The vicious circle of
leadership says that leaders often adjust their style based on the behavior of
their followers, and followers often behave the way they do because they are
responding to what they perceive as the leader’s expectations (Obolensky, 2014).
Followers wait around for leaders to provide them with more independence and
responsibility. At the same time, leaders hesitate to provide their followers
with freedom because such followers haven’t proven themselves as capable of
acting on their own. The vicious circle of leadership prevents followers from
ever reaching level 5 leadership, and as a result, leaders spend an unnecessary
amount of time providing guidance to their perfectly capable employees.
There are signs of the
vicious circle of leadership in my organization, especially when it comes to
the topic of drafting agreements – mainly letter writing. My organization
includes dozens and dozens of individuals who support at least six regions of
the world. In many ways, we function as one single group because we generally follow
the same work processes and procedures. In other ways, we function in our own
silos because each region reports to its own set of leaders and each set of
leaders has his or her own background and style of leading. In my region
(Europe), there are employees who have joined the Europe region after working
in other regions, like North America, Middle East, or Asia Pacific.
When others come to the
Europe region, it’s clear that they operate with an expectation for much more
freedom, at first. Then, as they learn the leadership style of managers in the
Europe region, they begin to lose sight of the training they received in previous
regions and they try to fit into the mold that has been created in Europe. An
employee from the Middle East, for example, had never run a contract letter
past a leader for proof reading because they were taught that peer reviews and
self-discipline were the preferred approaches. Europe leaders had completely
different expectations. In Europe, every contractual document, including
letters, must be reviewed by the managing contract director in the region
before they are sent to customers. Instead of pushing back on their new
regional leader, the “new” employees in Europe pulled back on their level 5
qualities and began to revert to level 3’s and 4’s.
As a result, newer employees
like me who have never worked in a region before have an even harder time
breaking through the level 3/4 ceiling. I look to the more senior employees,
like those who have experience working in other regions, to set the tone for
pushing back on leadership so that I can strategically follow. This, perhaps,
is my first mistake. I should stop looking to others to set the tone of the
organization, just because others have been doing the job longer than I have.
Instead, I should set the tone for building a reputation as a self-managed
follower. Self-managed followers are key assets to an organization – “they give
their organizations a significant cost advantage because they eliminate much of
the need for elaborate supervisory control systems…” (Kelley, 1988).
Perhaps by looking at the
circle of leadership in a different way, followers like me will start making
changes. What if, instead of followers asking their leaders for advice, they
ask their peers and stakeholders instead? Johnson (2008) refers to this as “lateral
leadership,” which consists of using the resources around you instead of the
ones above you. With this approach, leaders feel a certain level of comfort
because followers aren’t acting in complete silos, but followers avoid feeing
like they are asking permission to act according to their instincts. If
stakeholders and peers enter the circle, it might look something like this:
Note 1: These are one time steps that the followers
must take to be redirected towards independence.
Note 2: Stakeholders include financial functions,
marketing, sales, and engineering. Such functions may or may not be consulted,
dependent on the content of the letter. It is at the follower’s discretion on
which stakeholders need consultation.
This diagram suggests that
followers initially consult leadership and are guided by leaders to consult
someone I refer to as “a neutral party.” This consultation allows followers to
do things like gather good information about what needs to be accomplished and
recognize opportunities to improve the work product without consulting directly
with the leader (Kolb, 2015). During the interactions between follower and
peers/stakeholders, followers maintain a leadership role and are enabled to
make the ultimate decision on whether or not they incorporate the guidance they’ve
been given. This is quite different from interactions with leaders because it’s
much more difficult to take a dominate role when discussing something with a
superior (though some have mastered this approach as well!) When consulting with stakeholders and peers, followers
may have an easier time taking on a leadership role and building their
confidence. Real leaders, suggested Hymowitz (2001), find a way to gain authority
simply by convincing people to listen to their ideas and value their approach to
solving the problems that lay ahead of them.
Resources
Hymowitz, C. (2001, February 20). How to lead when you’re not
the boss. Harvard
Management Update, 5(3).
Johnson, L.K. (2008) Exerting influence without authority.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2008/02/exerting-influence-without-aut
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6),
142-148.
Kolb, D.M., (2015). Be
Your Own Best Advocate. Harvard Business Review, 93(11), 130-133.
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex
Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). New York,
New York: Gower Publishing.
