Leading beyond authority

"To lead people, walk behind them."

Lao Tzu

When we talk about effective leadership in any organisation, we can easily use the analogy of the wolf pack.

Photo credit: Fabian Lauer, Unsplash

According to the variety of sources, the wolf pack is divided into five sections. The first echelon consists of the oldest, weakest and often sickest wolves. They normally walk first so that they do not fall behind and should they be attacked, they are willing to sacrifice themselves. The second echelon consists of the young and strong wolves. They are the protectors of the first echelon and the third. The third echelon are the women and children of the pack. They are the most vulnerable but they are protected by the second echelon and the fourth. The fourth echelon are again the young and strong protectors. Right at the end is the leader of the pack. He walks last to protect everyone else. The pack moves according to the elders' pace, always positioned to help and watch over each other.

The wolf pack is a highly effective social structure, build on the pillars of cooperation and discipline, in order to protect the family and thrive in difficult circumstances.

In any social structure authority is critically important, because it sets the example. But the autonomy in each unit and its members is crucial, as well. The responsibility is shared, with each and everyone performing according to its obligations.

We can find many similarities between this social structure and the organisations we work for.

In my experience, based on presence or lack of centralisation in the organisation, we normally can distinct two leadership strategies - of those who lead with authority, and of those who lead fostering autonomy.

Respectively, when we have the formal power and the required information to make a decision, we act with authority. And there is nothing wrong with that. The leader takes responsibility, people feel safe. The positives of the centralised structure are clear view towards goals, resulting in higher efficiency. Very suitable for people who prefer to follow instructions, but not so efficient in motivating people who thrive to develop themselves in the organisation, both horizontally and vertically.

On other side stands the decentralised structure, where the authority is delegated to each unit, fostering autonomy. There are many examples, including world renowned companies that use this strategy, giving the opportunity to their local offices to make the decisions and take actions accordingly. To develop that and make it highly effective, you need to ensure not only to delegate the authority, but also to share all the information that is needed and to give opportunity for making a mistake. If you can ensure the latter, without stigmatising the mistakes that will be made along the way, it can result in highly efficient local units with great long lasting self motivation among its members.

We also should not forget that, no matter on what managerial level we operate in at any given moment, the subordinate units act as a mirror to the managing unit, all the way from the top to bottom.

If the managing unit acts with authority, normally all the levels below act the same way.

If it acts with autonomy, the level below acts exactly the same.

For me personally it is rather difficult to say which of the two strategies is more effective, but my preferences go with the autonomy, because in my opinion, the most successful leaders are not those who are more vocal or leading from the front, but those who can make themselves replaceаble, those who can let the control go, those who delegate trust and empower their team members, those who, so to speak, "lead from behind", exactly like the leader of the wolf pack.