11174 Speech 1 TOP DOWN Leadership Presentation PDF

Preview

Summary

This document contains my speech for the mandatory presentation of this unit regarding Top Down Leadership. It also contains the interactive questions developed for the presentation as it is part of the marking criteria. ...

Description

In management circles, leadership tends to be reduced to two opposing models. In relation to management theory, top-down leadership is based on the traditional notion introduced by the bureaucratic approach developed by _____ that belongs within the classical theory. This approach organises power and clear chains of command. On the other hand, bottom-up leadership is an egalitarian approach, based on holacracy rather than hierarchy, which is grounded on collaborative structures where leaders play more of a facilitator role (Rudd, 2009). It emphasizes participation as a way of drawing on all the skills and knowledge an organization’s employees have to offer. In the case of our clinic, top-down leadership is the approach we have always used given the traditional dynamics used in this environment, for example, having a doctor and a handful of nurses discussing a plan of action with the patient and her family [ CITATION Sta16 \l 3081 ]. Chances are, one person in the room is doing the majority of the talking, while everyone else listens and nods along. We have realised that this approach, if left unchecked, can lead to negative outcomes for patients, which could actually be prevented. At a recent Stanford Medicine X lecture, professor Lindred Greer, who specialises on businesses organisational behaviour, described the following three problems in relation to top-down team structures. 1. NOT ENOUGH PARTICIPAT ION. Statistically speaking, decision-makers in a top-down team structure do 80% of the talking in a group setting, while everyone else contributes 20%, Greer says. More often than not, that 20% of the conversation is spent agreeing with the leader in the room. It is clear that doctors have a lot of knowledge, but so do patients and nurses. Greer believes that if their voices are not heard, you’re going to make ineffective decisions. So, while hierarchy is natural from a historical perspective, the top-down approach nowadays hinders participation, particularly when someone has to gather the courage to challenge his or her boss. “We have to combat these traditional systems, even if it is the only thing we have experience with, to try to actually be equals with one another in the ways in which we interact, because everybody in the team has value and a voice, and they need to be heard in order to make sure we achieve the best outcome. SOLUT ION: FOSTER A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT We must encourage team leaders to create a climate “where it’s OK to make mistakes, it’s OK to say something that isn’t so smart, and it’s really OK to have a crazy idea.” Instead of dismissing ideas that challenge the working hypothesis, the leader should acknowledge the idea and attempt to incorporate it into the discussion. Ahead of a group meeting, the leader should widely share the underlying data fuelling the decision, so everyone has time to think about the problem and brainstorm possible solutions. We believe that small meetings will help us achieve this through encouraging participation.

2. INFLUENCE FROM THE WRONG PL AYERS We have also found that in top-down structures, the leader holds more influence than others over the eventual decision. This is actually dangerous when the team’s leader knows less about the subject than someone within his or her team. The professor used a class exercise that Students at Stanford undertook to showcase this situation. These students were asked to choose the smartest person in the room to lead

them out of a theoretical desert. Researchers found roughly 50% of students chose their leader based on relevant knowledge, and “survived” the exercise; while those who chose their leader based on arbitrary factors didn’t. The truth is, when you’re in a meeting and everybody is speaking, it is critical to make sure you’re listening to the right person, and this person may not always be the person with the most seniority. It is important therefore, to look for the person who knows most about this particular situation. That’s the challenge of leadership and teamwork: It’s going to change depending on the discussion. SOLUTION: DETERMINE WHO DESERVES INFLUEN CE Ahead of the meeting, leaders will talk with their team to gauge relevant experience and knowledge related to the topic. For example, a junior nurse heading into a team meeting with a patient with a sports injury might volunteer to the doctor as he underwent a similar surgery in college. This shows why taking the time to check in with the team before you get into a discussion about who has relevant knowledge is critical because otherwise, you’re going to miss important insights and give influence to somebody who actually doesn’t deserve influence in this situation. Greer also suggests allowing the patient to lead the conversation’s direction. For example, letting them ask you specific questions about their concerns rather than explaining everything as a monologue that maybe is not tailored for the person you’re dealing with. When a leader dominates a discussion talking about their own ideas, his or her team tend to stay quiet and not challenge the status quo. To fix this, the discussion must be opened up more, to allow himself to just watch and listen, rather than constantly talking. This means that the person in charge of the team has to be a team player and be willing to let whoever knows most take the lead in that situation without feeling threatened by it. The truth is, this should not threaten anyone, because it doesn’t mean you’re not the leader, it just means that in that situation, you’re letting other people have influence and rise up in their basis and knowledge. We need to make it a habit to realise that formal leadership isn’t the same thing as running a discussion, and we want to develop a culture where people can speak up and, if they know something relevant, take the lead. Thus, if a leader wants a culture where constructive disagreements can occur, she or he must be willing to take a background role.

3. NOT ENOUGH CONFLICT Ideally, patients, nurses, and doctors should be able to have an open conversation about treatment, with the goal of landing on the best health outcome possible. Good discussions involve constructive debate. A measurement of whether a debate is constructive is whether people are talking about solving the common problem ahead of them, or whether they’re arguing over power and influence. Research suggests that 70% of debates begin constructively but evolve into emotional debates. But we need to keep in mind that having a culture of healthy disagreement is useful; giving everyone a voice and having leaders step down, being able to trust and respect everybody on the team enough, shows that it is ok to disagree. Professor Greer used another study to illustrate this situation. In such study, researchers examined disagreements by teaching two groups of students a card game that contained largely similar rules, except for one key difference — one group was taught aces were the highest card in the game, while the other was taught aces were the lowest. The

disagreement should have been easy to resolve, with students asking one another why they thought the ace card had different values. Instead, disagreements quickly got personal, with some students walking away from the game altogether. Other students resolved the conflict by blaming themselves, saying they must have learned the game’s rules incorrectly. SOLUTION: UNDERSTAND ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW The solution is pretty simple: just use the word “why.” Have constructive conflicts and find out why people do what they do or think the way they do. If the doctor says, “We need to do this course of treatment,’ feel comfortable to speak your mind and ask them why. And if the answer doesn’t make sense or you don’t agree with it, keep asking why. Greer argues that usually after four or five why’s you get the real answer. ‘Why’ is an incredibly powerful word to having constructive conflicts and finding out why people really think what they do.” Using these communication and leadership tips in our work environment can lead to better patient outcomes, and that should be something that everyone agrees on. All in all, top-down and bottom-up leadership aren’t mutually exclusive. We can–and we should–have it both ways, because neither top-down nor bottom-up leadership work well consistently if they’re seen as absolutes. The reason is simple: The usefulness of either approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve. As a leader, you’ve been chosen to guide your team or organization as best you can, and it is clear that that responsibility is a matter of top-down leadership as it involves defining goals and ensuring everyone keeps them in mind. But when it comes to execution, you don’t have to direct every detail. In fact, that’s usually harmful; the same position that gives you the opportunity to see the best direction to take is often the one that prevents you from seeing everything through on the ground. Therefore, the new approach we have decided to implement in leaders will set the parameters for the clinic based on top down leadership, and then, use those parameters to frame the bottom-up decisions. In fact, these parameters do not even need to be restrictive. Most of us are at their most creative when we have boundaries to work within and ideas to riff on. To bring this situation into practice, here is an example. Azmara may know that she wants a dynamic and supportive work culture, yet at the same time, she needs to let her employees decide how best to make that happen. To do this, she should tap into their ideas and earn their commitment and engagement. [ CITATION Luk16 \l 3081 ] __________________________________________________________________________________________ Bottom-Up Advantages Getting many people’s input, it crowdsources wisdom and information, allowing you to draw on the best ideas that are out there, rather than just dictating a certain task for someone to perform. It also gives people a sense of ownership over their work and workplace, which boosts engagement and motivation. __________________________________________________________________________________________

Lukens, M. (2016). The False Choice Between Top-Down And Bottom-Up Leadership. Fast Company. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3056551/the-false-choicebetween-top-down-and-bottom-up-leadership Rudd, O. (2009). Business Intelligence Success Factors: Tools for Aligning Your Business in the Global Economy. John Wiley & Sons. Stangel, L. (2016). Three Problems with Top-Down Teams (and How to Fix Them). Stanford Graduate School of Business. Retrieved from https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/threeproblems-top-down-teams-how-fix-them...