>> MIM Speaks
LEADERSHIP IN A TIME OF UNCERTAINTY
MAR 1, 1998 -
THE STAR
LAST year, I read a book by Lee Bolman and Terrance Deal
called Leading with Soul. It tells the story of a chief
executive who had been highly successful for many years:
growing companies, making deals and feeling a real sense of
achievement.
Suddenly, he feels the fun has gone out of what he has been
doing, and even senses that he might not continue to succeed
as he had done so in the past.
He is encouraged to meet with a woman, who proves to be a kind
of spiritual mentor. Through a series of visits, she helps him
redefine how he sees himself, what matters to him, and how he
should act as a leader.
He learns about ideas that we do not usually associate with
leader ship: authorship, love, and significance - as well as
rethinking the concept of power.
By the end of the book, he has become a new kind of leader,
and even moves on to become a spiritual mentor himself. His
spiritual journey is moving, and provides a compelling account
of some issues that contemporary leaders face.
When I read Leading with Soul, I was reminded of another
powerful American book, also built around the idea of a
journey, Robert Pirsig's Zen and the art of motorcycle
maintenance.
Like Leading with Soul, it keeps you gripped to the very last
page, with an emotional power that clearly touches some deep
psychological issues.
What is it about these two books that makes us read them so
avidly? Leading with Soul manages to capture concerns that
are central to today's agenda. Here, I would like to- explore
some of these, and in particular three related and important
questions:
* Why is it that we are searching for a new approach to
leadership?
* What might a "new leadership" comprise?
* Is there an Asian approach to both these questions that we
can consider?
As we approach the end of the 20th century, more and more
commentators are happy to advise us that there are some
significant changes taking place.
Well, it does seem that there are a number of factors pressing
on our world. First, in the past 25 years there has been an
enormous increase in information, so much so that it appears
we double the total amount of information every 25 years.
While it is arguable as to whether or not knowledge has been
increasing at the same rate, there is little doubt that
information leads to products, services and new activities.
Around the world the rate of innovation is also increasing
dramatically, reducing the confidence that companies have
about continuing to hold their current markets and customers.
This change is tied to another which is the increasing
globalisation of activity, itself greatly accelerated by the
collapse of the major alternative to market capitalism (the
demise of centralised command economies).
Globalisation means that time and distance have almost
disappeared, and the protection they offered to us (much
greater in many ways than tariffs and trade relations) has all
been whittled away.
Finally, consumers are themselves more demanding, fuelled by
the enterprises' enthusiasm for total customer service and
other market nostrums. We have been told we can have what we
want - so now we want it!
Underpinning all this has been another more subtle change, one
that began in the early part of this century with developments
in theoretical physics and cosmology.
First Einstein, and then more importantly, Heisenberg, started
to unpick the carefully constructed model of knowledge that
has been so influential since the Greek and Chinese
philosophers started debating epistemology some 2,500 years
ago, and especially influential during the coursed the
industrial revolution.
We are moving from an assumption of predictability and
certainty to realising that our models and theories of the
world are always provisional. Science has transformed the
world, but scientific theories are always under review.
While there are many interesting issues to be debated that
result from these four factors, I want to comment on them
briefly, at two levels.
First, at the level of organisational practice, in a world of
increasingly rapid change and uncertainty about the future,
the dominant managerial and organisational models are not
working well.
Through most of this century, we have perfected the
hierarchical "command and control" organisation, where tasks
are specified in great detail (the division of labour) and a
complex pyramid looks after the operation and control of these
tasks to ensure effective delivery of goods and services.
It has produced telephones in every home, jumbo jets and an
unparalleled increase in the standard of living for the
developed and much of the developing world. It is advocated as
the solution for the rest of the world to boost standards of
living and increase global wealth.
Alas, such a model does not work so well when change is rapid,
and uncertainty rife. We need models of organisation and
approaches to management that are flexible responsive adaptive
and allow those that deliver services to change what they do
as circumstances require.
As some commentators like to put it, we need to turn the
pyramid on its head. Instead of talking about command and
control we talk about "servant leadership"; instead of setting
the five-year plan, we are now concerned with adaptation and
values-based leadership.
At the level of management practice, the demands are equally
dramatic. Managers are expected to be consultants coaches and
facilitators, "enabling" staff, rather than directing them.
We are witnessing a great deal of rhetoric about "empowering"
staff (the rhetoric does exceed the real change, I should
add), and managers are expected to become team leaders or even
just team members.
Of course, when Kuhn talked about paradigm change, he
suggested this occurred when the current view of the world
(the hierarchical model) no longer seems to work everywhere
and when new ways of thinking are explored and tested
(networked organization, doughnut systems, etc).
I suggest that is exactly where we are today. The dominant
practice is still hierarchical and controlling, but many
organisations and individuals are experimenting with new
approaches and ideas.
A "new paradigm for leadership" is, I would argue, a long way
off yet; it will only appear when there is a new orthodoxy,
which reviews the nature of organizational practice and
operations.
I suspect such an orthodoxy both awaits the intellectual
development of a better way to run things in a changing
environment (and we haven't found that yet), and the
disappearance (that means "dying off") of those of us deeply
committed to the current (older) paradigm.
|