Making Workplaces Work Better

By Daniel Robin

This article calls into question some of the basic assumptions of conventional leadership:  the myths that the hero leader is compatible with the modern workplace, that leaders should motivate and empower others, and that leaders are born, not made.  These assumptions are simply mistakes – not in the sense that they are inconsistent with “truth” or reality (whatever you assume to be true often makes it so), but rather that there’s a much better way to go.

Although there is much to be admired in the archetype of heroic leaders – those severed from their community to accomplish difficult tasks through unfavorable odds – it is my belief that, in today’s workplaces, this approach usually backfires.  Even when these courageous leaders contact and actually listen to those whom they serve, and they remember to acknowledge their contributions (or lack of interference), there’s still a dilemma.

Whether selflessly or selfishly motivated, hero leadership delivers an unintended message:  “guts gets glory.”  So if you hog it (the glory) a little, you probably had to make a personal sacrifice, so go right ahead.  Not a good precedent.  This is the gateway to resentment, violations of trust, and the need to call in expensive team-building consultants.

But when leaders get so caught up in the goal they forget to check in with the team, we experience and perpetuate a “white knight” syndrome – a “rescue us from ourselves” mentality soon follows, which unintentionally hitches up the victim/victimizer wagon.  This chain link fence of dysfunction is hard to break.  Indeed, if we somehow co-create a problem from which we need to be rescued, let’s not glorify the heroic acts of those few who saved us; unfortunately, that will likely give rise to more near disasters to ensure full-time hero employment.  Instead, let’s seal off that option by learning something so we can cleverly avoid “going there” again.

In order to learn, people must feel safe (trust), at choice (able to make a commitment to learning) and develop awareness of what and how to make changes.  Conventional notions of hero leaders do not engender such an environment.  By eliminating the “thought virus” (the self-perpetuating idea) that we are to wait for hero leaders before we take personal responsibility for getting what’s wanted, we can pinpoint those traits that we would all want to emulate, and build a team that is:

How many of us learned that effective leaders motivate and empower others to serve the organization?  Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?  In fact, it’s a setup.  If you assume your job is to motivate others, or worse, if you buy into the complaint “Your leadership doesn’t motivate me,” what does that say about who is ultimately responsible for their motivation?  The assumption is that somehow you are.  The same goes for empowerment.  Even in the least functional organizations, people still motivate and empower themselves …. a servant leader has the ability (and the nerve) to expect people to take personal responsibility for being motivated and powerful, and offers support and serves others to make it real.

Even if someone “works for” you, they are not here to serve you, as attractive as that may be to those with situational power (due to position, rank, or title).  Bear in mind that leadership comes from many people in many places, not just from the top.  If we lead by simply serving others, we help create a healthy, collaborative culture that encourages others to not only motivate and empower themselves, but to take initiative – to become leaders in their own right.   

Discuss this topic online using ABetterWorkplace FORUM (free registration)