Civil society organisation, trade unions, political parties, governments and corporate entities, have all at some time, experienced some level of internal conflict, which had the potential of giving rise to instability within the ranks.
Generally, this comes about as a consequence of personal or group division, the non-acceptance of collective responsibility, and where there are problems with the leadership and management style of the head of the organisation.
The impact of any instability problem is reflected in the effective functioning of the organisation. In many cases, people become disillusioned, uncooperative and uninterested. It is more problematic when it results in a reduction in productivity, heightens tensions, and stifles the work of the organisation as it pertains to its growth and development. The point is to be explicitly made, that it creates a base for people with a negative attitude, no positive outlook, and no sense of purpose other than their self-interest, to work at undermining efforts which are aimed at moving the work of the organisation forward. Truth be told, those who fall into this category, do a good job at offering criticisms but seem to lack what it takes to offer any ideas.
Those who find themselves in leadership and management roles and use this position to exercise dictatorial behaviour can only hold themselves responsible for the tensions and resistance they encounter, and the limited support received. This authoritarian and dictatorial style of leadership is counterproductive; particularly when there is cause to believe that all roads lead to the leader. It basically can place decision-making into the hands of the leader or management, and erode the confidence of subordinates in taking any responsibility.
Those leaders and managers who engage in the process of micromanagement clearly usurp authority and blatantly disregard the chain of command. Micromanagement is a dangerous practice. Those who seek to micromanage are sending a message that they are power-hungry. Is this a case of the individual being overambitious and overzealous? It certainly does not inspire confidence and, moreover, it is left to give thought to what are the intentions of the individual, who by their actions suggest non-compliance in observing the organisation’s rules, operational guidelines and procedures.
If it is that the primary goal is to maintain organisational stability, confidence and optimism, leaders and managers of organisations, institutions and enterprises, should understand that there is wisdom in behaving and acting in appropriate ways, acting rationally, engaging colleagues, workers or members, and ensuring that there is effective communication. Leadership must take responsibility for creating and safeguarding organisational stability. The exercise of visionary leadership and the promotion of transparency and accountability are important to achieving this end. It would be a glaring omission if it was not added that leaders should refrain from unilateral decision-making, as this can be proved to be most problematic to maintaining organisational stability.
It is recommended that leaders and managers are not resistant to change and are receptive to embracing new ideas. They should be cautioned against any tinkering with the bureaucratic system, which is governed by a rule-based system. Avoiding being over-emotional or erratic in their behaviour is highly advisable, as this can open the door for the withdrawal of support and for undermining to take root.
Dennis De Peiza is a veteran labour and employee relations consultant with Regional Management Services Inc.
The post #BTColumn – Good leaders safeguard organisational stability appeared first on Barbados Today.
