Author: AP

One of the primary roles of a leader is to develop people around them. There are many sayings that reflect this important aspect of leadership such as “make yourself redundant” or “ensure you’re the weakest link in the chain”.

I’ve always held the belief that standing in the spotlight, receiving accolades, being acknowledged as the key person within a successful environment, is not the way to lead. None of these things should form part of effective Leadership. Many people wrongly believe It is important to lead by example and hence feel the need to be a beacon for others to follow. I’d argue the opposite.

The perception that a leader is the most important individual in the group is counterproductive. A title can often lead to this presumption, hence it is critical for leaders to counter this view with conscious behavior and messaging. Allowing others to take roles and responsibilities that usually sit with a leader, fulfill duties normally expected of the most senior figure and permitting others to receive accolades as representatives of the organisation are all critical behaviors of a leader.  In simple terms, don’t make it all about yourself.

Allowing others to attain prominence only occurs if leaders are willing to share, or even better, transfer the attention. Be the person shining the torch on others rather than standing in the spotlight.

Always remember, if you’re standing in the sunshine, you’re inevitably casting a shadow on others. And nothing grows without sunlight.

The concept of not thinking one dimensionally was outlined in a previous article:
How do you think in two dimensions? – ARTHUR PSALTIS

This notion is founded on Counterbalanced Thought; an approach that allows an alternative measure to sit distant from typical rules and allows another approach to be enacted when particular circumstances prevail.

My question at the end of this article was “What is required for 3-dimensional thinking?”

The 3^rd dimension is created by time. There is no doubt that time influences thinking. Conditions that are time dependent change circumstances, hence alter views, and ultimately impact outcomes. The concept of thinking in 3 dimensions requires consideration of the conditions that exist at a moment in time, and subsequently impact decisions. What was thought to be right previously, may not be appropriate now.

Accepting that the typical approach may not always prevail, and the counterbalanced alternative needs consideration, allows 2 – dimensional thinking. Recognizing that time can change that thinking, provides the 3^rd dimension.

These dimensions provide a sound set of guidelines for sound decision making.

Firstly, identify the typical approach, the decision that addresses the primary intent. This approach should suit most circumstances but won’t suit all.

Secondly, consider if extreme circumstances exist, or if the impact of this decision does more damage than good. In this situation a compromise to the norm, or a counterbalanced approach may be required.

Finally, assess the moment in time. What is different now compared to previous, and how does this influence the outcome?

Forming a perspective based on 3 – dimensional thinking is the key to good decision making. It’s only once you consider something in 3 dimensions that you have assessed it fully, with pure clarity.

There is much research and evidenced based recognition that trust is a key indicator of high performing organisations. Hence, the question of how to build trust within a working environment is pertinent. Having people recognise this trust amongst each other is equally important to success.

I’ve written previously about the difference between accountability and responsibility, the importance of defining these terms and the influence this concept has on building Organisational Trust. Accountability-vs-Responsibility

Establishing the appropriate corporate structure, with a clear understanding of where authority and decision-making sits, is the critical ingredient of building trust.

The formula is very simple. If decision making is taken away from those accountable, and given to others with higher authority, trust is eroded. If decision making is delegated to those with less authority, trust builds.

When people are asked to be accountable for things, and decision making is taken out of their hands, they become disillusioned. Trust erodes, and the organisation suffers as a consequence.

In contrast, when people recognise that decision making and accountability has been bestowed upon them, they feel empowered. This is the key ingredient for trust-building.

There is a well-known saying that “culture eats strategy for breakfast.” If this is the case, then trust beats culture before it’s got out of bed.

There is nothing more powerful than trust, and this is evidenced in most environments, be it at work, within relationships or society generally. Hence building trust within the work environment should be the main objective of any leader, and the number one driver of any organisation.

The concept of Counterbalanced Thought.

Most successful organisations are founded on clear principles, a strong culture, and an uncompromising commitment to values.

These are all critical components, and few would argue over their importance.

However, there is also a well-known saying that “too much of a good thing can be bad for you”. So, can an organisation have too much self – discipline, clarity, or commitment?

Within every principle, decision or approach lies the danger of committing or executing to the extreme. This “at all costs” or “without due consideration” mindset can be blinding to issues or specifics that can ultimately cause damage. It’s one-dimensional thinking.

To manage this risk, a concept worth considering is the system of Counterbalanced Thought.

Fundamentally, this notion allows an alternative measure to sit distant from the main agenda, to be called on when it’s recognised that the common approach, previous directive, or normal rules may not apply in certain instances.

People should understand that they carry responsibility for implementing the normal. But they become more empowered once they also recognise that in extreme situations, or abnormal circumstances, a counterbalanced view may be required. It’s a simple way of explaining how to take responsibility for not doing the normal when the normal is not appropriate.

Counterbalanced Thought can be executed across all aspects of an organisation. For example, promoting integration, but not at the expense of intimacy. Promoting variety but not to the detriment of clarity. Promoting flexibility but not to the sacrifice of structure. While the primary intent is defined, the counterbalanced alternative is identified. It’s the counterbalanced alternative that needs consideration when implementing the primary intent.

The concept of Counterbalanced Thought provides another dimension to the thought process. It changes what would be one-dimensional to two-dimensional. The next obvious question is, what makes three-dimensional thought? I’m still thinking about that. Stay tuned…

In every organisation, the approach taken in establishing levels of authority is critical to a well-structured operation.

A common methodology is to place people with the most accountability at the highest levels of authority. This makes perfect sense. What is often overlooked, or implemented without due consideration, is how these people use their authority. In most organisations, “authority” means power, influence, a mandate to make decisions, and even more-so, overturn the decisions of others.

This traditional approach is flawed in many aspects. The way people with authority act and behave is fundamental to the success of an organisation and sets the tone for everyone to follow.

Defining actions that align to someone with authority is the first aspect to resolve. It shouldn’t be, the right to overturn decisions, undermine the role of others, instruct, or demand. But unfortunately, this is often the interpretation.

In contrast, those with authority should respect the roles and responsibilities of others, respect the decisions of others, provide advice, guidance, and assistance. This leads to a far more collaborative and respectful environment.

Once there is a common understanding within the definition of “authority” and why it exists, people recognise the benefits and embrace the concept, rather than bemoaning the concept of others having more authority.

The second aspect to resolve is how authority is imparted. Usually there are two concerns of people with less authority.

One is the concern of providing negative news or highlighting poor performance. To negate this, those with higher authority must show a want and willingness to receive bad news, so that assistance can be provided, and the issue improved.

Additionally, no one should be protected. Pushing negative news down rather than raising it to a higher level, is a common protective behaviour. Resentment builds when someone entitled to the privileges of authority, refuses to be held accountable for the poor performance of others, or refuses to raise it themselves for the purpose of self-preservation. Those with authority must be authentic in their role of being accountable for outcomes.

So, the question to be answered; Do flat structures work? What does “flat” actually mean? Does everyone have the same authority in a flat structure? I’d suggest not. Is no one accountable? This would be concerning. Do those that promote flat structures really have them? They may not be top heavy, but that doesn’t mean flat.

My advice is, rather than promote flat or worse still try to achieve flat, embrace a vertical structure, because we all know it’s the only way to operate effectively. Get the balance right throughout, not too heavy, not too light, at different levels of authority. And most importantly, rather than have everyone report up, insist that everyone support down.