The resistance to less leaders...

One of the things I say a fair bit (and gets a fair bit of ?? here on Linkedin ??), is that we don't need more leaders. In fact, we don't even need better leaders.

What we need is to redistribute leadership amongst the whole team, the whole organisation, so that leadership is no longer restricted to job title.

And yes, this will likely lead to less 'leader' roles.

This causes a few concerns. Wrapped up in things like self-organising teams, zero-distance to customers, flatter structures, and other ideas that are appealing in theory, but we resist as 'that's fine for other organisations, but it won't work round here.'

Let's look at some of that resistance...

Responsibiity

One of the first things to come back at me is that any sort of organisation that has less or close to no formal leaders means no one is responsible for anything. Chaos will rule.

It's understandable. We've been conditioned through decades of management practices and leadership development to confuse responsibility with power.

Effective responsibility comes from the inside out, not from words on a role profile.

Effective responsibility is a quality of leadership, not from a position on an org chart..

Effective responsibility comes from connection, relationships, meaning. It’s not attached to a pay packet.

There will be some in your team with more responsibility, some with less, some with different responsibility. This is good. This is natural.

But please do not mistake redistributing leadership as a removal of responsibility.

In fact, when people step up because they want to, because their team needs them to, because their team supports them doing so, you tend to find responsibility is baked in.

That’s leadership.

Look around at the leaders on today’s world stage…

It’s clear that responsibility isn’t tied up with leaders.?

But it does have everything to do with leadership.

We don’t need better leaders.?

We need redistributed leadership.

Do that, and you’ll have more responsibility.

Decisions

Okay, so people will be responsible for their own actions, work, collaboration, progress, value, innovation and so on.

But who decides what gets done? Who decides where to invest? Who decides what needs deciding?

We do have a fascination with decision-making. But again, we've aligned something that all teams, all organisations need to do - decision-making - with something we don't need t make it happen - in this instance, control.

Leadership is not control.

Effective decision making comes from an understanding of what’s really going on. Not from reports that give you a version of what’s going on.

Effective decision making comes from being able to make the best sense of what’s going on. Not from what consultants tell you others are doing.

Effective decision making comes from being close to the customer. Not from presentations by departments disconnected from the customer.

To date, decision making has been more about control than it has been effectiveness.

First and foremost this has happened as decision making has become divorced from where the action is.?

Redistributing leadership means getting closer to the customer.?

That’s what happens when you flatten things (figuratively and even literally if that’s what it takes). Being closer to the customer means you can make better sense of the impact of decisions. Which means you have more insight available to make quick, effective decisions.

Effective decision making has nothing to do with leaders.

It has everything to do with leadership.

We don’t need better processes for leaders to make better decisions.

We need a better flow between decision-making, action-taking, and sense-making with the right people, irrelevant of job title and ‘position’.

This doesn’t come from leadership alone.

To make better decisions you need teamship.

You need to involve the right people to stand together, experimenting, reflecting, growing.

The flow between them is where the best decisions come from.

Lean into the paradox…

… and get as many of the right people involved as possible and you’ll have better decision making.

Doing the work

If everyone is busy being responsible and making decisions, how will any work get done?

A quick - totally leading - question:

Does the best work get done when people are told what to do?

Of course some people will answer yes to this question. They'll be the ones that missed the word 'best' in the question. They'll be the ones who simply see 'being busy' as valuable, or worse, just doing what you want as valuable.

The reality is the best work gets done when people take action on a decision that makes sense to them.

When they don’t, they either submit and do it anyway (quiet quitting anyone..?), or resist in a way that doesn’t necessarily help (noisy, takes too long ,likely get told to do it anyway… actual quitting anyone..?).

Or they just do what makes sense to them. They might even save the day. Yet who learns when this happens?

So, when the right people are involved in decision making, sense making AND action taking, the impacts, consequences, and lessons are front and centre.

It’s tied up in the skill that compliments leadership. The skill that’s relegated to some kind of secondary (at best) position, when it should be side by side with leadership.

I’m talking about followership.

Followership is autonomy.

It’s advancing yourself AND others in pursuit of a common purpose.

Work gets done because built right into autonomy is inner power. Not a dependency on outside power and control.

We’ve tried it with empowerment, but this is still about imposing power on someone else. Think about it:

“Hey, I’m empowering you to go make decisions. Me. Empowering you. I’m giving you a piece of my power. Aren’t I good. Just a piece though. Because I can take it back whenever I need to…”

This isn’t autonomy. Autonomy is ‘self-directing freedom’.

Freedom to choose what to do, when to do it, how to do it.

Self-directing along a path aligned with the compelling reason your organisation, your team, your job exists in the first place. A path you share with others.

It’s why work gets done when leadership is redistributed. And it’s much more effective than relying on someone’s hand-me-downs of power.

That inner desire to make a difference and follow what matters, supported by by the boundaries of teamship, shaped by leadership - autonomy - is why work gets done.

The right work. At the right time. In the right way. By the right people.

In a crisis

What about when the shit hits the fan?

This is a common concern people have with a redistribution of leadership. And having worked in IT Service Ops for many years, I get where you’re coming from.

I've also done a lot of work with the Police, somewhere there’s absolutely a time and a place for decisive action.

But this doesn’t happen in isolation.

Everything is connected.

In certain circumstances - let’s call it a ‘crisis’ for ease - you may need a 'leader'.

Someone on point, facilitating, steering, deciding, even directing or commanding. There may not be time for the usual flow of insight and sense-making. There may simply be an urgent timeline or even lives on the line. Whatever the reason, for a period of time a different approach is needed.

The point is, this still doesn’t happen in isolation. The crisis is still something that’s happening to your organisation, your team, you.

In the same way you experiment with day to day ways of working, this is no different.

It may just require a bit more prep and reflection.

A bit more thinking through so you can all decide on a few things up front or for next time.

You and your team may decide if a crisis happens [INSERT NAME HERE] will step up and run things every time.

You and your team may decide to have a rota in place so that if a crisis happens you will have someone ready to step in.

You may keep a preference, experience, and skill matrix that aligns each of you with the dominating factors of the type of crisis you often face so you can select the ‘best’ person for the job contextually.

You may agree to a 1 minute conversation to share the external context, share your internal context, and then have a quick vote to select the right person, including who has the deciding vote in a tie.

You may choose to do it based on whose birthday is closest to the crisis.

Or play rock, paper, scissors.

I don’t know what’s best for you, your team, your organisation (let's not even go down a ‘best practice’ rabbit hole...).

What I do know is, the more you’ve been taking on wider responsibility, the more insight you will all have into WHO is best able to step in right now.

The more you’ve been flowing with decision making, sense making and action taking, the more insight you will all have into WHO is best able to step in right now.

The more you’ve been practicing autonomy, experimenting and playing together, the more insight you will all have into WHO is best able to step in right now.

And even in a crisis, as General Stanley McCrystal says, “complexity requires quick and informed action at the edge…but grabbing the reigns and yanking back will be more disruptive than it is helpful.”

Everything is connected.

Don’t mistake the need for clear direction in a crisis as a blueprint for how leadership should be ‘done’. Anyone can step up and provide direction and clarity. A true team puts ego to the side and explores the best way to do this - proactively where you can, reflecting when you can.

Getting it done

There’s no shortcut.

If there was we wouldn’t be losing billions in work-related mental and physical health issues, and the cost that eclipses both of those, presenteeism (recently rebranded as ‘quiet quitting’…).

Teams of the future didn't get there overnight. They worked at it. They continue to work at it as relationships shift, circumstances impact, new ideas emerge.

Maybe you’re still hopeful a leadership development program will make the problems and noise go away by shifting the responsibility onto a select few.

Maybe you’re still not ready to give up the control you have.

Maybe you’re caught up in your own crap and don’t have the space or energy to dig into the relationships you know deep down matter.

That’s okay. I’ve been in all three of those places. You don’t need to have to be ready to change.

You do need to be ready to try.

Here are three things you can try straight away to rethink leadership, fellowship, and teamship within your organisation.

Leadership

Ask yourself this question:

Right now, what's important to you?

See what comes up. Time box it for a minute, then grow that time as you feel more comfortable.

Followership

Find someone you have a good relationship with. Pick your moment, then ask them the following question:

Right now, what's important to you?

Just listen. Then thank them for sharing.

That’s it.

Be prepared for non-answers. Be prepared for curious looks. Be prepared for long lists of unachievable things.

You’re not saying you’re going to get what they need or even help at all. You’re just asking so you can deepen your understanding of them (that’s what you say if they ask why you’re asking btw…).

Try it.

If it’s not the sort of thing you usually do, lean into it even more.?

See what comes up. No filter. No need to share. No need to judge. Just see. That’s what a reflection is, something you see.

Teamship

Find a moment when several people you have an impact on and have an impact on you are all together.

(If you can’t find one, create one).

Then ask them the following question…

Right now, what’s important to us?

It's important to go into this as a dialogue. It's not a debate. There's no right or wrong answer.

This is a way to start deepening relationships with each other by sharing insight.

This is also what I love to do. Creating space where insight - real insight based on real experience - can be seen, explored, and acted upon.

If anyone has anything to add, please let us know your insight.