Why Women And Why Now?

See Jane Lead: 99 Ways for Women to Take Charge at Work and in Life
by Lois P. Frankel, Ph.D.

(Page 3 of 6)

Leaders can be successful only insofar as they accurately and adequately respond to the immediate needs of their followers. In other words, you must be a leader for your time. It has been suggested that generals George S. Patton and Norman Schwarzkopf could not have been interchanged. The needs of the troops dramatically shifted during the forty-year interim between World War II and the Gulf War. Whereas Patton's command-and-control style would most likely have been received with resistance by Gulf War troops, Schwarzkopf's tendency to listen carefully to the suggestions and needs of others before making decisions might have been perceived as indecisive or soft by World War II soldiers.

On the business front, and technology aside, it is highly doubtful that in this day and age Tom Watson Sr. could successfully build the giant we know as IBM, or that Henry Ford could pioneer automobile manufacturing. Achieving their respective visions was possible only because they understood the needs of their followers at the time. Watson's full-employment policy was designed to appeal to the insecurities of workers during the Depression. He knew that allowing everyone to work (albeit on reduced schedules) rather than laying people off would secure their loyalty during more prosperous times. Henry Ford's automation of the manufacturing process provided a kind of financial stability within a hierarchical framework that workers of his day craved. Both men accurately read the employment climate and used it to their advantage. Similarly, I seriously doubt that Ronald Reagan could have been elected in place of FDR, or that Mary Kay Ash could have successfully started and marketed her product at the turn of the twentieth century. Both these leaders were successful in their quests only because they understood the social climate and needs of their followers at the time.

The same holds true in society today. Bringing out the best in people is a far different game than it was even ten years ago. The reasons for this shift in worker expectations are varied and complex. They include the effects of a decade of downsizing, technological advances, shifts in workforce demographics, changes in societal patterns such as increased numbers of divorces and single-parent families, and globalization. Combined, they create a scenario in which reliance on the traditional paradigms of command and control, management over leadership, and position power no longer work.

The Demise of Command-and-Control Leadership

The days of command-and-control leadership are long gone. This style was characterized by blind adherence to strict rules, a rigidly defined and top-down hierarchical chain of command, and an emphasis on winning at any cost. Workers would respond to management demands or directives simply because they believed that the people (usually men) in authority deserved to be respected. It was born out of a masculine military model that assumed that those who possessed no formal authority had no real purpose other than to carry out the directives of management.

Although command-and-control leadership was the preferred style for the better part of the last century, it has for the most part outlived its usefulness. Even in paramilitary organizations such as fire departments, police forces, and other emergency operations, command-and-control management is of limited use. The primary way in which it continues to be valuable is during times of extreme emergency. When it works, it provides a model by which everyone can operate with maximum efficiency. When it doesn't, however, you wind up with a situation similar to what we witnessed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: confusion, lack of real leadership, an unclear chain of command, and finger pointing rather than problem solving. And when it does work, it works only for the moment. Command-and-control leadership does nothing to improve morale or productivity during nonemergency situations, which is an important issue that paramilitary organizations are being forced to examine more carefully when considering how to motivate their increasingly diverse workforces. The command-and-control model worked up until now for a number of reasons:

• The workforce, primarily white male, understood and respected the hierarchy.
• Manufacturing, the country's economic engine, lent itself to using the model.
• Years of war and the threat of war enabled men and women alike to easily comprehend the bounds of command and control.
• A relatively uneducated workforce allowed itself to be governed by the belief that those in authority knew best.
• Women and people of color were hesitant to challenge the model for fear of losing hard-won gains.

In this day of highly skilled and educated workers in which information technology, telecommuting, and flat organizations abound, command and control simply doesn't work. People don't want to be told what to do, when to do it, and how it should be done. Not only do they not want it, they won't allow it. Managers who continue to rely on the style (and there are many more of those around than you might expect) are met with subversive compliance: people doing exactly as they are told and finding nonverbal ways to sabotage the process. Consider the following examples:

• Jim, the manager of accounting, tells Jan, an accounting clerk, to prepare a report in a particular way. Jan tries to tell Jim that doing it this way doesn't take into consideration several key factors, but Jim's command-and-control style precludes him from listening. Jan dutifully prepares the report as she was told. When Jim makes a presentation to management, Jan knows full well that Jim won't be able to answer certain questions without the additional data that she suggested. Instead of discussing it again with Jim, Jan thinks, If this is what you want, this is what you get, and allows Jim to be ill-prepared and embarrassed in front of his management.

• Trey is a new PC salesperson at a local electronics store. During his training period, he politely suggests adding several services to ensure customer satisfaction that go beyond what the store currently provides. Kristen, his command-and-control manager, instructs him in no uncertain terms to do it her way or face possibly failing the store's probationary period. Several weeks later, when a customer asks for services that he had suggested but Kristen rejected, Trey refers him to a competitor he knows who does provide those services.

• Barbara is the manager of administration for a prestigious law firm. She has repeatedly tried to influence Bill, the firm's managing partner, to revise outdated policies related to compensation and benefits for the administrative staff. Command-and-control Bill refuses to budge, believing that working for the firm is privilege enough. When staff members apply for positions outside the firm, Barbara willingly gives glowing recommendations so that they can move on to more lucrative assignments, while the firm loses valuable talent.

As you can see, subversive compliance caused by outmoded command-and-control leadership approaches can cost organizations unnecessary expense in terms of turnover, mistakes, loss of customers or clients, and reduced productivity. The ways in which women have traditionally approached work and leadership provide a fresh new model from which managers of both sexes could learn and profit.

Copyright © 2007 by Lois P. Frankel, Ph.D.

About the Author

Dr. Lois P. Frankel is the president of Corporate Coaching International as well as the author of several books and numerous articles. She is internationally recognized as an expert in the field of workplace behavior. With over twenty years of experience in human resources development, she is a frequently invited guest on talk radio, television, conferences, corporate workshops, and retreats.