The Free Nonprofit Micro-eMBA(SM)

Check out the Free Management Libary's Free Nonprofit Micro-eMBA(SM):

http://www.managementhelp.org/np_progs/org_dev.htm

This is a free, non-degree granting program that covers the basics of operating a non-profit organization from the perspective of the CEO / Executive Director.

Leadership Effectiveness and Enabling Others to Act

Kouzes and Posner (1997) suggest a strong relationship between the effectiveness of leadership and the process of enabling of others to act. Indeed, leaders create a climate of collaboration that enables others to act.

By fostering collaboration and building spirited teams, they actively involve others under their supervision and outside their responsibility. Leaders help create an atmosphere of trust and human dignity – those who would lead must demonstrate that they understand that encouraging mutual respect sustains extraordinary efforts. Leaders strengthen others through providing followers a choice and sharing information about the tasks being pursued. Each follower feels powerful and capable through leadership responsibility that is shared throughout the organization.

Organizations that foster collaboration by promoting cooperative goals and building trust can reach the goal by consuming fewer resources. Organizations with leaders who share power and information, provide options, help develop core competencies, use people to get important things done and support their efforts strengthen employees in unique and powerful ways toward self-leadership.

In sum, leadership that grows a collaborative environment and self-leadership initiative on the part of employees improves organizational performance.

Reference

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1997). The leadership challenge (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Six Disciplines Business Excellence Franchise

Looking for an interesting MBA-level professional services franchise or career opportunity? Have a look at Six Disciplines (http://www.sixdisciplines.com/). The Six Disciplines (TM) Methodology is based on practicing a series of repeatable cycles to promote executive, manager, and organizational learning. Step 1 requires the team to decide what is important. Step 2 involves setting goals that exercise leadership. Step 3 promotes alignment of internal groups and systems. Step 4 fosters working the plan. Step 5 encourages team members to innovate toward the purpose behind the goal. Step 6 uses what was learned as 360 degree feedback for improvement in the next cycle. I like this cookie cutter approach; the Six Discplines system could work for many medium-sized businesses that have lost the focus provided by an entrepreneurial presence. What I thought was nonsense was the notion of an annual performance appraisal in Step 6; personal feedback should be continuous, as team's change too fast and feedback more than a few weeks old is typically irrelevant to the person and the process.

Note: all copyrights and trademarks are owned by their respective holders.

Reference

Six Discplines (2007). http://www.sixdisciplines.com/

Necessity of Leadership Charisma

The human quality of charisma can be best characterized as human expressiveness (Kouzes & Posner, 1993). As Kouzes and Posner (1993) suggested, the term charisma has been used to describe so many different variations of qualities expressed by leaders that it has lost a great deal of its true meaning. The whole idea of the type of leadership quality that leaders need to be attractive to followers has become a bit of an overworked cliché.

What the Kouzes and Posner (1993) discovered in their research is that leaders need an attractive human expressiveness that involves sharing, touching appropriately, smiling and making body movements that gain the attention of those being led. As to whether leaders need charisma for leadership, it is difficult to imagine that a leader could communicate effectively with followers without some form of charisma. Another situational factor may be that groups that are formed in an unstructured fashion will simply look to another person in the group that communicates in a way that gains their confidence and inspires them to act in accordance to the direction set forth by the leader. This is to say, the leader with the most influential form of charisma as defined above will rise to be the leader. In a workplace setting, where groups are formed in a structured fashion, an appointed leader may be charged with leadership and not have the strongest expressiveness tendencies or charisma within the group.

With regard to whether managers who are judged less adept at human expressiveness can lead effectively, depends a large part on the situation, the task faced by the group and whether the group was formed in a structured or unstructured context. In sum, the level of charisma required to get the job done all depends on the situation, but in general, all leaders must possess the ability to express themselves in a way that resonates with and gains the confidence of those who would follow.


Reference

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1995). The leadership challenge (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leadership Behaviors that Support Shared Values

Modeling the way is how to set the example through behavior that supports and is consistent with shared values. Setting the example or modeling the way is all about leaders doing what they say will do. Leaders must therefore execute the following principles that underlie the strategies in Commitment #7: "Set the Example by Behaving in Ways That are Consistent with Shared Values" (Kouzes & Posner, 1995, p. 232):

1. Clarify personal values and beliefs and those of others;
2. Unify constituents around shared values;
3. Pay attention constantly to how self and others living the values. There is a simple and time-honored religious principle that applies to this discussion: “We’d rather see a sermon than hear one, any day.”
   

Clearly, a leader must provide an example that matches what they are promoting. Kouzes and Posner (1995) provide the following guidance on aligning the messenger with the message:

• A. "Take a look in the mirror" (p. 232) – spend some time reflecting on who you are and what your values are in order to become more self-aware.
• B. "Write your leadership credo" (p. 233) – translate your personal values into a personal leadership credo that describes how you wish your team to proceed in your extended absence.
• C. "Write a personal tribute and a tribute to your organization" (p. 234) – draft an ideal, lofty vision of yourself and then of your organization.
• D. "Open a dialogues about personal and shared values" (p. 235) – ask your team and other important players in your organization to craft credo paragraphs and then share them, melding them into one common understanding. Go first.
• E. "Audit your actions" (p. 236) – contrast what you preach with what you do on a daily basis.
• F. "Trade places" (p. 237) – spend some time doing other jobs in the organization, especially those of your constituents, to gain a perspective of how others view your position and how you might view their positions.
• G. "Be dramatic" (p. 238) – dramatizing events is a great way of driving home points and making them memorable.
• H. "Tell stories about teachable moments" (p. 239) – look for teachable moments and then tell them as parables to instruct various constituencies; these stories will become part of the organization’s oral history.
  

Reference

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1995). The leadership challenge (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Values in Highly Successful Organizations

Kouzes and Posner (1995) adapt three central themes from management professors David Caldwell and Charles ORielly with respect to the values that are practiced in highly successful organizations: "(1) High performance standards; (2) A caring attitude toward people; (3) A sense of uniqueness and pride" (p. 216).

It is fascinating to note that while each of the organizations studied had different business strategies, they had important core values in common. The highly successful organizations exhibited many other values but three central values that were present stressed a commitment to excellence, a concern for how others were being treated, and a sense of pride in the organization. These values must be ever present and easily measurable when interacting with employees. Employees must allow the values to influence how they work. High performance, a caring attitude, and pride in the organization must be endorsed and supported throughout the organization.

Reference

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1995). The leadership challenge (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dysfunctional Management Teams: Focus on Programmed Decisions

Programmed decisions are routine, recurring decisions about well understood situations where a precise set of procedures and policies have been developed to deal with their occurrence (Gibson, Ivancevich, & Donnelly, 1994). For example, shipping and installing products at a customer’s site can be handled by a programmed decision. Nonprogrammed decisions are nonroutine, possibly unique and complex, decisions where the situations do not occur frequently enough for procedures and policies to have been developed. For example, defining the market requirements and developing a new product line cannot be handled by a programmed decision making process. Procedures for making programmed decisions can be developed for almost any recurring business issue and the organization can be trained to cope with their occurrence. Methodologies exist for identifying unique problems and developing complex solutions, but there is nothing routine about the process.

There are a number of implications to how an organization handles programmed and nonprogrammed decisions, if programmed decisions can be thought of as often being tactical and nonprogrammed decisions as strategic. The executive team should be delegating decisions that can be programmed to their direct reports and their respective organizations. If the executive team is spending more time on programmed decisions than on nonprogrammed decisions, this could be indicative of a dysfunctional management team. By its very nature, the executive team should be spending more time on strategic issues and planning than on handling tactical recurring issues.

Reference

Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., & Donnelly, J.H., Jr. (1994). Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin.

Leadership Planning With Small Wins

Achieving a goal through the process of small wins requires careful planning as well motivating constituencies and building commitment into action through managing behavioral aspects (Kouzes & Posner, 1995). Attention to detail in project management is an essential aspect of writing a potentially successful plan. Here are some issues to consider:

1. Vision and values drive planning – using planning tools and theory are the means to develop a good plan but not an end;
2. The people who are responsible for executing the plan should be empowered with writing the plan;
3. Every project should be broken down into definable, manageable pieces;
4. Manage the visualization and aspirations of members by walking through planning the entire project.

Projects that have high visibility and high importance to the organization must be meticulously planned and using the principle of small wins ensures that progress is incremental toward the goal.

Reference

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1995). The leadership challenge (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Motivating Through Recognizing Contributions

It is important for individual contributions to be recognized, so that constituencies feel that what they have contributed is valuable. People need encouragement when working long hours toward completion of important group goals. Kouzes and Posner noted that the ability to recognize the contributions of others is a highly desirable attribute in leaders. Here are some of the essentials for recognizing the contributions of individuals (Kouzes & Posner, 1997):

1. “Building self-confidence through high expectations” (p. 271) – help create a self-fulfilling prophecy by giving people a reputation they must then live up to;
2. “Connecting performance and rewards” (p. 275) – leaders help people know what is expected of them, provide feedback on performance and reward those who are judged to meet the standards;
3. Using a variety of rewards (p. 278) – intrinsic rewards within the context of the job such as challenge and recognition should be balanced with extrinsic rewards such as compensation packages and positional power;
4. “Being positive and hopeful” (p. 283).

Each of these techniques offers a new dimension for bolstering the worth of individuals. Although rewarding through the recognition of contributions does not preclude giving financial rewards, the thrust is to provide non-monetary recognitions due to their often-greater value in motivation.

Reference

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1997). The leadership challenge (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leaders Instill Shared Values

The author cannot emphasize enough the importance of alignment between individual and organizational values. Kouzes and Posner (1997) made an excellent point about the increased effectiveness of this alignment. The author worked for a few years with an executive leader who did not share the same values, which was a frustrating waste of time. Overall, this difference in values was one of the main reasons that the initial business plan was not entirely successful and the second venture struggled. Shared values among business leaders are very important because they serve as standing orders, so to speak. When the team members or entire organization wonders how it should react to a new situation, they always refer to their perception of shared values for guidance.

For example, General George S. Patton, Jr. dictated this standing tactical order: “To so use the means at hand to inflict the maximum about of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.” In many ways this single order summed Patton’s general approach to warfare and provided direction and values that must have been shared and understood by all his officers. Therefore, the same principles can be seen in other organizational contexts: values shared by all are wholly efficacious.

Specifically, the presence of shared values in an organization results in following byproducts (Kouzes & Posner, 1997):

• A. Strong feelings of member effectiveness
• B. Members are more loyal to the organization
• C. Consensus regarding key organizational goals androles of stakeholders in those goals.
• D. Ethical behavior is encouraged.
• E. Strong norms about working hard and caring about quality are encouraged.
• F. Jobs stress and tension are reduced.
• G. Organizational pride is fostered.
• H. Job performance expectancy.
• I. Feelings of belonging, cohesiveness, and cooperation are advanced.

Reference

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1997). The leadership challenge (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Small Wins Lead Organizational Change

A small win is a baby step toward the goal. The individual steps to complete any large task can usually be identified by breaking down a problem into its component parts. The author is reminded of an expression often used by an acquaintance, “You can eat a whole cow one bite at a time.” While the saying is a bit unusual, it does illustrate the simple point that small, deliberate steps toward a goal, no matter how large the goal, will result in what seems impossible being achieved. Long journeys always begin with a single step and leaders can effect incredibly difficult and large organizational changes by considering the projects as a series of actionable tasks proceeding toward measurable goals and milestones. It is important for constituents to realize that persistent, organized effort over a long period can result in enormous accomplishments. “Small wins breed success and propel us down the path" (Kouzes & Posner, 1997, p. 258).

Reference

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1997). The leadership challenge (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Organizational Development Evaluation: Tip of an Iceberg?

When attempting to understand an organization for purposes of diagnosis and prescription of an intervention, the iceberg provides the executive with a useful model. By its very nature the organization possesses tangible, observable characteristics that can be thought of as part of the formal organization and intangible, immeasurable qualities that comprise the informal organization (Gibson, Ivancevich, & Donnelly, 1994). The formal organization can be understood by examining structural qualities such as job tasks, department bases, operating policies, and personnel policies. The informal organization can be appreciated by rationalizing inter-group behavior, intra-group behavior, individual behavior, and individual group behavior. Formal targets can be better addressed because of their quantitative nature while informal targets are less easily addressed due to their qualitative nature. The formal aspects of the organization can be addressed with interventions such as job redesign, Likert’s System-4, sociotechnical system design and management by objectives (MBO) initiatives. The informal aspects of the organization can be addressed with interventions such as the managerial grid, team building, sensitivity training, and process consultation initiatives.

The corporate manager, like the seafaring ship captain faced with an iceberg, would do well to observe carefully the visible portions (i.e., formal) of the organization while estimating and paying respect to the invisible contours (i.e., informal) of the organization that are below the waterline when considering organizational development targets or groups of targets. Considering both the formal and informal aspects of an organization allows the manager to assess properly what organizational development intervention(s) is most appropriate.

Reference

Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., & Donnelly, J.H., Jr. (1994). Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin.

Organizational Development Characteristics

Contemporary organizational development has the following distinguishing characteristics (Gibson, Ivancevich, & Donnelly, 1994): (1) It is planned and long-term–the process is based on gathering data and planned with the expectation of changes taking years; (2) It is problem-oriented–a multidisciplinary approach is taken to apply theory and research to effect solutions; (3) It reflects a systems approach–the organization is viewed as a system and as part of system with respect to managers, technology and organizational structure; (4) It’s action-oriented–instead of being descriptive of necessary changes, organizational development is diagnostic and prescriptive, seeking measurable results; (5) It involves change agents–there is a distinct role for an active facilitator and ombudsmen of the process, to ensure that changes are real; (6) It involves learning principles–individuals, groups and managers at all levels of the organization must re-learn how to function together. Managers who embrace organizational development must be committed to effecting fundamental changes in the organization, if the change processes employed are to resemble those described in the characteristics above.

Reference

Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., & Donnelly, J.H., Jr. (1994). Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin.

Holland’s Personality Theory and Career Choices

Employees often face important career choice issues. A person presumably chooses a career path from available opportunities. The preparation for a particular career, however, involves a choice from a wide range of education and vocational opportunities, which will have an often-unknown impact on their family, ethics, security, and friendships. An organization must seek to match individuals to the sustainable career paths that contribute to ongoing business success. An individual must seek to acquire the skills and maintain an interest in a particular career over an extended period. Either organizations or individuals may change their notion about the acceptability of a particular career. How can organizations select the best candidates and develop them along the way? How can an individual select the career to which they are most well suited? Holland’s theory may help answer these questions.

John L. Holland’s six personality types seek to classify an individual in one of six groups of characteristics (Gibson, Ivancevich, & Donnelly, 1994): (1) Realistic; (2) Investigative; (3) Social; (4) Conventional; (5) Enterprising; and (6) Artistic. Holland sought to develop a general model that would aid in matching individuals to personality types and thereby identify the general direction of their careers. At the very least, the theory may be able to identify career choices that the individual may be least likely in which to succeed or be “happy”, to the degree that a career path can define in discrete terms the qualify of family life, financial security, physical security, self-esteem, etc.

Reference

Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., & Donnelly, J.H., Jr. (1994). Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin.

Leadership Strategies for Facilitating Small Wins

Leaders help facilitate the small wins process by finding the small and sometimes insignificant ways that people can succeed by doing things differently. Progress is made systematically through leaders helping team members mobilizing for fast action and sustaining commitment. Consider also that these steps can be broken down in the six steps (Kouzes & Posner, 1997): (1) Fast action: continuous experimentation; (2) Fast action: reducing items to their essence; (3) Fast action: acting with a sense of urgency; (4) Commitment: providing choices; (5) Commitment: make choices visible; (6) Commitment: make choices hard to revoke.

When mobilizing the organization for fast action, one of the first strategies of the small wins process is that experimentation can take place continuously. Changes can be introduced into the system all the time and the team members are accustomed to change. A second strategy of the small wins process is that items requiring attention are broken into small chunks, which fit into the highly fragmented time available. Projects divided into small chunks also seem more doable. A third strategy of the small wins process is that the team is mobilized to move with a sense of urgency and often without explicit permission–the small wins process does not require permission but it does require urgency. A fourth strategy relates to sustaining commitment by giving team members options about joining the adventure. Following the fourth strategy is to make choices visible so that others can see the commitment and possibly offer assistance. The six strategies for facilitating the small wins process is making the choices available to participants more like ownership and less like leasing–consider what Cortez did when he burned the ships when arriving in the New World, which is a bit drastic but he suddenly had many committed volunteers to the vision of survival in the New World.

Reference

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1997). The leadership challenge (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Johari Window on Interpersonal Communication and Managerial Styles

The Johari window illustrates how differences in interpersonal communication styles and perceptions can account for differences in how managerial styles are understood by the organization (Gibson, Ivancevich, & Donnelly, 1994). The Johari window describes a conceptual area where information is known and is organized along two axes: Feedback and Exposure.

The region of relevant information that is known to others (subordinates) and to self (manager) is named the Arena, a conceptual area that is most conducive to effective personal relationships and communication. Adjacent to the Arena is an area named the Blind Spot, a region where the same level of information is known to self (manager) and more information is known to others (subordinates). The Blind Spot is an area where interpersonal relationships suffer due to lack of feedback from others about reactions, feelings and perceptions. The Arena of effective communication can be extended into the Blind Spot with more Feedback to self (manager) from others (subordinate). Below the Arena is an area named the Façade where more information is known to self (manager) than is known to others (self). The Façade is an area of limited communication where a “false front” can limit honest communication. The Arena of effective communication can be extended toward the Façade, thus reducing its influence by self (manager), by providing more exposure to others (subordinate). Diagonally located from the Arena, below the Blind Spot, and to the right of the Façade is an area named Unknown, where individuals with little or nothing in common must attempt to communicate.

Feedback from others to self (manager) or exposure of self (manager) to others extends the arena in a balanced (diagonal) direction toward the unknown, and thus, expanding the area of shared feelings, experiences, data, assumptions and skills.

Reference

Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., & Donnelly, J.H., Jr. (1994). Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin.

Leaders Integrating Performance and Rewards

The author spent several years in a start-up company that developed software to implement variable pay and pay-for-performance systems. While it is relatively simple to conceptualize the principles of an integrated performance reward system, these systems are difficult and complex to implement with regard to information technology. Kouzes and Posner (1997, p. 276) listed three criteria for integrating performance-reward systems: (1) Make certain that people know what’s expected of them; (2) Provide feedback about contributors’ performance; and (3) Reward only those who meet the standards. Consider that it sometimes can be difficult to implement these elements.

In order to make certain that people know what is expected of them, the leader and the organization must have a clear idea of what they should be doing and communicate that message clearly – with sales personnel, this can be relatively straightforward in terms of compensating based upon closing sales. However, with other team members the goals and how to achieve them are far less straightforward, leaving some doubt about the reasonableness of the goal and the measure being applied.

Providing feedback about contributors’ performance is another challenging but important concern. Leaders must give clear and fair feedback on the shortest time schedule possible. The author has been in organizations that give formal performance and salary reviews every year–this process has little positive value and some negative value. The feedback as well as the reward for the outcome must be far closer to the actual performance. Suppose that the team member does something that requires instructive feedback on Day 22 and then the performance review is conducted on Day 365–the team member could have been working on improvement throughout the year–the team member may be hostile and defensive about receiving feedback so far separated from the action. Leaders need to give informal feedback (good and bad) on at least a weekly basis, if not sooner.

Rewarding only those who meet the standards is also fraught with challenges. There is often the need to motivate the individual and the team, instead of just the individual. Rewarding the team can sometimes run counter to the need to reward the individual for their contribution. Recall the Prisoner’s Dilemma scenario: if one works in a team, one expects to be rewarded as a team to receive an appropriate but not maximum payoff. However, if one works as an individual, the payoff is greater to each person. This edgy conflict and symbiosis between group and individual rewards is difficult to manage fairly. Consider also that the information technology challenges of rewarding multiple teams financially for achieving goals can get very expensive unless the entire reward is diluted among the teams. Finally, the blending of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards is not a simple process.

Reference

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1997). The leadership challenge (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Models of Organization Design: Mechanistic, Organic, or Contingency?

By means of contrast, the mechanistic and organic models of organizational design can be thought of as occupying two ends of a hypothetical spectrum. Mechanistic design principles state that the most effective organizational structure has centralized authority, narrow spans of control, more specialist positions, and homogeneous, functional departments. Organic design principles state that the most effective organizational structure has decentralized authority, wide spans of control, more generalist positions, and heterogeneous, cross-functional departments.

Which model is most effective? It all depends on the situation, as each model, if followed exactly, will result in organizations with distinctly different strengths. As the Gibson, Ivancevich, and Donnelly (1995) stated, “While the mechanistic model seeks to maximize efficiency and product, the organic model seeks to maximize satisfaction, flexibility and development” (p. 542). In a very general sense, organizations designed after the mechanistic model might tend to be larger, well-established, mass-production enterprises, while organizations designed after the organic model might tend to be smaller, newer, service producing firms.

The contingency theory of organizational design presupposes that neither mechanistic nor organic design principles are most effective in every situation, especially with respect to today’s highly fluid environment, use of the Internet, manufacturing technology, and volatile capital markets. In fact, the demands of a particular situation may dictate what set of principles or blend thereof would be most effective. Specifically, the technology employed by the firm, ability to process and assimilates external and internal information resources, uncertainties present in the environment, and the strategy being pursued by the executive might alter the choice of either mechanistic or organic design principles. The contingency theory of organization design will often manifest itself in individual departments and workgroups organizing somewhere along the mechanistic/organic spectrum regardless of the structure of the main organization.

Reference

Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., & Donnelly, J.H., Jr. (1994). Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin.

Leadership in Competitive Settings

Perhaps the reason that competition was not cited as a part of anyone’s personal best leadership experience is because it can be an exhausting, frustrating situation (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). There are myths here in Silicon Valley about companies and teams achieving superior performance by competing against one another with precisely the same mission–I have rarely witnessed this effect–in fact, I have observed quite the opposite. When executive leaders give two teams similar tasks and encourage them to compete for resources within the organization, the outcome is usually conflict and inefficiency. Obviously, competition has its place in the marketplace but it is often a suboptimal way of managing and leading in the organizational setting; groups should have small and defined overlap in mission and responsibilities.

In organizational settings, there is a subtle difference between collaboration and cooperation. Collaboration is active participation with others to achieve a common goal, while cooperation may be passive participation in the process. Contrast collaboration and cooperation with competition. In competitive environments, teams are not supporting a vision as we see in neither cooperation nor working toward completing a common goal as we see in collaborative efforts. The essence of competition is that there can be only one winner, which is a zero sum game that is not advantageous in organizations where a persistent relationship between groups and group members must be maintained. The persistent relationship of team members within the context of the organizational boundaries sets up the Prisoner’s Dilemma scenario, which limits the payoff. Otherwise, that is, absent the boundaries of the organization and limited resources, competition might provide a reasonable alternative, as it does in the marketplace.

Reference

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leadership and Empowerment

The paradox of power diffusion and expansion is a fascinating topic. The lesson that Arnold Tannenbaum published in his research is that constituencies that perceive greater power within their field of influence, especially over the organization, tend to have higher satisfaction (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Power sharing with group members demonstrates trust and respect. Tannenbaum also found that organizational effectiveness tended to be higher when members perceived that they possessed greater power. Obviously, the leaders most closely associated with these group members had created a climate of empowerment, where each member felt as if they could act as they saw fit on behalf of the organization. The author has experienced delegation of significant amounts of power, when working for a past manager who made each team member the “CEO” of each functional marketing area. There seems to be a certain gestalt in this type of situation with regard to total amount of power being wielded exceeding the leaders own formal organizational power – this may be that the reference, expert, etc. power of other members is exercised in addition to the positional power of the leader.

Reference

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.