The French presidential elections begin soon and a small article in this week’s Economist highlighted elitism in France: four of the presidential candidates are graduates of the Ecole National d’Administration (ENA) – a “grande école”. Furthermore, two of the leading candidates and one former candidate from the 2007 election are graduates of the same class of 1980. In addition, that year’s alumni include the head of the financial-markets regulator; the head of the Paris métro; the CEO of AXA (an insurance company); and “a clutch of mere ex-ministers and ambassadors.” ENA’s hold on the top jobs in France is, according to the Economist, “breathtaking”.
Notwithstanding politics, with such an “elite” system, there is always a danger that the leaders are developed “in a vacuum” without reference to what followers want or expect. A leader cannot lead without followers; but a strongly elitist system can often overlook the “role” of followers. This reminded me of an article by two INSEAD professors, Bartolomé and Laurent, “The Manager: Master and Servant of Power”, Harvard Business Review, 1986, Vol 11. In their article they highlight the difference in perspectives between what “superiors” have of their “subordinate” and vice versa, including when a difference in perspective can be had by the same person.
Here is a summary of their research along with further implications (“et alors”).
Leaders and Followers
The authors used comparable samples for both groups i.e. managers of similar ages being in similar hierarchical positions having both superiors and subordinates. One group was asked what they expected from their subordinates; the other what they expected from their superiors.
What managers expect from their subordinates
The percentage of managers who mentioned the following traits was as follows:
74% Good Task Performance
60% Loyalty and Obedience
53% Honesty
31% Initiative
60% Loyalty and Obedience
53% Honesty
31% Initiative
In other words, the leaders expect their followers to principally perform well. Note however, that the “loyalty and obedience” can be at direct odds with the required “honesty” due to reticence on behalf of the subordinate.
What managers expect from their superiors
The percentage of managers who mentioned the following traits was as follows:
66% Good Communication and Feedback
60% Leadership
50% Encouragement and Support
37% Delegation and Autonomy
60% Leadership
50% Encouragement and Support
37% Delegation and Autonomy
In other words the followers principally want to be led! Good communication, feedback, encouragement and support are all leadership “traits”. The followers are not necessarily looking to be instructed or told what to do; but rather to be given direction and guidance.
Et alors?
The principal message of the article is empathy: the leaders can expect certain things from their followers but they also have to be aware of what the followers expect from them. Without this empathy, leadership itself can be rendered less effective due to expectation mismatches. In particular, the authors cite the issue of constructive feedback. This is wanted by the followers but seldom given; and for the leaders who expect “honesty”, genuine feedback seldom flows “up” the hierarchy when there is not an effective leader-follower relationship. With the severing of this key information flow, new opportunities and possible innovations are often lost.
Regarding France, to cite Hofstede’s reference to the power distance index (the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally), “France is high on the index: it is a society in which inequalities are accepted. The power is highly centralized in France, as well as Paris [which] centralizes administrations, transports etc. In management, the attitude towards managers is more formal, the information flow is hierarchical. The way information is controlled is even associated with power, therefore unequally distributed.” If we combine this with Bartolomé and Laurent’s conclusions, new opportunities and possible innovations might be less abundant in France than in other cultures. Meanwhile, it would seem that the ENA has built an elite system which perfectly corresponds with contemporary French culture! The question therefore arises: whilst it might work today, is this elitism sustainable?
Excellent article Guy!
ReplyDeleteIt's however surprising to see how a different management style which focus on empathy and the leadership traits can positively impact the organization in France.
By experience (6 months in France) I could observe a "thirst" for this style amongst the "subordinates". It took time for people to remove scepticism, but now I'm observing already some positive changes in terms of staff bringing forward perspectives that lead to inovative ideas that affect the day-to-day work of the organization.
It is no big surprise probably that a country produces systems that reflect its own culture: anything else would be at odds with people's deeply rooted beliefs and behaviours, and likely to either fail or to be adopted only superficially (with lots of work-arounds and loop-holes to make things cuturally acceptable).
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, culture being essentially a product of past experience, it seems extremely difficult, if not impossible, to say whether or not it will be able to adapt to future situations.
One observation perhaps is that in spite of constant criticism of their culture over the past few centuries, the French have managed to maintain a pretty enviable situation, after all.
This is not to say that it will work forever: certainly cultures do clash with other cultures in international settings, and yes, the world is getting more and more international, so maybe the French should worry a bit more about opening up and diversifying their styles.
But which cultural trait will prevail over others eventually may be a difficult bet: could it not turn out that while today French culture seems at odds with the leadership and management culture issued from mainly anglo-saxon business schools, it might be less at odds with a different model that could emerge from a different part of the world over the next few decades ?
That said, I personnally would favor some more empathy around the place I work. As "anonymous" said, things are changing, probably also due to new generations flowing into organisations, new generations with different expectations and styles. This may be good news, but in the end how can we even be remotely sure that this is what is needed to win the global survival game ?
Thank you "anonymous" and Robin for these comments.
ReplyDeleteChange may indeed be driven both by the thirst from subordinates (esp. when these are mid-level managers) and by a changing world: it is not the biggest or the oldest or the most established who are going to survive in business, but the fastest. With "elitist" leadership, change is very slow and therefore the elitist system might not be sustainable.