I have long been intrigued by the interplay between ordered structure and exuberant energy in human activities.
When we have wonderful energy without the discipline of structure, the energy can be wasted in unsustainable ventures. We lack good rules.
But when we have rules and procedures for everything, we lose the flexibility and initiative to solve new problems and grasp new opportunities. And we alienate our best and most creative members. Those are bad rules. Ideally we want both entrepreneurial energy and solid structures to channel it, and rules that work for both.
The challenge is to optimise these two poles: structure and energy. Administrators and auditors have the patience to read and understand the rules that govern our industry and company. They create internal rules, policies, processes, forms and permissions to prevent fraud and embed standard solutions to recurring problems. We listen closely to them, but take care not to put them in charge. A rule-bound CEO may work in a stable, highly regulated industry, but would lack the leadership spark most companies need to survive and thrive.
Similarly, we deeply appreciate the energy and innovation brought by the creatives in our team; but in most cases it would be suicidal to put them in charge. They need channelling and discipline. Finding this ideal balance that suits everyone is probably impossible in practice, so we have to give each side of this dilemma equal emphasis and continually correct course as our company veers towards one or other side.
There is a good analogy in a sport such as rugby. Good rugby players need to know the laws very well or they will be penalised and give points away to the other side. Good rugby players also need to learn the skills of handling the ball, scrummaging, tackling and making carries. They practise on the field and spend hours in the gym bulking up their muscles.
But when the time comes to play it would disastrous to focus their minds on what the rules tell them they must not do, or concentrate on implementing each skill. The laws need to be in the back of their minds, and the skills need to have been overlearnt so that they are automatic. Then the players can let themselves go and enter into the game with the single-minded focus on winning. The rules are not the game; it enables the game to be played safely and effectively.
Similarly in our organisations, the rules are not the business. The auditors and ops people should ensure we all know the ethical and process rules of the company, and we should implement consequences that motivate everyone to abide by those rules. The training people need to ensure everyone masters the behaviours needed to work effectively. Managers, coaches and mentors should encourage each member to practise these behaviours until it becomes automatic and deeply embedded.
But abiding by the rules and having the necessary skills is not doing the job. It is threshold competencies without which we cannot get onto the field, but the distinguishing competencies that allow us to win are different. It comes from the passion of wanting to do a good job and achieve results — the equivalent of winning the match.
The task of a manager is to call all members forward to do their job with single-minded passion. This is where leadership comes in. Leaders ensure their followers know and obey the rules and are appropriately skilled, but then they focus on energy, direction and teamwork to achieve the extraordinary.
At work as in sport, results come from the team losing themselves in the pure enjoyment of playing well. Good rules enable that; bad rules inhibit it.
• Cook, a psychologist and director of companies, chairs the African Management Institute.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.