“Of 100% of the solutions that actually make specific
changes happen on the ground to get positive results, what percentage of
solutions do you think originally first come from/are thought up at the top?”
(Obolensky, 2014, p. 35). Reflecting on this thought-provoking question, what
would you think about your organization? What about your perception of other
companies in the world generally? What about on the TV show Mad Men, is this a
true reflection of leadership responsibilities of decades past? Things used to
be pretty different.
I actually answered this question myself,
asked my Director this question (she is awesome), and checked Obolensky for the
answer. I would have answered really high, but the way the question was phrased
pressured me into lowering my response to 20% top, 50% middle, 30% bottom… and
100% hoping I did my math correctly. The results are in! Drumroll, please… it
is typically 10% at the top, 30% middle, and around 60% for the bottom. Is this
news surprising?
Previously the notion was that
the boss had the answer. They must know because they are the boss, the
president, the CEO, or just because they are in charge because how else would
they have gotten there? Attitudes are migrating to the understanding that this
is not necessarily part of the job description that those at the top have all
the answers and to come up with all of the solutions. This is a good thing,
because if they were coming up with all of the answers. That means no one else
would get a word in edgewise.
Some organizations are transitioning, while
others not fast enough for those “at the bottom” of the pyramid. Speaking as a
member of the bottom of the totem pole, it feels like a large weight to be
holding up. The front lines are the proverbial Atlas with the weight of the
company on their shoulders. We get it from both ends when things go wrong,
those we work with such as customers or clients and also from the top ranks
wanting to know why things are not working as planned. The ragdoll feeling of
being tugged and pulled from both ends is enough to make those caught in the
middle of it call out for a changing dynamic in leadership.
There are several reasons the
percentage at the top is lowering. First, organizational structures are
changing. Innovative companies daring enough to march to their own drum beat
and reap the rewards of leading a parade are throwing away the ordinary
hierarchy and are not looking back. Zappos, I am looking at you. Even without
going to those extremes, so much needs to be done in a day, why not delegate it
to lower levels if they have their ear to the ground? Those who assign a larger
number to the top usually work within an organization that remains part of a
formal hierarchy (Obolensky, 2014). “A related problem is that the most
powerful managers are the ones furthest from frontline realities. All too
often, decisions made on an Olympian peak prove to be unworkable on the ground”
(Hamel, 2011, para, 3). When this is true and it has become actualized the
number is likely to lower.
The composition of the workforce
is also changing as older generations retire and it becomes time for newer
generations to seek employment. The world has changed a lot prior to
Millennials being born and even during adolescent years. Obolensky notes the
more junior the level, the higher the number will seem that those solutions
come from the top (2014). Whether this is seen as a positive is another story.
“Many organizational leaders and human resource managers complain that
Millennials are hard to manage. Indeed, this generation has grown up in the
disruptive world of the Internet, where people’s influence is based on
contribution and reputation, not position” (Laloux, 2014, para. 26). If any
idea can back itself up, why not set it free and let it shine?
The concept and understanding of
leadership is also evolving. Leadership is not an exclusive club for those at
the top. Leadership can come from anywhere especially with organizations that
have truly empowered their people. With an “all hands” approach, organizations
have become wise to utilize their human capital. To compete in the
ever-changing markets some essential ingredients are progress, growth, and
quality. To mirror back to the fact that Millennials realize that influence can
come from anywhere, that is sure to trigger the dominoes to cascade change
through the entire leadership landscape.
While my organization is still
very traditional I have confidence that meaningful ideas are accepted from any
level. There is confidence in all of the members that we can make a change that
we will speak up when something could be better. As an organization we are one
team setting out each day to be the best we can. I feel creative license in my
position to try things, shake it up, do something different and if it works to
share it. I am not waiting for the top to give me the green light or to come up
with ideas for me. It is a beautiful thing to be at work in a time of dynamic
change.
References:
Hamel, G. (2011, December).
First, Let's Fire All the Managers. Retrieved June 26, 2015, from
https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers
Laloux, F. (2014, June 12).
Misperceptions of Self-Management. Retrieved June 26, 2015, from
http://www.self-managementinstitute.org/misperceptions-of-self-management
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex
Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). Gower
No comments:
Post a Comment