If you are toward the bottom of the food chain, you’re probably busy keeping your sanity amidst the chaos. While rank and fail members can have an impact on culture, it is challenging to do so in a positive way if the entire organization is broken and/or if the people at the top have other views. You may want to focus on protecting yourself first.
If you are in the middle, say as a middle manager, your greatest influence is over your team. If you have a large team, implement the RO3 strategy. If it is modest (below 25 members, or so), you can work more individually. Finding allies is key. Ultimately, you want to use a combination of transparency and empowerment to carve out a safe space for your people. This may, though, put you at loggerheads with the upper echelons of the organization or with the whole organization. In that case you may have to serve as a heat shield to protect your people. Never throw them under the bus to save yourself. I have been in this very situation, and it is challenging and quite ugly. If at the end of the day, you can hold your head up and say you did right by the team and the organization, that is much.
The important thing to acknowledge is that just by asking the question, you demonstrate that you are a person of great integrity who cares about others and about doing the right thing, and that ain’t nothing. Be grateful for your strong character. We should all be.
Thanks for your interesting questions. I am a little confused by your reference to memetic theory, though. I am more focused on the spread of behaviors, not mere memes, which are cultural phenomena (large and small), although I do see a similarity.
Admittedly, I’m glossing over how leadership behaviors spread to focus on the ideal outcome. I’m focused on the ideal mimetic process, in fact, and on the assumption of natural selection, which is related to the memetic, I suppose, in more than just spelling. I’ve never really thought about that before.
For clarity’s sake, I’m ignoring the possibility that the spread is more like a game of telephone, with unwanted variations (mutations?) creeping in until the whole enterprise collapses. That’s a distinct possibility or maybe likelihood, but I am leaning into survival of the fittest assumptions.
As for the idea that “we all inherently know good leadership,” I would not endorse that entirely although I think we do recognize good leadership more than we often admit for a variety of reasons (fodder for a future essay?). The spread of leadership behavior I am endorsing is largely or entirely intentional; the ur-leader develops several new leaders, and on. Those who benefit from good leadership will (mostly) recognize it, yes. But those who are specifically instructed in it will be more able to pass it on.
I’m playing the idealist here with all the caveats that apply, but that’s my general drift. I’d love to hear your follow up.
"These legacies have nothing to do with stroking egos or physically defacing the landscape. These are the legacies that genuine leaders, the ones who really get it, naturally cultivate just by practicing good leadership, and they take two forms:
1. Establishing resilient systems that are sustained by healthy cultures,
2. Creating and empowering other great leaders."
I'm trying to understand what you might mean by this.
Is there a sense that we all inherently know good leadership when we see it?
What does it mean for me to be one who "really gets it"?
Is this a nod to memetic theory? ...that the best behaviors in leadership are the ones that survive?
A tough question because the answer starts with “it depends…”
If you’re at the top of the food chain, it is up to you to halt the chaos and establish a healthy culture. Literally no one else has as much ability to do so. Often it is useful to implement what I call the RO3 strategy: https://jimsalvucci.substack.com/p/mastering-the-ro3-strategy-to-better?utm_source=publication-search.
If you are toward the bottom of the food chain, you’re probably busy keeping your sanity amidst the chaos. While rank and fail members can have an impact on culture, it is challenging to do so in a positive way if the entire organization is broken and/or if the people at the top have other views. You may want to focus on protecting yourself first.
If you are in the middle, say as a middle manager, your greatest influence is over your team. If you have a large team, implement the RO3 strategy. If it is modest (below 25 members, or so), you can work more individually. Finding allies is key. Ultimately, you want to use a combination of transparency and empowerment to carve out a safe space for your people. This may, though, put you at loggerheads with the upper echelons of the organization or with the whole organization. In that case you may have to serve as a heat shield to protect your people. Never throw them under the bus to save yourself. I have been in this very situation, and it is challenging and quite ugly. If at the end of the day, you can hold your head up and say you did right by the team and the organization, that is much.
The important thing to acknowledge is that just by asking the question, you demonstrate that you are a person of great integrity who cares about others and about doing the right thing, and that ain’t nothing. Be grateful for your strong character. We should all be.
What tips do you have for establishing a culture when there is nothing but chaos around you?
Mikey,
Thanks for your interesting questions. I am a little confused by your reference to memetic theory, though. I am more focused on the spread of behaviors, not mere memes, which are cultural phenomena (large and small), although I do see a similarity.
Admittedly, I’m glossing over how leadership behaviors spread to focus on the ideal outcome. I’m focused on the ideal mimetic process, in fact, and on the assumption of natural selection, which is related to the memetic, I suppose, in more than just spelling. I’ve never really thought about that before.
For clarity’s sake, I’m ignoring the possibility that the spread is more like a game of telephone, with unwanted variations (mutations?) creeping in until the whole enterprise collapses. That’s a distinct possibility or maybe likelihood, but I am leaning into survival of the fittest assumptions.
As for the idea that “we all inherently know good leadership,” I would not endorse that entirely although I think we do recognize good leadership more than we often admit for a variety of reasons (fodder for a future essay?). The spread of leadership behavior I am endorsing is largely or entirely intentional; the ur-leader develops several new leaders, and on. Those who benefit from good leadership will (mostly) recognize it, yes. But those who are specifically instructed in it will be more able to pass it on.
I’m playing the idealist here with all the caveats that apply, but that’s my general drift. I’d love to hear your follow up.
"These legacies have nothing to do with stroking egos or physically defacing the landscape. These are the legacies that genuine leaders, the ones who really get it, naturally cultivate just by practicing good leadership, and they take two forms:
1. Establishing resilient systems that are sustained by healthy cultures,
2. Creating and empowering other great leaders."
I'm trying to understand what you might mean by this.
Is there a sense that we all inherently know good leadership when we see it?
What does it mean for me to be one who "really gets it"?
Is this a nod to memetic theory? ...that the best behaviors in leadership are the ones that survive?
Thanks for you writing today, Dr. Jim.