Looking at things through a different lens can often help us see a situation differently and learn. This was exactly what struck me when I came across this quote recently… except the lens in this case is more like a mirror – so we can understand ourselves and our impact on others a little more.
This is an interesting article on the transition from Heroic Leadership to Leadership as a ‘Hosting’ activity. As the article describes, Heroic Leadership relies on the assumption that someone can be in control which is impossible in this age of inter-connectedness.
This is an interesting article on the transition from Heroic Leadership to Leadership as a ‘Hosting’ activity. As the article describes, Heroic Leadership relies on the assumption that someone can be in control, which is impossible in this age of inter-connectedness. No one person can offer solutions to every problem and control the environment through their implementation.
This paper suggests that leadership is more about inviting in and ‘hosting’ people who can help solve the challenges we face. ‘Leaders-as-hosts invest in meaningful conversations among people from many parts of the system as the most productive way to engender new insights and possibilities for action.’
From a leadership development perspective, we should reflect on whether we are attempting to be the sterotypical charismatic leader, the person with all the answers, or indeed the person who is engaging in meaningful conversations to deliver substantive change?
I wrote in a previous post about the benefits of experimentation to open up our minds to possibilities. I heard today of a cookery book which intersperses QR codes along the way so you can link into a video clip using your phone, iPad etc.. I love it! Such ideas come about through experimentation, making mistakes, learning and enhancing.
Someone mentioned to me yesterday that we are rearing a generation of kids who feel the need to be perfect. Many won’t attempt new things if they feel they won’t be good at them. How do we change this mind-set to one of curiosity and interest in the intended and unintended outcomes?
Since my trip to Harvard in May I am now attempting to view the world as a laboratory where I can observe, experiment, challenge and hopefully innovate to see what emerges – particularly but not exclusively in the field of leadership. I have managed to spot learning opportunities in activities I was not even looking forward to. By approaching these tasks with a curious mind-set my motivation actually increased. I have been surprised at what I have learnt about myself. For example, I am finding that the broader my interests are, the more varied the ideas I generate. Suddenly the worlds of maths, art, sport, science and leadership are merging and I am seeing connections where I never saw them before. Not everything is a success but I am enjoying the journey.
I am attending a swimming session this evening which is way out of my league (in the fabulous new 50m pool in UCD). After a challenging start last week, I am nervous about what lies ahead, but most of all I am curious about what I will learn, not just about swimming, but about coaching, motivation, and the levels of endurance I can personally tolerate. I am hoping I will be still attending these swim sessions the next time I post!
Image Source: http://www.classroomjr.com
A key part of leadership is taking risks. Albert Eintstein defined insanity as ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’. If we care deeply about something we will take a risk. If we have an illness and take the decision to take a drug that has potentially serious side-affects, we will take the drug if we feel it is a risk worth taking. In a work context we might speak out if we feel certain values that we care about are being dis-regarded. It is challenging sometimes to figure out what we care deeply about until we are faced with a situations which strike a chord with us.
Trevor Madigan of Facebook speaks about the culture of risk-taking in Facebook in the first part of this video clip. Facebook has demonstrated it’s willingness to take risks in pursuit of it’s mission “… to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected” and not always with a successful outcome. Trevor asks the question ‘what would we do if we were not afraid?’ If we did not fear failure, the possibilities are endless.
In ‘The practice of Adaptive Leadership’ by Heifetz, Linsky and Grashow the authors suggest developing an experimental mind-set by ‘increasing our tolerance for a slightly higher level of risk-taking than we might have been comfortable with before’. They suggest small things to start with for example starting the day in a different way to usual e.g. getting up earlier or later or accepting invitations we would not usually accept. This type of low risk experimenting will shake things up a little and open us up to the possibilities that are out there.
I am now asking myself the question what new risks I will be willing to take this week in the interest of something I care deeply about?
Facing up to an adaptive challenge requires us to put the problem at the centre, depersonalise it and then look at the various the various stakeholders and where they sit in relation to the problem. That all sounds very logical and depersonalised, however it gets interesting when we look at the part that we ourselves have in creating the problem or as Linksy and Heifetz put acknowledging ‘our part of the mess’.
The benefits of doing this are (a) setting a good example for accountability and (b) we can then step up and fix part of the problem. Fixing our part of the problem though will often require us to challenge our values and loyalties and might require behavioural change on our part which is easier said than done.
I recently watched a movie called ’12 o’ clock high’ which illustrated this challenge really well. The movie is about an American bomber pilot unit in World War II which at the start of the movie are taking heavy losses. The pilots are incredibly loyal to their commander and him to them, but this gets in the way of the mission (the adaptive challenge). He is replaced by Brigadier Savage who takes a firm hand on the pilot unit and starts clocking up successes. Ultimately however he gets so close to the men that he begins to develop the same loyalties as his predecessor and loses perspective.
The movie illustrates the challenges of ‘being in the action’ and ‘on the balcony’ at the same time and particularly the challenge of looking at the part that we play in proceedings from ‘the balcony’. Commander General Pritchard brought the risk of ‘over-identifying with his men’ to Savages’s attention, but despite this he did not change his ways. Knowing we need to change is necessary but insufficient if we are to effect change.
So how can we more successfully do this? Heifetz, Linksy and Grashow bring this to life in their book ‘The Practice of Adaptive Leadership’. They link their work on adaptive leadership with that of their colleagues Robert Keegan and Lisa Lahey on ‘immunity to change’. It requires a diagnostic mind-set and an ability to step back from the action to reflect on deep-seated loyalties and values that we probably don’t advertise.
I will walk through this process with this movie in mind. The first step is to identify the behaviours that we would like to see more or less of in order to make progress on the adaptive challenge (e.g. provide leadership opportunities to the pilots in the pilot unit so that they might ultimately lead their own successful missions and enable Savage to return to his role and increase chances of overall success against the enemy). Secondly we should identify the loyalties and values that underlie the need for this change (e.g. loyalty to country, commanding officer and own career path). Then we should identify things that we are doing or not doing that keeps us from honouring this commitment i.e. what behaviours are we demonstrating that fly in the face of the behaviours we identified in step 1? (e.g. continuing to personally lead bombing missions). What then are the conflicting values or loyalties that drive this behaviour? (e.g. loyalty to and over-identification with pilot unit that Savage is commanding). The question then is that by continuing these behaviours, what am I protecting myself against? (e.g. losses in the air which I would feel responsible for if I do not take a part in the action?).
By peeling back the layers of the onion we might start to challenge some of our assumptions and values that work against what we are ultimately trying to achieve. By taking some initial low-risk experiments we can hopefully bit by bit put aside some of the inhibiting loyalties and values we hold, in service of achieving our ultimate goal. Consider doing this with the support of a partner. They can provide insights we might ourselves miss and can challenge us to stay the course.
Adaptive Leadership is ‘the practice of mobilising people to tackle tough challenges and thrive’ (source: The Practice of Adaptive Leadership; Heifetz, Grashow and Linsky). The ‘tough’ challenges referred to are adaptive challenges… challenges which have unclear definitions and unclear solutions. New ground is being covered and there are no obvious solutions to the challenge at hand. Examples of such a challenges include the debt crisis facing many countries currently, poverty, drug abuse etc and on an organisational level they might include finding ways to deliver a service or product when funding has been cut or transforming an out-dated product line to compete in a dynamic industry where innovation is key.
Ronald Heifetz states that the most common mistake in leadership is to mis-diagnose an issue as technical rather than adaptive. In doing so, some time might be bought and there might be a short term reprieve but the more fundamental issue is not resolved. In fact it might be counter-productive as stakeholders might feel that the pressure is off and postpone tackling the tough issues. As constituents we often put pressure on authority figure’s to offer a clear diagnosis and solution thereby putting pressure on them to mis-diagnose problems as technical. Withstanding this pressure and acknowledging the complexity and ambiguity is one of the challenges of adaptive leadership.
I recently watched the movie ‘Moneyball’ which is a fascinating example where the pressure was on to diagnose the problem as technical. Billy Beane (acted by Brad Pitt) took on the system fearlessly. Having lost to the New York Yankees in 2001, Oakland Athletic faced the loss of key players and significant budget challenges to replace them. When all around them looked to find the best they could afford, Billy Beane looked to adapt. In his words he said we will ‘adapt or die’. It is said that adaptive leadership requires will and skill. Billy Beane had the will and hired in the skill. He accepted that there would be losses and he distributed those losses at a rate that could be absorbed.
So the key challenges we face in adaptive leadership are to recognise adaptive challenges when we see them, to with-stand the pressures to diagnose them as technical and to be courageous in our attempts to solve them. ‘Adaptive leadership is specifically about change that enables the capacity to thrive’ (The Art and Practice of Adaptive Leadership; Grashow, Linsky and Heiftez). The terminology used here is no accident. Thriving in a biological sense requires some DNA to be discarded, some DNA to be conserved and some to be adapted. Our challenge is to identify the parts of our organisational or personal DNA to be discarded and adapted in order to thrive in new, challenging and complex situations.
‘Where do we begin?’. The week started with a question and ended with many, which was very appropriate considering we were there to learn how to tackle leadership development in the face of adaptive challenges.
We were a class of 62 from 20 different counties and 5 different continents. We were in a leadership laboratory where we were our very own guinea pigs! If an outsider stepped into our world last week, they might have seen a group engaged in heated debates (as might be expected) or they might have seen something less conventional e.g. a group engaged in a shared singing experience with everyone singing different tunes at the same time and importantly with not a consonant within ear-shot. There was not a dull day in the entire experience.
I will take many things away from the week. I will share just three of the themes here and I hope to elaborate on these and others in the coming weeks and months.
The first is one of leadership terminology. During the course of the week we became accustomed to talking about leadership as an activity rather than a position. Individuals can be in roles of authority and may or may not engage in acts of leadership from that position. Individuals equally may exercise leadership without any formal authority at all.
An approach to leadership challenges: we each arrived on the programme with a leadership challenge which we faced. We worked in teams over three days to tackle each leadership challenge. Day by day we were equipped with new thinking which dramatically increased our effectiveness in real time. The approach involved putting the problem at the centre, identifying factions/ interest groups relating to the issue at hand, what motivates them and what potential losses they would face should the challenge be resolved. This approach is something which I can see as beneficial to my coaching practice immediately.
The third big concept which I took away was necessity to manage the heat in the system: I had read the book Leadership on the Line in advance of the programme (written by 2 of the faculty Marty Linsky and Ronald Heifetz) and I had become familiar with the notion of there being a ‘productive zone of disequilibrium’ in order to make change happen. Reading the theory however was very different to experiencing it first-hand. We encountered the challenges of both too much and too little heat in the different groups and whilst both yielded the same result (a lack of progress), both felt very different and different strategies were required to move the group forward in each case.
This programme used many different pedagogies in order to maximise the learning experience. It has been finely tuned over 14 years to deliver as they term it ‘above and below the neck learning’. We were warned to make a quiet re-entry into our work environments. I have some concrete ideas of how to take the experience forward but I have many other thoughts and areas to explore over the longer term. Watch this space!
Image 1: The library.
Image 2: Eadine touching the foot of John Harvard (which apparently brings good luck!).
This is an incredible story by the Center of Creative Leadership. It paints the picture of how a Swedish Executive, Ingar Skaug, took on the CEO role at Scandinavian Air after the top two layers of management had been wiped out by a plane crash.
I have just finished reading John Kotter’s book ‘Leading Change’. After finishing the book, I went back to the start to see when it was written and was amazed to see the year 1996 mentioned. Many business books are written and remain relevant for a year… this one is as relevant now as it was in 1996.
The chapter that captured my attention most was the final one entitled ‘Leadership and Lifelong Learning’. It is clear that as complexity increases, the need for learning increases. Furthermore, in order to deal with adaptive challenges we can no longer rely on off-the-shelf solutions to problems but rather need to learn to make connections and come up with creative solutions to the new challenges we face.
I have always been stimulated by change and the learning associated with it. In my corporate life I constantly sought challenging assignments at home and abroad. I remember a manager asking me once ‘Eadine, what is going to happen when you have to keep the same role for more than a couple of years?’ Well, I guess for the first time that has now happened as I am running my own business and interestingly it is in the ‘learning’ space. On the surface level I am doing the same thing as 3 or 4 years ago, but the variety and challenges I am presented with reflect the marketplace and the opportunity for learning and personal growth for both myself and client’s is immense.
Kotter suggests some mental habits that support lifelong learning:
- Humble self-reflection
- Solicitation of opinions
- Careful listening
- Openness to new ideas.
I have a wonderful opportunity in May to attend a Leadership programme in Harvard. I have no doubt that this experience will be uncomfortable and include all of the above elements but I am confident that it will be a worth-while experience. If you wish to hear about this experience in due course, feel free to sign up to my blog.
Image Source: http://artnews.org/artist.php?i=5491
A few months back I wrote an article about the value ‘stretch assignments’ in developing our leadership capabilities. An article in the recent CIPD magazine (People Management) entitled Deepening the talent pool through learning agility struck a chord with me along the same vein. It speaks of learning agility (our ability to learn and adapt to new situations) as being a key predictor of future success. Of particular interest is the graphic in the article (chart 2) which shows the step up required through each of the transitions. What makes us successful at one level may actually impede our success at the next level. The skill is to be able to learn from past experiences and adapt our approach to new situations as opposed to finding a so called ‘winning formula’ and sticking with it.
This article is well worth reading!