Leadership in Practice
Followership – the other perspective.
A Different Angle . . .
As we launch into a new year, I’d like to take a look at leadership from the receiving end. This approach is perhaps not a common practice however I think it could be a very valuable experience for us all.
It was stimulated by a coaching session I held recently with a relatively young and ambitious professional engineer who has a talent for posing penetrating questions. With a few liberties to protect the innocent, this is his story.
Michael is clearly a ‘front-runner’ in his field - astute, discerning, curious, imaginative, dedicated and insightful. He’s just thirty-five years old yet has been practicing his profession in a serious way for more than ten years having first earned a masters-level degree at a prestigious school.
His current role is that of a senior project specialist in the aviation field, currently dealing with some pivotal challenges in flight dynamics. On top of this, he’s an accomplished private pilot, very active in his community and church, a devoted husband and the proud parent of two beautiful daughters. He knows well how to use his energies and resources.
He’d approached me for advice because he had become increasingly confused and concerned about the leadership he was receiving; specifically, he needed to know if his expectations and experiences were reasonably balanced and based on realistic perspectives. It was clear to me from the start that his issues, while not unusual, were most disquieting and unsettling for him.
The History . . .
Initially, his professional assignments had been focused on a broad range of short-term projects. His first ‘big break’ was a junior specialized role on a major, high profile project that would expose him to some of the best minds in his field. The project was led by an industry-recognized professional, a ‘mover and shaker’ who was highly charismatic and generally revered. Michael was delighted to have this opportunity – at first!
It was a two-year program but by the fourth month the project was already in deep trouble. There were delays, shortages, inexplicable failures, conflicts and political shenanigans that were resulting in serious over-runs. The demands being made on project staff were both unreasonable and intolerable, and it was evident that the whole project was spinning out of control.
The Project Leader’s response was to intensify his efforts. There were high-level policy meetings, massive reassignments of personnel, radical changes to operating procedures and a great deal of focused reporting activity. The Project Leader visited every office, to confer face-to-face and at length with almost every functional head and to personally assess and revise every working plan and procedure. He even spent an hour with Michael directly.
Michael was flattered by the attention, impressed by the intensity of the interaction, almost overwhelmed by the concentration of information delivered and then singularly unimpressed by the outcomes – or lack thereof. Nothing of substance happened from this flurry of activity. The same issues quickly resurfaced and the problems were compounded. Within another three months, the Project Leader was unceremoniously dumped.
It took four weeks for a replacement to be named and introduced; in the meantime the project continued to flounder. The new Project Leader rapidly demonstrated himself to be a “rule-bound control freak” – nothing happened without his explicit, formal consent. Everything was run by the book and each decision had to be justified multiple ways regardless of its impact or significance. This was very distracting and although progress was being made, the associated costs in time, effort, goodwill and dollars were outrageous. Michael was losing heart and even beginning to doubt his own competencies and commitment level.
A Breakthrough . . .
After a full year on the project, Michael could see no definite successes or progress that might confirm that the right things were actually happening. Key staff members were leaving the project and the organization, and Michael was seriously considering becoming one of them. Suddenly, with no prior warning, the Project Leader was changed a third time.
At first, it seemed to be more of the same. There was a period of nearly three weeks when nothing happened. Then all the senior managers were called to Head Office for a week of planning and consultation. When they returned there was a palpable difference in attitudes and even in language. Something was definitively different.
The senior managers did not reappear with fresh directives but rather with a series of questions. The requests were not for information but rather for opinions and ideas. Broad objectives and standards were then presented with invitations for further suggestions and elaborations. A consensual plan began to unfold within each department and there were even tangible incentives for contact and collaboration with adjacent functions.
At this point the new Project Leader appeared on the scene. He spent relatively little time on the details of the local plans and programs but seemed to be primarily and vitally interested in the specific individuals engaged in the work. Again, the request for ideas and suggestions, demands for critical opinions on all related issues, and a solicitation of hopes and dreams for the intermediate and longer-term future.
Contrary to every expectation the project became substantially focused, re-established its time lines and even recovered a great deal of lost ground. Ultimately, it wasn’t a raging success but it was completed within an acceptable time and cost envelope and there was some sense of pride in being associated with its outcomes. The Project Leader wasn’t at all visible throughout this although there were several local heroes and success stories.
Since that time, nearly four years ago, there had been other similar experiences. In addition, on several occasions Michael was approached by senior management with invitations to move up to a leadership role.
The Analysis . . .
The way Michael described it, leadership was a crap shoot – once in a while it seemed to work, most often it didn’t!
“There’s no way I’d want to take on that kind of a role when I can’t see how to be successful!” he said. “It’s like spitting into the wind on a dark night. What am I missing here?”
“Tell me how you see the leadership issues in the major project you’ve described” I invited. “What was the impact of the various styles you experienced?”
He quickly zeroed in on the charismatic style of the first leader. “I’d always thought that this is how it should be done; that you had to have faith and full confidence in the abilities of the special guy who was chosen for the role. When he proved to be less than effective, even downright incompetent, yet spent all his time and effort in posturing, I felt nothing but pity for him. It seemed to me that he was being betrayed by the system and maybe by the senior executives who’d appointed him. It didn’t occur to me right away that he might have used the wrong approach.
Then, as I saw him missing opportunities that were clearly obvious to us all, I realized that it was his focus that was the problem – he was focused on himself and on his own invincibility. We were all being used - paying the price!”
“What about the second guy?” I asked.
“He was much more of a manager than a leader;” Michael responded, “he was a good enforcer but he didn’t inspire anyone to action. We all knew what it was that had to be done and he was supposed to help us. The problem was that he was more often in the way and slowing things down. There were fewer mistakes but progress was minimal. You know, this experience taught me that without a good inspirational leader very little can be accomplished.”
“So, did you finally have a good leader for the project” I asked him.
“Yeah – strange, that!” he mused, “we did get the show back on the road and finished up very well, but I can’t recall the specific things that the third leader did that really made a difference - but he must have done something, right?”
I shared a few thoughts on the role and functions of a leader, beginning with the definition – a leader is one who focuses the desire for change in other people and who then facilitates the creation of a sustainable new reality.
“That makes a lot of sense in the light of my experiences” he stated, “but how is it that some put themselves first - the charismatic ones - and others - the bureaucratic types - put the organization’s needs above everything else?”
“Much of that has to do with their effective assessment of where the true motivational power lies,” I responded. “You can’t force leadership upon others; you can only cultivate it within them and bring it out where it can be used. They’re the ones with the power to make things happen, the leader’s job is to focus what they have so that they can engage it. Without sympathetic, engaged followers the leader has no power of momentum”.
“Right! Of course! That’s what made it work for us finally – everyone got personally involved” he exclaimed. “Now I see it, and that’s why the third man was practically invisible. The focus was on all the other guys emerging and acting as leaders and that’s what he actually did – brought it out of them, I mean”.
”I think you’re right about that” I said, “so that would appear to me to be a great starting point for any aspiring leader – ‘how can I inspire and foster leadership perspectives in each of the people for whom I’m responsible?’”
‘There’s a lot to consider right there,” said Michael. “I’ll think more about and discuss this further. Thanks”
The conclusions . . .
As I reflected on the conversation I realized once again that many organizations may waste talent and potential contribution through poor leadership practices. May I make three observations?
Firstly, senior management will often accept and tolerate sub-optimal performance from their designated leaders for too long because they have the out-dated notion that they can appoint leaders without any true appreciation of the needs of followers or even of prevailing conditions. The appointed leader now has to strive to reconcile the different perspectives and demands of superiors and subordinates in the face of this markedly deficient appreciation.
On the receiving end, for the followers, this can lead to immeasurable frustrations since impressions are rarely exchanged with any degree of frankness. Followers can experience the conflict but usually have little power to intervene in meaningful ways. Imagine the time that can elapse while competent followers struggle, unable to understand the rationale behind the leader selection. Consider also the resultant losses in productivity and initiative.
Secondly, how many bright young followers, perceptive enough to detect the conflicts but inexperienced and unseasoned in leadership practices, are forced to sit idly by and watch these appointed leaders erode their work? How long might this condition be tolerated - especially if there are alternative career options?
Finally, there are grossly misleading stereo types out there - in books, movies and on television – which offer the impression that leaders have to demonstrate unfailing strength of purpose and superhuman capabilities. This can both mislead and intimidate the many who could be offering constructive leadership. They’ll not volunteer to step up to the plate because they can’t see how to match their behaviors to the stereotype and to rise to the challenges with reasonable prospects of success.
The real power for change is resident in those who desire it, who want to experience and benefit from it; it is rarely, if ever in those who would simply wish to exploit it. The vital service a leader offers is summed up in two words – ‘focus’ and ‘facilitate’. You don’t need to be high profile, gifted or privileged to perform either of these two services.
Without a leadership catalyst there may not be any action. With focus and supporting facilitation though, significant things can begin to happen. You just have to be ‘there’ – to focus and facilitate those who need you. At that point you stand out of the way so they can emerge as the leaders they too can be.
Think about it, please.
I'd welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. We can all learn through dialogue and your experiences will undoubtedly gain more value when shared. Please contact me at david@andros.org.
A Note to our Readers . . .
Previous series of articles on the topics of
- Tomorrow’s Leaders – a model for SME organizations
- The Leadership Crucible – the ‘making’ of leaders
- Leadership Characteristics – a comprehensive catalogue of leader qualities
- Succession Planning – the strategic argument, principles and strategies, and
- Managing Change – every person’s guide to painless processes
have been summarized as discussion guides for those who lead and manage through mentoring and coaching. If you would like to secure a copy for your own use, please contact us.
It is a pleasure to share ideas with you and we’d welcome your questions, suggestions and comments. They’ll assist us refine and expand the essential value of these initiatives. Thanks in anticipation for your participation.
|
