The Work of Leadership

This is probably the most written-about topic of all. It ranges from the more descriptive biographies and autobiographies of people who have been in significant leadership roles, for example, Mandela and Churchill, to theories of leadership such as Hargreave and Fink’s Sustainable Leadership (2006). Arguments abound as to whether leaders are ‘born, not made’ and to what extent leadership can be taught or learned.

In order even to discuss these ideas, it is first of all important to determine what leadership is and how it might be recognised. It is interesting to think about what current definitions of leadership come to mind, if any. Could you write down an attributed definition? Leadership, like so many other concepts in this field, has wide social meaning but no scientific, shared meaning. We hear that leadership and management are different, but how and why? We have argued that this differentiation is not very helpful. In Part 2 we distinguished between two types of relationship: between one person and another person or persons, and between a person and an object or objects. The distinction between leadership and management sometimes implies this difference: that, somehow, leaders are concerned with people whilst managers look after resources such as plant, equipment, stores, budgets and so on. In contrast, we associate both leaders’ and managers’ relationships with specific sets of authorities. Thus all managers are leaders but not all leaders are managers.

So what do we mean by leadership? Most people will associate leadership not only with people but with influencing these people to act in a particular way (see Box 12.1).

The work of a leader is clearly a social process. A very important element for us is the term over time. We are not referring to a short-term process, which, whilst it may be effective, does not necessarily last. To take an extreme example, a person may go into a bank with the objective of getting the staff to give him the bank’s money. He points a gun at them and they do so. Hardly good leadership? A CEO visits a site. Employees rush around for a few days beforehand, clearing clutter, painting or removing obvious eyesores so the place looks good. Is this good leadership?

Leadership is certainly about having people act in a way that results in productive social cohesion. But how is it made possible? We argue that many of the traditional tools: fear, coercion and intimidation are inappropriate. Yet we still want the leader to influence others to behave constructively, productively and creatively, and all of this for the most part willingly. This is not an easy task in any social setting whether at home, in the office, in a religious organisation, a political party or a voluntary organisation (see Box 12.2).

If leaders are to be effective, they must be skilled in the management of social processes. The ability to comprehend a social process and intervene to produce a productive outcome is at the heart of leadership. It is a huge advantage if the leader genuinely likes people and is committed to using good social process. One of the worst leaders we came across explained his process of leadership as follows: ‘First, I give them the chance to agree with me. If they don’t, I sack them.’ There are still many leaders who use this approach and are even admired for their strength.

As we have said leadership is a social process. We have already discussed this in Chapters 3 and 4 … But how is this used effectively? We have identified some work for the leader to do. The leader must be able to answer the following questions to test his or her understanding of social process:

1. How do team members (that is, those whom the leader is leading) perceive each other?

2. How do they perceive the organisation?

3. How do they perceive the leader?

4. Can the leader predict how they will perceive particular changes, for example, of working practices, organisation, benefits, and so on?
Note: In attempting to answer questions 1, 2 and 3, the leader needs to be able to relate the perceptions to the values continua and position them on these continua.

This is not a superficial process that can be solved by simply saying, ‘Well, if the change is positive, they will view it positively.’ People often perceive situations in quite different ways. The key to understanding this perception is to understand their mythologies and to be able to see the proposed changes through their mythological lenses. This is not a question of right or wrong. Their mythologies may be based on stories and experiences from years ago.

One of the authors asked a group of people if they trusted the leadership of their organisation. One of the group answered, ‘No, not after what they have done in the past.’ On exploration, the examples he came up with were more than 15 years old and from a time when none of the current management were even at the organisation! Such stories echo down the years and may still influence people today. We have found that some organisations are better than others at telling and relating to stories, and building and sustaining mythologies. Union leaders are often good at this, and excel at reminding people of the past, relying particularly on tales of untrustworthy or dishonest management. Some organisational leaders may find this frustrating. Frustrating or not, it is part of the reality of organisations, unionised or not, and must be addressed.

This is where the values continua: trust, love, honesty, courage, respect for human dignity and fairness, when expressed positively, are applied. The leader can use the universal values to help answer the questions above. Do people trust each other and the leader? Do they think the organisation is fair? Is the leadership courageous? If the answer to some or all of these questions is no, the leader must ask why and try to explore the underlying mythologies. This is often best done by listening; a very simple technique, but one which is frequently underused by leaders. Leadership is often assumed to be all about the inspiring speaker, the person who leads from the front; someone with apparently boundless energy and determination. Yet good leadership is almost always the result of good, careful observation and listening followed by considered action.

This is not to imply that good leadership is doing what is most popular. It may be the case that what needs to be done will initially be seen negatively, for example cost reductions, changes in organisation or location or new work methods. The understanding of mythologies (Box 12.3) provides the basis for more effective leadership behaviour, improvement of systems, better setting of context and the considered use of symbols to provide believable answers to the questions that are concerning people.

One organisation we worked with eventually faced closure. The economic argument was compelling. Employees were, not surprisingly, unhappy at the prospect. However, the leadership used their understanding of mythologies to design information systems, relocation options and retraining to make this process as positive as possible. This was well received and employees left with mythologies that placed their own experience and the leadership as positive on the values continua. They felt they had been treated with respect for their dignity, told the truth and that the leadership had openly confronted the difficult issues (see Box 12.4).

If the purpose is unclear, ambiguous or in any way covert, the social process will place it at the negative side of the values continua. Others will articulate alternative purposes, and energy will be dissipated. The exercise of power will result and an alternative, subversive, purpose is likely to be promoted. Clarity of purpose is an essential part of the social process. Articulating a clear purpose does not guarantee agreement, however. The leader must also understand why people disagree. Using the values continua, concerns or objections must be examined, which requires an understanding of the mythologies that apply. We once worked with an organisation whose workforce went on strike because the company increased sick leave benefits! The leadership had overlooked the negative placement of the action. Seen through the lens of suspicious and negative mythologies about the purpose of the change, the workforce feared that increased sick leave benefits would be linked to a loss of benefits elsewhere (which had happened in the past). It is tempting in these, often tense, circumstances to dismiss these sorts of objections as irrational. Do not dismiss them. The mythology which explains their rationale must be found (see Box 12.5).

As we have said people often resort to three simple explanations for behaviour they do not understand and often turn to one or more of three simple answers: they must be bad, mad or stupid.

Why did they damage that vehicle by running it without checking the oil? Why was he not wearing the proper safety harness, causing him to fall from the scaffold? Why does she keep complaining about lack of information when she has access to our new intranet?

Frustration can offer quick explanations: they are bad, he is mad and she is stupid. We ask leaders to explain a range of behaviours that they see as negative in the workforce without resorting to any one of these simple explanations or excuses. It can be a tough task. It is even more poignant to see politicians and world leaders resort to such simplicity to explain others’ behaviour. It always seems easier and more rational to see other people whose behaviour as falling negatively on the values continua than it is to reflect on our own behaviour and what drives it.

In the example above of the employees who took strike action over an increase in sick leave benefits, it is easy to classify this behaviour as stupid and bad. If you are a member of the group who took this action and you knew that in the past such actions of appearing to be loving by the managers (as they would classify it), always led to an overall reduction in benefits in total, then strike action is completely rational and courageous.

Leadership is obviously not merely a matter of responding. While the development of an understanding of the current situation is critical, creating a new, different situation is essential (see Box 12.6).

All leaders must change behaviour, their own and their team members’. Even if the current situation is quite satisfactory, the context will always be challenging and so demands will change (see Box 12.7).

We have defined culture as a group of people who share common mythologies. The leader’s work is to create a single, productive, culture; often from a starting position wherein the leader is in one culture and his or her subordinates are in a completely different culture – one that has no shortage of mythologies to interpret the leader’s behaviour as falling on the negative side of the values continua. Leaders must have a clear idea of the desired behaviour they need for constructive and productive results. This is no abstract matter. The universal values of trust, love, honesty, fairness, dignity and courage only have meaning in relation to actual behaviour.

Exactly what behaviour is fair?

A client of ours came across one of his crew fishing in a nearby river. ‘I thought you were on shift today?’ said the client. ‘Yes, I am’, said the crew member, pleasantly. ‘Then why are you here fishing?’ said the client. The reply came, ‘Oh, I’m on a sickie’. He then sensed that he might be in serious trouble and quickly said, ‘Oh, it’s OK. I phoned in before the shift so they could arrange cover.’

To this crew member, taking a sickie was not unfair or dishonest. Letting his leader down by not giving notice was. His calmness in the face of the manager suggested this was common practice (which it was). The leader had to change this behaviour. He needed to create a culture where taking a day off sick when you are well was not perceived as fair or honest.

What was he to do next? What do you think would have been the reaction, in a highly unionised mining operation, if he had disciplined the crew member there and then? Instead he said he would see him back at work and then thought carefully through the mythologies and what influenced them. Through understanding the mythologies, changing the behaviour of leaders and changing critical systems he created new mythologies and, by the time he left that mine, the behaviours had changed. This was done over time by a series of system changes which included redesigning the sick leave system and the holiday/leave systems. They were applied equally to all the workforce. This system change was preceded by discussions with employees and especially line leaders. Leaders were trained both in the new systems and social process skills concerning briefing their teams and dealing with difficult issues.

So far we have highlighted the need for:

• clarity of purpose;

• understanding mythologies as part of social process and

• the need to create the desired culture.

One measure of a desired culture in an employment organisation is that all employees willingly work toward the achievement of the purpose of the organisation. In such an organisation, improvement and innovation directed toward the achievement of this purpose occur as a matter of course.

The Three Tools of Leadership

Creating a culture builds on clarity of purpose and is achieved through three main leadership tools (see Box 12.8). Since we first articulated this set of leadership tools in the mid-1980s, they have been used to great effect in a wide range of circumstances … We see it as an integral part of the system leadership framework. We referred to these tools earlier in Part 2.

Process of Building a Culture

A recent cover of Harvard Business Review carried the headline, ‘You Can’t Fix Culture’. (Lorsch and McTague, 2016) Of course we disagree, and in this chapter we have shown how it can and should be done. In the article which followed, however, the examples shown as exemplars were in fact changing systems (the authors used the term processes) and the authors reported, ‘Rather, in their experience, cultural change is what you get after you’ve put new processes or structures in place to tackle tough business challenges like reworking an out-dated strategy or business model. The culture evolves as you do that important work.’

Lacking our language and theory, the linkage between cause and effect was not explicitly stated in terms that could provide guidance to other managers. Nor did they have any understanding of the shared mythologies as the definition of a culture. Yet despite the article’s title, ‘Culture is not the Culprit’, their actual findings directly support what we have discussed in this chapter.

This chapter has described the work of leaders in creating the desired culture. The following diagram (Figure 12.1) summarises not only that work but also a central message of Systems Leadership and this entire book.

The diagram itself is a simple gap analysis, in that it describes where you want to be, that is the Desired Culture, where you are now, that is the Existing Culture and how to get there. What is less common is that this diagram provides leaders with specific tools as to how to articulate and then create that Desired Culture.

STEP ONE: THE DESIRED CULTURE

When using this model with organisations we ask people to describe the culture that they want to create in terms of actual behaviours. That is we ask people to describe, in concrete terms, how they would like people to behave, how they would like people, including customers and other stakeholders to describe the organisation and what sort of productivity or result they would be expecting. A simple way of doing this is to ask the question: ‘If I was to visit your organisation when it was operating exactly as you would like it to operate what would I actually see? How would I be treated and what would people say about the organisation and its leadership?’ We ask people not to use general terms such as: ‘people would be working well together’, but to go to the next level of detail such as; ‘when somebody makes a suggestion the leader will acknowledge and listen to that suggestion’. ‘People actually make eye contact with each other and greet each other when walking through the organisation.’ ‘There is no litter, offices are tidy, people ask other people if they need help or if they want any help’ and so on. These behaviours are observable. Similarly we ask what would employees say about the organisation and why. For example in the desired culture we might want people to say that they look forward to coming to work because they feel they are listened to and given recognition and feel part of the team. They may say; ‘you’re never asked to do anything unsafe or unethical here and you are consulted about changes’. That is, you are treated fairly, with respect and love.

Figure 12.1 The Tools of Leadership

CULTURE: CONNECTIONS

All of the above discussion can be connected by Figure 12.2.

The diagram connects all of the elements we have been discussing: Systems, Symbols, Behaviours, Statements (these are the actual words that people use in describing their experience of the organisation). Each of these elements influences each other element. It also means that we can start anywhere on this diagram and ask the question as to how one element connects to the others. Let’s take an example and start with a Statement. Supposing somebody says: ‘I am very anxious about going to work’. We can take that as a starting point and then consider what might be the underlying Mythologies that underpin the statement. It might be that the person experiences the workplace and leadership as unloving and perhaps disrespectful or worse, be subject to bullying. So what systems might underpin that mythology? Well, there might be a payment or bonus system that is entirely based upon output numbers which are all that matters. How might that be represented Symbolically? Perhaps there are production figures and targets posted everywhere but no information about well-being or safety. The Symbolic message is: ‘We don’t really care what happens to you as long as you reach your targets.’ So what Behaviour might that drive? Perhaps senior managers only ever ask about output or use aggressive questions about why targets hadn’t been achieved with threats of dire consequences.

Let’s take another example and start with a leader giving honest and accurate recognition to a team member. This in turn might symbolise positive and respectful relationships in the organisation and be underpinned by a system of task assignment and performance review that is well designed and implemented. This might create the mythologies that people are treated not only with respect but fairly with regard to work performance leading again in turn to a statement made by an employee that people are really interested in what you’re doing and want you to do well.

Figure 12.2 Understanding Culture

You can use this diagram to explore in some depth and detail what is going well and what is not going so well. Whether the desired culture is being realised and whether the leadership has created a positive organisation with productive social cohesion.

Conclusion