We all like to be part of a group, but sometimes things go too far. It’s not uncommon to share a bond with your co-workers when you spend at least 8 hours a day with the same people, but when the office starts to run like a household, I think a line has been crossed.
A particular leadership style approach stuck out to me while reading through Chapter 4 in “Leadership” by Peter Northouse. Northouse discusses a style of leadership called Paternalism/Maternalism, where the leader is considered to be a “benevolent dictator” who maybe often be described as “fatherly” or “motherly” toward their followers. (Northouse 2013). He also mentions house the organization may be referred to as a “family”, while rewarding loyalty and punishing non-compliance.
My old department was based around Family Living Services, where we would put adults with special needs into a foster care type of living situation. Within that department, the management used the “paternalism/maternalism” leadership style, which I believed may have led to some problems. Although the leader using this style does so for the good of the organization, I believe it leaves room for boundary issues.
Boundaries are important, and so are realistic expectations. Although most people in the department may have been willing to provide care to our individuals when needed, or when it was a job responsibility, it wasn’t necessarily the right choice for everyone involved. There were many times that administrative support would be expected to provide direct care, even when they had no real interest in social services or wanting to do so. The culture of the department was so that it was expected that everyone would be willing to have someone move in with them at a moment’s notice due to an emergency, when in reality that was not realistic.
I believe this leadership also lead to an unprofessional office culture. It lead to favorites being played, and when we had an issues, the answer was sometimes “Well, that’s just the way we do things in this department.” Our leaders used this style so blatantly, we had offered to get them “Father’s Day” and “Mother’s Day’ cards from the office.
The final moment when I realized how blurred the lines had gotten in the department, was when I told my direct supervisor that I had an interview for a promotion at the corporate office in the Human Resources department. Instead of dealing with this in the light that I was staying in the organization, or even just strictly business, it became personal. I had betrayed “the family”, even though I was staying in the same company, working toward the same common goal. She told me that was the last thing she wanted to hear today, and got up and walked out of the room.
When it comes down to it, work is work, not family. Although you made enjoy each other, and feel close with your co-workers, it is important to remember the difference between work and family.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Sixth Edition ed.). Los Angeles, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
Image from: http://www.lanewarrior.com
Josue David Vargas says
Great point that there should be a line before everything is run like a household. It think it is important to point out that the paternalism/maternalism is only one aspect of the style theory. An effective leader will shift their style when it is needed. Some subordinates will need the paternalism style at some point in order to grow and then a different style will need to be implemented. A leader who does not shift from one still to the next will not be effective in leading a diverse group. I believe that each style has a time and place. Like the comment above, regarding the military, that approach does help build character and prepare the individual for a strenuous environment they soon face after training.
Josue Vargas
Larry Joe Mushinski says
I understand what you are getting at with this blog entry. I have experienced the same type of issues except from a Military situation. You would be amazed at how many parents kick their children out of the house at 18 years old and they either come and join the military because of no other choice or the parents themselves will bring their kids up to the recruiters office and have them join. They do this because they know that their child will be forced to grow-up fast just within the 9 weeks of US Army basic training will put them through. This is a classic Paternalism/Maternalism leadership style because the thought of the parents is that we fail our child so the military will correct and raise them right as a fatherly figure. 9 weeks of mean Drill Sergeants acting as the “benevolent dictator” that you speak of.
I had many cases like this as a Sergeant in the Army where if it was not for Basic Training I don’t think these kids could tie their own boots or even do some simple tasks like do their own laundry, clean there room, ect.