Rataining stability and progress up to the next millenium

By Bruce Lloyd

LONDON (JP): In recent years the whole question of the role of values in organizational success -- and failure -- has been given increased attention. It is important to examine the largely ignored relationship between power and responsibility, related to leadership and how it influences the effectiveness of learning. In the end, unless the effectiveness of learning is greater than the change it is unlikely we will achieve anything that we can call "progress".

Management books on leadership tend to be preoccupied with power; how to get it, use it and keep it. But how often is power defined as "the opportunity to exercise responsibility"?

Traditionally power has been preoccupied with the ability to make things happen, but a responsibility driven approach starts with "in whose interests are the changes being made".

Leadership that is purely power driven will almost inevitably be corrupt, corrupting or corrupted. Power, in this context, is viewed as essentially "self" driven, while a responsibility driven approach is, in essence, "others" driven.

It is often that we find quotes such as: "He seems to be in love with power. Not just political power for the sake of getting things done or for promoting private interests, but power as status."

And there are others such as: "They will say anything and do almost anything to hang on to power."

But it is rare to find: "The price of greatness is responsibility."

Some power driven individuals (and organizations) can, perhaps, be defined as successful in the short term, but evidence suggests that power driven individuals "contain the seeds of their own destruction" (and this usually includes any organization they are associated with) -- based on an apparently infinite need to prove themselves. Robert Maxwell is a classic example of this approach.

Both leadership and power are best seen as a form of trusteeship. And if those who have power do not use it responsibly they will find it is taken away from them, sooner or later. This appears equally relevant to both corporate and political arenas. To be effective, particularly in the long term, leadership needs to be concerned with issues associated with responsibility rather than power.

Within this context it is necessary to recognize the importance of learning and then emphasize the increasing role of the "Learning Organization" approach. "Learning is the heart of the productive activity, learning is the new form of labor." With the amount of change going on in the world today, getting the learning process right is the most important challenge for us all.

A responsible approach to learning, combined with learning to manage responsibility, are essential prerequisites for any effective learning organization or learning environment. A learning environment is about passing on what you know, empowering others and sharing rather than being possessive about knowledge on the grounds that "knowledge is power". A "learning organization" approach cannot be expected to work without a genuine concern for others. Hence learning organizations cannot be expected to operate effectively within power driven cultures. Similar points can be made about efforts to introduce "empowerment" programs. But how can these ideas be reconciled within our individually focused, competitively driven society? It would be naive to maintain that there was any alternative to the answer "with difficulty".

Responsibilities should not be seen as a burden, they give life meaning and purpose. But responsibilities will only be rewarding and positive if they are supported by an overall learning approach to all aspects of life and work. A self focused society will not survive for long before it self destructs. This whole approach also applies to conflicts between groups and hence it has a direct effect on the efficiency with which any organization operates.

Are we simply concerned with the pursuit of what we perceive to be our own self interest or even worse our short term interest? Or do we accept we are actually living and operating within a wider framework?

A power driven approach is preoccupied with the short term, while a responsible approach is more concerned with long term issues. As a result, a responsible approach is likely to produce a more effective balance of the respective interests of all the various stakeholders essential for the long-term success of any organization -- whether corporate or political.

The center of the debate on leadership should be more about how, and what, we learn about responsibility, rather than the traditional preoccupation with power. In order to progress we need to generate new alliances (and improve the effectiveness of old ones) where learning about leadership helps shift the historic approach, preoccupied with power, into a more positive direction where the prime emphasis is on responsibility.

In the end the vital link between learning, leadership and responsibility needs to be more widely recognized, if we wish to be optimistic about the shape and nature of society in the decades ahead. But this is only a beginning. The vast majority of the problems we experience concerning racism, sexism and corruption can be seen as being essentially an abuse of power.

In considering change in these areas, the role of language used in changing culture or behavior needs to be recognized. "Minds are formed by the character of language, not language by the minds of those who speak it."

Would things be different if we talked about the "corridors of responsibility" rather than "the corridor of power"?

Only when we have understood the critical relationship between power and responsibility will we be able to effectively manage the moral, ethical or value systems in organizations or society.

These relationships are particularly critical to both stability and progress for all organizations and societies as we move towards the new millennium.

Dr. Bruce Lloyd is principal lecturer in strategy at South Bank University.