We would like to have organizations that are stable and are not thrown out of sync by just one small gust of wind. The challenge in these times, however, is that the gusts of wind that companies face have become increasingly stronger and happen more suddenly. The concept of adaptable organizations is the solution in my view. It would be wonderful if a company worked like a flock of migrant birds who invariably adapted to new circumstances such as wind, temperature or approaching enemies in a dynamic way.
For organizations to behave like living systems (organisms) they must be interconnected dynamically. The model of collegial leadership tries to build upon that premise: employees in companies managed on the basis of collegial leadership are not caught up in hierarchies and tight job specifications, but are organized in teams that serve a specific purpose under their own responsibility. This means that the responsibility for decisions and their implementation is delegated to teams or groups of employees (often also called circles).
This frequently raises doubts as to whether an employer can put that much trust in his employees and whether this approach probably is too much of a risk. What would happen if employees abused the trust given to them and used it for the benefit of an individual or a small group of people, rather than employing it first and foremost for the company’s benefit? This all boils down to one key question: Do we believe in the good in people or do we believe that humans are bad and only care for their own good? My impression is that the scientific and social view currently is turning to the statement: Humans are good!
More recently, the Dutch historian Rutger Bregman published his book ‘Human kind’. He says that most psychological studies that allegedly prove that man is evil could not be reproduced (please refer to the replication crisis in psychology) or even have been rebutted in the meantime. For example, there is the story of the barbarians on Easter Island who are supposed to have killed each other so that, in the end, only 2,000 of originally 15,000 inhabitants survived. This story was used as early evidence that mankind is evil. More recent studies have shown that no more than 2,200 people had ever lived on this island. Well ‚Fake News‘ all around!
As early as in the 1960s, Douglas McGregor (MIT professor for Management) shaped the conception of mankind of what has become known as Theory X and Theory Y, with Theory X representing the person refusing to work and Theory Y representing the motivated person. Both theories are self-fulfilling prophecies.
- Theory X assumes a type of human being who is lazy and therefore must be instructed and controlled very tightly, which in turn leads to less motivation and a lack of responsibility assumed. Theory X corresponds to the conception of mankind as proposed by Taylorism (around 1900) where a clear separation is made between managers (planning) and workers (execution) who are grouped into very rigid hierarchies.
- The type of human being under Theory Y is very interested in his work and acts in a self-determined way which leads to even higher motivation and assumption of responsibility. A high degree of creativity is also attributed to the type of person in theory Y. McGregor himself prefers Theory Y which has become an element of many corporate mission statements for many years. This is also a sign that many companies believe that their employees are good and dedicated. However, the hierarchies in many companies are still as rigid as they were under Taylorism, which doesn’t really seem to fit to Theory Y. This is where collegial leadership comes in.
The faithful readers of this newsletter certainly already know that I am firmly convinced that people are good. On top of that, I have a strong faith in the power of groups and teams. Teams whose members feel secure will address and clarify any issues should one of the team members follow his or her own interest to an extent that is more than appropriate.
Let’s assume that you can dare to put responsibility or even the entire company management into the hands of the employees, what would the transformation from a hierarchically managed company to a company managed on the basis of collegial leadership mean for those involved?
First and foremost, the purpose of the company must be clarified. It is the task of the executives respectively corporate leader to enter into dialogue with the employees and to jointly define the purpose of the organization. Only when employees can identify with the purpose, they can act on their own responsibility.
Managers and company executives must gradually and on a topic-by-topic basis delegate responsibilities and tasks and have a lot of confidence in their employees. Based on my experience, the latter is the most difficult part. Moreover, they should provide their employees with coaching as regards the topics of communication and decision-making in teams; they could either take care of these coachings themselves or must consult external experts for help.
The teams or employees have to assume responsibility and have to learn how to organize themselves. And if need be, they should also ask for external help. Often, a little bit of support is sufficient because learning happens when you try out something for yourself, allowing for setbacks and making it better next time.
The benefits of a transformation of that kind are a higher sense of responsibility among employees, less of a burden on managers and an adaptable organization.
Whoever wants to learn more about how collegial leadership can be successful and which elements are particularly important, please take part in my open half-day webinar on November 10th 2020. For more details see this link.
This text first appeared in my newsletter 'Innovation on Wednesday'. It is published every other Wednesday. For subscription click here