A few years ago, my (then) assistant Marta Crass (she left FPC high and dry for her new baby, Kate – good choice) and I had an interesting conversation about work. She was asking my perspective on how I viewed office relationships and asked me this question: “I tell people that I work for you – what would you say?” My response, “I tell people that we work together.”
After discussing this with some of the guys in our office, I think that the given situation may affect our answer to this question. For instance, if we are thinking about organizational structure, I may be more likely to respond that I work “for” Dr. Chris Stephens than to say that I work “with” him. I think the bigger question is one of how you lead your team. Do you lead them as if they work “with” you or as if they work “for” you? There’s a big difference between the two. Our Pastor leads from the “with” masterfully, and I desire to do the same (although I fail often). Some thoughts for you -
If they work “for” you:
- You’re telling them what to do.
- You’re probably not seeking their input.
- They probably see you as a control freak and that you’re never wrong.
- You’re probably not leading in humility.
- They are questioning your “true” motives.
If they work “with” you:
- You’re invested in their life – they feel like they are a part of the family.
- You’re empowering them to lead.
- They probably respect you more and are more willing to accept your mistakes.
- They trust you.
- When the storm comes, they will have your back.
Obviously there is accountability and everyone works for someone. The bigger thought is, “How do they feel about the way that you are leading them?”
Great thoughts Josh-I’ve found that asking your team members their perspective helps you really understand their take on whether they are working “for” or “with” you. Sometimes as leaders we believe it’s one way when it’s actually another.
Thanks for your leadership contributions to the kingdom!
That’s a great thought – I think often as leaders it’s different than we believe because we are dealing with more information, etc. Great perspective!
Remember the Spiderman movie quote, with great power comes great responsibility? Some people that don’t know me well would be amazed at how the people I work with view me. Your business is only as good as your weakest link, so why would a leader not build up the people helping you build your business? It was only two weeks ago when I was having my own personal crisis when it really hit me that I am more than a source of income for people. I was shocked to get a non-business related call to find out how I was doing. I guess he could tell I was shocked and he told me you have always been there for me, I consider you my friend and want to be there for you now.
So what goes around comes around. You never know when a person can help you down the road. Circumstances change over time.
So if you are reading this, and you are the mean dictator bossman from the old school, it has been my experience it is possble to lead and direct without being nasty and it is much more fullfilling.
I actually favor work “for”. I believe the terminology has changed due to a shift in our culture and the lack of respect for authority growing in our country. We no longer respect authority, so authority has created the phrase work “with”. Nobody wants to work “for” anyone anymore so there is no loyalty and respect in organizations. The truth is that if someone you work “with” just isn’t doing their job, you are going to fire them. So “with” and “for” are just words where one makes us feel better about ourselves than the other.
I think you are talking more about respect and empowerment vs the actual structure. Someone could work “for” me and I could empower them to lead. That doesn’t change the fact that they are accountable to me and I am ultimately responsible for them. Working “with”, if taken too far, means you have way too many chiefs! “With” is relational and “for” is structural.
Great thoughts Aaron. I would have to agree. Working in government as long as I have, I have seen what too many Chiefs and not enough Indians can lead to. However as long as the ‘leader’ or boss can take constructive criticism and ideas from subordinates, then you can call it whatever you want. I call it the company I want to work for, whether it be a subordinate, or a manager/boss…
I wonder if lots of Chiefs came from the “Chiefs” never listening. Now, everyone is trying to be heard.