Assumptions
The
need to question underlying assumptions is one of the enduring lessons from my
undergraduate study of economics. Holding variables constant, forecasting
external conditions, and making presumptions about behavioral patterns can make
a bad idea look great or deflate an otherwise sound plan. And if there’s one
thing I’ve learned since my college days, it’s that assumptions can have just
as big an impact on qualitative areas—such as leadership—as they do on
quantitative endeavors.
I
recently came across a paper written almost two decades ago in which Miles Bryant, a professor of education administration at
the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, compared Western leadership beliefs to
those of Native Americans from six Plains tribes. Bryant and a group of
graduate students sought to learn how culture figures in conceptions of
leadership. The resulting paper tied leadership closely to role and rank in
both traditions (see my column, “Let’s Just Stop Calling Them Leaders” for the counterargument).
While his sample set is small—his team interviewed only 12 individuals—he found
six distinct differences that are useful for examining leadership assumptions.
I am not arguing that either set of beliefs is “right” (nor did Bryant). The
variances are simply a catalyst for thinking more deeply about what makes an
effective leader.
“Leadership,”
as we most often use the term, is not universal; it is an Anglo-Saxon concept
dating to Carlyle’s Great Man Theory in the 19th century.
Leadership was not something generally associated with business executives
until late in the 20th century. Historian James MacGregor Burns’s landmark 1978 book, Leadership, carefully examined political and social
leaders from Napoleon to Mao, but made only a few references to business
people as leaders. Today, leadership seems to be the subject of every fifth
tweet. The term is ubiquitous. But do we truly understand what we mean
when we use it? Bryant’s six findings could help us find the answer.
Today,
leadership seems to be the subject of every fifth tweet. The term is
ubiquitous.
1.
How does hierarchy fit into your view of leadership?
The first difference
Bryant found between Western leadership beliefs and those of the Plains Tribes
was around leaders and hierarchy. Whereas mainstream Western thinking holds
that a group needs someone in charge if it is to accomplish its tasks
effectively and efficiently, the Native Americans Bryant documented saw each
person as important, with a distinctive contribution to make to the success of
the group. “No single entity supervises other individual entities in some
hierarchal fashion,” he wrote. Of course, our organizations have been getting
less hierarchical for several years now. Management thought leader Gary
Hamel
has been advocating for decentralized leadership, and companies such as WL Gore and Herman
Miller
have been experimenting with it in their organizations as a route to greater
innovation, engagement, and customer satisfaction.
2.
As we navigate the Anthropocene age—so dubbed because of the impact
humans have had on the environment—how might the Native American view of a
leader’s value inform how we think about our relationship to the larger system
in which we operate?
The second variance that Bryant identified was around
the leader as a source of wisdom versus a creator of organizational value. He
found that the Native Americans he studied saw value in all things and that a
leader grew into that role through lifelong study of how the world works. It
was not about the ability to exploit resources for tangible value, but rather
the ability to understand the system and how to thrive in harmony with it.
3.
What does your approach to development say about the level of trust you have in
others?
Bryant also found a distinction around the leader’s role as a developer of
others. While it is common for us to think of leaders as active builders of the
skills and knowledge of those around them, the Native Americans Bryant studied
took a hands-off role even when they saw the need for their involvement.
Responsibility for development was entrusted to each person and a leader would
only intervene when asked for help. This is related to the lack of hierarchy.
But it mainly happened because non-interference was seen as a matter of trust:
The leader trusts others, hoping that a person “will come to the desired level
of understanding,” Bryant wrote. Pressure on an individual to improve came from
the culture, not from other individuals.
4.
As a leader, are you most concerned with yourself or the achievement of shared
goals?
The Native Americans Bryant interviewed prized modesty in their leaders. Unlike
executives who demand larger offices with fancier furnishings as they rise, the
Native American leaders deflected credit and sought not to stand out. Bryant
noted that one had to look “very carefully” to find the lead person at a
powwow. This reminded me of the humility that Jim Collins found in his “Level 5 Leaders.” There are the Trump-like
preeners eager to demonstrate their status with a private jet or
diamond-encrusted wristwatch, and there are those who quietly work for the best
collective outcome, be it for the tribe or the corporation. Consider the
signals you send as a leader.
5.
How much of your leadership time and attention is focused on tomorrow, and how
attentive are you to today?
Bryant found a distinction around the concept of time.
Western leaders, he said, perceive their value as “reducing future uncertainty
through an ability to predict future events” with strategic planning, vision
setting, and other activities. In contrast, the Native American leaders were
deeply invested in the present. The timing of their actions was set by natural
cycles or by sensing that people were ready to undertake a certain task. While
a future orientation can be useful, so too can a commitment to be fully in the
now. In a comprehensive review of corporate failures, Dartmouth professor Sidney Finkelstein found that signs of
impending crisis were there to be seen 100 percent of the time.
6. How intentional and transparent are you about which decision-making models you choose and use?
6. How intentional and transparent are you about which decision-making models you choose and use?
Bryant’s sixth and final distinction was related
to decision making. Decisiveness is prized among executives—the mark of a true
leader making tough calls. Decision making in the Native American tribes was a
more collective enterprise, with participants arranged in a circle and
all free to speak. Though there was a cost to speed and efficiency, the process
was designed to draw upon the strengths and perspectives of each person involved.
By
being thoughtful about your assumptions, you can become better aware of the
options you have to most effectively exercise your leadership.
http://www.strategy-business.com/blog/6-Ways-to-Challenge-Your-Leadership-Assumptions?gko=173e5
No comments:
Post a Comment