Eliminating Mental Silos through Servant Leadership

Silos in Organizations

Barriers to Cultural Unity

Silos in organizations can represent barriers to cultural unity. Culture enables an organization to communicate and maintain the values it fosters. When barriers to cultural unity occur, departments fail to share the same values; the same ideals and principles are not communicated from one sphere of the organization to the next. Tribalism can result, with each department or unit having its own in-groups, its own values, and its own culture; creating fear within divisions and an “us vs. them” mentality among workers (McGee-Cooper, 2005, p. 12). Anxiety and doubt about the future of the organization can especially take hold when organizations merge; one side might be more fearful and skeptical with respect to job security or success of the merger; some groups brought into the new entity from the old company might be hesitant to abandon their old ways of doing business. The result can be the development of gaps between the workers and their leaders.

When gaps open up between leaders and followers, the cultural messages that should be spread cannot get through. Followers are not hearing the message because they have essentially closed themselves off from the rest of the organization and have persisted in their own views. They prevent the formation of worker solidarity and convey hostility in all directions, which can damage morale. If new employees are brought into the organization they may not be received warmly by older employees who fail to accept or embrace the organizational culture and its values. The new employees on the other hand find themselves trying to fit into a system based on what they have been told from the HR department or from their mentors assisting them through the onboarding process. Older workers might resist the new blood brought into the company, fearing that new hires are a threat and have come to push the older workers out. This feeling can reinforce the tribalism and further contribute to the reinforcement of silo walls (McGee-Cooper, 2005).

At the same time, new hires might find that the old ways of thinking that they are expected to embrace are outdated and not at all what they expected or were taught to use in school. Young workers can be just as likely to have a sense of how a culture should be as older workers. The important point that an organization must consider is that the organization is the one to set the culture, and it cannot do that so long as silos persist. Therefore, the organization must be careful to include older workers with younger workers, get them working together, and get them engaged in exercises that can teach them to appreciate one another. The more that units and departments realize that they are part of a whole, the more likely they will be to naturally break down their own silos and contribute to a culture of communication and sharing. To establish cultural unity, management must adopt an integrative approach to leadership.

Leadership

The leaders of an organization have to be mindful of the risk that silos pose and they have to be ready to prevent their formation and to remove them if they do appear. The important point here is that silos are not always visible or seen within units or divisions. Sometimes they exist within the mind, and leaders must be cognizant of this fact so that they can address these kinds of silos as well (Gilmore, 2010).

Silos in the mind can form especially when a change is required in the organization and employees must adapt to new environments, new rules, new methods, or new ideas. To protect themselves and to continue to justify the old ways of doing their work, they will create a wall in their own minds. The wall blocks out the new and retains the old. It allows the worker to exist in his own mind instead of interacting with the workplace around him. He refuses to make the necessary changes, even though he might at first go along with them. They are not taking root in him and he is only biding his time for management to stop paying attention so that he can go back to the old way of doing things.

Leaders have to be cognizant of the way silos can be mentally constructed. If they are going to implement changes and initiate new strategies or processes, they have to be on the lookout for mental blocks that act as barriers. They have to be able to identify the signs and do a risk-assessment to see where potential mental silos might form. These invisible silos can be contagious—like super-spreaders, those who have them in their heads can infect others, and what starts out as a mental silo can quickly became a very real silo in a unit or division that gums up the whole works.

When it comes to dealing with silos, leadership is crucial because leaders are the source of information, understanding, and examples. They have the power to see the whole picture and to know what the end goal is, but they also have the power to communicate the goal and to use logic and reason in the presentation of the information. They have the power to oversee and affect a culture; and they are in the position to make changes.

Silo deconstruction is an important part of what leadership must address because organizations cannot thrive when silos build up, for they are the equivalent of congestive heart failure in an organization. The workers are the heart of the organization, but when the arteries become blocked and the heart is forced to pump harder, it becomes overworked and burnout ensues; the entire body begins to break down and eventually it reaches the point where there is no going back. Leaders who neglect this issue are ultimately responsible for this outcome. They are the ones who should have been more engaged on the ground, getting to know the mentality of the workers, and making sure everyone is on the same page. Even when they are not around, leaders have to make sure that they leave behind envoys and diplomats who are aligned with the leader’s vision so that they can keep that vision going among workers who might be hiding mental silos. This is why leaders need allies in the workplace, supporters among the workers and followers who they can enlist to help spread the message and shape the culture and thus prevent the formation of silos of all kinds.

Transformational Leaders/Empathetic

When dealing with change, transformational leaders are most often the type of leaders wanted. Transformational leaders bring with them the ability to maintain a vision, communicate that vision, use logic and reason to support the need for that vision, and employ empathetic means of getting followers to buy into that vision. If they do this correctly they can greatly reduce the risk of silos cropping up in the organization. The main skill of the transformational leader is communication: the transformational leader has to be the vision and the change that is wanted in the organization. The leader should represent in himself what the change is to be and should demonstrate the cultural values that are to be promoted.

However, empathetic leaders are also wanted in order for transformation to successfully take place. Empathy refers to the act of understanding, and one of the underlying skills required for empathy is emotional intelligence (Fiori & Veseliy-Maillefer, 2018). Emotional intelligence is the ability generate deep feeling and communicate that feeling to others; it is also the ability to read the emotions of others by understanding their body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, and other signals. Understanding these emotions allows one with emotional intelligence to empathize more deeply with others and to provide the support and assistance needed to help others overcome challenging situations.

Leaders who seek to transform an organization often need to moderate their insistence upon change with a demonstration of empathy. This means leaders have to be aware that change is often met with resistance and that many workers may hesitate to buy into a change. If the leader lacks the emotional maturity to realize that hesitancy and resistance are natural, he may take it personally and feel that workers are attacking him and his integrity by refusing or being slow to adapt to the changes he is implementing. If the workers then pick up on his negativity they can sink further into silos and throw up serious challenges not only to the challenges but to his leadership and the culture he is trying to establish as well.

Silos form when there is no attempt to integrate individuals or groups into the whole. During times of transformation, it is especially important that leaders be mindful of this risk. Organizations should in fact routinely be in periods of transformation because unless an organization is growing and developing it is likely to be static and left behind. Transformational leaders should thus be always employed and using their emotional intelligence skills to connect to workers and develop their followership. Bonding with employees while in the workplace is important because it lets workers know that they matter to the management. Managers who can show deep feeling while on the job are more likely to be successful at establishing unity of purpose and vision and among the workers (Fiori & Veseliy-Maillefer, 2018).

Types of Leaders

Transformational leaders are not the only types of leaders who can help to address challenges that come about as a result of change or resistance to change. Silo formation can exist from the beginning of an organization, after a merger, during a transition, or because no messaging is getting through. Silos can form when workers feel left out of the in-group or when managers are not actively engaged in showing workers that they care. Leadership styles vary and leaders may have one particular style that is best suited to them, but it does not matter ultimately because any leadership style can be effective at breaking down silos.

Some various leadership types are the servant leader, the transformational leader, the transactional leader, the authoritative leader, the democratic leader, the charismatic leader and the innovative leader. There is often overlap between leadership types, with some charismatic leaders also demonstrating servant leadership and transformational leadership styles (De Vries, 1998). Yet each leadership type has its own characteristics to consider.

The servant leader focuses on supporting the follower so that the follower can achieve his potential. It is a very one-on-one type of leadership; it focuses on the individual worker rather than on the group. So it is not an ideal type of leadership if it is a big workplace with a lot of different workers; however, in certain situations it can be a great type of leadership to employ, especially if there is a single worker who is struggling to perform. The servant leader will set aside his own needs in order to address the needs of the worker. A lot of it has to do with making sure the worker has everything he requires to achieve the goal, and this can include not just the tools and knowledge but also the social and emotional support—a sense of esteem, a sense of friendship, a sense of belonging, a sense of confidence and security, and so on. The servant leader can help serve as a support by giving encouragement and reinforcing a positive attitude and showing the worker that he matters. It is a good way for leaders to get engaged on a one-on-one level and it is a great way for leaders to address mental silos because it allows the leader to get in there, penetrate the individual’s frame of mind, and then give the worker confidence to grow upward and out of the silo so as to be part of the rest of the team. It requires commitment on the part of the leader as well as a great deal of selflessness and enthusiasm to see others succeed.

The transformational leader has already been discussed but the transactional leader is one who is equally focused on transforming workers—but uses different means to do so. The transactional leader focuses on identifying what the worker wants and then offering that as a prize or as a reward to the worker if the worker satisfies certain performance demands. The worker is thus incentivized to achieve new objectives by the promise of some payment; there is a transaction that is offered. This type of leadership involves a leader having a sense of what extrinsic motivators would work to motivate the followers.

The authoritative leader is different and uses an approach that is direct, often blunt and to the point, and usually impartial. Authoritative leaders are seen as decision makers who, once they have made a decision and given their orders, expect their orders to be followed and obeyed. Authoritative leaders are often found in the military, which has a very hierarchical system of leadership. Some organizations work well with authoritative leaders because followers are used to following leaders who know their own minds, know what needs to be done, know how to address challenges effectively, and trust their workers to execute when given the demand. Authoritative leaders tend to work best in cultures that have already been established—so in cultures that are still in a developmental stage or that are going through a major change this type of leadership could pose serious problems, especially if there are mental silos or group silos cropping up. The authoritative leader might be quick to fire employees who fail to get on board with the rest of the team, which could set operations back. A better type of leadership in such situations might be a combination of democratic leadership, charismatic leadership or innovative leadership.

Democratic leadership types focus on getting consensus among workers and this is something that is really important in change management situations as Kotter (2012) explains. Democratic leaders seek out and obtain input and feedback from workers so that everyone is given a voice in the decision making process. This helps to break down resistance and to prevent silos from cropping up. Charismatic leaders have strong, outgoing personalities and they attract people to their vision by sheer force of personality. They are friendly, ebullient, and typically focus on winning people to follow them by being themselves—full of life, daring, and unconventional. Innovative leaders tend to promote new ideas and support creativity. They want workers to try new things and this gives workers an intrinsic motivation: they realize that they are valued and they want to show what they can do for the organization. It can promote unity of vision by way of freedom to try new things.

Change Management – Developmental, Transitional, Transformational

The change management process involves moving the organization from the place where it has been to the place where it needs to be. Typically it involves altering the processes and procedures that workers engage in to perform at a high level. When processes and procedures need to be changed, workers tend to feel conflicted and worried about the future. They ask questions regarding their own job security: what if they fail to adapt to the changes required of them? They ask questions about necessity: Why are the changes required in the first place? They ask questions about process: How are they supposed to learn the new methods? They ask questions about assistance: Who will help them when they get backed up? They ask questions about reward: How will management show its appreciation for all the extra hard work being asked of employees? They ask questions about inclusion: Will they be able to give feedback on the change management process and be active participants in the process rather than passive recipients?

To answer these questions, change managers have to be ready—otherwise they risk allowing silos to form. Developmental, transitional and transformational aspects of this process are important to understand, for, as Kotter (2012) explains, these aspects of the change management process are what can make or break the organization. These three steps are integral to successful change management.

To assist in the development of the change management process, steps to be taken include organizing a support group of workers who will act as aids in promoting the change among other workers; obtaining feedback from workers; and incorporating the viewpoints of workers into the change management process. This ensures, first of all, that the message of the manager is spread throughout the workers and that other followers are giving a good example to workers of buying into the vision and the change. Since workers are more likely to buy into the change if their peers are going along with it, it is important that at the developmental stage managers have employees they can trust to distribute the message of change and give a good example to others of how to embrace the change (Kotter, 2012).

Second of all, the step of getting feedback shows that employee input is important and this gives workers the feeling that they matter. When they sense that their voice and opinions are wanted and are being heard they are less likely to retreat into silos. Thus, managers should show that they are taking workers’ views into consideration as they develop their change management strategy.

For the transitional aspect of change management, there has to be strong support in place and managers have to know where resistance is likely to come from. They need to provide a clear and consistent message, and the vision has to be complete. They need to work extra diligently to convert those who want to remain in mental silos.

For the transformational aspect of change management, there should be a way to celebrate small victories and to cement the changes once they are accepted. This is necessary so as to prevent workers from sliding back into old habits. The change has to be permanent—not temporary. Workers may think that they can satisfy managers’ call for change with short-term alterations, believing that in the end they will be able to return to the old ways.

Cross Communication Challenges?

Cross communication challenges can occur in silo situations. Some of the most common causes of cross communication issues are: difference of communication styles from one department or unit to another; difference in attitudes regarding conflict and how to resolve conflict; difference in methods used to accomplish tasks; difference in the ways decisions are made; differences in the way that disclosures are made; and differences in role understanding (Bjarnason, Wnuk & Regnell, 2011). All of these differences can create obstacles, and because many of these differences will stem from personal preference and practice, it is important that leaders address these underlying issues of communication. Standardizing communication forms is a good way to make sure silos do not form.

First, communication styles should be complementing rather than conflicting. Communication should be streamlined and standardized using a variety of formats, from email or digital messaging to phone calls and direct, face-to-face contact. Opportunities for all three forms of communication should be available and should be used frequently so as to keep people communicating in effective ways. If a department is resistant to any single type of communication, it should be addressed by leadership.

Second, conflict management and resolution should be something everyone agrees upon. There should be guidelines given to all departments and units so that workers know how to resolve conflict and prevent it from occurring in the first place. If leaders are negligent in this regard they might as well actively promote the formation of silos because it is when conflict arises that silos tend to form.

Third, the methods used to accomplish tasks should be the same within units and divisions, and they should be complementary insofar as is possible in terms of everyone using the same systems and having access to the same information. If one unit is using a system that is not compatible with another unit’s system it can cause disruptions in work flow. Leaders should take care that every system is compatible.

Fourth, decision making should be uniform and standardized so that one unit is not left out of the decision making process. Silos form when individuals feel that they are being neglected by management. If one group is given more opportunity to be part of the decision-making than another group, it is like giving the other group permission to act independently of everyone else, to have its own culture, and to erect a giant silo that will ensure its insulation.

Fifth, disclosure should be standardized as well. If information is not being passed up the chain of command in a uniform manner, leaders will not have access to all the information they require. This process of disclosure should be routine and regulated among all groups.

Finally, role confusion must be prevented. Role players have to know what their role is and what the role of everyone else is. If there is no clarity here, the organization of the firm can quickly fall into chaos. Leaders must be mindful to ensure that everyone knows what his role and responsibilities are.

Compartmentalization of Information

The compartmentalization of information is one of the main effects of silo formation. When silos are built, the information becomes entrenched therein, just like grain in a farm silo. The data does not get out, and few get in to see it. It is stored and built up over a long period of time until eventually it becomes useless to the company. The purpose of a unit is not to sit on information and prevent it from being shared with other units but rather to share information with all so that everyone is on the same page and understands what is needed from everyone else.

If information is compartmentalized it prevents others from having access to knowledge that could be instrumental in seeing a process through to conclusion. For example, if one unit is working on a process that is part of a larger task involving other units but compartmentalizes information about that process so that no one else knows exactly what that unit is doing or how.