Old windows into an organization see control by powerful leaders. The leaders run everything.
Orders come down from the high command. And, often leaders control others by keeping secrets.
From our political windows into our organization, we see ourselves (as leaders) holding the power of our position. And, from our position we defend ourselves from our competitors who want our same position. Our competitors have their own beliefs, values, and agendas. They want access to our power to compete for their share of scarce resources in our organization. Our own challenge is to establish personal 'credibility'.
If we focus on our similarities then we can talk and listen. If we focus on our differences then we will neither talk nor listen.
Meanwhile, new procedures may emerge from ongoing bargaining among major power groups. Sometimes new people will attempt to legitimatize their leadership by dominating this action.
In our public information organizations (like schools), the control may be more decentralized.
The control is by people with tenure rather than by our legitimate leaders.
The power group in a school district may be the teachers’ union. But, many may think the BOE or the CEO has the power. The use of power grows from the ongoing contest for the same resources.
We assume that the resources are scarce. We assume that if we get the power then we will get ahead. We assume that if get ahead then we will be considered highly valuable.
But, others may assume that if we get power then we may use it to harm people.
Power and politics can demean and destroy. Or, if we want our organization to perform at an optimum level then we can apply politics as a useful tool. We can use power and politics to increase the size of the pie rather than to assume the pie is fixed in size.
From our software programming windows into our organization, we see emails and blogs reducing the half life of a secret to ten seconds. If our competitors (other potential leaders) must gain their credibility by keeping secrets then they fight the flow of our future programming tools.
If our competitors gain their credibility by building 'learning networks' and including the email
addresses of more and more people then they add new resouces to their ability to increase the size of our pie -- and at a lower cost.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
jsweitze--I don’t agree with the article that in order to lead you must have secrets. This concept does not define highly successful individuals or organizations. It defines organizations that are stagnate. As I previously wrote, highly successful leaders and organizations develop their leaders, then get out of the way and let them lead the way. As a leader, your goal is to promote growth, through the development of your people. Successful leaders recognize this and look for ways to develop their people because if their people are successful, then indeed they will be successful.
All leaders have secrets that they hold in order to run their company. This is called politics within an organization. Secrets that are divulged will only increase trust issues within an organization. Secrets that are told make people suspicious and not completely dedicated to the job.
I agree that secrets are a part of doing business in today's society. We all have them or know of them, and we all use them whether it is for personal advancements/gain or the benefit of the group. The higher you go within an organization the more you learn about the business (politics) of being in charge. Some of the secrets you my inherent from your predecessors or allies and some will be discovered on your own. In either case it is important that the senior leadership develop and mentor junior leaders to use this knowledge wisely in order to develop the next generation of leadership. Again this sort of information can be used to control situations, events or people as well as to gain the trust or provide insight into a particular situation.
I would think any leader would have secrets, especially where to get the information they need to lead. A leader will head off problem before they explode into a larger problem. For example, do we as citizens really need or want to know the secrets that are told to our leaders at the national level? Though being an administrator at a school would be to a lesser scale, I'm sure that many "secrets" do not need to be aired to the public.
Jen- He who has the knowledge has the power, including secrets. In business keeping company secrets is essential, coca cola's secret recipe. Military secrets, do we really want our strategies and weapons info. available to anyone. There are justifiable reasons to limit general knowledge. As a school administrator, the same applies.
I feel a leader should have secrets in terms of "protecting the staff." Let me further explain, when conducting my interview I found that assistant principals and principals may not agree as principals and superintendents may not agree. One example he provided was his intention to suspend a community leaders child and the principal did not agree. Instead of becoming an adversary and showing inconsistency to staff, he would act as if he and the superintendent agreed. This was in fact a secret, but it was necessary to maintain continuity. He said he eventually would bring a scenario (not a student name) and state his position and the principal would agree even after he found out who the infraction was for. Again, I believe administration is a position that demands humility.
I agree that all leaders and leadership groups have secrets, but this almost always leads to conflict, as is evident in negotiation talks or grievances. Everything is not laid out on the table, so each side has to work from a position of suspicion. This suspicion then carries over into the normal workplace and day, causing continued suspicion and mistrust. Another prime example of secrets are closed door Board Meetings, where many items of business are talked about and seem to be just decided upon willy-nilly (great word, huh?). This then creates a mistrust between the teachers/union and Board, even though each are doing their job in the way they believe is correct.
I am not sure if I agree with the statement, “If we focus on our similarities then we can talk and listen. If we focus on our differences then we will neither talk nor listen,” because sometimes I think it is good to examine differences in groups to better learn about other groups and even shed some light about the group a person is in.
I also am in disagreement with the statement, “From our political windows into our organization, we see ourselves (as leaders) holding the power of our position.” Not true entirely, because sometimes people in positions below the main person, have more “power.” I think the focus of politics from an organization stems from more than just position with correlated power. Politics in an organization arises not only from position (or title), but interpersonal relationships, tenure (as the summary suggests), the size of the organization, and the ability to get others to “believe your side.” I have visited some high schools and left with the impression that in some cases, the athletic director appeared to have had a greater amount of power than the principal in some instances. So position does not always equate with power. I think in schools and school systems, the power appears hierarchal, but is complicated by the intricacies of interpersonal relationships, tenure, status of union or non union, and vast size of the educational institution as a whole—and these intricacies comprise the politics of the educational system as a whole.
I don’t think that “adding email addresses increases the credibility of a companies resources to increase there size of the pie.” In fact, adding email addresses is like a person who keeps on adding sugar to the pie---eventually, its too much, doesn’t taste right and its not called a pie anymore---it’s called a large tart. I don’t see the correlation between email addresses and ability, but if anyone knows of a study to read, I am eager to hear from you. I think if ones focus was on adding email addresses, they would spend more time responding to emails, rather than focusing on the task at hand. Also, what if you work in a school system in which most of the students do not have access to a computer at home?
I wanted to make a quick statement about the e-mail dated 10/10/07. There were 5 links associated with this message and I read through all 5 of them which I found to be very inclusive. Obviously some thought went into this and I do not believe that each “action oriented idea” can be put into a simple sentence or sentences for that matter. Although there were 5 different areas with multiple supporting ideas they each deserve merit and should be addressed as independently that support the main goal. Each subideacontains their own set of dynamics and supporting task as well. So in short I think a simple or single sentence would be a disservice.
SUBMITTED BY:SCOTT
Leaders use secrets as a tool in our society to run and control an organization. The person with the most availability to informatin, and the abillity to effectively use that information always has a huge advantage over those who are not privy to that same information. Secrets are a way to limit who has access to what information.
This is a side note comment to this summary. Reading the articles given by Dr. Phil it is interesting that many of the articles have mentioned the process of knowing information, but what do we do with the know? How do we prepare for the know or the "secrets" that we will be given. Is the university giving us practical experience to be prepared for certain situations that future leaders my be experience?
It seems the majority of the group feels the need for secrets, but how many things do we not tell as we assume that it is unimportant? This job is a business and being able to have a proverbial ace in one's sleeve may be the difference in being replaced or retained. I really do feel the need for conflicts in a group in order to launch new ideas. Think of the develops we made because of WWII compared to what gets done with a panel of "Yes Men".
Yes conflicts can be a good thing. Depenbding on the personalities involved, conflicts cna bring out great problem solving skills, and new ideas.
Interesting to know.
Post a Comment