Leading Leaders

Introduction

It is the trend of modern business consultants to promote the creation of vision and mission statements as the first steps in organizational improvement. For students of organizational development and leadership, it is imperative to understand the difference between change driven by and therefore mandated by an executive team and change cultivated from within an organization. Karlene Kerfoot, opined within her writings that sustained change does not happen in organizations in which the executive team issues mandates or new programs. “People must begin to own the change and transfer the change horizontally among each other within the organization.” (Kerfoot, 2005, p.271). The challenges of this theory and its implementation lie in the dynamics involved in basic human psychology and the hierarchal, kingdom-like nature of most organizations. With these factors in mind, is sustained change realistic within a hierarchical organization? How can an organization undergo a positive, grass roots transformation that agrees with the overall goals and objectives of a company’s leadership? In what ways can a mid-level manager begin to effect change within their own hierarchal organization? This article will examine each of these areas.

Is sustained change realistic in a hierarchal structure?

Jon Husband, a blogger for Wirearchary’s Social Architecture for the Wired World, seems to doubt that effective change can be accomplished within the traditional structure still embraced by the majority of organizations in operation today.

There have been scads of organizational development and organization change books trumpeting the need and one way or another that this is accomplished under a great leader or a magnificent leadership team. There are competency models galore, climate and culture surveys, and a wide range of other assessment, diagnostic and developmental tools and processes aimed at "harnessing the employees' and the organization's potential".

The structure of most organizations of any size is still clearly hierarchical, and it is the rare "authentic" or natural leader that possesses, finds or grows in him or herself the wisdom to bring humility, purpose, values, clarity and inclusive decision-making to the challenging role of creating and leading a responsive, adaptable and effective organization. (Husband, 2007, ¶ 11-12)

Though the new generation of management theories and younger workers demand an empowered environment, today’s leader is one that was likely groomed in the industrial era’s style of management. These executives were taught to manage from the top-down, and are accustomed to and likely comfortable with the hierarchical style. It is not typical of this type of manager to encourage feedback or welcome ambiguity. Moreover, most executives are uncomfortable with any perceived loss of control, and may reassert a hierarchical structure in a crisis situation.

Husband also claims that although it is likely that executives have been exposed to and likely received training on these newer organizational models, their compensation structures and performance objectives have not been altered to encourage their use (Husband, ¶ 17). Indeed, many of today’s executives know only how to follow in the footsteps of the executives that came before them – taking little risk with ego and using power of position to issue directives from the corner office. Though the changes initiated by these leaders may be needed, and in the correct spirit, such directives can result in a variety of employee responses, from true commitment to pure apathy (Senge,2006, p.204). An organization that is committed to maintaining a strict hierarchy cannot simultaneously experience a sweeping, positive change. There must be a willingness within the company’s leadership to relinquish some structure in order to see real, meaningful results. The next section will discuss alternative methodologies hierarchical organizations can employ to encourage meaningful dialogue among their workers.

Senge teaches that if one were to closely examine the origins of corporate visions, most will ultimately prove to be one group or one person’s ideas imposed upon an entire organization . (Senge, p.192) . It is because of this imposition that an organization fails to gain the trust and commitment of its employees. There are alternatives to this top-down approach that though valuable, seem seldom utilized by corporate leaders. Kerfoot and Senge write that within every organization there are individuals known as “internal networkers / communicators.” According to Senge, these employees usually carry neither power nor title – but move within the organization carrying knowledge and creating inter-departmental relationships that are critical to the success or demise of any corporate resolution (Kerfoot, 2005). When utilized effectively, relationships with these employees can yield amazing results.

Internal networkers are not difficult to identify. These are employees that if called upon could identify the name and title of everyone within the organization and can relate socially to all, regardless of position. They understand the inner-workings of the organizational structure and are a catalyst for change within the business’s social environment. Because of their vast emotional intelligence, these are often the most influential, but perhaps underappreciated and underutilized employees within the organization. The initiation of a grass roots campaign for positive change depends upon the effective use of these valuable employees in meetings, casual collaborations, and team building exercises.

Most solutions are not created in a vacuum, however many executive teams mistakenly exclude “line workers” from strategic planning sessions. While leadership is correct in the assumption that it is not necessary to invite every employee to initial meetings, the involvement of these key networking employees in goal setting discussions and the sincere solicitation of feedback will encourage dialogue and positive interaction among workers. These actions are key in the creation of goodwill toward the leadership of the organization, as well as the vision and change they are attempting to promote. Internal networkers become inspirational – hallmarking for their co-workers what is possible and creating an environment of empowerment.

Once the movement toward collective change has begun, management must monitor the environment and uphold whatever commitments have been made during collaborative strategy sessions. Outward displays such as these will encourage continued positive dialogue among employees and increase the level of buy-in among the rank and file.

Mid-level managers can exert an astounding amount of influence within an organization. Though not executives, and therefore not able to set overall policy and company-wide goals, the way in which a mid-level manager mentors and interacts with his or her employees and colleagues has much to do with the way those workers view the organization. In many ways, the manager is the “organizational eyes and ears” of his or her employees – meaning that the way in which the employees view the organizational culture will often be filtered by any conversations that have taken place with the manager. A manager must take great caution to represent situations as honestly as possible; learning to communicate effectively and professionally with subordinates creates a positive organizational culture. Managers at this level have the opportunity to serve as examples to employees that are brand new to the workplace, as well as those that have served the organization for a number of years.

In addition to encouraging the positive behavior of subordinates, managers may act as informal mentors by steering conversations with colleagues toward solution oriented conclusions rather than encouraging “venting” sessions that lead to internal discord. By becoming active participants in departmental meetings and cross-functional teams, managers can effect positive change across a variety of areas, regardless of their specialization or function within the company.

Employees at the manager level also have influence over the people to which they report. The executive team depends upon its managers for vital information as to the performance of its key departments, products, and employees. While not all executives welcome the feedback of their management team regarding their own performance, there are those that welcome suggestions as to how the overall performance of the organization can be improved. As a knowledge provider, the manager can exert influence over the executive team in this way if the message is delivered carefully and effectively.

Conclusion

The movements based on the theories of organizational development and leadership find their basis in sound, human psychology and profound logic. The basic need for self fulfillment and personal mastery that is at the foundation of every empowerment model matches the contemporary worker’s mindset and wishes for self-actualization. The opinion of this student, however, is that until executives can forgo the traditional structures they’ve become accustomed to and begin to embrace more decentralized decision making processes, any positive changes within their businesses will be temporary. Real change requires real commitment and truthful, honest empowerment. Insincere executive teams that grant insignificant power to mid-management or solicit feedback without hearing it create apathetic work environments. Though many leadership teams may have the best of intentions, it is and will remain to be a very daunting challenge to hand over one’s power. The Kingdom mentality still prevails in many of the successful businesses. Until the executive suites have less of a mystique to the common employee, and members of upper management learn the value of the empowered worker it is my conclusion that real change cannot be effected within the typical hierarchical structure. It is however, also my strong belief that with the right leadership team and the right combination of employees the hierarchical environment can strive for improved communication and problem solving abilities using the tools listed within this article.

Husband, J. (2007). The wisdom of the organizational crowd. Jon Husband’s

Wirearchy . Retrieved on January 4, 2007 from

http://blog.wirearchy.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/2/2705068.html

Kerfoot, K. (2005). The Johnny Appleseeds of organizational change [Electronic version]. Nursing Economics, 23 (5), 271-274. from General OneFile. Gale. Chapman University. Retrieved December 26, 2007 from <http://find.galegroup.com.libproxy.chapman.edu:2048/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=ITOF&docId=A137967526&source=gale&srcprod=ITOF&userGroupName=chap_main&version=1.0>.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (2nd ed.). New York: Currency.

Each week I read articles that touch on major issues that affect businesses, such as economic trends and political changes. This week I chose to read Peter Senge's commentary on corporate leadership and the role that businesses play in world citizenship. While in my past readings I have found that Senge and his colleagues tend to focus on relational issues within individual organizations, I find this article in The Journal of Corporate Citizenship compelling because it deals with the impact that organizations as a whole play when taking a stand on crucial world issues.

Senge remarks that there are several roles a business can play in regard to issues that effect the future. First, they must take a stand on particular issues and lead by their actions on those issues. Next, they can work in partnership with other large organizations to accomplish change in market conditions. These types of cooperative alliances accomplish much more than one business working alone.

Similar to the lessons we learn in Senge’s The Fifth Discipline, corporate leadership depends on the ability of individuals to learn new methods of doing business – much as the lifespan of an organization depends on the willingness of its individuals to participate in a learning organization system.

In her article titled “The Johnny Appleseeds of organizational change”, Karlene Karfoot explains that Senge’s new executive leader is one “that builds an operating environment by articulating guiding ideas, and building an infrastructure for continual learning.” Organizations that embrace this ideology will no doubt be at the forefront of the corporate citizenship movement.

In this new age of cooperative learning, leadership is no longer one executive running his company as he sees fit. Leaders must now work together to make a difference, educate consumers and do their part to shape the future. (Senge, 2007)

I find it interesting that more businesses have not taken on this type of role before. Perhaps as more business owners and executives become aware of the importance of their works and the many ways in which they can influence each other as well as consumers, they will begin to act with more responsibility. It is also important that the companies that embrace these types of global leadership roles groom leaders within their ranks by encouraging a culture of constant learning and commitment to personal growth.

Kerfoot, K. (Sept-Oct 2005). The Johnny Appleseeds of organizational change. Nursing

Economics, 23, 5. p.271(3). Retrieved November 11, 2007, from General OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com.libproxy.chapman.edu:2048/itx/start.do?prodId=ITOF

Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (2nd ed.). New York: Doubleday .

Senge, P M (Summer 2007). Waking the sleeping giant: business as an agent for

consumer understanding and responsible choice.(Commentary). [Electronic Version] The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 26. p.25(3). Retrieved November 11, 2007, from General OneFile via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com.libproxy.chapman.edu:2048/itx/start.do?prodId=ITOF