In
the Matrix, Neo learns Martial Arts, but to really own the art form
he must first master The Matrix, because The Matrix is the framework
in which martial arts take place. I have had multiple conversations
with new managers, or managers who have learned specific leadership
techniques, but they don't understand the broader context and
framework in which Leadership and all its parts occur.
I
understand the simplicity and interest in the techniques, its why
consultants are paid to provide you the answer of how to lead, we
read books on leadership and management to understand the techniques,
but if you bear with me in this article I wont give you any of the
explanation of how to lead but give you a breakdown of the framework
so you can create new techniques based on your context, and since the
world is constantly changing, allowing you to adapt almost at will.
Leadership
happens because of a social mechanism called authority. If someone is
in/has authority over you, you will do what they say/want and you
will act according to their desire. Their are three main forms of
Authority (Bureaucratic, Technical and Charismatic), they all require
a different skill-set, and are best utilised for different
situations.
What
is the Bureaucratic form of Authority?
Bureaucracy
is the policies, the rules, the defined structure within a given
social structure. It helps define who the boss is at work, answers
what status Geoffrey in Game of Thrones has, as resident of the Iron
Throne, explains why the King can do whatever he wants, regardless of
rationale, logic or common decency. Its why people listened to
Geoffrey and allowed him to kill prostitutes, George Bush was able to
enter an illegal war as defined by the UN, and why your boss can
dictate whether you CC them in all your emails, and if they really
want, mandate your break times, I have heard rumours Amazon, we see
you Jeff Bezos.
When
Bureaucratic authority is ideal
Its
ideal when physical compliance is all that is required.
The
Army1
is a prime example of where we can see this, watch any army movie or
talk to a military person, and you will notice a clear set of defined
policies and authority, they follow direct orders without too much
thinking and at the risk of one of the worst crimes, a ‘court
marshall’. This allowed generals and leaders to direct and dictate
to masses of people, behaviour and action to take, in extremely
stressful situations, sometimes at the expense of individual benefit,
and all done ensuring two things: Physical compliance but not just
that, usually quick physical compliance.
A
personal, micro example, as a young teenager of 13, I had a younger
brother, was watching Tinky Winky on repeat for what felt like an
age, pulling rank on my younger brother, and exclaiming ‘we will
watch what I want because I am the older brother’ felt
great, mainly because as anyone who has watched Teletubbies on repeat
can testify, there is no rapture sweeter than the freedom from those
little multi-coloured cretins making gurgling sounds and giggling
like they are laughing at me.
I
gained this freedom because in my household, the social structure and
bureaucratic authority was defined (bureaucratic authority doesn't
have to be represented by an organisational chart) by age. The older
you were, the more senior and in charge you were. I was able to make
a quick and swift decision that was quickly implemented, with little
recourse. In this situation, it was definitely the best decision, but
what if the decisions arising from bureaucracy are not the best?
When
is the Bureaucratic form of authority (and any other) at risk?
When
the outputs of any type of authority put the social structure at
risk, change or death have to occur. For a company this ‘death’
could mean being taking over by a competitor, or bankruptcy,
personally, in the case of my little brother, getting a TV in his own
room, and family communal time dying.
This
change can be twofold:
1)
The type of authority doesn't change, a new person/entity comes in
and just has better ideas that save the social structure, things
continue as is.
2)
The context changes, the benefits of burecracy outweigh the
negatives, the type of authority itself is the reason for the failure
of the structure, in these situations a new type of authority is
required.
Two
examples of the 2nd situation:
1)
In Game of Thrones When Geoffrey becomes King of the Seven Islands
and he ‘manages’ the country whilst being the worst type of
sociopath, an incompetent one. His rule and authority is maintained,
until the moment when Tyrion slaps him and takes over the control of
the war effort, as Stannis and his boats arrive on the shores of
Kings Landing. This is a time when the social structure itself is
placed in harm, when this is the case, non-efficient authority based
on bureaucracy looses its control.
2)
Once the internet revolution started, Google was born and in order to
succeed Google needed the best developers, the difference between
good and bad developers were fundamentally the difference between a
good vs bad product being made. Advertising and fancy PR work started
to lose their efficacy. Contextually its also important to note that
back in the day (10 years or so) Developers were rare and hard to
find. In essence, in order to succeed and be the best, Google had to
attract and keep the best developers. Not only that, it became
apparent that physical compliance, telling Developers what to do,
would not retain them, but more importantly, it would not help
developers to really push the envelope and produce the best and most
innovative apps. Knowing this Google created an environment that
pushed developers to succeed by actually being motivated, so yes
there was an element of Bureaucracy as there must be in all social
structures, but it was vastly different to a lot of other companies
at the time. Employees were given the freedom to work with other
colleagues, in completely different areas of business and work on any
project they wished to do so, using an allocated amount of company
time. This was one example of where less bureaucracy and direct
control produced outcomes on individuals that benefited the company,
one such product that was produced using this methodology was G-Mail.
Bureaucratic
authority is a form of authority provided by social structures and
not a personal level of authority. It works great in ensuring
structures are maintained and replicated, ideal for slower
situations, where motivation of individuals is not required and
concepts like creativity and freedom are not ideals or a requirement
for your social structure to thrive, all that is required is mere
physical compliance, especially when action needs to be taken quickly
in order for success to be achieved.
Technical
Authority – Lets start with a personal story, cos they are way
better than boring concepts.
There
was a time in my life, where nothing seemed to be going right, I was
working from home a lot, my mind was always in a haze, the right
word, the right phrase, the right way to persuade someone of any
great idea I had, alluded me. This would have been fine, until the
ideas themselves seemed to dissipate. I didn’t want to socialise
with anyone, I found it difficult to hang out with my best friends, I
felt uncomfortable in social situations. I was basically a weird
loser, so I did what all ‘normal’ males about 25-35 do. I refused
to get any help and put it down to the lack of the gym and exercise
in my life. An ‘ephinetic’ (Yes, I make up my own words) day
later, I went to the gym, got out of the house, made random fun
conversation with strangers, (something that naturally just used to
happen).
Now
motivated and psyched out, I left the house, I feel my legs burning
after 15 minutes of walking, it was like I had been running for
hours, not that I have ever ran for hours, but you know like an hour
of a P90x type workout. I managed to make awkward conversation with
random strangers, it went OK, but there was this weird feeling in the
pit of my stomach, I was anxious and uncomfortable, it wasn't
natural, it was totally forced and well whilst I think I came across
normal, it didn't feel normal, even my hands get clammy.
Forward
a few days and I was back to being stuck at home, and being the
‘weird loser’. Being socially calibrated enough, I knew, and know
I was and am totally weird (read: eccentric), but never a weird
loser. I searched the greatest minds and network of information (and
cat videos) that is the internet and found they were saying I had
mild depression and that I should take anti-depressants if I wanted
to get rid of the parasitic weird loser who had inhabited my body and
brain. I acquiesced and finally went to the Doctor. She ran some
tests but informed me that I had depression and anxiety. Obviously as
an expert, I just took her at her word and I was prescribed some
anti-depressants.
I
did what the doctor told me to, due to the technical authority that
was in play. Sticking with the idea of Doctors, I love the show
House. He is in charge of a team, and what he wants gets done, but
its because he is the smartest doctor. In the show, It doesn't matter
who is the more senior doctor, even if they are his boss, in a truly
meritocratic system, one in which technical authority reigns supreme,
the best/correct idea wins, and you do what the technical superior
person/idea says/is: That in a nutshell is technical authority and
why House was an absolute sociopathic legend, who usually always
enacted technical authority on others.
Technical
Authority… there maybe something to this.
Now,
times are a changing, and computers are on the rampage. We have a
new technical superiority in most fields, that technical superiority
is data. Google, one of the most effective companies, realised
themselves, that the best way to make decisions, is to remove human
inefficiencies, be they due to beuracractic authority or charismatic
authority. Realising decisions should be made based on ‘whoever has
the best data’. Whilst the bureaucracy means the boss makes the
decision, the boss should make the best technical decision, based on
whoever, no matter how junior, present the most compelling case,
defended by the data. Just like that, at Google, it doesn’t matter
what your position is. Decision making is based on a technical
metric/KPI (The best data) and that's where authority comes from.
The
spectrum & benefits
If
Google, one of the most profitable companies in the world did this,
of course, it must be proven to have some benefits. If Bureaucratic
authority leads to quick decisions, but at a risk doesn't motivate
and leads to physical compliance, what does technical authority lead
to?
People
understandably feel more inclined and internally obliged to follow
technical authority over beuracractic authority, because its deemed
to be the best way. There is a rationality to this authority, it is
deemed more meritocratic. This aligns people to be more willing to
follow, for the greater good, or because its the best thing to do. It
is however slower than bureaucratic authority, and is fallible. Going
back to my example, it turned out I had a vitamin D deficiency, Iron
deficiency and Hyper Thyroidism. Basically my body didn't have the
right level of vitamin, minerals and hormones. I took some pills and
few months later, the depression and anxiety were gone., my Doctor
was semi-wrong.
Charismatic
Authority
This
being the most personal type of authority makes people really focus
on value drivers, so let me get this elephant out of the way. Whilst
this applies to all authority, but its worth explicitly mentioning
when discussing charismatic authority, due to the emotive states it
makes people feel, Charismatic authority is in and of itself, value
free; Donald Trump has charismatic authority, as does Barack Obama.
Some
people call it the X-Factor, or just that ‘thing’ some people
have. I call that lazy. So instead, this is my attempt to decode
‘it’. Before I continue its important to note, charisma is not
universal, someone who is charismatic to 80% of people may not be to
you. You may hate The Donald or Mr. Obama, but objectively there are
reasons why people feel they are charismatic, or why they have
authority of the charismatic type. Charisma works on a very personal
level, so when you have this type of Authority it does naturally lead
to the green eyed monster: Jealousy, not The Hulk. Especially in
people who have one of the other two types of Authority, or
insecurity. If that hasn't put you off, let me share what I think
some of the characteristics are:
Constituent
parts of Charisma
1.
Confidence: Basically, people who believe their own hype. No matter
what it is. If you come across like you are hilarious/a genius/or any
other adjective you need, you will find that people more easily
accept it. You will naturally get tested a lot harder, because you
are putting yourself out there, but if you are able to not deterred
by this hate you have number 1 nailed.
2.
Emotions. I don't mean be all touchy feely, as much as that could
help, with 1 and 2. What I mean is make people feel emotions. Any
emotions work, but the most effective emotion on the world stage
nowadays is fear, which Yoda believes leads to anger, but that's
another conversation, for another day, Yoda I mean, not fear leading
to anger. If you see Donald Trump with his ability to make people
feel angry at Hilary Clinton for being an e-mail criminal. I use this
example on purpose, because all the left wing liberals are surely
saying, ‘what a load of fake news’ and Trump supporters are
saying ‘lock her up’. Emotions, skew our view of the world and
are antithetical to logic; The emotions you make people feel don't
have to make sense, but if felt, they work, because well, people (I
include myself and anyone who isn't on the autism spectrum) are
stupid and logic is bypassed when we feel.
3.
So if you are acting confidently, you are making people feel an
emotion, the final step on this action list, which could easily come
first to be fair, is to convince people you are on their team.
Empathise with their position, make it you vs someone or something
else. ‘Those
darn Mexicans talking all our jobs’
for example, but really this can be used in way less of a sinister or
macro political level.
Micro
example of charismatic authority:
I
have been blessed to work for one of the most charismatic leaders I
know. This person is very confident, I know this because of two main
things: He willingly makes very large public addresses, which is one
of the most fearful things for most people, to add to it, it seems as
thought he is going unscripted and largely plays it on the cuff. This
leads to mistakes, corrections and minor gaffs, but in doing all
this, he does it in a calm, accepting manner, with a nice wide warm
smile. Importantly non of the mistake effects his flow, it is just a
part of his natural style. This ability to seem unaffected shows
great levels of confidence. He also shows lots of vulnerability in
telling you mistakes he has made in the past, or about himself in a
non positive way, only super confident people do this. So Confidence
and step 1 done.
When
making his public addresses, he tells stories, stories are the most
effective way to communicate with groups of people. We are inclined
and are naturally endowed with the ability to listen and follow a
good story, I purposefully did this at the technical authority stage,
because in my opinion its the most boring, and I wanted us to get
through it. What this leader does do, is indicate how we must be
feeling, or talk through situations of how we could feel, through
examples in his stories, he mentions these emotions.
Whilst
telling his story, he makes repeated points of indicating how we are
all in it together, how we are a family, the indication of times he
has fought/done things for the group being addressed. It is because
of these traits, he is the most charismatic leader I have ever worked
for, and this is the kicker, even though I know why he is
charismatic, it doesn't matter, he is able to change my emotions and
therefore thoughts and actions.
Our
brains, authority and people doing stuff.
Our
brains have evolved on three different levels. We have our reptilian
brain, which is all about fight or flight, making sure we stay alive,
its super quick and unconscious. We have our mammalian brain, this is
the one mammals share with us, it allows us to feel emotions, and
finally we have our Neo-cortex, or as I like to call it the clever
brain, this is the one other animals don't have, and why we can
figure out Algebra and why we know Wifi isn't magic.
I
believe each of these authorities can be loosely aligned to each of
these brains.
Bureaucratic/Reptilian
– Great in making quick decisions, even if that decision isn't
always the best one. You do things without thinking. Bureaucratic
authority is usually accepted, or seen as just the way things are, or
for the best. Exactly like moving your hand out of fire is quick
instant and doesn't need to be thought of, it just is.
Charismatic/Mammalian
brain – This one is very powerful, ever heard the term love is like
insanity, well it is, because your emotive brain has all these
emotions and crazy hormones going through it, you do things, which
you then regret later, when your brain calms down. Well its
charismatic authority that makes us feel and want to do things, which
again may not be the best thing to do in hindsight.
Neo-cortex/Technical
– This is the thinking things through, its slow, its hardwork, but
in the end the more decisions you make because you thought it through
logically, or you listen and do something because the person has
technical superiority over you, chances are you will be onto a
winner. It is these situations and authority which usually lead to a
meritocracy, and doing the ‘right (most effective) thing’
The
best formulae
The
last point to make clear is the ability to utilise multiple level of
authorities at the same time, and the late Steve Jobs is a great
example of this. He was the leader of Apple and made all decisions
with an iron first. Bureaucratic Authority – Check! He was also a
visionary and who understood human nature and product development
better than almost any one in the industry – Check! He was
extremely confident and myopic to the extent no competing voices were
really heard. He had a vision, he was great at selling the vision and
making people feel the new product, you should see his Iphone keynote
for this.
You
probably think Steve Jobs may not have been charismatic, and that's
fine, because charisma by its very nature is very subjective and very
useful in making change happen. What is important, is that you don't
become a hater, you probably expect me to say, because no one likes
haters. The real reason is because hating will reduce your
charismatic authority, because being happy is very closely aligned to
confidence.
Whether
you should want authority, or if its worth it, is a whole other ball
game, but at least with this newfound knowledge of The Matrix of
authority, I leave you with the words the great Neo left his masters,
upon understanding his Matrix: ‘the choice is yours, where we go
from here I leave to you’
1I
use this as a stereotype, the US army no longer use this method of
control, in its pure form.
No comments:
Post a Comment