File Name: command and control leadership style .zip
Why is this? This is important.
- Toward Harmonizing Command and Control with Organization and Management Theory
- Command and Control Management Is Failing Business
Why is this? This is important. Many organisations portray a command and control approach to leadership. This structure has its roots in the military and is still a dominant force. It is one where the senior manager is in command and therefore in control of employees. But the problem with command and control is this: it does not guarantee people will do what you ask.
Command and control impedes creativity and decision-making because corporate culture dictates the relationship between employee and organisation. Almost everything goes through the chain of command.
Let me ask you some questions. How often do you see your CEO? Is hierarchy and authority more important than conveying the message? Do employees have a voice? And finally, do senior managers let fear and ego get in the way of progress? We recognise this encumbers and stifles innovation. I believe the better alternative is a collaborative approach. One where we invest in relationships and focus on motivation , support and leadership. But first, we need to recognise that we do not need to have all the answers or need to take the credit.
Only then may we work together for a common good. For those leading change it has to be about sponsorship : connecting ourselves to something important and lending it our credibility. Sponsorship is not simply filling a seat in the project boardroom. Creative Commons image courtesy Marcel Douwe Dekker.
There are certainly exceptions to the old military style leadership. I have worked extensively with a military model which is any but command-and-control. Hello David, Many thanks for posting a comment and linking to an informative and thought-provoking article. I think you are correct: the military is embracing change.
Moreoevr, I think hierarchies have a life of their own and need dismantling. As you say in your post, this takes courage. As ever, Martin. Jobs have been deskilled to the point where a chimp could do them, presumably in the expectation that the computer system that has replaced the middle manager to micromanage them will operate better.
World Book — Aspects of the Economy. The American Central Intelligence Agency is hardly some bunch of lily-livered bunch of liberals. In fact they consider the situation to be a potential threat to the economy —. Perhaps the most important contribution of technology—including that of economic organization—has been to remove from over the heads of many people the once controlling certainty in their lives: the knowledge that their survival depended on their willingness to work.
Both in the UK and USA there are millions of workers suck in a place they did not expect to be, and from which there seems to be no escape. It looks like a return to serfdom. One point of note is that many people in this sector have been educate to expect something other than this. Very, very many will have degrees. It is a terrible irony that the most popular choice of degree is currently Business and Administration Studies.
They were aiming to be middle managers, not realising as they were studying these jobs were vanishing. You paint a bleak picture in your comment. Yes, technology is changing lives. But maybe not as you suggest? Also, I thought the CIA was referring to personal conduct when online, where people hide behind anonymity.
And, the fact that people can now chose to earn a living in front of their PC doing what they want. But, I do have some concerns about our UK education system and the fact that universities are out of step, and seem to spend beyond their means. Are they interested in delivering a quality education or churning the wheel to create more revenue?
In the workplace, we see change through technology. Some good, some not so good. Often jobs go and tasks are transferred to the manager.
But technology can be an enabling power. However, the real problem is a deficit in leadership. Whether on the top table or at the coal face, people are slow to take personal responsibility.
Maybe too few exercise it. People by nature are not designed to be managed by anyone else. As you have said, our behavior was shaped by the historical military needs and also by industrialization after the world war: the need to rebuild the countries quickly. Then come the factories and functional automation with supervisory roles to make sure all the work is done.
We might think that people like to naturally develop others, which is not true. Most of the time, new managers unconsciously follow the path of this archaic attitude, because management has always been done in this way and are largely influenced by their peers.
Moreover, even if all employees claim a more humanistic, more responsible attitude and more free to think and act, even if it is necessary to transform the attitude of the leader, the global economy remains good: companies are business, growing margins, etc. As long as the economy is going well and companies will channel the malaise and turnover of employees, there is no need to transform managers …. Indeed, we all have the choice, but the question is not whether we want to be better at what we do, but rather: do I really want to do it?
How can I do it? As long as companies do not redefine what managers have to do what I mean by that is their role towards people and how they should fill it out, we will always discuss the same topic at conferences and through social media: why is it so unhealthy to act like a bully and what are the benefits of being a caring manager, but without solving the root causes….
Your email address will not be published. Hosted by Martin Webster, Esq. All rights reserved. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest. Comments Martin, There are certainly exceptions to the old military style leadership.
Toward Harmonizing Command and Control with Organization and Management Theory
While there is much agreement nowadays about the need for good leaders and managers, the need for command and control have come under fire as organizations move away from hierarchical vertical layers to horizontal or flat structures. However, command and control are just as important as leadership and management if we return to their true meaning. In fact, they are the four pillars of every organization as they directly drive the organization. Used properly, the organization will grow; used improperly, it will sink. These are not distinct processes, but rather concepts that all leaders perform in order to build and strengthen their organizations. As the above diagram shows, the four pillars overlap, thus they are not separate processes.
Before the s a 'command and control' style was generally seen as the norm. Later, more collaborative and coaching styles began to be favoured with the.
Command and Control Management Is Failing Business
Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly. DOI: Alberts and M. Alberts , M.
Autocratic leaders typically make choices based on their ideas and judgments and rarely accept advice from followers. Autocratic leadership involves absolute, authoritarian control over a group. Like other leadership styles, the autocratic style has both some benefits and some weaknesses.
Travelling through Zurich airport, one billboard always catches my eye. My friends who study advertising as both a reflection and shaper of cultural norms would not disagree with my impression: We talk about the death of command and control leadership, and praise the rise of a new, more collaborative, breed of leader.
May 13, by Stephen Gill. Command-and-control leadership remains pervasive throughout business,government, and nonprofit organizations. A command and control approach to leadership is authoritative in nature and uses a top-down approach, which fits well in bureaucratic organizations in which privilege and power are vested in senior management. It is founded on, and emphasizes a distinction between, executives on the one hand and workers on the other. Sloan, Jr.