Loe raamatut: «Soft Management for Decisive Results», lehekülg 2
Authority? Of course! Authoritarian? No way!
Authoritarian
Believe it or not, they still exist: authoritarian leaders who see themselves as being the top of an organization or team and act accordingly. They are autocrats who only occasionally, for token reasons, tolerate another person’s opinion, and they are often supporters of theory X. The only reason that this type of leader is no longer as clearly perceived as the choleric patriarch was in the past is that today’s authoritarian leader has become cleverer and can package his/her appearance better. Nevertheless, they still exist. Being authoritarian is too often still seen as a virtue in leadership circles. You’ve earned it, you’re ‘important’, and therefore you have the ‘right’ to be more ruthless. Whether these authoritarian leaders are actually smarter, have better ideas, make better suggestions, know more or are ultimately more valuable is irrelevant; they are simply the ‘boss’.
However, we also have to make this claim a little more precise and put it into perspective. An organization needs decisive and dynamic leaders who, because of their role, can sometimes appear dominant. If the leader is too considerate in situations where quick action is required, then damage can be done, and that doesn’t help either. An organization needs leaders who can apply an authoritarian leadership style when the situation demands it, but only then. This applies, for example, to crisis situations and conflicts, when decisive action is primarily required. In such cases, we are clearly talking about a situational authoritative leadership style and not an authoritarian personality.
However, we are not talking about snapshots and situational behaviour here, but about fundamental behaviour. Decision-making and being an active superior also requires a high degree of prudence and responsiveness to employees. If this is not the case, there is a danger of being too authoritarian, with all the corresponding negative side effects.
Authoritarian personalities are often not in control of and are in fact led by their ego. Studies have found that authoritarian behaviour has its origins in the past, usually the childhood of the authoritarian person. Narcissistic feelings of inferiority, powerlessness and individual insignificance have been developed at some point and are then rationalized by the affected person (the authoritarian) as love or loyalty. In the ‘flight into authoritarianism’, the independence and integrity of the self is abandoned.
To some extent, authoritarian personalities are thus also victims of their situation. They need compensation for an emotional or mental deficit and find it by acquiring a position of power. And the best way to do that is through an authoritarian demeanour. An additional problem is that such personalities need this compensation in order to survive. The fear of losing the power position leads to a reinforcement of the authoritarian behaviour. So, it does not get better and such vicious circles can be demotivating for any organization or for a team and thus it is destructive.
However, even if the authoritarian behaviour of a leader is not self-inflicted, this is no justification in a business enterprise to tolerate this destructive behaviour. Authoritarian behaviour only serves the authoritarian leader and not the good of the team.
“If authority is complete, then so is the madness of the man who declares it, and so is the potential for abuse of power.” Rick Wilson
In the many years that I have worked in the dynamic hotel industry, which is focused on profitability, I have met many managers with many different leadership styles. I have never met an authoritarian leader who got the maximum out of his team. Under such a leader, employees rarely did what they were really capable of, but only what they had to. Authoritarian leaders fail to unlock potential in their employees because of their misplaced focus. And in the end, an organization is about getting the most out of its people and its team in order to achieve the best possible results in the long term.
Leaders know this and will not accept too much authoritarian behaviour on the part of the managers in the company, so that existence of the teams and their results are not endangered.
In general, criticism of authoritarian leadership styles is getting louder these days and new generations are acting differently. Start-ups and agencies are leading the way. They want to build social connections in every department and perceive themselves as a team to get the most out of a company. Very few supervisors want to appear authoritarian and dominant. They respect each employee as an individual and want to benefit from their core competencies and advantages. An employee will best contribute to a team if he/she has the feeling to play an important role in the company. If his/her wishes, ideas or food for thought remain unheard, he/she will keep them to him/herself in the future and not use them profitably for the company.
Authority
There is a crucial difference between authority and authoritarian:Authority is a personality trait, an aura that a person has. Authoritarian refers to a person’s behaviour.
Authority is only authentic and valuable when it is bestowed upon one and not when it has to be demanded or forced, as in the case of an authoritarian person.
“A leader who refers to his titles relies heavily on positional power to get things done. A natural leader can mobilize others without formal authority.” Gary Hamel
Originally - in the times of ancestors - authority was basically based on competence and physical strength. The one who could do something very well or who was the best, also had the authority in the respective field.
Our society today is much larger, much more complex and often authority based on competence is replaced by authority based on social status. Although competence is still important for achieving a certain level of authority, it is no longer the main prerequisite. Authority based on social status is based on the ability to perform certain social functions and it is also based on the personality of a person who has achieved a high level of self-realization and integration. Such a highly developed individual radiates authority without flexing his muscles. This also distinguishes us from the animal world, where authority based on physical strength is usually still decisive.
Now I don’t want to claim that authoritarian leaders who appear excessively strong are animalistic. However, such personalities do lack a certain social development or social understanding, the sense of the ‘whole’. Yet it is precisely this social competence that makes a leader who uses authority to lead his team or organization to peak performance. This is because authority, regardless of position, is indispensable in an organization. It gives team members support and orientation and opens up possibilities for better results. Various studies confirm that people follow authority because it makes them better and moves them forward. Positive authority supports our development. It is then not far-fetched to claim that authority based on strongly developed social skills, i.e., leadership, moves an organization and its results ahead.
Humility – Servant Leadership
It’s not about you! It’s about the others, your team, your organization, the partners, the results. Your role as a leader is to help. Apart from the terms ‘authoritarian’ or ‘authority’, leaders are by no means ‘special’ people and they are not more important than anyone else. However, leaders have certain skills that others don’t have and that makes them valuable to people and to organizations.
“When you were appointed a leader, you were not given a crown. You were given the responsibility to bring out the best in others.” Jack Welch
Leaders also will never claim to be managers, to be ‘the boss’ or to be important. They are simply there to help.
Ego
“The two biggest obstacles to good decision making are your ego and your ignorance,” says stock market guru Ray Dalio. His thesis is confirmed by many experts who study the subject. When a leader needs to make good, informed decisions, he is able to leave his ego out of it.
Oh yes, we all have egos, and that’s a good thing, otherwise we wouldn’t survive at all. Our ego protects us and helps us take care of ourselves when necessary. The question is, when do we let our ego take precedence and when do we hold it back? Are we able to control our ego? We have already found that authoritarian personalities often are not able to control their ego and are accordingly led by it. This leads to situations in which they appear authoritarian, arrogant, harsh or inconsiderate, regardless of whether this is appropriate or what effect it has on the environment.
“Do not strive to be a successful person; strive to be a valuable one.” Albert Einstein
Bold leaders have a firm grip on their ego and do not make the mistake of letting it lead them. They understand that leadership is ‘influence’, and that the quality of that influence is critical to the team and the organization. Leaders do not lead for themselves, but for a greater good. This is authentic leadership or better, servant leadership.
Servant leadership is more an attitude than a leadership style and is indisputably highly valuable in organizations and teams. Such leaders see themselves as servants of the team and have as a goal to lead the team members to high performance.
As a Servant Leader, you first and foremost need the ability to lead yourself. Do you know yourself? Do you know your strengths, weaknesses, skills and knowledge? Do you know your values, preferences, personality type and representation system? Do you know where you are going, where you want to go and why you want to go there? Are you satisfied with yourself? Only if you can lead yourself, you can take along others with you.
Servant Leaders are courageous; they are not yes-sayers but problem solvers. They are not brakers, but promoters. They are not critics, but caretakers. Servant Leadership is one of the best examples of soft management and needless to say, it takes a strong personality to live it consistently.
Key takeaways
There is a big difference between authority and authoritarian; authority is a personality trait, a charisma. Authoritarian refers to the behaviour.
‘Servant Leadership’ is an attitude, a mindset. Servant Leaders do not lead for themselves, but they serve a greater good.
Hierarchy
Flat or steep Hierarchy?
A hierarchy is a ranking that consists of different levels. As a rule, higher levels have more rights and powers than lower levels.
The question is: Does an organization needs a hierarchy? Advantages of a hierarchy are that there is a clear division of responsibility, a clear communication structure and a specific division of labour. So far so good; a hierarchy creates clarity. Every manager knows - and this is confirmed by many studies and investigations - that a company or organization needs functioning structures and clear lines of communication in order to avoid chaos and to guide the common focus in the right direction. But do you absolutely need a hierarchy for this or is a clear distribution of roles and tasks sufficient?
“Fight hierarchy and bureaucracy as hard as possible. Never let them become the master; always remember, they are servants.” Herb Kelleher.
Disadvantages of hierarchies are that they slow down communication and decision-making processes and inhibit the development of employee potential. These drawbacks are directly related to the quality of leadership in an organization. The problem of hierarchy therefore only partly lies in the levels; The main challenge of the hierarchy lies in the quality of leadership and in the narrowing of the ‘lower’ levels. The original military-hierarchical pyramid model simply no longer works today, at least not in business environments. Another danger is that an overly rigid hierarchy leads to rigid work processes and a lack of exchange. The quantity of work is raised with while the quality stagnates. In extreme cases, there can also be resistance, rejection, or defiant reactions against the authoritarian leadership.
In some structures, such as that of a small company with only a few employees or a start-up, there usually exist very flat hierarchies. Here you will more likely find a holocracy; a management approach that works without hierarchies. There is a fixed set of rules for all independent units. This structure is part of ‘New Work’ - more about that later.
In larger organizations with several departments and management levels, a certain hierarchy makes sense and is helpful, but here, too, its advantages only come into play if the key managers are also leaders.
The effectiveness of a hierarchy is directly related to the basic culture of the company and also that of a nation. The hierarchical structures and communications in Germany are very different from those in the Netherlands, just as in the USA they are very different from those in Japan. In Germany, a somewhat steeper hierarchy is still preferred, whereas in the Netherlands, flatter hierarchies are more popular.
From a factual point of view, it is probably better to use the hierarchical system that best suits the culture. However, the question is not how it has worked best so far, but how we can do it better, and most importantly, how will it work best in the future.
Nowadays hierarchies are flattening out. In return, the importance of innovation increases and with that, also the individuality and maturity of the employees. This is not only due to the switch of generations in companies and organizations, but also from the exemplary effect of other organizations and nations, where flatter hierarchical structures are perceived as more effective or more pleasant. Examples of this are many of the world’s top-selling companies, such as Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google, all of which have the image of a flat hierarchy.
Rigid, steep hierarchies, which are more associated with hard management, will be less and less effective and more and more destructive. Those corporate executives who believe in the need for a rigid hierarchy will lose ground, and so will the companies in which they operate. The solution is of course a flatter hierarchy and that requires soft management, bold leadership, which understands that hierarchy has to be reduced to what is really important.
Informality or formality?
Clearly informality!
Unless you want distance between yourself and your co-workers, then formality is better of course. However, I don’t know any good and effective managers who want to keep their employees and colleagues at a distance. Executives who insist on formality can be very good managers, but they will never have the entire team behind them.
The basic concept of authoritarian leadership is based on commands and control. As a result, decisions are made from top to bottom and implemented without acceptance of criticism or counter-arguments. This requires a strict separation of subordinates and managers. And all of this is much easier for the authoritarian manager, if there is a certain emotional and human distance to the employee. And that can be done very easily at first by using last names instead of first names and of course via formality. Using first names and informality would be very confidential and therefore of course not appreciated under any circumstances. And as such, the authoritarian leader is right; informality and first names are much less distant than formality and last names.
The main question however is; why would managers want to keep a distance to their employees and colleagues? What is the use of this? At best, it helps to protect one’s own emotional or social incompetence, but it does not help the team and mutual communication. formality fits into a steep hierarchy where distance between the levels is wanted. However, here, too, I do ask the question; what is the advantage of a distance between the levels? Distance between people and levels leads to deficits as there is less open, direct and effective communication. Maybe that’s more efficient, but efficiency has nothing to do with quality - in this case with the quality of communication.
Very often I have heard the argument from formality-advocates that it is too easy to say “you asshole” in an informal environment compared to a formal environment. I have always wondered about this clichéd argument, because…why wouldn’t you want to allow that? If you can’t speak up to someone directly, either out of excessive respect or out of fear, you’re doing it behind their back. And that doesn’t make working together and overall communication better. Of course, this is not specifically about the word ‘asshole’ per se - there are certainly better words to conduct healthy communication - it is about the openness and quality of communication. Just imagine; the boss makes a wrong decision which demotivates the team and nobody in the team dares to say anything. What influence will this have on the quality of teamwork? Or on the result? Imagine, on the other hand, that you could communicate openly with the boss if something does not fit and you can get the problem straight out of the world; isn’t that a completely different quality then?
“The best way to earn respect is to treat others with respect.” Kalpana Manchikanti
Here’s another myth related to formality and informality: Respect. How many times have I heard that is absolutely necessary to have formality, because of respect. Now I know that the fear of informality is cultural and has nothing to do with respect. Unfortunately, most formality-advocates are ignorant of this and genuinely believe that formality is related to respect. Or to put it another way, there is a fear that the respect will be less with informality. For those who believe that, here is the solution: You don’t get respect through formality or distance. You get respect through how you behave, how you treat others and via your performance. Therefore, also informality is not the absolute criterion for more respect, however it simplifies communication and thus makes it much more effective.
In general, behaviour in companies is becoming increasingly informal, especially in companies with younger and more international employees. It’s often even taken for granted. The general trend is definitely going into the direction of informality and executives are very well advised to follow this trend so as not to appear stiff, old-fashioned and distant at some point. Depending on the culture, the transformation from a formal to an informal culture could take place slowly, over generations. I would definitely prefer and recommend to any company the ‘overnight’ option. There are employees who adapt very quickly and maybe some who need a little longer to get used to the new communication, but the goal definitely is clear, and the advantages will be noticeable quickly.
Tasuta katkend on lõppenud.
