QUESTIONS SURROUNDING LEADERSHIP

In the last two postings, this writer addressed the issue of how collaborative an atmosphere should a leader pursue in the running of an organization or any collective arrangement – such as a social group or family.  When high school students were asked, this writer found that they were strongly disposed to more federated options of decision-making as opposed to the rule of the one, the rule of the few, or individualistic options.[1] 

But is this the case among members of such arrangements as businesses, schools, church communities, or the like?  By federated, the cited article refers to collaborative or shared decision-making.  This is accomplished by bringing more people into the process of deciding what should be done, especially those who are affected by whatever decisions are made.

There seem to be two social reasons offered to counter such an approach.  One, the option is seen by some as a sign of weakness in the form of a leader being indecisive.  Two, such an approach burdens those underlings who just want to be told what to do.

          Individualism, as expressed by the construct natural rights, tends to support the lone actor who knows what he/she wants and goes about achieving it.  Of course, and this brings up another argument against shared decision-making, accountability is more directed when it is applied to a sole actor.  And there seems to be, in the age of natural rights, the romantic image of the brave individual against the forces of “evil” in the form of inefficiency and incompetence.

          But an assumption is being made; that is, an organization is either one that promotes and practices shared decision-making or it isn’t.  A couple of postings ago, the lecturer, Michael A. Roberto,[2] was cited.  His reference to the leadership of Rudy Giuliani was described.

The record of this former New York mayor indicated that his take-charge approach seemed to be successful under conditions of extreme challenge, but not so much under conditions that were more stable.  This seems to indicate that the nature of the challenges an organization is confronting seems to be a factor.  When conditions demand quick responses, then take-charge might be favorable, but counterproductive in times when the collective is not facing extreme problems.

So, this tends to beg the question:  can leadership be adjustable?  Can it take on a “take-charge” approach when quick decisions are demanded and be more collaborative during more normal times?  Can the same leader adjust to these different demands or is leadership so reliant on personality traits and dispositions that the same person cannot be both, changing as the situations at hand changes?

A further angle to these questions is:  do situations that approach or are extreme necessarily preclude any shared decision-making strategies?  The position here is that the more federated posture is preferred for a host of reasons – many described and explained in this blog.

As such, the answer to this last question is that yes, one can be reluctant to give up on collaborative modes of operation.  But one should understand that the needs individual conditions might present to the leader or leadership might call for the leader to be more assertive.

Early on in this blog, this writer, in his promotion of federation theory, pointed out that he was not proposing a pie in the sky nirvana.  He has tried to make the distinction between theories-in-use and espoused theories;[3] that ideals, while needing to be compromised at times, still function to guide leaders and followers.  And, finally, federation theory provides a set of ideals that in the long run provides beneficial consequences for all involved.

The next posting will look more specifically at what collaborative leadership means as leadership interacts with those who follow.  In addition, followers can and should take on more leadership qualities under the auspices of federated relationships.

---

[1] Robert Gutierrez, “The Predisposition of High School Students to Engage in Collective Strategies of Problem-Solving,” Theory and Research in Social Education 33, no. 3 (2005):  404-428. 

[2] Michael A. Roberto, Transformational Leadership:  How Leaders Change Teams, Companies, and Organizations, (Chantilly, VA:  The Great Courses/The Teaching Company, 2011).

[3] Chris Argyris and Donald A. Shon, “Evaluating Theories in Action,” in The Planning of Change, Fourth Edition, eds. Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985), 108-117.

STEPS OF ADAPTIVE CHANGE

In my last posting, I wrote about the contributions of Jim Collins and Tom Peters to the literature of organizational leadership and change.  In this posting, I want to comment on the work of Ronald Heifetz.[1]  Along with Collins, he downplays the centrality that people tend to bestow on leaders and likes to point out that organizations are collectives and hopefully communities that are dedicated to perform and accomplish certain goals and aims.

          The immediate question many ask is whether or not businesses can afford democracy – collective decision-making – when the chips are down; when the organization is facing an important challenge.  Can a CEO take the time to solicit from those down the ranks what they think should be done?  Well, several things can be said about this. 

First, crises are usually – not always – the product of poor decisions in the past.  The reason matters get so bad as to demand quick action is that some or many adverse conditions were not taken care of in the past.  Smart thinking is geared toward, as much as possible, taking care of those conditions needing care in a timely manner.

          And that calls for many actions to occur.  Adding to the challenge of this process is that reality is becoming more and more complex.  So, gathering good information is essential.  And where does that information lie?  Well, when it comes to large organizations or communities or a society, that information is often in lower ranks or on the streets or in households.

To get at that information, those who have it need to feel trust in the system and in the leadership before they divulge it.  Trust emerges, in part, from feelings of ownership or partnership in what is going on.  This takes time and experiences that reasonably justify trust, especially if one is considering important elements of one’s life and, in turn, one’s livelihood.

          This view is counter to the one that leaders fulfill a paternalistic role; that they are there to satisfy needs and demands that people generally want someone to fix.  On the other hand, Heifetz calls for a rank and file that is disposed to wanting to tackle the problems and take a legitimate role in addressing what is confronting the collective.

And the leader?  He or she creates the environment within the collective that gets people – employees or citizens – to think and feel in those ways that encourage confidence in themselves and others.  In turn, that calls, at a minimum, for leadership to establish an environment of trust.

          Of course, nothing brings these issues to the fore more than change, especially profound change.  Heifetz makes a distinction between technical change and adaptive change.  Technical changes are those tweaks to the organization’s processes or structures that meet some shortcoming(s).  This type of change is ongoing and normal. 

What he is more interested in is adaptive change which some might call transformative change.  This type is more fundamental to how the organization sees itself and how it performs.  It generally calls for the participants to redefine themselves within the organization or how they see it.  This is difficult and time-consuming.

          Heifetz suggests a series of steps by which adaptive change occurs.  These steps have a dual purpose:  fix the problem(s) and get a workforce or citizenry to mobilize in having the changes devised and implemented.  This approach goes beyond influential leadership to a higher level of commitment on the part of leadership and follow-ship.

          The first step is identifying the challenge or problem.  Heifetz uses the term diagnosis which communicates a more thorough analysis of the component parts of the problem(s).  This calls for that in-depth search that depends on good information channels across the system.  It calls for truth-telling which can be painful, fearful, and threatening.  This occurs when the environment of trust can be indispensable.

          The second step recognizes that no matter how trustful an environment is, if the challenge calls for adaptive change, there will be stress.  This second step calls for stress management, which turns out to be a balancing act when leadership informs participants of the profundity of change, but paces it so that the system has the time and space to adjust to the changes.  In this way, those who are affected can control the stress levels that would otherwise negatively affect performance and be counterproductive.

          Third, in addition to stress – or because of it – people tend to be distracted.  Therefore, the third calls for leaders to direct participants to remain or establish a focused attention on what the change is demanding.  If workers or citizens are being asked to act differently, to acquire the new understandings and skills the changes demand, leaders will probably call for participants to be focused and to avoid distractions.

          The fourth step is for participants, in a timely way, to take on more ownership over what is being instituted.  This calls for them, in a reasonable fashion, to take on more responsibility in working out the details that the change is demanding.  This occurs when the creativity of the participants can be very important and should be encouraged.

          And to understand the fifth step, Heifetz points out a distinction; that is, in any organized arrangement, there are those who have authoritative leadership status and those who have unauthoritative leadership status.  Those with authority should protect the voices of leaders who do not have authoritative positions.  They might be the critics or supporters of what is going on, but in either case, they can provide useful input as to what is happening and what they see will be the consequences.

          Throughout this, one can detect that the leader’s main function is to create the correct environment so that the organization can get through the change successfully and be healthier at the end of the process.  As indicated, much of it entails either creating an arena or a square.

An arena – as is the case in boxing – is antagonistic and takes on the air of a zero-sum game.  One participant wins and another loses.  A square – as in a town square – promotes the image of win-win results; decisions are made in the spirit that everyone will advance his/her ultimate interests by implementing those decisions.

          Arenas encourage distrust and squares encourage trust.  One can readily see that emotions are just as or more important than any detached results analysis might discover.  These changes reflect human endeavors and human ambitions and welfare.  They are serious turns in people’s lives.

---

[1] Ronald Heifetz, Leadership without Easy Answers, (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 1998).