At the heart of every organisation that has ever existed is a mutually beneficial agreement between the organisation and the individuals that make up the workforce. Even dictatorships begin with a belief that all will benefit. Of course, dictatorships quickly become exercises in raw power which trap people in hardship, inequality and injustice. They also collapse when the oppressed finally come to believe that there is an alternative that will offer them greater benefits.
The poorer the individuals, and the fewer options they have, the more organisations are able to exercise power and exploit individuals. A slave with a master who beats him every day will gladly enter the ownership of a man who treats his slaves well. In our modern society it is hard to comprehend that starving freemen sold themselves into slavery in order that they might at least be able to eat. When one sees the terrible conditions in which factory workers lived during the industrial revolution, it is hard to imagine that people flocked into the towns from the countryside to find a better life. Back then, factory owners did not have to offer much benefit to attract workers and many knew that they could exploit workers who had little or no choice outside the factory walls.
Jump forward to our own times and these archaic attitudes are, thankfully, less and less effective. People have choices and employers must offer greater benefits. In wealthy societies like our own individuals are often looking for more intrinsic benefits. There are any number of places that can meet their need to survive (and even prosper financially) so they gravitate towards work that promises a context in which they can thrive. Whilst far from even, the agreement between individuals and organisations is more balanced than it has ever been.
Today’s managers and leaders must hold that creative tension that allows both the organisation and the individuals within it to thrive. Outside the military, command and control models of leadership are rapidly being assigned to the history books and those who still resort to them are becoming less and less effective. Today’s managers and leaders have to work to build individual engagement and, if the Gallup Q12 survey is anything to go by, many are failing. In 2017 Gallup reported that worldwide a mere 15% of employees could be considered to be engaged.
In the view of Jim Clifton (CEO and Chairman at Gallup):
“While the world’s workplace is going through extraordinary change, the practice of management has been frozen in time for more than 30 years… To summarize Gallup’s analytics from 160 countries on the global workplace, our conclusion is that organizations should change from having command-and-control managers to high-performance coaches.”
Myles’ Downey’s “Enabling Leader” model outlines an approach to leadership that goes a long way towards resolving the issues facing organisations today. The model defines three distinct conversations that enable him or her to manage both the individual and the organisation and to play a significant part in ensuring that both survive and thrive.
When seen like this, the key to organisational success is seen to be enabling employees to thrive in the pursuit of the organisational objectives. To achieve this, leaders and managers (as representatives of the organisation) need to establish an ‘enabling’ relationship with their colleagues and those who report to them. Once understood in this context, it becomes clear that each of these three types of conversation ought to have the intent of enabling the individual to thrive whilst achieving the aims and objectives of the organisation.
Working this out in the coaching conversation is relatively simple. In his book, ‘Effective Modern Coaching’, Myles Downey defines coaching as follows:
“Coaching is the art of facilitating the performance, learning and development of another.”
In other words, coaching is one of the purest forms of enabling. When in this kind of conversation the leader is focussing the conversation on the other person. Enabling their thinking, surfacing their creativity, enabling them to apply their own knowledge, understanding and skills.
It is, perhaps less obvious how the leadership and management conversations are changed by the intent of enabling an employee.
A leadership conversation is about WHY a project or role is significant. The leader provides context and direction for individual activity. A leadership conversation discusses vision, mission, and strategy. Poor leadership creates the feeling of an enforced march. This is where we are going – this is why we are going there – get in line soldier. At best, poor leadership will achieve disengaged compliance. Individuals will follow only as long as it takes them to find a path that is more beneficial to them. The enabling leader has no intent of enforcing compliance but rather of providing a context in which the individual can thrive. For the enabling leader the why conversation is an invitation to another person to join the organisation on a journey that will enable them to grow and thrive. The enabling leader works to bring together willing travellers who can see the personal benefit in focussing their efforts to achieve the organisational mission.
Stephen Covey described leadership as being focussed on doing the right things and management as being focused on doing things right. The management conversation is about WHAT the organisation does and, therefore, what the individual has signed up to do. Management defines specific roles, tasks and procedures. It makes people aware of organisational goals, standards and expectations. All of which can sound very restricting if you are a free spirit or just not the compliant type. This impression of management is not helped by the army of poor managers who see their role as to command and control. Once again, the enabling leader has no intent of enforcing compliance. The enabling leader enters a management conversation with the intent of enabling the individual to play the game well and to thrive in the playing. The management conversation provides a context of certainty in which the individual operates. The management conversation ensures the individual has the resources and skills to play the game to the best of their ability.
In our ‘Art of Enabling’ programme, we use the analogy of a game of tennis in which the umpire is analogous to a manager. By choosing to play tennis the individual has chosen to play (and find fulfilment and joy) within a set of defined rules. Far from hindering the game the umpire enables the game by ensuring that everyone on court is, in fact, playing tennis. Those who would rather play football are free to find a different context in which the referee will enable them to play the game they want to play. A good football referee or a good tennis umpire will take delight as players express their creativity and self-expression within the defined boundaries of the game.
The enabling leader builds strong relationships from which conversations of all kinds can be had. Within these conversations, she moves fluidly between the three types of conversation, establishing direction, defining the rules of the game and enabling each individual to have an opportunity to experience fulfilment and joy such that both they and the organisation can thrive.
Check out our short video explaining the ‘Enabling Leader’ model….