I was watching Emily and Kaylee in the sandbox the other day and was contemplating management philosophy.
They developed a complex project that involved creating a creek and a reservoir from a left over rain puddle in their sandbox. As I watched them I figured out what they were doing, what they were trying to achieve, what their obstacles where, and what resources they were lacking. Having made those determinations I assessed my possible role and function in this project - how I could join the game in the sandbox. I had power and resources they were lacking. I could provide what they needed. (In this case additional water and two soup ladles from the kitchen).
It's easy for me to philosophize about management, not actually having to do it, but what if leaders stepped back and watched their teams to see what they were doing and then reengaged only to provide them what the needed to get it done? Or is that totally backwards?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The best (not necessarily cuddliest) boss that I have ever had did almost exactly that. It seemed like her whole vision of her role was to find out what her people were up to, assess what power and resources she could provide them with, do so, and then step out of their way. She was phenomenal, the whole team performed outstanding feats because they were inspired by her, and the work we did was amazing. I would point to her as the single biggest reason that project succeeded, and the best part is, she would probably point right back at everyone else, insisting that it was their doing. Totally cool.
I wonder at the balance point. Surely leaders can't step out of the way completely and let teams do anything. Is it just understood they will align themselves to their organization's objects of their own will? Or is it project specific? Leader's provide the goals and objectives and then step aside.
One scenario:
"Okay, you guys are the communications team. Figure out how to do communications that would advance the organization's objectives. Do whatever you want."
No further direction.
Pretty free handed. Possible? Not sure. Maybe.
I think their needs to be room for a leader to bring their particular expertise to bear on the process. Let's face it: no leader is just a leader. They usually come from some previous life as a flunkie and have skills to match. That being said, the principal job of a leader/manager really is to resource, guide, and support their people.
Let's also not forget the difference between a leader and a manager. While there is sometimes no practical difference, ideally, a leader is the setter of a vision and is first devoted to the fulfillment of that vision. A manager, by contrast, should be wholly devoted to the growth, effectiveness, and joy of their people, and damn the vision.
The crunch space between leadership and management ought to be a roughshod battle field where those two wills clash and produce great things, rather than one being overridden by the other.
Post a Comment