Deborah
Ancona, Thomas Malone, Wanda Orlikowski and Peter Senge wrote in a 2007 article
in the Harvard Business Review that “it’s time to end the myth of the complete
leader: the flawless person at the top who’s got it all figured out. In fact,
the sooner leaders stop trying to be all things to all people, the better off
their organizations will be. In today’s world, the executive’s job is no longer
to command and control but to cultivate and coordinate the actions of others at
all levels of the organization. Only when leaders come to see themselves as
incomplete - as having both strengths and weaknesses - will they be able to make
up for their missing skills by relying on others.”
This
highlights one of the core traits of both good and great leaders ‘humility’ and
hence any leader who aspires to be constantly good or great would never
consider themselves complete - they understand that leadership is ever
evolving, and that most of the time it’s all about intent - that is, how you
approach leadership, and the behaviours you employ in your role.
Deborah
Ancona et al, believe that “corporations have been becoming less hierarchical
and more collaborative for decades, of course, as globalization and the growing
importance of knowledge work have required that responsibility and initiative
be distributed more widely. Moreover, it is now possible for large groups of
people to coordinate their actions, not just by bringing lots of information to
a few centralized places but also by bringing lots of information to lots of
places through ever-growing networks within and beyond the firm. The sheer
complexity and ambiguity of problems is humbling. More and more decisions are
made in the context of global markets and rapidly - sometimes radically - changing
financial, social, political, technological, and environmental forces.
Stakeholders such as activists, regulators, and employees all have claims on
organizations.”
It’s
interesting that this article was published before the global recession, as since 2007 some may say that many
organisations have in fact become more hierarchical and though collaboration is encouraged,
hierarchy has returned, sometimes to the detriment of sustainable growth,
employee motivation and most of all ‘great leadership’.
But
Deborah Ancona et al highlight a very important fact that “no one person could
possibly stay on top of everything. But the myth of the complete leader (and
the attendant fear of appearing incompetent) makes many executives try to do
just that, exhausting themselves and damaging their organizations in the
process. The incomplete leader, by contrast, knows when to let go: when to let
those who know the local market do the advertising plan or when to let the
engineering team run with its idea of what the customer needs. The incomplete
leader also knows that leadership exists throughout the organizational
hierarchy, wherever expertise, vision, new ideas, and commitment are found.”
The
debate should probably focus around whether a leader who ‘knows when to let go’
and who can acknowledges someone in the organisation knows more about a certain
business requirement than they do – is in fact, incomplete – or alternatively a
well-rounded and grounded, ‘complete’ leader.
No
one would like to be called incomplete, as it implies something is missing yet,
in business, it’s simply impossible for anyone to be the best at everything that’s
why we have organisation structures and business processes like talent
management. The challenge is to accept good and great leaders will always be
‘incomplete’ to some degree – it’s how they respond to that ‘incompleteness’ that
determines how effective your leadership will really be.
References:
Ancona,
D., Malone, T.W., Orlikowski, W.J. and Senge, P.M. (2007). In Praise of the
Incomplete Leader. Harvard Business Review, November.
No comments:
Post a Comment