I was recently in Tallahassee for a trip to the capitol, watching government in action. It was, to say the least, informative, though slightly disturbing. I will post about that later, but one general reflection was just how supposed leadership is never content to do nothing. Leadership, in other words, constantly works to “do more stuff.”
Why can’t we just leave well-enough alone? Of course one could argue that things are never just “well enough.” OK, fair enough, but very often things aren’t as bad as it would seem.
This came up at various times during my trip. The group I was with would be introduced to some new bill by some random Florida government official. Then, as it would be discussed among us, someone would inevitably raise the question of “why do they try to fix things that aren’t broken?”
It seems as if leaders feel the ever-present need to prove their worth to their position. College sports is like this. The team ownership is never happy enough with a good person leading the team, a person who wins more than loses, who has good values and works hard. Nope….they have to have someone who wins it all, apparently all the time. So, they replace the coach only to start the churn all over again. And what does that new person do from day 1? A whole bunch of new things.
The rare organization is like the Tampa Bay Rays, as reported by Sports Illustrated. In the April 1, 2013 issue, the Rays leadership is described this way: “they resemble a tight rock band; they’ve been playing together for so long that there are no surprises.”
Perhaps part of our problem is that we are often uncomfortable with hands off leadership. Or, we want to feel the hands off approach, until we think things could be better, and then we want the leader to “fix things.” Are we just unwilling to accept our own double-mindedness on this point?
It is very hard to simply allow a business, an organization, a state to run without some guidance. Just, how much guidance is the question. Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, commented on this in a recent post. He was talking about how Valve, the gaming company claims to work with no management . Adams admitted that such was possible, but only if the company hires amazing people and has high margins. Otherwise a business is “limited to hiring people who lived nearby, and the only information at their disposal was lie-filled resumes, every growing company would necessarily absorb a lot of losers.”
My own experience is that it would be amazing to work in a place where the leadership just lets you do the work. You hire amazing people. You provide clear values and foundational concepts about the work. You set them loose and their own desire to do great work just leads to great places.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work that way, whether due to leaders who believe they must prove they deserve to be there or due to people who really are lazy and don’t want to do the job at hand—thus who need oversight.
Putting the business or organization on autopilot seems like a great plan…until you do only to see things crash because “no one was in control.” So, what to do? If you are an employee, start by working at a high level of excellence. The more you do well, the more opportunity you create to provide more flexibility. Then, as you have earned the right, you can raise the issue with leadership to request less oversight and more teamwork. Also, if you are an employee or team member, push your peers to raise the bar in their own actions.
If you are a leader, look to reward teams and groups that have earned your trust. Give them the same option that Adams spoke about: let them discuss the issue or question, have everyone give opinion or information, spotlight the smartest choice, then implement. Then, as the leader, you step back and respect the work they came up with. Don’t give in to the desire to micromanage. Yes, if they are missing key information, then give it to that team. Once you have, let them go. Protect them from other middle managers who will want to stick their nose in.
As the leader, build this culture by good hiring. Good hiring STARTS with clarity to the HR department or hiring team. If you are trying to change the culture of your work by avoiding the “losers” that Adams spoke of, then it does little good to put those people who oppose your culture or values into the hiring committee. Empower that hiring team to get the very best people who embrace the values that you have. Use all of the new tools of technology at your disposal to make great hires. Be clear about the expectations, the values, the work habits of your people. Hire those kinds of people and then give them the same chance as the other successful team.
In the end, if the leaders can avoid the trap of trying to do too much, and if workers can decide to pursue excellence in every task, at every moment, then perhaps we can start moving forward.