A Goldilocks analysis would suggest that relationships, groups and organizations need not be too hot (autocratic) or too cold (laissez-faire); rather, they can be a balance between high and low levels of control. We can identify this balanced level of control as a democratic form of leadership. Or we can use a less politically loaded term and call it collaborative or use a fancier term such as “synergetic.” It is in this environment that we are most likely to find Trust—though members of the system who come from a high control perspective are still unlikely to fully buy into this Goldilocks “compromise.” Trust will be moderated, and our collaborative leaders are likely to be in charge of Goldilocks’ porridge.
Proactive and Reactive Control: The dynamics of both proactive and reactive control often tend to be just as subtle as those of proactive and reactive inclusion. Inclusion and control needs aren’t always easy to fulfill when a social system is operating in the midst of md-21st Century VUCA-Plus. In both cases, these needs are usually informally established and tacitly acknowledged in an interpersonal relationship but are sometimes explicitly addressed through the formal operations of a group or organization. For instance, in the case of Inclusion, there can be an actual vote to determine if someone is admitted into an officially formed group. This can be a vote taken by an external constituency (such as the election of congresspeople) or by those who are members of the group (as in the case of many social associations and fraternal organizations).
As we turn to Control, we find, in most cases, that the formal role of manager, director, or chair is assigned by someone or some group operating at the higher level of the organization. Even when the leadership of a group is not formally assigned from outside, the decision to be made about leadership has often been made in a public manner. The issue of control can sometimes be formally addressed through the selection of officers in an organization (often the case with the boards of nonprofit organizations as well as corporations). The leaders can even be selected by an external constituency (as in the case of elected officials who preside over a legislative body—such as in the case of the American Vice President who is selected by the general population rather than members of the US Senate).
All of this is now in flux with regard to both relationships and larger social systems. Not many years ago, control was assumed to exist in the hands of the male in a relationship—or to that person in the relationship with the greatest social status (based on race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, etc.) This assumed control is often now being challenged. White Anglo men, in particular, must no longer assume that they are in control. Negotiated control is now often required. In many instances, a bit of Goldilocks balance is sought by both parties.
At the broader group and organizational level, the assignment of leadership and control is now often a bit more confusing than it used to be. There is often a bouncing between a straightforward autocratic mode of selection and a more convoluted system of selection. The latter system usually involves selection by a small group of people (an oligarchy) and perhaps a pro-forma process of approval by a larger body. Even the process for selection of an American President and Vice President is now being challenged. We are collectively confused about the nature of authority and the role to be played by various stakeholders.
Download Article 1K Club
