A HEALTHY GIVE AND TAKE

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.”

LEADERS HERE, THERE, AND EVERYWHERE

Over the last few postings, this writer has commented on the bifurcated view concerning leadership.  He has suggested that a bifurcated view is probably misplaced in that one does not necessarily have to see leadership with a “lone warrior” view or an inclusive view.

The first sees the almost romantic notion of a leader as an individual who takes the “bull by the horns” and rights what’s wrong with an organization.  The inclusive type seeks input and collaboration from as many people within and even without the organization as possible in making and implementing decisions.

          He has tried to point out that an organization probably will need one type in some situations and the other in other situations, and that some conditions demand immediate reaction and sole leadership is usually quicker and can be more decisive.

But he also made the argument that the more inclusive model should be the fallback option and be compromised only in extreme conditions.  The payoffs for inclusion are significant and should be abandoned only out of necessity.  Perhaps such a condition might be one in which negative consequences cannot be undone.

          This posting is concerned more with follow-ship than leadership.  Whatever mode the leader exerts, he/she is dependent on those who follow to act in those ways the mode demands.  That is true irrespective of any reward or punishment policy the organization has in place.

Overall, the lone warrior, at best, sees underlings as agents who can work out the details of any plan but generally are there to follow orders.  The inclusive model sees collaborators as taking on responsibilities and being able and willing to be creative in contributing ideas.

          What follows, more specifically, is concerned with what motivates this second expectation.  Why should a member of the “team” want to add “extra” effort to problem-solving when the easier route is to just listen to what is wanted and do it as best as one can (or as well as avoidance of punishment demands)?

To view this latter perspective, a contextual device might be helpful.  Not looking at an organization, but at a community or the nation:  why should the average citizen want to participate in the collective efforts of that more general social setting?

          A political scientist, in the natural rights mode of thinking, Paul Burstein,[1] points out that it is irrational for an individual citizen to become involved in participating in the political struggles of the day.  Why should the individual become involved when he/she will share in the benefits with all other citizens irrespective of his/her involvement?

It is what students of this sort of thing call the “free rider” problem; that is, those who do not share in any burden (costs) in acquiring the benefit will enjoy the benefit just as much.  Therefore, the analysis is a cost-benefit calculation.  But obviously, people do get involved and so the question remains:  what calculations do those people make to convince them to participate?

Burstein offers four reasons.  One, the cost in getting involved over some policy question is inconsequential and, it could be an added, a small expense to something the person must do anyway.  Sometimes such eventualities are built into an operating budget –perhaps a miscellaneous cost.  It could even be that the person doesn’t pay or accrue an added cost but instead, gets paid as in writing a solicited article for a magazine or newspaper.

          Two, the intended advocacy promises, with high probability, that it will be successful.  This might give the advocate recognition for supporting a sought after result or perhaps the desired outcome has significant payoffs which are especially dear to the advocate.

Three, the population of beneficiaries is small, as in an organization, and visibility regarding action or inaction is high.  This adds to the costs of inaction in a very personal way; others will see the non-participant as shirking his/her responsibility.

And four, participation, in and of itself, provides for an advocate some emotional satisfaction.  The belief expressed in much of this blog is that civics education can and should promote those messages that speak to the “rightness” of participating in the political process.  If such an educational effort is successful, participation would engender the emotional rewards that would convince citizens to get involved.   

          If one then scales down these overall motivating forces to the level of an organization such as a business, certain very tangible forces operate.  This is particularly true for motivators three and four.  In the social confines of an organization, one can readily see and understand how that organization’s culture can develop to foster these reasons.

The inclusive leader does not wait for a specific problem situation to promote such forces, but makes it part and parcel of his/her everyday strategy.  That leader might institute processes that reward, on an ongoing basis, collaborative modes of behaviors on the part of followers.  That is, followers who exert leadership behaviors can be recognized and “patted on the back” for exhibiting efforts in this direction. 

Structures can be put in place that facilitate such acts.  Communication can issue the message that loyalty to the organization can be demonstrated by such behaviors.  The different ways of getting this idea out there can rely on very creative ways of saying, “we’re that sort of place.”  In the next posting, more specific ideas will further develop this general message.

---

[1] Paul Bustein, American Public Opinion, Advocacy, and Policy in Congress:  What the Public Wants and What It Gets, (New York, NY:  Cambridge University Press, 2014).