In my last blog post here and an article I wrote shortly after for iCroner, “”, I articulated my thoughts and theories on how leadership has changed in the workplace. Lately I have been reading and reflecting on this, and also on the wider picture of influences on leadership styles, and started to wonder – how much does an organisation allow us to be individual leaders? How does an organisation encourage certain types of leadership style?

A contact (who used to be a professional dancer, like myself) posted on Facebook recently that a dance performance by�� was really innovative and very different. I was intrigued and watched a clip of the performance, and was underwhelmed to say the least. The dancers were mostly all synchronised, as in most group ballets or modern dance routines; the only “dynamic”, in my opinion, was the costumes. They were black and white unitards and the colours were divided down the middle of each person – one side of their body white and the other black. Now, I would say this gives an interesting look, but innovative?

This started to get me thinking��– relating the dance to an organisation, and considering the level of freedom we have as managers and leaders to express our own leadership styles, what does this mean? Do we look for synchronicity and uniformity in leaders?

Many organisations use performance management tools for staff that aim to define behaviours that are desirable and encouraged, including “leadership”. Many organisations feel this is necessary in order to foster “right” behaviours and discourage “wrong” behaviours. In principle, this all seems fine, but what defines right? And can we define, for example, the behaviour “to be innovative”?��Surely, in many ways, this is subjective, and if this is the case, how do we then measure it? These are questions that HR practitioners have been asking for a number of years, and the only real answer is to define it within the context of the organisation and its vision, and define innovation based on that context. But this is likely to impact on leadership styles and the freedom to express ourselves – if we are all to be defined by the context of the organisation and be uniformed in our approach, then we are perhaps stifling the innovation and talent we, as organisations, are desperate to retain and hire.

But what happens if someone is “different”, as this can be seen as wrong and needing correcting – in order to be seen as “good leaders” within an organisation, do we need to become like actors and only “show” the expressions and leadership of what is required for that particular organisation? I would argue that this is not the solution, and heard a similar position discussed at a lunchtime debate I attended recently, sponsored by . The panellists raised the point that staff want their leaders to be “human”, also referred to as “authentic” and, in the States, “holistic” leadership. Whichever term you use, it seems to me that people want leaders who they feel are “real” – someone they feel comfortable talking to rather than someone who makes them feel like they need to watch their “p’s and q’s” constantly.

One of the most common recruitment questions currently being asked is, “How do you add value?”, which implies an acceptance and even desire of individuality from future (and hence one would assume also current) employees.��But is this what organisations genuinely look for and reward – difference and individuality in their leaders – or do they really want uniformity? It seems that there is a trend for people within the organisations wanting individuality but organisations as a whole lacking support for it, so it may be that they need to make some dramatic changes to their processes and systems to accommodate and attract real, innovative talent.

Jennifer Bryan is an independent consultant who collaborates with 91Ӱ��’s��Consultancy��practice.

The post Uniformity and individuality in the workplace appeared first on Blog.

I recently wrote a soon-to-be-published article for iCroner that outlined the “Journey of Leadership in the Workplace”, defining the skills a leader would need in 10 years to lead and manage in a more consumer-type workplace, as defined by the 91Ӱ�� workplace research. I argued that leaders would need to be able to redefine boundaries and rules, and ensure that they are established throughout the social context. They will need to have a high level of emotional intelligence, demonstrate benevolence towards others, have the intellectual capability to get the job done, and the ability to communicate messages consistently and frequently, so that staff are fully aware of what is expected of them, including the requirement to interact with, and be an active member of the organisation in a consumer-like manner.

With these ideas fresh in my head, I then went to the ballet to see “” with Carlos Acosta. You may think what does this have to do with leadership and the workplace?, ��but I saw pushing, challenging and working within boundaries. Metal bars signified a box on stage and, one by one, each dancer would enter the box, dance, then step out of the box and watch the others do the same, until eventually they all danced in the box: sometimes in sync with one another, sometimes complementing one another, and sometimes dancing their own dance whilst still in the box with the others.

Inspiration struck, and I started to think that, just like in this dance, in the workplace leaders and teams watch each other, are sometimes in sync, sometimes complementary and sometimes doing their own task. For the future workplace, I started to think that leaders and managers may not only need to look to define boundaries from a task perspective, but also in a behavioural and personality arena.

Most leaders, managers and staff members have a “” that they put on. When they go home, they put on their “home face”. Cynically, this is thought of as people being two-faced; in a business arena, as being professional, or rather showing professionalism at work. In the future, if (as I argue in my article) we will need a more holistic leadership style, then we will need to interact with the whole person – more than just the “work face”.

So what does that mean? Expectations will change and we will need to accept that we are interacting not just with part of a person, but the whole person – and that means that leaders will need to lead and manage the whole person. A person cannot always be professional, so this will mean we need to be able to manage emotion. I don’t mean our own emotion, in the sense that we hide it – exactly the opposite. We will need to learn how to cope when someone is emotional. What will we do when someone cries? Will we pretend it is not happening, which tends to happen now? What happens when someone shouts? Will we run away and hide? Bury our head? Or face it head on?

How we deal with emotion in our personal lives now will transpire into the workplace as both places meld into one. The expectation of “professional” will actually disappear, as no one person will always be professional.

And so back to that dance – sometimes we will be in sync with one another, sometimes we will complement each other and sometimes we will be doing our own dance. Whatever the case may be, we will need to accept, adapt and cope with these new emotional boundaries.

Jennifer Bryan (jennifer.bryan@aecom.com) is head of organisational development within��91Ӱ��’s Consultancy practice.

The post No more work face? appeared first on Blog.