LE Part1: "Two-in-a-box" Leadership

Hello, everyone.
I apologize I haven't released my blog for two days as my condition wasn't good until yesterday and I prioritized sleeping early in the evening. So sorry about that. I'll catch up and match the numbers by releasing blogs two or three times in one day.

After reading the first part of Leading at the Edge, I learned how important keeping the team members' attentions toward the common goal is, by defusing destructive mood. In the book, the author raised some examples of companies in the 1900s. One of the strategies stated in the book is called "Go-Forward Plan," and it reminded me of the "two-in-a-box" leadership.

The article called "Leadership Teams: Why Two Are Better Than One," by Harvard Business Review shows an example of a company called "Fishbowl." This company provides "inventory management solution among QuickBooks users." The strategy of this company is quite unique. The presidents made pairs of employees for all management jobs.  They say there is a very good point about adopting this "two-in-a-box" leadership: "More creative outcomes. We’ve chosen our pairs carefully – we align paired leaders for maximum contrast in thinking and analytical styles. For example, our product management leads include one partner who is “left brained” and one who is “right brain” dominant. One is linear in his style; the other creative. The result is a manifestation of true synergy" (Williams, Scott).

The reason why "Go-Forward Plan" reminded me of this leadership is based on my experience in an organization I belong. Now I am an executive committee member of an organization called H-LAB, which stands for HCJI (Harvard College Japan Initiative) - Liberal Arts beyond Borders. This organization provides a nine-day summer school to the high school students and they can experience some seminars held by Harvard students in a small group of people and listen to people who play active roles in various fields like politicians, CEOs, entrepreneurs, directors of movies and so on. The organization two years ago was represented by two leaders. One of them often said harsh things to everyone. He always demonstrated critical points in discussion. The other leader, on contrast, always talked to individuals and tried to cheer them up. He observed team members closely every single day, and whenever he noticed someone was acting weird because of the stress during the hard summer school, he talked to the person and motivated him/her. By having both of them, the management of the summer school in that year did go well and summer school itself became a huge success. I think they both were definitely necessary in a team. Having only a strict leader could make a great decision on the management but might cause a disquieting mood and a trouble among members. Having only "go-forward" leader could make members feel comfortable in a team but might make them lazy.

What I consider from the article from Harvard Business Review and my experience is that the balance is always important, and two-in-a-box" leadership is an easy way to balance each of good aspects of two kinds of leadership.

Work Cited

     Williams, David K., and Mary M. Scott. "Leadership Teams: Why Two Are Better Than One." Harvard Business Review 23 Apr. 2012: n. pag. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.

Shiori Asakura