R-E-S-P-E-C-T
At one of the 2009 SLC Sunstone workshops, a Weber State Professor — Michael J. Stevens — taught a short course in management. He described 4 types of managers ranging from disrespectful to respectful, and dominant to submissive:
Q1: Imposer — makes authoritarian decisions
Q2: Ignorer — avoids or postpones decisions
Q3: Ingratiator — wants everyone to be “one happy family”
Q4: Integrator — promotes self-direction in others
With the ideal being Q4.
The 4 characteristics can be displayed on a grid. At the one end of the vertical axis is dominance (assertiveness) and at the bottom is submission (passivity). On the left of the horizontal axis is disrespect (hostility) and on the right is respect (warmth). So the grid looks like this:
Dominance
Q1 ! Q4
Disrespect _______________________ Respect
Q2 ! Q3
Submission
It’s intuitive that managers should live on the right side of the grid. But I don’t like the words “dominance” or “submission” on the vertical axis. For me, living halfway between the two is an equality position where colleagues treat each other as peers. I’m not a big fan of top-down management, and Q4 seems to have too many seeds of authoritarianism. The horizontal line seems like it could represent an “equality” position with the ideal manager residing halfway between Q3 and Q4, call it Q3.5.
When a manager takes a dominant position, he is going to loose a lot of valuable input from collleagues. With the rapid rise of electronic communications, I think collaborative efforts without “dominance” are very feasible. Treating colleagues as peers also encourages empowerment; giving employees the tools and authority to get the job done.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:29 am
People frequently define power as the ability to affect others without being affected by them. “Unilateral power” is the label applied to this traditional vision by process philosopher and theologian Bernard Loomer. To be unilateral here means to move one way. The generals and admirals command the captains. The captains direct those below them who ultimately control the seamen and the privates. Orders flow one way–down the ranks. They don’t move upwards against the flow of power. Unilateral power is controlling and dominating. By idolizing it, we shape our entire culture.
Process-relational philosophers prefer a different model: relational power. According to C. Robert Mesle, relational power includes 3 components: the ability to (1) be actively open to and affected by the world around us; (2) create ourselves out of what we have taken in; and (3) influence those around us by having first been affected by them. There is an important difference between the power to control others while shutting them out of our lives and the power to interact in the lives of other in ways that enrich us all. For me the “relational power” concept seems infinitely preferable to the “unilateral power” model.
I think the “relational power” model fits Q3.5 better than Q4. The halfway point between dominance and submission. The equality position.