Democratic Leadership

Democratic Leadership

I’ve been watching a strange phenomena though my life where people always want to give others the right to vote.  Everything decision has to be voted on, and if the majority feels that the decision shouldn’t be carried out, then opportunity that presented the choice is dropped. But is that what is really needed, fair, or even appropriate in a business context?

Politics

I define politics as:

The ability to insure that your voice is heard.

Politics doesn’t mean that your opinion, reasons, or facts will be taken into account when the final decision is made, but that you are given a platform to insure that you are heard. There is, however, an inherent problem with the understanding most people have concerning the right to vote, especially in a business environment.

Business / Managers

Businesses have been forced to adjust to employee demands for managers become better leaders.  On the face of this, it is an important growth step to keeping workers happy and productive.  Where, it has been found that micro managing employees, their work and how they do it, tends to cause highly creative people to leave. Reducing the overall productivity of a small company or a companies department. 

Most employees have understood that a managers role was to distribute work and monitor metrics. Now a manager must negotiate how the work is to be done. Managers allow employees to decide how they want to do the work, and only enter into the fray when a tie needs to be broken. But, what most employees have forgotten that managers also represent them to their superiors.

This aspect of management, the representation, doesn’t allow for the employees to vote on the direction of their work or working group. And, in turn causes employees to demand more transparency into the decision making process that affects their daily work schedule.  While, at times this can be good, it also has it’s downsides as well.

Having a right to vote in a business means that a business could miss strategic opportunities to invest or capture market share, as employees vote against these opportunities. This method of voting, means that companies have to spend more time engineering campaigns to explain to employees how an opportunity will affect the business and their work.  And, maybe even their employment.

For example, in one instance, the company may decide to buy a division or startup to add a product to their existing mix.  Complementary positions may become redundant, and thus employees who are not needed would vote “NO!” on the proposal in order to secure their job.  However, other employees who see the potential for growth and future investment would vote “YES!”.  But, if the nay’s out way the yay’s. then the companies ability to grow and prosper for all involved, withers and dies.

A companies ability to strategically move assets throughout it’s business life cycle would be seriously hampered if democratic voting were allowed at this level.  The sheer amount of bureaucracy would unduly burden the companies ability to swiftly take advantage of any opportunity that came along.

Personal Democratic Relationships

Which brings me to the point of my article on this topic.  I’ve recently had the opportunity to see every decision be nit picked through the democratic process.  And, I’ve come to the realization that it’s F*cking Annoying.  Here’s why ...

As I pointed out above, when the minority needs the majority to vote on a decision it slows the decision making process down. And, it also gives the minority permission to be upset with the decision of the majority.  

This however should not be construed that the minority don’t have a voice. They most certainly do. And, require advocates to help them be heard.  A recent example is GerryMandering - where a professor finally found a formula that allows the Judicial System to review GerryMandering to determine if Vote Wasting is actually happening.  This in it’s worst form disenfranchises a population from being properly represented, and allows a minority to remain in power, even though they don’t represent them.

But this example is at a macro level, and I’m discussing a problem at the micro level.  A group of 3 to 10 people, vs 3,000 to 1 million people.

At the level of 3 to 10 people, a form of leadership that allows everyone to be heard is needed, yet the decision to act needs to be executed by one person. Why this method of democracy?  It’s just like the version described in a business environment.  There may be an opportunity that the minority wants to take advantage of, while the majority doesn't.  But if the minority is constantly excluded from group participation, then the minority begins to wonder why they joined the group to begin with.  Thus the leader has to balance the competing desires and help everyone feel included.

And, the person who makes the decisions doesn’t have to be the same person all the time.  There is a commercial playing where 2 kids, a mom and dad are all stating what they want for dinner.  Dad says, “Taco’s it is!”, which was not one of the options listed by any of the other participants.  Yet, everyone seemingly agrees to go along with the decision.

Conclusion

In a personal democracy, I’m not advocating that there be a czar or authoritarian in control all the time, but that 1 person be selected to hear the arguments of the group ... pros and cons, alternatives, or other information ... and then make a decision.

In my case, I am usually soliciting ideas for places to have brunch, and then mediating between different factions vying for where we should go.  And, in most cases, all I want is bacon and eggs, scrambled with cheese, onions and green peppers, and pico degio spooned on top. =)

Guiding the Process

A leader is able to bring a diverse group of people affected by a similar problem and with different motivations together, and guide them through the process of crafting a solution that, while not perfect, helps 90% of the affected find a resolution. The process the group is guided through is debate. A leaders ability to do this is hampered by people who choose to label others. True debate is perceived as taking their precious time and energy. Instead, people use labels that allow them to quickly and easily digest their opponents point of view, instead of examine it. And, thus, most have equated the need to defend themselves during a debate, which isn't the purpose of debate. Most won't understand this problem, until they are forced to debate the issue from a stance that is totally contrary to their opinions. Through this process, individuals are forced to gather information about the problems their opponents face, to make a case based on evidence that supports a position. Once all sides understand the problem and the subproblems involved, the crafting of a solution becomes easier, as many new perspectives, experiences and ideas can be merged to craft the solution.

Monday - Grappling

On Monday night, a student wanted to roll for an hour. He has a lot of upper body strength and energy, so I didn't quite wear him out, but he did enjoy being rolling around.

Difference in Political Opinion

It is possible to have a difference of political opinion when discussing how to solve a social problem. However, when a politician believes that the best way to solve a problem is to blame someone else, and take away their rights, thats no longer a debate or a discussion, thats a label and an attack.

Labels are the opposite of understanding problems. They create unnecessary fear and hate at groups who are .. as you probably are .. trying to live your life.

This behavior is not considered proper social behavior, and thus why many people are upset with 45. He examplifies everything that is wrong with social debate and discourse. And, instead chooses to label groups of people, attack those that dont support him, and create as much fear and panic as he can over nothing.

And, while this causes the general populus to engage in a discussion about the issue he is attacking, it doesnt equate to a debate or a difference in political opinion. Because, no one is talking about how the issue affects them, their friends, their loved ones. Instead, they are using the labels and sound bites fed to them to fight each other with.

Again, a real debate discusses how to solve a social problem.

Motivating Followers

This is in response to the following article:

An Effective Leader Gives People a Cause in Which They Can Believe http://businesstimezone.com/?p=8838

My Response:

Leadership is defined as "Guiding Intent with Integrity" towards a goal.  The article speaks of two aspects of leadership, guidance and goals.  Studies on followers motivations, intrinsic or extrinsic, where discussed in, "Why motivating people doesn't work" by Susan Fowler. She argues that tapping into peoples intrinsic motivation is stronger than extrinsic motivation.  A shared motivation.

From this perspective, the statement, "The leader’s vision is often so compelling that followers put their requirements second to that of the organization. " is false.  In that, the followers don't put their needs second, it is that their motivations fall in line with those of the company.  

Millennials were told repeatedly, "You can do and be anything you want!".  The problem though is that everyone expected them to follow the same old work ethic that their forefathers did.  Which was, "Work hard and you will be rewarded". Millennials grew up with the fallacy of this statement.  Working hard, only rewarded the investors, while wages and living conditions continued to deteriorate.

With this mindset in place, Millennials, feel that the following statements are false, because they break the social contract of integrity.

- "It basically has to be something that gives the reasons why everything that they do each day matters and contributes.",

- "Wise leaders ensure that every single sacrifice made by followers are noticed and receive individual appreciation.",

- "The job of the leader in this case, is to inspire people to make difficult choices to support the vision, but also to inspire them to continue to repeat them."

If the motivation doesn't lead to a reward that is in line with Millennials motivations, no amount of discussion on the aspect of the larger picture will motivate them to help your company succeed.  Which is evident in the support that Bernie Sanders is receiving from the Millennial generation.  Basically, more Millennials than any other generation are saying, "NO, we won't help the company become rich at our expense!  We want a fulfilling opportunities that allow work life balance and help both the economy and ecology."

The Crux / Crutch

The crux of conflict management is knowing that the person who is maintain a state of conflict is stuck there because they feel it’s normal.  

It’s a sad state of be in, constant conflict, as it raises everyone else anxiety, as they don’t believe that it is normal. They don’t have the same experiences as this individual has. And, as such, this individual finds that their present experience is playing out exactly as their previous experiences have.

Theory Test: If the task, is the task, is the task, do you need conflict to feel normal while doing the task?

If you don’t need to feel emotional anxiety while doing a task, and someone else does, who has an experience with this task that causes them to act out of their emotional anxiety? This is the hard part of conflict management, showing the individual with the conflict that what they think is normal, is not normal at all, and in fact, is abnormal behavior, thinking, and believing. 

People who believe that they are not getting their emotional needs met, believe that no matter what you do to meet their emotional needs you are insulting them. This becomes a negative feedback loop and self fulfilling prophecy as they are no longer looking at a positive outcome, but a negative outcome that their normal situation constantly predicts.

Their crutch

This is their crutch .. you need to play your role for their experiences to play out exactly as they expect them to happen. Doing anything else, is considered inappropriate.

Many people believe, especially in AA Groups, that you can never understand the pain of their problem.  I’m, challenge that belief. I believe that they cannot properly articulate their pain for you understand.  Otherwise, movies would be unsuccessful in getting you to empathize with a hero who struggles to overcome their internal and external conflicts to triumph over their foe. 

I, also believe, that we use the phrases, “You don’t understand”, “It’s complicated”, “It’s a long story!” to withhold information that seems embarrassing. The reason why is that people are following their teachings, cultural references about dealing with problems, previous experiences where people judged them, teased them, or took advantage of them because of the problem.

Thus there are two problems to overcome here. The first is getting the individual stuck in an anxiety ridden self fulfilling conflict to stop staying, “It’s  too embarrassing to talk about!” and moving them to describe a future that helps them get what they really wanted. (Past Tense!)

Challenging Outcomes

There are many beliefs that define their outcomes:

Cultural References

Teachings

Judgments

Previous Experiences

Normal vs Normal

Never challenge beliefs directly. A person will die for their beliefs before they will change them for you or anyone else. Instead, challenge their outcomes. It is their past experience that defines how a situation will turn out. Thus, by challenging their outcomes, you can begin to unravel that mystery that brought them to believe that this outcome is inevitable.

First, they are an expert in seeing every single data point that predicts this outcome.  They have lived it, probably 100′s of times.  Are they consciously aware of these details? And, they are probably talking about the details of their prediction without realizing it.  Take note of the phrases they use, this will be important in steering them towards a positive outcome.

For example, battered women report always falling in love for the same type of guy over and over again, and not knowing why they constantly fall into this trap. There are two problems with their relationships: 1) what traits do all the men they choose have in common with each other. 2) how often are they recreating the situation needed for them to feel normal.  Thus, while they may find a man who isn’t abusive, they may unknowingly force the man to abuse them.

Becoming Friends

Friends share experiences consistently. Did you know that?  Deep friendships are built by sharing stories, common experiences, past histories.  How many times have you read a good story that got you to identify with every problem that the hero was dealing with? You don’t have to tell each other stories, it can be as simple as riding a bike, or going to lunch, or reading books in a library.

It’s during these times that small things are dropped.  Specifically walls around what can and can’t be shared. As they they describe a situation, they will use specific words and phrases. These phrases relate directly to the data points that describes their understanding of the outcome they see happening.

I’m using data points, when points of reference, means the same thing. 

From these points of reference, a timeline and story can be built that describes both the current situation as well as the past situation. The past history is the most important for because it is where the original emotional wound lies.  There was a desire to get what they wanted, and they were not in a position of power to get it.  

From this perspective, it becomes easier to see how a person not in power has to beg, plead, or steal to get what they wanted. It is also easier to understand why they feel they have to keep playing out this same game over and over again in adult hood.  Every superior reminds them of the superior that lauded over them in this past history.

Creating Change

“Friends share experiences consistently.”, did you notice the word, “consistently”?  Consistency is the piece of the puzzle that creates the framework for change.  You constantly showing what calm and normalcy look like, while your friend rages against the machine.  This alone provides the strongest evidence against their negative outcome. It shows that other choices lead to different outcomes.

If at each point of reference, there were different choices that could be made, what choices would they be?  Do they see them?  Do they believe that they are realistic choices? If you were to write a story, where the options lead to different positive outcomes, what would this story involve?

In order to have a positive outcome, you have to overcome the resistance to change with three things:

Dissatisfaction with the current reality

A realistic vision of a better future

A first realistic concrete step

If their new story contains these 3 elements of them succeeding, then they will not only be aware of the points of reference, they will also know how to steer the story towards a positive outcome they want.