The Brute Force Tactic
A question was sent to me via email yesterday and it is such a great question that I decided to post it today instead of the topic I had planned to post.
This question is one that comes up in some of my “Leadership Labs™” and when it does, there is a hush that comes over the audience as everyone awaits a response. Funny how some activities do not change. Funny how MBA programs either address these type of issues in a blur or not at all; focusing more on how to crunch numbers and how to interpret them.
The question that came to me was this, “How to gain authority without using the brute force of I am the boss and do what I say! scenario.”
How does one gain authority? Is the brute force tactic effective? Should it be used? Are there more effective alternatives?
What are your thoughts?
I would really like to hear from all of you, the coaches, the managers, the leaders, the followers, the board members, and the customers (internal and external) that might see this blog. What would you offer this person in response to the question?
This is such a great question, I would ask that you also (if you tweet, use facebook, or whatever method you use to communicate with others) forward this to those you interact with to broaden the response.
Thank you for reading, thank you for your continued interest and thank you for your thoughts!
Have a great weekend and I will see you here on Monday.
Until then, Lead On!
14 Comments »
Leave a comment
Subscribe to Wayne’s Blog
-
Authors
Wayne
My approach is to model the behavior I wish to encourage in others. By showing them this is the way I choose to behave and having them see the positive results it brings the hope is they will see value in doing the same.
Brute force may lead to compliance but not followership.
Hi David, thank you for your response. I like your comment about compliance and followership.
I think that the brute force approach impedes creativity, feelings of empowerment, and independent thinking. My initial thought is to only do what the boss says. But, my second thought is to work around a boss like that; otherwise, nothing would be accomplished.
Thank you Brenda, The loss of creativity comment is important as well as the subtle ‘no thinking allowed’ inuendo.
Thought you might like this quote that summarizes the issues.
“There is nothing more powerful than inspirational leadership that unleashes principled behavior for a great cause,” said Dov Seidman, the C.E.O. of LRN, which helps companies build ethical cultures, and the author of the book “How.” What makes a company or a government “sustainable,” he added, is not when it adds more coercive rules and regulations to control behaviors. “It is when its employees or citizens are propelled by values and principles to do the right things, no matter how difficult the situation,” said Seidman. “Laws tell you what you can do. Values inspire in you what you should do. It’s a leader’s job to inspire in us those values.””
Laura, great response. The inspirational aspect is on point! Thank you for the reply.
Wayne, the question has a lot of layers. The short answer to the questions on “brute force” is that both leadership styles can be effective. Most of us tend to want to work for someone that uses personal authority more than positional authority but both can be very effective. A few bullet points on the subject:
• Most reading this post will want to read how good the use of personal authority is and how antiquated and evil the use of positional authority is.
• In today’s leadership world, which is full of younger employees, personal authority tends to get better results than use of positional authority. Personal authority has more to do with respect of the leader than respect of the position. Respect has to do with a leader’s values and character demonstrated over a period of time. It takes time to gain a reputation of integrity and develop the respect to have effective personal authority.
• There are places, however, i.e. the military, emergency rooms, police departments, etc. where positional authority is needed and the accepted norm.
• There is also a generation of older, well respected leaders who chose to use positional authority because it is what they grew up with, they are good at it, and at one time it was the accepted role for a leader, was expected and rewarded. Generally as long as these leaders are fair they get great results.
• There is also a time when young leaders need to have some positional authority (do it because I am the boss) to move processes forward while they are developing the respect levels necessary to exercise personal authority. Without some teeth in a structure that gives managers/leaders the ability to impose budgets, timelines, and deadlines there is chaos and low morale that leads to non-productivity.
• I think the question i.e. using words like Brute Force has more to do with leaders who have not taken the time to develop character that merits respect and allows personal authority to be effective. In these cases the use of positional authority tends to hurt morale, and team involvement. With this type of leader, positional authority becomes a club rather than a tool.
• My recommendation for those who have a leader operating mostly with positional authority, if the leader using the club is a Christian, is to complete the task as directed so there is no public spectacle that makes you appear to be insubordinate; then later seek one-on-one time to discuss the process. For Christian leaders it is wise to let the Bible be the source of truth they are questioning. Ask questions to gain common ground and then introduce scriptures that build your case. The leader may choose not to listen or change but then their argument is with God not with you. If you cannot function under this leader you have the option to find another job (or transfer to another division if you are with a large organization).
• My recommendation, if the leader using the club is a non-believer, is to complete the task as directed and later approach the individual one-on-one about the process. In this case I recommend you paraphrase the Proverbs so they appear to be common sense and solid business practices. Again, you have the option of leaving for other employment (or transferring if in a large company).
Sorry for a long answer to a short question.
Barry, thank you for your response. You bring some good points on both sides of the issue. Interesting how you took the view from the ‘young’ manager/leader into account as well!
I think Barry managed to describe the various scenarios well, and the differences between various leadership styles. A key take away is that there is a time and place for all types of leadership, the difficulty is picking the right one at the right time. With early decisions for a manager and for non-critical decisions always, the best way is to use consensus building which in turn should allow the leader’s personal respect and authority to grow. Later on as the team and leader have gained more trust in each other, the leader should be quite comfortable with setting the goal (and the team accepting the goal), while the team/followers are allowed to figure out how the goal is accomplished. That is not to say that there aren’t times when a boss simply needs to make a call and simply brute force the boss’ solution on everyone else. In the book “leadership lessons of the navy seals”, sub chapter “there is no I in Shut Up And Do The Work” the author describes a situation where a mine is floating 20 feet from the hull of a ship, and the seals are discussing the best way to disarm it. That is a clear situation where a decision is needed quickly and the commander promtply makes a call. While most of us won’t face such life and death scenarios, a leader needs to be comfortable making and enforcing unpopular decisions. The simple point is that if you can get the team to make a decision you are happy with as a leader, IN THE TIMEFRAME ALOTTED, then use the politically correct ways to do so. If the time frame is short or the team is clearly not able to make a decision, make the decision using brute force.
There is a lot of history to be embedded in positional leadership. Positional leadership is the historical norm, and well accepted, and has its place in some enviornments, police, military, ect. However, I believe that will not be the way of the future, and will not be accepted by todays workers. A good leader will know when, and where to use different leadership styles. The positional and authoritian approach to leadership is valid. However, not in all situations. It is incumbent upon the leaders to determine which style of leadership is most effective for the situation. I have personal doubts that sufficent time and energy is given to allowing those being lead to provide input into the mission at hand. Ask, “How would you fix it Mr. X?”
And then let Mr. X answer the question, he might have the answer. By shutting him down, due to his lower position in the work enviornment, you may loose Mr. X, and the idea which may be a solution to a major problem and maybe you loose the employee to a competitor. In my view the old positional leadership while valid, should be modified in todays work enviornment.
My two cents worth.
Have a nice day.
Thanks for making me pause and think about this topic. A very important piece that leaders often forget to focus on or take for granted.
Leadership presence is a matter of both words and body language. And, to command respect and authority leaders need to pay close attention to how they carry themselves. Because the terms “command and control” are often used in tandem in management, we tend to group them together in affect too. There are many gentle and mindful ways to command- for example, through silent, appreciative inquiry and practicing letting go. And when these different aspects of graceful command are practiced, a leader can make their point even when “they say nothing at all”..:)..
I’m actually listening to a book right now (fiction) that addresses this very issue. The book is Elantris by Brandon Sanderson. In it, a king has, in the span of almost 10 years, almost ruined the economy of a country by enforcing/encouraging a “boss” approach to the peasantry. The nobles think their peasants are lazy and will only work through coercion. One of the main characters shows that productivity has declined in the ten years and proposes a “novel” approach. Allow the peasantry to own their land and receive a portion of everything they grow. (I am only a 1/4 of the way through the book, so I don’t know yet if it works and the rebels manage to change the system.)
This is a fictional representation of this exact situation. If the only reason an employee has to work for the boss is because he/she is the BOSS, the employee will be resentful and less productive. If a leader can find ways to help his/her employees to own their jobs, the employees will be happier and more productive.
As in many of my previous posts, I don’t think there is a one size fits all approach to leadership. A leader needs to know his or her people and tailor motivation to the individuals and teams. Then authority is rarely the issue.
Sorry to be weighing in so late.
While I agree with Knut that there is a time and place for taking ownership of a situation and giving orders that are to be obeyed on the basis of ‘the boss spoke’, in work contexts that boss usually got the job because of a long process of training and peer review. If the Commander barks an order, the crew responds because there is a team history of beneficial decisions in many other – often trivial – instances. It *is* positional authority but it is earned, not seized. That perhaps gives a clue to how others can gain authority: build trust by making small decisions that are seen to be right/beneficial and build from there.
Having said that, people do have very different attitudes to what a boss should be. However politically incorrect it is to say it, there are some employees who go to work and want to be told what to do and some jobs where that is an efficient approach. Whether or not that is acceptable is a totally different topic. Other people hear an order and leave so the boss has a value judgment to make about the time spent in turning an order into a suggestion or discussion about the best approach to a task. This is particularly true in voluntary or part-paid organisations where people are donating time and expertise. Playing ‘the boss’ in those situations tends to leave a committee of one. There the boss needs to seek consensus, involve experts and still, somehow, actually do things rather than talk about them. It’s back to apparent positional authority actually being earned over time and actions/results.
[...] is both leadership (mostly without the ‘Brute Force Tactic’) and followership but it is mostly about defining oneself and finding a place in society. [...]
Pingback by A new you « Gillian’s Learning and Qualifications Blog | July 20, 2009 |