Managing, as already mentioned, used to be about planning and control. Top management decided what was to be done, middle management worked out how to do it and everyone else did as they were told. This model assumed, of course, that top management knew what needed to be done, that the orders had time to percolate their way down and that, like a good army, the lower ranks would obey.
This type of management would simply not work any more, even if we were still prepared to put up with it. Markets change fast and organizations have to react fast, so people in every part of the business need the knowledge and the permission to make decisions on matters that affect them. As organizations ‘flatten out’, lines of authority start to blur. ‘Top’ management no longer necessarily knows best. Information gives power, not the size of your office. Only change can be relied on.
The business writer and consultant Rosabeth Moss Kanter has beautifully summed up the situation: ‘The mean time between decisions is greater than the mean time between surprises.’ By the time you make a decision, based on what you know, the situation may have changed, and your decision may not fit the new conditions. Your business may be perfectly geared to solving yesterday’s problems. What makes the difference is how quickly you can obtain and evaluate information. And the people on the spot are in the best position to do that. So now managers at every level need the confidence and skills to make decisions and to be able to foster those qualities in those they manage. They need to be able to manage knowledge. The new model of leadership fits in perfectly.
Even in the army, for example, appearances are deceptive. In critical situations of combat, team or project leaders are nearly always the most competent people for the job. They may be the highest ranking, but not necessarily so. The more dangerous the situation, the more competence rises over rank. In life or death situations, anyone who pulls rank over ability will lose. The lower the risk, the more formal authority becomes the normal way of operating. In no-risk conditions, during peacetime army training, say, the lines of authority are unquestioned. So even the army, with its vast tradition and publications on discipline and lines of command, recognizes that in a tight corner, the person best fitted to the job must lead. Leadership through knowledge takes over from leadership through authority.
The military metaphor of attack and defence does have a place, but in a strategic frame: outwitting and outflanking competitors in a battle of intelligence rather than big battalions. Survival of the fittest is a good description of how companies that adapt best to their environment survive and prosper (although ‘survival of the fittingest’ would be more accurate). Linked to this is the idea of co-evolution – businesses co-evolve, they do not evolve on their own, they change and influence each other in a network. No business changes in isolation – as one market opens, another contracts, and the winning strategy only wins as long as your competitor does not use it too. When they do, their reaction becomes part of the market situation and you need to change again. You have to react to others reacting to you reacting to others … like a chameleon in a mirror, companies change according to the conditions, and the conditions change in response to the company policy.
Co-dependent, parasitic and symbiotic relationships occur in the business world as well as in the natural world. We talk of modern markets as a ‘jungle’, but look further and you will see commercial deserts and rain forests as well. Firms become dependent on particular suppliers and suppliers become dependent on firms. They need competitors to stimulate them. Microsoft would not have penetrated the Internet market without Netscape successfully leading the way. The so-called ‘Browser Wars’ (military again) that followed led to new software, as Microsoft changed its products to accommodate the Internet.
So, new patterns of products and relationships emerge from competition. Competitors naturally co-operate in a dance of new products and new markets: ‘co-opetition’. The computer industry has the most obvious co-opetition – co-operation between competitors establishes technical standards, makes the market grow faster and creates new markets. At the moment Sun, IBM, Apple and Netscape have formed an alliance to challenge Microsoft’s hold on the industry. Whoever ‘wins’, the game will go on.
A position of authority may help a person to be a leader, but a person in authority is only a leader if they have influence apart from their position. A good test of leadership is to consider whether, if a person suddenly lost their formal authority, others would still follow them. If the person is a leader, then yes. If not – maybe. If they were authoritarian, wanting unquestioning obedience and caring nothing for the people they led and were responsible for, then no, and their erstwhile followers might well turn on them to seek revenge for the humiliation they have suffered.
Authority works best where you have an accepted hierarchy, such as the army or the police force. Then people move together because of the strong implicit accepted values that everyone shares. If you are trying to lead people who do not share similar goals and values, then authority is not enough.
A report entitled Liberating Leadership was published by the Industrial Society in 1998. It was a survey of the views of 1,000 junior managers and professional staff. Of those surveyed, 81 per cent admired leaders who had no formal position of authority. They also made it clear they did not want the old command and control managers. They wanted managers who showed enthusiasm, supported their people and recognized individual effort. They did not like authoritarian managers who inspired fear and insisted things were done their way.
Authority alone is like pushing from behind. What automatic reaction do you have when pushed from behind? Resistance – unless you are travelling in that direction anyway and you experience the push as helpful. When you do not know what lies ahead and you are not sure whether you want to move forward, resistance is completely understandable.
Imagine a group of people all working together like a string of beads. Now imagine trying to get this loose collection of individuals to move forward together in the same direction by pushing them from behind. Even if you push evenly across the whole group, some may resist and the line will break up as some move forward while others drop behind. To keep the line in shape, traditional management exerts force from the side. The more people resist authority, the more management they need and more difficult to get anything done.
Now, imagine the same collection of loosely linked individuals being pulled forward. They all move together smoothly and need very little management from the side to keep them in shape. Authority alone pushes. Leadership pulls, because it draws people towards a vision of the future that attracts them.
The difference between authority and leadership is the difference between a boss and a leader:
A boss has conscripts, a leader has recruits.
A boss has power, a leader has influence.
A boss depends on a position of authority, a leader gains authority by being themselves.
A boss can evoke fear and demands respect, a leader commands respect.
A boss says, ‘I will,’ a leader says, We will.’
A boss shows who is wrong, a leader shows what is wrong.
A boss knows how it’s done, a leader knows how to do it.
A boss gets people to do things, a leader gets people to want to do things.
A boss drives their colleagues, a leader inspires them.
A boss is obeyed, a leader is followed.
And, before you have an argument with a boss, take a good look at both sides – his side and the outside!
Knowledge
Knowledge is the second pillar of leadership. You can be a leader by virtue of what you know. When my car breaks down, I take it in to the garage for repair. When my