Changing our view on Leadership and Followership

I have recently attended a course on Leadership. I am sure a significant majority of managers have recently done the same.

To put that into context within 48 hours the following high-profile Leadership and Change Management people have done presentations in Jersey

Jim Lawless has presented to JT and many of the top States’ people
http://www.jimlawless.com/

Mike King and The Leadership Trust has launched their new programme in Jersey
http://leadership.org.uk/leading-with-impact/

Julian Stodd  is presenting at Prosperity 24.7 - Leadership in the Social Age
https://julianstodd.wordpress.com/

Some thoughts…

I won’t talk about the content of the course I did (with The Leadership Trust) nor will I try to profess its value and that I might be a better leader (title), or able to show leadership (behaviour) as a result.

Instead I want to share some thoughts about Leadership and learning, which may be either timely (or ill-timed) depending on your view of the surreptitious orchestration of Leadership and Change Management people.

I am a cynic on the subject of Leadership since I recoil at charismatic (personality driven) leadership which can be narcissistic and generally only acceptable in a time of crisis or war. I am more of a disciple of humble leadership which is about collaboration, co-operation and teamwork.

I strongly believe this to be the case given the pace of change, technology, education and the increasing emphasis on trust. Let me explain this further.

Perhaps 100 years ago technology could be comprehended and education was such that some people are the thinkers (upper class) and others are the doers (working class). Management (middle class) is straight forward and somewhat based on industrial thinking.

Nowadays however people do not really comprehended technology: how many of you could build the car that you drive, or programme the computer that you use? Instead we trust that someone else has done their job, and simply work on ours. We don’t second guess the pilot, driver, and scientist.

However ironically education means we aren’t split into the educated elite and work-force there is increasing democracy and opinion on management and leadership. We all have an opinion on our boss, the leader, the prime minister or the football manager or coach.

So we live in a world where we have education, democracy and opinion without comprehension or capacity to cope with a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world of fast paced changes.

The importance of Trust

In my opinion the only way to cope with this is through careful and thoughtful allocation of trust. I am fascinated by the teamwork in a Formula 1 pit stop. There is no panic, everyone has a role, they are all professional and none interfere with each-other during execution of the task. There may be lots of dialogue, introspection in the design and practice but once agreed the plan is executed with precision.

Who do we choose to trust and follow? You might surmise from the Formula 1 comment above that my choices are based on knowledge, experience and action, but I fully accept that others might use based on looks, personality or charisma or many other criteria based on culture, education and their preferences and biases.

I learned a couple of things about myself

I look at an “open field” of opportunity and think I wonder what can be done over there? I know others look at a product or service and wonder where or with whom can they develop their ideas.

I avoid looking at titles, badges and names and look at behaviours and skills. So when people meet I’ll note what they “do” (or how they might be a useful resource) rather than who they “are”. I hadn’t realised that for example when introducing myself I will tell people what I do, but nothing about who I am.

In the leadership task we were given this became apparent when the team I was working in were fixated on the “problem” and learning the factors, patters, etc., whereas the other team were more interested in the “people”.

In the debrief the team working on the problem said they didn’t feel personally pressured (under scrutiny) whereas the other team did feel anxious. The outcome was that Team A failed to complete the task in time, and Team B didn’t, but importantly since it was meant to be an overall challenge we collectively failed.

There was subtle animosity / friction between Team A and Team B for the competition and collective failure, which got me thinking: Would it have been best for both teams to succeed, but second-best for both teams to fail?

What are your attitudes to challenges, winning or losing?

Let’s think about the possible outcomes

A wins, B wins
A wins, B loses
A loses, B wins
A loses, B loses


Some questions…

In what order of preference would you put these results if they were teams or departments working in the same organisation?

Would your preference change if you knew which team you were on, or the personalities on Team A and Team B?

Would your preference change depending on the nature of the task: 1) Life critical task where someone might die 2) Tasks where there is no “fail” only different levels of success 3) Tasks with no discernible value our outcome for the participants

The implications…

I think exploring your own answers (and reasons) may be revelatory to you in understanding your own views of leadership and followership.  This is important because there can be no leadership without followership.

I believe success comes from being able to do both equally well, hence my emphasis on humble leadership, collaboration, cooperation and communication.

I welcome feedback