Is Command and Control with us forever?

In my review of James Lukaszewski's presentation at the IABC International Conference I commented:

"Lukaszewski quotes John Kotter and Jim Collins, and recommends books like Jacked Up to better understand how CEOs and senior executive think and make decisions. He is firmly embedded in the command and control world of the twentieth century; his focus is on becoming a trusted advisor to the executive suite. He is the John Wayne of corporate communications, shooting from the hip and getting things done. Not for him the consensual world of Generation Y."

James came back with the following comments:

"I think your basic characterization of me as the Command and control freak' from the twentieth century  (meaning old fashioned?,which I left alone)  is more a slap than the lesson it could be. Spend a little more time in the real CEO region of organizations . . . these are command and control areas. How do you think these huge global organizations actually get anything done? By committee? Those fail. I talk about Jim Collins and John Kotter because many executives try to run their companies the way these gurus suggest, but ultimately the most important decisions come down to one person's perspective.

"Even attempts at co-CEO approaches fail because one co-CEO quickly begins thinking of murdering the other or having them commit suicide. Human nature is what it seems to be. The dreamy aspirations of each new generation ultimately come up against the decision-making nature and requirements of leadership. By the time an individual reaches the top (even if they start there as entrepreneurs do) these 'command and control realities' surface because success requires that some one be in charge. The difference is how leaders inspire followers, and a few are very good at it. Followership development is mostly what Kotter and Collins talk about.

"Jack Welch's definition of strategy, taken from some Prussian general from the 17th century is "the evolution of a central idea through changing circumstances." This idea plays into what I was teaching in the session you attended . . . it's the options approach to advice giving that injects the evolutionary change ingredients into a Boss's central ideas that makes one advisor more valued than another . . . the boss still chooses . . .and commands.

"This is a very 21st century view and process, Marc. And, by the way, I have, at any given time, a number active European client CEOs, or senior executive teams where command and control is very much alive and operational. I think what I talk about works in most Western senior executive advice giving settings. My work in East or West Asia has been minimal and mostly through Canadian or European law firms, or corporate legal departments. But my approach also seems attractive to these people as well."

It is such a delight to enter into a correspondence like this - so I responded:

"Hi Jim,

Thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned points.  I agree with your analysis; where we differ is on our interpretation of the pattern 

The question is – will Command and Control endure?  You argue that it is hard-wired into what it is to be a human being.  My observation – based on a European perspective -  is that the MBO models (North America, Britain),  and the Hierarchical model (France, Germany) are not the only games in town.  On the one hand the Familial model of southern Europe, much of South America and Asia is now becoming more important as the BRIC economies come to the fore;  and on the other, the technology changes in the way we access and  publish information is favouring the Incubator model of organisations where the idea comes first.

What does this mean for leadership and those who advise them?  I – like you – have advised on the basis of Kotter, Collins and Welsh for the past 20 years.  But now it’s the Hofstedes and Trompenaars
that managers want to know about in terms of global leadership and the Surowieckis and Gladwells who are demonstrating new ways of prosecuting "the evolution of a central idea through changing circumstances."

I apologise if my writing style inferred that you were either a control freak or old-fashioned.  That would be like condemning Mozart for not writing for the electric guitar. Indeed I was surprised how few of the audience recognised your references to Kotter and Collins.  These are ideas that need promotion not archiving. 

I would dearly love to start a public debate on this critical issue; May I publish your thoughts below on my blog, and see what others think?  I’ll trade you a video of your entire speech...."

Jim agreed:

Marc,

Any discussion by communicators that expands their management perspective can be very helpful. A discussion of the theories and practices of other business thinkers would also be welcome. . . Mozart you say?

Run it and let's see what happens.

Jim

Comments

[mark ragan]

Jim and Marc,

Here's the problem with so-called "command and control" styles:

They depend for their existence on command-and-control communication. If you can't control what people see and hear, you're going to have a tough time controlling what they do.

This is why Marc is right in questioning the future of the John Wayne School of Management.

We are increasingly living in a workplace dominated by underground information sources, otherwise know as "social media."

If employees don't get the information they need from the C-suite, they'll go looking for it somwehere else. Worse yet, they'll create their own information network on Facebook or YouTube.

So while Jim is right that we're not there yet, Marc is correct in thinking that the world is moving toward the "consensual world of generation Y."

Jim, I do agree that one person does have to make the final decision, but that decision will increasingly "bubble up" from below.

Mark Ragan

[Indy]

Fascinating to me is the implication from Jim that "thus it was, so it always shall be."

It's pretty clear that the "C-suites" of most organisations are already failing to keep up with the challenge of being "sole leader" of their organisations. We're seeing more and more details being missed by the CEOs, but fortunately we haven't had too many catastrophes yet.

We're reaching the limits of what a single person can process at a time. We know this, but instead of developing new ways to deal with it, some people prefer to take refuge in machismo and the "skill of the CEO craftsman," some few individuals who (like Federer or Tiger Woods) have an extraordinary talent for their role.

Of course, we can compare the reliability and quality of the best of the handmade era Rolls Royces to a "quality system" product like a modern Toyota. Thus we can see that the future is developing systems of leadership that do not rely on the innate talent of a "corporate Tiger Woods" but on ways of combining the talents of teams. This has been the story of every other part of industrial production, I've not seen any evidence that the CxO office is so different to be exempt to such trends.

Will this mean the end of "Command and Control"? Not really, there will remain hierarchies of formal power and informal influence, especially in day to day working, but it will change the role of leaders and by the nature of replacing individuals with systems and teams, reduce their power. Which won't be popular with Jim's clients, as they would be the one's having to let go of some of their power. So don't expect enthusiasm from them any time soon.

[Artie Lange]

Verrry interesting!

[Marc Wright]

I call it Scotsman's kilts syndrome. When the C Suite get together they all admire their wonderful kilts - but the view from below is not nearly so attractive.

[Kevin Keohane]

Marc, I think you've absolutely hit the nail on the head with one comment that I've been banging on about for years now: the fact that most internal communicators wouldn't know Kotter or Collins from the proverbial bar of soap.

Whether command and control or pie-in-the-sky-total-democratisation-of-the-company is your particular cup of tea, in either case internal communicators have to pullt heir heads out tactical technician mode and start thinking like business managers requiring a cross-functional skillset ...

[Dan Gray]

It's interesting that Jim should bring up the point on followership development, and then cite Kotter.

Personally, that's where I'd be throwing Hersey & Blanchard and Goleman's situational leadership models into the mix.

Let's be clear - just because the C-suite has ultimate decision-making responsibility, that doesn't automatically dictate a command and control style. The act of taking decisions and the manner in which they are reached are two different things.

We need to lose the notion that we need "larger than life", command and control leaders of the likes of Jack Welch in order to have meaningful sustained change.

More recent thinking (e.g. Morgan, Huy, Khurana) actually places competent managers at the heart of effective change and suggests (rightly in my view) that leadership exists at all levels of organisations.