In our class, especially in our group presentation, we talked a lot about how excellent leaders help foster the learning culture in the organization. Since we pretty much focused solely on good leadership, I began to take it for granted that leadership always impacted the organizational in a positive way. I didn't realized this until the other day when I read an article about a Chinese TV show director's experience of working in several different TV stations. In that article, the director focused on two of them and analyzed why their market performance were polarized, and one of the main reasons lays in the different leading styles.
The first station he worked in was the leading TV station in China. He mentioned that when designing a show, the upper-class leaders did not usually give the creative group too many limitations in terms of the theme and content of the show. Therefore, all the directors were able to bring all kinds of knowledge they possessed individually to the group discussion, which involved a variety of fields, including history, philosophy, art, and social science. For each episode, all the staff members were willing to devote any resources needed to make it spectacular.
For several reason, the director began to work for another TV station, which was struggling in the market. When he arrived the new place, he experienced a significant cultural shock. For example, instead of open and free discussion about the themes of each episode, the upper-class leaders usually assign specific themes to the creative team and require them to finish 20 episodes within a month. The creative team was not allowed enough time and space to create. What the members did was just to meet the requirement of quantity without adequate quality. Also, in this station, hierarchy was a big thing. The creative team were not allowed to use those advanced equipment since they were reserved for the bosses. Consequentially, they had to spend a lot of time on the tedious technological issues, which severely hurt the efficiency and morale of the team.
In the dramatically different working experience, the leaders played the major roles in affecting how employees feel about their job. In the first one, the leaders were open minded and supportive. By allowing the space for employees to share their ideas and act upon them, it actually spoiled the potential of each individual and the group to the largest extent. In this case, the less the leaders required, the more the employees were able to produce. In the second TV station, the specific requirements from leaders limited the creativity and possibility among employees. Individuals were not given room to share their knowledge or construct new ideas with each other, since they were clearly told what to do and what they could do. The micro-management killed personality of the creative team, which led to their mediocre performance in the market.
Also, good leaders give employees motivation, while bad leaders give pressure. When talking about the first working experience, the director was very proud of the show he participated in and admired his colleagues. That's why he always wanted to devote fully to his work and make every show fantastic. However, in the second experience, all the director remembered was the incredible time pressure that prevented him from producing excellent work. The quality of his work was sometime under his own standard, but he wan't giving enough source to improve it. Therefore, he was not internally motivated, but just worked to meet the minimum requirement.
Another issue appears to be how leaders perceive themselves. In the first experience, the director said several good things about the leaders. It seems that the leaders were supportive, but not smothering. However, in the second case, it is clear that the leaders positioned themselves as the priority in the organization in all aspects and occupied the best resources. They were not advocating for their subordinates, but were bossy towards them. That's why that the director was much more satisfied with his job with the first employer. As an employee, he was valued and respected there, which is another major motivation for many people.
