Archive for Collaboration

Developing Leadership Capabilities for the Innovation Age

One of the purposes of this blog is to encourage fresh thinking with respect to how we can most effectively collaborate to achieve worthy goals.  According to leadership gurus, James Kouzes and Barry Posner, getting extraordinary things done in organizations in the current age (often called the “innovation age”) requires leaders who can:

  1. Articulate a vision of the future when things are so unpredictable […]
  2. Inspire others toward a common purpose […]
  3. Create an environment that promotes innovation and risk […]
  4. Build a cohesive and spirited team […]
  5. Share power and information, and still maintain accountability […]
  6. Put more joy and celebration into our efforts […]  (Kouzes & Posner, The Leadership Challenge, 4th ed., 2008)

Leaders and organizations that are deeply rooted in “industrial age” models leadership and organization, based on metaphors such as the “organization as machine,” often struggle to achieve the capacities needed to meet current challenges.  In the next few posts, we’ll discuss why this is the case and why coaching is such an effective strategy for organizational transformation and change.

First, we’ll talk about the goals of traditional bureaucratic organizations, the assumptions that underlie this strategy, and the conditions under which those assumptions might be appropriate.

Second, we’ll talk about common organizational problems, and why they are so difficult to solve, using industrial-age models of leadership and organization.

Third, we’ll talk about some emerging paradigms of leadership, and how they support leaders in building needed organizational capabilities.

Finally, we’ll talk about how leadership and organizational coaching can support leaders in transforming their organizations to develop the needed capabilities.

Does that sound good?

Transformative Leadership in Times of Stress

In a recent article, Chris Rice, CEO of BlessingWhite reminds us that the quality of leadership becomes especially important in challenging times. Keeping your employees energized and enthused, and retaining your best employees best positions our organizations to adapt and respond to changing conditions.  Yet, if surveys of employee satisfaction and commitment are any indication, more of your employees than you would like to imagine are open to or considering other opportunities.  The quality of leadership and, especially, the quality of the manager-employee relationship are critical to retention and engagement.  

Yet, have you noticed that, under conditions of organizational stress, the quality of leadership may decline rather than than become stronger?  Research has shown that whereas the perception that a team is winning tends to build team cohesion, teams that experience themselves as “losing” are more likely to engage in finger-pointing and to pull apart in the face of heightened demands.

A big part of the challenge (and the opportunity) is that leaders are human.  When we are fearful, our knee-jerk reactions (in our current cultural context) are often an impulse to self-protection and an increased need to control the situation. In an organizational setting this translates to tightened controls and more unilateral top-down directives, in which alternative perspectives are suppressed. This tends to demoralize employees and fuel a sense of alienation at precisely the same time that greater engagement and commitment is needed.

What can be done? 

Well, first, may I propose that we have a choice in how we respond to stress. Extraordinary leadership begins with extraordinary self-leadership.  How many of us, when we are under stress begin to skip exercising (guilty), eat poorly, and sleep less?  Sprinters can afford to invest all of their energy in that one big push, but most of are not in a short race — we are in a marathon. Or to use a financial analogy, how long can we draw down our “capital” before we begin to see diminishing returns on our investments?

A coaching client of mine — a remarkable woman — when under extraordinary demands on many fronts, described to me her proactive, constructive response to stress: she began to eat better (more fresh vegetables and healthy meals), she intensified her stress management routine, she reached out to good friends and colleagues for support, she took time to appreciate her accomplishments, to give appreciation to others.  Impressed, I asked her how she managed to do precisely the right thing when most of us tend to feel the compulsion to do precisely the wrong thing; she said she had done what we all do in the past and had learned from it.  (Coaches learn from their clients all the time.)

You can bet that she was (and is) a Rock of Gibraltar for her colleagues, who look to her for leadership.

Another aspect of her success, you might have noticed, is that she reaches out to others to form collaborative relationships to constructively deal with the challenging environment.  This, by the way, tends to be a very successful strategy for dealing with stress that comes most naturally to women  (http://raysweb.net/poems/articles/tannen.html) but works well for both genders.   

Effectively, using the language of Partnership (http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2007/12/09/what-is-partnership/), in times of stress, we do have a choice between domination (pushing ourselves into ill health and fractured relationships, and dominating others through demands and control), and Partnering with ourselves and others.  We might also notice that the dominator approach is fear-based and reactive, and as such, it does not draw on our higher human endowments;  whereas the Partnership approach is expansive and intelligent, and offer us far greater potential for personal and organizational health.

Application

How do you respond to stress? What is one thing you could do differently to make yourself and others stronger rather than weaker in times of challenge?

What is Partnership?

In her study of history and anthropology, cultural historian Riane Eisler found that cultures tended to group themselves roughly around two attractor points, which she termed the “dominator model” and the “partnership model.”  In the dominator model of social relations, the social structure is generally hierarchic and authoritarian, and maintained through fear and the hope of reward.  Power is control-oriented, and “goodness” is often equated with compliance. 

Conversely, in Partnership model of relations, social relationships are more egalitarian, including more sexually egalitarian. Each person has creative power and persons collaborating together generate a creative synergy, in which the sum is greater than the parts.  In both cases, social structures both reflect and reinforce a dominator or Partnership model of relationships.  

How does this relate to leadership?  If we imagine that leadership entails vision, communication and strategy, we might observe that our personal orientation shapes each of these three elements:

  • What is an appropriate and worthy vision for our organization?
  • Is our communication with others monological or dialogical?
  • What kind of organization and culture can best help us achieve our vision? 

Welcome!

Welcome to The Partnership Leader!  As the title suggests, this blog discusses leadership — in particular, a Partnership approach to leadership. The term, Partnership (with a capital P), was coined by cultural historian Riane Eisler and describes an emerging type of leadership that is both very applicable to the dynamic world in which all of our organizations presently operate, and intrinsically rewarding for its practitioners.

Background 

This blog has been many years in the making. As a woman and leader in the high technology industry, I have had the opportunity to work with some of the industry’s most progressive and visonary leaders. Yet, even in these relatively enlightened environments, I sometimes felt that organizational norms hindered rather than helped us to achieve our goals. Although collaboration was essential to organizational success, structures, reward systems and organizational dynamics tended to encourage competition; being heard in meetings often involved grabbing and holding the “ball” of meeting airtime, limiting the scope of ideas considered; and organizational learning and flexibility seemed to be constrained by a network of vested interests. Communications flowed regularly from the top, yet employees complained that “communications are poor.” 

Over time, I came to learn that the sense of dissonance that I sometimes felt with respect to “business as usual” was not unique to me or my industry, but was shared by many women and men in the corporate world. My conversations with leaders in sectors as diverse as high technology, health care, non-profits, education, and consulting have confirmed that these problems can be found in virtually every industry.  I also found a hunger, at almost every level of the organization, for meaningful work, and a workplace which encourages mutual respect, trust, collaboration, and in which team members can make their fullest contribution.  

In my doctoral studies, I discovered how a network of assumptions shapes our worldviews and by extension the social structures we create. I was fortunate to meet and have the opportunity to collaborate with Professor Alfonso Montuori, a pioneer in applying Riane Eisler’s Partnership framework to leadership and organizations and director of the graduate program in Transformational Leadership at the California Institute of Integral Studies.  

According to Montuori, the bureaucratic structure and the modern management style, still used by many organizations, is an historical creation, developed and adapted by men for a particular purpose and environment. As a historical creation, it reflects the assumptions its creators held about about the nature of the world, and us as human beings. The successes of modern organizations have been well-documented; yet, it has become widely recognized that many of the fundamental assumptions that underpin this approach, are no longer true and, certainly, the environment has changed radically!

Therefore, if we and are organizations (and our larger world as a whole) are to thrive, we must adapt a creative approach to leadership and organization; to test old assumptions and determine if they are still true; to think afresh for ourselves, rather than follow the well-worn path of “business as usual.” Fortunately, as we navigate this new territory, we have some guideposts in the emerging thought of many pioneering theorists and practitioners, such as Riane Eisler, Alfonso Montuori, Isabella Conti, Ronald Purser, Margaret Wheatley, Peter Senge and others.

Purpose 

The purpose of this blog is to:

>  share ideas about how a Parternership framework provides both a useful way of understanding how and why organizations must evolve to survive and thrive, and a strategy for achieving successful and enduring change;

>  develop a larger conversation to explore, develop and share our experiences putting these strategies into action. Together, we can explore the leading edges of leadership thought and practice.

Although this blog is written for both practitioners and academics, my bias is towards making these ideas accessible to practioners. Therefore,  although I will point towards some excellent sources, you won’t tend to find the same rigor in citation and language as you will find in an academic journal on the same subject!

The term, journey, is often used to describe a shared experience that involves learning and growth. It’s my hope that our conversation together on this (and other, related blogs) will constitute a rewarding journey for all who participate, and that our work together will help a larger number of people experience the effectiveness and satisfaction of Partnership in their organizational lives.

In Partnership,

Lisa