Hack:
Why Bosses are Programmed to be Dictators: Looking at an Old Problem (Bad Bosses) with New Eyes (Systems Thinking)
If the answer is yes, the question then is, why do you want this right? The answer is simple: on some level you fear your boss, and you want voting rights to take away that fear.
We know this at a gut level of course, but a field of study called Systems Thinking shows us clearly what's happening. Systems Thinking has its origins in the works of the late Austrian biologist, Ludwig Von Bertalanffy. Systems Thinking is the opposite of reductionist or analytical thinking, which is usually the preferred method for examining problems.
More than redefining the work of leadership, this hack is a radical innovation that redefines leadership itself. The conventional view of leadership puts the individual leader (akin to a hero) at the centre of leadership. In contrast, this hack shows that leadership is actually a 'system' (defined in the solution section).
Following on from this, Systems Thinking shows us how all bosses are dictators prone to dictatorial behavior. Attempts at changing individual boss behavior (eg through 'leadership training') are doomed to fail, because the same system always produces the same results. When a 'leadership-trained' boss gets back to the office, s/he is back at work in the same system, which automatically produces the same old behaviors.
To fundamentally change boss behavior, we need to change the system so that boss behavior automatically changes.
Once the problem of bad bosses is viewed differently, radically new solutions present themselves.
The word 'boss' is typically glamorised as 'leader' these days. But despite the vast amount of material on management and leadership, bad bosses continue to exist, cutting across organizational and cultural boundaries. All of us have worked under a bad boss at some stage of our careers.
Bad bosses cause many problems. The health and morale of employees is affected, dissent is suppressed, people are afraid to "Tell the truth to power", the company itself is affected when good people leave, and so on.
Fundamentally, the problem is that of fear. All organizations are infected with this fear, in one way or another.
Empowerment is one method that's often tried - but 'empowerment' assumes that the boss empowers the subordinate. It's like a lord bestowing a gift on a serf - subordinates often gratefully praise their bosses by saying, "I have a good boss, s/he really empowers me!" In short, empowerment is not an automatic right. Moreover, empowerment is different from true freedom - a freedom that's an automatic consequence of how the organization functions.
All that said, there's a far bigger problem: and that bigger problem is we're looking at the problem with the 'wrong' set of eyes - analysis or reductionism. When we analyse, we usually end up targeting an individual (boss or subordinate) - and then we try to 'fix' this individual through interventions such as training. These individual-focused solutions rarely work in a sustainable manner. This hack will show why, and what needs to be done.
The solution has two parts:
1: The first and most important part lies in looking at the problem with a completely new pair of eyes.
2. The second part (solution) becomes obvious (though not easy) once we understand the nature of the problem.
PART 1: LOOKING AT THE PROBLEM WITH NEW EYES
Conventional approaches to boss behavior focus on the individual boss - ie, all the efforts are made towards improving or 'repairing' boss performance in relation to managing subordinates. Similarly, efforts are made at turning subordinates into good 'team players', or helping subordinates deal with bad bosses (organizations don't do this, but many books do).
However, neither bosses nor subordinates function in isolation. The boss-subordinate relationship forms a context for their behaviors. To truly understand these behaviors, we must use a field of study that examines relationships and interactions - and that field of study is Systems Thinking, pioneered by the late Austrian biologist, Ludwig von Bertalanffy.
Under Systems Thinking, a system is defined as an entity that owes its existence to the mutual interaction of its constituent parts. Without the interactions, the entity cannot exist. Further, the properties of the system may not be found in the properties of its constituent parts - these properties are "Emergent Properties", as they emerge from the interactions of the constituent parts. For example, water is made of two interacting gases, hydrogen and oxygen. Water cannot exist without the interaction of hydrogen and oxygen. Further, water is a liquid - an emergent property that is not found in oxygen or hydrogen.
Since human relationships depend on the interactions between human beings, every human relationship is a system. Similarly, the boss-subordinate relationship is also a system. What kind of system is this?
To answer this question, we need to define the word 'leader'. Typically, organizations today label bosses as 'leaders' - group leader, team leader, project leader and so on. But in the context of leading people, who is a leader?
The only objective definition is this one: a leader is someone elected by those s/he seeks to lead. All other definitions talk of abilities, skills or attributes - the ability to motivate, inspire, craft visions, set goals, and so on. This is similar to the definition of 'husband' - just because a man is a good provider, loving and kind, that doesn't make him a husband. To be called 'husband', he needs to be married - the objective definition of 'husband' is, "a man who is married."
Now, since leadership is a relationship between an elected leader and those s/he leads, leadership is a system.
Conversely, a dictator is an unelected person with power over those s/he leads. Hence, all bosses are dictators by definition. The relationship between the boss and subordinate is thus a dictatorship system.
As we know, the 'emergent property' for subjects in a dictatorship system is fear. This fear is an automatic result of the system - nobody needs to tell the subjects that because they don't have right to vote, they should fe fearful. For the dictator, the emergent property is the abuse of power.
Similarly, subordinates fear their bosses - perhaps not openly, but this fear manifests itself in several ways - not speaking up, feeling anxious and so on. The emergent property for the boss is a sense of power and the abuse of it.
It's important to note that these properties are emergent - the individual bosses or subordinates may not be intrinsically dictatorial or fearful outside the context of the boss-subordinate relationship; the system produces those behaviors. A boss WILL manifest dictatorial (but not necessarily nasty) behavior at some point in the boss-subordinate relationship, while a subordinate WILL manifest subject (submissive) behavior.
Hence, viewed through the lens of Systems Thinking, the reason for boss behavior becomes immediately obvious. Bosses behave the way they do because the system effectively programs them to automatically behave as dictators.
PART 2: THE SOLUTION
To get bosses to behave as real leaders, subordinates must have the right to vote for their bosses. We know that freedom is the emergent property in systems under which people have the right to vote for their leaders. Hence, the emergent property at the workplace will be real freedom and real leadership behavior from leaders.
Giving voting rights to subordinates may sound bizarre, but we must understand that voting is fundamentally an expression of power. Currently, bosses express their power over their subordinates primarily through an appraisal (on which the subordinates' pay, promotion, health insurance, job security and so on depend). A good rating is effectively a 'vote' by the boss for the subordinate to continue, while a bad rating means the subordinate is fired, ie voted out. Similarly, subordinates should be given the right to appraise their boss - the bosses' salary, promotion prospects and so on must also depend on this rating. (ie, this goes way beyond 360 degree feedback). Ideally, subordinates should also be allowed to underline this rating with a formal vote.
All that said, Systems Thinking warns that there are no perfect or 'final' solutions. All we can do is try something, see what works, and make adjustments. It's absolutely critical to understand that what we're doing here is to change the very foundation of traditional top-down "scientific management" - so there will be problems of course. But we should ask the question: Do we want to live with the problems of fear (as is currently the case), or do we want to live with the problems of freedom (the proposed new system)?
The impact will be huge:
1. There will be real freedom; subordinates will no longer be fearful of bosses.
2. Leaders will be real leaders, and will have legitimacy in the eyes of their subordinates. If they do not function as real leaders, they can be voted out.
3. Dissent will be openly expressed.
4.There will be no need for recourse to whistleblower legislation.
5. The culture of organizations will be truly open
6. Because of real freedom, organizations will become more competitive, innovative and successful (ie they will be real complex adaptive systems).
7. It will be very easy to identify the best leaders - those who get consitently voted in.
8. Employees' health will improve.
9. Leaders will be more accountable, but subordinates will also become more accountable as they cannot blame their bosses for everything.
10. Best of all, the above impacts will be an AUTOMATIC result of the new system.
The first step is to educate top management in the concepts of Systems Thinking, as applied to leadership. Without this there will be no buy-in and no progress.
A possible next step is to involve HR in creating an appraisal process under which subordinates appraise their bosses - the bosses' pay, promotion and so on should depend on this rating. (ie, this is a full-on appraisal, not just 360 degree feedback). The important point here is that freedom emerges from a power balance between boss and subordinate.
This will of course be an ongoing process as problems are identified and dealt with.There also needs to be a system of checks and balances, which all free systems have.
The works of Ludwig Von Bertalanffy
Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline)
Late prof Russ Ackoff
Chetan,
I totally agree on the systemic, emergent dictatorial nature of the boss-subordinate relationship, as well as the futility of the leadership training approach - although I have reservations about the voting solution. Check out my Bossless Organization hack for an alternate solution:
http://www.managementexchange.com/node/3347
Regards,
-Tory
- Log in to post comments
Tory,
Thanks. I don't think you are being overly harsh on bosses. The vast majority of bosses absolutely do exhibit the traits you describe (controlling, abusive, etc), which is why the #1 reason that people leave companies is their boss.
Greatly enjoyed reading your pdf presentation 'Designing the bossless organization', particularly this brilliant quote: “Imagine if the founding fathers had gone with monarchy, but with really great leadership training so we had 'better kings'?” Also liked the graphic with the bird hierarchy :)
Re the issue of voting, I've only offered that as a first-cut solution, mainly because it's something we're all familiar with. More importantly we know it works, even on a massive scale, say a 'team' of about 300 million people (I am, of course, talking about the United States). In that sense, we know a lot of the mechanisms, insitutions and so on.
The main point I am making is that we need to make a paradigm shift in looking at leadership - from focusing on the individual, to focusing on the leadership system and its emergent properties. In your pdf presentation, you've quoted Drucker: “The American record suggests not human failure but systems failure.” Of course, I agree completely!
Re your model of “mentor-investors and intrapreneurs” and the “Silicon Valley-like ecosystem wrapped around an organization's operational source code” - if it works in practice, that would be a solution. I am not fixated on one particular solution – voting or otherwise. As I've said in my hack, Systems Thinking warns against seeking a one-size-fits-all, cast-in-stone, perfect solution. Instead, we should try something, see what works and continually make appropriate changes. The main thing is that fear should disappear as an emergent property, and be replaced by the emergent property of freedom.
- Log in to post comments
Thanks, Chetan. We're on the same page. And thanks for reminding me about that quote. I really like that too, so much that I just edited my hack to integrate it into the Problem section.
- Log in to post comments
Chetan -
If you get employees to vote for their boss, how do you prevent them from voting for the lesser of the evils? How do you know employees will select the right boss and not the one who is an extrovert or simply has an L-factor? Also, how do you employees know if the boss will be good? Is it possible to elect a person who is a great leader but doesn't know how to do his job?
I am wondering how WL Gore does this... They also elect leaders, but I am sure they have some kind of checks and balances or processes in place... Does anyone know?
- Log in to post comments
Matt – many thanks for reading through my hack and for your comment.
To answer your questions:
1.Do you think you are intelligent enough, and smart enough, to vote for your leader (boss)? I'm guessing the answer is yes. Typically, when we worry about “will employees select the right boss” or similar questions, what we really mean is, “I know I will vote for the right leader, but I don't trust the others to do so.” So a question such as “Won't this turn into a popularity contest” (which I get very often) is really a statement of arrogance that says, I'm intelligent and smart enough to vote for the right person, but I don't think the others are.”
Moreover, employees don't know if the boss will be good. That's one of the reasons for having voting rights – if the boss doesn't prove to be good, s/he can be voted out.
2.Your questions are all focused on the individual leader, ie they are concerned with the issue of whether the right individual will be elected. However, what I'm calling for is a total paradigm shift – instead of being worried about “Will the right individual be elected?”, we should be asking, “What kind of system do we have, and what are its emergent properties? What emergent properties do we want?”
In short, the focus shifts from the individual to the system and its emergent properties.
Let me provide you with an example. Take a huge system, say a system with 300 million people. It would seem ridiculous to give all these people the right to vote for their leader. If we went ahead with such a ludicrious plan, we'd go insane with worry about what kind of person would be elected.
I'm sure you've guessed the 'system' I'm talking about is the United States – millions of the system's citizens – even those illiterate and uneducated - vote for their leader. Do the leaders matter? Of course they do. But what's more important – the leader, or the leadership system (in which people vote for their leaders)? The system of course. Presidents come and go, but the system – and its emergent property freedom – remains. In that sense, the leader doesn't matter at all. And freedom is what gives the US its world-dominating power.
Whenever we talk of a leader of a country such as the US, we take it for granted that the leader has been elected – that's why the 'leadership system' never gets a mention. But just try changing the system to one in which people are NOT allowed to vote for their leader (would you give up your vote?), and see the rebellion this will cause.
Another great example of a system is the ants described in your hack, “What ants can teach us about leadership”. The interacting ants form a system; the lack of an ant leader even more clearly indicates that the system is more important than the leader.
Also, the very fact that an elected leader has to take into account his team-members' views means that s/he is automatically a 'teamer' (to use the word in your hack “Let the chaos reign”). Only a dictator can do things unilaterally.
Terri Kelly, CEO of WL Gore, talks of “Distributed Leadership” (http://managementexchange.com/users/terri-kelly). She says, “Those who know their leaders best are typically the individuals they lead. If you want individuals to have a voice in the organization, they must also have a voice in selecting and evaluating their leaders.”
To me, that sounds like a vote in everything but name. In fact, I wonder why WL Gore just don't go all the way and give voting rights to subordinates.
- Log in to post comments
Chetan -
I apologize if you took my comment as arrogance. I was simply asking questions as a follow up to your idea.
But let me comment on your answer.
On #1 - No, I am not smart enough to vote for my leader. Several things come to mind. (1) In order to make an educated decision, I have to know and understand what's expected of the leader and be able to identify whether the selected candidate is a good fit. If I knew and understood this, why couldn't I be that leader? (2) According to MBTI, 25% of men and 66% of women make decisions based on the gut feeling and not based on any logic. This means "smart enough to vote" doesn't mean anything to them. They may be smart enough to make the right decision but will use their gut feeling to make a voting decision, which will go against their own logic. (3) There's an assumption here that there's a good leader in the team who can be elected. How do we know that's the case? (4) Suppose 33% of the people vote for candidate A and 67% vote for candidate B. Candidate B won but his approval rating will be 67%. Now it's up to the organization to accept this choice. If your organization consists of detail oriented people, they will accept him. If it consists of innovators, they will not (source: KAI). Either way, you are risking a rebellion. Good leaders should have a 100% approval rating. One person that doesn't approve the boss will be a cancer in the organization and his dis-approval will spread like fire.
#2 You are right about the systemic approach. Here are some thoughts in regards to the US elections example you provided.
It's actually a perfect example of a bad system. Can you remember one day in the history of the US when every citizen was happy with the president, the government, the economy, and the state of affairs? In the words of Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms of government." US elections are very inefficient and results are horrible. As a counter-argument to not being able to elect the leader, consider the fact that many countries did very well for centuries by having monarchs. Here's another interesting fact. The current president of Belarus (Alexander Lukashenko) forced himself into his office by cheating. The US and the EU set an embargo on his government as a punishment. But what about the country itself? There was no rebellion and he currently has a 97% approval rating. The president pretty much cancelled elections since he took office, changed constitution to allow him to sit in his office until he dies, and pretty much named himself the King. He even mentioned that his son will take over his position when he dies. The country is poor. The economy is horrible. But citizens love him! Why? The answer also lies in the system.
Then the question is: If we want to create a paradigm shift and focus on the system, should we be electing leaders or should we focus on the overall system redesign? Do we need leaders in the first place? Electing them doesn't fix the system.
BTW, you referenced Russ Ackoff in your hack. One of this books (can't remember the name) talked about democracy in the organization. I've actually taken a class with him in my MBA program. He talked about giving people an ability to vote for ideas (or make decisions collectively) and gave examples where this approach had worked in the real world. Ackoff had lots of great ideas.
- Log in to post comments
Matt,
My turn to apologize – I'm sorry; I didn't mean to imply your comment was arrogant.
Turning to your points:
1.I'm surprised (stunned!) that you say you are not smart enough to vote for your leader. Though I guess you're making a broader philosophical point here – that leaders are unnecessary and need to be replaced by teamers/market efficiency. (Per your hacks “Let The Chaos Reign: A Self-Sufficient Organization” and “What Ants Can Teach Us About Leadership”).
2.The US may be a bad system in your opinion, but it's among the very best we've got. I'm not American, so I am not praising the country out of a sense of patriotic duty. But I do know that the American system, for all its flaws, has worked well enough to turn the country into the world's only hyperpower. Of course, the American system – like all systems – should be continually improved.
3.True, monarchs often did very well (mostly for themselves), but there were no democracies to compare them with. There is no contemporary monarchy strong enough to take on the US or the likes of the UK, France, Germany and so on.
4.You've mentioned the fact that the dictator of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, has a 97% approval rating, and yet the country is a mess. I cannot take any approval rating in a dictatorship seriously. Dictators typically enjoy high approval ratings because not approving the dictator typically leads dissenters to ghastly fates. I quote from a BBC report: “He [Lukashenko] warned that anyone joining an opposition protest would be treated as a "terrorist", adding: "We will wring their necks, as one might a duck". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3882843.stm
5.My fundamental point is that we should put the system and its emergent properties at the centre of any discussion on leadership, not the individual leader. I think both of us agree to that. I also agree with you that the system should be completely re-designed (with the proviso that freedom should be an emergent property).
- Log in to post comments
Chetan,
Thanks for your thoughtful "hack." I believe that your observations are at the heart of the management innovation that is needed to meet the demands of 21st century business challenges. If we are serious about shifting the management paradigm, I believe that the first step is to eliminate the "sovereignty of the supervisor." Following on your observations, I would like to share a practice that I personally implemented when I was the chief operating executive of a large business alliance. I felt strongly that if I was not to fall into the trap of the dictatorial boss, I needed to treat everyone I interacted with as a customer. To reinforce this, I invited a cross-section of the 150 people in the central office of the business alliance and asked them if they would construct and sponsor an "upward evaluation" tool to rate my performance as a leader. I proposed that the tool be designed by the staff so that the tool would reflect the attributes that were important to them. To assure complete safety and anonymity, we agreed that the tool would be a paper document where people would only have to circle numbers; thus, we would not run the risk that anyone's handwriting would be identified. We also agreed that the measure of the actual rating for each item in the evaluation would be a median rather than a mean score to assure that an outlier poor performer, perhaps on probation, could not use the tool as an opportunity to "get even." We also agreed that I would not see any of the "raw data" and that the results of the upward evaluation would be given directly to my supervisor without passing through my hands. In other words, I would get the results at the same time that my supervisor did. Finally, I proposed to my supervisor, and he agreed, that the results of the upward evaluation would be a factor in determining my compensation each year.
I used this upward evaluation approach for many years, as one part of a comprehensive alternative management system. This alternative management system was a prime factor in allowing us to make a significant and sustained leap in business performance. The upward evaluation tool did help me to maintain a focus where I viewed my fellow workers as customers, not subordinates. The tool was also very valuable in helping me to identify one or two "points of emphasis" each year that I believe contributed to my growth as a leader. Perhaps most importantly, I was able to become aware of certain "blind spots" and I was able to do something about them because I now had a window into "what everyone, except me, knew about me." That's a powerful tool for any leader.
- Log in to post comments
Rod,
Thank you so much for reading my hack and your kind comments.
I think you're absolutely phenomenal – as a top executive, you voluntarily put yourself on the line in asking to be assessed by your staff. You were in an authentic leadership position because you effectively gave them the right to vote for you. Further, I'm amazed (awed, really!) that you asked the staff to design the evaluation tool so it reflected their criteria, not yours.
In contrast to what you did, most 360 degree feedback methods masquerade as power-levelling tools, but they really aren't, because the boss's job/pay isn't on the line. I don't think 360 feedback can truly work - because when you have to give feedback to a person whose position you cannot threaten, and on whom your position depends, it's unlikely that truth will be told to power.
I'd like to add one more thing. You mentioned that you were able to maintain focus and became aware of your 'blind spots'. In addition, I'm sure that what also happened was that because of your upward evaluation mechanism, your 'customers' automatically enjoyed a great deal of freedom (an emergent property of the system you set up). They did not live in fear, and were hence able to work more creatively and productively.
Once again, thank you for sharing. It's a deeply inspiring story.
- Log in to post comments
Hello Chetan,
In a democracy people have the right to vote but still a Bush surfaces. It is possible he was good for America but he was definitely not the expectation.
Systems Thinking as promoted by Senge demands the practice of skills and like him you too have favored free-flow of Knowledge. Perhaps a means to assure that will serve the purpose. It is possible with technology. I invite you to my body of contributions to MIX which explain the concept and my hack at http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/compelling-energy-quantum-jump-or... which details it.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Hello Mr Kumar,
Thank you for your comment.
Agreed, it is always possible that a ‘bad’ leader can surface through an electoral process. That said, the point I am making is that leadership is a system, and the system (and its emergent properties) is far more powerful than the leader. When a leader is elected, the emergent property of the system is freedom, and this freedom is far more powerful than the leader. Hence if a leader is bad, s/he can be openly criticised and even better, replaced by another (elected) leader. So the system is self-correcting.
In a dictatorship, there is no chance of this. Dictators, while personally very powerful, typically drive their nations (systems) to the ground. The system’s subjects are too scared to do anything, ensuring that the overall system remains weak.
It’s also important to note that when a leader is elected, there will always be people who think that that particular elected leader is ‘bad’. For example, even though many Americans feel George Bush was terrible, there are a great number of Americans who think Obama is as bad, if not worse. It’s just a matter of opinion. The important point here is that regardless of opinions, Americans continue to have freedom, and this freedom results in the country’s great strength. Despite all the talk of a crisis, there is no country on earth that can seriously challenge the US.
Further, real free flow of knowledge and information is impossible with the current hierarchical corporate power structures in place. When people are afraid of their bosses, they do not, as the Americans say, tell the “truth to power”. This is exactly what led to the US intelligence failure on the issue of Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Finally, would you be willing to give up your right to vote for your leader? If not, why not? The answer is quite clear – if you lose your right to vote, you also lose your freedom. Even dictators who are initially welcomed with great enthusiasm (eg Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan) end up behaving dictatorially (as Musharraf did with Pakistan’s judges). This ends up being terrible for the system (in this case, Pakistan).
- Log in to post comments
You need to register in order to submit a comment.