An interesting article on the concept of distributed leadership (DL). Maybe some aspects are already incorporated in your organisation or project?
Scholarly journals and business publications are filled with accounts of organizations moving from traditional bureaucratic structures to new, flatter forms. They require new leadership practices that rely less on the individual efficacy of a few "great men" and more on the collective efficacy of formal and informal networks--a shift that, in the words of CISCO CEO John Chambers, you could almost call "as revolutionary as the assembly line."
The leadership literature has not kept pace with this shift. In a review of recent leadership articles in top-tier academic journals, we found that roughly 85% assume a hierarchical leadership structure. Nevertheless, new research into what we call "distributed leadership" — incorporating what others have termed "shared", "collaborative", or "complexity" leadership — has shown that:
1) Leadership functions can be spread across multiple individuals and teams — even to those outside the firm
2) Leadership can be taken on by those not in formal leadership roles — in one organization almost 60% of employees self-identified as leaders
3) Change can be driven from the bottom up-at Southwest Airlines, for instance, front-line employees took the lead in devising new ways to reduce turnaround times and developing electronic ticketing.
Our own studies of companies well known for such distributed leadership (DL) have so far validated these arguments. But they've also produced some surprises.
Don't throw Caesar out with the bath water. High levels of DL have not meant the end of the "great man (or woman)" at the top. Often a strong centralized leader designs the distributed model and sustains it in its early years. After a transition period, this leader — or a top leadership team — still steps in from time to time to make key decisions that keep the firm aligned with external demands.
Even in the extremely distributed network that develops the Linux operating system, for instance, founder Linus Torvalds maintains ultimate authority for protecting the brand and deciding on what code is included in new releases. Typically, centralized leadership also weighs in when lots of local decisions are getting in the way of economies of scope and scale, or when time constraints require a short circuiting of more consensus-based decision-making. In short, top-level formal leaders still play a key role, but their responsibilities are changing.
Beyond Empowerment. In DL organizations employees have an "I can" mindset and feel free to redesign their own jobs or even the company. But these organizations go beyond individual empowerment.
First, successful DL companies work not only to increase the voice of front line workers, but also to inject more lateral and external voices into the generation, vetting, and selection of ideas. P&G, for instance, augments its internal R&D with its "connect and develop" program, which invites suggestions from networks outside the company to boost innovation and find new markets.
Second, successful DL companies do not leave collaboration to the predilections of individuals, but build it into structures, reward systems and HR practices. At Cisco, cross-functional councils and boards were created to quickly make strategic decisions and respond to new opportunities. In addition, a significant portion of senior managers' compensation is based upon peer ratings of how well they collaborate.
Third, successful distributed leadership companies take steps to protect their collaborative cultures. In one company a leader successfully turned around a division, but was let go because he used a command-and-control style. And when Google went public, its founders issued a letter to potential investors explaining that the company would not adopt the "standard structure of public ownership" and had instead designed a distinctive structure to protect its culture of creativity and challenge.
Free to Fly, but not to Crash. The DL literature focuses primarily on the liberating aspects of this new form of leadership; spreading decision making power, influence, and voice to increase innovation and adaptability. We have found that successful DL companies also distribute the protective functions of alignment, control and risk mitigation. They bound the chaos that might result from DL by providing guiding principles and an organizational mindset.
For example, at PARC, engineers are encouraged to aim for "triple word scores" that pair technical innovation with customer satisfaction and economic return for the firm. Further, PARC employees learn the company's business model, financial priorities, and strategic imperatives so they can align their work to organizational objectives. At W.L. Gore each associate takes on the responsibility of making sure that no one "hits below the waterline" and sinks the whole ship. Thus, all Gore associates are expected to actively practice risk mitigation.
Another form of control and risk mitigation we found in successful DL companies is the use of structures and processes to vet and select the many ideas that filter up. Some have electronic feedback and voting on new ideas. Some have many open forums for discussion. Still others have committees that choose which ideas actually move forward.
Our research has shown that distributed leadership is more complicated than we originally anticipated. It is clear, however, that leadership will entail a new balance between networks and individuals, personality and practices, and freedom and control.
Deborah Ancona is the Seley Distinguished Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and Faculty Director of the MIT Leadership Center.
Elaine Backman is a Research Scientist at the MIT Leadership Center.
Scholarly journals and business publications are filled with accounts of organizations moving from traditional bureaucratic structures to new, flatter forms. They require new leadership practices that rely less on the individual efficacy of a few "great men" and more on the collective efficacy of formal and informal networks--a shift that, in the words of CISCO CEO John Chambers, you could almost call "as revolutionary as the assembly line."
The leadership literature has not kept pace with this shift. In a review of recent leadership articles in top-tier academic journals, we found that roughly 85% assume a hierarchical leadership structure. Nevertheless, new research into what we call "distributed leadership" — incorporating what others have termed "shared", "collaborative", or "complexity" leadership — has shown that:
1) Leadership functions can be spread across multiple individuals and teams — even to those outside the firm
2) Leadership can be taken on by those not in formal leadership roles — in one organization almost 60% of employees self-identified as leaders
3) Change can be driven from the bottom up-at Southwest Airlines, for instance, front-line employees took the lead in devising new ways to reduce turnaround times and developing electronic ticketing.
Our own studies of companies well known for such distributed leadership (DL) have so far validated these arguments. But they've also produced some surprises.
Don't throw Caesar out with the bath water. High levels of DL have not meant the end of the "great man (or woman)" at the top. Often a strong centralized leader designs the distributed model and sustains it in its early years. After a transition period, this leader — or a top leadership team — still steps in from time to time to make key decisions that keep the firm aligned with external demands.
Even in the extremely distributed network that develops the Linux operating system, for instance, founder Linus Torvalds maintains ultimate authority for protecting the brand and deciding on what code is included in new releases. Typically, centralized leadership also weighs in when lots of local decisions are getting in the way of economies of scope and scale, or when time constraints require a short circuiting of more consensus-based decision-making. In short, top-level formal leaders still play a key role, but their responsibilities are changing.
Beyond Empowerment. In DL organizations employees have an "I can" mindset and feel free to redesign their own jobs or even the company. But these organizations go beyond individual empowerment.
First, successful DL companies work not only to increase the voice of front line workers, but also to inject more lateral and external voices into the generation, vetting, and selection of ideas. P&G, for instance, augments its internal R&D with its "connect and develop" program, which invites suggestions from networks outside the company to boost innovation and find new markets.
Second, successful DL companies do not leave collaboration to the predilections of individuals, but build it into structures, reward systems and HR practices. At Cisco, cross-functional councils and boards were created to quickly make strategic decisions and respond to new opportunities. In addition, a significant portion of senior managers' compensation is based upon peer ratings of how well they collaborate.
Third, successful distributed leadership companies take steps to protect their collaborative cultures. In one company a leader successfully turned around a division, but was let go because he used a command-and-control style. And when Google went public, its founders issued a letter to potential investors explaining that the company would not adopt the "standard structure of public ownership" and had instead designed a distinctive structure to protect its culture of creativity and challenge.
Free to Fly, but not to Crash. The DL literature focuses primarily on the liberating aspects of this new form of leadership; spreading decision making power, influence, and voice to increase innovation and adaptability. We have found that successful DL companies also distribute the protective functions of alignment, control and risk mitigation. They bound the chaos that might result from DL by providing guiding principles and an organizational mindset.
For example, at PARC, engineers are encouraged to aim for "triple word scores" that pair technical innovation with customer satisfaction and economic return for the firm. Further, PARC employees learn the company's business model, financial priorities, and strategic imperatives so they can align their work to organizational objectives. At W.L. Gore each associate takes on the responsibility of making sure that no one "hits below the waterline" and sinks the whole ship. Thus, all Gore associates are expected to actively practice risk mitigation.
Another form of control and risk mitigation we found in successful DL companies is the use of structures and processes to vet and select the many ideas that filter up. Some have electronic feedback and voting on new ideas. Some have many open forums for discussion. Still others have committees that choose which ideas actually move forward.
Our research has shown that distributed leadership is more complicated than we originally anticipated. It is clear, however, that leadership will entail a new balance between networks and individuals, personality and practices, and freedom and control.
Deborah Ancona is the Seley Distinguished Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and Faculty Director of the MIT Leadership Center.
Elaine Backman is a Research Scientist at the MIT Leadership Center.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment