Communicating our philosophy of leadership

While working in teams, I think it helps if every individual at some point clarify his or her philosophy of leadership to other members of the team who are in a similar growth path.

Different people have different definitions of leadership. Some would claim that authority on the field, skills, experience and capabilities make a person a capable leader. Others may claim that leader should not be assigned because different people emerge as leaders at different situations because not everyone can be a leader at every time. Some may say that leaders should have power and authority to command over the team they lead - and others may believe that leaders are on the same playing field, and that reason prevails over hierarchy. People have strong opinions about such topics because of their background and upbringing.

When people with different philosophies of leadership meet and work together without knowing each others approach to growth, their way of working collides and there is more room for conflicts. One person's assertive approach may appear rude to the other, and another person's modesty may appear as incapability. On the other hand, it helps if each person communicates his approach to leadership, and helps his team understand his way of handling things and his expectations from everyone else. Ideal would be for some person in the team with the "facilitator" role to create a forum for the team to share these thoughts and come to an understanding as to what would work best for the team as such. When employers are interviewing candidates or when anyone interviewing with a potential employer, it also helps to discuss this topic and evaluate if the environment and the candidate are a good match.

Collective Responsibility

Many large companies follow the hierarchical responsibility system, wherein the manager is responsible to lead a team consisting of several people who report to him. He is responsible for the success of the project the team is undertaking. He takes credit if the project succeeds, or the blame if it does not. However, his team members are working as hard as him to get the job done. His job is to oversee them, coordinate, plan, police, monitor and do whatever it takes to ensure that things are getting done in time. He is the channel for reporting status upwards in the food chain. His head is on the line if things fail, and he gets the credit if everthing goes on well.

For some reason which I am trying to discover by writing this down, this model does not seem correct to me. It seems like my value system contradicts with what is being followed in such reporting models.

That one person take credit or blame for the entire team doesn't sit well with me. It is okay for one person to coordinate all the activities and communicate to ensure that the grand vision is clear and reachable, but I think that person is in no way superior or inferior to people who perform the tasks. If things happened beyond the coordinator's control, it is not fair to blame him. Nor can he take away all the credit for the team's work just because he coordinated it. It would be against the principles of good teamwork.

The thought of 'teamwork' makes me want to clarify what I think it is about before I go on any further. In my opinion, a great team is where every member

• respects and is respected at all times, especially when opinions differ
• brings their best to the table and seeks to bring out the best in others
• is committed to, feels responsible for and seeks to achieve the common team goal

The hierarchical responsibility structure seems to encourage control. Since only the manager's head is on the line for the entire project, he better be given the power to control everyone undertaking the tasks. Otherwise it won't work. This threat cascades into authoritative leadership styles which I have described in my earlier post. The single-point-of-responsibility system subtly says "I am in charge here". Instead of also making the rest of the team feel responsible for the overall goal equally as him, this approach makes puppets out of them.

Perhaps it is true that only this model works best for large companies where alignment of vision across a large populous can be done only based on some degree of hierarchical control, and enforcement because coordination in this structure is much simpler.

Hmm... or is there a better way? This I am not sure now.

In small and medium sized organizations, self directed work teams is great. It promotes teamwork and collective responsibility. Companies like Semco have adopted it and have proven that it works. They have eliminated several layers of management in the organization. Team members take turns in coordinating projects. This approach may relatively be more chaotic, may appear disorganized, may result in more conflicting opinions that need to be resolved, but I think all these are far easier and better problems to solve. Collective responsibility will result in better interactions between people. People will remind each other when tasks slip away. Unhealthy competition and rivalry is reduced. When reminded of common goals to achieve to which the entire team is committed, people will bring their conflicts to compromises sooner. The key here is collective responsibility for the grand vision, as well as collective rewards. I will think more about the latter and write about it soon.

Authority

For some reason, I have never been a fan of "authority". Authoritative leadership and management styles have never impressed me in any way.

I am the kind of person who is more pliable with persuasive/inspiration based leadership and management. I am not comfortable sharing my opinions with people who are authoritative and threatening. I stop looking at the actual problem and become defensive. I stop thinking creatively.

What do I consider authoritative leadership?

An authoritative leader

• forces his opinion on people. He does not let people make their decision.
  
• needs to control to see things done the "right" way.
• needs to create fear of consequence in order to get things done.
• will try not to give any impression that he could be wrong because he is supposed to be right, otherwise he cannot command respect.
• grooms puppets, not self-reliant thinkers.
• trusts very few.
  

An inspiration based leader

• tries to persuade and convince based on reason, and also allows himself to be convinced if reason prevails.
  
• knows that there is something to learn from everyone.
• does not use his power and position to dictate terms with people.
• cares to first understand what the other person is thinking, and tries to start from there.
• acts more and talks less.
• does not fear to admit mistakes.
• allows people to make mistakes as long as they learn from them.
• can be trusted.
  

The Purpose of a Business

The purpose of a business should be to solve a common problem at hand. It should not create new desires and new problems.

This is not my philosophy speaking, but basic economics. For example, consider the automobile industry. The Toyotas and the Nissans and the Hondas solve the problem of a reliable, economic way of transportation to a very good extent. But I would not say the same with the Ferraris, Mercedes, or the Porsches. Do they solve any common problem? I don't think they do.

In fact, they add on to, or magnify the big pile of problems we already have to deal with - envy, discontentment, insecurity. The power of the human mind should be used to solve and eliminate existing problems that make life more meaningful. It is too valuable to be wasted in creating new problems for ourselves.