Topsy-Turvy
Leadership from the Bottom-Up
Obolensky
(2010), opines, leaders don’t know, know they don’t know, and can’t say they
don’t know the very answers to questions needed to provide success to the
organization; yet, haven’t both leaders; and, for that matter, followers known
this for as long as leaders have existed? The opening salvo to Obolensky’s
(2010) “Finita La Comedia – Stop Playing Charades” offers readers the challenge
of considering the primary source of “solutions that actually make specific
changes happen on the ground to get positive results” (p, 33). Presuming one’s
initial reaction aligns with that of research results, the majority of
solutions come from the bottom; and, further presuming this discovery has held
true since the time of the great pharaohs, why is our long-held perspective of
leadership, one that placed leaders in heroic, ivory towers of knowledge, beginning
to change to one that not only removes the ornate Mardi Gras mask from our
leaders; but, one that asks followers to consider their role in that which is
described as “the greatest discontinuity of leadership assumption” (Obolensky,
2010, p. 19)? While venting
around the workplace water cooler may provide a temporary release of
frustration, little is contributed to the overall success of any organization
when those at the bottom only offer criticism for those at the top; thereby
leaving those in the middle left to “pull their hair out” as the great divide
continues (Obolensky, 2010, p. 36). Perhaps in some sense it is the expansion
of the middle, Kelley’s (1998) “effective followers”, along with an increase in
technology and a decline of heroic leaders with messianic foresight that have
combined to provide this paradigm shift in leadership (p. 144).
The way in which
my grandparents viewed leaders varies greatly to the way leaders are viewed by
today’s generation. Watch any documentary on The History Channel and the titans of industry, Rockefeller,
Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and Ford are portrayed as all-knowing, all-powerful
leaders who stop at nothing to gain their measure of success, increased profits.
My mother was from Pennsylvania and the story of the steel mill strike that
involved Carnegie’s hiring of the Pinkerton Agency to quell the worker’s
uprising is legendary. Yet, through all of this, Carnegie is nowhere to be
found. Carnegie and others failed to learn that which Stewart and Gallear
(2014) identify as key for engaging employees, “paying attention to your people”
(p. 1). My own generation was spoon-fed the concept of a career included being
hired and working one’s way up the corporate ladder with the dream, in my case,
of achieving a career height of becoming an executive’s assistant because I had
dutifully mastered typing skills. By the way, to this day, I abhor typing. Today’s
millennials are far less concerned with the typical nine to five job; instead,
they seek a quality of life which is a contributing factor to the change in
leadership.
Remember
the movie, Nine to Five? At the end,
the audience sees the innovative ideas that have been put in place by the women
of the office, portrayed by Lilly Tomlin, Dolly Parton, and Jane Fonda, “effective
followers”, who listened to the water cooler rants from the bottom; and, now
proudly support Dabney Coleman’s leader character, as he explains the changes
to his bosses. Flexible scheduling allowed two clerks to split their time in
order to enhance each worker’s quality of life. An in-house daycare facility
relieves mothers and fathers of stresses associated with childcare, thereby
increasing worker productivity. Considered novel and futuristic at the time, SAS,
as outlined by Fishman (1999), offers its workforce the “Good Ship Lollipop”,
complete with on-site child care, unlimited sick leave, a family-oriented
dine-in cafeteria, and a policy of locking the company gates after all workers
have left promptly at five o’clock. Likewise, the concept of nine to five itself
is giving way as demonstrated by workers in Japan who routinely find work by
using today’s technology.
Sungawa, as
noted by Katayama (2008), recognized Japan’s youth, those who routinely relied
upon their cell phones to plan meetings and subsequent evening activities,
preferred “freedom and flexibility” rather than being tethered to a traditional
job. Sungawa brought the “concept of real-time online resale” to Japan’s
dwindling, traditional workforce; and, in so doing, launched the Otetsudai
Network, which uses GPS to link millennials to jobs that provided them with immediate
gratification, cash for a job well done, and the freedom to pursue other life
goals (Katayama, 2008).
Rather than
conclude the traditional hierarchal pyramid of leadership is being turned on its
head, I see a rounding, almost oval appearance as today’s concept of leadership
continues to shift. Stewart and Gallear (2014) contend that before leaders can
lead, they must first “lead themselves” (p. 3) This has been affirmed in
countless leadership courses that recognize the graduated with honors MBA is no
longer “the sine qua non”; and, more often than not, leaders are at times
followers just as followers are at times leaders (Obolensky, 2010, p. 24).
Those stuck in the middle, literally at their wits’ end, have, in my opinion
resulted in today’s recognition for employee engagement and served as the
starting point for leaders to begin to adopt the idea of humility and admitting
they do not hold all of the answers. The relationship between leaders and
followers has always been there. Regardless of how history recalls a general’s
battlefield successes, without soldiers, without followers, how successful is
that general? The dynamic, or the focus on the dynamic that has changed is it
is not an either/or proposition. Either a successful career or a successful family
life. Rather, it is a great career and a great family life; and, when that is
married with the changing workforce, the advances in technology, and the
changing view of leadership, we can begin to see the value of and the need for
Yin and Yang relationship with leaders and followers and why leaders must be
willing to oil, tune, grease, synchronize, and unleash the power of an engaged
workforce (Stewart & Gallear, 2014).
References
Fishman, C. (1999). Sanity Inc. Fast Company. Retrieved from
http://www.fastcompany.com/36173/sanity-inc
Katayama, L. (2008, June 4). Tokyo upstart offers freeters mobile flexibility: Otetsudai
Networks connects employers with staffing problems to
aspiring workers for short-term
temping tasks with cell-phone service. The Japan Times. Retrieved from
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2008/06/04/digital/tokyo-upstart-offers-freeters-mobile-flexibility/#.V7CgrZgrKhe
Kelley,
R.E. (1998). In Praise of Followers. Harvard
Business Review, 66(60, 142-148.
Obolensky,
N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. (2nd
ed.). London, UK: Gower/
Ashgate.
Stewart,
A. & Gallear, J. (2014). Employee Engagement through the lens of
leadership. Insights.
Retrieved from https://www.insights.com/files/1.employee-engagement-through-the-lens-of-leadership.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment