“Viewpoint,” World Business Academy, Volume 19, Issue 5, March 24,2005
Leadership and Self-managing Systems
by Charles Ehin, PhD
Editor's Note: On September 10, 2001, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani suffered a percentage-approval rating in the low 30s. The next day he became the prime exemplar of the theory of situational leadership. In this essay, Dr. Charles Ehin defines true leadership as being both situational and emergent, a natural outcome of self-forming human systems. Imposition of other forms of leadership is both unnatural and self-defeating. Leadership, says, Dr. Ehin, may be defined as "helping others to initiate or participate in worthwhile activities of which they unaware, or are hesitant to act upon on their own, to the benefit everyone involved." He believes the shared leadership process has four key interactive elements: committed associates, emerging leadership, opportunities and problems, and organizational context. Under these circumstances, literally anyone has the potential for leadership.
Leadership is a key "dynamic" of any well-functioning venture, especially when an organization depends heavily upon the generation and application of new knowledge or intellectual capital. A dynamic phenomenon, it emerges under all sorts of settings and, therefore, is unavoidable just like the continuous development of informal networks in any social group.
Most people, however, fail to distinguish between shared or situational leadership and hierarchical position power. The dissimilarities are significant. Appointed roles in organizations controlled from the top-down attain their power and status through resource holding power. On the other hand, emergent leaders earn their relative standing by means of social attention holdingpotential.
Position power is founded on coercion, no matter how benevolent, and demands compliance from subordinates in following orders. "True" leadership is situational and based on talent, expertise, and the demands of a particular circumstance. Hence, it is reliant on the commitment of followers to a common goal. As one can see, the differences are substantial.
"True" leadership is situational.
"Genuine" leaders are able to perceive certain situations from a different or clearer and less ambiguous perspective. They have a strong drive and willingly assume personal responsibility to complete a task, solve a pressing problem, or seize an opportunity. Accordingly, such leaders can take a confusing or complex state of affairs and frame it in a particular way that enables others both to understand it and also willingly to take action. Trust is another important aspect of leadership. Great leaders are well aware of the value of this quality, and decide to trust other people based on expertise and strong personal bonds instead of relationships founded primarily on hierarchical associations. Genuine leaders also have high levels of synthesized intelligence, creativity, and wisdom.
Anyone is capable of being a leader. Depending on their talents, skills, and experiences certain people are able to assume leadership roles more often than others, but each one of us has the capability to lead. The opportunity may be a small event or something monumental. When and what a person takes charge of depends on their background, chance, the group involved, and the situation. Thus, whether one is a world-renowned expert or a relatively anonymous being, one can and should "take the wheel" when the right occasion presents itself. At such times, such people, at least momentarily, are looked to for guidance.
We can find as many definitions of leadership as there have been writers on the subject. This fact suggests that leadership has no exact form that can be codified and followed. Therefore, like an individual's unique personality, leadership style is a tacit distinctive part of every person that cannot be completely emulated by others. So, if someone attempts to sell you a ten-step leadership formula guaranteeing success in the future (and many will repeatedly try), keep a firm hand on your purse or wallet. I offer my definition of leadership at the outset, to give you a better opportunity to determine if my description remains valid by the end of the paper. I define situational or emergent leadership as the process of:
Helping others to initiate or participate in worthwhile activities of which they are unaware, or are hesitant to act upon on their own, to the benefit of everyone involved.
Summary of Leadership Theories
As just mentioned, innumerable "recognized" theories of leadership exist. Beyond this, thousands more "unofficial" thoughts regarding the topic have yet to see daylight, since almost everyone seems to have their own opinions on the matter. Therefore, I will first briefly summarize some of the more popular leadership theories before presenting my own general model of shared leadership that is founded on commitment instead of compliance.
...competition by intimidation and domination...has monopolized our accepted wisdom concerning leadership.
Starting with the Sumerians about 5,000 B.C. and continuing with the Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Venetians and others, much has been written about the administration of large complex organizations. During the course of the Industrial Revolution ideas about management were further advanced by the writings of prominent economists and industry leaders such as Adam Smith and James Watt.
Finally, at the beginning of the last century three world-renowned figures set the stage for management thinking and research for the remainder of the industrial era. They were Max Weber, author of The Theory of Social and EconomicOrganization; Henri Fayol, who wrote General and Industrial Management; and Frederick M. Taylor, who became the leading management guru of his time with the publication of The Principles of Scientific Management. In my opinion, what has evolved in the annals of management thinking since these classic works appeared almost 100 years ago has basically been more rigorous refinement of the fundamental ideas presented by the three legendary authors.
Not unexpectedly, the topic of leadership has followed the same path since the advent of written history. Thus, with rare exception, almost all of the research and literature on the subject has revolved around the "anointed" man or woman charged with the affairs of private or public institutions. That is, the focus since recorded history has been nearly exclusively on how best to attain and apply position power.
From a progression perspective, competition by intimidation and domination, rather than by competition by attraction and voluntary cooperation, has monopolized our accepted wisdom concerning leadership. Until very recently, rethinking simply hasn't even been in the cards. This is a good example of how research in any field seldom strays far from the conventional mindset.
No wonder the "hidden assets" residing in every organization's informal social networks have been, and remain, largely untapped.
Classical Theories of Leadership
No wonder the "hidden assets" residing in every organization's informal social networks have been, and remain, largely untapped.
Before presenting my own ideas regarding leadership I need to provide more details with reference to existing theories so that I can better contrast current thinking with my own perspectives on the subject. Probably the most appropriate way to begin that process is to mention some of the so-called "classical" theories of leadership. They are classical because they have been around for quite some time, are part of the management curriculum of most universities, and are still widely used in our organizations. What they all have in common is that their center of attention is exclusively on assigned leadership or legitimized position power.
The coverage of classical leadership theories typically begins with the trait approach (originally designated as the "great man theory" before the introduction of equal opportunity laws). As one can speculate, considerable time and effort was wasted on attempts to define specific mental, psychological, and physical qualities associated with leadership success so that such a framework could be used to select "great men" for top positions.
Eventually, it was determined that leaders come in all sorts of shapes, sizes and genders and that intelligence, self-confidence, courage and so on also appear in a variety of forms. Obviously, whoever was in charge needed to have some aptitude but, other than that, the rest remained a mystery. Today important traits are considered to be: decisiveness, knowledge, adaptability, integrity, sociability, and diplomacy. That, in my opinion, adds little to the usefulness of trait theories.
Next, we have the behavioral theories of leadership. They advocate that successful administrators should not focus exclusively on either people or production. They must learn how to properly balance their attention on both factors.
If that isn't sufficient in order to become a great captain of industry we can turn to Contingency Theory. The contingency approach suggests that a good leader can determine what style of management to exercise by first determining what type of situation they confront. That decided, they then select one of three styles of leadership—task-oriented, relations-oriented, or a combination of both—to keep the troops in line.
Then, of course, there is the Path-Goal Theory. According to this theory the leader's primary task is to define an employee's job and the best path to reach his or her work goals. The most appropriate way to do that is for the boss to match the right leadership style with the characteristics of the followers.
Finally, if all else fails, one can always turn to the Life-Cycle Model of Situational Leadership. In applying this model a bright manager can select one of four styles of leadership depending on the "readiness" of his or her followers. The styles include telling, selling, participating, and delegating.
I don't think I need to go any further with the classical leadership theories. I believe it is quite clear that, even under the most stringent top-down conditions, these guidelines can, at best, provide only limited benefit to aspiring administrators.
Current Theories of Leadership
...once the transformation is completed these leaders, like everyone else, must relinquish their status based on rank (position power) and maintain their status in the group by adhering to the principles of emergent or "no bossing" leadership.
Six "modern" theories of leadership have gotten considerable attention during the past fifteen years. Quite recently two of the six theories have emerged. One is Super Leadership which advocates encouraging followers to become self-leaders. There is nothing wrong with this concept except that the super leader does not give up his or her "throne" in the organization once everyone else has passed the self-leadership test. I suppose the super star has to keep his or her rank permanently (relatively speaking) in order to assure complete adherence to self-leadership.
Transformational Leadership is another theory that still is quite popular. This model suggests that excellent top executives accomplish three things to keep their posts. First, they must recognize the need for organizational revitalization. Next, a new vision needs to be created. Finally, the transformation has to be institutionalized. Of course, this process is repeated again as conditions change. How can something be truly institutionalized without also seriously engaging the informal part of an organization where most of the work is accomplished in the first place?
The last two theories remind me of Mikhail Gorbachev's attempt to transform communism into a gentler and kinder version in the former Soviet Union. As we all know his endeavor failed because he had no intention of changing the fundamental framework of the communist system. The same is true with efforts to reform and streamline hierarchies. Tall, flat or placid, a hierarchy depends upon rank, domination and control. Also, as is the case with communism, the deficiencies of hierarchies are unavoidable.
The other four theories in vogue today are Stewardship, Servant Leadership, Primal Leadership, and Level 5 Leadership. The latter two are the most recent additions. The first recommends that people in top positions guide followers into becoming responsible team players. The second proposes that leaders be individuals who are willing to devote their efforts to serving others in accomplishing common goals. The third suggests that positive emotions are contagious. The fourth stipulates that the most effective leaders who help build enduring organizational greatness are not the high-profile types who make headlines. Instead they are a contradictory mix of individual modesty and professional resolve. How can anyone disagree with these leadership philosophies?
Such leaders are absolutely vital in converting hierarchies into democratic or self-managing systems needed for today's knowledge economy. However, what must also be plainly understood is that once the transformation is completed these leaders, like everyone else, must relinquish their status based on rank (position power) and maintain their status in the group by adhering to the principles of emergent or "no bossing" leadership to be discussed shortly.
The Key Dynamics of Current Leadership Theories
...flat or tall, run by a tyrant or a super leader, a hierarchy is a hierarchy no matter how its seats of power are masked.
To summarize four key dynamics that need to be kept in mind with reference to the current theories of leadership:
- First, we need to admit that rank hierarchies are not the most efficient or human-friendly entities. The fact is that many social institutions can be changed to eliminate those deficiencies if we so desire.
- Second, as mentioned previously, flat or tall, run by a tyrant or a super leader, a hierarchy is a hierarchy no matter how its seats of power are masked.
- Third, you can take the smartest and most charismatic person in the world and strap a supercomputer under each arm and they still could not be that ideal leader. Yet, strangely enough, we thoughtlessly expect that feat to be accomplished daily by the elected and appointed leaders of our public and private institutions.
Certain leaders can be, and are in most instances, assisted by expert staffs in their decision making processes. However, who makes the final decision, and how much does that individual heed the advice given to him or her? In many instances are we not literally setting people up for failure? Why do we not spread the organizational responsibility and accountability more evenly around instead of expediently looking for a scapegoat when things go wrong? If we are serious about developing much more effective enterprises we need to be prepared to answer these questions honestly.
Are we not literally setting people up for failure? Why do we not spread the organizational responsibility and accountability more evenly around instead of expediently looking for a scapegoat when things go wrong? If we are serious about developing much more effective enterprises we need to be prepared to answer these questions honestly.
- Finally, there is a very dark and seldom talked about side to the use of position power. The doling out of rewards (bonuses, salaries, choice assignments, office space, etc.) can be a very coercive exercise, sometimes even by well-meaning people. Much more demoralizing is the frequent application of position power or "legitimate" power. There really is no position or legitimate power. The only way a person is able to have more power over others is for followers to either willingly or by some form of intimidation give up some of theirs.
In any case, the more frequently people use position power, the more comfortable they become with its application. Eventually these individuals begin to devalue subordinates by attributing their performance to the frequent employment of their power rather than the abilities and motivation of the people lower in the organizational chart. Repeated users of position authority also like to maintain psychological distance from their subordinates and believe that it is acceptable to use manipulative skills for leadership effectiveness. As a result, given the appropriate surroundings, human beings can be both the most brutal and the most compassionate organisms on our planet.
It may appear that I dislike hierarchical systems. I do not.
Emergent leadership is a requisite and inevitable component of human social groups. It is a natural dynamic part of the self-organizing process of all biological entities. Position power, however, is not. It is an imposition and is dealt with accordingly (politely or otherwise) by the people associated with it. Consequently, from my standpoint, designated leaders can rarely be considered to be "genuine" leaders. Only emergent leaders have earned the respect of the people who willingly follow them. That esteem also constantly needs to be reacquired as conditions change because, unlike position power, shared leadership is situational and fluid.
Shared leadership is characterized by emergent behavior of individuals attempting to facilitate the integration of people's personal goals and aspirations with the vision of a given social group as a whole. It's a process of continuous change where different individuals (depending on their talents, skills, and expertise) are looked to for guidance and advice when a group is faced with different internal and external circumstances. It's founded on voluntary actions intended for mutual benefits and involves no intimidation or bossing. In essence, no one gives up his or her autonomy or power in the process.
It may appear that I dislike hierarchical systems. I do not. There is nothing to detest since organizational forms are inert. People determine how best to organize their collective endeavors. I simply want to illuminate another even more effective option for running our social institutions besides the top-down hierarchy. Our decisions on how to make that choice should rest on solid evidence and not on myths or misinformation. We also must keep in mind that knowledge workers are most productive when they are supported by a self- managing organizational context.
Figure 1. Elements of Shared Leadership
...leadership development follows personal growth.
Figure 1 graphically illustrates the four key interactive elements of the shared leadership process. Let us begin with the emerging leaders' element of the model. As is the case with our personalities, leadership qualities are partly genetic and partly gained through life experiences. Hence, we all have leadership potential to one degree or another. For example, some of us may be more extroverted, conscientious, and open-minded than our colleagues.
The same applies to our talents. One person may be naturally inclined toward instant action, continuous learning, going for the gold instead of being satisfied with average results, or seeking meaningful connections in the world around them, while others may have completely different innate tendencies. All of us need to discover what our natural predispositions are and put them to productive use. (Unfortunately, countless people are more concerned with overcoming their deficiencies rather than leveraging their inherited abilities.)
Unsurprisingly, leadership development follows personal growth. It is a progression whereby individuals with different traits and experiences will emerge to orchestrate activities in diverse situations. As mentioned before, no one person has the capacity to be an effective leader under all circumstances.
Fundamentally, from a general human nature perspective, individuals with the "right stuff" (talent, skills, and know-how) attract other peoples' attention at appropriate occasions. Therefore, everyone needs to be prepared to take the lead when a fitting situation presents itself. In fact, members of a self-managing group will look for and expect to receive advice and guidance from individuals who have expertise or experience in a particular area depending on the situation.
This leads us to the committed associates' component of the model. In general, all of us, to one degree or another, are naturally inclined to attempt to "mind-read" and keep track of the behavior of others. Thus, group members have a predictable penchant to evaluate who has the right stuff (and under what conditions) in helping to achieve reciprocally beneficial goals. Specifically, this means that the associates (as opposed to employees or followers) are constantly observing and categorizing the actions and reactions of their colleagues in dissimilar circumstances.
People look for unique qualities in each member that can be leveraged for the benefit of the entire group. In essence, they are continuously on the lookout for voluntarily engaging in the best possible opportunities that are mutually useful to all concerned. One can now comprehend why diverse sets of individuals outperform those that are more homogeneous and why everyone has the capability and perspective at least occasionally to assume the lead. Further, individual status flows from activities that attract others and is, therefore, neither absolute nor permanent. As conditions and needs change, so can an individual's status as a prospective situational leader.
In a self-managing system associates never relinquish their autonomy or surrender their personal powers, even temporarily, under any circumstances. At the same time, however, every member also accepts full responsibility and accountability for the success or failure of the group as a whole.
se with individuals needing to be prepared to take the lead, in order to know whom to turn to under specific conditions, everyone in a selforganizing system should also appreciate their associates' abilities. No one ever should hesitate to ask for appropriate support. It is also important that associates continuously pursue personal development individually and in teams. After all, self-organization is about commitment and not about compliance. Each person knows when to take the lead and when to follow.
The need for leadership exists only in the presence of an identified organizational opportunity to track or a specific problem to solve.
The focus on opportunities or problems is the third element of the model. Fundamentally, this suggests that the need for leadership exists only in the presence of an identified organizational opportunity to track or a specific problem to solve. In a self-managing system every member is constantly trying to discover new opportunities and to detect emergent problems that need attention. These situations may first investigated independently or immediately brought to the attention of other associates. It all depends on the potential dimensions and effect the situation may have on the enterprise.
Essentially, each group member holds the responsibility to explore any positive or negative state of affairs that he or she happens to encounter. If the member uncovers a possibly worthwhile new undertaking, he or she initially can independently scrutinize, or immediately solicit support from other interested people. In any case, once a sufficient number of people become convinced that a project is worth pursuing, the associate who made the original discovery usually will assume the lead role in the venture if he or she feels that they have the right qualifications and there are enough other people willing to support the effort. Thus, "dynamic order" develops around the project from start to finish.
Voluntary cooperation and commitment, rather than compliance, underpin the course of action. This is an extremely important difference between shared or situational leadership and leadership based on position power. No matter how benevolent, an appointed person in charge rarely is able to attain high levels of commitment from his or her followers; this leader mainly depends on reward and coercive power (actual or perceived) in gaining and holding people's attention. They seldom encounter situations where their known expertise and established relationships perfectly match the situation's needs and generate genuine commitment. Therefore, appointed leadership is mostly about the attainment of compliance (control) instead of commitment (order). In the process, effectiveness and efficiency suffer.
Organizational context is the fourth element depicted in Figure 1. Emergent leadership is seldom officially recognized and sanctioned within top-down systems. It is always present but, like a black market, it functions in the shadows or underground. As a clandestine operation there are no assurances whether the informal leadership supports, undermines, or simply stays neutral when it comes to formally declared policies and goals. Simply put, the realizations of the full benefits of self-managing systems are slim to impossible to attain without an organizational context that openly promotes self-management and situational leadership. Such a supportive work environment is dependent on the development and maintenance of four vital features. They include giving associates a great deal of individual autonomy, having a shared organizational identity, assuring members embrace a challenging vision, and practicing dynamic alignment. The latter factor places major emphasis on shared leadership and systems thinking.
...the realizations of the full benefits of self-managing systems are slim to impossible to attain without an organizational context that openly promotes self-management and situational leadership.
Finally, as one can see, a common purpose is the central core that unites the entire shared leadership process. It is the nucleus around which the four key elements concurrently revolve in a complementary and dynamic manner. Without agreed-upon overall organizational intentions the framework falls apart.
People who lack common purpose feel no need for expert advice or commitment from anyone because opportunities and problems have no mutual appeal. It is similar to a "country club" environment. Everyone is out to have a good time but only for his or her own amusement. There is no need for unrestrained trust and reciprocity. Consequently, an agreed-upon common purpose is extremely vital for the mutually supportive elements of shared leadership.
In the final analysis, every part of the model works together simultaneously, as is the case with all aspects of any self-organizing entity. Its dynamics are founded on commitment, it is all about:
Helping others to initiate or participate in worthwhile activities of which they unaware, or are hesitant to act upon on their own, to the benefit of everyone involved.
...shared leadership is the best option, especially for knowledge based organizations.
An example of no-bossing leadership can be found even in a well functioning restaurant. As long as they are served in a reasonable length of time, few people pay much attention to the fast-paced activities that occur in an eatery in response to orders taken from customers. My wife and I have a favorite restaurant that we occasionally visit for late breakfast on Sundays. Until just recently I, like most people, also had failed to closely observe the "behind the scenes behavior" in the restaurant that we have frequented for years.
One Saturday morning I decided to stop at our favorite breakfast place for a cup of coffee to kill some time. Sitting at the counter I was perfectly situated to see the interactions among the cooks in the kitchen, amid the servers going back and forth to pick up their orders, and between the cooks and the servers. Most impressive was the absence of any boss issuing any orders whatsoever. Everyone knew what needed to be done and very diligently and cooperatively went about their assignments. More amazing was that the restaurant was filled to capacity and people were waiting to be seated.
Did everything go perfectly? Of course not. For instance, a rookie waiter occasionally asked for help and also received periodic unsolicited coaching from the seasoned staff. Further, the servers intermittently asked the cooks to distinguish between different orders, to change some orders, or to fill special requests. Not once, however, did anyone lose their temper or make an off-handed remark. Instead, there was constant laughter as people cracked jokes and occasionally made fun of each other while remaining very focused on what they were doing.
Most remarkable was how different people took the lead. One moment an individual would be asked for advice or they would provide it without being asked. Moments later, without missing a beat, the same attendant or cook would reverse roles. That is, at one time a cook would offer some advice to a server, and shortly thereafter the server would point out something to the cook in the kitchen that would provide mutual benefits for all concerned.
It finally occurred to me that the reason there was no need for a boss was very simple: everyone involved had a common purpose to get the food to the customer as quickly and cordially as possible. It was a classic win-win situation. A supervisor would only have gotten in the way and slowed down the whole process. Given the proper organizational context, shared leadership is the best option, especially for knowledge based organizations. After all, if it can work in a restaurant, it certainly can work in most other places.
Dr. Charles Ehin is professor emeritus and former dean of the Gore School of Business at Westminster College of Salt Lake City. He is the author of Unleashing Intellectual Capital (Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000), Hidden Assets: Harnessing the Power of Informal Networks (Springer 2004) and Aftermath (Publish America, 2004). His website is www.UnManagement.com.
Bedeian, A. G., "The Dean's Disease: How the Dark Side of Power Manifests Itself in the Office of Dean," Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 1, Nr. 2, , pp. 164-173, December 2002.
Block, P., Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, 1993.
Boon, L.E. and Bowen, D.D., The Great Writings in Management and Organizational Behavior, Random House, New York, NY., 1987.
Collins, J., Good to Great. Harper Business, New York, N.Y., 2001.
Ehin, C., Hidden Assets: Harnessing the Power of Informal Networks. Springer, New York, NY., 2004.
George, C.S., The History of Management Thought. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 1972.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, "Primal Leadership: The Hidden Driver of Great Performance," Harvard Business Review, pp. 42-51, December, 2001.
Pierce, J.L. and Newstrom, J.W., Leaders and the Leadership Process, Irwin Mc-Graw-Hill, New York, NY., 2000.
Senge, P., "The Leader's New Work: Building Learning Organizations," Sloan Management Review, pp. 7-23, Fall 1990.
Stevens, A. and Price, T., Evolutionary Psychiatry: A New Beginning, Routledge, New York, NY, 1996.
Copyright © 2005 World Business Academy, 428 Bryant Circle, Suite 109, Ojai, CA 93023 Academy Phone 805 640-3713 • Fax 805 640-9914 • Website www.worldbusiness.org Senior Editor, David Zweig, davidz@worldbusiness.org • Phone 510 547-3223.