We have discussed the Three Domains that make up the work of an organisation: the Social, Technical and Commercial. They are distinct domains but all interact through the behaviour of people operating in those domains.

All organisations are social in that they involve people coming together to work to achieve a purpose. The way in which they then work together can have a profound effect on whether that purpose is achieved or not. As we have noted the impact of these organisational arrangements on behaviour can easily be underestimated. People working in organisations have very strong views about their organisations and how they are run, especially the quality of the leadership.

Everyone knows whether or not they like going to work and working with colleagues. People have strong feelings about whether they are being treated respectfully, whether anyone assigns work fairly and reviews that work honestly, whether anyone has the courage to make difficult decisions. We spend a significant proportion of our lives working, whether that be in the private sector, public sector organisations or voluntary organisations. These issues matter in community organisations, religious orders and anywhere where people come together to work to achieve a purpose. The way that an organisation is set up and run has a significant impact on people’s lives and on their behaviour and whether or not they willingly give of their best.

We always begin with the work, and continue to concentrate on the work. By starting with the purpose of the organisation we can then try to find people who can do the work rather than start with the people and create an organisation around whatever they may be good at.

As we have argued, the unique advantage of Systems Leadership Theory is that it is comprehensive. All of the concepts are connected and so there is not a need to use separate, and perhaps contradictory, models to examine elements of organisation practice (e.g. leadership/capability/structure/system design.)

Systems Leadership provides a shared language with which to discuss organisational issues, essential for any coherent culture and as well a very clear model of Leadership and Team Membership.

Also, as we have said, one of the main features of Systems Leadership is that it not only articulates the WHAT, but more importantly the HOW. Simply ask of any other approach: does it explain how to put this into practice? Thus we see material that says leaders must build trust … must build a committed team … but with little or no explanation of how to do that.

In Chapter 3 we discussed the three domains including the Social domain. Here we examine two aspects to the Social domain, first the content and secondly the enactment of that content.

Content of the Social Domain

This book and Systems Leadership are all about the Social Domain. This includes the way that an organisation is structured; the working relationships, including authority; the design and implementation of systems; the creation and nature of culture, leadership and teamwork and the capability of people to do work.

The Social domain not only covers the elements listed above but also examines the Social Processes; that is the way in which people behave as that work is carried out. In other words it describes how people behave towards each other in ways that are more or less likely to result in a productive outcome. What we will refer to as Productive Social Cohesion.

Systems Leadership is based on the premise that clarity is fundamental for organisations to be effective. For example it is unfair to hold someone to account if you have not been clear about what is expected by when.

Systems Leadership principles also emphasise the need for clarity of purpose of the organisation, the content of roles and authorities. Confusion in these areas results in significant problems.

Systems Leadership proposes that an organisation is formed to achieve a purpose through the work of people, not simply serve the members’ interests. Thus a school is there to educate students not just provide employment for teachers, an airline to fly passengers, a restaurant to serve meals to customers, a mining company to dig, process and deliver ore to customers. While this might seem obvious, many organisations (sometimes unconsciously) design their systems around the staff, not the clients, customers or service users.

In order for the people in any organisation to do work then those people must have the authority to carry out the work of the role. Indeed an organisational chart can be seen as a map of authority. Roles carry authority: to use resources and equipment, to spend money, to access information or physical space. Crucial authorities (in an employment organisation) are to assign and review work. If no one has clarity about the authority to assign work, the organisation cannot function in any predictable way and there can be no acceptance of accountability. If work cannot be assigned or reviewed people can do as they see fit or what they want, which may or may not accord with the purpose of the organisation. The only way, in such circumstances, that the organisation can get work done is by personal persuasion and/or by gaining what is sometimes described as buy in (even though staff are already being paid!).

However, it is evident in many organisations that leaders (and others) have become afraid of, or reluctant to use, authority.

In the last twenty years or so there has been a massive muddle between authority and authoritarian. There has been a rather loud argument against hierarchy, a fear of command and control; an anxiety about being too directive or even just being a boss. This anxiety is the result of confusing the very real and important authority that needs to be associated with a role and the WAY that that authority is enacted … exactly what we describe as Social Process. That is the enactment of the intent of the organisation. The Social Process turns the organisational intent into reality.

We will discuss Social Process as it is used constructively while acknowledging that it can be used destructively, a means of exercising power.

Social Process can be likened to similar concepts such as People Skills, Interpersonal Skills, Emotional Intelligence, Soft Skills and more recently, and perhaps a little unnervingly, as Soft Power. While these terms are quite similar very few actually refer to the outcome but rather concentrate on the process itself. In Systems Leadership we are clear that such skills need to be directed to achieve a productive purpose. This area of people skills is often wrongly assumed to be the ability to get on with people. It can be quite easy to get on with people if you don’t ask them to do much or never give any honest feedback about performance, especially when it is below standard.

The emphasis purely on so-called people skills or interpersonal skills is leading in our view, to a highly unsatisfactory state in some organisations. Putting all the emphasis on social process skills has avoided the very important issue about the appropriate use of authority that should be associated with any role and enacted in any role relationship. Our current, apparent anxiety and ambivalence about that term authority has led to the situation where because of strong social process skills some people can get others to do almost anything, while the others with lesser skills are unable to get the people to do the work they are paid for even though it is central to their role and even though the person with the lesser skills is in a leadership position. This practice distributes leadership on the basis of social process skills not on the basis of the work that needs be done in each role.

Step One is to identify the appropriate authority associated with any role relationship.

Step Two is to ensure that this authority is mutually understood and Step Three is to help, where appropriate, to improve the social process skills needed to enact that authority in a way that is seen and felt to be fair and respectful of each person’s dignity.

For good reason an employment contract embodies the acceptance of the authority of a role’s manager, a position long supported in law. The effectiveness of the use of this authority is determined by the manager’s demonstration of social process skills. It is not appropriate to ask people to rely on Social Process skills alone and neither is it appropriate to rely only on the authority as described in the role. The way a person uses Social Process skills has a significant bearing on whether the authority is experienced to be reasonable or not. It is largely the use of Social Process that determines whether or not a work relationship becomes a highly productive two-way interaction.

Systems Leadership identifies Social Process skills as one of the five core elements that define the capability of whether a person is competent to do the work of the role (see Chapter 8 on Human Capability).

Clearly not all roles carry the same authority (see Chapter 10); while one role may have the authority to assign work, another might have the authority to give advice or ask for a service. As such, the Social Process skills will differ accordingly. Take for example the role of a General Manager of a mine. Here the person will have to interact with many different people and groups inside and outside the mine. Not only employees of the organisation but members of the community and at times politicians and the local or even national or international media. The demand for highly developed Social Process skills, demonstrable by the role incumbent, is significant. But are those skills identified and made explicit say prior to an appointment, other than must get along with a wide range of people? The role may succeed or fail on these skills – having and using them effectively.

In Systems Leadership Theory, the Leadership and Team Membership Process (see Chapter 15) is described. It has been demonstrated clearly that if people use this approach it will result in a productive outcome. Further it leads to the acceptance of decisions without needing to resort to consensus (which assumes that everyone has equal authority) or voting (similar assumption). If people in an organisation do have equal authority then it must be assumed they are not only doing the same work (e.g. Members of Parliament), but also that they cannot be differentiated on the basis of their work role and as such should all be paid the same.

It seems that too often it is assumed (rather stereotypically) that authority only flows downwards in an organisation. Actually it can, and should flow in all directions since its purpose is to enable work and it is very important that there is clarity about this. Thus in Systems Leadership Theory the team member has the authority to require the leader to explain the context and purpose of work. She or he can demand a review. These are not simple authorities, but a means whereby a team member can call the leader to account for their work as a leader … command and control it certainly is not.

The other main area where people need to be clear about authority and Social Process is in the enactment of systems. For example a coach may be employed to offer advice as to the improvement of technical practice. It must be clear what authority he or she has. Can she choose which person to observe? When should she observe and advise? What are the consequences if any, positive or negative? This should be clear in the system design and implementation and thereby set a transparent context.

Many people avoid addressing difficult situations because they do not have confidence in their Social Process skills. If the organisation does not have clarity about roles, the authority of the role and systems to monitor the use of role as authority, this avoidance can go unchecked. Further if the organisation is avoiding authority because it has confused that with authoritarian then these issues will continue to remain unresolved. Social Process becomes the application of skills to avoid problems not face difficult issues. Problems are continually smoothed over in the hope that no one will notice, it is necessary that no one be upset or that the problem will just go away, meanwhile social cohesion actually crumbles and the quality of service and output drops or remains variable.

Authority and Power

Systems Leadership Theory is based on the proper use of authority in organisations. It is one of the most important concepts in creating positive organisations. We also recognise that power is used in organisations, sometimes for good, but more often to their detriment. While both these terms have been used primarily in the study of governments and politics, in organisations the issues with regard to authority and power are actually concerned with social process, relationships between people. Therefore we needed definitions that dealt with the reality of human relations within organisations (see Box 4.2).

Conclusion

The Social Domain consists of all the behaviours and arrangements whereby people work together. Part of that includes the Social Process Skills required to carry out the work of the role and enact the authorities associated with that role. The recent anxiety about confusing authority with authoritarian has blurred the clarity needed to design the appropriate authority into any role and its proper use in a role relationship. Unless a role has the appropriate authority to carry out the work of the role, with regard to both people and resources, it is unfair to hold the person in the role to account.

The avoidance of clarity around authority has also blurred the nature of accountability and certainly felt fair accountability. This avoidance of authority is also due to a very simplistic view that authority only flows in one direction and that hierarchy is also somehow out of date and to be avoided. We know of no organisations that can run without both authority and some form of hierarchy. That does not make them authoritarian. Rather, authoritarian approaches are due to poor Social Process Skills and thus poor leadership. Substituting authority with the need to exercise brilliant Social Process Skills is no answer either … we need both. The absence of clarity around authority and Social Process skills leads to organisations run on power; the basis of cliques, fragmented cultures, internal rivalry and favouritism. All are enemies of meritocracy and positive organisations.