Positional Leaders—Can You Answer These Key Questions Honestly?
Part Three of a Three Part Series on Redefining Positional Leaders
If you are a positional leader who is officially or unofficially leading change/transformation in your organization, here are some important questions to ask yourself. Answering these questions honestly may not be easy, but this exercise will start to open the door toward becoming a transformational leader. There is a difference in people handing over their power to a leader because that is what is demanded by an organization’s structure and being chosen to lead because they trust you have their well-being in mind.
What if people could choose the leaders they work for in an organization? Self-management approaches such as Sociocracy, Semco Style, and others have such a mechanism in place. Would your team elect you to lead them?
If money or co-workers were not a consideration, how many people would still choose to work with you or your organization? Factors to consider are—do they believe in the purpose or cause of the organization, or do they just like working with you as a leader because of your vision, the atmosphere you create, the way you make them feel, how and what they learn, etc.? Be honest, how many…really?
Understanding the Conflict and Choices Positional Leaders Face When Realizing the Need for Organizational Change/Transformation
Over the years I have consulted with all types of leaders and one thing I see among all of them is the conflict and types of choices they face when recognizing that organizational change is needed, especially when it comes to culture. With respect to traditional positional leaders, although they share an understanding of the systems and other factors that are causing the problems, pressures and limitations, they differ in their approaches and tolerance for facilitating change and transformation.
1) Maintain the status quo: Despite their desire for change, some traditional positional leaders choose to maintain a business-as-usual attitude and just comfortably push forward to get the job done as best they can within their current role and organizational structure. If they can create change without making waves—great and if not—okay. Either way, they are resigned to push forward.
2) Move on: Realizing that things are no longer sustainable for them as is and things aren’t going to change within the organization, some positional leaders move on with the hopes of landing in a place more aligned with their values.
3) Explore, expand, and transform from within: Some positional leaders realize that changes are needed and try to create transformation from within the existing structure to the best of their abilities, training, resources, and energy. They are openly willing to explore alternative systems and ways of leading and working together with their staff and other leaders. Additionally, they are often able to share innovative ideas presented by social leaders and change agents in ways that their peers can understand and embrace.
Even when positional leaders wish to support change the path forward is challenging when traveling alone or without a strong internal compass.
When knowledge becomes a blockage. A positional leader’s knowledge of the current system and his or her ability to access and influence other leaders often creates unintended bottlenecks and limitations to change. This happens when leaders aren’t able to move, innovate or evolve beyond their own perspectives, knowledge bases, and levels of insight—which run from expansive and extensive to limited and even blocked.
Reframing can devalue the intention of vision holders. Positional leaders change/reframe new ideas and solutions based on their current understanding as well as when they are trying to get buy in from other positional leaders, organizations, team members, etc. this can limit or disrupt the value of what was intended by the vision holder.
A lack of understanding and recognition can also alienate vision holders. When position leaders can’t hear/see the people who hold the vision for change due to differing levels of understanding, authority, respect, etc. within the organization, leaders often end up getting credit for these ideas/innovations while the creators don’t receive any benefit from their contributions, which alienates them and limits their engagement. Additionally, culture differences can also relate to positionality—leaders may only hear other leaders but may not hear an engineer. In situations where vision holders want to take a more active role in the execution of their idea/innovation, but they aren’t invited/allowed to engage at that level, further disengagement occurs, especially if the change to be implemented is going in a radically different direction than what they proposed. Regardless of whose vision it is, it is critical that it is shared by those who will be involved in its realization.
The path of innovation, change and transformation is one of pressure. As I discussed in part 2 of this series, traditional positional leaders who are in “push ahead” or “active change” modes are often negotiating the tension between the need for change and the inertia of the organization to maintain the status quo, placing them under a great deal of pressure which can cause physical, mental, and/or emotional issues in other areas of their lives.
So, how did you answer these questions? To explore your answers and learn how to grow from a traditional positional leader into a transformative one, get in touch. We also have new learning circles starting soon with themes on emerging leadership, building togetherness and heart-centered well-being.