Tag Archives: Daniel H. Pink

Lean Back, Do The Job You’re Capable of Doing

Sometimes Doing A Job Right Means Leaning Back.

When the chief operating officer of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg wrote Lean In, she wrote it to encourage women and to argue for a more equal approach. Whether she achieves her objective remains to be seen, but she certainly got a stream of thinking going. Most of the commentary has been positive, praising her for reinvigorating feminism. Some of it has been less favourable, her insights are useful, necessary even in a culture that often assumes that everything is equal between men and women, but hardly original. For me, her book prompted a series of questions that revolve around a central question. Why do people do the jobs they do?

 

Why Do We Stay Or Go?

What makes people stay in positions they find unsatisfying while others will find new challenges?  What makes people climb the corporate ladder while others strike out on their own and start independent businesses? Daniel H. Pink, author of the book, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future, might say that those who leave have met their basic needs and now seek that upper tier of the needs pyramid. They are trying to self-actualize.

Economist might argue that we are not so much reaching for spiritual satisfaction, as we are the more basic needs of food and shelter.  In economies where jobs are scarce people are often forced to start their own businesses out of necessity rather than desire. I’m not sure what the right answer is, but that’s probably because it’s some combination of all of those things. Still, it makes me wonder why some bright capable people are increasingly finding their way to independence while other people who would be better off on their own remain inside organizations.

 

Middle Management Mindset

It would appear that there is an interesting phenomenon that happens at the middle management level. Some leaders discover that they have found their niche and stay in place. Most realize that they are out of their depth, and struggle to avoid sliding backwards or look forward towards still more responsibility. As colleagues and I once noted on seeing the upward trajectory of a particularly incompetent co-worker, the rise in success is often directly inverse to the level of incompetence. In effect, dismal workers will continue to prosper because most leaders would rather promote than fire. Some people just keep moving up as leader after leader palm their hopeless employee off on an unsuspecting department. I’ve seen this in government, high tech and countless other sectors.

The employee quite naturally assumes that they are great at what they do, so they keep doing it. Their confidence grows and thrives and they take on ever increasing challenges. That brings me back around to Lean In. Sandberg notes that studies show that a woman will chase a job if they feel they have an overwhelming number of the skills required to do the job.  While men will chase a position even if they have about half the skills, perhaps even less.  The implication is that women should give themselves an ego boost and go after the big jobs. Frankly, I find that idea disturbing.  Just because someone feels confident that they are ready for more responsibility doesn’t mean they are actually capable of delivering on it.

 

How About Something Completely Different?

I’m all for women having more confidence and tackling the big jobs, but I like their approach better.  That hesitation in the face of opportunity means that when they do leap, they are ready for the role. I wish more men behaved like women. Just for a change, why not have people go after jobs they actually had the skills to perform? I’m not saying that everyone should have one hundred percent of the skills needed before applying, that would be very tedious. I just think  it would be more productive to have employees who knew what they were doing. Leaders who knew what they were talking about. One of the reasons we have so many incapable leaders is because we keep hiring people with an emphasis on their self-confidence and not their core skills. In fact, we place so much emphasis on bravado, attitude or attractiveness that there should be no surprise that we are continuously chasing what it takes to make a great leader. It should be no surprise either that we lose good people to their own or other businesses.

What do you think? Lean in or lean back?

Image courtesy of stockimages/ FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share

Does Being A Lefty Or A Righty Make You A Better Boss?

Cover of "A Whole New Mind: Moving from t...
Cover via Amazon

Are you a right brain thinker or do you use your left brain? Which do you think makes you a better leader? My book club is currently reading Daniel H. Pink’s book, “A Whole New Mind”.  The book explores the strengths and skills of leadership from the perspective of left and right brain skills. It looks at what was needed in the past to be a successful leader and what is needed now.  To date, our leaders have leaned towards left-brain thinkers.  MBAs and lawyers who could crunch numbers and construct contracts, but he argues that the time is right for new kind of leader. Those of a more creative bend, those capable of recognizing patterns, telling stories and a generally more inventive frame of mind.

Pink suggests that in times of abundance humans begin to look for more meaningful ways of defining success. The basic premise is that that if you are living in a time of abundance (which many of us are in North America and Europe) then you start to wonder about different things. You start to aspire to achieve more emotionally complex goals. In essence, you move up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to focus on self-actualization and start to think about other, more emotionally charged means of reaching satisfaction, success or happiness…depends on your personal target.

2000px-maslows_hierarchy_of_needs-svgI might have scoffed at that thinking a little, but I just spent the last two weeks reading a variety of blogs about finding happiness, managing emotional vampires and getting past the “aaaarrgggghhh” moments in our lives.  It seems Daniel Pink might have a point about where we are in our economic and emotional development. Our definition of what defines success seems to have become more complex.  Simply having a job or even achieving monetary success is no longer enough.  We need to have a deep-rooted satisfaction with the work we do.  The blossoming blogosphere, the emergence of countless freelancers, our praise of entrepreneurial spirit, our insistence on visionary leadership and an emerging interest in working from home all speak to a desire to lead more independent and satisfying lives.  We’re looking for control and to be part of something better.

Could Daniel Pink be right about which side of the brain will make for a more effective leader in today’s environment? Do we need bosses who know how to be responsive to our more complex emotional demands? Leaders, who can think outside of the box, be holistic and intuitive because not only is it what workers are looking for, but may also be what the work we do increasingly requires.

The use of automation and less costly workers means that jobs in the first world are more complex and require a different level of thinking.  Couple that with our preoccupation with self-actualization and it makes sense that we need a different kind of leader…or does it?

In discussion with Jen Hunter, a management expert and facilitator she responded in this way when asked what her thoughts were, “Would you go to the gym and only exercise one side of your body? Unlikely, so why would you want leaders who only used one side of their brain? It doesn’t matter which half, it matters that they only use half.”

That assessment makes sense to me, but beyond that comes the big elephant in the room, the brain function itself.  While we often hear about the two sides of the brain as having distinctly different functions, they are not quite that easily defined. Much more research is still required.  So for the sake of this conversation lets simply consider that the skills we have traditionally seen as strengths for our leaders may be changing.

What do you think?  Do you think we need more right brain leadership?  Do left-brain thinkers still make for better leaders? Is the whole conversation of what drives us even relevant? Are we solving more complex problems in our jobs? Are we aspiring to more complex goals?

Want to test which side you use? Follow the 3rd link to, “Instant Personality Test”, it’s quick though I can’t speak to its accuracy.

Share