The organizational theorist Elliott Jaques suggested that you can test organizational design by one main criterion—does it increase mutual trust or does it increase suspicion? (1)

In his view, much of the mistrust in hierarchy is “generated by the failure to specify the accountability and the authority people are expected to exercise in their everyday working interactions.” (2)

 In particular, managers should be responsible not just for the work of their direct reports but for their results and the quality of work context. In addition Jacques stated manager accountability should include adding value to the work of their direct reports, developing healthy teamwork, and generating authentic enthusiasm for work. To do this, managers also must have authority to make work assignments and make removals if necessary—but even the latter would also be dependent on a process that does not disrupt trust.

Jaques felt that without the clarity of these basic expectations, other interventions will not get very far--like working on morale, individual insight, exercises in group dynamics, incentive planning, leadership development, etc.

(1) From Art Kleiner, Elliot Jaques Levels With You, Strategy+Business, Jan 1 2001, Issue 22
(2) Elliott Jaques, Requisite Organization, Cason Hall and Co, 1989

Recently, a group of community agencies I was working with finally joined together to work on a change effort. This took several months of conversations because of the political and personal risks involved for the leaders.

When asked about crucial turning points, the leaders said that it was early on when we openly talked about the risks and downsides of engaging in the effort.

This was not easy for those who really wanted to get started. They were fearful that looking at potential problems would inhibit buy-in.

Instead, as one of the participants said, "It is empowering to have all the information in front of you." Having the risks spoken out loud enhanced the experience of choice, a crucial aspect of authentic buy-in. Also, they had more confidence in their ability manage the change--(as the image displays, by acknowledging the risks as well as the inability to foresee everything in advance, they felt in a better position to respond as they went along--to build bridges to success).

Talking about risks right from the start is not itself without risk. But what you gain is true partners who are more likely to sustain teamwork through the inevitable trials of change. True partners need true "informed consent" about the entire nature of a change--both the benefits and the risks.

At the heart of change is working with ambivalence--contradictory ideas, behaviors, and feelings which occur even when a change is strongly desired.

Though counter-intuitive, taking a respectful stance and seeking understanding can soften the grip of contradictions and convert them into something that can be worked on. (Kegan and Lahey, 2009)

In organizations, "working on" may mean talking through the implications of a change or problem solving barriers or lowering perceived risk by testing new actions on a small scale. Slowing down for such exploration and problem solving enables better outcomes in the long run. Mere compliance pushes contradictions underground, drawing creative energy out of the system.

"People often get stuck not because they fail to appreciate the downside of their situation but because they feel at least two ways about it. The way out of that forest has to do with exploring and following what the person is experiencing and what, from his or her perspective, truly matters…. It is when people experience acceptance of themselves as they are that change becomes possible.” (Miller and Rollnick, 2013)

Manager behaviors have substantial impact on the experience of collaboration and partnership between employees (i.e. the climate of trust).

In one research study, while there were multiple influential manager behaviors, two had the strongest impact, accounting for 34 percent of the variance in the overall climate of trust. (from Gervase Bushe, Clear Leadership: sustaining real collaboration at work. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2010)

One variable causing negative impact was a manager's degree of fusion: this was defined as having a hard time saying no, being easily swayed by emotional appeals, showing a desire to please everyone, and getting too close to people.

The other variable causing negative impact was a manager's lack of clear self-boundaries: this was defined by multiple factors including not staying calm under stress, basing decisions on perceptions rather than facts, and lack of skilled management of disagreements (e.g. not separating the issues from feelings about a person).

Conclusion: The study indicates that managers who do not manage their feelings very well or "who want to please everyone reduce the level of collaboration among people in an organization." (Bushe, 2010)

At a recent conference on leadership, some participants expressed strong negative reactions to even the mention of hierarchy and positional authority which they saw as unavoidably dis-empowering and controlling.

In contrast, some participants in past conferences have had strong negative reactions to mentions of equality, participation in decisions, and consensus which were seen as asking for role confusion, intolerable delays in decisions, and stalled initiatives.

Balancing equality vs.hierarchy is an example of one of many challenges for which there are no risk-free, easy answers. In response to this uncertainty, it is not uncommon for people to develop hardened, polarized positions---a process Oshry calls "dancing into the tunnel of limited options." (Barry Oshry, Seeing Systems, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., 2007).  

Instead, by recognizing and accepting the lack of risk-free, simple answers, more nuanced strategies can be developed. For example, types of decision making might vary in different situations. Or, consensus decision making might include back-up resolution methods to assure timelines.The objective is to increase everyone's capacity to "respond complexly to complex situations." (Oshry 2007)

Empowerment of followers is a crucial reason why transformational leadership is effective in leading to performance beyond expectations and helping followers to be more creative, more flexible and more open to change. (Bass, Bernard and Riggio, Ronald E. Transformational Leadership 2nd Ed., Psychology Press, 2006)

But this does not mean transformational leaders are passive. In fact, laissez-faire management, associated with avoiding or delaying decisions, has been shown to be connected to low productivity, more conflict and lack of cohesion among employees (Bass et al).

On the other hand, this does not mean such leaders use primarily top-down directive, decision making. Close monitoring, oversight and control are also substantially less effective leadership methods.

Transformational leadership requires a delicate balance of asserting positional power and promoting empowerment. The key components for effective balance, as studied by Bass et al, are: (a) idealized influence--e.g. communication of clear expectations and vision, willingness to take risks, high ethical standards, persistence, and determination; (b) inspiration motivation--e.g. enthusiasm, optimism, and motivation of others; (c) intellectual stimulation--e.g. questioning assumptions, and thinking of old problems in new ways; and (d) individual consideration--e.g. staying aware of individual concerns, acting as a coach and mentor, and seeking two-way communication and feedback.