Leadership, Power, and Service

It is a mistake to think of leadership as being the power of an individual to control others in order to serve his own agenda.   This is not leadership, merely manipulation, and it tends to be short-lived.    Leadership is a task, performed when necessary, in the context of a society.   It is persuading others to act for the common good, not the personal ambition of one person.

Every leader coordinates the efforts of a group of people.  Particularly when the task requires others to contribute their ideas and knowledge, not just perform simple tasks, the leader cannot give specific orders and monitor compliance, but must give direction and enable his followers to contribute in ways he does not prescribe.   An MBA who is not a computer programmer, yet must manage a team of programmers, cannot tell them exactly what to type.

The goals of a leader are very often not his own personal ambitions, but in service to others.  The CEO of a company holds a great deal of power, but that power is given to him by investors - and if he serves his personal interests rather than theirs, he will discover that the power he has can be taken away.  Those "leaders" who fail to serve their communities are not permitted to hold positions of authority for very long.

Leaders must also act in support of their followers.   Even their followers who have interests to be served, and when they are not served, they cease to follow.   Typically, a follower agrees to bear some hardship in exchange for a personal reward – the worker labors to earn his pay, or in some instances because he enjoys his role or the sense of accomplishment he gains from performing the work.   When the followers are asked to bear hardship and are denied any reward, they lose the inclination to follow and eventually abandon the leader.   His power to command is given to him by those who will obey his commands.

And this leads to the difficulty that leaders face: their power comes from multiple sources, all of whom must be served.   To serve the investors and ignore the welfare of the employees is to fail, and to serve the employees while ignoring the interest of the investors is also to fail.   The leader considers himself to be master, but has multiple masters that he must serve.

The difficulty for leaders is in balancing the hardship and reward for all parties involved in an undertaking.   In commercial organizations, the investors must part with their capital and expect a return, the employees contribute labor and expect financial rewards, the customers part with their money and expect a benefit, and so on.  A manager in the commercial organization must consider the reward that each party expects and the hardship each party will undertake to achieve it.   His own willingness and desire determine whether he remains interested in a leadership role – but that is only one of many competing interests.

There is no rulebook that will give the leader a clear path in all instances, nor any training that will enable him to act with certainty, nor any known means to determine how to fully assess the risks and the benefits.   He must think and decide. In general, the guidance to leaders is vague and identifies the priorities but offers little help:  it will tell him of the interests are to be served, but not how to mitigate among conflicting interests. Figuring that out is the talent of the leader, and the ability to do so is what qualifies him for that role.

So to remain effective at a leader means considering the interests of all – to set the appropriate expectations of the hardship they will endure, to demonstrate a willingness to provide the benefit for which they will endure the hardship, and to ensure that, when action is taken, the hardships are not greater nor the benefits less than he led them to believe.   Succeeding at doing so is the only way that a leader can retain power for an extended period of time.

It is also necessary for a leader to serve the interest of all.   An employee may be willing to undertake additional hardship without additional reward once in a while, but if his interests are never served he will soon lose faith in the leader and regard him as a swindler, manipulative and false.  In the same way, every individual affected by the leader must feel that, over time, the balance of benefit and hardship are acceptable.

In this context, it should be more clear that empathy is an important skill for mangers – it’s not about being “nice” or catering to the ego of others, but about considering the interests of others and ensuring they are served so that their willingness to follow can be maintained for the long term.   Leaders who lack empathy and do not consider the interests of others may be able to swindle them in the short term, but will not be able to sustain their willingness to cooperate – and as a result, will not be able to maintain their own power.

Power and Innovation

I read an article that spoke of “power” of individuals within organizations, and it struck me that the use (or abuse) of power is often a force that prevents an organization from being innovative.

Specifically, power is developed over time. The word “experience” is often misused when the issue is actually one of power.   A newcomer to an organization has no power, and cannot contribute his ideas until he becomes accepted – he must play by the rules.   As his tenure increases, he goes through the stages in power development – first testing the waters by covertly ignoring the rules, then overtly challenging the rules, and eventually matriculates into a position to be a rule-maker.

The problem is that it may take many years for a person to have sufficient power to even suggest their ideas.   This is likely the reason that organizations with a long employee tenure are not capable of being innovative.   There are too many rule-makers, who are devoted to preserving the status quo that has placed them in a position of power.   Newcomers, who bring fresh ideas in from the outside, have too little power to be heard. An employee with an innovative idea must wait until he has sufficient tenure even to suggest it, and by that time he has become institutionalized.

Part of the problem is in the perception of power – and since power is itself a matter of perception (a person’s belief about their own power as compared to that of others), the perception becomes the reality.   Consider the author’s four-stage model of power development:

1. Powerless – An individual who has no power, makes not attempt to exercise power, and allows others to manipulate him.
2. Autonomous – An individual who has no power, makes no attempt to exercise power, but does not allow others to manipulate him
3. Assertive- An autonomous individual who has no power, but occasionally attempts to influence others.
4. Powerful – An assertive individual who usually attempts to influence others and is generally successful in so doing.

My sense is that this mashes together two qualities that should be kept well separated – influencing others and being influenced by them.   Such a model supports a mindset in which a person wins power by getting their way without helping others – or in less flattering terms, a “powerful” person is encouraged to be a useless manipulator.   And I would have to agree that this is a very reasonable and realistic perspective on the manner in which power is applied.

A collaborative person commands the service of others and is willing to serve them as well, and that seems to me a better and more productive perspective.   Ideally, a person with power would use that ability to serve the organization rather than their own self-interests by helping those who are less powerful to get a fair hearing when they have an innovative idea – rather than discouraging and suppressing beneficial ideas because it is not in their personal interest.

But that is speaking of ideals – and my sense is that truly innovative organizations attempt to do this, whereas organizations that are incapable of innovating do not.   In the end, it is not the existence of power but the manner in which it is used that makes it beneficial or harmful – and in a culture where power means ignoring others while pursuing a personal agenda, innovation simply cannot occur.