It has occurred to me recently that the way leaders lead has a lot to do with their fundamental orientation toward how the world works. If I believe that there are limited resources available and that it´s a zero sum game in which when you get more, I get less, I will make decisions to support this perspective. I am likely to treat employees as if I need to take advantage or in turn, they will. I may assume that people have a natural dislike of work and will do as little as possible unless I require them to meet strict standards and regularly report on their progress.
If, on the other hand, I have a deeply held trust in the desire of individuals to do their best work and seek mutually beneficial solutions, I will lead differently. It may mean that I give the people in my organization more space to experiment, to explore dissenting opinions and to choose how they accomplish their tasks.
Sound familiar? Not that I don´t ever have an original idea, but this is not one of them. Douglas McGregor, an American social psychologist first proposed this notion with his famous Theory X and Theory Y models (The Human Side of Enterprise, 1960). Good ideas are worth repeating, it seems to me. It also seems to me that the high levels of employee disengagement that we are experiencing are in large part due to a preponderance of Theory X leaders in our workplaces today.
I interviewed Meg Wheatley recently as part of our weekly Thought Leader webcasts. She talked about the need for leaders to trust their people, to trust the collective intelligence of the group and their ability to generate and implement solutions. She provided a powerful metaphor for effective leadership. She described the role of leader as "host". We discussed the importance of the leader being effective at engaging people in conversations that encourage them to contribute their ideas. These types of conversations are open-ended and are quite distinct from the vast majority of meetings that are held in meeting rooms all over the world. Rather than being focused solely on efficiencies, quick decisions and action items, these conversations would serve as powerful ways to connect people to their work and to their work community. Given that many people are addicted to speed and concrete output, these types of conversations may be difficult to launch initially. The current culture in the organization may look at them as time wasted or exercises in pondering one´s navel. I, on the other hand, think she´s onto something big.
If we can begin to converse in our meeting rooms about where people find meaning in their work, ask about their priorities and places where they see opportunity, perhaps we can begin to re-engage a workforce that is desperate to improve organizational life.
As for Theory X and Theory Y, I´m going to look further into McGregor´s models to see how deeply these orientations run and whether or not an X can become a Y. In the meantime, you might want to consider whether your managers are aware of their fundamental orientation as an X or a Y, the assumptions that go with it and how it impacts their behavior.
