How should we understand leadership and management in a network?
Leadership and management in a network might be defined as an ensemble of actors that, at its best, performs in harmony according to each actor's particular functional skills and competence.
The leadership team is seen as a whole, and individual leaders and managers as its part.
I consider extremely fruitful this idea that social life should be explained, not by the notions of those who participate in it, but by more profound causes which are unperceived by consciousness, and I think also that these causes are to be sought mainly in the manner according to which the associated individuals are grouped.
Emile Durkheim, 1879
Emile Durkheim’s reflection hints at the difficulties we face in understanding the texture of leadership and management.
At one level, we can attempt to explain the interactions of an organisational management system from direct observation. This approach is seldom sufficient as there is too much that is subtle and so hidden from observation. So, to improve the quality of our understanding, we might explore the deeper layers of an individual leader’s subconscious to determine the motivations that drive his or her cognitive processing and observed behaviour. For instance, we might ‘profile’ the physical, emotional and intellectual needs of great leaders and managers to generate a rich source of data on which we can build a more compelling and predictive model of leadership and management. Typically, this is the approach favoured by business schools where budding executives are posed the essay topic:
Explain how [insert name great leader here] embodies the characteristics of the most successful of leaders.
This approach is based on two assumptions: first, that leaders are born, not made, and second, that great leaders will always arise when needed. In the meantime, the best the majority of us can do is mimic these great men's characteristics.
Leadership is a pervasive and elemental part of the organisational scaffolding of every organisation. It defines who has the authority to decide, direct and coordinate. However, most of those seeking to change their organisation are too quick to leave the understanding of leadership at this level.
In most organisations, a hierarchical structure where authority, accountability and responsibility rest clearly with position and notions of leadership and management are straightforward. As we move closer to an organisational form that allows the individual to flourish, the supposed precision often associated with hierarchical control becomes problematic. For example, in today's networked, integrated and seamless organisation (or maybe the future), leaders may need to expand their classical understanding of ‘leadership’ and ‘management’.
In a network, a decentralised approach to leadership and management philosophy is required to overcome the inherent problems of operating in a dynamic business environment. It is an environment where small, independent, and increasingly geographically dispersed functional groups operate over large distances. Consequently, there is a need to give maximum autonomy and responsibility for decision-making to the level best able to make a decision.
Flexibility to manoeuvre and adapt to local conditions is highly valued in a network. It is an environment in which decision-making responsibility can shift easily, and every leader must be capable of exercising that responsibility. This may not necessarily be at the lowest level, nor will it, by default, be the highest level.
Broadly, leadership and management in a network might be defined as an ensemble of actors that, at its best, performs in harmony according to each actor's particular functional skills and competence. The leadership team is seen as a whole, and individual leaders and managers as its part.
The leadership and management system becomes the philosophical grease that ensures that through adherence to the organisation’s overall objective, the parts are arranged (they are coordinated) and enabled (they cooperate) to achieve the collective objective, making the most productive use of all the available organisational assets, including people.
In a network, the individual talents of each leadership team member have different skills and experiences, which, through exposure to simulated environments or through operational experience, results in shared mental models of organisational performance. Additionally, they have confidence in each other (understanding that each will respond consistently given the same conditions) and trust (in conditions of true uncertainty, they will act in a way that maximises the ability to achieve the organisational objectives) that ultimately contribute to high-performing teams.
A shared organisational culture combined with common socialisation and training enables a new entrant to the leadership team to quickly become a functioning part of the broader leadership team. The individual leader is an interchangeable part that can be accommodated into the broader network system according to their specialist skill and competence. But mostly, they can accommodated because the confidence of other leaders in the network is assumed through adherence to common induction standards. Trust can be established through behaviour on the job.
Our usual conversations about leadership and management seem focused on preparing individuals for operation in a classic hierarchy. In a network organisation, marked by speed, uncertainty and operations at the boundary, we might be better served by preparing leadership and management teams to act in an organisational system with an ensemble's characteristics rather than a collection of individuals that exercise positional authority.
