The heart can think of no devotion
Greater than being shore to the ocean.”
Robert Frost
There is perhaps nothing more powerful on Earth than the ocean. In its various sections and divisions it covers nearly 71 percent of the world’s surface. The ocean’s recurring evaporation process produces most of our rainfall, and its temperatures influence weather patterns all over the planet. The ocean produces half of the world’s oxygen. The sea provides us with nourishment and a vital means of transportation. And its fury can be devastating.
Without the shore, of course, the ocean could not do its work effectively. What’s more, if not for our sturdy shorelines, the seas would overflow their banks and be a major nuisance. The shore, as it turns out, is just as important to our existence as the ocean. However, when it comes to perceived power, the shore plays second fiddle to the ocean.
——————————————–
Get L2L via Email Update
——————————————–
Reflections on oceans and shores might seem out of place on a leadership blog. But by acknowledging the mutual dependence that bonds these mighty forces, we can learn a lesson about the relationships between leaders and followers.
Given the option, when it comes to their working relationships with employees, most leaders would choose a powerful role. In other words, leaders prefer leading to following.
And like the connection between ocean and shore, it’s how we perceive power that matters most.
It’s no secret that leaders often struggle when it comes to sharing their authority with employees. Many leaders perceive that empowering workers somehow weakens their own clout. It’s as if they believe there’s a limited amount of influence to go around and, for that reason, others can only advance at their expense. Not surprisingly, these leaders resist helping subordinates develop their leadership potential.
Like many leaders, I struggled early in my career with the notion of helping my employees develop their leadership skills. No doubt I feared that, if I trained them too well, they might overtake and pass me on our way up the corporate ladder. But a funny thing happened once I conquered my fear and started freely giving away my authority: I began gauging my success by the individual achievements of the people I empowered. From that perspective, like the ocean and the shore, it was clear that we depended on each other for success.
Devoted leaders are willing to play second fiddle—to let others take the lead, experience opportunities to grow, and enjoy the spotlight. They realize that, in the final measurement, greatness is determined less by the size of the ocean than by the strength of the shore.
How are you at understanding the true dynamics of strengths amongst team players and their leaders within your organization? How do power struggles or misunderstandings play out within your own team? Do you balance power and authority adequately, or do you need help in this area? I’d love to hear your point of view!
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine
————————————————-
George Brymer is author of Vital Integrities and the creator of The Leading from the Heart Workshop®.
He can be reached at [email protected]
Image Sources: falconlanes.com, allthingsworkplace.com
I often find that it’s the most insecure leaders that have the most trouble sharing power. I wish employers would do a better job of training employees BEFORE they are promoted to managers.
I guess I was lucky – my early development as a leader was in the Army and it was made clear to us that there a big difference between power and authority – on my first day the Regimental Sergeant Major pointed out to us that, when it came to the crunch, it “wasn’t what we wore on our shoulders that was important – it was what held it up there” (in our Army Officers wore rank markings on their shoulders). Although I retired from the Army in 1976 and started a new career, I’ve never forgotten that.
A lot of what I see masquerading as leadership is a huge ego and a power complex. Invariably when these people move on they leave a big gap because they have failed what I believe are the ultimate leadership tests – first creating an environment in which everyone can be successful and second ensuring that they always have at least 2 people ready to step into their shoes in the case of an emergency.
This is partly tied in with the education and social environments of the past. Up to about 1960 schools and society in general demanded obedience with the very real threat of punishment unless compliance was complete. These were the days of “subordinates”. Around 1960 the emphasis moved to conformance – if you do as I want, I will reward you in some way. Again, the concept of subordination was very real because even the concept of “teams” seldom meant more than a different term for the same structure and behaviour in the 70’s. During the 80’s, with the rise of the new technological and information age, the move was to engagement – and you cannot practice engagement using a compliance or conformance approach: engagement requires volunteers not conscripts. Those of us who did our schooling and early work life in the 50’s and 60’s (which, at least in Australia, is still the majority of people in top management and Board positions) sometimes fail to understand this.
My 1990’s research which lead to “Leaders: diamonds or cubic zirconia” made it clear to me that, at least in Australia and NZ, people today are suspicious of “strong”eaders who rely on power – even if the populist press hasn’t yet caught up on this.