In this ongoing series about sleepwalking at work, I’ve reflected on how our definition of leadership, individually and collectively, shapes the relationship between leaders and their people. On the surface, we assume that we all share the same definition of leadership. But there are many ways to think about leadership, from what it’s supposed to be, to how it shapes our relationships at work.
So far, we’ve described:
Today, we explore how leadership definitions can help either disrupt, or reinforce, sleepwalking at work. For example, if we think the role of an organizational leader is to make the work feel manageable, predictable, and under control, then that leader will hand out specific directions and closely govern the flow and pace of the work. When that behavior comes from their manager, employees often stop thinking independently and simply follow what they are told to do.
Over time, this over-controlled relationship reinforces sleepwalking at work. Employees stop thinking independently. They comply rather than question. They disengage. Employees may also come to expect that the manager must clearly outline all their work and responsibilities. If their work becomes confusing and challenging, they believe it’s the manager’s responsibility to rectify the situation.
This presents an interesting paradox for organizations. The more leaders try to manage complexity by simplifying it, the more employees expect them to do just that, and disengage when they don’t. This framework and the relationship it creates work well in a world that is predictable, where control is possible. It doesn’t serve the organization in times of disruption.
How complexity changes leadership, behavior, and expectations
Organizational leaders often express the desire to have engaged and thinking employees. But the reality is that the culture and behavior of the organization often send a different message. Complexity has different rules and assumptions compared to even the most complicated systems.
Traditional definitions of leadership can’t keep pace with the complexity of organizational work today.
Complicated problems are discoverable. With enough analysis, we can figure out the problem and find a good solution. However, complex problems are constantly evolving because new data continually emerges, changing our understanding of the problem itself. It’s like springtime when plants and trees continue to grow and change throughout the day, never remaining the same from morning to night. When we encounter complex problems, we need multiple perspectives to understand the issue. If our employees stop bringing their brains to work, they won’t be able to help us.
Understanding complexity requires a shift in mindset
The learning necessary to solve complex problems must be done by teams, not individuals. Individual leaders, no matter how competent, can’t see the whole problem from one point of view. It takes diverse perspectives to fully understand what they are dealing with. This complete understanding is impossible without active, engaged, thinking, and initiating employees!
That’s why the definition of leadership must evolve along with our organizational systems. It’s no longer about “knowing the solution” and directing others. Instead, leaders must rise above ambiguity and co-create learnings with the team. In a world where complexity is constant, we need leaders who foster curiosity and constantly create space for learning. That means redefining leadership from command-and-control to being a catalyst for engagement and shared growth.
In turn, employees must shift their way of recognizing a good leader. A good leader isn’t the person who makes things simple. A good leader doesn’t smooth over discomfort.
A good leader generates constructive tension—dissonance—that sparks learning and growth. Do you have an example of this type of leader? Tell me!
