Resistance

I have wanted to post a blog entry on the subject of resistance for some time, but for some reason have not gotten around to it. So the question is: “What have I been resisting?”

Resistance is a subtle and interesting thing within each individual and group. Unless you are aware and observant you may not readily identify resistance in one of its many forms. And, you may find that you unwittingly participate in the process of resisting while thinking that you are helping move a project or change effort along.

Edgar Schein, one of the leading experts on culture says that individuals and organizations resist change when there is a lack of psychological safety. Schein defines psychological safety as the ability to see the possibility of solving a problem without loss of identity or integrity. Without psychological safety individuals or groups will deny data that creates discomfort; in other words, people will resist. This denial of discomforting data is called strategic myopia. (Organizational Culture and Leadership p. 298-300)

According to Peter Block, this denial of data or pushing back against the proposed change or project is a reaction to an emotional process taking place within the individual (or group). It is a natural reaction when faced with change, or the prospect of having to address difficult organizational problems.

Block provides an interesting list of what he calls The Faces of Resistance that may help you in identifying when you are working with someone or a group that is using resistance as a tool to avoid change. Keep in mind that some of these forms of resistance are very subtle and elusive:

• Give me more detail – The person (organization) keeps asking for finer and finer bits of information.
• Flood you with detail – The person (organization) gives you too much detail.
• Time – The person (organization) says that he/she/they would really like to change but the timing is off.
• Impracticality – The person (organization) says that he/she/they live in the “Real World” and are facing “Real Problems”, and can find practical problems with any change or solution.
• Attack – The person (organization) adopts the most direct form of resistance – attack the change agent directly.
• Confusion – The person (organization), after hearing the explanation or description of the suggested change several times, continues to be confused, and resists concepts necessary to understand a situation or idea.
• Silence – The person (organization) remains stoically silent and passive in the face of the need for change.
• Intellectualizing – The person (organization) “…starts exploring theory after theory about why things are the way they are…” “Spending a lot of energy spinning theories is a way of taking the pain out of a situation.”
• Moralizing – The person (organization) "...makes great use of certain words and phrases: ‘those people’ and ‘should’ and ‘they need to understand.’ It is all about those other people, not me."
• Compliance – Even when the person (organization) complies with a recommended change with no negative reaction at all, you may find that you have a low-energy agreement that will result in initial compliance, with gradual return to the old systems.

(Flawless Consulting – Peter Block, Chapter 8 Understanding Resistance, P. 140-148)

Not every question or push-back is a form of resistance. But, with these thoughts in mind, maybe you will be a little better prepared to identify when you or people you are working with are resisting rather than working together to change things for the better.

I suggest reading the chapter on resistance in Peter Block’s book Flawless Consulting for a better description of how to identify and deal with resistance in its many forms.

One final note; Schein points out that in dealing with resistance that grows from a lack of psychological safety the visionary leader becomes essential because “…the vision sometimes serves the function of providing the psychological safety that permits the organization to move forward.” (Organizational Culture and Leadership, p. 301)

If you are leading a change effort and feel significant amounts of resistance (which you can now identify), you might ask yourself whether you have provided the individuals or groups that are resisting with sufficient ability to see the possibility of solving a problem without loss of identity or integrity.

So, why are you putting off that important project or change effort? What are you resisting?

Authenticity

The entries in this blog over the past year hopefully have made it clear that there is more to leadership than sitting down in an office with your name on the door and giving orders. We have all worked with people who approached leadership from this perspective, but I doubt that many of us would consider these people good role models, or the kind of leaders we would want at the helm when crossing the unknown sea.

There are also leaders who inspire in us a willingness to tackle the most difficult problems, or to go where no one has gone before. And, they are able to do this without having to raise their voice or demand our compliance.

What is the difference between these two types of leaders? Why are we bored and demotivated by one, and inspired to reach for the stars by the other?

There are probably many reasons, but I want to suggest one answer that deserves your consideration.

When we believe that we have a leader who truly cares for us and our success, who believes in our abilities, who listens and considers our suggestions, who supports us in success and failure, and who communicates his or her thoughts and feelings; in short, when we have a leader who is authentic in every way, we feel valued, and are willing to invest ourselves in the success of that leader and our organization.

In August of 2001, Peter Koestenbaum described Authenticity in the following way:

Authenticity includes:

1. Underscoring the centrality of both caring and integrity in helping people to feel valued and treated fairly. This is ethics.


2. Supporting people in mastering the anxiety of grave uncertainty, the insecurity of frequent failures, and equip them to rely on their inner resources to maintain their dignity as well as their obligations to the future of the whole organization. This is courage.


3. Strengthening people to survive amidst the chilling environment of a harsh economy, bitter competition, political infighting, and unforgiving stock exchanges. This is reality.


4. Lighting up the intellect to fashion new, creative and imaginative solutions to intractable problems. This is Vision.

(Peter Koestenbaum - August 6, 2001)

Peter Block, an organizational development consultant who has spent many years working with leaders, describes authenticity in the following way:

Deeply understanding the other person's point of view gives feeling of authenticity. The first order of business is to understand the situation rather than correct the other person's perception. (The Flawless Consulting Fieldbook and Companion, p. 168-169)

Authentic behavior... means you put into words what you are experiencing... as you work. (Flawless Consulting, second edition, p.37)

Authentic leaders listen, support others, express their feelings and thoughts, make visible what is going on inside their heads,

Also, authentic leaders help others move from dependency (the theory that the leader or manager is totally responsible) to an understanding that each person is responsible for exercising their own free will and choice.

Paternalistic behavior on the part of a leader removes power, choice, and freedom from the employee. Authentic behavior leads to empowerment, and an understanding that the individual must exercise his or her free will to affect the work environment.

It must be noted that authentic behavior on the part of a leader can create anxiety in those who follow. Anxiety should not be seen as a negative emotion. In fact, growth cannot happen without anxiety. Every time you enter a new situation you experience some level of anxiety. The important thing is how you deal with the anxiety. Do you try to remove yourself from the situation that is causing the anxiety, or do you embrace the anxiety and allow it to give you the energy and courage to face the new situation? Removing yourself assures that the anxiety will go away. But, facing the anxiety and leaning into your discomfort assures that you will grow and develop new skills and abilities.

This entry is a work in progress. For me, authenticity remains one of those things that we all know when we see it, but is hard to describe in words. Your suggestions and thoughts on how to improve this description of authenticity would be appreciated.

Regarding: The Polarity of Leading in Social Systems vs. Political Systems

The following story was posted as a comment to the blog entry titled "The Polarity of Leading in Social Systems vs. Political Systems". I thought this was a good example of trying to lead within social and political systems, so I have moved it from the comment section to a full blog entry. I hope you find this story interesting.

Bob, thanks for taking the time to share this experience with us.

___________________________________________

I read with great interest, your posting of 9/27 on "The Polarity of Leading in Social Systems vs. Political Systems" in the Leadership Diamond Blog.

You posed the following question:

"Do any of you have opinions about how a leader who finds him or herself within a "political system" can succeed using the leadership concepts and models we have discussed in this blog?".

The definition of success in such an environment, may differ from more traditional definitions. If you will indulge some personal history, I will attempt to explain how success turned out for me. Perhaps it will be helpful to others.

I held a middle-management position in a "political system"-driven organization for about seven years. For the first five years, the company was privately held, owned and headed by an idividual and later acquired by a publicly held company who owned and operated it for the last two years I was there. No matter who owned it, it remained a very political system.

For the vast majority of those seven years, the company grew about 30% each year and experienced an employee turnover rate of 33-40% per year, a good percentage of those being terminated by the organization.

The turnover rate among my staff, I consider to be near zero. We lost one young staff member to a tragic automobile accident, and one other because her spouse was transferred to another city due to a reorganization at his company. None left by choice or by force.

My mission, with regard to my staff, was to provide an environment for them to succeed by insulating them as much as possible from the negative environment of the larger organization. I placed myself in between to channel "the bad stuff" to me and "the good stuff" directly to them.

The examples you cite contrasting social systems with political systems rang true for me. You quote:

"Within Political Systems:

Feedback: Never trust positive feedback from immediate boss, there will always be a “price tag” included. Trust third-party feedback but not from direct supervisor."

I was fortunate in that I could trust my boss to a greater degree as he was a person of good character. But only so far, as his own survival was at stake as well. For survival, it was imperative to develop a trusted peer network for information. The more data points, the better. Those relationships were developed incrementally over time as you learned who was trustworthy and who was not. It amazes me to this day how quickly information could flow in the event a storm was brewing.

"Decision Making: Never make decisions until the last possible moment. Keep your options open."

Yes. And I would further add, make no decision unless you're forced to. Things that stick out, tend to get chopped off.

I was not familiar with Dr. Koestenbaum's work then. Having more knowledge of it now, I believe that by applying the principles of the Leadership Diamond, one can be "successful" doing the right things in one's sphere of influence.

If these principles are not valued at the management level of the organization, though, I am not convinced that one can accomplish this long-term. Unless the "top" is willing to change, you'll eventually be plowed under by the organization's true values.


Bob

Friday, October 10, 2008 1:07:00 PM

Appreciative Inquiry

There is an expectation within many organizations that leaders know where an organization is going, and how the organization will get there. Certainly in some cases this is correct - there are leaders with clear vision who know what they want to achieve, and how to achieve the desired result.

It is also true that many (perhaps most) organizations don't always work like well oiled machines. Leaders find themselves mired in cultures that no longer serve the needs of the customers, employees, or other constituents; or the leader finds that he or she must deal with systems that do not create the desired result even though, from a technical perspective, everything appears to be working as designed.

When faced with these types of issues, leaders have a number of choices. If we assume that there is the will (free will, choice, courage) to change the culture or systems in question, the leader can use one of a number of problem-solving models. However, problem-solving models have been applied to organizations for years with very mixed results.

Perhaps it is time for leaders to consider a new (or at least relatively new) approach to changing cultures, systems and behaviors. Perhaps it is time for leaders to consider Appreciative Inquiry, or AI. (click here for a definition provided by Wikipedia)

According to the the Appreciative Inquiry Commons (sponsored by Case Western Reserve University):

Appreciative Inquiry is about the coevolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations, and the relevant world around them. In its broadest focus, it involves systematic discovery of what gives “life” to a living system when it is most alive, most effective, and most constructively capable in economic, ecological, and human terms. AI involves, in a central way, the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and heighten positive potential. (Emphasis added)

In the AI Process the conversation shifts from what is wrong with the organization or system to a description of what works, what is right, and finding ways to build on the strengths that already exist.

The value of choosing to follow an AI process over the usual problem solving approaches is that the organization avoids slogging through the negative energy created by the typical problem solving model, and instead finds that it is engaged in a fast, energetic, positive, and inspiring dialogue about what "can be":

In AI the arduous task of intervention gives way to the speed of imagination and innovation; instead of negation, criticism, and spiraling diagnosis, there is discovery, dream, and design. AI seeks, fundamentally, to build a constructive union between a whole people and the massive entirety of what people talk about as past and present capacities: achievements, assets, unexplored potentials, innovations, strengths, elevated thoughts, opportunities, benchmarks, high point moments, lived values, traditions, strategic competencies, stories, expressions of wisdom, insights into the deeper corporate spirit or soul-- and visions of valued and possible futures. (From the Appreciative Inquiry Commons - What is AI)

At the risk of oversimplifying things, in general, the AI process takes the participants through four steps (The lis below is from the Wikipedia entry on AI):

1. DISCOVER: The identification of organizational processes that work well.
2. DREAM: The envisioning of processes that would work well in the future.
3. DESIGN: Planning and prioritizing processes that would work well.
4. DESTINY (or DELIVER): The implementation (execution) of the proposed design.

AI is not a miracle drug, or a once-size-fits-all model. But if you are a leader looking for a way to draw the culture of your organization to a new place, or change systems that are steeped in tradition, AI may be that answer to your prayers.

If you are interested in some additional reading on this subject, here are a few sources:

• The Appreciative Inquiry Commons
• Appreciative Inquiry with Teams, G R Bushe, Organization Development Journal, Date: 01/01/1998
• Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Approach to Building Cooperative Capacity, Author: Frank Barrett , Ronald Fry, 2005
• Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change, Cooperrider, Whitney, 2005

The Polarity of Leading in Social Systems vs. Political Systems

All of the entries in this blog to date have assumed that the target audience (our readers and leaders) live and work within a system that values people who are open, communicative, care about the human element in the organization, and are proactive and energetic. However, Richard Beckhard and Reuben Harris, in their book Organizational Transitions – Managing Complex Change, Second Edition, point out that not all organizations are based on the values typical of what they call "social systems" (systems that are concerned with the social order of the organization).

Some organizations will form around "political systems" that may have vastly different "reasons for being" than systems that take on the values of "social systems". Beckhard and Harris point out that “Political behavior is behavior designed to further the goals of a person or group, more or less regardless of the effect on others. Some rules of political-system behavior are vastly different from rules of social-system behavior.” (P. 25)

They include an example that contrasts the feedback and decision making structures within political and social systems to illustrate their point:

Within Social Systems:

• Feedback: Always provide open feedback on positive and negative aspects of behavior. Emphasize the positive, support and reinforce.
• Decision Making: Get facts quickly, make decisions, take risks.

Within Political Systems:

• Feedback: Never trust positive feedback from immediate boss, there will always be a “price tag” included. Trust third-party feedback but not from direct supervisor.
• Decision Making: Never make decisions until the last possible moment. Keep your options open.

(From Figure 3-1 System Norms – P. 25)

If it is true that some systems have political values that are inconsistent with the values of social systems, then perhaps leaders in "political systems" as defined by Beckhard and Harris should behave differently from those who exist within social systems.

Do any of you have opinions about how a leader who finds him or herself within a "political system" can succeed using the leadership concepts and models we have discussed in this blog?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Dee Hock on Leadership

I have been rereading a book titled Birth of the Chaordic Age by Dee Hock, founder and former CEO of VISA, in which Hock describes his experiences in pulling together one of the largest (if not the largest) credit card company in the world in 90 days. His story of finding order in chaos (living in a chaordic world) is both fascinating and inspiring.

But it is his philosophy about leadership, people, and management that draws me back to his work today. In this time of chaos in our world, our work, and our lives, his thoughts on leadership speak of character, trust, caring, and power – not power over people, but power that takes the organization to a higher level of dedication to service and ethics.

Here are a few quotes from Birth of the Chaordic Age (1999), published by Berrett-Koehler, Inc.:

Leader presumes follower. Follower presumes choice. One who is coerced to the purposes, objectives, or preferences of another is not a follower in any true sense of the word, but an object of manipulation. Nor is the relationship materially altered if both parties accept dominance and coercion. True leading and following presume perpetual liberty of both… (p. 67)

A true leader cannot be bound to lead. A true follower cannot be bound to follow. (p. 67)

The first and paramount responsibility of anyone who purports to manage is to manage self; one’s own integrity, character, ethics, knowledge, wisdom, temperament, words, and acts. (p. 69)

The second responsibility is to manage those who have authority over us: bosses, supervisors, directors (p. 69)

The third responsibility is to manage one’s peers – those over whom we have no authority and who have no authority over us – associates, competitors, suppliers, customers – the entire environment. (p. 69)

…[I]f one has attended to self, superiors, and peers, there is little else left. The fourth responsibility is to manage those over whom we have authority. The common response is that all one’s time will be consumed managing self, superiors, and peers. There will be no time to manage subordinates. Exactly! One need only select decent people, introduce them to the concept, induce them to practice it, and enjoy the process. If those over whom we have authority properly manage themselves, manage us, manage their peers, and replicate the process with those they employ, what is there to do but see they are properly recognized, rewarded, and stay out of their way? It is not making better people of others that management is about. It’s about making a better person of self. Income, power, and titles have nothing to do with that. (p. 70)

This does not mean that the leader has nothing to do. On the contrary, a leader’s job is complex and requires the dedication of mind, body and soul.

First and foremost it requires that a leader select decent people. These people must be ready to work in an environment where they are responsible for their own actions – they must manage “self”. They must choose accountability, and be ready to take on the challenge of being leaders within the organization from whatever position they may hold. They must have the courage to be part of a system, however chaotic it may be, where they are as responsible as their “leader” is for success.

Once these “decent” people have joined the organization and have accepted the mantle of leadership as described by Hock, the leader’s role becomes one of making space for the work to happen, (more on the concept of “making space” in a future blog entry). This involves not only getting out of the way, but also providing time, resources, information, and removing barriers so that the important work of the organization can get done.

Perhaps you have noted the connection between Hock’s approach to leadership and Koestenbaum’s theory of the Leadership Diamond. Hock is heavily invested in ethics – the caring for how your actions, or lack of action, affects others, character, and authenticity; and courage – the free will and choice involved in being a leader, choosing to start with managing “self”, and playing a leadership role regardless of your place in the hierarchy.

There is a great deal in his writing that any leader might find helpful and inspiring in times when chaos threatens to engulf the world.

The Seeds of Change

Just before the turn of the century (the 21^st century) a number of leadership-gurus started turning heads by talking about the organic nature of organizations, and how traditional theories of organizational change were proving to be wrong. One of these leaders was Margaret Wheatley who, in her book Leadership and the New Science, said:

The dominant world view of Western culture – the world as machine – doesn’t help us to live well in this world any longer. We have to see the world differently if we are to live in it more harmoniously. Leadership and the New Science, (p. 172), Margaret Wheatley, 1999

She went on to say that an organization’s “…behaviors don’t change just by announcing new values. We move only gradually into being able to act congruently with those values.” (p 130-131)

This view of organizations as something other than machines was also expressed by Peter Senge, author of The Fifth Discipline and the Dance of Change.

In an article (Learning for a Change) published by Fast Company Magazine in May 1999, Senge brought his view of the organic nature of companies to the casual reader. He said:

We need to think less like managers and more like biologists. …Companies are actually living organisms, not machines. …Perhaps treating companies like machines keeps them from changing… We keep bringing in mechanics – when what we need are gardeners. We keep trying to drive change – when what we need to do is cultivate change.

If we approach our organizations as mechanical systems we develop high level leaders who drive change through formal, top-down change programs. If we approach our organizations as living systems we develop leaders at all levels who approach change as a natural part of the growth of the company.

Senge goes on to point out that in nature “nothing that grows starts large; it always starts small." In his view, in the natural world, “…no one is in charge making the growth occur. Instead, growth occurs as a result of the interplay of diverse forces.”

These forces are not under the control of any one person including the person at the top of the organizational structure, the “leader.” They are the natural forces that exist within every organization.

In Senge’s opinion, we often “use the word 'leader' to mean 'executive': The leader is the person at the top. That definition says that leadership is synonymous with a position. And if leadership is synonymous with a position, then it doesn’t matter what a leader does. All that matters is where a leader sits.”

Historically we have assigned to the leader the power to make organizational changes, to take an organization in a certain direction, or to know what changes are needed even when the people within the organization can’t see the need for change. The leader was seen as all-powerful and all-knowing. Change efforts were directed from the top, handed down from on-high and, more often than not, doomed to failure.

If all that matters is where a leader sits, there is little hope that strong leadership will be found at the line level, where leadership is most important.

The Wheatley and Senge research tells us a number of important things about organizations:

• We must view organizations as organic rather than mechanical structures.
• Change comes about through growth from inside the organization rather than through a mechanical repair of existing systems.
• To quote Senge, “Just as nothing in nature starts big; the way to start creating changes is with a pilot group – a growth seed.” Start small.
• For these seeds of change to survive and grow, organizations must have line leaders (people at the heart of the value-generating process – who design, produce, and sell products; who provide services; who talk to customers) who will nurture and care for the change efforts.
• Meaningful and lasting change comes from inside the organization.
  
• The planting of seeds in areas that are surrounded by gardeners in the form of committed and motivated people is much more likely to result in lasting change than programs that are the result of top down efforts.

Those of us who are trying to bring new ways of thinking into an organization will do well to bear in mind the organic nature of change. Whether your goal is to bring the Leadership Diamond into the decision making process of your organization, or to change a process or service that results in improved customer satisfaction and a better bottom line, every change effort should consider the value of planting seeds, and developing line leaders who act as gardeners.

The Good Society

During the last few thousand years, philosophers and authors have tried to define the role of government in creating The Good Society. These great thinkers struggled to define the perfect social system and the quality of life experienced by the people that lived within the systems they envisioned. Their approaches differed, and the quality of the resulting societies changed based on the values held by each of the philosophers.

In his book The Executive's Compass – Business and the Good Society, James O’Toole provides an interesting overview of several thousand years of philosophical thinking about The Good Society, and which of those societies might be best for humanity. O’Toole says:

• To Aristotle, it [the good society] permits some of its members to live “the good life.”
• To Hobbes, it provides sufficient order to allow material progress.
• To Locke, it guarantees life, liberty and property.
• To Rousseau, it preserves as much as possible of the conditions of liberty and equality that humankind enjoyed in “the state of nature.”
• To Adam Smith, it has nearly absolute economic freedom.
• To Thomas Jefferson, it consists of people who live in small-scale, rural communities characterized by a high quality of life.
• To Alexander Hamilton, it consists of people who live in modern industrial cities characterized by a high standard of living.
• To Marx, it has nearly absolute economic equality.
• To J.S. Mill, it allows nearly absolute social freedom.
• To Harriet Taylor Mill, it allows women to enjoy the equality of opportunity with men.
• To Weber, it is governed by laws, so that no citizen is treated arbitrarily.
• To Martin Luther King, it guarantees the “natural rights” of all its members, without regard to their race, sex, religion, or class.

(p. 19-20, The Executive's Compass – Business and the Good Society, James O’Toole, 1993)

How can there be so many different definitions of what constitutes The Good Society?

Perhaps the answer can be found by applying some of the principles of the Leadership Diamond.

The Ethics point on the Diamond gives us some insight into this question. From an ethical perspective, every philosopher defined The Good Society based on an underlying set of values and assumptions about how people within a society should be treated and live. Their underlying ethics and values shaped their thoughts about the quality of life people within the society should experience. Their underlying ethics and values also helped each philosopher clarify his or her thoughts about equity and justice.

When we see that it is possible for so many thought leaders to differ widely on the definition of what constitutes The Good Society, it should come as no surprise that governments across the country, and around the world, have difficulty agreeing on exactly how government should behave to create what is best of the community.

Perhaps the answer is that there is no single Good Society, and to recognize that there are many societies that may be chosen by a community to serve its needs. Perhaps what is necessary is for the community to invest the time and effort to first define its values, and to use those value statements to help define the vision of what it is they want to create as a result of their efforts. Once defined, perhaps the role of government is to reflect the ethics and values of the community in its effort to live within The Good Society.

What are your thoughts on The Good Society, and the role of government in its creation?