‘In late 1991, the telegraph industry's life was taken suddenly and brutally, by the facsimile machine,” write Don Peppers and Martha Rogers, Ph.D. in their book, The One to One Future: Building Relationships One Customer at a Time (Currency Doubleday, 1993). “For more than 150 years, the telegram stood for immediacy and importance. It was an icon for urgency. But now, Western Union has closed down its telegraph service around the world. The fax was a new technology the telegram could not survive. The shift from teletype and telegram to facsimile represents one aspect of what business consultants term a ‘paradigm shift’ - a discontinuity in the otherwise steady march of business progress.” As one who remembers the arrival of the fax machine and the transformation it created in the business world, I agree with Peppers and Rogers that it was “a discontinuity in the otherwise steady march of business progress.”
In the world of leading people, there have been paradigm shifts, too. Many years ago, the late Warren Dennis wrote about two different leadership paradigms. He called them COP and ACE.
The COP paradigm is defined by maintaining control, order and predictability. This is the choice of many leaders when confronted with change, chaos, or any thing else that they deem as a problem or disruption. This paradigm choice defaults to a command and control form of leadership. It is their way to cope with constant or messy change.
Over decades of teaching about these two different leadership paradigms, many people have assumed that I am against order and predictability. This could not be further than the truth on so many levels. In daily operations and in our daily lives, having a degree of order and predictability is mission critical to success. What frustrates me about the COP paradigm is not the desire for order and predictability, but the way many leaders choose to execute control over others, especially as the primary means of helping people move forward through organizational change.
While I have had many conversations with a diversity of leaders about command and control leadership, I have to point out that they often use the language of command and control, but behave as if it is really control and command. This later form of leadership is based on fear, intimidation, and dominance, which does not generate anything more than forced movement. It does not result in resilient, adaptive, aware, and creative engagement with change.
From my vantage point, the COP paradigm focuses on stability over change, i.e. the maintaining of status quo. However, successful organizational change is based on the premise that there is a better or more effective way of doing something. Control and command is based on getting something done and then returning to status quo. While this will reduce disequilibrium or chaos within the organization, it does not generate engagement or ownership of that which is trying to be created over time.
As a side bar to this subject, I have had the honor of meeting with people from all the branches of the military, who have explained to me that command and control is an effective form of leadership. And I agree 100% with their perspective. However, I point out that it works in the military, because people understand two things.
First, the word mission in the military is defined as “a task or operation that is assigned by a higher headquarters” or “an important task that people are given to do.” In the world of business, mission is defined as “the core purpose of an organization” or “what we do as a company.” In simple terms, the word mission in the military is something we do, i.e. a goal or objective to be completed, while in business it defines who we are, i.e. our purpose.
Second, the difference between command and control in the military vs the business world is that communication within the military is very different than in the business world. When we look up the definition of command and control in the U.S. Department of Defense Dictionary, it defines the term as “the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission.” The critical element within the definition and why command and control leadership works within the military is that it is based on an effective bi-directional flow of timely and accurate information. In the business world and in the civilian population, this is not the case and often is rare when it does happens.
One interesting footnote to this side bar is found in the writings by former Marine Corps four-star general and secretary of defense Jim Mattis and Bing West in their book, Call Sign Chaos: Learning To Lead (Random House, 2019). As they note, “If you as the commander define the mission as your responsibility, you have already failed. It was our mission, never my mission…. I was taught to use the concept of ‘command and feedback.’ You don’t control your subordinate commanders’ every move; you clearly state your intent and unleash their initiative.” If we seek to lead from the place of command and feedback plus have created a viable, timely, accurate, and effective system of bi-directional flow of information, then we have moved past a control based leadership paradigm and generated a force-multiplier based on mission clarity, commitment and connection.
On the other hand, the ACE paradigm is defined by alignment, co-creation and empowerment. The goal here within the business world is to capitalize on matching talent, or what is often termed as strengths, with opportunity. The ACE paradigm generates adaptability and resilience within the parameters of dynamic change. This is a solutions based approach to leadership.
Within the ACE paradigm, the concept of alignment is based on an understanding of the whole and the parts of the company, i.e. the strategic nexus which is the sum of mission, vision, and core values plus the overall strategy or strategic intent of the company. This alignment comes from an agreement in thought, word, and deed about how to act and work in accordance with the strategic nexus.
The concept of co-create within the ACE paradigm is based on an understanding that we work together to execute the mission and goals of the company. Rather than a “I create and you follow” mentality, there is a clarity about a key insight that Margaret Wheatley wrote, namely “People only support what they create.”
Finally, the concept of empowerment within the ACE paradigm is one of the hardest choices a leader can make. It requires us as leaders to give up on control over other people. Instead, we have to help people have confidence in their ability and their knowledge, and in their team and their company. We need to help them believe they can make the right decisions and the right choices as they seek to achieve predetermined outcomes and/or goals.
I understand society’s need for order, structure, and predictability. I also understand our own personal needs for order, structure, and predictability in our lives. But the former only takes place when an individual has the time, the energy, and the support for personal growth, innovation, and adaptability. Each of us seeks experiences which are rich, deep and meaningful. Each of us desire wholeness in our lives. The pathway to achieving this is by defining your leadership paradigm, and choosing to live it each and every day.
© Geery Howe 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment