First, let me tell you what I mean by the notion of "organization capacity" as a foundation for what follows. Capacity is the result of finding and fixing whatever prevents an organization from reaching optimal potential to deliver capabilities. Capacity depends on relationships, both internal and external. It is different from organization capability yet is often confused with that term. Capability is a set of deliverables (products and services) to those who exchange value (normally revenue at minimum but also loyalty) for the value received. If the value received is low, the equity transfer cycle declines. If the value is high, the cycle is sustained or increases. The most destructive capacity phenomena is the no-fault withholding of information between those on the front line and those in a leadership position to make better decisions that will eventually impact stakeholders adversely. This just isn't hard to understand and frankly, is beyond denial.
Back to the initial formula: if leadership contribution is HIGH and followership contribution is LOW the capacity is less than optimal and will eventually be reflected in the capabilities delivered to stakeholders - that includes paying customers. Anyone who has ever worked for any organization for at least one day knows that leaders are not always held in high esteem by those across the depth and breadth of the organization. Guess what, the equation works both ways. Rarely have I talked with anyone in a leadership role (regardless of legitimate authority vested by the organization) who did not lament the condition of the body of followers with whom they had to contend. The myth is that the "best" leaders will miraculously create a body of "best" followers. The amount of energy that would take in most cases would be astronomical.
Our current model of leadership is a leftover from the European eastern monarchy. There is a reality that I have come to embrace - not everyone wants to become that ideal leader to which many aspire - AND - not everyone wants to become that ideal follower which every leader prays will come her way. Compensation systems often demand that more pay requires a promotion to the rank of supervisor of manager. The playing field is NOT level.
That doesn't mean that we should not do our best, but is does mean that a good healthy collaborative effort to determine what "best" means might be is in order. Throw away the checklist and create a new one. On one of my Alaska RoadShows the title of the session turned into ASK! The simplicity of straightforward questions around expectations of those with whom we work would serve us all well. I've certainly failed to do so when it might have been appropriate and I'm sure others have fallen short as well. "What do you really expect of me? What are the most important expectations you have of me in our relationship? What would your "perfect" employee look/be like?"
Be careful. Here's just one true story of many. In a highly frustrated federal workforce I began to encounter front line employees who consistently told me (my words), "Every time I ask what it will take to get ahead around here, I hear the same thing. ""Just do your job!"" the boss tells me. But it never matters. As hard as I do my job the bosses favorites get ahead." I had occasion to meet with the supervisors alone and asked them, "What does it take to get ahead around here? How do people get promoted?" The answer was unanimous. "We're looking for people who go beyond the limits of their job description." They actually had a checklist that they used at promotion time and didn't hesitate to list some of the items on it. When it was time to consider candidates for advancement they were all looking for someone who did more than just their job. Who wouldn't be looking for that?
So, in this situation, which I believe is more common that one might think, it illustrates the point I'm trying to make. From this bit of common evidence the gap between leadership and followership is widening. The supervisors favorites were doing more, which caused more dialog between the supervisor and favorite, which fed the notion that the supervisor had favorites. The general belief among workers at this facility was that all supervisors played a deceitful game telling two stories instead of one. Do you suppose a worker having been in this kind of dysfunctional environment and then transfers to a new supervisor will ask or believe the answer in that new relationship? It seems highly unlikely. The new supervisor will have to work much harder to gain the level playing field the second time around.
Summary
Members of the non-supervisory workforce talk to each other far more often than do those who have to condend with the necessary isolation of supervisory trappings (offices, cubicles, distance, etc.). The chatter creates a culture that is difficult to penetrate. The cultural bond that forms is often created for a kind of self-protection against many obstacles, perceived or real. To break down barriers with questions is far more easily done than with statements. ASK questions. Close the gap from either end.
No comments:
Post a Comment