Arab Spring, the Occupy movement and mass collaboration projects like Wikipedia demonstrate that very complex activities can happen these days without formal leadership. That should be prompting leaders to ask themselves a pointed question: “Why would people follow you if they don’t have to?,” leadership consultant Emmanuel Gobillot warned the Human Resources Professionals Association at its national conference in Toronto last week.
The British-based author of Leadershift shared his recommendations on leading in a networked world that makes control and job title less essential in an interview with The Globe and Mail’s Wallace Immen:
What’s behind the leader shift?
Most of what has changed is not about leaders but about followers. People still want to be led by people who are worth following. But a lot of trends are changing the type of followers in workplaces, so to be a relevant leader you have to engage them differently. You can’t rely on the things that have worked for you past.
What are the factors that are changing?
The key changes are around diversity: the variety of thinking coming from different generations in the work force, from different cultures as immigration creates a global mix of workers and from the fact that business is now done increasingly across boundaries.
Another trend is what I call the democratic shift: you can no longer coerce people into doing things because talent can move more easily to another employer or country than in the past. Technology is also enabling people to communicate more freely and find career options much more easily. So leaders have to do more to focus on people and engage them in the task to keep them loyal.
What’s the most difficult thing for established leaders to grasp?
It’s the fact that you’re in charge, but not in control. In reality, performance tends to happen irrespective of whether or not the leader is involved. I think that’s really hard for traditional leaders to grasp, because it requires an enormous amount of trust. Leaders are worried that if they let down their vigilance, people will stop working. But in reality, most people are self-motivated to do their best work. If a leader defines the goals clearly enough, people will do their best without you having to specify what they do and how they do it.
There are very, very few people out there who are coming to work in the mindset of “I’m going to destroy everything I do today.” The trouble is for that one in a thousand, many leaders take the view that the other 999 are potential problems as well.
Why do you say many have forgotten the idea of a company?
The idea is company is companionship, coming together for a purpose and delivery of something. I get calls from CEOs asking me to help them improve collaboration and break down silos. They say “our divisions aren’t working with each other.” I say the problem begins with the fact they think of them as divisions rather than as part of the whole. The problem is that all too many companies have become organizations, with everything designed for flow charts and replication. Because of that leaders tend to set up recognizable structures and boundaries. They forget that the goal of the organization should be to achieve the greater purpose of the company. Breaking down silos and developing understanding that we’re all in this together will be important actions for future leaders.
How should leaders handle social media?
I think you have to be wary of blanket advice because it’s dependent on the industry you work in and the nature of the workplace. But by and large you have to merge work and life somehow and social media have become a big part of people’s lives and it builds community.
