The oven is wide enough now
A little anecdote came to me, which revolves around a cooking recipe: In a family there was an old recipe for the preparation of a fish dish. It has been passed down from generation to generation. The youngest offspring watched and helped and learned it as well. Part of the recipe was to remove the head and tail of the fish. No one knew why this had to be the case, but it had always been passed on as an important element of the recipe. At some point, a family member investigated and found out that in the past the ovens were much narrower and therefore the fish usually just did not fit in the oven! That was the only reason.
When we do something, we should first of all know why we do it this way. The question of the reason is legitimate and necessary. It is neither inappropriate, superfluous, nor disrespectful.
In particular, common established processes must be questioned at least to the extent that one learns the criteria that underlie them. If no one in the company can provide the latter information, the probability of having come across a “process cadaver” is not small.
Unfortunately, questioning can also be seen as destructive and kind of illegal. But it is absolutely necessary and should rather be perceived as constructive, after all, it serves the goal of improving existing processes. In my experience, why this pursuit is sometimes undesirable depends on personal sensitivities, distribution of tasks and roles in the company and also on the preservation of property rights. Especially if the latter is paired with the application of classic hierarchical leadership models with task creation, allocation to subordinates and control of the final results by the superior. The result is a highly change-resistant system, which may even be actively designed by employees and the status quo is defended. The first step to change, therefore, is to end this old-fashioned view of leadership and management. Unfortunately, it is deeply rooted and often still completely self-evident. But where does this concept, which can be reduced to command and obedience, actually come from?
The best known are a clear boundary order and chains of command from the military. Tasks and their execution were given by the commander and were simply a command and orders are known to be followed immediately and unconditionally. Why was this so? In the 17th century, the first states began to build a solid army, a so-called “standing army”. So a presence army that was never dissolved. In order for this to be possible, it was not chosen large, but they took everyone you could get. In particular, people who were generally not trusted to make decisions themselves and to understand the complex ordered military processes. It was the time of the so-called line tactics (also called linear tactics), when the men of the infantry were set up next to each other in width and had to reload their front loaders as quickly as possible in order to be able to fire again at the same time. Marching in lockstep was just as much a part of it as the precise turning or swivelling of the various departments of foot soldiers. To make all this possible, an enormous drill and a high level of discipline were indispensable. The slightest doubt of orders was severely punished in order to simply nip in the bud a rebellion against the harsh exercise. It also curbed desertification, which unfortunately had been common until then and could threaten the existence of a standing army. Last, but not least, quickly following orders in a battle, without asking questions and without hesitation, can be life-saving.
For the military, this approach certainly made sense. But even there, one begins to stop thinking in terms of military order, chain of command, and blind obedience. Especially one of the most powerful armies in the world, the US army, has been forced to rethink at the latest since its fight against al-Qaeda and IS in Iraq. See the inspiring book “Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World” by General Stanley McChrystal:
Speed and interdependence had rendered our environment in Iraq incompatible with the vertical and horizontal stratification that had maintained military order for centuries. The distance that carefully regulated information had to travel, and the wickets through which decisions had to pass, made even the most efficient manifestation of our system unacceptably slow. The chains of command that once guaranteed reliability, now constrained our pace; the departmental dividers and security clearances that had kept our data safe, now inhibited the exchanges we needed to fight an agile enemy; the competitive internal culture that used to keep us vigilant, now made us dysfunctional; the rules and limitations that once prevented accidents now prevented creativity.
So if the military, which originally developed and introduced the idea of blind command and obedience for good reason, concludes that there are complex environments, and this approach does not work there, how can companies, blind and without asking, cling to such outdated mechanisms? Why is the idea that there is a thinker and leader who dictates their actions to a pack of dependent subordinates still so popular? What are the supposed advantages that everyone seems to know about this approach?
There are certainly people who see the creation and distribution of tasks as an exercise of power and enjoy it just as much. Also, the division of professional and disciplinary leadership into two or more people is not common practice in all companies and from my experience also not familiar to many employees. Getting a management task therefore automatically means taking over the technical and disciplinary leadership. A training for such tasks often falls behind and of all things the technically very good employee rises and now gets an employee responsibility for which he does not have to be suitable per se, nor has necessary interest. So the supposedly common principles are simply adopted by this person and essentially resources and tasks are organised and reported upwards. If the organizational structure does not exemplify this differently, there is no improvement in sight here and so this unfortunate tradition holds.
And so the circle closes: common principles and processes are not questioned. It’s done the way it’s always been. An active culture of change in a company begins with modern leadership and this does not come automatically. It must be formulated as a goal, actively promoted and, above all, exemplified.
The time has come for us to consciously train managers to do so and to exemplify modern leadership. After all, the oven is wide enough now!