In the June issue of PM magazine, we provided a quick look at high performance and why it matters. High performance is not something you do. It is a way of thinking, a habit for continuous improvement. It is achieved by doing the work of leadership to create organizational culture.

Believing Is Doing

An organization can be described as people working together for a common purpose. How well organizations perform depends substantially on what we believe about each of those five words and how they relate to each other. Those beliefs and the paradigms that frame them form our leadership philosophy—the way we choose to act toward others, communicate, process and share information, make decisions, and implement management and leadership practices.

Developing an organizational leadership philosophy is an exercise in self-examination conducted collectively by members of the organization. The process is very personal, but must be openly discussed and challenged. To be meaningful, the philosophy must be genuine and personally tested.

“You can’t build a culture in the dark,” says Noel Bernal, city manager of Brownsville, Texas, who began the journey to high performance when he joined the organization in 2018. “Culture has to be a beacon of hope and a light that you quickly connect to the tangible benefits as quickly as you can.”

In Johnson County, Kansas, the leadership team met twice a month over more than six months talking, debating, learning, and rethinking what they believed about people, work, motivation, and trust. The result was the following leadership philosophy.

Leadership is a responsibility shared by all. We trust and empower each other to do the right thing for the right reasons for the public good. Committed to our shared values, we provide excellent public service, seeking always to improve ourselves and our organization. Together we will leave our community better than we found it.

The words themselves are not magic. The magic comes from personalizing them. In Johnson County, after the statement was vetted throughout the organization, leadership team members wrote, signed, and displayed a personal statement outlining “this is what the leadership philosophy means to me.”

“Putting our leadership philosophy into my own words took thought and effort,” said Hannes Zacharias, former Johnson County manager. “It forced me to be genuine when I spoke about it to commissioners, managers, supervisors, and front line staff.”  

Exploring Beliefs

Exploring beliefs and philosophies should be, but is not, a common practice in most organizations. That exploration and thoughtful debate commences with some basic questions, the answers to which form the foundation of how we structure and lead our organizations.

The Nature of Work

The concept of work seems simple, but it is complex and has evolved over time.¹ Early forms of work—hunter/gatherer and agriculture and craftsmanship—were considered holistic. Individuals performed all facets of work, from thinking, planning, and deciding what to do (strategic work) to the tasks, activities, and organizing/managing necessary to do it (tactical work).

The Industrial Revolution of the 1900s introduced major changes to how work was viewed and performed. First, division of labor was used to separate holistic work into levels and parts. Then, the Principles of Scientific Management were used to standardize a “one best way” of doing any job, to establish a hierarchy of authority, and to impose strict surveillance of workers. The structure for organizations became a highly defined hierarchy, where the thinking and deciding were done by people at the top; managing was done by people in the middle; and tasks performed by those at the bottom under direct supervision. This quickly became the model for all forms of work and organizations.

By the 1960s and ‘70s, workers had become highly skilled, educated, and mobile. Work became less assembly line and more technology oriented. The focus of work shifted from a “things” mentality to a “knowledge” mentality.²  In the early 2000s, the nature of work evolved further. Working independently was no longer efficient or effective. Work often required the combined expertise and efforts of a group, functioning interdependently, moving to a Network Talent model.³ 

Today, work is not only again holistic, but also requires working in teams and building relationships, influencing the thoughts and actions of others, collaboration, and achieving results together without power or authority.

How does your organization view work? Is it readily divisible and best performed independently, or is it holistic and best performed in a flexible, interdependent manner?

The Nature of People and Their View of Work

Do you believe that people like work? Douglas McGregor, in his book, The Human Side of Enterprise, identified two theories regarding people. Theory X views people as disliking work, preferring to be directed, avoiding responsibility, responding mostly to threats of punishment, and having limited ambition and capability. Theory Y considers people with a positive and optimistic lens, believing that people naturally put forth effort at work, accept and seek responsibility, use self-control, are problem solvers, as well as self-directed, capable, and creative.

Certainly, not all people are the same, and there are exceptions to the norm. Nevertheless, we adopt management practices based upon our view about people and their approach to work. If our view of the norm fits Theory Y, then we will treat people as capable and good workers. If our view fits Theory X, then we will treat people as if they are not very capable and need careful supervision. Higher performance thinking recognizes that people are capable, want to perform and excel, and can accomplish more with less supervision.

What do you believe is the nature of the people in your organization? Are they capable and want higher performance or do they dislike work and need close supervision?

Thinking and Deciding, Doing Leadership at All Levels

Much of what we believe about workers and their abilities to think, be creative, and make decisions—the work of leadership—is clouded by hierarchy and division of labor.

The whole foundation for hierarchy is the belief that thinking and deciding were responsibilities of a few individuals at the top. Believing that only a few can know, think, and decide truly limits the organization’s potential to the abilities of those few and foregoes the benefit available from the abilities of the whole. Believing in the workers and inviting them to provide their thinking, as well as their labor, greatly expands the capacity and potential of the organization to perform and is a better way to higher performance.

Should thinking, creativity, and decision making—the work of leadership—occur only at the top of your organization or at every level?

The Power of Purpose; Inspiration and Motivation

We have known for decades that people are motivated by factors other than pay, reward, or fear of punishment,⁴ that true motivation comes from intrinsic factors such as self-actualization, self-esteem, and belonging. Most recently, Daniel Pink, in his book, Drive, identified three factors that motivate and engage people in complex, thinking work: autonomy—having some self-control over their work, mastery—the potential to learn and excel, and purpose—contributing to something meaningful.

If we believe that employees are inspired by what they do and why they do it, engaged by being a part of something meaningful and feeling connected to it, and motivated by having input and control over their work and the chance to excel at performing it, we should put our carrots and sticks away and find ways to connect people to the meaning of their work. What do you believe inspires, engages, and motivates employees?

Enacting a Higher Performance Leadership Philosophy

A culture of higher performance requires a leadership philosophy that is understood, shared, and enacted throughout the organization. It cannot be dictated. It must be thoughtfully considered and chosen. Exploring the questions posed here and how you choose to answer them will set your organization’s leadership philosophy. A philosophy for higher performance affirms that:

• Work is holistic, cannot readily be divided into simple tasks, and must be performed collaboratively, centered around teamwork and relationships.
• People like to work, want to do a good job, and can be trusted to do so without close supervision.
• Our employees possess talents and capabilities beyond their labor, are creative, can think as well as those in a leadership position, and should be consulted to provide input and participate in operations.
• Leadership is a responsibility of all persons, not just those at the top.
• We are trustworthy and can extend trust to our employees.
• Engagement and motivation come from purpose, meaning, and involvement.

It is a matter of choice and belief. It’s a matter of modeling the leadership philosophy and spreading it throughout the organization.

“I told my team that their role is to be a facilitator and a coach,” said Noel Bernal. “They have to own it (the philosophy) and share it on behalf of the team. We’ve started the movement. And now we’re at the point that the movement needs to carry on its own.”

Looking Forward

Join us again next month when we will look at organizational management systems and why leadership philosophy makes a difference to performance.

 

DON JARRETT is an instructor for the University of Kansas School of Public Affairs and Administration. He has over 40 years of professional experience in local government, serving as the chief legal counsel for Johnson County for 35 years before retiring in 2020.
(don.jarrett@ku.edu).

 

 

 

PATTY GENTRUP is the consulting services manager for the University of Kansas Public Management Center. She has been in direct service or as a consultant for local governments for 30 years, including six years as a city administrator. (patty.gentrup@ku.edu).

 

 

 

 

Endnotes and Resources

1 That evolution has been well documented by many, including Alvin Toffler, in his book, The Third Wave, and Stephen R. Covey, in his book, The 8th Habit, citing management guru Peter Drucker.
2 See the work of Peter Bloch, The Empowered Manager; Peter Drucker, Management Challenges for the 21st Century; and Likert.
3 Adapted from Pickering et al, Building High-Performance Local Governments, pp. 26-30.
4 Abraham Maslow, in his book, Motivation and Personality.