Engagement Gages the Leader
The fact that the stereotypical boss is a micromanaging jerk is a disservice to leaders everywhere. Many employees have an immediate distrust of their superiors because of the stigma that revolves around hierarchy. Oftentimes this skepticism of one’s character is warranted too; your boss might not work very hard, or treat people very kindly, and yet he is in a position of management.
Given this, I believe that a boss or manager is not inherently a leader, merely an individual in a position of superiority — and my claim is, If you are in a position of superiority and do not lead your staff, you should be fired! For far too long, people have sought positions of power — particularly in the corporate world — as a way to get out of the rat race and ease up on the responsibility. Somehow, a promotion is supposed to equal better pay with less work — because you can simply delegate the responsibility to your inferiors, right?
This is truly a bad mindset and corporate structure. It’s a hierarchy of power instead of competence. If you want seniority so that you can express your demands upon others and bear no expectations yourself, then you are undeserving of such a role. The higher in command that you are, the more responsibility you should bear, and not only that, but the higher the expectations.
For the majority of people, as soon as they have an opportunity to manage other people, they neglect their own obligations of contribution — after all, why do yourself what someone else could handle?
Sometimes it is appropriate to delegate tasks among your team. But for every responsibility that is trickled down, your engagement should be doubled: effort contributed first for the task, second ensuring that your peer is properly fulfilling the role requested. There is no “one or the other” in this situation; if you assign a task to an employee and give them no jurisdiction, they will respond by inputting no effort. If you order someone to complete a project and give them no guidance, you should fire yourself — seriously.
My philosophy, as harsh as it may be, is based on this analysis: You are only as useful as the value you provide. This being said, the fat cat of a corporation is no more important than his employees if he is not actively contributing value to the company. Now, value can manifest itself in many forms and it’s a tricky thing to measure. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating: an imbalance in company responsibility will determine whether the company fails or succeeds.
One way to quickly rectify an imbalance is simply intertwining the responsibilities of the leader and the employee. This means the leader must be consistently engaged with every task, even if said task has been delegated. And engagement does not mean management; engagement should instead be a measurement of involvement, contribution, and value added. Is micromanaging a project truly “involving” oneself? Or is it superimposing a preconceived notion — a bias that actually inhibits progress?
I can’t provide an immediate assessment as this concept must be uniquely addressed in every scenario. A lot of it boils down to sentiment; do your employees (or you as an employee) feel that their contributions are often disregarded for the boss’s big idea, even if specifically prompted for input?
Many in power are too quick to say, “Here’s what you need to do,” instead of, “What do you think we should do?” Refer to my previous blog, Most Disputes are Communication Errors, for more information on that.
Being a young leader, I am probably naïve about the many possible scenarios that might unfold in the workspace. However, I am quick to humble myself and listen — the exact response I believe all leaders should practice.
While working on e-States, I have treated all project contributors as equals. I do not believe that any idea I propose is inherently better simply because it is my own. In fact, being young and ignorant of the world, I typically assume that my perspective is the most narrow (and probably wrong) — surely a merciful bias that gives the benefit of the doubt to anyone I am working with.
What are the odds that I am correct every single time? Well, I wouldn’t put money on it. Given that I can’t predict the future, I don’t know in which situation I will be wrong, either. So it’s always a good starting point to assume that there is more to discover, more information necessary for a proper decision, and plenty of unfactored variables.
This philosophy of communal contribution is a cornerstone of e-States decentralization. Using blockchain, we recognize that every node (whether it is a token in our ecosystem or a member of our community) has valuable input. While I may have stepped up as leader, I am ready to work with any person who is likewise pursuing the end goal of growing the company, democratizing real estate, and providing technological innovation to the world. Will you join me?