Domineering vs. Participating

Nielsen here addresses what we believe is the basic motivation for people when it comes to their involvement in any organization. In some ways, it really gets to the issue of whether we truly trust people or whether we believe it is necessary to coerce people. The question is this, "Do we believe coercion draws out the best in a person?" Does coercion reach the soul of a person? Or, does it shut it down? Coercion can almost be understood as a drug--the more it is utilized, the more the dosage of coercion must be upped to get the desired effect.

I find this particularly insightful during times of crisis, such as what our world experiences right now. Perhaps through the way formal leadership seeks to handle the tension and anxiety reveals where they fall on the value line of domineering vs. participating. Is there an invitation to participate or is there a language and practice that basically says, "We know more than you and therefore, here is the solution?" Indeed, perhaps communication (or the lack thereof) demonstrates where leadership falls on this spectrum.

Finally, he re-states the well-worn dictum, "People support best what they themselves create." So, in this hour, at this moment, how are we responding? Are we widening the circle of participation (beyond the norms of boardrooms and small committees) or are we shrinking them, holding information close to the vest?

Until....