The word capacity is used every day by leaders all over the globe. Some reference it in relation to planning while others reference it in relation to execution. Some even reference it in regards to someone having executive presence and capacity. After many decades of being an executive coach, the more people use the word the more I want them to define it. Then, I can comprehend the framework that is guiding their use of the word.
Routinely, I have encountered people who use words with little or no understanding of what they mean. The problem with this choice is that it generates massive confusion, and limited buy-in. In particular, people, who use the word capacity, need to be more mindful of what it means, and when to use it. They need to unpack the word so they can use it better and more effectively.
In the Merim Webster Dictionary, capacity is defined as “the potential or suitability for holding, storing, or accommodating.” It also is defined as “the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy.” Now, right from the get go, both definitions mean very different things. And when someone uses the word capacity, are they talking about holding, storing and accommodating? Or are they talking about producing, performing or deploying? If I don’t know which definition is being referenced, I am going to be confused and frustrated. In truth, I probably will be both.
American Professor of International Peacebuilding at the University of Norte Dame and concurrently Distinguished Scholar at Eastern Mennonite University, John Paul Lederach in his book, The Moral Imagination: The Art And Soul Of Building Peace (Oxford University Press, 2005), writes: “Capacity is understanding, ability, and discipline. It suggests skill and will, and involves both practice and attitude…. capacity is empowerment at its most primordial essence: ‘I am able and committed’.”
I like this definition, because it lines up with something I have been coaching people about for a long time. The definition of capacity that results in someone being “able and committed” happens when we recognize that there are two levels of capacity. One level is focused on understanding something, i.e. being able to hold, store or accommodate an idea, referencing the earlier dictionary definition. An example of this is being clear and able to communicate the company’s strategic intent. The second level is focused on their ability to execute that understanding in a disciplined manner, i.e. having the power to produce, perform or deploy, again referencing the earlier dictionary definition. For it is the combination of the two that results in an individual or a team having capacity and being empowered to act on it.
Upon great reflection, I think there is another element to people who have capacity. Brene’ Brown in her book, Dare To Lead: Brave Work, Tough Conversations, Whole Hearts (Random House, 2018), writes: “The opposite of living in a world of false binaries is practicing integration - the act of bringing together all the parts of ourselves…. We are all tough and tender, scared and brave, grace and grit.” She continues on this line of thought, and points out the importance of having a strong back, soft front, and a wild heart. As she explains, “For me, that strong back is grounded confidence and boundaries. The soft front is staying vulnerable and curious. The mark of a wild heart is living out these paradoxes in our lives and not giving into the either/or BS that reduces us.”
When I step back and ponder what she is saying, the word that jumps out to me today is integration. The people I have met who have capacity and show capacity are people who are integrated. They bring all the parts of themselves to the table and are willing to be grounded, vulnerable, and curious. This is a rare and wonderful mix which generates capacity to avoid false binaries based on either/or BS. Furthermore, when I meet leaders who embrace their integration, I also meet a form of leadership that I admire.
Now, the typical choice of leadership during challenging times is to default to a command and control form of leadership. However, from my perspective, the actual default choice is a control and command form of leadership with heavy emphasis on control with a tiny touch of command. For me, this is rarely effective as a means of coping with constant and messy change. This form of leadership does not work, because it is based on fear, intimidation, and dominance, which does not generate anything more than forced movement forward.
Given current events, we want people to be resilient, adaptive, aware, and creative. However, the use of control and command leadership only maintains status quo. It is focused on getting something done, and then returning to normal. It also is focused on lowering any level of disequilibrium or chaos within the organization.
Yet, as I continue rereading the aforementioned book by Brene’ Brown, I realized that many leaders are not defaulting to a control and command form of leadership. Instead they are focused on a compliance and control form of leadership. As Brown writes, “The armor of compliance and control is normally about fear and power…. We reduce work to tasks and to-dos, then spend our time ensuring that people are doing exactly what we want, how we want it - and then constantly calling them out when they’re doing it wrong. The armor of compliance and control leads us to strip work of its nuance, context, and larger purpose, then push it down for task completion, all while using the fear of ‘getting caught’ as motivation.”
The moment I read this, I thought to myself: “Oh yes. I have seen this and I have experienced it, too.” This form of leadership undermines capacity on so many levels, and does not result in an individual being able or committed. As she continues, “When we operate from compliance and control, we also have a tendency to hold on to power and authority, and push responsibility down. This leads to huge alignment issues for people. They’ve been asked to do something that they don’t actually have the authority to accomplish. They’re not set up for success, so they fail.”
And this is the challenge now, because we are not setting people up for success and, over time, they know it. The result is someone, who is able, but not ready or willing. It also is someone who is looking for a better place to work.
But, every time I talk about the interrelationship between capacity and a command and control form of leadership, someone will say “But it works in the military.” And I agree with them. I also point out two interesting reasons why it works in the military and often does not work well in the civilian population. The initial reason can be found in the U.S. Department of Defense Dictionary which defines command and control leadership as “the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission.” Within the definition are two keys. First, a properly designated commander with authority is able to accomplish the mission because they are working with an effective bi-directional flow of timely and accurate information, and doing it with role clarity. Second, the military definition of mission is an action to be completed. In the civilian population, the term mission is defined as purpose of an organization.
But a deeper level of understanding about this can be found in the writing of Jim Mattis and Bing West in their book, Call Sign Chaos: Learning To Lead (Random House, 2019). As Mattis explains, “If you as the commander define the mission as your responsibility, you have already failed. It was our mission, never my mission.” He builds on this by explaining, “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.” Mattis and West are utilizing a form of leadership based on clarity, commitment, and connection. Control, fear, and intimidation have no place in this form of leadership because it does not create capacity on any level what so ever.
The word capacity is an important word in the world of leadership. When used properly, it can make a difference, and it can help people move forward in a collective and unified manner. But in the beginning, more leaders need to unpack it’s meaning and communicate which definition is guiding them when they use it. For when this happens on a regular basis, the power of the word capacity will result in people being willing, able and empowered to make a difference at work, at home, and in the world at large.
© Geery Howe 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment