I've been chatting with Jeremy Heigh
about leadership and the role of the expert. Jeremy knows a lot about
capital, and, like me, he wants to see entrepreneurs succeed. He is, I
think, a natural entrepreneur himself -- he wants to take charge, and
teach and show people how to organize and run an enterprise
effectively. With the right partners, I think he'd be great at it.
I
used to want to do that, but I've come to realize I am better suited to
be a facilitator, an enabler of other people's success.
My idea of leadership has evolved extensively since my youth:
- In my 20s, I was a director -- I told
my staff (and anyone else who would listen) what I thought they should
do and how I thought they should do it, in the belief that my instructions would be followed.
- In my 30s, I became a leader-by-example -- I showed people what I thought they should do, in the belief that my model would inspire them.
- In my 40s, I became a coach -- I advised people, based on asking questions, what they might find would improve their personal effectiveness, in the belief that my understanding and reflection might help them.
- And now, in my 50s, I have become a facilitator -- I listen to and observe people, in the belief that by offering tools and removing obstacles from their path, I might make their work easier.
This
evolution has reflected in part my own maturity, and in part a
self-realization of what I do best and what effect my work has had on
others, especially those working 'for' me. From telling to showing to
advising to observing, offering, running interference and staying out
of the way, I have become humbler and intervened less, yet I, and those
I work with, seem to accomplish more.
Some of this reflects the
nature of work itself in the 21st century. As Peter Drucker pointed
out, most workers now know how to do their jobs better than their boss,
because jobs have become so specialized, and because the bosses, often,
have never held the jobs that now report to them. It's pretty hard to
tell or show people what to do when you've never done it yourself!
I've
also come to believe that most people do their best in the workplace
(in part out of self-interest and in part out of personal pride), so it
makes more sense to help them do their work the way they want to, than
to tell them to do it differently. I have seen many 'change management'
programs fail, not because the front line people couldn't change, but
because they knew that the changes proposed would make things worse,
not better. What is fascinating is that these people will bend
themselves into pretzels to find workarounds that will let them do what
they know is best, while appearing to do what they're told.
There
are, of course, exceptions. There are deadbeats who ride the coattails
of more diligent and conscientious workers. There are antagonists who
will perversely undermine and sabotage, out of jealousy, fear, or
spite. What I have observed, though, is that in most groups entrusted
to self-manage, these people will be outed by their peers and will
usually leave when they can no longer get away with their behaviour,
because their peers simply refuse to put up with it. And schism between
'management' and 'front line' cannot arise if there is no distinction
between the two roles.
The most difficult problem with this
approach is dealing with people who are dysfunctional because of
factors outside the workplace -- people who have been traumatized,
depressed, or warped into psychopathy. I have not found an answer for
how to make such people effective and energized in the workplace.
Some conservatives think this whole approach is naive. The Lakoffian
'strict father' approach that pervades the way most conservatives bring
up their children often carries over into the way they treat their
'subordinates'. Perhaps I've just been fortunate to have co-workers who
respond better to a progressive 'nurturing parent' approach, but I
doubt it. My observation is that domineering managers and "tell me what
to do and how to do it" employees seem to find each other, and enter
into a kind of co-dependent relationship. The work environment of such
groups is efficient, but in my experience it is also uninspired,
untrusting, inflexible and relatively ineffective. That's why we
invented robots.
The role of facilitator, as I try to practice it now, entails the following:
- Pay attention, listen, and understand why things are the way they are now.
- Probe to discover what the obstacles are to co-workers' work effectiveness, and work to remove those obstacles.
- Imagine
ideas, suggest frameworks, co-develop visions, and create tools, that
might make things easier. Offer them, demonstrate them, as experiments,
and then let the group do what they will with them -- evolve them,
adapt them, or fail them. Let what works work, and let what doesn't
work go.
- Appreciate -- thank your co-workers and show you appreciate their work and their ideas.
- Collaborate when you are invited to do so. Invite others to collaborate to solve important workplace problems.
Strictly
speaking, a facilitator stays on the sidelines, is objective, and does
not offer ideas or suggestions -- such intervention is more of a
coach's role. But I'm not a purist, and since my 'genius' (as I've
often written) is imagining possibilities, I think it's foolish not to
offer them. Effective facilitators often have a genius, or expertise,
that can gently fit into their role without impairing their value as
facilitators. And I think good facilitators are essential to good
collaboration.
This seems to work better than the approaches I
used in my 20s, 30s, and 40s. But ask me again in another ten years.
When it comes to 'leadership', collaboration and expertise, I'm still
learning.
|
9:29:33 PM 
|
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
