Our capitalism-obsessed world still seems to work predominately in largely top-down-led organisations (a legacy of the late nineteenth and certainly all of the twentieth century) albeit some of them like to profess a kind of horizontally-led ability (maybe to look cutting-edge and modern) that enables those lower down the scale to feel like they can do things like those at the top but can’t, realistically, quite do that because the system says that’s ‘not our way of doing things’!

Many, one imagines, may well just go along with that with good reason: play the system, get some benefits and try and do some good when it’s relevant and you’re able.

It’s ironic that many of those leading in many systemic approaches to organisational functionality and appearing to show (some) enthusiasm for these ‘modern’ approaches (as maybe it’s the thing to do to show efficacy and ability) never suggest it might be better and more progressive to get rid of their own role, or at the very least, change the system that so-say needs to be like it is to sustain and propel organisational intent.

Plus, one imagines that these leaders prefer not being so horizontal that they can’t take credit for (allowing) someone else’s helpful efforts but, if those efforts don’t work, they can enact ‘leadership’ and tell them off or even get rid of them if they’re feeling really mean.

I appreciate no one, certainly given how the economy works and the paths it forces individuals and collectives to take, wants to end their own work role and/or credibility for it, but in those cases when and where it does (sort of) happen, effective change and good things do tend to happen. Maybe not in the short-term, but mid- to long-term, certainly.

Which, in a wider sense, would be good for many systems and approaches to be thinking and operating in more so than they do at the present time.

But hey, to bring this post to an end, despite any top-down approaches that may or may not be directly in place at an organisation and the fact that something that may be raising a question to engage some voices and viewpoints, whether it is a partial or wholly repetitive and even a wanted item, from the bottom-up, it might be worth just putting it forward (higher up) to see what might happen with that conversation (again).

You know, lead like leaders are supposed to... or, if it doesn’t fit with current, wider intentions and efforts, then just clearly take the time to state context and any reasons for not putting or taking it forward, to then help all sides move on from it productively and even adapting the proposition for the next conversation and hopefully constructive debate.