The word ‘collective ownership/collective leadership’ has become an alien to many corporate. Different people are busy with different activities, speak different languages and tend to produce different results.
The word ‘collective ownership/collective leadership’ has become an alien to many corporate. Different people are busy with different activities, speak different languages and tend to produce different results. Different approaches, different goals like ‘my goal’, ‘your goal’ etc. grow luxuriantly in many corporate. Who should be made responsible for? It is not one employee or a group of employees are responsible, it is the very culture of the organization to be blamed.
High level of insecurity and uncertainty in the corporate only give birth to the culture of blame game. Both the boss and the subordinate become salvo to the above and each one gets into the rat race desperately to save their skin. When the existential struggle become acute in corporate, what evolution is possible? Both, boss and the subordinate behave in the same way and the only difference is that the former is paid heavily than the later. Mostly, single man led corporate only will harbor such culture as pleasing a single man is easier than pleasing a collection of people and hence in MNC’s, such degenerative culture of relatively less prevalent.
What is the definition of collective ownership? Let us assume how projects are handled in many personal care industries. The most difficult/sensitive products like hair colours and hair dyes require intense research to understand the chemistry. If a simple mixing chemistry is applied, possibly a hair colouring product may be obtained, but its performance and stability will be remain unexplored and questionable. The larger responsibility of the above project lies with the development chemist who formulates the product. Other functions like sourcing, packaging, finance etc. also will be playing different roles in the project. The half cooked or half understood formulation when transferred to the packaging group, naturally they may add more misery than value. With time, the truth would come to light and from thereon, the saga of blame game begins. It was a problem created by sourcing by procuring sub-standard in put material, it was packaging group goofed up the project due to their inadequate knowledge on the colouring materials, it was the R&D who did not give clear brief or details etc. the list goes. Each one sings the song of their agony to advertise that are the real losers, baring no fault of theirs.
Who is the real loser? It is the organization? Why people fight, divide and partitioned the problem. Interestingly, during partition, each one is known to claim a bigger share for themselves. But in corporate, each one will show the great gesture of magnanimity and charity in giving bigger, if possible, the entire share to others.
It is not the problem created by the people, but the problem is deep and is linked with the culture of the organization.
See a corollary to the above in nature. When a herd of buffaloes are attacked by a pride of lions, the entire herd tends to unite and move collectively against the pride. More often not, the herd wins. None of the members of the buffaloes in the herd will think that they are not concerned for the attack on one of the members of the herd, they do not like him for quite some time, it is nice, it has happened to him etc. Every problem, the herd would meet together and fight together, that is called ‘collective leadership/collective ownership’. The result may be different, but the spirit of the herd deserves appreciation.
Why the people in the organization are not trained to work together. Every failure they should think as an external threat and hence they need to combat it out as a team. Anything beyond our knowledge is external. When they get scared that they will be blamed for the above mistake and hence they need to identify a scapegoat….. only worsen the problem.
The blame game would not have stared from the employees and if it were so, without the consent and support of the top management, the culture of blame game would have seldom grown in the organization. Do not treat the disease nor stop/continue the treatment based on the persistence or remission of the symptoms, diagnose the cause and treat the disease. Time is not late.
Bamboo Business Approach: A Natural Phenomenon Mirrored in Corporate Strategies
In the realm of business, the bamboo plant offers a fascinating metaphor for certain corporate strategies. Known for its unique reproductive cycle, bamboo experiences a phenomenon called "mass flowering" where all plants in a population bloom simultaneously, set seeds, and then die. This rare event, occurring only once every several decades for some species, has intriguing parallels in the business world, particularly in marketing strategies that flood the market with products in a short burst to maximize impact and profit before receding.
When You Insist on Quality: A Strategic Message to Corporate Leaders
In today's competitive business environment, understanding the true essence of quality is crucial for corporate leaders. Quality should not merely be about consistency and uniformity but should also embrace creativity and innovation. This article explores how leaders can redefine quality standards to foster both excellence and innovation within their organizations.
Understanding the Adaptive Leadership Styles in Corporate Environments
In the dynamic world of corporate leadership, adaptability is often a necessity rather than a choice. Leaders may alter their behaviors and strategies to navigate the complex landscape of organizational politics, market conditions, and internal team dynamics. This flexibility, while sometimes perceived negatively, can be a strategic advantage, echoing survival traits found in nature.
