|
continued... As Goes the Follower; So Goes
the Leader
By Peter Block
--Joel
Henning is an author, consultant and friend of mine. I recently
participated in a simulation he designed in which teams are asked to
role-play three different styles of leadership.
Team 1 role-plays a
high-control, patriarchal leadership style.
They are given a short case study and are to define the problem, devise
a solution and run an employee meeting as a true patriarch would do it.
They have all the answers, save the questions for the end, and basically
take the stance that employees are the problem and if they will follow
the leader, and swallow the vision, they will save their jobs and be
rewarded for their compliance.
Team 2 is to
practice cosmetic empowerment.
They define the problem, devise a solution and run a meeting using
modern language of participation, collegiality and participation, but
never really give up control. The leader still holds all the cards but
plays them in good cheerleader fashion. Everyone is called an associate,
the change program has a catchy title, all will be trained in the new
skills, fear will be driven out of the workplace and all are given a
slogan tee shirt and a plastic vision card. The meeting ends with
reassurance that the leadership team will role model the new behaviors.
Team 3’s task is to
role-play genuine participation and empowerment.
They invite people
to help define the problem and they commit to seek joint solutions. They
express their own doubts and underline the complexity of the problem and
the fact that the future is hard to predict. Their strategy is to run
the meeting as a dialogue and commit to developing solutions which
redistribute power, information and resources in a meaningful way.
--The
employees’ responses to each of these strategies stunned me. The
simulation began with the patriarchs. The people were quiet, with their
arms folded, and had one or two pale, informational questions at the
end. When asked their feelings about the meeting, they said they felt
controlled, punished.
--The
cosmetic empowerment team went next and the employees asked many
questions, all of which were cynical and reeked of barter and deal
making. They asked, “What’s in it for me?” and “Where did this fad come
from?” They wanted the leaders to prove their sincerity. There was a lot
of laughter and energy during the meeting. Upon reflection, they felt
manipulated and doubtful, although they admired the cleverness of the
strategy.
The genuine participation group went last and when they shared their
intention to involve everyone in defining the problem and solution the
employees would have none of it. They wanted a common vision and
strategy, they wanted to know what was expected of them and were fed up
with this soft, open-ended non-solution. They questioned who was in
charge and who was going to steer the ship to a safe harbor. They wanted
to know what management was going to do to fix the problem. In
processing the meeting, they felt management had abdicated. The
employees had 20 suggestions about how the team could have done a better
job and voted no confidence.
There was something very real about the simulation. What was disturbing
was that:
We resent patriarchy
and its dominance,
We become cynical at
attempts at cosmetic change,
Yet faced with the
prospects of real participation and accountability for an unpredictable
tomorrow, patriarchy begins to look better and better.
--One
of the participants summed it up with this statement, “We hated
patriarchy, we were cynical about cosmetics, but when we experienced
participation, patriarchy suddenly looked really good.”
--While
we may talk blithely about the end of command and control, emotionally
we miss it when it’s gone. If we are offered real choice and power, we
push our leaders back into a controlling and directive stance. Our lips
may say no to a benevolent monarch, but our eyes say yes. Leaders see
the longing for good parenting in our eyes, and they have little choice
but to respond.
--Instead
of treating bosses as simply one player in the drama, we make them
all-powerful. What they do is the center of our attention. We place our
freedom in their hands, and should they offer it to us, as in the
simulation above, we say we liked you better as a parent.
--Another
aspect of the simulation was the variation in the experience of each
team as it planned its presentation. The task was the easiest for the
patriarchal team. They knew what high control looked like, they agreed quickly on what to do and who should do it, and finished
before the time was up.
--The
team planning cosmetic change had the most fun. They created slogans,
visuals and catchy recognition programs. The fun extended into the
employee meeting, which was run as a variety show. Everyone enjoyed it,
leaders included. Granted it was manipulation, but since it was
entertaining, everyone seemed to put up with it.
The genuine participation group was miserable during the planning and
constantly were asking for more time. When they ran the employee
meeting, no one wanted to play the leader. They were hesitant during the
meeting and depressed when it was over, especially after receiving 20
suggestions for improvement.
The simulation underlined what we intuitively know:
The clarity and
simplicity of command and control make it irresistible. It is easy to
plan and easy to implement. It is the perfect means to postpone the
struggle over real, shared accountability.
--It
is very sobering to see the struggle in this culture, to create
participative institutions which demand people to act on their own
freedom. All of which brings me back to the belief that it is the energy
and willingness of the followers that creates much of the style and
strategy of the leader. Given the simplicity and clarity of high control
leaders, it is no wonder they are still so common and even attractive.
--In
all these ways, our expectations create the leaders we receive. They are
the effect, we are the cause. High control bosses are created by our
reluctance to care for the whole and assume the risks inherent in our
own freedom. If we could accept this idea, we could then have the
leadership that we seek and our search for better leadership would be
over.
This
article appeared in
News for a Change published by AQP in July
1998 |
