Bottoms Up: Leadership Style For A Better World

Of all the discussions I write about on this site, there is one dilemma that I think is the most fundamental of all; one essential choice for managers to make: are you going to use a directive top-down leadership style, or are you more leaning towards a bottom-up facilitating kind of attitude? I know, this is not specific for Project Management, but for management and leadership in general.

Photography by Suneko.

Scientific Management

Traditionally we are used to a directive and central leadership style. This can be largely attributed to the rise of Scientific Management at the beginning of the previous century. Frederick Taylor became famous with his Principles of Scientific Management. He actually walked into factories with a stopwatch, actually measured how fast people were assembling widgets and how many hand movements it took to assemble each one. Though today’s average worker might find this behavior intrusive and disruptive, it made sense within the mindset of the Industrial Revolution. A company was regarded as a machine, a newly invented tool that made a previously inconceivable degree of progress possible. Within a machine, one would find many cheap nuts and bolts that could be easily replaced. Every element in the machine has a single, simple function. The ultimate goal was to create an organization that wasnt dependent on a single individual; every single worker could be replaced in this efficient machine.

Taylor took processes and broke them down into smaller steps. The smallest steps would be optimized for efficient performance, which also meant that people were doing the same step all of the time. This lead to the separation of planning and execution, where other people would determine in detail what workers should do: the dawn of middle management. If your goal is achievable by, and defined in terms of, efficient and repeatable steps, there is no room for a trial-and-error approach. Steps were analyzed upfront, planned and perfectly executed. The result had to be good. If the output was not good, the plan was not executed correctly.

The problem with this reasoning is people are not machines. You cannot throw an instruction to the bottom of the corporate food chain, expecting that the employees will pick it up and without questions will execute the instructions. No way. People need motivation, people need to be involved in the creation of the tasks they will have to perform.

Reliance on a command and control leadership style to achieve short-term results undermines the quality and maturity of the workforce. It creates a dependence on being told what to do which undermines innovation and initiative. (source)

Another side effect of the Scientific Management approach is that people are most of the time judged by how well they comply to the preset goals in the plan. If you do not comply to the goals this is seen as a failure. The creative solution to counter this is just to rapport that you met the goals, even if you didnt.

Photography by Audi Inspiration.

Bottom Up Management For A Better World

A main force behind my thinking is the conviction that a management style from the bottom up, instead of top down is more effective. Main reason for this is that by being stimulating and facilitating people are better equipped to perform their tasks: higher motivation, less stressed and more able to absorb complexity. If you read the article about metaphors you can tell that I am convinced that if this style of management is in your brain, you have a more tolerating, productive and positive mind set, one that is based upon trust instead of fear. I am convinced that educating around the globe about this style (instead of the old top-down directive leadership style) will have an amazing impact on more than just how businesses are run. It is about a better human-human interaction.

Do I dare to say, a better, more ethical sustainable world?

Some managers would object to this style; they think that if you leave people unattended by themselves, they will do only the stuff they want to do, the tasks they like. And that ain’t work. Concepts like student-syndrome and Parkinsons-law are often quoted in this context. However, in reality it seems that only very few people are out to sabotage the work of a team. Student-syndrome and Parkinsons-law are merely consequences of low job-satisfaction, so not some fundamental evil dark side of humans.

This doesn’t mean that everybody will have ideal, Utopian behavior. But this also doesn’t mean they are all out to kill a project. And even if there would be 1 in many that might have a tendency to show disruptive behavior, you would be applying the top down, authoritative style only for him, this very, very small minority of the team population. The most intrusive influence on a team (the management style) would be based upon a particular kind of behavior with a very low probability of happening. In other words, you are punishing the majority of the team, just because you might have one goofball.

The answer to the dilemma from the first paragraph is in my opinion definitely bottom up. And I am not suggesting that we should sniff each other like ants to coordinate (although we might learn something from paying more attention to animals). I don’t think we should write of the Project Manager. Yet. You have to think more along the lines of “a PM as a project concierge”. He is taking care of the mechanisms, making sure all is working fluently. Provide the team the information they need. Be the guide.

Now we only have to proof that this will lead to world peace, and the acceptance of this leadership style is in the pocket.