A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.
Martin Luther King Jr.
When looking at a CSB, it is important to grasp the concept of not only what leadership is, but why it occurs. Leadership comes in various aspects in a business. These include: product / organizational vision, practice area, cultural, team and quality. Depending on the organizational model, these leadership roles can be distributed countless ways.
Currently, organizational leadership is put on a pedestal. Leaders are those with both the information and the power, with long term success relying on a few chosen to make the right decisions. These individuals get rewarded for their efforts, which tend to be well beyond those typically performed by contributors.
The problem here, ultimately, is that people come with different talents, strengths and weaknesses. We all approach problems differently, and leverage different types of crutches to minimize our weaknesses. Given this, we create positions with fairly ridged ideas around roles and responsibilities, rather than creating a system which leverages people’s unique strengths, while not forcing them into make or break situations around their weaknesses.
The cultural change which needs to be made here is that CSB is run more like an organic ecosystem rather than a rigid structure. In essence, each skill set and partition in a CSB is responsible to self organize and adapt to their own unique environment independently. Through communication and sharing of success and failures, these independent pieces enable each other in the larger organization to improve independently, without changes being forced on the teams. This viewpoint changes what type of leadership is needed.
Leadership is a means to an end, and is not the sole objective for any one member. There is no ordained leadership position which is a given. Those who choose to lead can provide leadership across the board, or in a specific area they’re adept at. These leaders then help improve their part of the organizational ecosystem through influencing consensus, both on their team and by working with others.
An example on how this can apply is by taking a look at a hamburger restaurant, specifically the cooks team & their schedule. Staffing a restaurant cooks team includes ensuring enough members are on hand at any given point in time to fulfill the orders received in a timely manner. In this case providing leadership might be as easy as creating a draft board for hours having to be worked, and challenging working with others to make sure all the shifts are covered. Since everyone has a personal stake in the success of the business, it is everyone’s responsibility to make sure the area is staffed. It is the leaders job to help the members achieve the schedule creation.
So what is the reward for providing leadership? Why would anyone do it? This is the question I struggled with. In the ideal world the leaders would lead because that’s what they enjoy doing. In the real world leadership can be time consuming, and offers challenges of its own. So how do we reward leaders for their efforts?
In the above example the leader might get first draft choice, where the compensation is a better schedule. Alternatively the leader could be compensated based on the schedules timely completion, and more points are rewarded for each active participant who contributes to helping create the schedule.
The best initial solution available is to reward through lead measures (or tasks which when occurred lead to effective results. This makes it possible to ensure rewards can be obtained, but still ensure that those who gain more efficiency in these tasks to be compensated accordingly, sticking with the montra, you get out only what’s perporsional to what is put in.
A new type of leadership
The team or CSB will there for tend to have more micro focused areas of leadership. Rather than having formal structures which have specific roles and responsibilities, leadership is a set of goals, which the community identifies as being valueble. The team can then either elect their leaders, or approach it via lasefair, where people can pick up what they choose. In both cases those who want to lead can pick and choose what goals best match their unique talents and skillsets. Since there’s no strict position which is gained or lost, people are allowed to find those aspects and ways they can best lead, without taking on too much, or being put in a position where loss obversion can effect decision making and direction.
With this approach determoning leadership, or baring poor leaders, has to be left up to the community members. In this way the leader is a servent of the community, only serving as such if the community approves.
This differs from hierarchical leadership where a single decision can span across various loosely related groups, and peer leadership where through organic independent adoption change is brought about.