Vision and Motivation

There are probably hundreds of authors who have talked about the importance of vision in leadership. Vision is, without a doubt, one of the essential elements that goes into separating the average top manager from the successful leader.

Here are a few examples of what some of the thought-leaders of our day have had to say about the importance of leadership in our organizations:

• The Leadership Diamond, developed by Dr. Peter Koestenbaum, incorporates vision as one of the four foundational components of leadership.
• Kouzes and Posner's book, The Leadership Challenge, lists "inspiring a shared vision" as one of five essential steps to being a successful leader.
• Kevin Cashman shows that before you can help others reach their potential, you must define yourself, and get clear on your vision. In his view, vision forms the cornerstone of personal success and fulfillment.
  
• Daniel Goleman, and his co-authors of Primal Leadership, define six leadership styles, with visionary leadership being at the top of the list.
  

In every case, the wizards of leadership thought agree that to be motivated and successful an organization must have a clear and compelling vision of what it is they are trying to create as a result of their effort.

The relationship between having a clear vision and a motivated workforce is illustrated by the often retold story (perhaps apocryphal) about the architect Christopher Wren. Wren lived in London in the mid 1600s, and was known as an accomplished architect who's designs included the Royal Observatory, Trinity College at Cambridge, and St. Paul's Cathedral.

As the story goes, St. Paul's Cathedral, as well as the majority of London, burned to the ground in the great fire of 1666. During the rebuilding of the cathedral, Wren was visiting the construction site, watching his design take shape, when he noticed two workers laboring side by side laying bricks in one of the outer walls of the new cathedral. One of the workers seemed dull and slow, and clearly not engaged in his work. The other was laboring hard, with enthusiasm, doing fine work at an impressive pace.

Wren approached the first bricklayer and asked him what he was doing. The bricklayer replied, "What does it look like I'm doing? I'm laying bricks." Wren then went to the second bricklayer and asked the same question, "What are you doing?" The second bricklayer looked up and greeted Wren with a smile and a nod, and replied "I am building a beautiful cathedral, sir."

The difference between these two workers was that one saw only meaningless labor, while the other had a vision of what he was trying to create as a result of his effort.

Koestenbaum describes vision as the crowning achievement of human evolution. Vision is the means by which we see the future. German poet Rainer Maria Rilke said "The future enters into us, in order to transform itself in us, long before it happens." Koestenbaum adds, "It is not just the future that transforms itself. It is the future in us that transforms us now so that the future itself can happen to us." (P. 277-278, The Philosophic Consultant).

Kouzes and Posner define vision as "... an ideal and unique image of the future." (P. 95, The Leadership Challenge) This image of the future is not limited to improving on what exists. It can be a leap from "what is" to "what can be" without any knowledge of how to get from where we are to where we are going.

Peter Block, in his book The Answer to How is Yes, would agree that knowing how to move from today into the future is not a requirement. What is required is a commitment to the future, and the "how" will become evident.

At the risk of oversimplifying, Cashman's Leadership from the Inside Out shows how important it is to align actions and persona with the deeply seated values that drive the individual. When an individual's values are aligned with the organization's values and vision, there can be a partnership that leads to success for both. When there is alignment, the individuals within the organization are like the second bricklayer in the Christopher Wren story.

And finally, in Goleman's Primal Leadership, visionary leadership is one of six essential leadership styles. Visionary leadership helps "...people to see how their work fits into the big picture, lending people a clear sense not just that what they do matters, but why." (P. 57, Primal Leadership)

There is agreement among the great thinkers of the leadership world on the subject of vision. It is a magnet into the future; it inspires personal commitment; it is essential to moving forward together. And, when it is missing, organizations wander in the wilderness.

If you see yourself as a leader, you need to ask yourself if you have inspired a shared vision within your organization. You may be amazed at the answers you find, and the possibilities that present themselves when the answer is Yes.

-

Dealing with Resistance

In the last blog entry we took a very quick look at some of the forms of resistance that you might encounter as you embark on a change effort. This topic seems to hit home with many of you, and has raised the natural question of how to deal with resistance when it is encountered in its various forms. Therefore, this blog entry contains a few thoughts about what to do when you find yourself face to face with resistance.

Peter Block says that “there is no way you can talk {someone} out of their resistance because resistance is an emotional process. You cannot talk people out of how they are feeling.” He goes on to say that “the basic strategy is to help the resistance blow itself out, like a storm.” (Flawless Consulting, P. 161)

Block suggests that there are three steps to dealing with resistance:

• Identify in your own mind the form of the resistance (see the description of the types of resistance in the previous blog entry.)
• Name the resistance – use neutral language to describe the form that the resistance is taking.
• Be quiet – let the person respond to your statement about the resistance. Don’t keep talking. Live with the silence and tension.

(Flawless Consulting, P. 163)

Use open ended questions or statements, instead of questions or statements that can be replied to with yes or no answers.

If you encounter a situation where the person or group you are working with is avoiding responsibility for the problem or solution, you might say "You don't see yourself as part of the problem." Then, be quiet, and listen.

If you are working with someone who is giving you very little, and one word answers, you might say "You are giving me very short answers. Could you say more?

If you are working with someone who is silent, you might say "You are very quiet. I don't know how to read your silence."

You are probably beginning to get the idea. Your statement begins with a description of the behavior (You are very quiet.) which is followed by a question or statement about what is needed (can you say more?) or how this affects the work you are trying to do (I don't know how to read your silence.).

(Flawless Consulting, P. 163-166)

This process of identifying, naming and being quiet provides a mechanism for getting the resistance out on the table so it can be addressed.

It might also be helpful to think about resistance in terms of the Leadership Diamond model that has been covered a number of times in this blog. This model is based on the importance of vision, ethics, reality and courage. Peter Koestenbaum writes that resistance to vision is blindness. Resistance to reality is denial. Resistance to ethics is indifference. Resistance to courage is fear. (Leadership – The Inner Side of Greatness – P. 29)

Being aware of these concepts may help you identify the form of resistance that you are encountering. For example, someone who is constantly asking for more and more detail may be expressing a lack of confidence, or their fear. Your statement to this person might be "Your need for lots of detail tells me that you are uncomfortable with this project (or change effort). Tell me what is making you uncomfortable." Or more directly, "What are your fears?"

And finally, as you work with change efforts it is helpful to keep in mind the fact that organizations are not mechanical devices that can be changed by removing one part and replacing it with another. Change is an organic process. It starts small with seeds of ideas, a few people with a new vision, or a spark of brilliance, and grows over time into something that will change the organization forever. Resistance to the growth of new ideas, processes, and structures is normal even in nature. But, just as in nature, growth is difficult to stop. Leaders who are unafraid to identify and name resistance can clear the path for healthy growth that will bear the fruits of success.

(See the April 1999 FastCompany Magazine for an article by Peter Senge on this subject.)

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.