Recently, I attended a roundtable conference, the Aspen Institute's Socrates program, that focused on the influence of corporations on society. When I think deeply about what I experienced, I felt an extreme sense of disconnection, of frustration and uncertainty about whether I could comprehend the topic. I felt uncomfortable raising my hand.
I felt like I couldn't contribute because my views were so drastically "tunnel visioned." I'm a white-collar gal who came from the ground up, the floor, the field, the two-bay garage. As I compared myself and discounted my experiences, I began to recall an old conversation about scheduling a meeting.
That meeting was many years ago. I remember sitting at my desk and going through the list of potential meeting invitees and thinking What do I want to accomplish, and who should I include? I approached my co-worker. "Think I should invite this guy? He is the expert about repairs for this problem." My co-worker said, "No, keep it focused with the managers only, you don't want the meeting to get drawn out with too many details. Just stick to the facts." I agreed.
It dawned on me that the perceived meeting length didn't have anything to do with the mechanics and details per se but everything to do with the managers and our need to be heard about a topic that we knew a limited amount about. Essentially, the implied meaning was: Don't invite the expert; only invite the managers and decision makers.
As I sat quietly at the roundtable, I thought about why many workplace cultures feel that the experts do not need to attend meetings that involve their work and their problems. Why does leadership fail to consider the impact that a solution will have on the individual making the repairs? Why do managers think they know better than the person who touches the problems daily? Why do most leaders forge ahead with a decision that ultimately fails because they didn't include the right people - the experts - at the front end?
While most of my leadership experiences have been in engineering or maintenance-related roles, most of my bosses have come up through the ranks. Specifically, in the maintenance world, leaders of skilled workers typically struggle if they haven't turned a few wrenches themselves.
But there has been a turn in the tides. The days of leaders who have come up from a skilled craft are approaching extinction. More and more leaders with MBAs or engineering degrees are sought to lead skilled workers. While individuals with these degree types are outstanding problem solvers, they are not experts in the trade they may be supervising.
My first year supervising skilled workers was intimidating and humbling. Because I had skills repairing equipment and had a degree, I thought I had all the answers. I felt pressured to tell employees what to do and how to do it. It was expected of me as a leader. It wasn't until I started seeking feedback from the workers, who truly knew the real repeated problems and the safest, most productive way to do something, that it all became clear.
Who was I to think I knew the best way to improve a process or fix a problem when I don't do this work every day?
When I recognized the failure of my ways, I shifted my thinking. At first, it felt disappointing, like I was no longer the general leading the troops. It seemed inevitable that I would be criticized and ridiculed for being a weak, incapable leader.
But this thinking was and is invalid. Being a leader has never been about knowing every answer. It's not about being right every time. It's about not taking the easy way out when our integrity or knowledge is challenged. It's about humility, trust and empowerment of the team that surrounds the leader. It's about engaging the individuals who know the work best. It's really about inclusion of the experts to become a part of something bigger.
Eventually, my disconnection at the roundtable turned to clarity. I knew what I had to do to help the folks who are desperate for change. I felt encouraged; I then raised my hand.
While leaders and managers do make great decisions daily about improvements and directions for their teams, current leadership in many industries is failing to include the experts.
There must be seats at the roundtable for the folks who do the work and who know the problems. We must include blue collar workers to help solve white collar problems. This is not only important if we want to improve the nature of our work and lives but also fundamentally necessary if we expect the very nature of the corporation to be more considerate of its impact on society.
Sabrina L. Butcher is a member of the Mayor's Council for Women and the founder of LUCY based in Chattanooga, which develops executives/leaders on the human element of change management. Contact her at sabrina@lucydoes.com.