Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta leadership. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta leadership. Mostrar todas as mensagens

domingo, 5 de dezembro de 2010

The Paradox of Paradigm



Paradox is a statement that seems self-contradictory but expresses possible truth. Also it can be something that is contrary to popular opinion.

 Paradigm is something that serves as a model or a pattern.  It can be a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996),wrote a ground breaking book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, in which he describes a paradigm as a box in which normal science places all its beliefs, commitments,  until a better paradigm emerges. A paradigm shift is when a new breed of extraordinary scientists choose to jump into that newer, better box.

Later, Stephen Covey (1990) wrote about the paradigm shift in the business context.

A paradigm is the conceptual framework upon which we build our world; it is built upon past experiences; if we are not willing to make shifts in our paradigms, we will remain stagnate in our growth; a paradigm shift is a change from one way of thinking to another; it is something that does not happen like self generation it is driven by change.

We could say it is another name for Change, but a paradigm shift goes much deeper, it is about combining change with the challenging of existing assumptions and innovation.

Leaders of cultures recognize that their traditional paradigm is out of date, and perhaps this leads them to assume that a 'paradigm-shift' program will provide the remedy. Culture change is not simply about how you see yourself and others. It is about how the system works, i.e. how we do the work together, rather than how we work together. The paradigm shift is to understand how to act on the organization as a system.

 However, initiatives which threaten the current operating culture are typically resisted to extinction, and many initiatives simply bear no relation to the economic performance of the organization.
The most critical thing to understand about a paradigm is that, in a paradigm shift, everything goes back to zero. What does that mean? It means that whatever made you successful in the old paradigm may not even be necessary in the new paradigm.

And here comes the paradox: The paradox is that changing a culture starts with different thinking about the work.

There are two interesting paradoxes: the decision theory paradox and an Economics paradox:
Abilene paradox: People can make decisions based not on what they actually want to do, but on what they think that other people want to do, with the result that everybody decides to do something that nobody really want to do, but only what they thought that everybody else wanted to do.
Allais paradox: A change in a possible outcome, which is shared by different alternatives, affects people's choices among those alternatives; in contradiction with expected utility theory (utility is a measure of relative satisfaction).

Before shifting paradigms we should see that business in general is filled with instances of paradox.

If it would improve performance to do the work differently, how does it mean we should behave? Focusing on behavior without embedding it in a work context creates an entirely new pathology - people try to play a new game.

By contrast, focusing on how we work, anchors improvement in things that are real, and opens the door to working on culture, in a way which has relevance and, more importantly, is palpably relevant.

This new global world surrounds us with paradox. In order for companies to master paradox they must first identify the opportunity it contains.

Some major businesses are developing an e-commerce in order to sell direct, cut costs and eliminate the small businesses. Yet, small businesses represent a very lucrative, high profit margin market for those businesses.

Another paradox is the question “Should you hire the best people?” Sometimes hiring the best people could be your downfall (another paradox).

 It all depends on the situation and how you define "best." Should you focus or diversify?” Both, actually (another paradox), diversification can lead to situations where managers ignore the other business lines and pursue their own goals at the expense of company growth as a whole.

 Is paradox the new paradigm?

 Will future business success depend on the ability of managers and leaders to embrace paradox? Will they succeed holding in their minds two contradictory ideas, each of which can be applied when necessary?

By embracing paradox, managers will lose the half-truth thinking that ignores the context so pertinent to business decisions. These seeming paradoxes often exist, in the first place, only because we try to apply business rules across all contexts.

 It is natural that business bears the same tension that pervades everything else in our lives. Economies and ecosystems are filled with examples of competing goals and conflicting ideas that somehow work themselves out to create balance and, in many cases, an optimal situation.

Only when we have understood the paradoxes of business, can we propose a paradigm shift: changing focus could be the key to getting exactly what we were so focused on to begin with.



Cristina Falcão


Leadership and Management

Leadership and Management


Can you really separate and identify what is leadership and what is management objectively and empirically?
An overview of the subject:
Peter Scholtes did some research 15-20 years ago, and found that the first actual org chart in the literature came from the railroads in the 1840s. There had been a huge train wreck, and no one knew whom to blame. To make sure that would never happen again, the org chart was developed, so you would always have someone to blame. When Scholtes presented that paper, he pointed out that that particular document was also the first mention he had found in any literature that mentioned the word "manage”.
Peter Drucker summarized the distinction between management and leadership: "Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right thing".
And as Mr. Warren Bennis (1989) further explicated his twelve distinctions between the two groups are:

1. Managers administer; leaders innovate.
2. Managers ask how and when; leaders ask what and why.
3. Managers focus on systems; leaders focus on people.
4. Managers do things right; leaders do the right things.
5. Managers maintain; leaders develop.
6. Managers rely on control; leaders inspire trust.
7. Managers have short-term perspective; leaders have long-term perspective.
8. Managers accept the status-quo; leaders challenge the status-quo.
9. Managers have an eye on the bottom line; leaders have an eye on the horizon.
10. Managers imitate; leaders originate.
11. Managers emulate the classic good soldier; leaders are their own person.
12. Managers copy; leaders show originality.

Discussion:
Those who defend that leadership is much more than just management will say that a leader has qualities of vision and inspiration. One can absolutely manage people, projects, and processes, and exhibit poor Leadership qualities. People may follow instructions because their job is at stake, but not because a manager will inspire them, bring out their best, help them to grow, and accomplish high performance results.

Accomplished Leaders do much more than manage. They inspire and create followers who will follow them into fire and ice and back.

Hence, Management seems to be considered more about organization, administration and execution; the ability to build a functioning organization that can execute the tasks, projects and processes needed to achieve the aim of the system.
Another way to look at the question is by regarding leadership as art and management as a science.
Thus, a leader has different capabilities from a manager. A leader has qualitative capabilities, skills, experiences, a developed emotional intelligence and a strong character to lead to success, to motivate their teams, to deliver the mission of the organization and to create a collaborative culture and cohesive team.
A manager has quantitative capabilities to deliver timing metrics and KPI. His tools and only motivation is focused in actively deliver the mission and the strategy of the organization. Therefore: a leader has qualitative capabilities to deliver vision and
a manager has quantitative capabilities to deliver mission; Leader/Manager integrates the vision plus the mission of the organization to their teams and keep the culture within an organization functional and balanced.
Is leadership an art?
Some see leadership as an art, but is that really so or we may well say that the leadership card in business is overstated and overplayed.

Overstated because business leadership definition tends to broad stroke a painting of employees portrayed as a collective of dysfunctional, disengaged, in desperate need of a messianic authority.

Overplayed because vision and goals are not based on the commons but more so on the imposition of a business cultural hegemony shift.

Transactional or transformational "leaders" in business are simply roles being played by people in authority, not to be confused with the fine art of leading people in a common pursuit. The executive team in place was not elected by the employees. Persuasive leadership is a just a coinage that implies accepted compliance or eventual termination.

 Executives fulfilling the stockholder's desire to maximize profit are not true leaders “per se” but bosses who must exemplify great communication skills aside from administrative acumens to grow the businesses they manage. In today's business context, productivity is the singular mantra so what does this have to do with leadership?

Conclusion:
What if the real question is not so much leadership vs. management but” Can a manager be a leader and a Leader be a manager"?
I posit that there are no leaders in individual businesses or organizations: there is a figurehead and perhaps a decision maker, but that is not necessarily a leader. And then there are lots of people who manage the various aspects of the business, both process and people.
In other words, an effective combination Leader / Manager knows when it's time to put their "management hat" on, as well as when it's time to put their "leadership hat" on. And when it's time to wear "both hats", which should be majority of the time.
Changing of / revision of which hat(s) to wear can happen within days, hours, minutes, seconds, etc... It depends on "who walks in the room next with what type of issue". Neither the leader nor his people know when the leader has revised current hat. A good leader never loses sight of their leader perspective while managing and vice-versa. Consistency! Whenever approached by any situation, whoever is involved knows what they are going to receive. The complete leadership package must include the characteristics of an effective leader who is only "influenced" to a certain degree by the manager perspective.



Cristina Falcão