|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Akintomide Akinola is a research engineer, serial entrepreneur and writer. He currently develops technology solutions and also consults on deep strategy, principles and Leadership. You can reach him on info@shootfishmedia.com and on 08104914098.
Bear with me, it’s about to get cultural. Gert Hofstede developed a model called the cultural dimensions theory. In its initial model it ranks values of a society along four dimensions. Individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance (Social Hierarchy) and task orientations vs person orientation. The theory has been deconstructed ad nauseam so I will not bore you with all the dimensions; two more dimensions have been added over time. You can take a look at Hofstede’s book Culture’s Consequences as well as multiple articles by Hofstede and Galit Ailon in the Academy of Management Review.
I want to talk pragmatically about power distance as a parameter, and relate it to power structures and their effect in decision making. For those into moderately large words, I will consider democratic power structures vs aristocratic and/or tyrannical, and believe me. Politics has nothing to do with it.
Power distance refers to the distribution of power, and also how power is viewed and accepted by less powerful people. In a high power distance society the relationship between leadership and staff is one of dependence. The staff look up to management for provision and direction, they are dependent on leadership and staff, the power structure can be referred to as top down, power flows from the top. This can be called aristocratic or tyrannical depending on what management style rocks your canoe. Examples of high power distance countries or territories are India (77 out of 100), Nigeria (80 out of 100), China (80 out of 100), and Singapore (74 out of 100).
In low power distance societies the relationship between leadership and staff is interdependent, power structure can be referred to as flat or even bottom up. This is more democratic, with leadership and staff in a relationship where they need each other, direction flows in a feedback loop. Examples of low power distance countries are United States (44 out of 100), Australia (36 out of 100), and Germany (34 out of 100).
Neither model is wrong or right. These are cultural observations. Countries with high and low power distances have proved themselves to be competent in executing projects, solving problems and achieving set milestones. So both high and low power index paradigms work. There are however some built in protocols and some impossibilities.
Top down systems depend on the strength of the leader. Benefits accrue to the entire organization when the leader’s decision-making is on point; flawless execution is on sheer force of personality, and the staff are grateful not to have either the power or the responsibility that may lead to wrong turns in the organization. On the flip side, the organization is more likely to be afflicted by a cult of personality. When the leader makes significant errors, there are no checks and balances. Nobody can step up to the big boss and challenge decision making. Here we now see errors get compounded and become contagions. Micromanagement and failure of strategy and execution will follow. Case studies include Zimbabwe, Oceanic bank of Nigeria, intercontinental bank of Nigeria, Caterpillar Incs strategy of expanding to track peak consumption of heavy equipment, and current foreign exchange policy in the CBN of Nigeria and the State of Venezuela.
Successes however include the Singaporean model of governance, the Chinese Economic miracle, the Indian Solar power roll out and the model cities of Pune and Hyderabad in India. Top down governance can work as long as the leader or master architect of the plan is an expert of the theory and the practice in the field of endeavour.
Let’s now look at low power index countries. Democratic systems have shared responsibilities, multiple levels of redundancies, and high levels of accountability. Data and decisions can and are challenged at any level and ideas are debated vigorously. On occasions large amounts of responsibility and power are delegated to inexperienced staff with disastrous consequences. It also drives a hyper competitive environment which can lead to power plays and politicking. Failures include the VW diesel emissions scandal in Germany, Abu Ghraib prison tortures by US MP’s in Iraq (though the US army can be considered a high power structure organization). The financial crash of 2008, the dot com bust of 2001, Probably Brexit and the multiple failures of French Police to detain terrorists that later executed the Paris shootings and Charlie Hebdo killings.
Successes include the parliamentary models of governance in Europe, the model of governance in the United States, The nation state of Switzerland and the development of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the iPhone , twitter and the Oculus VR.
Even with this national culture, it does not always scale. Examine in contrast organizational culture. This is one area of leadership that is not always addressed but is critical in the growth of the staff of an organization, with culture power distance just one of the Parameters that Hofstede developed. There are a total of six. Power distance goes a long way however in determining if an abusive or healthy structure is in place. And a company can create a specific culture while considering national culture. Bullying, sexism, psychological and verbal abuse can be a sign that power structures are skewed and that a tyrannical type is in a leadership position or that there is peer bullying. This can signal that bad abuse is tolerated. Also disasters cannot be easily averted if there is a high power distance; corruption is left unchecked and modelled.
The reverse is in low power distance organizations; accountability can be lost if teams are unwilling to challenge each other, critical work will slip and not get done and inexperienced staffers left to suffer in their incompetence if sufficiently strong mentors are not present. This is one of the challenges faced in start-ups and mid to large organizations, as individuals go up to speed on a new project or roll out, the mentoring and coaching becomes the single most important item. If coaching and mentoring is done it leads to autonomy at lower levels of staff, decisions are made quicker and the organization moves faster and is more responsive to opportunities. The process is intense and if it fails, the whole organization can fail with it.
A cult of leadership is only as good as its leader, and if developed in an organization. Today’s leader may be a wise and excellent manager. Who can guarantee tomorrow?
Akintomide Akinola
