Leadership as a function of the organization

One function, two sides

Who performs the leadership function, and where, is a question of roles and structure. Within this function, two sides can be distinguished that everyday language tends to lump together as “leadership.”

Management leads within existing orders. It plans, implements, and monitors, sets goals, makes decisions, and shapes structures. It translates a vision into manageable functions and projects and works through oversight, processes, and the power of the position.

Leadership creates new orders. It rests on vision, strategy, and lived values and often works independently of position or title: through influence, persuasion, and trust. Those who lead this way question existing orders while still mastering management.

The two sides are neither opposites nor a ranking. An organization needs both, in different places and in different mixes.

What leadership is for

Leadership in this sense has a sober purpose: to make an organization capable of acting and deciding, and to keep it that way. For the executive management of a midsize company, this is above all a question of architecture: What roles exist, how are they defined, where are which decisions made, and how does the necessary information get there?

Leadership is not a one-way street. Team members also have leadership tasks, upward and among themselves: asking to be involved in setting goals, reviewing and clarifying their own assignment, taking suggestions as help rather than criticism, standing behind results, and following the ground rules.

Management first, then leadership

Wolfgang Saaman assigns the tasks of leadership to the two sides and links them in a clear sequence.

The sequence matters in practice. Where goals, methods, responsibilities, and processes are unclear, problems in collaboration cannot be solved through motivation or appreciation. Conversely, sound management is not enough when the organization has to adapt to changed conditions.

Why decisions don't land

The clarification and decision model describes decisions in organizations as a pyramid. Each level rests on the one below it, and a decision holds only as far as its foundation has been clarified.

The practical idea: When decisions are not implemented, the problem rarely lies at the level of the decision itself. More often, information is missing, the context is not understood, rules and roles are unclear, or the people involved do not feel part of the whole. Checking from the top down reveals the level where you need to start.

Before a decision, simple test questions help to back up an assessment: Can I know this with certainty? How do I know it, and does it apply here in exactly the same way? What if it isn't so? Does it make coherent sense? From what perspective would it be wrong?

Four factors for manageable teams

The GRPI model goes back to Richard Beckhard. It names four factors against which the manageability of a team can be checked. The order matters: Lack of clarity in a higher factor often shows up as disruption in the ones below.

A team that argues about how it works together often has an unclear goal or unclear roles. GRPI helps to address the cause rather than the symptom.

Who belongs, who decides

William C. Schutz's FIRO model describes three basic needs that are at work in every group. They typically come to the fore in this order:

For the organization, this means: A newly formed committee or project team first clarifies who belongs and who is kept informed, and then who decides what. Answering these questions structurally, through membership, distribution lists, and decision-making authority, takes much of the force out of them that they otherwise carry when fought out informally.

Person and role

A role is not the same as the person who fills it. The two overlap in an area where someone shapes their role. The role itself arises between two poles: the self-image of the person who holds it and the demands of its stakeholders. The example of a department head shows how many there are:

For governance, this means: Roles should be described explicitly, including the expectations of the most important stakeholders. Contradictory demands on a role are a structural problem, not a personality problem, and should be clarified as such. Role models and how well they match the people who fill them should be reviewed roughly every three to five years.

Able or willing?

Which support helps depends on two questions: Is the ability for this task there? Is the willingness for this task there? The model follows the maturity level in Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard's situational leadership. It describes the relationship to a particular task, not a person: The same person can be confident and motivated with one task and neither with a new one. The four names for the support come from the model used here, not from Hersey and Blanchard.

The same distinction is found in Saaman's leadership principles: For management issues, the question is “Is the person able?”, and the answer lies in advice and training. For leadership issues, it is “Is the person willing?”. What matters is not to mix up the two questions. Interpreting a lack of ability as a lack of will means relying on appeals where training or better information would be needed.

Many apparent leadership problems are already solved at the lower levels: in the conditions and information, in concrete behavior, in skills and tools. Above them lie more fundamental questions, such as the purpose, rules, and self-image of a role.

Focus at each level

The focus shifts between hierarchy levels: the higher, the more strategic; the lower, the more operational. Leadership is not tied to the top. Team leads lead too, in direct collaboration.

In midsize companies with flat structures, one person often covers several of these levels at once and constantly switches between vision, steering, and execution. It pays to make these switches conscious and to clarify which task is called for in which committee or meeting.

Which contribution is the team missing?

In addition to formal roles, every team has functional roles: contributions a team needs in order to work well. Gellert and Nowack distinguish six. Their practical value lies in the signals that show a contribution is missing. Instead of asking who is which “type,” you ask: Which contribution is missing right now, and how can it be organized?

Belbin's model distinguishes nine roles in three groups: action-oriented, thought-oriented, and people-oriented. Both models emphasize the same thing: A variety of contributions is needed. Nine roles, however, can hardly be filled in a small team, and the models do not capture chemistry or personal liking.

What it looks like in a company

In midsize companies, leadership issues rarely show up as a “leadership problem,” but as a concrete disruption in operations. Each disruption points to a model that helps find the cause.

Collaboration across divisions has its own prerequisites: security and orientation (clarified roles, rights and obligations, commitment, exclusion of competition), shared goals and clear priorities, the ability to act (rules for working together, knowledge sharing, standing in for each other), and long-term viability (support from management, mutual responsibility).

Common misconceptions

Limits of the models

• Aids to order, not judgments. The models make patterns visible. They replace neither expert review nor responsibility for a decision.
• No diagnosis of people. Using team roles or maturity levels as labels entrenches attributions instead of clarifying tasks.
• Structure is necessary, not sufficient. Where trust and cohesion are missing, even the best role description has only limited effect.
• Chemistry stays out of the picture. The models can only partly explain why a constellation that is well set up on paper still doesn't work.
• Focal points, not rigid boundaries. In small companies, levels often converge in one person.