This is a response to Layla’s original blog post found here:
Cooperation in a National Company of China: Seems Effective, yet Conflicts Lie Underneath
Layla in her blog post shared some very insightful experiences working at State Grid, a national electric utility monopoly of China. In particular, Layla mentioned within the context of a Communism, the impact of conflict in the company and how the company deals with conflict is quite fascinating. While this type of leadership can be more efficient in terms of eliminating conflict, the nature of the communistic style of leadership is being authoritative and coercive. As Layla was eluding to, on the surface of the organization seems to be working as a highly cooperative team; however, underneath is a conflict-ridden environment where staff members seldom listened to or ideas being ignored. In the short term, conflict avoidance may be helpful in avoiding and postponing confrontation and may be able to maintain a relationship, otherwise could be hurt after the confrontation. However, in a long-term may intensify the conflict itself (Lepsinger, 2010).
As an individual of a Chinese descent, I can identify some of the cultural practices and beliefs that shape the structure of Layla’s organization. But being born as a Canadian and have lived in a western culture all my life, it’s very difficult to fathom the challenges that Layla may need to go through. My first thought from reading Layla’s original post is with the current challenges of how senior leaders deal with conflict in the organization, what are some strategies that can be implemented to potentially increase opportunity for staff members to be heard? Are there any organizational or financial benefits that could entice senior leaders to take a more collaborative approach?
Another point that Layla mentioned in her post is the very last one, where there is gender bias in the company and how some of the staff have accepted this as the “invisible policy”. Northouse (2013) describes these gender barriers as “leadership labyrinth” for women and has three factors:
- Human Capital (i.e. education disparity, work-home conflict)
- Gender Differences (i.e. style, self-promotion, “women take care, men take charge”)
- Prejudice (i.e. gender stereotypes, biased perception)
Many of these factors, in fact, are simply not the case. Women are obtaining undergrad degrees, professional, and doctorate degrees at an equal, if not higher rate. Another explanation of the disparity indicating the fact women and men are different in leadership styles. However, meta-analysis of research examining leadership styles did not find women would lead in a more interpersonally oriented and less task-oriented manner compared to men (Northouse, 2013). One robust difference found was that women led in a more democratic or participative manner, which should be more effective in contemporary society. My second thought on Layla’s post is what can someone working in the organization do to help remove such barriers in order help ensure equal opportunity, access to the greatest talent pool, and increase diversity? And my last thought on the post is also Layla’s last thought on her original post. I am curious to hear what Layla think is the reason on even though her organization has been ignoring conflicts for many years but resulted in “nothing bad”? Does it mean the organizational structure is working?
Overall, I really appreciated Layla’s honest insight into her organization and I look forward to hearing more from her.
References:
Lepsinger, R. (2010). Closing the execution gap: How great leaders and their companies get results. John Wiley & Sons.
Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.