July 9, 2009

I Can Do Better

Posted in Business, Life tagged , , , , , , , , , , at 10:26 pm by lindaslongview

My blog post of yesterday, Pace and Priority, did not meet my own standards.  It changed direction, ended abruptly, and did not provide a clear sense of navigating short view vs. long view.  Today I hope to improve…

In Pace and Priority, I describe a disconnect between “say” and “do” in the context of  “action items” for a guidance document in a community organization.  There is no doubt that all of the participating volunteers mean well in agreeing to perform certain tasks (action items), yet we have struggled to achieve traction.

I started yesterday’s post on the topic of lack of priority for the work, but the more I explored the idea, the more I realized that my thinking was too narrow.  First, I realized that there was no way for anyone to establish priority without knowing the full range of obligations and expectations each participant was juggling – only each participant can do that for him/herself.  As such, I changed direction and ended abruptly with the suggestion that people must be responsible for their own consistency with respect to “say” vs. “do.” Yet there was more to it, I just could not put my finger on it immediately…

Leadership plays an important role in defining priorities and motivating others. This is true in both market and social norms (for more detail, see Finishing School).  Specifically, in the context of market norms (PAID to do work), there is obligation to make progress against the priorities of the organization. Conversely, in the context of social norms (volunteers gain RECIPROCITY), there is no obligation.

Leadership expectations in a mixed market and social group, thus, have complex dynamics.  Add shared leadership and complexity increases.  Thus, setting priority and motivating participants in these environments requires long view thinking.

TruthTableANDI compare the shared leadership situation to the mathematical logical (Boolean) AND function, which operates on two logical propositions (true or false) and produces a value of true if and only if both of its operands are true.  If one leader demonstrates priority (true condition) and the other does not (false condition), then participants can conclude the efforts are not a priority (true AND false = false) and will not likely establish priority for their own.

The only condition when participants conclude that efforts are a priority is when both leaders demonstrate priority. In the case of paid and volunteer participants sharing leadership, the engagement of the paid leader is likely to create a higher level of influence on the participants than the volunteer.  I assert this based upon the observation that if it is a priority to the person that it impacts most (the paid leader), it is important.  Thus, my long view advice is to ensure that paid leadership be actively engaged, demonstrating by example that the effort is important.

Although yesterday’s advice was useful (create consistency between personal “say” and “do”), it was not sufficient.  Complex leadership situations require thoughtful understanding.  For the specific case of shared leadership within a mixed market and social group, leadership alignment and active participation by the paid leader is critical to achieving a consistent message of priority for participants. Once achieved, then personal consistency becomes important.

Whew!  I hope that made sense and was helpful.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: