Imagine for a moment that you are sitting in the first officer's seat of a jumbo jet. As you chat with the aircraft's captain, the clouds ahead of you part and you see that you are about to crash into the side of a mountain. What do you do?
I would be very surprised if you decide to sit there and say nothing at all. However, there is evidence that this has been the response to looming danger of first officers in countries where culturally the 'power distance' between leaders and subordinates is a large one.
The term, power distance, was first used by the Dutch social psychologist, Mauk Mulder, in the mid-1970s and defined by him as 'the degree of inequality between a less powerful individual and a more powerful other'. Consequently, in cultures where the power distance is large, subordinates will find it very difficult to challenge higher ranking individuals - even when the consequences of keeping their mouths shut might be disastrous.
In the late 1970s another Dutch social psychologist, Geert Hofstede, took this work one stage further by demonstrating a clear power distance between occupations and between disciplines within organisations. At that time I suspect the power distance between personnel and other departments would have been significant - and not in our favour. How things have changed.
As I've explored in previous articles, HR has been arguing its case for a more strategic role and a place at the top table for more than two decades - an argument that has now been won in a growing number of organisations. However, I've also observed that, once the argument is won, HR teams need to shift rapidly from advocacy to delivery. And I'm concerned that a legacy as a subordinate discipline may well act as a barrier to ensuring this delivery.
A good example of this can be found when you look at the state of talent management processes in many organisations. Scratch the surface and what you find is a thinly disguised succession planning process: if manager X moves on they can be replaced by subordinate Y or, if push comes to shove, subordinate Z.
This is a process that would be instantly recognisable to the ninth Duchess of Marlborough who, on the birth of her second child, famously asserted that she had ensured the future of her family dynasty by delivering 'an heir and a spare'. And in a situation where the challenges to be faced by the next generation of leaders are broadly the same as those being tackled today, this approach may well be adequate.
But what our organisations really need from us is a process that takes as its starting point the challenges our businesses will be tackling in five or 10 years' time, and which shows how the required talent can be developed or acquired over an appropriate time frame.
Creating this kind of forward-looking process demands two things: first, an HR team with a seat at the top table so the HR director has input into future organisational strategy - this has been done (or, at least, is well in hand); second, players in the HR team to have the confidence to step out of the HR silo and work collaboratively with their peers in other disciplines that are playing a major role in shaping the organisation's strategy.
Having successfully argued its case to be members of the leadership community, HR now needs to develop the confidence to behave as equals within that community. They should learn from the experience of airlines around the world: that by making flight crew aware of the potential dangers of cultural power distances, the catastrophic implications can be eliminated.
In a similar way, I believe if HR teams are aware of the impact the power distance legacy can have on the way we interact with our peers in other disciplines, we can deliver the aligned people strategies that will drive the future success of our organisations.
David Fairhurst is senior vice-president/chief people officer, McDonald's Restaurants Northern Europe
