Mutualism and Measurement
A good friend, Professor Vlatka Hlupic recently had a piece published in Harvard Business Review called ‘To Be a Better Leader, Give up Authority‘. Congratulations!
The piece focuses on leadership, giving up power as a leader and witnessing corresponding improvements in performance. There are also case studies from CSC and ANADIGICS showing some attractive financial improvements as a result of this new way of working.
Over and above the financial improvements, perhaps the most interesting aspect of the article is the idea of “mutualism.”
Mutualism involves measuring workers not against revenue or other numerical goals, which we have observed to be ineffective as motivational tools, but against qualitative values such as trust, responsibility, and innovation.
And it implies that leaders don’t dictate vision or strategy; instead, they enable employees to create a common vision through, for example, off-sites for discussion of strategic issues and regular feedback and education. Hitting numerical goals has been the natural outcome.
It will be interesting to see if methods such as mutualism increase in popularity and adoption over the coming months.
3 Comments»
The URI to TrackBack this entry is:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Hi Bruce, Although I agree with the professor, I doubt that mutualism will enjoy much progress as long as leadership is defined as “having vision and influence” by the media and most of the leadership industry.
Comment by Miki — 7/1/2010 @ 6:49 pm
Hi Miki, interesting… the results that come from mutualism may well render the definition redunant though?
Likewise, given the US interest in leadership as a whole (celeb CEOs and the Office of the President), I think the contrast between definition and interest at the field at large is somewhat a moot point…
How would you define leadership?
Comment by Bruce Lewin — 7/1/2010 @ 7:36 pm
I think the US is obsessed, not interested and that ‘leadership’ of whatever kind is seen as some kind of silver bullet that will fixeverything.
Leadership is what used to be called initiative, which is why it moves around an organization based on skills and interest—call it leadership in the instance.
But that requires people to do things for themselves and it’s much easier to complain than step up and do something.
Comment by Miki — 7/1/2010 @ 11:22 pm