In the last posting, this writer reviewed four motivating
forces that would encourage individuals to involve themselves in the
decision-making processes in any collective to which they belong. This can be collectives ranging from the
family to the nation. Often, the setting
for such concerns would be the place of work in which individual are employed.
The four
forces are: inconsequential costs,
inordinate rewarding results, interpersonal recognition, and emotional
reward. The reader is invited to click
on the last archived posting if he/she has not read it. The more general concern was what type of
leadership should an organization seek – lone worrier or inclusive
collaboration? This blog has favored the
inclusive type, but has admitted that each mode of leadership might be called
upon to meet varying challenges at different times. Having recognized that, though, the inclusive
type is preferred.
In this
posting, to advance an inclusive form of leadership, the writer would like to
comment on various strategy types that can bolster inclusivity on a day to day
basis. That is, what can a leader and
his/her immediate staff promote that can further an inclusive culture within the
organization? The ideas presented here
are highly reliant on the ideas of Philip Selznick.[1]
To begin, the
leader and his/her leadership team need to buy into certain ideals. As has been pointed out in this blog, while
ideals do not guarantee certain behaviors, they do encourage dispositions and,
in turn, desired behaviors. So, the
prudent strategy is to encourage those ideals that dispose the members of an
organization to behave in those ways that are congruent with the ideals being
promoted. It is in this overall sense
that ideals are offered.
One set of
ideals is concerned with how the individual member of the organization should
be viewed. If the entities making up an
organization are individual people – as opposed to subgroupings[2] – this
set of ideals is about how the organization, its leadership, defines those
individuals from an organizational perspective.
As such, the concern here is not about how the individuals are viewed
interpersonally – although emotional attachments can further these dispositions
– but on “professional” views extended them.
The first
designation is that everyone should enjoy his/her constitutional
integrity. That is, a sense of liberty
should exist within the organization allowing the individual to behave within a
range of behavior parameters which are, in turn, established by necessities
logically derived from the organization’s purpose – its role and
functions. What should be further
encouraged is to convince everyone that he/she should wish to behave in ways
that are congruent with the common interests of the organization. This is not always what the leadership
desires.
Each
organization needs those who express positions counter to policy. Of course, there can be too much of this, but
a certain level of criticism is healthy if what is truly motivating it is the
common interest of the organization.
Criticism advanced to purely further personal ambitions or other
counterproductive aims is unhealthy. A
trait of good leadership is to be able to distinguish productive from
unproductive critiques.
The second
designation is status. While an
organization strives to instill among its members or employees a sense of
equality – all are treated by an established set of rules and customs equally –
various members will enjoy different levels of status. This is inevitable – it’s a human trait to
bestow higher or lower status to individuals based on desired contributions of
those members.
Good leadership recognizes this and
does two things. One, it clearly identifies
and justifies the criteria by which status is bestowed and, two, it seriously
regulates the rewards attached to higher status avoiding excessive rewards and
privileges. And surely, status should be
bestowed on those who live out the inclusive values that leadership is trying
to pursue, regardless of how high or low an individual is situated within the
organization.
The next area that should be
addressed has already been alluded to; that is, conscience. A healthy organization has a membership or
workforce that buys into its organizational ethos. An ethos reflects a cultural reality within a
collective – what its members truly believe and feel. It is their individual conscience and it
determines what they espouse to be the good, both morally and practically.
These beliefs might be challenged at
times and not all of its values – making up the ethos – are congruent with each
other. A value might have to be
sacrificed in a given situation. But
openness can ameliorate the consequences of having to compromise a value. Here, the organization should promote a sense
of morality – ethics – that is hierarchical; some values are more important
than others. A good bit of thought
should be given to this task not only initially, but on an ongoing basis.
Evaluation of performance, especially
during trying times, should add this concern to any review. The organization’s staff should ask: is our value orientation what we want it to
be? Do we need to revise it? All of this should be done as openly as
possible.
Two sub-qualities should characterize
this concern for conscience: transparency
and equanimity. The goal is to avoid any
whiff of favoritism in making and implementing decisions, especially during and
after trying situations in which pain will be felt one way or another. Overall, conscience is encouraged (not
guaranteed) where a “we’re all in this together” sense is felt and believed.
The last area that should be
addressed in terms dealing with individuals is practical skills. Of course, this varies according to the
nature of the organization. But whatever
those skills are, be it manual skills, intellectual skills, personal skills,
athleticism or dexterity skills, and/or creativity, it is in the interests of
the organization to keep abreast of newer developments regarding those
skills. Of course, in-service training
is usually part of any large business’s efforts.
Modern economic realities can
challenge this quality. What if a
business is offered opportunities that align it in opposition to the interests
of a segment of its employees? Are there
cheaper labor costs elsewhere or is there a new technology that will perform
functions that were done by workers?
What is the responsibility of the employer to protect or otherwise
assist affected workers? This writer
struggles with this question.
A central point should be made. Unless a business is going to get rid of all
its employees, how it treats those affected workers will communicate volumes to
those who remain. If only immediate
profits are accounted for, that business has no expectation of enjoying
employee loyalty and if that is the case, what has been suggested above is of
no consequence. There remains only the
concern to take care of number one. It
debases the collective part of being a collective.
What remains in this description is the
back and forth between the individual and the organization. This relationship is logically defined by the
qualities identified above. That is, the
organization provides equal standing to everyone (again, that means all are
subject to the same rules and regulations) and provides potential allowances.
These allowances, within reason, will
assist those within the organization who are encountering some misfortunes. The aim is to provide solutions or an amelioration
of the problems being experienced.
Again, this is not a trump value, but it should be held highly and
meaningfully.
These qualities should encourage an
individual to provide loyalty, trust, skills, and knowledge as best as he/she
can provide. In any organization, these
other qualities should be expected, but if the organization is characterized by
what is described in this posting, then it is further encouraging its people to
deliver loyalty, trust, skills, and knowledge.
And further, if this relation is ongoing, it will engender a supportive
culture of these qualities.
A telling characteristic which will
reflect a healthy, inclusive atmosphere in an organization is whether one can
detect a broad-based sense of pride among the membership or workforce. Pride is engendered by a feeling of belonging
and having an active say in what the organization is. Its members are federated and, as such, the
organization can be considered an association, not just in name, but in reality
as well.
[1] Phillip Selznick, The
Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and
the Promise of Community, (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1992).
[2] For example, the United Nations is an organization
made up of subgroups. This is meant
solely as an organizational designation whereas nations, being sovereigns,
would rebel against any notion of being "subs.”
No comments:
Post a Comment