the myth of leadership

i have just finished reading the myth of leadership by jeffery nielson. it's a book aimed at business that suggests that rank based or hierarchical organisations have several problems inherent in the way they structure themselves. they create dependency, foster secrecy, genuine communication often doesn't take place (it only does among genuine equals), management are often not the ones either doing the work or who really know what is happening and yet they are making the decisions, and the creative potential of many workers is simply untapped. i loved this piece the plan

In the beginning was the plan.
And then came the assumptions.
And the assumptions were without form.
And the plan was without substance.
And darkness was upon the face of the workers.
And they spoke among themselves saying 'it's a crock of crap and it stinks'.
And the workers went unto the supervisors and said 'it's a pile of dung and we can't live with the smell'
And the supervisors went unto their managers saying 'it's a container of excrement and it is very strong such that none may abide by it'
And the managers went unto their directors saying 'it's a vessel of fertilizer and none may abide its strength'
And the directors spoke among themselves saying unto them 'it contains that which aids plant growth and it is very strong'
And the directors went to the vice presidents saying unto them 'it promotes growth and it is very powerful'.
And the vice presidents went to the president saying unto him 'this new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor of the company with very powerful effects'.
And the president looked upon the plan and saw that it was good.
And the plan became policy.
And this is how shit happens.

nielson suggests that the rank based way of running things may have worked once but in a network based society peoples ways of organising are changing and the old hierarchies just won't wash. he proposes a shift to peer based organisations and ultimately leaderless organisations. he also outlines a process for an organisation to shift from one to the other through a peer based councils and task groups, though i suspect the biggest part of that shift is a mind shift. one of the assumptions is that people want to work and create and produce and make meaning. this contrasts with the old school assumption that people are lazy and need to be told what to do and controlled and checked up on. get the book and read it. I am going to be swapping it with si who is lending me a book called 'the wisdom of the crowds' which sounds like it's coming from a similar place.

there is a lot of talk about leadership at the moment - its importance, styles of leadership, the kind of leadership needed in the emerging culture and in mission etc. what nielson makes you think is that actually you can talk about leadership all you like and you can get consultants in and the whole deal. but after all that people that were good leaders will still be good leaders and people that were poor leaders will still be poor leaders. but it's missing the point - unless you change the fundamental way your organisation/church is structured i.e. deconstruct the rank based nature of it, not much will change. you'll just fall back into the same old patterns and problems. i'd love for some organisations to take this challenge on and i actually think it sits really well with a christian ethos. i was relieved to read the book. i sometimes think i am mad - i just don't get most of the stuff around about leadership. it seems disempowering for the group and an ego massage for the leader. so it's good to find out i'm not alone in that. we have talked a lot in alternative worship over the years about leadership and though i wouldn't have used that term a lot of groups are structured loosely on a peer-based leadership/consensus way of doing things.

Comments

[maggi]

intriguing stuff, Jonny. I totally agree that structures have to change. But do you think we'll really end up with "leaderless" structures? I can't envisage any arrangement of human beings that will not have leaders. (or did I miss the point? - I haven't read the book)

Thanks - thought provoking stuff

[bobbie]

great post jonny! i'm excited as a woman in the church to hear that you are tangling with this concept and encourage other to also. this gives the disenfranchised a voice at the table too.

[jonny]

no - i think leaderless is probably unlikely. it's more a shift away from hierarchy to peer based. in the book the process for a business is twofold - making changes without having to drastically change everything. this involves the existing leaders reimagining their role as empowering others via setting up peer based councils across the organisation and task groups who do the work and make the decisions. nielson says that it is a false dichotomy that we either have a big chief decision making mind set or a mob mentality where everyone does their own thing. he suggests that the functions of leadership (goals, allocating resources, organising, monitoring, motivating staff, communicating vision etc) still need to happen. but what is shifting is that rather than leaders deciding these things and telling everyone else, leadership needs to create processes whereby these functions happen, but everyone in the organisation is able to participate in those decisions. the second stage that niesen talks about is that once an organisation has shifted this way without having to make too many drastic changes, actually leadership and innovation in the organisation is happening all over the placeand the traditional role of leaders is what is gone - it is i guess this sense in which an organisation is leaderless. the logical follow on to this is that lots of management roles can go and pay can be flattened out with rewards for innovation and creativity and performance....
hope this makes sense?...

[john]

jonny,
Thanks for the link. I added it to my wishlist. This is right along the lines of one of the topics I'm trying to do some reading on right now. Please comment on "Wisdom of the Crowds" after you read it as well...

[jon birch]

brilliant post... i cut and pasted to clare at work who is currently dealing with the pain of an hierarchical structure. the problem is that those in power who need to read this kind of stuff won't. sad, but true.

[ray]

i had made what God had created into a pile of waste, smelly and foul. my life. Most saw it and saw that it smelled and was too nasty to come near. Most saw no value. Most avoided. But God saw it and said, "hey, there is potential there." He spoke to others and said, "here is potential for good. I desire to use Him. Put Him to use." they said, "but Sir, with all due respect, it is just a pile of waste." God said, "use it." They were people who He decided to be leaders of men. They decided to trust God and His desires for this waste and let me know of His desires for my life. i, like them, saw nothing but waste in me, but they encouraged me to believe. They used the abilities that God had given them to build me up, to build my confidence not in myself, but in what God saw i could be. They, the leaders, encouraged me and tested me and trusted me and provided me with responsibiliites so that i could be what God wanted me to be.
That is the job of leaders. Not the job of managers. When we debate the importance of leaders within any organization we confuse it with the roles of managers. Managers see only the goal, as diluded as it may be, and do whatever it takes to achieve that goal, sacrificing whatever is necessary. Leaders empower others, they create leaders, they inspire, they guide. they are desired by God to be part of His Organization, His Body, His Church. That is to be the role of the shepherds, the bishops, the elders, the preachers, the teachers, the leaders within each group of saints. His plan is for there to be leaders, He created us with a need for someone to guide us and He also created us with a capacity to become a leader. Each group needs to have someone who can help us with a vision and who guides the members of that organization to see that vision on to reality. The leaders will inspire, will organize, they will let use the talents within that organization toachieve its goal. We need leaders. Let us all have the humility to follow and to lead when necessary.

[michael]

For the best UK price (£10.14) see here http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/detail/offer-listing/-/0891061991/all/026-0916344-8726057 - shipped from the US!

[Derek]

I think it's a very interesting and challenging article Jonny, Ray also makes a very good point though. I suppose in every kind of institution/business/organisation (yes, including the emerging church setup), there is always going to be the danger of some form of warped power-based leadership. This happens right across the whole spectrum, and as the emerging church pioneers are so key in challenging the status quo and bringing about a positive change within The Church, they too need to make sure that they don't become the very thing they are trying to dismantle

[Ant]

I've just been reading this book too.
I wanted to share two thoughts that came to my mind.
The first is that he seems to be describing something of the essence of anarchist thinking and organisation based around equality-based cooperative action.
The second relates to what such an understanding does to our view of the Christian life (and church, if we must). Empowering, peer based, co-workers with Christ in the spirit, etc.
A life of freedom for/with etc, no less.
Sorry, my battery is about to die, so that'll have to do. Great book, basically. I particularly liked his identification of 1. genuine communication occurs only between equals
2. secrecy breeds corruption and abuse of power.
So, take away equality and you will seldom have honest open communication. And as he says..."you can take that to the bank" (or the church!) :-)

[Patrick Goh]

I agree with the sentiment that modernist management and leadership styles that have emerged from enlightenment thinking, and the industrial revolution is becoming increasingly irrelevant in an increasing globalised and networked context.

However, I don't think that "leaderless" is the way to go. If I'm not mistaken Nielson is drawing from complexity theory.

Others, including Christain writers are innovating some great stuff on leadership from a "relational" perspective.

In this regards, two must read books are:

Relational Leadership by Walter Wright;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0853649960/qid=1122305035/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-9448525-5864649

and, from a secular perspective:

The Deep Blue Sea by Drath:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0787949329/qid=1122305089/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_2_6/202-9448525-5864649

In relational practice, leadership as an individual trait is replaced by a concern with patterns of relationship, inclusion, coordination and co-construction. A key competency is the ability to be reflexive about what is being created in everyday interactions. What identifies/realities of self, of others and of the organisation are being created by how we perceive and practice leadership? Are we being humane and ethical? Are we being manipulative? Are honouring God and others by how we lead?

Unlike Nielson, I think that hierarchy is inevitable. It exists in every human system. Relational leadership does not necessarily mean an inversion of hierarchy but rather the development of aesthetic and practical skills in managing power within a complexity of contexts. It is a commitment to distinguish between authority and authoritarianism.

Relational leadership can be enacted at every level of the organisation! Of course those in senior positions have special opportunities to set the process in motion but every member of an organisation or grouping has the power to bring about collaborative and relational participation.

Another important leadership skill is learning how to coordinate the multiple voices within organisational life in ways that create coherence and enable fruitful interaction and collaboration on ways forward.

Leadership should not be about “finding and applying true or false theories”. Instead, it is about the “practical making of history”. We do this by fostering relational practice that will lead to the co-missioning of possible future actions with others, and empowering them to “get on with it”.

I believe that 'conversation' is the crucible for change. If this is so, leaders can become effective change agents by seeing themselves as “practical authors ”, working within the ethical framework of our organisations’ core values to co-ordinate conversations that will lead to fruitful action.