By Mohammad Tariqur Rahman
In any organisation or institution, leadership is bestowed at different layers from a superior (or greater) to an inferior (minor) authority. Keeping the order in the chain of command in authority is imperative for a successful leadership and success of the organisation.
Showing off an authoritative superiority is a natural instinct for some – if not for all. Hence it is not unlikely that a person tends to exercise power beyond the level of authority given to his/her position. This tendency is also common among those who are close to a superior leader or have one or another form of “control” over a superior leader.
A superior leader at times needs to rely on his/her office assistant or secretary or a peer to convey a command or an information to an inferior. At the same time, an inferior may prefer to be instructed without directly dealing with the superior. In certain circumstances, such mediated commands are convenient for both sides and work more efficiently.
However, a mediated command sometimes can create unnecessary confusion and conflict.
The conflict and confusion may arise because of a perceived “superiority” among those who are close to a superior leader or are entrusted with conveying the mediated command on behalf of the superior leader. Because of the perceived superiority, they start acting as a superior and often as a decisive (read dictating) authority. Such a perceived superiority at times engenders mistrust and doubts and proven counterproductive especially when it breaks the chain of command.
Anyone in an organization with a perceived superiority often forgets their actual territory of authority and also ignores the authority of others. They tend to interfere and influence leadership authorities of others in a superior, parallel, or inferior position.
Such an individual also subjectively treats others depending on their personal identity. In other words, anyone with a perceived superiority reads both the personal identity and authority of his/her peers to decide their level of acting “superior” over them. Their subjective dealings with others – as opposed to objective dealings in a professional premise – impel them to display different guises of obedience and subservience to different superior leaders.
An individual with perceived superiority also tends to control things beyond his/her actual authority and jurisdiction in the organisation. Thus attempt to show off his/her assiduity – which in fact is due to their self-imposed control over tasks beyond their actual authority and jurisdiction.
In summary, the existence of a perceived superiority in a chain of command cause conflict and confusion in an organisation in many ways: (1) imposing unnecessary and uncomfortable superiority over others, (2) showing insubordination to one or another superior, (3) creating an unhealthy working environment by imposing discriminating treatment towards different leaders having different personal identities, and (4) reducing output by controlling tasks more than they can handle.
All in all, perceived superiority by breaking the chain of command becomes counterproductive for an organisation. The most possible way to control anyone with perceived superiority is to remind them of their roles and tasks in clear terms by their superiors.
Professor Mohammad is the Deputy Executive Director of International Institute of Public Policy and Management, Universiti Malaya.