This article, by Kim and Mauborgne, describes the leadership style of William Bratton, known for his ability to dramatically improve police operations in the organizations that he worked in. Perhaps his most notable accomplishment, at least at the time the article was written, was the turn around of the New York City Police Department, which became much more efficient and effective in the first two years after Bratton became the chief of police.
The authors note four barriers to such success and four strategies that Bratton uses time and again to combat those barriers. Challenges leaders face in such situations include an "addiction to the status quo, limited resources, demotivated employees, and opposition from powerful vested interests." Bratton met these challenges through overcoming the cognitive hurdle, the resource hurdle, the motivational hurdle and the political hurdle. The authors present these four steps as a winning formula that any leader can adopt because Bratton successfully used them in more than one context.
I'm not sure I agree. I don't see how it follows that just because Bratton was able to replicate his success, it was not linked, in some way to his unique personality. I'm not saying that there isn't something to be emulated there. Merely, it's not, as I see it, a winning formula.
One thing that struck me about Kim and Mauborgne's description of Bratton's process is that he must be a very intelligent, capable kind of person, someone for whom excellence is a personal practice, not just a public policy. He had to instill confidence in his direct reports, which means being fair and honest, having such integrity that there was nothing of note to hide about his own dealings. Few people, especially in his position, have that kind of integrity. He often seemed to lead by setting the example, which meant having strict self-discipline, and he could not set that example without having an excellent understanding of the social and political influences that shape police forces generally and an excellent understanding of human nature, an unusual kind of intelligence. To reduce that ability to a four-step process is simplistic and even glib.
The authors also don't give much attention to the resources that Bratton had at his disposal. Again, not every chief of police can count on the support of the mayor against the courts. Bratton came in with some level of confidence from his people, both those under him and those he had to negotiate with. He is, as so many of them seem to be, a white male.
I was struck by Bratton's practice of having his upper management travel by subway in order to help them understand the reality of the problem. I think that is a really effective way to get people on board with reform, but it's not as easily done as said. For example, I work in a program that is based in China. All of the upper leadership for my program live in Kansas and have never done more than visit China. They flatter themselves that their few weeks at Sias, in the constant company of handlers, attending meetings to listen to faculty talk and being wined and dined by Chinese administrators, has created an understanding of the situation here. They are proud of that dinner where they ate something odd and the three words of Chinese that they can use (with an atrocious accent). If challenged, they might, in theory, agree that they don't actually have a very deep understanding of China, but it is enough (they believe) to make intelligent decisions about this program...
And they make mediocre and wasteful decisions about this program. Those of us who teach here have enough autonomy that if we want to do a good job, we can avoid most of that wastefulness in our own work, but there is no synergy between different departments and a general ignorance of how students fair once they leave our classrooms. And some faculty really don't do a good job at all. We occasionally see the result of these problems (in graduates who can't speak English for example) and shake our heads. Those who can't quite stomach it leave and the rest of us console ourselves that at least students get something out of our class.
I have suggested, on occasion, that upper management should spend at least a semester in China teaching Chinese students before they are allowed to make decisions about the program, but such suggestions are not taken that seriously. The people with power are not willing to put aside their work and lives in Kansas for such an uncomfortable learning experience, and where is the Bratton who can make them? Usually, such a person is lacking. Those in leadership comfortably read an article in Harvard Business Review, confident in their understanding of the "formula" but missing vital ingredients in their leadership that the article never mentions... and their administration limps along.
Social Justice
This week, the Leadership Council that I am a part of was asked to make a list of things that the president and new provost at FHSU can do for us. This request was met with cautious optimism. Apparently, this process of airing grievances proved fruitful for the business department when Dr. Martin (our former president) conducted it. I and the other comp teacher in the council couldn't get any suggestions from our own department though. Last time we wrote out lengthy document and nothing ever came of it. The way my colleague who works in the business department describes it, Dr. Martin saw the business department as the place for growth in the program and that's why it got all of that attention. Is it inevitable that we lead out of our personal biases and values? I know that my vision for the program is greater collaboration between the American and Chinese sides. We had another administrator who was working to expand TESOL/English programs at other universities in China. When we foster one vision, does another die? Is it possible, as a leader, to be fair to everyone?
It will be interesting to see where the present administration takes our suggestions. Maybe they'll shock my socks off and give us an administrator with real power who has actually worked here in China (but I'm not holding my breath). Anyway, there were many requests made by the Leadership Council and the students barely came into it. I don't know if they had to--after all, we faculty like to think that if you help us, we'll help the students, but I wish these conversations went deeper than they do. There's a lot of discussion about pollution and FHSU's obligation to provide air filters and raises.
(I don't know how closely the above comments relate to social justice, but I think power differences influence the way change happens so much. For what it's worth, that theme runs through much of this blog entry.)
No comments:
Post a Comment