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).
No comments:
Post a Comment