Working Without the “Boss”
This past week on the campaign trail, my team and I worked without the “boss” around all week. While our day to day tasks were relatively the same, the group spirit was different. Our supervisor took this last week off to go on a family vacation, but that didn’t mean we had a week off for ourselves. Something that I’ve learned about any campaign is that there is a counterintuitive logic to how the team operates without the campaign manager around. Campaigns with good managers need them around to function well, but campaigns with great managers function well even without them around. And then of course there are campaigns with bad managers which never function well. What I mean by this is that if a campaign manager is good at their job then the campaign needs them present to make sure everything is done on time and well and to make sure the rest of the team is doing their jobs. On the other hand, campaigns with great campaign managers function just fine without them around because the campaign manager has taught everyone their job so well they can do it well without direct supervision and the entire team has been working together so well, getting everything done, and has such a good understanding of their tasks that the absence of the manager is felt only to a minimum. Of course, the campaign won’t be able to function forever like this, but for just one week we managed very well since our manager is so great at his job. Because he has leaded us so well and gave us the tools to do our jobs independently, our team function well given the fact our “boss” wasn’t around. The lessen in leadership: good leaders must always be there to direct the group, but great leaders can step back once and awhile and the team will be just fine.
Interesting insights. Was the manager completely out of contact with the team for the week, or did he check in at all? Just curious. Sounds as though the manager – prior to his absence – built an environment in which members were able to work independently, with basic or little guidance, that he developed a good system for communicating, and likely – that he’s cultivated an environment where those without formal leadership can exhibit/exert leadership (as I would imagine that there were some who assumed some leadership in his absence?). You’ve already talked about the manager’s idiosyncrasy credit; how else would you characterize his leadership style and does that also explain the group’s success in his absence (e.g. situational, transformational, etc.)?