Comments

Cathy, in the interview, Daniels says that, "We feel that measuring the follower's response is a part of an effective leader's routine", and that "One of the categories is called reciprocity. It is how people relate to the leader. If people don't have a good relationship with the leader, he/she can never capture discretionary effort."

The problem is, the relationship is already pre-defined, by the nature of the system. If you haven't already, you should read this excellent manifesto over at changethis.com - "Why your boss is programmed to be a dictator." It has a very clear definition of leadership, and how this affects the relationships and behaviors of leaders/subordinates.

Posted by Helen Smith at February 24, 2006 2:38 AM

Helen,
I haven't checked on ChangeThis for a while. I'll take a look at the manifesto you mention. Thanks for the tip.

But do you really think there's no room for feedback re performance from subordinates to leader in current organizations? Bosses as dictators? Is that the way things are?
 

Posted by cathy at February 24, 2006 4:04 PM

Cathy,
In contrast to 'Leadership' - a topic that gets some very head-in-the-clouds treatment - the grind of the boss/subordinate relationship is the daily reality for the vast majority of people. How many bosses genuinely ask for feedback, and how many of us would have the guts (and a Plan B for a new job) to tell our bosses what we really think of them?

Rather than blaming individual leaders/subordinates for their behaviors, the manifesto argues that it’s the workplace system that causes these behaviors. It's the first time I've seen leadership analyzed using a systems framework, and the arguments are compelling.

Though the manifesto is a bit long (44 pages), take the time to read it - at the very least, it will give you food for thought. (Sorry I forgot to include the link - http://www.changethis.com/19.BossDictator)

Posted by Helen Smith at February 25, 2006 12:43 AM

Helen,
There is no question that the workplace system promotes certain behaviors, as the article you cite discusses. But the system is not cast in iron. It interacts with people.

People change systems. By that I mean that the way people act forces the system to adapt. We see this all the time. Managers and engineers design a perfect process that never works as designed because the people choose not to work in that way. We see these "dictators" frequently frustrated and typically underperforming because of the way their subordinates choose to respond. We see people often 'work around' some structure or procedure put in place by management.

Without really studying the article you cite, I will hazard a couple of observations. One is that, by focusing on the system, the typical employee is forced to be a passive participant in his or her environment. If they believe that the 'relationship is pre-defined' then they have to wait for enlightened management to change the structure. The second is that it diminishes the person. It removes responsibility for him to 'do the right thing.' After all, you can't fight city hall. They simply have to endure dictatorial bosses.

We start from the perspective that each person changes the behavior of all those they come into contact with, including the boss. If you aren't truly conscious of how you 'encourage' poor boss behavior, you can't change it. It's also true that you can't always change it even if you are aware. But that doesn't change the fact that each person has the power to improve the relationships they have with those they deal with. Looking to the system for salvation deprives us of the satisfaction of saving ourselves.

Posted by James Daniels at February 28, 2006 2:38 PM

James,
I take your point, and it is true that people can change the system. But however strong the people, their behavior will ultimately be defined by the boundaries of that system. For example, the author uses dicatorship vs democratic systems. In a dictatorship system, however much people try to change the system, ultimately their behavior will be defined by the limits set by the autocratic regime. If not, they just get killed/imprisoned (ie made impotent). In the case of US vs the former Soviet Union, both countries had/have good people (eg brilliant scientists etc), but the US system ultimately defeated the USSR system. So the question really becomes, what system causes the behaviors we want? Rather than make it difficult for those behaviors, we need systems to make those behaviors easy.

Posted by Helen Smith at March 1, 2006 11:30 AM

I wonder what Tom makes of the boss-dictator manifesto. It's certainly an innovative way of looking at leadership at the workplace.

Posted by AJP at March 2, 2006 12:07 AM