In what may come to be called "the Katrina effect," we often see a tendency to assume that someone's in charge, and will make sure that needed steps will be taken to deal with problems. This assumption emerges directly from our experience in schools and jobs that are organized as authority hierarchies (see Design Principle One in my previous post). As noted earlier, most of us have been implicitly trained to be passive and well-behaved. Performance reviews consider whether a person is a "team-player," which usually means s/he does what s/he's told and doesn't make trouble, especially by asking unpleasant questions.
The lesson of the Katrina disaster, of course, is that the person in charge at FEMA did not do what was needed, nor did he make sure it was done. As one of many examples, out of 25,000 mobile homes the agency purchased for disaster refugee housing, only 1200 were actually used. Once the magnitude of this second disaster (the agency's tragic ineptness) became known, non-government relief efforts accelerated into action.
In a more recent disaster of a different kind, executives at financial institutions did not consider the untenable risks involved in extending mortgage credit to buyers who could not afford the payments. And the government regulators charged with overseeing the credit markets did not maintain control of those dangerous lending practices. Once the financial house of cards began to fall, the persons in charge stepped in with hundreds of billions of dollars to prop them up, but without oversight or conditions. At this writing, little or none of that money has gone to deal with the cause of the disaster, the high rate of housing foreclosures. Throughout all this, the rest of us watch the news reports, appalled. Where are the people in charge, and why are they not dealing with all this effectively?
A friend has pointed out that this is related to the Dunning-Kruger effect: Their research on incompetent people demonstrated that they "reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the meta-cognitive ability to realize it".
I have suggested, too, that such people tend to develop a kind of naïve arrogance, which often gets them elected or selected to leadership positions. Not a good combination when the times get tough, as they obviously have been! And more challenging conditions are on the way.
So what's to be done?
It seems clear from this perspective that none of us can any longer rest on the assumption that someone's in charge and will take care of things. The reality is that, actively or passively, we are all in charge. Each one of us has the responsibility to think about these questions, to talk with others about them, to learn what we need to about what is involved, and to engage in appropriate changes. This involves more horizontal coordination—among peers, friends, strangers, stake-holders. It's not easy. We haven't been educated or trained to work this way. But instead of being unconsciously incompetent, we are fully aware of the steep learning curve we are on. This is our strategic advantage.
Ironically, the person who will take on a position of authority in the US on January 20 seems to be a different kind of leader. He is very competent, but in a different, important way. He doesn't work from preconceived solutions and policies as much as from a commitment to bringing together the full range of relevant views, and working out together the best way to proceed.
Based on his very different orientation to leadership, his election appears to be sparking a spontaneous interest, an excitement, really, among people in organizations and communities throughout the US and also abroad. People seem to be thinking, "What can I do to be part of this? How can I start working with others in a different way?"
We may look back on this time and realize that we were part of the Obama Tipping Point—the fundamental shift from top-down politics and structures, to working together toward shared visions and goals. But is this really possible? As Barack Obama would say, "Yes, we can!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree. Unlearning our own dependence and moving toward true interdependency will only help to balance the power in our organizations/communities. This might mean each of us needs to take a step back and see how we are and are not contributing to the present issues. I have watched people quit their jobs because they had no idea how they could (and if they wanted to) impact the system. In my mind it begs the question, "How do I show up? and What is important to me?"
Thanks for this perspective, Lori! I appreciate your highlighting the way these changes bring us to the possibility--the need--to consider what we know, or think we know, what we might need to unlearn, and what we need to learn anew.
It can be tough. It can be scary. It can be exciting!
And then we can realize that we have the opportunity to focus on the learning process, itself. We can re-learn how to learn.
Any other views out there?
Saul
Recently I took a new job as Vice President with a private high school in WA State. I have a staff of 8 exceptionally bright people in my department. My post had been previously vacant for 6 months. These 8 staff members, who were previously highy directed by their boss, were suddenly thrown into a situation where they were forced by necessity to work together in order to get the job done--with no one person in charge.
Upon my arrival I interviewed each one. Each person told of the way they all worked on their own for so long, helping each other the best they could, and were so glad to have someone in charge. It was as if they were relieved they did not have to make any more decisions because someone else was now here to do it and things could get back to normal.
At our first staff meeting I asked them what they wanted our meetings to accomplish. I explained this was their time and we would structure it to meet their needs. We also talked about how often thet wanted meetings, how they would be run and by whom. A process was established in which each person would have an opportunity to facilitate one or more of the meetings.
After a few awkward moments, one of the staff asked what I expected of them. I shared that I wanted to know what success would look like for each one of us and how eacho f us saw success for the department as a whole. I wanted us to identify what we need from one-another, determine how we wanted to work together, and what additional resources would help us be successful.
As they talked together they began to realize how well they have been working together operating as an effective team for the past 6 months—and fairly effectively. We talked about the advantages of doing business in this way and they confirmed, although it was harder (rather than being told what to do with no responsibility for decision making), it was much more satisfying. They realized what they were craving was not direction but affirmation that they were doing a good job. They sought recognition not highly directed managing.
After 3 months on the job I've noticed my staff are conferring with each other on a regular basis. We form extemporaneous group gatherings to problem solve and surface key issues. They are feeling good about their work and we are very productive. Yes, it is time consuming to corral a bunch of people together but the collective energy, expertise, and experience are powerful. Great work gets done. They don’t need some decision maker to direct their every move. They clearly got it—“Yes…we can!”
Thank you, Pamela, for this report of your experience with the success and efficacy of shared responsibility and decision making. How satisfying it must be for you and for every member of the group to experience their own capacity, and to discover the power of collaborative shared management.
Yes, indeed, it's hard work, because it requires a commitment to continual learning. Each new project or problem brings with it the challenge of dealing with the whole situation as it is, in all its complexity and messiness. It means committing, too, to continual learning, to acknowledging what worked--or didn't--last time, and working out how to improve next time.
So blaming and shame are no longer relevant. Instead, the group can celebrate successes, grieve honestly about past errors, and be forgiving of others and of oneself. And then get on with the next challenge.
I commend you for your exemplary management and your courageous leadership!
Warm Regards,
Saul
Post a Comment