Systemic Leadership Learning : Leadership Development in the Era of Complexity [1 ed.] 9781869222017, 9781869221867

Citation preview

Prof John Pourdehnad, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania “We live in a world whose complexities are only now consciously affecting us. To lead and develop leaders in this complex world calls for ‘simplicity on the other side of complexity’. This book is a serious effort to achieve that goal.” Frik Landman, CEO of University of Stellenbosch Business School Executive Development “Systemic Leadership Learning assists leaders in effectively navigating the complexity of Africa. This helps both the organisation and the leader to deliver enhanced performance improvement.” Tracy Pienaar, Head of Learning & Development in Africa, Standard Bank “This… changes the way we create, develop and nurture effective leaders in industry today.” Dr Steven Shepard, USC Marshall School of Business “SLL Theory helped HR to build a coherent link between senior management and our human resources.”

SYSTEMIC LEADERSHIP LEARNING Leadership Development in the Era of Complexity

Leadership is in crisis. Methods for developing leaders have not kept pace with the complex realities of the leader of today and with emerging demands. Systemic Leadership Learning presents a radical and powerful new approach to the development of leaders that integrates four key systems in the learning process with four primary fields of study required for effective leadership. In a sense, it presents the “quantum curriculum” necessary to advance the study of leadership and the abilities of organisations, coaches, facilitators and consultants to grow the essential leadership capacity for sustainability.

Sarisha Naidoo, HR Executive, Millward Brown & GroFin “A powerful and innovative contribution to Leadership Development. Required reading for all trainers.” Sandra Jardim, People Development Manager, Sanofi Aventis

Angelo Kaheyas, President, Institute of Management Consultants of South Africa

 

Systemic Leadership Learning.indd 1

Dr Morne Mostert is an international leadership development specialist. He is the founder of Leadership Options, whose clients include marketleading companies in South Africa and abroad. Morne is the Ambassador for the World Leadership Day in South Africa. He is a member of the Council of the Da Vinci Institute and a member of faculty at the Stellenbosch University Business School Executive Development. He is a regular speaker at conferences and his specialist areas of interest include Systems, Creative & Design Thinking, Customer Engagement, Human Resources, Leadership, and Strategy and Change.

SYSTEMIC LEADERSHIP LEARNING Leadership Development in the Era of Complexity

Morne Mostert Ph.D.

“This book contains many ideas that challenge traditional ways of thinking – something every good consultant should do. I would recommend this book for any consultant who wishes to think out of the box and continue learning.”

SYSTEMIC LEADERSHIP LEARNING – Leadership Development in the Era of Complexity

“This book unlocks some of the mystery of how leaders learn in reality. A big leap forward in learning methodologies for business education and consulting.”

Morne Mostert Ph.D.

Foreword by Roy Marcus Ph.D.

2012/06/27 08:50:26

Systemic Leadership Learning

Praise for this book “This book unlocks some of the mystery of how leaders learn in reality. By creating an integrated model of the systems at play during learning, it lays the foundation for new ways of developing leaders. As we get ready for the ‘new normal’, Systemic Leadership Learning highlights innovative ways of developing leaders who can cope with the ‘perfect storm’. It constitutes a big leap forward in learning methodologies for both business education and consulting.” ―Prof. John Pourdehnad, Associate Director of the Ackoff Collaboratory for Advancement of Systems Approaches at the Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania “We live in a world whose complexities are only now consciously affecting us. To lead and develop leaders in this complex world calls for ‘simplicity on the other side of complexity’. This book is a serious attempt to achieve that goal.” ―Frik Landman, CEO of University of Stellenbosch Business School Executive Development and Member of International Advisory Board at Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School “Systemic Leadership Learning supports the building of leadership capability in Africa by assisting leaders in effectively navigating the complexity of Africa. This helps both the organisation and the leader to deliver enhanced performance improvement and sustainable ROI.” ―Tracy Pienaar, Head of Learning & Development in Africa, Standard Bank “Systemic Leadership Learning offers a methodology for both leadership development and professional services that changes the way we create, develop and nurture effective leaders in industry today.” ―Dr. Steven Shepard, President of Shepard Communications Group, Adjunct Professor at USC Marshall School of Business, and the Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania “SLL Theory has helped HR to build a coherent link between senior management and our human resources. It illustrates how staff can be empowered through autonomy.” ―Sarisha Naidoo, HR Executive, Millward Brown and GroFin “A powerful and innovative contribution to leadership development, it is as practical as it is philosophical. This makes systems thinking a reality for consultants, facilitators and designers of learning. Required reading for all trainers.” ―Sandra Jardim, People Development Manager, Sanofi Aventis “This book contains many ideas that challenge traditional ways of thinking – something every good consultant should do. I would recommend this book to any consultant who wishes to think out of the box and wants to continue learning.” ―Angelo Kaheyas, President, Institute of Management Consultants of South Africa

Systemic Leadership Learning

Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Morne Mostert PhD

2012

Copyright © Knowres Publishing and Morne Mostert PhD All reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the contents of this book do not, directly or indirectly, infringe any existing copyright of any third person and, further, that all quotations or extracts taken from any other publication or work have been appropriately acknowledged and referenced. The publisher, editors and printers take no responsibility for any copyright infringement committed by an author of this work. Copyright subsists in this work. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the written consent of the publisher or the authors. While the publisher, editors and printers have taken all reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the contents of this work, they take no responsibility for any loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of that person relying on the information contained in this work. First published in 2012 ISBN: 978-1-86922--7(ERRN Published by Knowres Publishing (Pty) Ltd P O Box 3954 Randburg 2125 Republic of South Africa Tel: 011 880 8540 Fax: 011 880 8700/9829 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.kr.co.za Printed and bound: Replika Press Pvt Ltd, Haryana, India Typesetting, layout and design: Replika Press Pvt Ltd, Haryana, India Cover design: Sean Sequeira, idDigital, [email protected] Editing and proofreading: John Henderson, [email protected] Project management: Cia Joubert, [email protected] Index created with: TExtract, www.Texyz.com

CONTENTS FOREWORD___________________________________________ v ABOUT THE AUTHOR__________________________________ vii PREFACE __________________________________________ viii THE MISSION: AN INTRODUCTION_______________________ xiii 1

ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT_________________________ 1

1.1

Law and disorder: quality assurance lacks return on investment (ROI) metrics_____________________________ 4

1.2

Boxed is better: boards and executives apply control rather than order________________________________________ 5

1.3

Leaders who follow: learning demands leaders; operations demand followers__________________________________ 6

1.4

The usual suspects: an antiquated tabula rasa approach_________________________________________ 7

1.5

Accidental tourist: limited systemic awareness in development programmes______________________________________ 8

1.6

Groundhog Day: haven’t we learnt this before?___________ 9

2

THE THIN RED LINE: METHOD IN THE MADNESS_______________________________________ 13

2.1

Fiddler on the roof: The Approach_____________________ 13

2.2

A perfect storm: seeking validity in a system of chaos __________________________________________ 14

2.3

It takes a thief: field work through personal experience_______________________________________ 17 2.3.1 Learning management________________________ 17 2.3.2 Train-spotting: learning facilitation_______________ 19 2.3.3 Honour among thieves: consultation on the original idea_______________________________________ 22

3

THE BIG IDEA____________________________________ 27

i

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

3.1

Better to light a candle______________________________ 28 3.1.1 First light: towards working definitions____________ 28 3.1.1.1 Systemic: it is all connected_____________ 29 3.1.1.2 Leadership: everybody wants to rule the world______________________________ 30 3.1.1.3 Learning: eternal sunshine of the spotless mind_______________________________ 31 3.1.1.3.1

Knowledge Transience Map_____________________ 32

3.1.1.3.2

The mother of invention: Learning and Innovation_____ 35

3.1.1.3.3

Idea Appreciation Continuum________________ 38

3.1.1.4 Systemic Leadership Learning (SLL) _____ 40 4

FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL_________________ 41

4.1

A few good men (and women): the leader as system______ 43 4.1.1 Fatal attraction: the Entrenchment Curve__________ 46 4.1.1.1 Stir Crazy: The Authority Paradox________ 48 4.1.1.2 Goodfellas: the responsibility of the leader in SLL________________________________ 51 4.1.1.3 Learning Outcome Parameters Assessment_________________________ 54

4.2

The empire strikes back: the organisation as system______ 57 4.2.1 Great and mutual expectations__________________ 59 4.2.2 Double indemnity: the responsibility of the organisation_________________________________ 61 4.2.3 Apocalypse now: The Al-Aima Bridge Effect______________________________________ 62 4.2.4 Dances with wolves: the role of organisational culture_____________________________________ 63

ii

Contents

4.3

Sense and sensibility: the learning content as system__________________________________________ 65 4.3.1 The nature of learning content as system__________ 71 4.3.2 Proximity Perception Trap______________________ 74 4.3.3 Learning content as system inputs_______________ 77

4.4

The phantom menace: the facilitator as system__________ 80 4.4.1 A rebel without causality: the responsibility of the facilitator___________________________________ 81 4.4.2 Qualitative delivery criteria for facilitation in SLL_____ 84

5

PAINTING A THOUSAND WORDS____________________ 87

6 TWISTER_______________________________________ 99 7

ANATOMY OF A LEADER AS STUDENT______________ 105

7.1

Close encounters of the preferred kind: the reality of the leader _________________________________________ 106 7.1.1 A room with multiple views: perceptual positions___ 109 7.1.1.1 A streetcar named: Fear and Desire_____ 114 7.1.1.2 Pride and prejudice: Perception and Reality____________________________ 116 7.1.1.3 Secrets and lies: Barriers and Enablers__ 118 7.1.1.4 Prince of tides: Rigidity and Fluidity______ 121 7.1.1.5 The awful truth: Self-consciousness and Self-awareness_____________________ 124 7.1.1.6 No country for old ideas: Degree of Change___________________________ 128

7.2

Independence Day: the leader’s personal responsibility____________________________________ 133 7.2.1 Rain Man: a Learning Need Locator_____________ 135 7.2.2 From here to eternity: Impact Scope Analysis______ 143 7.2.3 The sum of all fears: strategic awareness_________ 143

iii

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

7.2.3.1 Scenario Dependency Matrix___________ 143 7.2.3.2 Lost in translation: customer concerns__________________________ 145 7.2.4 Field of dreams: operationalisation______________ 146 7.2.4.1 Emphasise_________________________ 146 7.2.4.2 De-emphasise______________________ 147 7.2.4.3 Ignore_____________________________ 148 7.2.4.4 Delete____________________________ 148 7.3

Horrible bosses: learning system levels_______________ 149

7.4

Dangerous liaisons: System Dependency Analysis______ 152 7.4.1 Direct and indirect impact_____________________ 153 7.4.2 Sources of dependency______________________ 155 7.4.3 Types of dependency________________________ 157

8

ALL THE KING’S MEN____________________________ 161

9

THE REMAINS OF THE DAY: SLL AS IT MIGHT BE_____ 169

10 REFERENCES__________________________________ 175 11 Index _________________________________________ 181 12

iv

Praise for this book_______________________________ 191

FOREWORD The academic world is littered with models which purport to provide deep insights into what constitutes leadership and so-called successful leadership styles. To the uninitiated, there is a notion that one should be able to “bend” one’s personal brand of leadership to closely imitate these styles and thereby set oneself up for success. If these models were really pertinent, then we must ask ourselves why there is such a global crisis in leadership. And then there is the group of people who, at great cost, attend leadership seminars where they listen to mainly self-pronounced “leadership experts” who pass on great wisdom as to what they did and did not do to make themselves so successful. Of course, to the critic, the notion of “success” in many respects is open to huge debate. To the relief of leadership scholars and practitioners, this book manages to avoid the traps above. Rather, it approaches the complex field of leadership development from a very elegant, yet highly relevant, standpoint. The Da Vinci Institute has for many years grappled with how a Mode II postgraduate school of management should best handle the complex issues of developing leadership. And, of course, in any academic environment, what better way to gain useful insights into complex issues than to work alongside a very competent postgraduate student. For the supervisor, it is even more stimulating if that postgraduate student is working in one’s own specific domain of interest. The core of the Da Vinci Institute offerings is based on the notion of the organisation being viewed as a social system. Further, it is our premise that, in a world of increasing complexity, one cannot solve a problem. One can merely dissolve a problem, and this is achieved by redesigning the system. It goes without saying that such redesign requires a person who has particular leadership traits. And so it has been with absolute pleasure and delight that I have worked with Morne as he embarked on a journey which has culminated v

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

in this book. He has been singularly successful in developing a unique model of a Systemic Leadership Learning process which integrates the systems of the leader, organisation, learning content and facilitator into a systemic whole. In the true spirit of research in a Mode II university, Morne has been able to furnish tangible evidence of the impact which this model has had on a number of organisations, thereby demonstrating the validity of the assumptions and the effectiveness of the model. In all cases, there have been tangible and meaningful improvements. There is no doubt that the model of Systemic Leadership Learning is destined to have a significant impact on the way in which organisations view the development of their leaders. Growing leaders for today and for the future is a critical determinant of organisational success. This book offers new insights into the dynamics of leadership development and presents what can only be described as a very elegant model. Roy Marcus PhD Chairperson, Da Vinci Holdings Chairperson, Council of the University of Johannesburg

vi

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dr Morne Mostert is an international leadership development specialist. He is the founder of Leadership Options, whose clients include market-leading companies in South Africa and abroad. Morne is the Ambassador for the World Leadership Day in South Africa. He is a member of the Council of the Da Vinci Institute and a member of faculty at the Stellenbosch University Business School Executive Development. He is a regular speaker at conferences and his specialist areas of interest include Systems, Creative & Design Thinking, Customer Engagement, Human Resources, Leadership, and Strategy and Change.

vii

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

PREFACE The commitments: a personal journey of learning while serving Beginning my studies the first step pleased me so much, The fact consciousness, these forms, the power of motion… The first step I say awed me and pleased me so much, I have hardly gone and hardly wished to go any farther, But stop and loiter all the time to sing it in ecstatic songs. Walt Whitman (1819–1892)

When was the last time you learnt something about leadership which changed the way you work and got you different results? This book is about exploring that learning process for leaders and finding new ways for leaders to learn and contribute. My experience of being a manager in, as well as a consultant to, large organisations has led to the belief that working for large organisations is inherently an unnatural activity. This philosophical view is based on the notion that human beings are simply more creative, more self-organising and more divergent in their thinking than most organisations will allow. Organisations strive towards standardisation and economies of scale in order to streamline operations and optimise profit. Such an approach to business serves the major shareholders, as it drives the economic imperative of profitability, but is hardly the ideal containing system for human endeavour. The juxtaposition of these two complex entities, that is, of organisations and humans, poses a complex integration challenge, as they are inherently different, thus making imposed organisation for the achievement of the goals of others an inherently unnatural human activity – human beings are simply more creative, innovative and self-organising than their immediate experience of working in large organisations will allow. viii

Preface

I should emphasise that this book is not proposing the abolishment of large organisations, as I simultaneously believe in the potential power and value of large social entities to fulfil the manifold needs that humans have. I am simply proposing that acceptance of the unnatural state of working for large organisations has an enormous impact on the way in which leaders learn in such environments. Thus, if working for large organisations is inherently unnatural for human beings, then leading in such organisations is even more so, as leaders are not only required to work in the unnatural state, but are furthermore required to enforce the rules of the unnatural state. This poses great conflicts of interest as leaders pursue their own aims and objectives, while enforcing the principle that staff are not to pursue their own objectives, but those of the organisation. It is the intention of this book to make a contribution to the leadership development industry that helps leaders to lead in congruence with their own true greatness; to create the conceptual framework, structure and catalytic processes that will enhance the learning experience to the degree that it •

adds fulfilment to the working lives of the leader, and

•

increases the profitability of organisations through increased application opportunities from learning

The value of such an aim is further accentuated if one appreciates the large number of people impacted by each leader. Every contribution to the leader’s learning experience has an exponential impact on the organisation, borne out by the benefit to the staff reporting to that leader as well as through the wider reach that leaders have in organisations with regard to the utilisation of resources, such as financial, human, capital and others. Leaders who have developed the ability to engage with their people in meaningful ways contribute not only to their own growth and the productivity of the organisation through the alignment of people with the organisational objectives, but also contribute to the very fabric of the day-to-day experience of their people. Such leaders, exposed to ix

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

meaningful learning experiences, enhance the working experience, self-esteem and achievement of their people. This work is inspired by a belief in the boundless possibilities of the human mind. It examines the development of that mind as it relates to leaders in the pursuit of knowledge about themselves and their organisations. It is an exploration of the interaction between the divergence of human ingenuity as a ubiquitous characteristic of the learning process and the convergence of organisational realities that attempt to channel and direct human effort. In the process of exploration, I have engaged with numerous organisations that have aimed to enhance the abilities of their leaders to articulate direction and capture the hearts and minds of those within their influence. As a result, a theory of leadership learning has emerged that proposes to enhance the experience of leaders and improve the results from their learning experiences through navigating the many interwoven systems both in the working worlds and during the learning process. The process of learning about learning about leadership has caused as much an evolution in me as it is my hope that this book should cause for all those involved in leadership development. What follows here is both the conclusion and the beginning of a voyage of discovery through the leadership development industry. For more than 16 years I have had the privilege of standing in front of and inside groups of managers and leaders at all levels, while they express their aspirations and expectations from the learning process, their organisations and indeed themselves. Since the conceptualisation of this book, a clear purpose and approach to leadership and management development have crystallised that are based upon a desire to serve and make a meaningful contribution to this field of study. In the process, I admit with humility that I have possibly gained more from the thousands of management delegates on my programmes than they have gained from me. Certainly, my x

Preface

personal development is due in great part to the challenges and provocations I have received from superb managers and leaders in leading organisations who are determined to improve their own practice as leaders and professional managers through liberating their minds to find new ways of being as leaders in an era of critical complexity. It is my hope that this book may contribute to knowledge development in four central fields of study, namely the fields of Systems Thinking, Leadership, Learning and Story. Its particular value, however, lies in the exploration of where these fields of study overlap. In this regard, it continues a modern trend in learning that examines the crossover potential of learning insights from one field to another. I therefore hope that the portability of knowledge developed in this book is likely to contribute as transdisciplinary work as it also serves to integrate the study of various fields. One of the critical, multiple partial views in the broader system of this book is the reader. The reader represents a key component in the success of this book. As such, the reader is a system in its own right, with its own dynamic energy and complex interactive subsystems, including the reader’s own cultural perspectives, education, philosophies and purpose. To this system of the reader I therefore entrust my own journey of learning and exploration, with a strong belief in the self-organising powers of the minds who will read it and in the emergence of learning from this book. I, too, hope to learn much from the random engagement with those minds. Note: I have made liberal use of the work of the poet, Robert Frost, by quoting his poetry where relevant. The reason for this is that I find in Frost a philosophical ally – one who is concerned with the achievement of work and great endeavours, but who simultaneously wishes to explore the human condition and the reality of the individual in a complex world. The quotations of the poetry of Frost are further intended to add an appreciably qualitative character to this book. I have also chosen movie titles to support the titles and subtitles. The rationale here is that the power of a visual inter-text energises the reader. xi

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

On the ubiquitous problem of the gender of pronouns, I have opted on this occasion to use the female to include the male. The female strikes me as more systemic, open and dynamic and is an understated bit of gender activism for women in leadership.

xii

THE MISSION: AN INTRODUCTION The chance is the remotest Of its going much longer unnoticed That I’m not keeping pace With the headlong human race. Robert Frost, “Some Science Fiction”

How do leaders learn best? How can organisations learn more about the way in which leaders learn? This book represents the articulation of a theory of learning that has emerged as the result of engagement with clients who have requested the acceleration of the growth of their leaders. It represents the integrated and synthesised findings of one observer who has aimed to create meaning from chaos; and order in the place of control. The book presents a theory of leadership learning referred to as Systemic Leadership Learning. This theory describes the application of Systems Thinking to the field of Learning within the specific application of Leadership Development. In this context, it proposes an alternative approach to the linear processes often used in leadership development. It presents learning as an integration of systems that require profound understanding. But it moves beyond analysis to avoid the pervading reductionist mind-set that is a barrier to the identification of meaningful application opportunities from the learning process for leaders. Simple cause-and-effect relationships between systems present during learning are avoided, and, in their stead, systemic frameworks are proposed. While obvious problems are not avoided, more underlying challenges in the learning process are highlighted and described within a systemic framework. In making observations about an entire industry, the risk exists for gross generalisation. I recognise that not all organisations experience leadership development challenges to the same degree. Indeed, given the global market leadership positions of some of the clients engaged xiii

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

in the field work for this book, there is some obvious evidence of global best practice. Some of the leading companies I had the privilege of engaging as this book was being created include Discovery, Millward Brown, Syngenta, Vodacom, Standard Bank, Absa Bank, Maitland, Achievement Awards, Grofin, Covidien, and many others. These and other great companies have had the courage to learn on the basis of the immutable belief that there must be a better way. To these dynamic systems I am infinitely grateful.

xiv

1 ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT An industry in need …The sureness of the soul is loosely bound By everything on earth the compass round And only by one’s going slightly taut In the capriciousness of summer air Is of the slightest bondage made aware. Robert Frost, “The Silken Tent”

Leadership is in crisis and learning is broken. Yet billions of dollars are spent globally on the development of leaders in organisations on an annual basis. Research suggests that the return on this investment is limited, or, at best, difficult to observe. The need for skilled managers and leaders is growing continually, and, while organisations are attempting to close the competency deficits of their managers and leaders, they are simultaneously confronted by increasing competitor activity and ever-more educated consumers demanding up-to-the-minute information and world-class service. Simultaneously, technology is evolving at a faster pace than ever, leaders are more globally mobile than ever, the search for talent is becoming increasingly difficult, and individual leaders have a better understanding of themselves than ever in the history of the employment of leaders by organisations. Despite this global phenomenon, many organisations still make use of leadership development processes that employ models of education created in ancient Greece and consolidated in Europe in the Middle Ages. Such educational models are characterised by content-driven processes in which respected subject matter experts, employed by educational institutions, enforce their wisdom on students. These students are deemed effective based on their ability to comply with the learning content. More recent evolutions in this basic model demand from students to internalise learning content and demonstrate such content in the performance of their duties for the 1

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

benefit of their sponsors. Despite this incremental improvement, the same basic model still applies: leaders as students are subordinated to the demands of their sponsors through learning content and guided to compliance with the learning process by teachers who hold subject matter expertise. So entrenched has the model become (as indeed is the nature of paradigms) that the very mention of alternative models may appear uneducational. I have had the privilege of working with a range of organisations, from companies with global market leadership to South African listed organisations and government entities. In engaging with these organisations, I have fulfilled two roles: one as internal senior manager with responsibility for leadership development processes, and the other as external consultant and facilitator of leadership development. This work has occurred at all levels, from engaging with chief executive officers (CEOs), board members and executive teams to senior, middle and junior managers, as well as aspiring managers and team leaders. This engagement constitutes the field work as foundation for the research in this book. The research process was one in which I immersed myself as an active observer in the daily praxis of the consultant’s craft. The theory that has emerged from this research is known as Systemic Leadership Learning. It proposes an integrated approach to leadership development in which the systems of the leader, organisation, learning content and facilitator are integrated into a systemic whole. This is done against the background of the integration of three fields of study as reviewed in a wide range of literature, namely Leadership, Systems Thinking, and Learning, supported by the use of Story. Following two peer reviews and numerous engagements with a wide range of organisations, the book concludes that the leader holds a self-perception of being the supra-system during the learning process. This means that the leader assumes, actively or passively, that she is the main containing system of the learning process. All content and method need to serve her needs. This insight has significant implications for the way in which organisations conceptualise, design, develop, facilitate, assess and evaluate leadership development processes. Most notably, the learning process needs to start with the 2

Chapter 1: Arrested Development

leader. The learning needs of the leader, as highlighted by a personal and unique story, form the foundation of the learning process. All other systems involved in the learning process are required to understand the reality of the leader as a means of optimising the Return on Investment (ROI) from the development of leaders. For those new to systems thinking, it is worth noting at this point that a system, for the purposes of this book, is defined as a set of at least two elements or parts, which are in some form of interaction. Every system (such as an organisation) has multiple containing systems and is itself a containing system for other subsystems. Each system increases in complexity as the elements and their interactions increase in number and become less predictable. Failure to see, exploit or design the type and quality of connections will lead to a failure of understanding and will result in misguided engagement with the system. Owing to the centrality of the leader as system in the learning process, a multidimensional orientation framework is developed that provides a means for both the leader and the other systems in the learning process to analyse, interpret and understand the system of the leader. Within this framework, the organisation is viewed as part of the system of the leader. The organisation becomes a focus area during periods of professional development for the leader, but does not subordinate the leader as a tabula rasa (blank slate) recipient of education. The learning content is viewed simply as a tool for enhancing the performance of the leader, while the facilitator is a guide at the service of the leader to ensure personal and professional growth within an organisational context. Systemic Leadership Learning (SLL) integrates the systems in the learning process left hitherto disjointed and fragmented. Since it is the leader – and not the facilitator, learning content or nebulously defined organisation – who is ultimately required to deliver improved performance as a result of learning, SLL presupposes integrity on the part of the leader and allows the leader the requisite supra-system status to ensure optimal learning. The leadership development industry comprises a wide range of entities that deliver and govern leadership development services. A 3

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

number of key challenges are present in the delivery and governance of entities in the industry, as described below.

1.1 LAW AND DISORDER: QUALITY ASSURANCE LACKS RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) METRICS Key entities that deliver leadership development services include •

public universities, most with their own business schools

•

private universities

•

nongovernmental organisations (NGOs)

•

government agencies

•

private training companies

•

private individuals

Quality assurance of these entities appears problematic, since, despite the high degrees of regulation, ROI remains lacking. Quality criteria tend to describe processes and procedures, rather than qualitative experiences of leaders. Furthermore, there appears to be no evidence of any criteria relating to the impact of learning on organisations in any of the criteria for higher-education institutions. It is not difficult to understand the absence of such criteria, as the enforcement of these criteria would be a practical impossibility. But the result is that providers of leadership development services can offer these services for years without any proven impact on the organisations paying for the education of their leaders. Every year, billions of dollars are spent on leadership development. A global report on 15  000 organisations, conducted by leading multinational consulting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, shows that “there is no clear indication that enhanced performance is arising from the considerable investment in leadership development” (Phelps 2006:4). This lack of ROI is thus an enormous industry need, as the same report shows that spending continues unabated in this field. The report further shows that “new approaches to leadership development are required” (Phelps 2006:5). The call in the report 4

Chapter 1: Arrested Development

is for “new approaches”, not merely for additional learning content. This means that a fundamental paradigmatic shift is required for the way in which organisations develop their leaders for immediate and sustainable results.

1.2 BOXED IS BETTER: BOARDS AND EXECUTIVES APPLY CONTROL RATHER THAN ORDER Boards and executive teams often appear to believe that “boxed is better”, that is, their behaviour suggests that the only elements worthy of investment, and even exploration, are those that are easily measured, predicted and controlled. It is not difficult to understand the motivation for such conservatism – businesses have to make commitments to shareholders, and deliberate risk creates caution for potential shareholders. The conservatism is therefore perhaps even based on the insight that human beings are naturally creative and should therefore be controlled. The unfortunate result is that those leaders in middle and senior management roles are limited in terms of their scope of influence and innovation. This appears to fly in the face of the verbal protestations of many executives that their senior managers are not sufficiently innovative and that they lack the required levels of initiative to drive the success of the organisation. This is clearly inherently contradictory. It may be explained by the fact that, while most top leaders in organisations recognise the need for innovation, they are incapable of managing the divergence of thought that would emanate from true innovative thinking. What they can manage with some degree of ease are those processes that have already proven themselves to work. The approach seems, therefore, characterised by positivism (we will invest only if we can see and feel the problem now) and linearity and the relentless analytical narrowing of the boundaries of the potential of human pursuit. It poses a great threat to Systems Thinking as a discipline in organisations and serves only to perpetuate a onedimensional approach to management thinking and learning. 5

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

The immediate threat for learning is that it prevents leaders from learning optimally, as the boxes for the results of learning have been predefined. If one accepts that learning is inherently a divergent process of exploration, then such premature convergence of thought, possibility and solutions poses a great threat to the identification of innovative application opportunities from the learning experience. If one then considers that leaders impact their staff and others in their sphere of influence, the potential value of learning is infinite, and the opportunity cost of lost innovation application opportunities for a leader’s staff appears to be a cost seldom considered.

1.3 LEADERS WHO FOLLOW: LEARNING DEMANDS LEADERS; OPERATIONS DEMAND FOLLOWERS One of the main reasons for the opportunity cost incurred in this way is the paradox that many leaders are expected to lead as followers. This means that many senior managers are referred to as leaders, but the expectations upon them prevent them from exercising any real leadership. Although consultation is often espoused, what they are expected to do is to achieve the objectives predetermined on their behalf, and to execute their tasks in a manner similarly dictated. Thus, they are told what to do as well as how to do it, and they are reprimanded on deviations from both these determinants. The question can therefore be reasonably asked, “Are they really leaders?” The implications seem to suggest a response in the negative. The deviant alternative can also be observed: top managers who lack granular insight into the realities facing those reporting to them, often ask staff to create objectives themselves, and then frame their abdication of responsibility as empowerment. Such paradoxes demand further investigation into why organisations would refer to senior managers as leaders, while limiting their creativity and creative flair so dramatically. One possible motivation for the apparent contradiction is that being a leader has become a popular aspiration, and, while organisations can call their senior staff leaders, they are unable to manage the true implications of every senior manager being a leader – the divergence of approaches and 6

Chapter 1: Arrested Development

thinking simply seems overwhelming to executives and boards. Thus, admittedly somewhat conspiratorially, the title of leader appears to be awarded as a soothing anaesthetic to those with ambition, but who lack real power. It strokes the egos of those without any real power and creates the illusion that everyone can be a leader in their organisation and thereby acquire more power and influence – the model for advancement in a capitalist system. Again, it is not the intention here to change a capitalist system. It is simply the intention to highlight flagrant contradictions in the system and examine the implications for the way in which leaders learn in organisations.

1.4 THE USUAL SUSPECTS: AN ANTIQUATED TABULA RASA APPROACH The learning process in organisations is further complicated by the principles that underlie the selection of leaders who join the organisation. It has become a truism that organisations aim to attract and retain the most talented people in the market. They employ rigorous selection processes to ensure that only the top available talent enters the organisation. Given the great investment made in selecting the right leaders – the best and brightest talent in the market – learning programmes such as Leadership Development Programmes are then paradoxically delivered as predigested principles and theories. While it is true that business schools and training providers often consult top management, the typical process is that there is almost no consultation with the leaders who will attend the programme. This approach to leadership development appears to deny the very criteria identified in selection processes, such as initiative, creativity, innovation, change management, and others. Such a tabula rasa (empty vessel) approach to learning prevents leaders and their organisations from benefiting optimally from learning, as the reality of the leader is not examined as part of the learning-design process. Talented leaders, who often already have a set of competencies developed, require a different approach to learning that respects their context and previous development, and 7

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

supports more directly the resolution of challenges they face in the workplace.

1.5 ACCIDENTAL TOURIST: LIMITED SYSTEMIC AWARENESS IN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES A preliminary scan of programme designs at leading executiveeducation institutions shows a glaring absence of systemic design. Programme designs appear to be presented in boxes, that is, each field of expertise is shown as a separate arm of study, almost without exception. The main subject areas indicated in the design of the vast majority of curricula are •

Strategy

•

Human Resource Management

•

Financial Management

•

Operations Management

•

Marketing

Some institutions focus on Emotional Intelligence and thus indicate an interest in the world of the leader, but this is entirely divorced from the other disciplines to be studied. While these institutions may argue that they demand integration from their students, we should remember that different subjects are taught, marked and examined by different lecturers in different disciplines. Nor is there even mention that the leader’s reality and challenges will dominate learning dialogue. The approach appears to be one that expects integration into the leader’s reality after the fact. With SLL – the proposal of this book – immediate application opportunities from learning are sought that reflect the reality of the leader.

8

Chapter 1: Arrested Development

1.6 GROUNDHOG DAY: HAVEN’T WE LEARNT THIS BEFORE? The process of designing leadership development programmes often proceeds according to the following steps: 2. The organisation’s leadership has an idea for the development of its leaders. 3. A representative from the leadership team briefs the head of the Human Resources Department, if this person is not represented in the executive team. 4. The head of the Human Resources Department briefs the head of Training or Learning. 5. This person briefs the person responsible for leadership development in the training team. 6. The responsible person briefs three providers, represented by one of the providing company’s representatives, often a sales representative. 7. A provider is selected using predefined criteria of quality. Sometimes, learning philosophy is considered. 8. The provider is appointed and the provider’s representative briefs the responsible trainer’s manager. 9. The trainer is then appointed internally, or the provider subcontracts the work to a subcontracting trainer. 10. This trainer then, in the ideal scenario, refines existing, standard training material and delivers the training to the client’s leaders, who then return to their staff and attempt to improve their leadership of them. The result of such process is that the leader arrives at the venue for training (not learning) and has very little insight into the intended purpose and value of the learning process, with the occasional exception of an e-mail or letter welcoming her onto the programme, coupled with a few general aims. The trainer (sometimes inaccurately 9

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

referred to as a “facilitator”) may have a high level of understanding of the content, but has little appreciation of the challenges facing the leaders who will actually be attending the programme. The accreditation process is such that all learning content has to be covered, despite possible attempts by leaders to discuss their own challenges or opportunities with the trainer. The overall result is an overemphasis of the learning content and a high risk of disengagement of the leaders in the learning process. If business leaders had to make project decisions with such risk, they might often abandon the project. The fact that learning goes ahead is an indication either of the lack of insight into the learning process or the token status with which learning is often implicitly viewed. Given the inextricable link between learning and innovation, and the indelible need for innovation in an increasingly competitive market, the missed opportunity to innovate during learning not only represents an opportunity cost, but also implies a de facto retardation of organisational growth and development relative to competitor activity. The risks of poor investment in leadership development extend far beyond the actual financial cost of the programme, and the implications are significant for organisations. Given the risks highlighted below, this book also serves as mitigation of operational risk, including the fact that

10

•

disillusionment on the part of leaders as a result of learning causes a lack of motivation and drive

•

broken promises destroy the implicit trust relationship between the leader and the organisation

•

the investment made in terms of financial expenditure on leadership development paid to service providers can be enormous (The lack of ability to exploit the value of leadership development prevents a meaningful return on the investment.)

Chapter 1: Arrested Development

•

an investment is also made in terms of the time spent on the learning process by the leader, during which salaries are paid by the organisation (Stopping short of leveraging the value of the time spent incurs an opportunity cost that can create a great burden.)

•

operational time and resources expended by internal learningcoordination processes are also squandered without a return

Furthermore, competitive advantage is also sacrificed if learning is not harnessed and insights about the organisation are not integrated into product design, process efficiency, strategic insight or improved customer insight and engagement. The main focus of this work is that leadership development may lead to application opportunities from insights gained during learning through an analysis of the various systems at work in the learning process.

11

2 THE THIN RED LINE: METHOD IN THE MADNESS How to train your dragon To make sure what star I missed I should have to check on my list Every star in sight. It may take me all night. Robert Frost, “On Making Certain Anything Has Happened”

How do you as leader decide what to learn? How do you as facilitator, academic or consultant design and defend the methodologies you apply in the learning space? I include some reference to methodology in the book, because it may be of value to facilitators who have to defend and refine their learning methodologies and content selection, just as I as the author of this book have to defend the methodology applied to reach some of my own conclusions (and because I know that leadership consultants despise a lack of self-awareness). The methodology applied in research for this book emphasises a critical review of work done as a consultant and facilitator of leadership development programmes and initiatives. As such, it represents a pragmatic, experiential and industry-based assessment of current practice in the field of Leadership Development.

2.1 FIDDLER ON THE ROOF: THE APPROACH Thus truth’s established and borne out, Though circumstanced with dark and doubt. Robert Frost, “Beech”

With the multiple dimensions present in the learning situation, it is often challenging to evaluate what is valid. Certainly, the complexity 13

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

of learning dynamics calls for a new approach to understanding, and traditional research, based on a hypothesis and reduced to the smallest parts, appears to have significant limitations for study that attempts to explore the dynamics of larger, complex systems in continuous interaction. At the same time, this is the work of only one journeyman. It is that journey that provides the ethnographical data for this book. The extensive field work conducted for this book provides the experiential data that have led to the emergence of significant findings and the development of models and frameworks that both account for the experience and present a viable proposal for the resolution of the challenges facing the industry.

2.2 A PERFECT STORM: SEEKING VALIDITY IN A SYSTEM OF CHAOS Let chaos storm! Let cloud shapes swarm! I wait for form. Robert Frost, “Pertinax”

Is the test of validity a valid question when examining chaos? Will a search for the smallest indivisible parts (reductionism) lead to any insight in such complexity? Can self-referencing (insight deemed to be true because it is based on what I deem to be true) replace validity as a test of acceptability? Can analysis (often viewed as the enemy of Systems Thinking) help us to understand a systemic approach? Can Systems Thinking be applied to Systems Thinking? As this book falls broadly within the Social Sciences, it is also characterised by a philosophical underpinning. It is based upon the belief that all leaders have the capacity to improve their ability to lead. All leaders can learn to lead better. A criticism this book should therefore be able to withstand is whether disagreement with the underlying philosophy of the work undermines its validity. In my view, the book will withstand philosophical scepticism, as it is characterised 14

Chapter 2: The Thin Red Line: Method in the Madness

by observable and objectively verifiable experiences of leaders, as observed by me as ethnographer. As a result, while it may be true that shared philosophical foundations may produce more similar results, this book presents new models, conceptual tools and frameworks that can be applied almost irrespective of philosophical persuasion. Despite the social-scientific character of the work, it should also adhere to the test of repeatability, that is, other practitioners of leadership development with the same level of experience and expertise should be able to produce the same results with the use of the models, conceptual tools and frameworks proposed. I am encouraged by the broad scope of clients with whom I have engaged, and that no client appears to be exempt from the benefits of the methodology. Certainly, no client wishes to ignore willingly the identification of application opportunities that may arise from learning. The fact that several market-leading clients have requested repeated work in the same style and approach, also suggests that consistency and reliability are met as criteria. The work presented here holds the highest levels of authenticity, as it is based on actual work. The research process was not, for example, a process of interviewing leadership consultants and practitioners and drawing conclusions from their views and feedback, although peers were indeed consulted for input. Rather, it is an industry-based process, a process based upon work with real clients, who had real challenges, and who required real and tangible results from learning. I have been cautiously aware of multiple dimensions that influence the success of a learning programme. In fact, it is one of the fundamental principles of the theory of Systemic Leadership Learning (SLL) proposed in this book that an in-depth understanding of the multiple systems at work in the learning process is essential for the optimal advancement of learning-application opportunities. The number of variables in the learning process is almost limitless. It may even be argued that the learning process is so complex owing to the number of variables and the infinite number of possible responses from leaders that the isolation of one element may be virtually impossible. Some of the most obvious variables include 15

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

•

size of the group

•

industry of the client

•

leader receptiveness to learning prior to the programme

•

communication and change management of the learning process

•

venue, including air conditioning, lighting, meals, levels of luxury and comfort, et cetera

•

operational pressures of the leaders on the programme

•

programme duration

•

pace of facilitation

•

level of complexity of learning content

•

the personalities of leaders on the programme

•

intelligence of leaders on the programme

•

motivation of leaders on the programme

•

and many more

A study of the clients engaged shows no unusual levels of similarity in their organisational profiles. Psychometric assessment results show various levels of intelligence. Venues varied greatly in levels of luxury, from five-star hotels to underresourced school classrooms without air conditioning in the middle of summer. Learning content also varied in levels of complexity, as, in some cases, I did the design, while, for others, the design was done by other parties. Duration also varied greatly, from frequent contact over multiple years to random days. All these variables seem to suggest at least a prima facie case that what remained consistent in all cases are the approach and the processes used to engage clients in a meaningful way, driven by a theory of learning that has developed as SLL as a direct result of these industry engagements. At the same time, caution guided against a typical linear, reductionist approach to establish validity. To this end, Grounded Theory offers a 16

Chapter 2: The Thin Red Line: Method in the Madness

viable methodological approach for the kind of challenges encountered in the research for this book. Dick (2005) argues: “Grounded theory has its own sources of rigour. It is responsive to the situation in which the research is done. There is a continuing search for evidence that disconfirms the emerging theory. It is driven by the data in such a way that the final shape of the theory is likely to provide a good fit to the situation.” The principles of the methodology of Grounded Theory therefore guided this research.

2.3 IT TAKES A THIEF: FIELD WORK THROUGH PERSONAL EXPERIENCE 2.3.1 Learning management A scent of ripeness from over a wall. And come to leave the routine road And look for what had made me stall. Robert Frost, “Unharvested”

In addition to work as external consultant, I have also had the responsibility for, and privilege of, developing current and future leaders as an internal consultant. As with many organisations, the methods for selecting external providers encompassed interviewing, presentations and referencechecking. External providers were either proactively approached or they were invited to present their learning content and processes. It emerged from these selection processes that learning providers spent the vast majority of their time explaining their own learning content and unique approach, with little reference or inquiry as to the exact need of the client as an organisation or indeed of the leaders who might attend. It was as though they had something to sell, rather than value to contribute and unlock in their client. To exacerbate the lack of focus by external providers on the actual learning needs of the organisation, almost without exception they involved themselves in what I have come to describe as “the fight for the umbrella”, that is, they all argued that their specific offering presented 17

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

the panacea for learning needs; that all learning requirements would be covered by what their content offered (and, therefore, that everything fitted under their umbrella). Change Management specialists would argue, “Everything changes. Therefore all learning is change.” Performance Management consultants would suggest, “All business activity is about performance. Therefore our content is what you need.” Financial gurus would propose, “The purpose of business is to make money. Without our services nothing else matters.” More formal institutions such as universities would say, “The most important aspect, irrespective of the need, is accreditation. Without that, you can never be sure of the quality of learning.” And quality experts would suggest, “Without quality management processes, you would compromise delivery standards, and then there would be no business.” Operational efficiency experts had similar fights for the umbrella, as they would contend, “The aim is to be better at what you do. We help to streamline your processes. This will improve productivity and save costs. What else matters?” We should note that clients often buy these services in the same way as vendors sell them to organisations as mentioned above, that is, they will ask about a product list, rather than discuss their own needs. Buyers of development services sometimes make it very difficult to support the learning needs of their own organisations if they shop for learning as if in a supermarket. They often appear to show little insight into the real needs of their own organisations, and demonstrate more concern with the credentials and content offering of the service provider. It thus emerges that not only vendors but also clients have become accustomed to buying learning services such as training programmes as packages of product rather than as strategic change mechanisms that will advance their organisations. The behaviour is therefore not limited to vendors, but extends to clients themselves. A theory of learning began to show itself that now forms the basis of this book. It became clear that learning providers, and often clients too, were either unaware of, or disinterested in, the system they were attempting to serve, namely the client organisation as guided 18

Chapter 2: The Thin Red Line: Method in the Madness

by its leaders. Clients are often much more concerned with learning content. This places learning content as a kind of supra-system, which alienates managers and leaders and makes the learning outcomes highly limited beyond knowledge of the content presented – there is little sustainability of the learning and almost no real learning needs are addressed comprehensively.

2.3.2 Train-spotting: learning facilitation Two roads diverged in a wood, and I – I took the one less travelled by, And that has made all the difference. Robert Frost, “The Road Not Taken”

One of the first impulses for the development of the theory proposed in this book is the observation of the level of preparedness in terms of content design, in relation to the overall effectiveness of the learning programmes. My (what is to me) disturbing and astonishing experience is that, despite formal training in Didactics and Pedagogics at university as part of postgraduate studies, I observed that there was an inverse proportionality between preparedness and programme success, that is, some of the most successful programmes followed from very little preparation on learning content, while some unsuccessful programmes followed very high levels of preparation on learning content. In one programme, for example, delivered as a public programme to a group of senior human resources (HR) executives, only 4 of the intended 50 slides were discussed, while the feedback from the executives rated the effectiveness of the facilitator at an average of over 85%. This paradoxical relationship between preparedness and focus on content on the one hand and the overall effectiveness of the programme on the other was in direct contradiction to commonly accepted wisdom about the importance of content and the role of the “trainer” in ensuring that learners understand that content. On reflection, it became clear that the key to success on these programmes was the emphasis placed in the facilitated process upon 19

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

the needs and reality of the leaders present. It is their challenges and frustrations that form the starting point for the learning process, rather than the predigested content of a well-prepared facilitator. This observation has developed into a fundamental tenet of the theory on SLL. A principle of SLL is that the leader is a system in her own right, as is the organisation – the leader is not subordinated to the organisation. Nor is the leader made servant of the learning content. Such content is merely applied as a tool to serve the system of the leader. The humility of the facilitator, coupled with a profound respect for the system of the leader, allows the system of the leader in the learning situation to serve as supra-system, incorporating the learning content, expectations from the organisation, and the experience and knowledge of the facilitator. This has significant implications for facilitators. While facilitation is sometimes extremely well received and the results from the facilitation of learning may be clear from the uptake by managers of a new method of work, facilitators are often criticised by quality assurance specialists in the organisation for a lack of learning material to support the facilitation process. This is a clear example of the apparent obsession with learning content that appears to dominate the leadership development industry, in deference to the value of the learning experience and the emerging results. For internal facilitators and consultants, the problem is often worse. Key Performance Areas (KPAs) for such facilitators often relate to the manuals they can compile and the dates for their submission, rather than the value of the real and observable development of the key managers and leaders. The field work for this book has been done at all levels, including those from chief executive officers (CEOs) to executives, senior managers, middle managers, supervisors and other staff. Interestingly, an SLL approach showed the integration opportunities between various interrelated learning needs. As we will see, SLL encourages all parties in the learning process to identify and evaluate all systems (for as far as that is possible) at work in the learning process. 20

Chapter 2: The Thin Red Line: Method in the Madness

The humility of a learning-design team and its willingness to accept the leaders as its own supra-systems during the learning process allow for the improvement of self-insight and therefore also for improved operational efficiency – a true systemic approach. Without an SLL approach, an oversimplified version of learning programmes is almost infrequently the result. I am not proposing that SLL aid in making learning more complex – this would serve no purpose. What SLL does contribute is a realistic insight into the various systems at work in the learning process. Such reality of insight contributes greatly to a design and facilitation process that addresses a real, underlying need and delivers a programme that ensures application opportunities for leaders. What is noteworthy is the emergence of a new system as a result: the facilitator and the client together form a new, evolved relationship that establishes a new entity which promotes a dynamic approach to learning design – the entities of the facilitator and the client evolve to form a new system in itself. As a complex set of interrelated subsystems, learning has the potential of being self-organising, at both an individual and group level. One example of this is self-driven learning. Self-driven learning is defined in this context as learning activity based upon specific and agreed learning needs that are unique to every individual, and are initiated, driven, administered and monitored by every individual for their own development. This means that an executive would discover a learning need, articulate the exact need after refinement through consultation, and then co-design behaviour that would drive learning for that development need. While such a process requires a great deal of analysis, it does allow the leader to drive her own learning, and to do so at any time. Compare this approach with a leader facing a decision-making challenge, but having to wait for a class on decision making to start at some time in the curriculum delivery plan of an external provider.

21

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

A description of how the emerging theory was tested with industry peers is given below.

2.3.3 Honour among thieves: consultation on the original idea And you were given this swiftness, not to go where you will, But … that you may have the power of standing still. Robert Frost, “The Master Speed”

In order to prove that the book would address real industry needs, I invited a number of industry representatives to what was termed an “Industry Consultation”, held on 7 December 2006. The intention of the Industry Consultation was to create a reference group of leadership development specialists who could apply their industry insights and experience to the proposed book and provide valuable feedback that could refine the character and content of the book. The industry representatives were sourced from two main areas: •

leadership development consultants and academics who “do” leadership development as part of their daily work, and

•

people who are responsible for leadership development in their organisations, but who may not necessarily facilitate the learning process themselves

Representatives were asked to attend the presentation, and then provide their responses in two ways. The first way was by responding in qualitative terms on whether the proposed book would contribute to addressing the challenges faced in their work in the field of leadership development. The process was designed to present the key assertions of the proposed book and invite comments from industry representatives in terms of whether the book would address the needs as experienced by the industry representatives. In response to this question, the group showed great interest in the definition of leadership. It is noteworthy that the group expressed reservations about the distinctly 22

Chapter 2: The Thin Red Line: Method in the Madness

individualistic nature of the book. It was the contention of various representatives that any proposal on the improvement of leadership development should include reference to the communal character of Africa and the consideration of people other than the leader. This industry feedback influenced the book by emphasis of the leader in the book as only one system operating within the context of other systems. The System Dependency Analysis model is the direct result of this feedback by the reference group of industry representatives. The second way in which industry representatives were asked to respond was to complete an Industry Consultation Questionnaire. The intention of one section of the questionnaire was to ascertain the main stumbling blocks to effective leadership development in the view of the reference group. This section is shown below. Table1: Industry Consultation Questionnaire

SLL theory: industry consultation In the column on the right, please rate the elements below in order of priority – 1 being the greatest and 16 the smallest challenge. ELEMENT

RATING

COMMENTS

Learning Needs Analysis (LNA) Conceptualisation of learning programme Design of learning programme Development of learning programme Delivery/facilitation of learning programme Operational constraints on the time available for learning

23

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

ELEMENT

RATING

COMMENTS

Motivation of learners to learn Formative assessment: while learning Summative assessment: overall assessment following learning Quality assurance Workplace application of what has been learnt Integration of learning into performance management system Unclear Return on Investment (ROI) Organisational commitment to learning and development Selection of learners onto the learning programme Any other – please specify:

The element rated by most industry representatives in this reference group as the greatest perceived challenge to effective leadership development was organisational commitment to learning and development. The implications of this finding are significant. It appears as if organisations lack the necessary insight into their leaders as systems in order to promote the right learning content and level and style of learning. It also implies a lack of meaningful engagement between leaders and organisations with regard to the true learning needs of leaders. Such lack of engagement may have serious implications for the commitment leaders are likely to demonstrate for learning that serves the aims 24

Chapter 2: The Thin Red Line: Method in the Madness

of their organisations. For this reason, the reciprocal respect and meaningful engagement between the two systems of the organisation and the leader form a key theme in this book. Not one of the members of the reference group believed that the proposed book would not contribute to increased understanding of their challenges. The response of the reference group provided a clear indication that some of the key challenges facing effective leadership development may indeed be addressed by the development of the theory of SLL. This endorsement added great impetus to the central idea and provided greater insight into the exact nature of the industry. It is armed with all the confidence of a blind navigator at sea that I now submit the ideas on SLL for your review.

25

3 THE BIG IDEA Emerging thoughts Was something brushed across my mind That no one on earth will ever find? Heaven gives its glimpses only to those Not in a position to look too close. Robert Frost, “A Passing Glimpse”

Based on the extensive field work and research for this book, a theory has emerged that has given the book its title: Systemic Leadership Learning. It proposes that leaders learn more effectively, specifically with regard to the identification of application opportunities from learning, if the learning occurs in a systemic way, that is, with all key systems in the learning process possessing an understanding of the role and nature of every other system involved in the learning process. Systemic Leadership Learning (SLL) goes beyond the requirements for leadership in a system. While it implies that effective learning is a requirement for effective leadership, it does not limit leadership to effective learning. SLL identifies a number of systems in the learning process, and proposes that the primary systems are the following: •

the leader

•

the organisation in which the leader works

•

the learning content

•

the facilitator

The diagram below shows the four systems that form the major emphasis of this book. 27

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Figure 1: Integrating four primary systems

All the above systems are viewed as systems in their own right, that is, they are capable of existing without the existence of the other systems. This approach differs from traditional leadership development practices, in that it does not subjugate the leader as a subsystem of the organisation as so much literature on the subject aims to do.

3.1 BETTER TO LIGHT A CANDLE 3.1.1 First light: towards working definitions One of the big challenges in creating a new concept such as SLL is that it often merges previously existing concepts. For this reason, it is critical to have a set of working definitions that enables the navigation of the emerging idea. While a myriad of definitions exists for the terms below, I offer conceptualised definitions to facilitate the use of the terms within the framework of SLL. 28

Chapter 3: The Big Idea

3.1.1.1 Systemic: it is all connected Everything its parts can do Has been thought out and accounted for. Your least touch sets it going round, And when to stop it rests with you. Robert Frost, “A Trial Run”

The term “systemic” in this context relates to the use of a systems mind-set during the learning process. As a precursor to the definition of the term “systemic”, a more foundational definition is proposed for the term “system”. A system may be defined as a grouping of at least two entities that act, or are required to act, in a relationship of engagement. It is clear from this definition that a system is comprised not only of multiple groups of entities in engagement, but also of single entities in engagement. This implies that any two entities in such a relationship form a system, even if those entities form part of a larger system, and notwithstanding the fact that any entity may itself comprise several other entities. The main rationale for this definition is an attempt to remove all hierarchy, value judgement or bias from the basic definition. This allows for greater flexibility of the use of the term. The term “systemic” may be defined as “with an understanding of the interdependencies of the multiple dimensions present within a real or conceptual entity”. By “real entity” reference is made to physical constructs, such as teams, organisations, and business units, as well as people, structures, and bodies of knowledge for learning purposes. By “conceptual entities” reference is made to theoretical constructs, such as concepts, theories and ideas.

29

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

3.1.1.2 Leadership: everybody wants to rule the world One looks out last from the darkened room At the shiny desert with spots of gloom That might be people and are but cedar. Have no purpose, have no leader. Robert Frost, “On the Heart’s Beginning to Cloud the Mind”

The literature abounds with a vast array of definitions of “leadership”, the majority of which aim to identify characteristics of effective leadership, without offering insight into the process of leadership. The term “leadership” is defined for the purposes of this book as the people-driven process of migrating a system from the current to the intended state of that system. It is defined as a people-driven process on the assumption that, unless people are moved to action, no leadership has occurred. The migration of the system is critical, as simple execution of existing rules or stagnation of a system does not constitute the leadership thereof. As an example, consider a leader attending a development programme without any attempt by that leader to change anything back at work, or, worse, imagine the leader’s response as simply defending whatever is currently happening at work. This deprives the learning investment of any possible return and suggests that learning itself requires leadership. You may argue with some validity that the character of the “intended state” of the system is a subjective view. While this argument is conceded, it does not eliminate the existence of leadership purely because subjective measures are used to define the intended state. This implies that leadership of one system is not the same as that of another, as the requirements for the “intended state” of that system may be different. As an example, consider whether Hitler or Pol Pot were leaders. The fact that their leadership was morally reprehensible does not deny the reality of their influence on their containing systems.

30

Chapter 3: The Big Idea

Note that no value judgement is made of the quality of the “intended state” in the definition. The only measure is whether migration towards the intended state occurs – not whether the intended state meets the expectations of all concerned. Herein lies a paradox of leadership: it has to propose and articulate the intended state while asking constituents for their proposal for that state. The definition proposed judges neither the quality of the intended state nor the depth of consultation – it only measures progress towards a state that has been articulated as an intention by any combination of stakeholders.

3.1.1.3 Learning: eternal sunshine of the spotless mind What comes over a man, is it soul or mind – That to no limits and bounds he can stay confined? Robert Frost, “There Are Roughly Zones”

Learning poses several challenges for its definition, not least because of the traditional focus on training, that is, a greater emphasis on the role of the trainer than on the experience, learning process and benefit of the learner. The term “Learning” is defined as the process of transforming information into applicable knowledge, that is, internalising information into a personal system of understanding. It is in the transformation of information that the crux of the definition lies. Access to information does not constitute learning. Nor does learning occur with the mere exposure to information. The learner must engage with information in a personal relationship with the learning content until the content is known, that is, familiar, and until the learner has transformed information into knowledge with the potential of modifying her actions and behaviour. You may argue that this definition presents a utilitarian approach to learning, and that learning according to this definition is not encouraged 31

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

for its own sake. Again, this argument is conceded, as learning is defined here within the context of organisational and personal growth. Organisations invest in the learning process and expect a return on the investment. This places a distinct obligation upon the learner to engage meaningfully with the learning content and to translate such content into application opportunities and outcomes for the benefit of the organisation. Benefit to the organisation may indeed be derived in an oblique manner through the personal growth of the learner, but, ultimately, the organisational benefit is a requirement for learning in this context. As an example, if a leader wants to become a pilot in an organisation without an aeroplane, such development may inspire the leader, but the return on the learning investment may be more directly achieved. It is noteworthy that the learner as leader only leads by the grace of the organisation as system that allows the leadership role to exist. The return on learning investment is therefore a requirement of the organisation as investor; hence the requirement for applicable knowledge in the definition. At the same time, the definition calls for a “personal system of understanding”. This is based upon the belief that the work of a leader, while executed in conjunction with others, also has an individual dimension to it. The leader must ultimately lead in a personal capacity. Only a personal system of understanding can allow for the fulfilment of the individual requirements of the work of the leader. It is clear from the above definition of learning that it allows for both formal and informal learning. 3.1.1.3.1 Knowledge Transience Map Following from observations made of the observable behaviour of leaders in the learning process, a tool has emerged as an instrument for mapping the levels of learning receptiveness and openness of the leaders to the learning process.

32

Chapter 3: The Big Idea

Table 1: Knowledge Transience Map Known

Not yet known

Will know

Q1: Remains certain

Q2: Becomes certain

Will not know

Q3: Becomes

Q4: Remains

uncertain

uncertain

The simple conceptual tool presented above shows four variations of the movement to and from knowledge and ignorance. We should note that this model explains what the leader believes about her own knowledge transience. The horizontal axis refers to the leader’s current knowledge and suggests that there are things that are both known and unknown. The vertical axis refers to the leader’s future knowledge, as well as knowledge that the leader is yet to be exposed to during learning. In Quadrant 1, the leader believes that the learning content is already known and that it has and will remain at a suitable level of consciousness. This quadrant explores that domain of knowledge where the leader’s current knowledge will either remain the same or will simply be confirmed by future learning. The value of this quadrant lies therein that it enables the facilitator to know what the leader already knows about matters that are unlikely to change. The risk of this quadrant is that the leader is unreceptive to learning, as the leader already assumes knowledge. The facilitator’s responsibility is then not to train leaders on more of the same content, but to examine the level at which it is known and the possible application opportunities that could lead from this knowledge. Quadrant 2 is the typical assumed mode of most learning programmes: the leader does not yet know the content and intends (with varying degrees of motivation) to become familiar with it. This mode is described as “assumed”, because it is very seldom tested. In this quadrant, the facilitator is challenged to facilitate learning content with 33

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

as much insight into the system of the leader as possible. The risk in this quadrant is that the facilitator enforces the content in a onedirectional way in the belief that the content is worth knowing and that it has relevance to the leaders present. The opportunity is the novelty of the content for the leaders that could create great enthusiasm and open new avenues for dialogue and exploration. Quadrant 3 is an example of organisations going through change. Leaders learning in this quadrant believe that they know the intended content, but they are sufficiently self-aware to know that their current levels of knowledge are insufficient. The risk here for the facilitator is to repeat content already known. This could alienate leaders, as they will be unable to see the value of the content to the challenge of the systemic evolution they are experiencing. The opportunity in the quadrant is the emphasis that “change requires change”, that is, if change is inevitable, something else in the organisational system will also be required to change, which demands a commensurate change in the levels of knowledge and action of the leader. Quadrant 4 is every facilitator’s greatest challenge. Leaders in this quadrant are aware of their lack of knowledge in an area, but simultaneously believe that the content is simply not worth knowing. This situation often arises when learning content is being enforced without any prior consultation with leaders about their learning needs and how these needs interact with the system as experienced by the leader. Leaders operating in this quadrant have become disillusioned with the possible value of new content or new application opportunities from content. They may also be so overwhelmed by the challenges they face at work that learning could seem like a meaningless activity that is unlikely to add value. The risk for the facilitator is enforcing irrelevant learning content without recognising the emotional state of the leaders. The opportunity is an in-depth exploration of the systems of the leaders until a learning need is discovered. Should such an opportunity be identified, it will present a powerful learning opportunity for significant growth. The Knowledge Transience Map expounded upon above could serve as a powerful tool for facilitators to determine the level of exploration 34

Chapter 3: The Big Idea

required of the leader’s system, thus increasing the likelihood of effective learning and application opportunities, irrespective of the initial receptiveness levels of leaders to the learning programme. 3.1.1.3.2 The mother of invention: Learning and Innovation So people and things don’t pair anymore With what they used to pair before. Robert Frost, “The Door in the Dark”

While the focus of this book is not to examine the opportunities and processes underpinning the advancement of new products and services in organisations, it is proposed here that the field of Innovation is inextricable from the field of Learning. The main underpinning for this assumption is that Learning is, by definition, an investigation of the new – to review what is known simply to confirm it may be essential for ensuring continuation, but cannot adhere to the criteria of innovation, which must, by definition, involve some divergence from the known. Herein lies yet another paradox of a traditional approach to leadership development: it exposes leaders to new concepts in a paradoxical attempt to confirm and emphasise what is already “known” by them and their organisation. While I concede that some programmes aim to inspire innovation, it is not the emphasis of most leadership programmes. This traditional approach not only actively inhibits organisational benefit from potential innovation by leaders who have been exposed to new concepts, but it also creates frustration in the mind of the talented leader who has become enthused by the energy of new knowledge. For organisations to facilitate and advance innovation as business driver and competitive advantage, it is therefore essential that they both actively invite and allow for the innovation that emanates from learning. It is proposed here, as an echo of the philosophy underpinning this work discussed above, that talented leaders are inherently divergent in their thinking. This means that they have a 35

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

developed ability and inclination to explore beyond the realms of their responsibility and control. In fact, these competencies are often actively sought during the selection of leaders, only to be frustrated by the limitation of innovation and application opportunities resulting from a linear and narrow learning experience. The model of innovation below shows how innovation requires integration into the very fabric of the organisation. I am certainly not proposing that organisations should allow for random innovation and fund all conceivable ideas (although a brief interlude of such freedom could contribute greatly to a culture of innovation). Rather, owing to the reality of financial constraints, SLL necessitates an alignment between the needs of the customer, the innovation culture and the processes that govern innovation in the organisation. Such alignment is ideal as content worthy of exploration in the learning situation.

Organisation Customer

Reward and recognition

Life cycle

EQ

Creative thinking

Innovation culture Customer

Individual Problem solving and decision making Change management

Figure 2: Innovation

It is clear that innovation can be both reactive and proactive, that is, reactive to meet the needs of customers based on customised designs, and proactive to create and inspire new markets and needs. 36

Chapter 3: The Big Idea

The simple model implies that, whether reactive or proactive, innovation should begin and end with the customer – without meaningful engagement of the customer, there is no sustainability of innovative ideas. It shows further that due consideration should be given to the phase in which organisations find themselves in their organisational life cycle, and to the fact that innovation cannot be limited to random behaviour: a culture of innovation is required. This means that innovative organisations make innovation part of the organisational fibre and dialogue. Innovation in these organisations is not an activity; it is an active business driver. In order to support the culture of innovation mentioned above, organisations may embed and drive innovation by providing Reward and Recognition for innovative ideas and for behaviour that supports innovation. This means the innovation moves beyond frequent dialogue and into the Performance Management System of the organisation. Innovation furthermore requires expert Change Management, that is, the skilful navigation by leaders of the required changes in elements such as •

knowledge

•

skills

•

attitudes

•

processes

•

behaviour

The model shows the individual at its very core. This is because all organisational action is ultimately taken by individuals. As the model indicates, the organisation needs to develop three critical competencies in individuals: 1

EQ (Emotional Quotient), that is, emotional intelligence, brought to popular dialogue in organisations with the work by Daniel Goleman in Emotional intelligence (1996). This is essential 37

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

because of the stress and uncertainty of the innovation process and the resilience required by such process. 2

Creative Thinking, that is, the ability to design something new. Without the new, there is no innovation.

3

Problem solving and decision making, that is, the addressing of a particular organisational challenge and the mental fortitude to decide upon a course of action for the allocation of resources.

It is clear from the outline above that an individual or group of individuals exposed to learning, that is, knowledge new to the individuals, and recruited for their independent-mindedness and problem-solving ability, require intellectual room to manoeuvre and the cognitive space to navigate the divergence that will result from their learning. 3.1.1.3.3 Idea Appreciation Continuum The fault must partly have been in me. The bird was not to blame for its key. And of course there must be something wrong In wanting to silence any song. Robert Frost, “A Minor Bird”

As a manager of the learning process and as facilitator of more than 30 distinct modules with leading organisations, I have observed a continuum of the level at which leaders engage with learning content. The continuum emerged as I received continuous feedback on the effectiveness of processes facilitated. The emerging continuum describes six levels of appreciation, that is, the extent to which leaders internalise the learning content and examine application opportunities. The levels are described below.

38

Chapter 3: The Big Idea

Level 1: Aesthetic elegance At this level, leaders appreciate the ideas proposed in the learning space as though they are observing an inanimate object. The leaders can see the innovation and creativity the ideas represent and give recognition to the insight of the idea, but, at this level, there is no resonance with the idea; it is simply described in objective terms. Level 2: Schematic resonance At this level, the leaders not only appreciate the quality of the idea, but also find agreement with it. There is a philosophical match between the fundamentals of the idea and the views of leaders. Level 3: Contextual relevance Leaders who appreciate an idea at this level can identify examples of the phenomenon of the idea in their own world experience. Leaders who are sufficiently engaged with the concepts at this level believe that the ideas describe accurately some dimension of their experience, which lends credence to the validity of the ideas. The ideas are therefore relevant to the leader’s experience, while, at previous levels, the ideas may be valid, but not relevant. Level 4: Opportunity This level of appreciation shows a clear sensing by leaders of an opportunity for possible personal and/or organisational growth. The idea is not only relevant, but also presents a realistic chance of adding value. Level 5: Responsibility At this level, the leaders experience a personal sense of responsibility for the development and implementation of the ideas. The leaders have an emotional drive for and attachment to the ideas. They agree that it can be done (not only that it should be done), and that they should indeed execute it personally. Level 6: Enactment At this level, the leaders start taking action while on the programme. They develop a rudimentary plan and already identify contingencies to some of the barriers anticipated. This level is more than a personal sense of responsibility; it amounts to the first steps towards implementation. While the previous level stops with an emotional obligation, this level sees leaders designing and even taking the first steps towards accomplishment.

39

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Programmes are often falsely deemed “successful” when few leaders have moved beyond Level 1. The fact that there was little criticism, and that most leaders appreciated the ideas, is almost no indication that any application is likely to follow the programme.

3.1.1.4 Systemic Leadership Learning (SLL) Given the definitions of the comprising terminology above of the main constructs of this book, the term “Systemic Leadership Learning (SLL)” is therefore defined as integrating information about the migration to the intended state into a personal understanding of the interdependencies within a system as it evolves. Allow me to emphasise that SLL goes beyond the requirements for leadership in a system. It implies that effective learning is a requirement for effective leadership, but does not limit leadership to effective learning.

40

4 FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL Integrating four primary systems It couldn’t be called ungentle. But how thoroughly departmental. Robert Frost, “Departmental”

At the core of Systemic Leadership Learning (SLL) is an in-depth understanding of the various systems involved in the learning process, and of the reciprocal impact that each system has on each one of the others. Each system is in a dynamic marriage with each of the others, and, as a result, the prominence of learning content suffers a welldeserved demise. A traditional model of leadership development places the organisation in the status of the supra-system, that is, the overarching system into which all other systems should fit. It implies that the leader’s business unit is a subsystem of the organisation, and that the leader is an entity in that subsystem as a kind of sub-subsystem. This traditional approach views learning content as a tool that helps the leader to fit into the organisation as supra-system. It supports the implementation of organisational systems by further subordinating the leader to the learning content, with a view to ensuring that the leader follows and implements procedures predefined as optimal. Such a traditional approach further views the facilitator/trainer as the guardian of the learning content. The facilitator/trainer is responsible in this model for the enforcement of the learning content. It is her role to ensure that the leaders present understand and accept the content proposed. This role is often dysfunctionally comfortable for the facilitator/trainer, as the learning content is her area of academic mastery, and, therefore, she finds the defence of the learning content an easy task to fulfil. 41

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

It is clear from the analysis above that the reality of the leader is often that the leader is paradoxically perceived to be at the very bottom of the systems hierarchy during the learning process. This poses a great challenge to the application opportunities identified by the leader during learning. It is almost ironic if one considers that the main aim of the learning process is the very growth of the leader as a driver of organisational performance. SLL proposes a more balanced view of the relative status of the systems involved in the learning process. It elevates the status of the leader and proposes that such elevation presents an increase in the likelihood of application opportunities from learning. The exposition below shows the respective roles of four key leverage systems in the learning process, namely •

the leader

•

the organisation

•

the learning content

•

the facilitator

It shows that these systems are in a dynamic interplay in the learning process – and suggests that an in-depth analysis and understanding of this interplay presents a great opportunity for enhancing learning effectiveness and the resulting identification of application opportunities. It shows further that such an analysis makes clear the emergence of a learning system, that is, a system that has as its main purpose the promotion of optimal learning through the exploration of the ideal relationship between the various entities in the system. The learning system so examined places application opportunities at the forefront of such a system. An analysis of each major system in the dynamic exchange is made below, which results in a synthesis characterised by application opportunities as emerging fractals.

42

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

4.1 A FEW GOOD MEN (AND WOMEN): THE LEADER AS SYSTEM May my application so close To so endless a repetition Not make me tired and morose And resentful of man’s condition. Robert Frost, “In Time of Cloudburst”

It has already been explained above that the leader is often viewed as a passive recipient in an antiquated tabula rasa-type approach to learning that still pervades many development programmes, that is, the leader is expected, despite superficial calls by facilitators to “challenge everything”, to accept the learning content and theories presented, and then to leave the programme in the hope of finding ways of applying the content learnt. Such a traditional system places the leader as a low-status participant in which the organisation is paramount and the facilitator is the guardian of knowledge, charged with the responsibility of ensuring that leaders absorb the content. In SLL, such a traditional system is criticised for its inherent contradictions: the leader is claimed to be the main beneficiary, appointed to the organisation for her high levels of talent, intellect and independence, but is then plunged into a largely passive role in the learning context. SLL proposes that, in the learning situation, the leader is her own supra-system, that is, while the leader learns, she engages critically with the content and measures the organisation against the content proposed. The leader filters content to find insight into her unique challenges with the aim of creating order within the systemic realities of the organisation. This is because every leader is unique and represents one of many partial views of the organisation and greater system. This fact is widely recognised by organisations at the interview and selection stage, where panels debate at length the unique differences between candidates in the matching of candidate leaders to the needs of the organisation and for the justification of their final decisions. 43

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

But insight into the unique potential contributions of leaders does not appear to enter the learning situation, where predesigned content is force-fed to the very talented leaders who were the subject of rigorous assessment and debate. The leader joins the organisation with a unique combination of knowledge, skills and attributes, shaped by the unique accumulation of experience and learning. Some of the most salient variables that influence the learning experience include the fact that each leader has

44

•

an ethnic culture

•

a mother-tongue language

•

religious beliefs

•

a family background

•

an educational background, coloured by the type of school and university attended and the levels of academic achievement attained

•

a unique self-perception

•

a unique level of intellect and problem-solving ability

•

a unique philosophical view of the world, including a philosophy of the world of work and education

•

a distinct personality, determining several factors of engagement with those she will lead

•

a unique professional background, shaped by different organisations with different leaders and challenges

•

a unique combination of (often multiple) talents

•

a unique view of her working environment and the challenges it faces

•

a unique level and kind of emotional intelligence

•

and, perhaps most significantly, a unique (and often secret) ambition for the possibilities of change and improvement in herself and the organisational environment

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

Naturally, the list of variables that differentiate individual leaders is almost endless, but even those listed above make it clear that an offthe-shelf, one-size-fits-all approach to learning content, which is then held up by the facilitator as “the solution”, poses enormous difficulty in ensuring application opportunities for the leader as a result of the learning process. It is not proposed that a unique programme be designed for each leader – the practical realities of operational demands would render such an approach impossible. What is proposed is that leaders be shown a new way of engaging with learning content and with facilitators, and that facilitators guide the learning process with greater insight into the systemic realities of the learning dynamic. If one considers the multidimensional nature of just one leader, and then appreciates that many leadership development programmes have more than 20 delegates in attendance, the complexity of the systems involved becomes obvious. Such complexity may be further exacerbated by the fact that, in some programmes, leaders are from different client organisations. The leader as system is thus placed in a learning situation characterised by a multitude of other systems in constant interaction. This leaves the leader with no alternative but to behave cognitively as though she is her own supra-system, that is, all other systems, including the learning content as system, the facilitator as system and the other leaders as system, are subordinated to the reality of each leader on the programme – the multitude of variables and systems present in the learning situation is so complex that the leader assumes suprasystem status during learning in the interest of survival. This subordination by the leader of all other systems into her unique supra-system is simply the reality, and this reality should be noted by all the other systems involved in the learning process. This is not to suggest that the leader wishes to control the learning process, nor is it implied that the leader makes any value judgement regarding the other systems – there is no implied malicious intent by the leader. It is also not implied here that the leader is selfish in her subordination of other systems or that it is arrogance that is the root cause. The leader 45

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

still considers the needs of her organisation, but she simply does so with a unique vantage point, understanding, purpose and need. The leader is simply attempting to derive sense, meaning and value from the learning process. This assumption was proven in the experiment with an industry reference group at the Da Vinci Institute.

4.1.1 Fatal attraction: the Entrenchment Curve His mood rejecting all his mind suggests. He paces back and forth and never rests. Robert Frost, “The Bear”

It is clear from the discourse above that SLL views the leader as a sovereign system in the learning situation. Part of the understanding of the leader as system is the personal advancement of that leader within the organisation and in her own career. Leadership in typical hierarchical organisations is inextricably linked to financial autonomy – the higher the degree of leadership authority (i.e. legitimate positional power granted by the organisation), the higher the financial reward for the leader. Therefore, the only way for leaders to become more liberated financially is to become more entrenched philosophically, behaviourally and structurally, which is achieved through serving the organisation as system, moving up in the hierarchy of that system, and promoting the character of the system – thus perpetuating the organisation as containing supra-system. This system ignores all other forms of liberation, and, since financial autonomy is the only apparent form of freedom in the system, that is the avenue most leaders pursue.

46

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

In the process, leaders are entrenching themselves in an evernarrowing and limiting environment and scope of behaviour, while they are increasingly rewarded for doing so. Their authority appears to increase, but this is an illusion, since their authority increases only as the scope of decision making on their identity as their own supra-systems decreases. In the process, the self surrenders its supra-system status to •

the organisation

•

wealth

•

physical comfort and luxury

•

positional power

•

career advancement (again as defined by the organisation and the economic system)

The fact that leaders do not always recognise this is because of some of the following reasons: •

They are financially rewarded.

•

They acquire status based upon their positional power in the organisation.

•

Their worlds become limited to that of their organisations, that is, the boundaries of their systems begin to narrow, even as their apparent authority is expanding. Thus, because they have high levels of authority at work, they may assume that this extends to their entire world and being.

This demonstrates the leaders’ continuous and ever-increasing entrenchment in the organisation as supra-system. This is a barrier to a true systemic understanding of the learning process and it is referred to here as the phenomenon of “the Entrenchment Curve”.

47

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Financial freedom and authority

Supra-system freedom and authority Figure 1: Entrenchment Curve

The phenomenon of the Entrenchment Curve stands in strong contrast to the supra-systemic perspective attributed to leaders in the learning situation through SLL. This is another reason for the lack of application opportunities from learning in traditional programmes – leaders can see the glaring organisational and personal gaps in their assessment of their organisations against the learning content proposed, but their level of entrenchment in their organisations is so great that they believe they would have to disengage from the organisation to make a contribution. This is one reason why external consultants often make greater contributions to organisations in terms of thinking – they are rewarded for new thinking, while leaders are rewarded for implementing current thinking.

4.1.1.1 Stir crazy: the Authority Paradox The world has room to make a bear feel free; The universe seems cramped to you and me. Man acts more like the poor bear in a cage, That all day fights a nervous inward rage. Robert Frost, “The Bear”

48

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

Similar to the Entrenchment Curve, but with a different focus, is the phenomenon observed and referred to here as the Authority Paradox. This phenomenon shows that the leader as system evolves as the level of authority given to the leader by the organisation increases – a continuous dance of mutually impacting engagement, but with more observable impact on leaders owing to their surrender of their supra-system status. It demonstrates that leaders are rewarded for the investment of their physical, emotional and intellectual effort in the organisation by providing them with ever-increasing authority in that organisation. Such increasing authority is evidenced by •

larger budgets

•

bigger teams

•

greater decision-making authority

•

longer-term projects

•

work done on a larger scale

•

greater independence

•

cross-functional work

•

work with potentially greater impact

•

control over more physical or capital resources

•

access to others who work at higher levels of authority

One of the anomalies of the increase in authority is the relationship between increased authority and the degree of client contact. There does not appear to be a direct correlation, and, in some cases, such as in some retail environments, there even appears to be an inverse proportionality: the higher the level of authority of the leader, the smaller the degree of direct customer contact and the greater the distance between the leader and the customer. This inverse proportionality appears to contradict a commitment by many organisations that the customer is their first priority, since those talented members of staff who perform best appear to be rewarded for their brilliance through reduced contact with the customer, leaving the customer to engage only with those who have remained at the lowest rungs of the 49

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

organisation, and who are sometimes awarded the lowest forms of remuneration.

Level of authority

Scope of authority Figure 2: The Authority Paradox

Whatever the characteristic of the higher levels of authority awarded to the leader, that authority brings with it an interesting paradox for the self-actualisation of the leader: as the leader’s authority in the organisation increases, so the levels of responsibility increase. An increase in responsibility means a commensurate increase in the focus and energy required to meet the responsibility. As a result, the leader calls upon the reserves of free time and personal goals to fulfil these responsibilities. What happens as one of the ripple effects in the system is that the leader spends less time and effort on personal goals and ambitions, and more time on organisational goals and ambitions. In some cases, the organisation even has a code of behaviour for leaders that dictates the required behaviours from leaders in the organisation. The Authority Paradox therefore lies therein that, as the leader’s authority inside the organisation increases, so her authority in terms of the fulfilment of personal goals and ambitions decreases. Some senior leaders have even commented that they lead two lives: one in 50

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

which they behave like the model of leadership in their organisations, and one in which they try to redeem their own identities in their private lives. The reality of the Authority Paradox contributes to the insight of the leader as system and encourages the designers and facilitators of learning to appreciate the systemic challenges and pressures facing leaders.

4.1.1.2 Goodfellas: the responsibility of the leader in SLL The lowly pen is yet a hold Against the dark and wind and cold To give a prospect to a plan And warrant prudence in a man. Robert Frost, “A Blue Ribbon at Amesbury”

There is a clear implication in the discourse above that various systems are engaged in the learning process and that the learning situation poses a number of paradoxical realities for the leader. Despite these realities, the leader is still accountable for the identification of application opportunities from the learning experience. The traditional view of the role of the leader in the learning situation appears to be one that requires memory and participation. Memory is required for recall of theory and participation is required (under good traditional conditions) for a discussion about the extent of the problems in the leader’s organisation and how this (for some reason) relates to the content. In SLL, the leader is therefore encouraged to move beyond the insight of the facilitator and use her own system as the vantage point for learning. This is not to suggest that the leader should reject the input of the facilitator, but that she should continuously scan the learning content for application opportunities in the working environment. Such continuous scanning should occur instantaneously, that is, while the content is being engaged – the theory that leaders will digest content and apply it later seems one that remains largely unproven. 51

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Approaches such as Action Learning do promote higher levels of application from learning content. This is certainly the case, as leaders are actively encouraged to find application opportunities from learning content. But one criticism that may be levelled against Action Learning, in support of SLL, is that Action Learning claims to use the reality of the leader as the vantage point for learning, while, in reality, it is the organisational challenges that form this foundation, and that are reinterpreted to fit within the containing system of the expertise of the faculty facilitating the programme. In traditional educational Action Learning, learning content is still the main system, into which the leader has to fit her organisational challenges. More recent developments in Action Learning have started with an organisational challenge, and built content around the challenge in order to address specific problems. Even this evolution of Action Learning places the organisation rather than the leader at the centre of the learning process, while it is paradoxically the leader who is required to study the often predefined problem as well as the learning content proposed as a solution. In SLL, it is proposed that the leader be viewed as the suprasystem, that is, the leader selects and articulates the challenges to be addressed within a learning system that respects the leader as system. It is the responsibility of the leader to identify challenges as well as opportunities and, significant in this approach, to define her own role for the resolution of the challenge as an active leverage point within the complexity of multiple containing and interwoven systems. This last requirement is critical, as several leaders comment that, while they appreciate the learning content proposed, they simply lack the authority to take any significant action on the challenges identified, beyond the possibility of proposing a solution to those who do have the power. Even leaders who may appear to have the power to change things, such as members of executive committees, sometimes comment that their authority is limited to the box that is their portfolio – a thoroughly fragmented and unsystemic reality that further limits the potential value to be derived from traditional development programmes. Take heed that the call is not for the direct translation of content into application. The leader first has to internalise the learning content 52

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

into meaningful insight about the systemic realities of the challenges faced in the systems of the leader and self, before progressing to the identification, design and/or selection of an application opportunity based on content. The leader is further charged in SLL with the responsibility of provoking the facilitator to explore the unique challenges of the organisation. The practical reality is that detailed Learning Needs Analysis is not always possible, but there is a clear opportunity for the leader to continue the needs analysis while on a course and to communicate the results to the facilitator in order to guide the facilitation of the process. In such a learning dynamic, the leader leads the facilitator, as it is the system of the leader that is viewed as the supra-system in SLL. In fact, every leader in the learning space becomes a co-facilitator, continuously making sense of insights gained while learning and co-creating the learning outcomes with colleagues while learning. The leader then has to go beyond the content proposed and examine the systems implications of the learning content for that leader as well as for the organisation. Such emerging implications should also be continuously communicated as part of the creation of a more realistic insight for the facilitator, who acts as occasional node within the system. Beyond influence on the facilitator and continuous scanning of the learning content for application opportunities, the leader is further required to explore her personal transformation and individualised meaning formation in response to the learning content and dialogue. One of the ways that this may be done is through the use of story. According to the principle of story, the leader is encouraged to share personal experiences of the reality of the challenges faced, the opportunities identified, and the application and implications of these opportunities. The leader must explore, in a highly personal way, those learning application opportunities not only for the organisation, but also for the self. This is critical for the simple reality that, as the organisation evolves and morphs its structures, and as people and strategies change, the leader will remain her only unique constant, that is, for the leader with high levels of self-awareness, the entity she is able to know best as the containing and related systems evolve continuously, and is the depth and character of the self. 53

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

4.1.1.3 Learning Outcome Parameters Assessment While leaders may understand the concepts proposed in the learning content, and even see the possibilities for application, they stop short of actual application on the grounds that they are likely to face some opposition from others in the organisation. Other barriers leaders often observe in the learning situation is that there is a good reason not to apply the content, which is typically defined by some degree of complexity in the organisation or by the fact that some risk will be incurred should they attempt application. On the dark underbelly of organisational culture, leaders are even motivated by the prospects of reward for making the status quo work rather than changing it. Performance Management systems are often designed based on the assumption that targets set a year ago simply require an aboveinflation increase to become the targets for the next year. This means that there is often as much as two years of elapsed time between reviews of the systemic implications of performance targets. Such perspectives naturally limit the possibility of application opportunities emerging from learning and have a direct impact on Return on Investment (ROI) from the learning experience. A simple, yet powerful, model has emerged that challenges such scepticism about the likelihood of successful application and encourages leaders to explore in more detail the implications of the opportunities available to them. Named the Learning Outcome Parameters Assessment (LOPA), it explores the best- and worst-case scenarios of application of the learning content. Table 1 shows that the LOPA examines four scenarios, based upon the best and worst results of success and failure. Table 1: Learning Outcome Parameters Assessment

54

SUCCESS

FAILURE

BEST RESULT

Q1

Q2

WORST RESULT

Q3

Q4

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

The scenarios presented by the LOPA are as follows: Quadrant 1 This quadrant explores the best result of successful application of the learning application opportunity identified. The articulation of the content of this quadrant alerts leaders to the full scope of the opportunity that presents itself with successful application. I have observed that, once leaders have examined in detail the possible benefit of application for them and their organisations, they are less likely to accept minor barriers as legitimate reasons to prevent application. An example of why this often does not happen may simply be due to the novelty of the idea with which learning confronts the leaders. Consider, for example, the role of team ethos for leaders. Many leaders simply leave ethos to the domain of emergence or chance. Once leaders become aware of their role in designing the ideal ethos, the opportunities represented by a conducive ethos become clear. Quadrant 2 This quadrant explores the best results that may emerge from failure or the unsuccessful application of the opportunities identified. Leaders often find it challenging to populate this quadrant, and are apt to confuse it with Quadrant 4. Quadrant 2 asks this question: Are there benefits to be derived even from a failed application? Can we not benefit even if we are unsuccessful? In organisations where failure is simply not tolerated, the question is often met with dazed confusion. In such organisations, however, innovation is typically not actively encouraged. Benefits are often derived even from imperfect projects. Consider, for example, the benefits of receiving customer feedback. Although not all customers could ever be surveyed, and subjectivity will always be present, the insights gained from customer feedback (imperfect as the data-gathering and sample sizes may be) are almost always better than no feedback at all. In some cases, leaders grasp the implications of this. Quadrant 3 This quadrant explores the worst result of success. At first glance, this appears negative – it may highlight elements that may detract from motivation and create detrimental attitudes. While this possibility exists, the main value of the exploration of this quadrant is to remain rational about the value of possible success. Quadrant 3 thus introduces a degree of sobriety into the excitement that may be created by the identification of application opportunities and makes leaders more conscious of possible risks.

55

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Quadrant 3 (continued) This does not suggest that application should not proceed; it simply argues for a more circumspect evaluation of the risks and systemic implications involved. Consider, for example, the fallout from a restructure. Often the new organogram is so appealing in its leanness that leaders are seduced by the apparent simplicity. Exploring some of the systemic implications and ripple effects on the downside often leads to insight which would have remained in the blind spot of gung ho overoptimism. Quadrant 4 This quadrant is to some degree an intensification of Quadrant 3. It does not attempt to balance risk with benefit, but asks brutally honest questions about the possible damage that may be caused in the case of failure. While, at first glance, this may again appear to introduce a negative slant, leaders naturally migrate to this quadrant. It may therefore be raised as recognition of their concerns, and as a means of ensuring integrity in the evaluation of learning parameters. Once they observe this quadrant in the context of the other three, they will have developed a more comprehensive assessment of the value and weighting of Quadrant 4. An example of this is the classical forms of risk assessment. The likelihood of a negative result is juxtaposed with the resultant impact to give a clearer (albeit nonetheless opaque) insight into the scale of the potential risk.

Another interesting dynamic observed in terms of the leader as system is that leaders who converge in a room for the purpose of learning form a new system. The collection of various leaders creates a system with its own rules and structures. This new system continuously evolves in its own structure and rules and resembles a transient, at times elusive, system that will significantly influence the key outcomes of the learning process. Dimensions of considering this bounded and temporary system include the hierarchical levels of various delegates. In an attempt to examine this dynamic, two rudimentary questions at the start of learning programmes show the relationships of those on the course, namely:

56

•

Who here has a manager who is also here?

•

Who here has a member of staff who is also here?

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

These questions are usually met with laughter, alluding to the implicit power differential between hierarchical levels that undoubtedly has an impact on the free flow of open and honest dialogue and ends the emergence of learning insights and consequential application opportunities. Another dimension to consider in the group composition constituting the newly created system is whether the party or parties responsible for implementation of learning application opportunities are present in the room. This provides great elucidation for the application opportunities from the learning experience. Gender, race, age, disability, personalities and overriding philosophies may also play a role, and they are, at the very least, worthy of noting. Whatever the composition of the group as a new system, each leader remains a system in her own right. Leaders in the learning process should take responsibility for exploring the best and worst results from success and failure of the application opportunities that become apparent as a result of learning. This will allow leaders to move away from an emotional response to learning content and towards a realistic assessment of the risks and benefits to be derived from an attempt to apply their insights reached through learning.

4.2 THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: THE ORGANISATION AS SYSTEM Much has been written on the nature of organisations as systems within the study of Organisation Development. The focus of this book, however, is on the relationship between the organisation as system and the leader as system, as outlined above. A critical perspective offered by SLL is that the organisation is not automatically and without qualification assumed to be the suprasystem during learning. As stated above, the traditional model of leadership development views the organisation as the system into which all must fit. It is the all-encompassing, all-embracing unit, with parameters of behaviour for all who wish to benefit from it. 57

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

In SLL, it is proposed, as outlined above, that, during the learning situation, the leader is her own supra-system. This poses interesting questions about the role of the organisation in the process where leaders learn. Leaders are appointed for their acquired experience and skills, but also for their learning potential, responsiveness to change, and proactive analysis and problem solving. Similarly, organisations are appraised by investors based upon their past performance, but with a clear expectation of their ability to grow, respond to markets and proactively create innovative solutions. The intersection between the systems of the leader and the organisation is somewhat predictable when the only requirement is for the implementation of predefined processes, but, where they intersect at the point of growth for both systems, the movement and evolution in each system redefine the rules of engagement between them. .

The organisation as a system has its own rules and structures. It has predefined objectives and processes and aims to predict a minimum system output in terms of revenue, driven by a predefined conception of its market, customers and people. Consider, for example, the phenomenon of “the company way”. This is a phrase used by organisations to explain the almost mythical character of their organisational culture, which they believe to be one differentiator that sets them apart from their competitors. While some organisations takes great pains to define their “company way”, other organisations simply refer to it in the belief that all employees know intuitively what it means. The reason this is significant to the process of learning for leaders is that it speaks to the tacit, unwritten rules of the organisation as system. Unwritten as these rules of the system may be, they sculpt and perpetuate a culture that governs the behaviour of leaders, and, consequently, the behaviour of their staff. Another significance of the “company way” for leadership development is that those business owners and senior executives who invite their company leaders to learn, often believe that the implicit rules that govern the organisation are clear, while, in fact, they may be proven during learning to be illdefined, disjointed pieces of random dialogue that do not guide leaders on their learning journey. This phenomenon of uncertainty regarding 58

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

“the company way”, coupled with the observation earlier that talent is inherently divergent, together with the innovation sparked by exposure to new knowledge for the leader, creates a learning situation in which an almost infinite number of learning application opportunities may emerge. I conclude from this analysis that, every time a learning situation occurs, it is an opportunity for the organisation to evolve with meaningful input from its talented leaders. The degree to which this opportunity is seized will depend upon the organisation’s ability to allow for the divergence of the leader’s thinking as new knowledge enters the leader’s system and integrates with her schema of learning gained from years of experience.

4.2.1 Great and mutual expectations Having examined the system of the leader in the learning process and having concluded that the leader is her own supra-system during learning, and further having examined the system of the organisation and concluded that every learning situation invites an evolution of that system, it is imperative to explore further the nature of expectations held by both systems. It appears that leaders expect to learn relevant content, but, more importantly, expect to be allowed to navigate their own systems in relation to those of the organisation. It is also clear that organisations have certain expectations of leaders who go through a learning process that the organisation has sponsored. Such organisational expectations are often limited in scope to the current challenges facing the organisation. Only on rare occasions, when innovation is specifically sought, are opportunities explored alongside burning challenges. This organisational tendency to respond to current challenges and ignore opportunities during the learning process creates a mundane learning experience for the talented leader. This means, essentially, that leaders are expected to become more comfortable with the “as is”, rather than being invited to navigate their way to the ideal state. The nature of successful programmes lies in the ability of the leader to think creatively and solve problems, which addresses directly the kind 59

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

of competencies for which the leader was first appointed. The leader therefore relishes the opportunity to exercise those competencies. Of course leaders should be allowed to redesign the organisation whenever they learn. What is proposed is that the opportunity to do so exist in response to challenges as well as opportunities. This requires, further, that organisations are honest with leaders about the expectations they have of leaders in the learning situation. Such honesty will prevent the frequent occurrence of disillusionment with the learning process and the resultant inhibition leaders experience due to the organisational expectation for the simple implementation of current processes. The simple table below (Table 2) provides an example of a balance of expectations between the two systems of the leader and organisation. The implication is that, for every expectation an organisation has of the leader, the leader, in the continuous dance of reciprocity, has a connected expectation of the organisation, based upon the suprasystem self-perception of the leader. Table 2: Mutual expectations Organisational expectation

Leader’s reciprocal expectation

Managers should require a

Organisations should treat

leadership mind-set

leaders as leaders, not managers

Leaders should have a positive

Organisations should create a

approach

positive experience

Leaders should live the

Organisations should value

organisation’s values

leaders for their true value

Leaders should contribute to

Organisations should contribute

organisational development

to the personal growth and development of the unique talents of leaders

60

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

Organisational expectation

Leader’s reciprocal expectation

Leaders should improve

Organisations should make it

performance

easier to perform

Leaders should demonstrate

Organisations should

respect for organisational goals

demonstrate respect for the goals of leaders

Leaders should engage in

Organisations should consult

healthy debate

leaders on key decisions

Leaders should show

Organisations should clarify

responsiveness to learning

the rationale for learning expectations

Leaders should demonstrate

Organisations should support

learning fitness

change capacitation

The table may be criticised for showing the expectations of leaders only in response to those of the organisation. I have structured it in this way because of the current point at which organisations find themselves in the evolution towards a balance of power – the current power differential favours organisations, and leaders habitually respond.

4.2.2 Double indemnity: the responsibility of the organisation It is evident from the exposition above that the organisation is critical for the effective implementation of SLL. One key responsibility of the organisation is to develop a systemic understanding of the learning process. This means that the organisation requires insight into the implications for learning if indeed the leader views herself as the supra-system during the learning process. The most significant implication here is that the organisation should clarify expectations from learning and enquire from the leader as to the opportunities that the learning process has exposed.

61

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

The paradox of organisations sponsoring learning programmes for leaders without allowing them to explore the implementation of the learning content has already been alluded to above. It is a self-limiting strategy by organisations to prevent such application occurring. Such exploration will provide great insight into growth and development for the organisation and will enhance the possibility of return from the learning investment. In a discussion with the industrial supervisor for this book, Dr Francois Hugo, he argued for the exploration not only of what leaders learn from their organisations, but also of what the organisation learns from its leaders. Such exploration is truly systemic in nature, as it relates directly to the nature of the intersection between the system of the leader and that of the organisation. It furthermore assigns the system of the leader equal status to that of the organisation.

4.2.3 Apocalypse now: the Al-Aima Bridge Effect The question may be asked with some justification why organisations so often fear the emergence of insight about themselves from the learning process. Is it because they fear a lack of control over learning outcomes? Surely, organisations cannot possibly aim to control the thinking that leaders will experience as a result of learning. Is it because the complexity of possible learning outcomes is simply too vast to anticipate? It cannot be argued that the simple avoidance of complexity automatically makes matters simpler. Could it be that organisations simply want leaders to implement predesigned processes more effectively? This expectation flies in the face of the calibre of leader most organisations invest such great effort in through recruitment and selection. It may be that organisations simply lack the consciousness and insight about the tools to optimise application opportunities from learning; they may lack a sense of organisational self-awareness, which may be addressed through SLL. One phenomenon observed may be referred to as the “Al-Aima Bridge Effect”. On 31 August 2005, a group of thousands of Shiite Muslims marched over the Tigris River in Baghdad on their way to a mosque. As they crossed the Al-Aima Bridge straddling the river, someone on the opposite side of the bridge shouted a warning that a suicide bomber was about to detonate a bomb on that side. The crowd immediately 62

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

panicked in response to what they had learnt. Without any further examination of the facts (a typical behaviour resulting from a lack of organisational self-awareness), the crowd turned on the bridge and forced its way back to the other side from which it had come. The gate had closed where they had entered onto the bridge and could only open towards the inside of the bridge. In the stampede that ensued, more than 1 000 people died. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack. It emerged, however, that there was no suicide bomber, and that simple fear had driven the behaviour of the crowd. The events that occurred on Al-Aima Bridge are reminiscent of the behaviour of some organisations in response to learning. In the event described above, the crowd as a system self-destructed owing to an irrational fear of the outside world – this is the Al-Aima Bridge Effect. An organisation that lacks the ability or determination to integrate new knowledge or learning into the boundaries of its system for fear that the new learning will destroy it, can often self-destruct in terms of its lack of retention of talented leaders and its inability to harness the innovation potential and application opportunities flowing from the learning experience.

4.2.4 Dances with wolves: the role of organisational culture Yet another factor that undeniably plays a significant role in the learning reality of the leader is the role of organisational culture. One way of understanding organisational culture is through climate surveys. The inevitable result of organisational culture/climate surveys is that, while tacit experiences become salient and unavoidable for senior leaders, these leaders often struggle to determine the exact implications for them as leaders – surveys make experiences clear, but often do little to address the underlying problems. In my experience, and indeed the experience of reference groups for this book, the greatest criticism from staff who participated in climate surveys is that there is little feedback and almost no response to concerns raised. This creates disillusionment for staff and may contribute to further disengagement from the organisation.

63

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

The table below (Table 3) offers a simple tool to help leaders take some degree of action in response to insight about organisational culture. It is important to note that leaders not only receive feedback about organisational culture, but also experience the culture in their engagements with others and continuously participate in the creation of culture. Because leaders are key system-leverage points, they also drive and create culture. Table 3: Response to culture feedback ON SELF

ON OTHERS

POSITIVE

Q1: Integrate

Q2: Leverage

NEGATIVE

Q3: Mitigate; find

Q4: Invoke true

contingencies

selves of others

The table shows the positive and negative impact of culture (positive or negative) on the Y-axis and the impacted entity (leader or others) on the X-axis. Quadrant 1 shows a positive impact on the self or leader. The leader who experiences this impact is advised to integrate the positive aspects of the organisation in which she leads, into the dimensions of her own character. In this way, the leader creates congruence between the personality of the leader and that of the organisation. It may contribute greatly to the confidence of the leader to discover that further opportunities exist for that leader to demonstrate more elements of the true self, and that these elements would align well with the positive characteristics of the organisation. Quadrant 2 shows a positive impact of the culture (as created and driven by leaders) on others. This is system feedback, to which most leaders are highly receptive. Leaders should move beyond viewing such feedback as complimentary, and leverage the positive experience of others to create greater momentum in the interest of an even more conducive working environment, that is, a containing system for work in which the structures and rules enhance the purpose of that system with integrity. 64

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

Quadrant 3 shows a negative impact of culture on the self/leader. Leaders in this quadrant may be tempted to protect themselves by closing up their systems to the feedback received from their environment. This would deprive them of continuous feedback from the organisation, and, as a result of such an approach, leaders may soon find themselves isolated from the true dynamics of the organisation. These leaders are therefore advised to mitigate the negative impact of the culture on them by increasing the positive impact they have on the culture. While this may seem an exaggerated goal, in practical terms it means allowing their own systems to permeate the organisation, that is, to live more confidently the positive elements of their own systems. Finding greater strength to demonstrate more of the positive elements of the system of the self may be the single most valuable contingency to negative culture. Quadrant 4 shows a negative impact of organisational culture on others. Leaders are, once again, often tempted to ignore these impacts and dismiss them as the musings of disgruntled staff who lack motivation. Leaders who observe such negative impact are advised to invoke the positive, true selves of others. This means that they may gain great benefit from encouraging others not to withdraw negative statements, but to inspire others to show the great and positive aspects of their systems, thus integrating multiple, positive partial views into a cultural whole. The simple strategies proposed in response to the impact of organisational culture make a more positive organisational culture a distinct possibility, rather than a topic for intellectual analysis, broken down into boxes, some of which are deliberately ignored. It is a true movement towards the synthesis of the positive, true selves as systems for staff and leaders at all levels.

4.3 SENSE AND SENSIBILITY: THE LEARNING CONTENT AS SYSTEM Within the context of the leader and organisation as systems, the learning content proposed as curriculum for the learning process for leaders is also subject to the rules of system formation, and, as such, deserves examination regarding its relative role in SLL. The learning 65

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

content, too, is in a continuous dynamic interchange with the systems of the leader and organisation and, as can be seen below, also with that of the facilitator. One of the main considerations behind the system status of learning content in SLL is that content for curricula appears somewhat random, that is, there is no clear rule or process that governs the selection of specific content. Content may be selected from various sources, including •

articles in scholarly journals

•

articles in popular publications

•

university and other education-provider websites

•

books

•

other content-based websites

•

reference works

The first determination for the selection of content from various sources is provenance – the quality of the source of literature in which the content appears. Some additional principles for content selection are proposed for completeness, but these principles do not necessitate the inclusion or exclusion of any concepts or authors. In each case, I question the usefulness of the principle identified. Content-selection principles may include the following: Publication Content selected for the curriculum must adhere to the minimum criterion of having been edited by a respected publication in the field. This provides a natural preselection of the quality of content. The reality is, however, that many decisions in business are made based upon ideas and insights that have not been published anywhere, let alone in publications respected in a certain field. Many executives would argue that, by the time content or information is published, the competitive advantage for implementation is largely diluted. 66

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

With the opportunity for rapid publication through digital media, the requirements for what constitutes publication are also being redefined. A simple e-mail by the chief executive officer (CEO) is often viewed as valid publication and as foundation for substantial decisions. Thus, if organisations can make decisions based upon a very loose definition of publication, it may be asked with some validity what necessitates more formal publication for the purpose of learning. It is patently evident that people in organisations learn effectively without the formal requirements for publication often associated with formal learning programmes. Recency Content included for learning often needs to have been published within the recent past in order to demonstrate current thinking and research. While this principle is valuable for an understanding of current thinking, business problems do not limit themselves to current thinking. It should therefore not exclude more dated content that is still valid, but has not been republished. Another challenge to the principle of recency is that content proposed may be so new that it has not proven itself in practice. The ideas may be revolutionary, but few longitudinal studies would exist to verify the long-term impact of implementing the proposed new ideas. Respected publication houses and journals Renowned publication houses or journals provide proof of robust editorial review and therefore qualified literature for selection. Of course, the respect journals have accumulated is measured by the quality of their contributors, and not through the profitability increases those journals have offered organisations. Tenure Content may be selected based upon the fact that it represents ideas that have been in the field of study for a significant period of time and therefore appear to have proven themselves as valid. It is blatantly obvious that this principle is in direct contradiction to the principle of recency – it is the very antithesis of recency. The question may then be asked whether any organisation could apply both principles 67

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

in the selection of content. It is proposed here that organisations do so based upon a predefined definition of what is acceptable, that is, content is selected using both contradictory principles on the basis of the justification that the selected content serves the perceptions that exist in the organisation. This means that content selection is not based upon the principle, but on the allegiance to the ideas represented by the content. Relevance and quality of ideas Content must be selected for its apparent match with learning needs. This principle appears self-evident until one considers that a systemic approach to content selection implies that interconnectedness may be observed between the apparent learning need and almost any field of study, let alone specific content within one field. One example of this observation in my experience is the apparently universal application of certain elements of content for programmes with widely differing titles, such as the use of Systems Thinking for the development of leaders in fields as diverse as Negotiation Skills, Project Management and Executive Coaching. Respected authors Content is more likely to be suitable for organisations if the ideas were created by authors who have a certain standing in the field. This is based upon the assumption that certain authors have enjoyed acceptance and that their ideas are therefore more valid than those of less respected authors. Authors may be viewed as respected owing to their renown in the media or the number of publications or volume of copies sold. A similar challenge exists here as with the principle of publication: the required speed of modern (and postmodern) business simply demands ideas that are likely to work, irrespective of whether they are the views of respected authors or junior-level staff within the organisation itself. Most organisations have a pragmatic approach to learning: if it is feasible and return is most likely to exceed investment, it is worth learning about. This does not imply that all organisations implement good ideas without reservation – the dynamics of organisational politics, structural hierarchies and the slow movement of bureaucratic decision-making processes all contribute to the retardation of 68

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

organisational responsiveness. Therefore, organisations should at least be willing to explore ideas on the basis that they are sound and that the renown of the author is not a prerequisite for highly responsive organisations. Common practice Content may be included in the curriculum if it represents the common practice of other organisations in the same industry, particularly successful organisations. This principle introduces a degree of safety in respect of content selection, which is borne out by the fact that other successful organisations are doing the same. It is immediately apparent that criteria for sameness pose significant challenges to competitive advantage – if the organisation offers the same as other organisations, particularly successful ones with substantial infrastructure, the question may asked with some validity what the nature is of the differentiation that the organisation brings to its leaders and the market. If, on the other hand, benchmarking is done with organisations that are in other industries and are therefore noncompetitive, a similar question may be asked about the value and relevance of the benchmarking. The principles noted above aim to highlight only the most salient criteria for content selection employed by organisations observed, and do not propose to offer a complete list of principles for content selection. It is clear from the principles noted that deep, inherent contradictions exist between principles. The nature of these contradictions has led to the conclusion that content selection for learning purposes is, at least to some degree, a random process based upon the deeply held beliefs and unconscious assumptions of organisations and the academic exposure of facilitators. The mere fact that information has grown beyond all control in almost any conceivable field, coupled with the fact that no single organisation or facilitator could study all content, suggests that selection is based upon grounds other than the mere face quality of the content. The characteristic of randomness in the selection of content is further exacerbated by the random sequencing of content, that is, the 69

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

linear process by which various elements of content are introduced. It is clear that no two content designers are likely to select exactly the same content, and then introduce it in exactly the same sequence. In addition to random content selection and content sequencing in the learning process, different facilitators would also demonstrate content with the use of various learning techniques, such as reading only, lecturing, Socratic questioning, group work, inductive or deductive approaches, and other methodologies. Add to the dynamics above the complexities of the personalities of the facilitators, the nature of organisations that commission the learning, the philosophical vantage points of the universities or private providers, and the diversity of levels, personalities and experience of leaders on the course, and it becomes irrefutably clear that no two programmes focusing on seemingly similar learning objectives would look exactly the same. If a degree of randomness in content selection is indeed common practice in learning design, then it remains an even greater conundrum why content is not more closely aligned with actual needs of the organisations and their leaders – if content selection is somewhat random, it may as well include content that speaks to the real needs of its beneficiaries, rather than to the needs of removed and politicised executives or of ivory-tower academics. Too often, learning content becomes a law unto itself. It is validated as required learning by itself, the institutions that promote it, its authors, and its long-standing presence in academic discourse. It is proposed in SLL that the learning content should also adhere to the criterion of producing or supporting the identification of application opportunities from learning. It seems almost supercilious to propose this as a criterion, as application value seems the blatantly obvious initial purpose of the learning journey. Counterintuitively, experience and research seem to suggest that ROI from learning may indeed be part of the original aim, but does not remain as monitoring criterion throughout the learning process. 70

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

4.3.1 The nature of learning content as system The most salient implication for learning content that emerges from a systemic appreciation of the learning process is that the learning content has to integrate with the systemic realities of the leaders and their organisations. To this end, learning content is not only a system in itself, but also forms part of a greater system of elements of the learning process as macrosystem. Such an analysis immediately places the status of learning content below that of the leader and the organisation it should aim to serve. In systemic terms, this means that the learning content is required to be permeable by the systemic realities of the leader and organisation. The implication of this reality is significant: learning content in SLL is continuously subject to the approval of the systems of the leaders and organisations. No matter what degree of research has been done to verify the learning content, it demands further design to integrate with the systems of leaders and organisations. In SLL, learning content is therefore not a law unto itself, but is subject to the rules and structures of the systems of leaders and organisations. This principle is borne out by the phenomenon that no two organisations are exactly the same and that innovation is a pervasive characteristic of modern organisations. Consider, for example, what theory on organisational design would support the creation of a company like Google – a unique entity the likes of which has never existed before. For executives in such an organisation, standard, proven theories on organisational design and strategy would simply not have sufficed. They could never have built the unique character of the company by simply following tried and tested learning content. One example of their unusual structure is that they traded for a long time without a CEO – a model that no learning content could have dictated. The same principle applies for any organisation that aims to gain competitive advantage through innovation – doing what has been done before, and, by extension, doing what has been studied before, simply produces more of the same. Only through a robust engagement with the validity of learning content for specific leaders and organisations can learning content lead to the identification of innovative application opportunities and add real and tangible value. 71

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

To view content as a system also implies that the boundaries of that system should remain open in order to ensure its essential energy. Such openness is required towards the realities of the organisation, as well as the challenges and opportunities sensed by leaders in the learning process. At a metalevel, content should also remain open to content, that is, content is itself contained by various larger systems of content and interacts with other content systems. As an example, we may use the content selection for the development of SLL. In the discussion above on the challenges of validity I mentioned the conundrum of applying Systems Thinking in an attempt to justify a systemic approach. In alignment with a true systemic approach that allows for the evolution of systems and the emergence of system characteristics not present in the original design of the system, I am therefore drawn to various lateral links that may contribute to insight into the theory proposed in this book. In this regard, I have consulted literature from various fields, including •

Systems Thinking

•

Leadership

•

Learning/Education

•

Psychology

•

Sociology

•

Business Studies

•

Philosophy

•

and others

One way of creating the boundaries of the system of literature that exists for this research, given the outline above, is to examine where various fields of study might overlap and interact, as shown in the matrix below.

72

Business

9. Leadership in sociology

10. Leadership in 5. Systemic business thinking business and operations

sociology

4. Systemic

Sociology

7. Leadership education

8. Leadership in psychology

2. Systemic learning

Learning/ Education

15. Education for business

14. Educational sociology

13. Educational psychology

12. Educational leadership

6. Leading systems 11. Educational systems

Leadership

Psychology 3. Systemic psychology

Learning/ Education

leadership

Leadership 1. Systemic

Systems Thinking

Systems Thinking

20. The psychology of business

19. Psychological dimensions of sociology

18. Psychology of education

17. The psychology of leadership

16. The psychology of systems

Psychology

25. The sociology of business

dimensions of psychology

24. Sociological

education

23. Sociological

22. Sociological leadership

21. Sociological systems

Sociology

30. The business of sociology

29. The business of psychology

28. The business of education

27. The business of leadership

26. The business world as a system

Business

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

Table 4: Subject matter and scope definition

73

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Table 4 above shows the integration between some of the most saliently related fields in relation to SLL. While every point of integration may be expounded upon, it may not be essential in this context. Suffice it to suggest that the direct relevance has been colour-coded to provide some limitation of the potentially limitless scope, as indicated below: ••

Cells shaded in blue, as indicated in this text, represent literature that is centrally relevant.

••

Cells shaded in purple, as indicated in this text, have intermediate levels of relevance to the main book.

••

Cells shaded in red, as indicated in this text, have only peripheral levels of relevance and may only be called upon incidentally for completeness.

In the deliberation on the selection process, content that showed the integration between various fields above was favoured over content that exclusively focused on one area, although such exclusively focused content was indeed consulted for clarity. The implication is that learning content has to evolve through the learning process as the result of the continuous review of the systemic realities of the leader and organisation. In such a process, each group of leaders in each organisation co-designs and moulds the content to ensure that it addresses the unique challenges faced. If one accepts that the leader behaves and learns with integrity, and that, in the mind of the leader, the organisation forms part of the leader as suprasystem, then the learning content is also subjugated to the leader as supra-system.

4.3.2 Proximity Perception Trap It is often the intention of a systemic analysis (a noted potential contradiction) to identify relationships between various elements that initially appear to have no relationship. Systems Thinking suggests that an event or change in one element may have an impact in the system that may be much greater than anticipated by the observer, because 74

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

••

the observer did not realise that the event or change was within the boundary of a greater system,

••

the observer could not see the connection between the elements of the event or change and other observed or distant elements, or

••

the observer did not appreciate the full extent of the possible causal relationship between the event or change and the observed elements

While such a call for systemic awareness is essential, as is indeed implied by this book, the observer may also be lured into drawing a false connection between two elements, changes or events simply based on their proximity to each other. Such proximity may be based upon some of the scenarios identified by below. These scenarios, once again, represent the most salient possibilities and are not proposed as a complete list. The scenarios include the following: 1

Closeness in chronological timing, that is, two events occur within a short space of time and the observer assumes they must be connected.

2

Similarity in terms of shape, size or appearance, that is, two events occur that look similar and the observer assumes that they were caused by the same thing or that one was the cause of the other.

3

Similarity in terms of context or conditions, that is, two events occur under the same circumstances and a shared or causal link is assumed.

4

Similarity in terms of origin, that is, two events are the result of the same action, and they are assumed to have the same intention.

The scenarios above are instances in which the observer may assume a link – often a causal relationship – between two events, changes or entities simply because they are in proximity to one another. This phenomenon may be referred to as the “Proximity Perception Trap of Systems Thinking”. Such a flawed assumption is a blatant misapplication and oversimplification of Systems Thinking and creates two significant problems: 75

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

1

It assumes causal relationships (between events, changes or entities) that do not exist in reality. Such false assumptions may lead to the misallocation of resources in order to resolve problems that do not exist.

2

It diverts the attention and effort away from real insight and resulting synthesis of the systemic realities at work, which may lead the observer away from seeing more fundamental relationships.

The implications for learning content are also significant. Facilitators and learning-designers often believe that exposing leaders to learning content will automatically lead to the resolution of problems. The reality is quite different, and there is a notable implication of which both leaders and facilitators need to be aware: by exposing leaders to certain learning content, the mere juxtaposition of the content and the leader may suggest a causal relationship that does not exist in reality. As an example, a programme in Financial Management has the tacit implication that both the problem and solution reside within the financial management practices of the leader and organisation, while, in reality, the financial management practices may simply be a reflection of problems that occur elsewhere or of skills deficits in other areas of competence for the leader. Numerous examples exist in the field work that forms the foundation for this book. In one example, I was requested to facilitate an human resources (HR) strategy session, unusually, with the CEO in attendance. During the session, clarity was reached on key strategic imperatives for HR, and specific initiatives were identified to drive these strategic imperatives. Challenges in the process started emerging after I had written a report on the process and the HR executive had to present the results of the process to the CEO. The results and strategic imperatives identified in the strategic facilitation process were rejected by the CEO on trivial grounds, such as the layout of the document and the types of headings used. The triviality of the objections made it clear

76

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

that more fundamental problems existed. It also became clear that there was little buy-in from staff on the turnaround strategy outlined by the new CEO, which created difficulties for implementation. It also emerged that, while the CEO supported HR in private, he expressed serious misgivings about the role and value of HR in the presence of other executives, partly because there was a legacy of poor HR management, executives had criticised HR and the CEO followed suit because he needed the support of executives. The case was further exacerbated by the presence of a strong labour union, which could not develop sound relationship with the HR executive, who was viewed as a Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) appointment by the white majority in this union. The result was that the HR executive resigned. (Parenthetically, this HR executive is now a very successful HR executive at a multinational mining production company – so the problem was clearly not with his competence.) The HR strategy was poorly driven by the next acting HR executive, who had limited credibility in the eyes of the new CEO. As a result, more job losses were suffered in HR and elsewhere in the business. The fact that the CEO attended and drove a session on HR strategy implied that both the problem and solution were to be found within HR. In reality, the communication and buy-in on the turnaround strategy and the superficial relationship between the CEO and the HR executive were the real, underlying and interrelated challenges at work. It may have been more beneficial to run a programme in turnaround strategies and Change Management, but this might have exposed the lack of executive experience in these areas.

4.3.3 Learning content as system inputs Given the options for the relative status of the leader and the organisation as outlined above, and recognising the self-perceived supra-system status of the leader during the learning situation, it may be concluded with some validity that the learning content serves as input to the system of the leader during the learning situation.

77

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Table 5 explores the relationship between the system of the leader and the learning content as system input. It examines the implications for reciprocal openness of both the leader as system and the learning content as both input and system. Note that no system is entirely closed or open, and that this implies a degree of flexibility in the application of the tool. For the system of the leader to be open in relation to learning content means that the leader is receptive to learning content and will allow for the exploration of the implications of the ideas proposed in the learning content for the system of the leader. For the leader to be closed means that the leader prevents the learning content from entering that leader’s system. Such a leader will avoid, or even actively prevent, her own system from engaging meaningfully with the content. For learning content as system input to be open means that the learning content is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the realities of the leader. This means that, no matter what degree of research is represented by the content, if the reality of the leader’s system is different, the content will aim to adjust to and serve that reality. In this scenario, it is not the aim for leaders to memorise learning content. Rather, it is the aim of learning content to serve the objectives of the leader. For content to be closed implies a puritanical self-preservation on the part of the content. Should the leader challenge the content based upon the reality of the structure and rules of that leader’s system, such challenges will be dismissed as irrelevant to the content curriculum at hand. Table 5: Learning content as system inputs CONTENT AS INPUT

78

SYSTEM OF THE LEADER Open

Closed

Open

Q1

Q2

Closed

Q3

Q4

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

Quadrant 1 shows an open system of a leader in relation to open learning content. This means that the systems are mutually receptive. Full integration of the learning content is possible in the system of the leader, with a reciprocal flexibility on the part of learning content to adjust to the reality of the leader’s system. There is a risk to this mutual openness, in that both systems may be so receptive to the other’s realities that both may be changed beyond control. Quadrant 2 shows a closed system of a leader in relation to open learning content. The only option for change in this case is that which exists in the content. The risk in this instance is that the only system change that occurs for the leader is that the leader increases in defensiveness based upon a dysfunctional suspicion of the learning content. Quadrant 3 shows an open system of a leader in relation to closed learning content. This means that the leader is receptive to learning, but the learning content lacks sufficient flexibility to accommodate the reality of the leader. In this instance, learning content is viewed as an additional tool, but will only be called upon selectively as the reality of the leader happens to overlap with the reality of the learning content. The risk here is that, should the leader allow the content access to that leader’s system, and the leader’s reality can no longer accommodate the content, it will fester in the leader’s system, like a veritable learning septicaemia, until the leader rejects the tenets of the content. Quadrant 4 shows the closed system of a leader in relation to closed learning content. This means that neither system is receptive to the reality of the other. In this case, there may be a change in both or neither, depending on what may be referred to as “Approach Velocity”. Approach Velocity may be defined here as the force with which two systems approach each other. In SLL, this means that the force and authority with which leaders defend their position or the degree to which learning content is enforced upon leaders by more senior leaders or by inflexible, but reputable, learning institutions, will impact the extent to which change occurs in either system. 79

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Even if change does occur, the risk is that such change will be superficial – no leader can be forced to learn and no puritanical learning institution will be forced to see the gaps in its process or content. In a sense, this power struggle is similar to that shown above between the supra-system status of the leader and organisation. In that case, however, learning content is implicitly viewed as a subsystem, while it may still resist the realities of the leader as supra-system.

4.4 THE PHANTOM MENACE: THE FACILITATOR AS SYSTEM In addition to the significance of the leader, organisation and learning content as systems, the facilitator is also a key system in the navigation of the ebb and flow of the learning process. The facilitator in this context is defined broadly as the entire body of people responsible for ensuring the bringing together of the leader and the learning content. Thus, it may be a single facilitator or group of facilitators guiding meaningful dialogue in the “training room” (as many organisations still refer to learning venues). It may also include the researchers of the learning content, the programme designers and developers, as well as those who manage the operations of learning. This broad definition is used for ease of reference to the entire group of people facilitating learning. The facilitator, whether defined as the group above or as individual learning guide, brings to the learning situation an entire system with its own structures and rules. The facilitator as individual is certainly likely to have a particular affinity for, and depth of understanding of, the learning content. The leader as system, on the other hand, wishes only to resolve pressing issues and perhaps identify some opportunities for growth or improvement in some element of work. This juxtaposition places great pressure on the facilitator, who may be tempted to extol the virtues of a beloved field of specialisation, rather than explore the reality of the leader. The facilitator thus risks behaving like a supra-system, and using learning content, about which she is an expert, as a weapon to defend her supra-system status with the audience. 80

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

The facilitator further has a world-view, which may or may not be aligned with that of the leaders on the course. Fundamental philosophical differences, such as an overall perspective of the aim of business or the role of people in organisations, can have a dramatic impact on learning effectiveness. The facilitator further has an ego, especially in the role of subject matter expert. Leaders who challenge this expertise with examples of exceptions from their own working environment may be disregarded if the learning content is driven as supra-system by the facilitator, thus compromising the possible resolution of complex business challenges. Such apparent competition for supra-system status diverts attention from the overall aim of learning: to improve the ability of the leader to lead people, process and ideas towards more value-adding and efficient delivery of organisational objectives.

4.4.1 A rebel without causality: the responsibility of the facilitator I only hope when I am free, As they are free, to go in quest Of the knowledge beyond the bounds of life, It may not seem better to me to rest. Robert Frost, “Misgiving”

Within the context of SLL, it is the primary responsibility of the facilitator to ensure the positive evolution of the leader as system in order to grow the organisation represented by the leader. It is therefore imperative that the facilitator recognise the leader as system, with a full understanding of the implications of this insight as outlined above. The facilitator should consider the mind of the leader as one that views itself potentially as the supra-system in the learning situation. This means that the facilitator requires a deep appreciation of the structure and rules of that system. This also implies a degree of humility on the part of the facilitator to view the learning content as servant to the leader as supra-system, rather than the leader as servant to the content. 81

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

In the section on the leader as system above it was explained that the collection of leaders in a learning setting also creates yet another layer of complexity, as this collection of leaders in the learning session forms another system, often with its own rules and structures, based upon hierarchies, confidence levels of individual leaders, diversity of philosophical approaches to people and work, and other dimensions. It is thus incumbent upon the facilitator to appreciate the fractals of the apparently chaotic system created by the collection of leaders in one room. The facilitator is naturally responsible for serving the best interest of the organisation(s) represented by the leaders. This demands that the facilitator has an intimate understanding of the nature of those organisations, most notably in terms of their key challenges as they relate to the overall focus of the learning content. This means that learning content also requires subordination to the organisation as system. The facilitator is further required, within an SLL framework, to move beyond the reactive response to challenges and explore the possible opportunities that exist for the organisation as well as for each leader in terms of that leader’s potential contribution to the seizing of opportunities. It may be true in some cases that the facilitator lacks the required levels of knowledge for the optimal facilitation of resolution of challenges and the identification of opportunities for the systems of the organisation and leader. It is certainly my experience in almost all learning engagements with clients that there is much more unspoken complexity to the challenges than the initial brief to the facilitator seems to suggest. Organisations are often loath to share the full scope of challenges they face and appear, in some cases, to mask underlying problems through addressing superficial ones. The facilitator in such cases faces a complex dilemma: there may be a clear brief from project sponsors who pay for the programme, yet the system created by the collection of leaders in the room shows the emergence of characteristics that do not reflect the initial objectives of the brief. The dilemma goes to what would constitute integrity on the part of the facilitator: to drive the agenda of the sponsors or to support the growth of the leaders within the reality of their own systems. 82

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

The facilitator would be out of integrity if any of the two opposites were ignored. A systemic analysis by the facilitator leads to the insight that both views, that of the sponsors and that emerging from the leaders on the course, form part of a greater system – both views are elements of the system. It is imperative for the facilitator to observe this dichotomy and to confront the leaders present with the reality thereof. This provides leaders present with the same systemic awareness and leads them away from an us-and-them approach in relation to their senior leaders. The realisation that there appears to be a contradiction in expectations then becomes a learning challenge for leaders to resolve. The fact that the contradiction exists is in itself a characteristic of the complexities of the systems involved. The facilitator in SLL is thus accountable to note with honesty the observable elements of the systems involved. This allows for more honest debate and a more realistic assessment of application opportunities. It creates a context that makes learning content relevant to the leaders present. The facilitator must demonstrate the courage to provoke leaders on the system implication of the learning content in order to ensure real application opportunities. The facilitator thus finds personal meaning formation in the realisation that she becomes part of the newly created system of leaders in the room. In that system, the facilitator plays a role, just as every leader in the room plays a role. The facilitator is part of the system, with clear responsibility to advance the systems of the leaders and the organisations they represent, just as they have a responsibility to do the same. The alternative is a denial of the real characteristics of the systems involved, which creates frustration and inhibition on the part of leaders on the course. Such an application is greatly aided by another responsibility of the facilitator in SLL, namely the encouragement of leaders to tell their stories. The facilitator requires the humility to recognise that leaders have their own stories based on unique experience to which the facilitator was not privy. These stories, if delivered with integrity (which must be assumed by the facilitator), have the potential of forming the context for the facilitation of learning by the facilitator.

83

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Such awareness of real, underlying and systemic challenges leads to what one might refer to as “Real-time Design”. This means that, as the system of leaders present begins to show characteristics not evident from the initial brief and design of the learning programme, the facilitator is required to modify and adjust the design of the programme in real time to ensure that meaningful application opportunities are identified that will add tangible value to the leader and organisation. Such Real-time Design necessitates that the facilitator subordinate both her own system and the system of learning content to the systems of the leaders present, thus granting the leaders the suprasystem status that they believe they have, and increasing learning receptiveness for the leaders. In order to facilitate learning in this way, the facilitator needs a selection of critical skills. These skills are noted below.

4.4.2 Qualitative delivery criteria for facilitation in SLL The following qualitative delivery criteria serve as minimum requirement for facilitators to work within a SLL framework: Level of thinking A level of thought-processing at least matching that of the learners is required from the facilitator. Critical here is the depth and accuracy of analysis, that is, the ability to decompose complex problems and even dissolve them where appropriate. Creating context Facilitators are required to help learners establish their current, ideal and evolutionary position within multiple containing systems, including the contextual relevance of the challenges under discussion within the greater organisation. Logical rigour in the development of the hypotheses of the facilitator Given the predominantly linear, logical–analytical approach of business managers, the ability to echo the level of logical analysis of leaders opens the door for greater learning opportunity through systemic techniques once leaders are more receptive. Exploring logical links Moving beyond logic is essential for learner support, as it is the current logic of leaders that has created their current limited results, as evidenced by the fact that they require further learning.

84

Chapter 4: Four Weddings and a Funeral

Exploring lateral links The exploration of options that are not immediately obvious is essential for the further growth of learners. It is my belief that provocation of leaders by the facilitator to examine potential portable learning opportunities from other industries is a prerequisite for effective facilitation within an SLL framework. Synthesis of conclusions and demonstration of relevance The focus of this book is on the development of leaders of organisations. Therefore, it is essential that, while learning may be a virtue and its own reward, organisations invest financially in the learning process and thus require demonstrable return on the investment. It is therefore essential that the facilitator not only proposes content, but also synthesises such content with the real challenges facing leaders. Even the best-quality traditional facilitation only exercises synthesis at the level for the content, that is, synthesis follows analysis in a typical continuum that places learning content, rather than business solutions, at the forefront of learning priority. Sensitivity and responsiveness to the needs of leaders The traditional model of training requires leaders to be attentive to the learning content. This places content once again as the main focus of learning. Within SLL, the needs of leaders are paramount, as the measure for effective learning will ultimately be the fulfilment of their learning needs and a noticeable change within their organisational systems. SLL requires of the facilitator to monitor continuously the learning needs of leaders. This is essential, as learning needs change during the learning process. Traditional learning needs analyses end with the identification of (often stilted) needs prior to the learning process. In SLL, the facilitator recognises that leaders will reach insights during the learning process that extend far beyond the appreciation of the facilitator. This is because the leader is continuously navigating her own system and trawling for insights into complexities that the facilitator cannot possibly comprehend at the same level of depth. It is not possible for the facilitator to appreciate fully the experience of the leader; not because of lack of ability, but simply because the facilitator does not have the exact experience of the leader within the leader’s organisation.

85

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

If it is then considered that most learning groups exceed 10 people in number, the facilitator requires immense humility, with a profound understanding that the challenges and intricacies of at least 10 complex organisational systems before him (merged with the unique system of every leader within the organisational system) make it impossible for the facilitator to propose ready solutions. The needs of leaders will therefore guide the learning process, while the facilitator, having proposed key content, provokes leaders to identify modified behaviour based upon their new insights.

86

5 PAINTING A THOUSAND WORDS Experimentation with photography Ah, when to the heart of man Was it ever less than a treason To go with the drift of things, To yield with a grace to reason, And bow and accept the end Of a love or a season. Robert Frost, “Reluctance”

Following the endorsement by industry representatives to examine the value of the theory of Systemic Leadership Learning (SLL), it was imperative to reference some of the developed insights from SLL through an engagement process that would operate at a more detailed level of insight. One of the key tenets that emerged in the theory of SLL is that the leader holds a self-perception of being the supra-system during the learning situation. In order to test this assumption, it was imperative for the reliability of the research to identify a method in which leaders (both thought leaders and leaders of people and processes) could be provoked to explore their own systems during a learning experience in which their systems were isolated as far as possible, with minimal external input from learning content. If leaders could explore their own systems, and, as a result, produce insights that would be unique to their systems, this would be a clear indication that the leader has both the ability and the inclination to view the system of the self as the supra-system during learning. One challenge for such a process was to provide just the right amount of input to provoke leaders to explore their own systems, without allowing external inputs to dominate the learning process. If leaders could develop insights in a learning environment in which 87

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

external learning inputs had been limited to the extreme, it would also support another tenet of the emerging theory, namely the principle of subordination of learning content to the reality of the leader. An experiment was designed that would use photography as minimal input into the system of the leader as a means of motivating leaders to explore their own systems. Members of a reference group, once again consisting of industry professionals, organisational leaders and those responsible for leadership development in their organisations, were invited to a photographic exhibition as part of the research for this book. The event took place on 20 November 2007, following a further year of development of the book after the initial industry consultation on 7 December 2006. A copy of the invitation appears below.

Figure 1: Invitation to photographic exhibition

Photography was selected because of its nonthreatening nature. Neutral images could be presented to leaders, in response to which they would be invited to share the insights they reached through their personal navigation of their own systems. This neutrality of images as system inputs would mirror the leader’s reality of confronting challenges “as they appear”, that is, without prejudice and without forced perceptions. 88

Chapter 5: Painting a Thousand Words

Photographs are also clearly visual in nature. As such, the medium lends itself to the exploration of metaphor and personal meaning formation. Such meaning formation by the leader would be a sign of the personal navigation of the leader’s system by that leader. Photographs were thus used as “system navigation tools”, that is, as the means by which leaders would explore their own systems in search of insights that might lie hidden or masked by an obsession with external inputs. Furthermore, photographs offer vast opportunities to present contrast. In one image, juxtapositions can be made of elements as diverse as order and chaos. In this sense, photographs offer multidimensional aspects of the same subject, which may be seen to echo the leader’s experience of the complexity of challenges faced in organisations. In order to find the correct balance between sufficient external input to provoke the leader on the one hand, and emphasis on the system of the leader on the other, I was in search of “requisite thought architecture”, that is, the minimum input required into the system of the leader that would still provide the necessary framework and context within which leaders could respond with their own systems. To this end, I selected photographs from my own photographic work that would lend themselves to further analysis. Photographs were selected on the basis of two key criteria. The first criterion was the degree of aesthetic elegance of the photograph. The motivation for this selection criterion was that I wanted to engage leaders in the photographs and wanted to mitigate the risk of a lack of interest in the photographs by the reference group. Clearly, aesthetic elegance is based on a subjective view on my part, but qualitative feedback on the photographs suggested that most members of the reference group shared the view that the photographs lent themselves to a degree of aesthetic appreciation. The second criterion was that each photograph would contain the appearance of potential contradictions or paradoxes. The motivation for this criterion was that it might reflect the reality of leaders in the 89

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

workplace – a great deal of the complexities leaders face at work is as a result of apparently contradictory elements in their systems as well as in the systems of their organisations. The element of potential contradiction would present an intellectual challenge, and it was my expectation that such intellectual challenge would engage leaders and provoke them to insights of their own. Twenty-seven photographs were selected and exhibited in total. Consideration of the number of photographs was based on the desire to provide the members of the reference group with sufficient choice to provoke the navigation of their own systems. Members of the reference group would self-select the photographs they wished to engage with. Qualitative feedback during a debriefing session following the exhibition revealed that members of the reference group were indeed attracted to some photographs and dispelled from others purely on emotional grounds. Interestingly, the qualitative feedback also showed that the preference of individual members changed as they became more engaged in the process. The initial attraction was to the aesthetic elegance of the photographs or to a personal interest in the subject matter, while interest evolved in other photographs that offered more of an intellectual challenge through the contradictions the photographs would include. Having selected photographs on the basis of the criteria above, I then provided a simple title for each photograph. These titles were metaphorical rather than literal in nature as a means of provoking deeper thought processes for the leader. In addition to the titles, each photograph was annotated by reference to two to three system sets represented in the photograph. These system sets were expressed in very simple language and consisted of two apparently contradictory concepts. As an example, in one photograph that contained an image of water next to an office building, the system sets identified included: Fluidity and Rigidity. An example of the sheet that was attached to each photograph appears in Table 1.

90

Chapter 5: Painting a Thousand Words

Table 1: System sets in photographs Title:

Photograph number:

System sets at play: 1. 2. 3.

Table 1 was populated as described above. In order to complete the creation of requisite thought architecture as defined, a simple reflection sheet was also provided for members of the reference group. This sheet invited members to comment on two aspects, which were the same for every photograph, namely 1

the implications of the photograph for their organisation in terms of the organisational culture, customers, strategy or any other aspect of their organisations, and

2

the implications of the photograph for them as leader

An example of the reflection sheet appears in Table 2. Members of the reference group were asked to comment on a minimum of five photographs. Table 2: Reflection sheet

REFLECTION SHEET Implications for my organisation (e.g. culture, structure, customers, strategy, etc.):

Implications for me as a leader:

91

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

The process was that members of the reference group were first invited to simply experience the exhibition by observing the photographs. At this stage, they were not requested to record any insights. The observable behaviour of members was noticeably uncomfortable. A video recording of the proceedings shows how the discomfort evolved into curiosity as the members started to read the photograph titles and the system sets present in each photograph. Members were then invited to leave the exhibition room and attend a briefing session on the context and purpose of the process. Here, they were provided with a brief analysis of the nature of the experiment. They were then invited to return to the exhibition room and to record their insights in response to each photograph. They were also provided with an abstract of the nature of the experiment, which appeared at the entrance to the exhibition for their reference. A copy of the abstract is provided below. Table 3: Abstract for exhibition ABSTRACT The idea Mostert’s work for his PhD is on Systemic Leadership Learning, a concept for leadership development that proposes that leaders learn more effectively if they do so in a systemic way. Traditional leadership development programmes emphasise text and content, with little regard for the reality of the leader. This often alienates the leader from the learning process and inhibits the potential Return on Investment (ROI) from learning. Finding other ways to learn is therefore imperative. The leader as supra-system Mostert proposes that the leader is her own supra-system during the learning process, that is, the leader naturally subordinates learning content to her own reality. If this is true, the starting point for learning has to be the leader’s reality, rather than the content design. The challenge is to find a way that navigates the leader’s system, without dictating the learning process, content or intended outcomes.

92

Chapter 5: Painting a Thousand Words

Visual input as system navigation tool The visual image offers one way in which to provoke and invite the leader to navigate her own system. The most salient challenges are most likely to rise to a level of consciousness, without threat, pressure or intimidation to admit failure. Requisite thought architecture The proposed methodology raises interesting questions regarding the risk of content as propaganda for leadership. One challenge is therefore to provide sufficient learning architecture that promotes self-navigation, while allowing sufficient freedom of expression and self-navigation to insight for the leader. The photographs invite honest reflection and the supporting universal questions allow for requisite thought architecture within which the leader can move freely, formulate problems and safely communicate implications and possible solutions.

The room was designed like an exhibition, with photographs exhibited against the walls in frames. Some photographs were also hung on an industrial ladder, in order to support the idea of architecture of thought. In addition to printed photographs, electronic photographs were also exhibited through projection onto a wall. Furthermore, a live video stream of the room was projected onto yet another wall. This moving image reflected events as they occurred in the room. This design posed interesting questions about the definition of a photograph as potentially dynamic. It also created a physical manifestation of a feedback loop: members of the reference group (a nascent social system like groups in a learning process) could see themselves in the video image while observing the photographs. They could, in other words, watch themselves watching themselves. As they changed their physical movements, they could see the feedback of a change in the design of the room from the projected image. The presence of a physical feedback loop in the room also supported the overarching theory of Systems Thinking that was being applied to the learning process. It furthermore supported the idea that the leader is an inherent part of the system, while retaining the discretion of

93

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

freedom of movement and expression. The photograph below shows the feedback loops created by the design of the room.

Figure 2: Feedback loop at exhibition

Observable behaviour was noticeably different on the second encounter with the photographs. Members were more vocal and appeared more confident as they paused at selected photographs, reflected on the minimal input from the titles and system sets, and recorded their insights. Following the second encounter with the exhibition, members were once again invited to leave the exhibition for a debriefing session, during which they were consulted on their experiences. Two key findings emerged as a result of this experiment: 1

94

The value of context and incubation Members commented that their first visit to the exhibition room filled them with uncertainty, as endorsed by my observation of their uncomfortable demeanour. They commented that, while they enjoyed the photographs, they could not meaningfully engage with the questions asked. However, once the context had been explained to them and they had time to consider the photographs

Chapter 5: Painting a Thousand Words

again, they found it easy to complete the reflection sheet on the implications for their own organisations and for themselves as leaders.

This suggested that, on the first visit, the requisite thought architecture had not yet been created and that time for incubation had not been sufficient. This illustrates the value of context and incubation time for the learning process. It also supports the value of upfront design of the system to achieve its intended aims, despite the inevitable evolution that will occur in the learning process as system.

2

Confirmation of the leader as supra-system With almost no input provided other than the titles, system sets and abstract, all members of the reference group were able to generate insights about their organisations and about themselves as leaders.



No other learning content, notes or discussion questions were provided. The organisations represented by the leaders present did not dictate any learning content. No lecturers insisted on the correct interpretation of theories. There was no assessment and no quality assurance process. And yet leaders learnt.



Leaders succeeded in learning through the simple process of allowing themselves to be provoked and to engage with minimal learning input in the form of photographs. This provided the requisite thought architecture for them to navigate their own systems. The system of each leader was therefore perceived by that leader as the supra-system in need of elucidation. In all cases without exception, every member of the reference group was able to identify new application opportunities from a nonthreatening and meaningful engagement with their own systems. This self-navigation process of their own systems as the supra-system during learning led them to insights that they believed they did not have before the learning experience. They had therefore expanded their insight into their organisations and themselves as leaders, with almost no external learning input. 95

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity



It became clear that the exhibition of photographs allowed leaders to tell their own story, in their own way, based on their own experience. This could be done without fear of editing or ridicule, and made the learning experience personal and unique. Their recorded insights were the recording of the leader’s story of a personal system.

This experiment showed that leaders have, at the very least, both the ability and inclination to perceive their own systems as the suprasystem during the learning process. This finding poses interesting questions about the effectiveness of traditional learning processes in which learning content appears to dominate in the form of extensive notes, presentations, lectures, assessments and prescribed reading. Research referred to above regarding the lack of ROI from many traditional leadership development programmes endorses the need for the exploration of new approaches. I am not suggesting that traditional methods are never effective. Nor is it implied that learning content cannot aid the learning process. What is indeed proposed is an additional approach and methodology in the form of SLL that allows the leader to experience the necessary respect of her own system as the supra-system during learning. With the appropriate integration of learning content as part of the learning process, leaders may be guided to even greater insights and may identify even more application opportunities as a means of advancing themselves and their organisations, thus ensuring return on leadership investment, provided such content does not subordinate the leaders. Also deserving of mention is that learning in the experiment above was an emerging property, not a predetermined set of learning outcomes. The implications for the way leadership programmes are designed are significant. A valid conclusion to be drawn, as endorsed by the leaders present in a debrief of the experiment, is that leaders already have their own systems that require navigation through the learning process. Leaders are indeed their own supra-systems in the learning situation.

96

Chapter 5: Painting a Thousand Words

SLL suggests that the leader in the learning situation should not resist this subordination, but rather that she should be encouraged to do so, that is, to accept that the systems of the content, facilitator and organisation are not the containing systems for her complete system as a leader. The acceptance of such subordination of other systems will improve the engagement of the leader in the learning process, as the real challenges experienced will enjoy more prominence. The leader will not feel alienated by sterile learning content presented as the only truth and enforced in a pseudoparticipative style. Instead, the leader will derive confidence from the recognition that her system is unique, and therefore requires unique solutions, for which the leader has the responsibility of resolution.

97

6 TWISTER Merging four fields of study Much as I own I owe The passers of the past Because their to and fro Has cut this road to last… They have found other scenes For haste and other means. Robert Frost, “Closed for Good”

In Systemic Leadership Learning (SLL), it is therefore critical to understand the dynamic interplay between the four primary systems of the Leader, Organisation, Facilitator and Learning Content. Each system impacts on, and is itself mutated by, each of the other major systems. The cognitive twist is that this energised interplay only works, as is true for all systems, when its containing environment is conducive to its existence. All systems have multiple containing systems, that is, they exist within the boundaries of more than one macrosystem. In the case of SLL, the multiple containing environments are viewed as four fields of study, the appreciation of which greatly enhances the Return on Investment (ROI) in learning in a systemic way. These four fields are as follows: •

Systems Thinking – the study of the nature of systems and, in this context, the implications for organisational development and management thinking

•

Leadership – the study of the optimal way in which to lead people and organisations

•

Learning – the study of how to select, engage with and internalise information

99

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

•

Story – the expression of narrative from a unique vantage point in a manner that incorporates multidimensional aspects of the leader’s world and history

Just like the four primary systems, these fields of study engage in an ever-changing, dynamic dance, exchanging energy and redefining themselves and each other, while creating the evolutionary context for the four primary fields that also engage in constant, mutual cocreation. This means that the overall learning system continuously regenerates into a system that demands ongoing re-evaluation. The respective fields represented above are almost infinitely broad. This is partly due to the prolific publication of material in these fields, which, in turn, is driven by what appears to be a great need for clarification by those working and studying in these areas. It has been the intention of this book to establish clarity on the main perspectives in the fields, but also to determine the extent to which the fields of Leadership, Learning, Systems Thinking and Story have been merged. In the search for clarify on the state of literature, I have found the following: The need for a dramatic paradigm shift in the field of Leadership Development Much of the literature that professes to show the need for Leadership Development in fact presents a view on the behaviour required from leaders in their leadership roles, rather than as students of leadership. Large research studies conducted with leaders seem to intend to define the characteristics of good leadership. The literature tends to suggest what leaders should do, while it is the intention of this book to show the way in which these abilities and behaviours may be learnt. There appears to be some consensus and clarity on what leaders need to do, but little guidance on how these behaviours and abilities may be acquired through learning. The value of Systems Thinking as an approach The field of Systems Thinking is well explored, and large volumes of literature exist on the subject and certainly provide ample insight 100

Chapter 6: Twister

into the dynamics of Systems Thinking. There is furthermore ample exploration of Systems Thinking as applied to general organisational theory and even on organisational learning. However, there appears to be little that specifically explains the relationship between the leader and the organisation. The literature also appears to view the leader as subsystem of the organisation, while this book proposes that the leader has a self-perception of being the supra-system during learning. This systemic interchange appears limited in the literature. Equally, and perhaps for this reason, Systems Thinking is generally applied as an organisational tool, while this book aims to apply it to individual learning for leaders. Insight into the nature of learning for leaders The field of Learning is, as with Systems Thinking, well represented by a vast landscape of literature. It is the intention here to explore in that landscape those insights that relate to Leadership Development. In this domain, literature exists for the study of various methodological approaches to Leadership Development. The most notable amongst these, that also fall within my experience, is the literature on Action Learning. There appears, however, to be some uncertainty about whether the current methods used for the development of leaders deliver the desired application of learning. A need for a systemic approach to Leadership Development It was my intention to explore the literature landscape for work that may be similar to the theory proposed in this book. I could then build upon the work already done in this specific field. Once again, extensive literature exists for the study of Systems Thinking as it relates to organisation behaviour. The view that organisations may be viewed as systems, and therefore adhere to the characteristics of systems, is not a new insight. But the view of the leader as system in the learning space is almost entirely absent from the literature on Systems Thinking. The notion of the leader as supra-system is therefore even more elusive. There 101

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

appears to be a need, and a gap certainly exists, for literature that elaborates upon the supra-system status of the leader as applied to the learning situation in a systemic way. Some authors may argue that their work infers this, but continuous mention of the leader’s responsibility to fit into the system of the organisation would belie such a claim: the organisation is consistently viewed in the literature as the supra-system, into which the leader has, somehow, to fit and create value for the organisation. Most literature seems to suggest that the leader is little more than an element of the system of the organisation. Despite this status ascribed to leaders, they are nevertheless given the responsibility for change. It is little wonder that studies reveal a serious lack in the ROI from leadership development. The need for clarity on Mode 2 knowledge production The literature reviewed shows a clear need for new methods of creating insight about the reality of the industry. Despite this apparent cohesion in the recognition of the search for new methods of inquiry, not all authors agree on exactly how this should be done. In each of these four fields of study, a myriad of literature exists. For the purposes of this book, I have attempted to limit the study of these four fields to where they intersect, that is, to those areas in each field that have a direct impact on each of the other three fields. Figure 1 shows the intersection.

102

Chapter 6: Twister

Learning Leadership

Story

Systems thinking

Figure 1: Merging four fields of study

The dynamic interplay merits some exploration. What the merger of these four fields of study implies is that SLL seeks to examine the intersections where, for example, Leadership is exposed to learning; where Leadership is learnt in multiple, interconnected systems (which learning situation forms its own new system); and where Leadership has its own unique story worthy of recognition. It examines, further, the space where Learning happens systemically and where Learning has, and continuously creates, its own story. It explores the milieu where Systems Thinking informs the composition of the Leadership, where Systems Thinking is learnt, and where Systems Thinking informs the design, communication and co-creation of a personal and holistic narrative. One of the emerging implications of the integration of these four fields of study is the unavoidable realisation that the leader behaves 103

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

as a supra-system during the learning situation, that is, the leader constitutes a system in its own right. The implications of this insight are significant, as it departs from the traditional view that the organisation is always the supra-system into which the leader, willy-nilly, has to force her emotional and intellectual effort. The perspective of the leader as system also leads to a number of implications for the way in which to engage leaders during learning. Such engagement is further informed by the nature and reality (as far as that may be determined) of the leader in the learning situation. This reality is explored in the next chapter.

104

7 ANATOMY OF A LEADER AS STUDENT A multidimensional portrait Freedom to flash off into wild connection. Once to have known it, nothing else will do. When it’s in you and in the situation. Robert Frost, “How Hard It Is to Keep from Being King”

It is a fundamental principle of Systemic Leadership Learning (SLL) that the leader represents a key system, that is, an active and dynamic role player that shapes the learning process as it unfolds. For this reason, it is essential that we should understand the nature of the leader as system. As part of the professional work of many leadership consultants, they engage with leaders in a process of continuous exchange. This means, essentially, that they examine the objectives and frustrations of the individual leader and cooperatively navigate a route to improved success. Key to the success of this process is the ability of the facilitator to •

challenge the views, and examine the quality of decisions, of leaders

•

continuously request the executive to define and design possible solutions

•

insist upon brutal honesty at all times

•

integrate various elements of information from the executive into cohesive structure of feedback and reflection

•

identify and evaluate options as possible resolutions to challenges

•

and, most significantly, provide support within the realities of the context of the leader

The research conducted for this book has produced a framework that is applicable for use by facilitators of a wide spectrum of learning 105

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

content (as opposed to content-free coaching) and with various groups of leaders (as opposed to individuals). This model moves beyond the approach of group coaching, since it positions each leader as suprasystem, rather than as subsystem. The first step in the process is to gain a detailed and respectful insight into the reality of the system of the leader.

7.1 CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE PREFERRED KIND: THE REALITY OF THE LEADER It is clear from the dialectic (exploring paradoxes in the discussion towards truth-finding and synthesis) on SLL thus far that this methodology positions the leader as the supra-system during the learning process. This supra-system status is allocated to the leader on the grounds that •

it is the leader who is expected to learn, not the facilitator

•

it is the system of the leader that has to internalise learning content and develop a degree of internal congruence between the personal views and experiences of the leader, the expectations of the organisation and the tenets of the learning content proposed

•

it is the leader who has to ensure the application of insights gained during learning

•

and, most significantly, that SLL proposes that the leader take a default position as supra-system during the learning situation

This means that the leader believes in her own supra-system status during learning. Therefore, the other systems at work in the learning process, most notably the organisation, the learning content and the facilitator, have to accept the reality of the leader as supra-system in order for these other systems to ensure optimal learning by the leader. It is therefore critical that the reality of the leader is analysed, understood and appreciated at deep levels of internal systemic relatedness.

106

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

In my experience with a wide range of clients in a broad spectrum of industries and at various levels of leadership, typical dimensions of reality exist for almost all leaders. These realities have a significant impact on the ability and commitment of leaders to learn. These realities also have a wide range of different impacts on various leaders, given the uniqueness of the system of each leader. Some of the dimensions facing all leaders are the following: Continuous change If there is one generic reality for all leaders that has become a truism of modern organisations, it is the experience of constant change. This is often driven by an increasingly sophisticated and demanding customer base, constantly changing local and international market conditions, and the need for competitive advantage. It poses a challenge to the learning process, since, just as leaders have learnt new methods and approaches, conditions change that necessitate further learning and even unlearning, that is, learning to reinterpret what has previously been learnt. Limited power and control It has already been highlighted that many leaders are, rather paradoxically, required to lead as followers. This means that they are described as leaders by their organisations, but are simultaneously subjected to a host of organisational rules, policies, processes and protocols. The reality is therefore that almost all leaders have limited control over the scope of their decision making and can exercise limited power over resources at their disposal, despite the quality of their ideas. The experience of having limited power and control has a significant impact on the potential for the identification and implementation of application opportunities, as the leader (within the confines of her own supra-system perceptions) may undervalue the learning process as having limited use, due to the fact that, even if the leader agrees with the content and possibilities highlighted, that leader may lack the power to ensure implementation. This is indeed feedback that I frequently receive from delegates on learning programmes.

107

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Stakeholders with varying IQ and EQ It is essential to note that the system of the leader operates in the presence of the systems of others, who may have power over the leader. An understanding of the character and abilities of those around the leader may also provide great insight into the reality of the leader. One of the key variables in the systems of those around the leader is the level of their IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, that is, essentially their ability to solve problems. Naturally, the IQ of the leader is also relevant to understanding her own system, but the IQ of those around the leader can have a great impact in terms of whether the leader’s insights and ideas will find support for implementation. The ability of those around the leader to deal with complexity, take on serious challenges and apply their minds to solutions will have a noticeable impact on the leader’s ability and willingness to identify application opportunities from learning. Another critical dimension of those around the leader is their EQ, or Emotional Quotient, that is, emotional intelligence or their ability to interpret and understand their own emotions and those of others. One of the main reasons that the emotional intelligence of those around the leader is significant for the learning of the leader as system is that work is the main source of recognition for many leaders. This means that leaders derive a great deal of personal confirmation from the content, quality and outcomes of their work. For other leaders to introduce a change to that work is therefore very likely to generate anxiety in those leaders whose work may be affected. The navigation of the resulting dissonance from such change is a critical skill for all leaders, as change and innovation are critical to the work of all leaders. My earlier definition of Leadership noted a migration from the status quo. The implication is that someone who simply implements processes without consideration of change or innovation in the interest of progress cannot be viewed as a leader for the purposes of SLL. Relentless demand for higher performance Linked to the three realities of the leader noted above is the relentless demand for greater performance placed upon the leader by customers, shareholders, other leaders and even staff. 108

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

One of the classical conundrums for leaders under such relentless expectations is whether higher performance implies improving of the status quo through improved efficiency or reinventing the status quo through innovation. The former implies that learning for the leader aims to find incremental improvements at best. Learning in this context asks the leader to accept the fundamentals of the status quo, and to look for possible opportunities to leverage efficiencies. The challenge this presents to leaders in the learning situation is that they may be unsure about what to do with breakthrough insights reached during learning. This may lead to some disillusionment for the leader if significant application opportunities are identified, but the leader knows that breakthrough insights will not be welcomed by the sponsoring organisation. The latter, namely improvement through innovation, allows the leader to gain the full benefit of the learning experience. It calls for an honest review of the way things are done and invites leaders to apply the full range of competencies that formed the foundation of their selection and appointment to the organisation in the first instance. The departure from traditional leadership development programmes should be noted here: an SLL-type programme is not limited to whether leaders have understood the learning content. Nor is it confined to whether leaders can find ways of applying the content. SLL encourages leaders to examine the systemic implications of their insights to migrate the system as the result of engaging with the systems of the content, facilitator, organisation and other leaders.

7.1.1 A room with multiple views: perceptual positions Figure 1 shows the three-dimensional framework created based upon the field work that formed the foundation for this book. According to the model, a leader may find a position on each of the dimensions. These are referred to as perceptual positions, since it is often the perception of the leader that will determine the leader’s location on each dimension.

109

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

The value of a three-dimensional model in this context is that it contributes to the sense of orientation and navigation that is essential for leaders to progress along their learning journey. The model shows a number of dimensions identified as key to the successful navigation of the learning process. Each dimension is represented as a continuum. This means that the leader may find a personal position along each continuum. Personal, individual positioning by each leader is essential, and it is the role of each leader in the learning process to display sufficient honesty for meaningful self-assessment. The model further suggests that each leader has a position on each of the dimensions. This means that each leader simultaneously has a position on each dimension. This insight is critical, as it serves to provide greater insight into the leader as system and moves beyond a crude, traditional systemic analysis of the leader as having a number of domains comprising identity, such as •

spiritual

•

intellectual

•

emotional

•

physical

•

social

•

cultural

•

professional

While the domains of identity highlighted above are undoubtedly valuable, the multidimensional model proposed here emphasises the areas critical to learning and analyses the leader as a complex system within the context of learning. The leader in SLL is permanently and simultaneously the collection of all comprising dimensions. The model raises levels of self-awareness with regard to knowledge, skills, and attributes, and also examines the realities of other key stakeholders, some of whom are co-creating the learning process 110

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

through design inputs or a physical presence on the course, and others of whom are wholly disengaged from the learning process. The leader is encouraged to review honestly her levels of knowledge about the self and others. Table 1 indicates some of the variables of a process in which the leader is provoked to review what is known and what is not. It also examines the degree to which the leader knows (is aware of) what is known. Table 1: Known/unknown analysis KNOWN/AWARE

UNKNOWN/UNAWARE

KNOWN

Q1: Knowledge expansion

Q2: Assumed unknown

UNKNOWN

Q3: Knowledge support

Q4: Unaware that it is unknown

Quadrant 1 shows elements that the leader knows are known to her. This suggests that the leader believes that she holds a degree of mastery in the knowledge levels of certain elements of knowledge. The leader in this quadrant “knows what is known”. The opportunity for the leader in this quadrant is for knowledge expansion, that is, to build upon the knowledge that the leader recognises already exists. Quadrant 2 shows knowledge, skill or attribute areas that the leader is aware she does not know. This requires a degree of humility on the part of the leader, as the leader has to concede a degree of ignorance. It may be a good sign of high levels of learning receptiveness on the part of the leader who admits a place in this quadrant. The leader may, of course, discover that she had more knowledge than initially assumed, which serves as great motivation for further learning and increases confidence. More detail is provided on this opportunity in Quadrant 3. Quadrant 3 refers to elements of knowledge, skills or attributes that the leader does not know she knows. An example of this is the review of prior learning. Such a review may demonstrate to the leader that she already holds high levels of competence in the relevant areas. 111

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

What is required in this quadrant is that the leader be made aware of competence already developed and that such insight be followed up with further developmental support of these competencies. Development in this quadrant should focus on complementing the prior learning of the leader. Quadrant 4 shows areas of learning that the leader does not realise are outside of her competence. This area describes leaders who “do not know what they do not know”. An example of such leaders is my experience of a group of leaders at Hatch, a multinational engineering consulting firm. For one assignment, planned for a global structural engineering group, I was instructed on what to “teach” leaders. It was the proposal that more detailed needs analysis be done with the audience of leaders. In simple terms, when leaders were asked what they wanted to learn, their response was that I as the expert should propose the content. When content was proposed, it was declined on the grounds that it would be irrelevant. The leaders thus did not know what they needed to know. The risk for leaders in this quadrant is that, because they are unaware of what is unknown, they may assume that all is known to them. This may render them arrogant and unreceptive to learning. A systemic application of Table 1 encourages leaders to examine how the quadrants would be populated in relation to the other systems at play in the learning situation. For example, does the leader know what is assumed to be known by the organisation, content and facilitator, and is the facilitator conscious of limitations in her own knowledge base? Does the facilitator appreciate what is known only by the leaders in the group that would inform the value of the learning content? Below is an outline of each dimension identified in the proposed multidimensional model. In each case, the leader is encouraged, with the help of the facilitator and with provocation and guidance from the learning content and colleagues, within the context of the organisation represented by the leader, to consider the implications of that leader’s position on the continuum represented by each 112

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

dimension. Furthermore, the leader’s relative position is afforded more detail through an analysis of the dimension in relation to at least two other variables, indicated in a matrix structure. This creates a number of Quadrants, which are numbered from the top-left quadrant to the bottom-right quadrant. The letter “Q” indicates a quadrant. The dimensions are discussed in no particular order, as they are deemed as being at the same level of priority for the leader or at varying levels of priority depending on the leader’s unique vantage point within a series of interrelated systems. It is further important to note that the model does not prescribe an ideal position on any of the dimensions for any leader, as the systemic reality for each leader may be different.

Figure 1: Multidimensional orientation framework

113

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

7.1.1.1 A streetcar named: Fear and Desire One of the dimensions identified is that of Fears and Desires. This dimension evaluates whether the leader’s current behaviour is driven mainly by fears, that is, by people or situations that represent a threat and should be avoided, or whether the leader is driven by desires, that is, the leader is pulled towards the achievement of some identified or implicit goal. Leaders driven by fear may behave evasively and defensively. They attempt continuously to avoid certain risks and base their plans on the avoidance of danger. It is clear that an approach driven by fear may ignore many opportunities that may arise, and for two reasons. The first is that opportunities may represent danger in the form of risk or challenge. The second is that opportunities may not represent fears and therefore may not be deemed worthy of attention. At the same time, fear may be a valuable insight if it is limited to the identification and evasion of serious risk. Leaders driven by desire often appear more positive in their approach. They have defined expected goals and outcomes and navigate themselves and their resources towards the optimal fulfilment of these goals. The risk of this approach is that leaders may follow their goals blindly, without due consideration of the risks involved. They may also justify their behaviour based on the fact that it supports a stated goal, without appreciating the systemic realities of that goal. Table 2 shows an outline of typical Fear and Desire scenarios. It shows the implications of moving both towards and from fears and desires. Table 2: Fears and desires

114

TOWARDS

FROM

FEARS

Q1: Negatively teleological

Q2: Fighting the negative

DESIRES

Q3: Self-determining

Q4: Self-defeating

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

Quadrant 1 shows a move towards or in the direction of fears. This is often caused by the power of negative suggestion, that is, there is so much focus on what to avoid that it ultimately becomes the only thing the leader spends any time on. It is described here as “negatively teleological”, that is, the leader’s behaviour is attracted to and aligned behind exactly what that leader is trying to avoid. Note: “teleology” in this context refers to the design and execution (by commission or omission) by the leader of her own behaviour in the interest of achieving a purpose. An example of this from my experience is that of a large call centre. In this instance, the executive responsible for service wished to avoid a focus on punitive performance management. To this end, he announced the scrapping of the punitive disciplinary records of all call centre staff and declared that they would all start with a clean slate. The result was not, as he had hoped, that staff would appreciate the gesture and stop all negative behaviour. Instead, they used the opportunity to relax their performance, as they realised the disciplinary record would start afresh. In addition, some of the call centre managers secretly kept records of previous disciplinary issues with staff. The result was a flawed initiative. The error proved to have been a lack of focus on expected positive behaviour, and an overemphasis of behaviour that should be avoided. Quadrant 2 shows a scenario of moving away from fears. The challenge with behaviour in this quadrant is that it is negatively formulated – it states what will be avoided, rather than what will be achieved. A classical social example is the fighting of crime. It suggests that crime will be fought, rather than that a safe society will be established. Quadrant 3 demonstrates behaviour that moves the leader towards Desires. This is behaviour that is likely to achieve positive objectives. It is positively formulated and requires careful consideration of the exact nature of the Desires, and should be followed by behaviour that is most likely to achieve the stated goals.

115

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Quadrant 4 shows behaviour that moves the leader away from Desires. Such behaviour is self-defeating, as it creates distance between the leader and the goals. Clearly, no leader deliberately moves away from Desires, but it often happens that leaders are diverted from Desires by a preoccupation with other problems. Very often, leaders simply need to be shown and made aware that their behaviour is deterring them from their stated goals – the simple increase in self-awareness is often enough for the leader to realign behaviour behind the stated goals.

7.1.1.2 Pride and prejudice: Perception and Reality Another dimension identified as critical to learning for the leader is that of Perception and Reality. This dimension is critical owing to the potential impact it may have on leadership decisions. It is clearly essential that leaders should base decisions on Reality rather than Perception, as the response of customers, staff, shareholders and other stakeholders will be based upon their reality, rather than upon the perception of the leader. Herein lies one of the great paradoxes of leadership: the leader must trust and believe her own judgement and demonstrate confidence, but should simultaneously be sensitive to the needs, perceptions and realities of stakeholders. Table 3 shows some of the key considerations in the analysis of the Perception and Reality dimension. The implication is that views which are mere perceptions, while real in the owner of the perception, do not reflect the reality as experienced by others. As the table indicates, the leader should consider (with the help of the facilitator and guided by the learning content) the perceptions and realities both according to the leader and according to other key stakeholders. In Systems Thinking terms, the leader is actively encouraged to gather multiple partial views as a means of testing assumptions. The compulsory difficulties for the leader present themselves clearly: how does the leader know whether her perceptions are real or not, and how does the leader decide on the reality status of the views of others? Which view carries more weight: the reality of the leader or the perceptions of others? They are, of course, potentially interrelated, as the system of the leader’s reality should be sufficiently permeable by the views of other stakeholders. 116

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

Many may philosophically argue that there is no objective reality and that all views are subject to a degree of relativism. It is not the intention here to prove the existence of objective reality, but to encourage leaders in the learning process to, at the very least, test the validity of their assumptions through robust engagement with the perceptual positions of the self and others in the system. Table 3: Perception and Reality LEADER

OTHERS

By leader

Of leader

By others

Of others

PERCEPTION

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

REALITY

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

What the table shows in Q1 and Q5 is that the understanding of this dimension may be further refined by exploring the perceptions and realities by the leader of the leader and others, as well as perceptions and realities of others by themselves. Both perceptions and realities may relate to the organisational environment, challenges, change or any other aspect of the experience of the organisation or leader. Q1 shows perceptions by the leader that are subject to verification. As perceptions, and not reality, they often represent the myopia of the leader, that is, the leader’s inability to see the reality of things outside her immediate view. Q2 shows perceptions of the leader. These perceptions may be held by the leader or any other stakeholder. Whether these perceptions are accurate or not, it is imperative for the leader to be aware of them, as they will impact on the way in which others in the system may be engaged. Q3 shows the views of others. As with the perceptions of the leader, these perceptions may represent the myopia of others, who see matters in a way that suits their own world-view.

117

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Q4 shows the perceptions that are held of others, that is, the way in which others are perceived. These perceptions may be held by the leader as well as third parties and highlight the perception of stakeholders. Q5 shows the true reality aspects in the working environment observed by the leader. This quadrant represents honesty and integrity by the leader in her assessment of the environment. Q6 shows the leader’s true reality as seen by the leader. This quadrant describes a state of healthy self-awareness that allows the leader to gain self-insight and act and make decisions based upon a true state of affairs as they relate to her own behaviour. Q7 represents the truth of others, that is, the way things truly are for them. This is critical for the leader to understand at a profound level, as the leader’s decisions may impact on this reality, resulting in a feedback loop which will impact the likely success of the leader’s decisions. Q8 shows an objective view of others that may be held by the leader, or by the staff, colleagues, clients, peers or other stakeholders in relation to others. This quadrant may also explain the degree to which others understand themselves and those with whom they engage.

7.1.1.3 Secrets and lies: Barriers and Enablers The learning effectiveness of the leader is furthermore impacted by an assessment of the leader’s engagement with Barriers and Enablers. “Barriers” may be defined as any element, internal or external to both the system of the leader or the organisation, that may, in the view of the leader, prevent, limit or retard the progress or implementation of an idea. “Enablers” may be defined as any element, internal or external to both the leader and the organisation, that may, in the view of the leader, advance, free up or accelerate the progress or implementation of an idea. 118

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

Table 4 shows the assessment of the leader’s relative position on this continuum in relation to whether the leader is moving towards or from barriers or enablers. As with a number of the dimensions identified in this model, it may appear glaringly obvious when reviewed on reflection. But the reality of many leaders, at least in my experience, is that a limited degree of self-awareness, driven by habitual overemphasis of activity over results, prevents the leader from understanding her own behaviour and thus limits the opportunities for behaviour modification by the leader. Table 4: Barriers and Enablers TOWARDS

FROM

BARRIERS

Q1

Q2

ENABLERS

Q3

Q4

Quadrant 1 illustrates the implication of a leader whose behaviour moves towards the risk presented by barriers. Leaders who demonstrate this kind of behaviour are investing their energies poorly, as the very thing they are trying to achieve is increasingly being prevented by their actions and decisions through circular causality. They are unable to observe this tendency, as they have multiple objectives and cannot identify behaviours that may be driving certain objectives while damaging others. One of my clients displayed an example of this behaviour. In this instance, the human resources (HR) executive was eager to demonstrate strategic competence as a means for advancing in the organisation, and frequently insisted that she should be more involved in strategic decision making in the business. At the same time, she was determined to ensure the operational efficiency of her unit. To this end, she defined in great detail a number of processes, which she mapped out in linear form and communicated to managers in the business, in order for them to follow in a step-by-step way. It became clear that the process-orientation that was leading towards the standardisation of HR processes in the business was the very 119

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

reason that she was not consulted on strategy more often – her demonstration of operational excellence was forcing the other senior managers and directors to view her as very good at operations, but lacking in strategic impetus. Only when she de-emphasised her operationalisation objectives, could her peers appreciate her strategic insight. Quadrant 2 shows the reality of moving away from potential barriers. It is proposed that leaders display this behaviour as a means of selfprotection; sometimes in an attempt to close the boundaries of their systems to exposure to problems. While there may be value in this behaviour, it places the leader at risk of not confronting and engaging with the implications of the barriers. Barriers exist as the result of other realities, and these realities may be worthy of investigation. Avoidance of these realities may simply create an artificially closed system for the leader, and may lead to barriers reappearing through a systemic feedback loop that the leader has simply ignored. This would find the leader vastly unprepared for dealing with the realities of a barrier that can no longer be avoided. Quadrant 3 shows behaviour characterised by moving towards enablers. This means that the leader is harnessing the appropriate resources for the optimal achievement of goals. The leader is scanning the environment for drivers of goals and is identifying and implementing synergies with the use of those enablers. Quadrant 4 indicates behaviour that moves the leader away from enablers. This quadrant should not be confused with Quadrant 1. In Q1, the leader moves blindly towards barriers. In this quadrant, the leader is moving blindly away from those resources that may advance her goals. The leader is failing to capture the opportunities in the environment and is spending time on less valuable activity. It is true that behaviour in both quadrants may be characterised as self-defeating, as it is the very efforts of the leader that in some way contribute to the retardation in the achievement of goals.

120

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

7.1.1.4 Prince of tides: Rigidity and Fluidity Given the great degree of complexity and challenge confronting modern leaders, and the concomitant personal challenges they have to experience, it is imperative that the leader considers her own Rigidity and Fluidity in the navigation of learning. “Rigidity” describes a degree of inflexibility or refusal to adapt to demands and pressures by stakeholders. A leader high on rigidity demonstrates an overattachment to the way things have been done before and are being conducted at present. Such a leader favours proven recipes over innovation and risk. It is clear that high degrees of rigidity may limit progress and learning, as learning is, by definition, the exploration of what is new and potentially different from what has been done or known before. An approach characterised by rigidity also insulates the leader as system. It closes off the system of the leader and prevents the leader from venturing into, and exploring, other means of achieving goals, and, certainly, in extreme cases, precludes the leader from defining new goals entirely. It thus prevents the leader from progressing both in terms of process (the way things are done) and in terms of content (what is done). A classical example of such behaviour may be found in Founder’s Syndrome, that is, the founder of an organisation, unit or idea who is closed to new ideas and refuses to accept input and advice from others. The founder believes blindly that only the ideas that created the organisation and brought it to its current state are valid and worthy of further investment. Such leaders are not responsive to the demands and opportunities of their multiple containing systems. The complexity of a product range, the variety of varying client needs, the challenges of staff performance, the requisite financial investment spread and the sheer scale of operations required to compete in modern markets, characterised by continuously emerging technologies and variations in the competitive landscape, often prove too much for such leaders of organisations that at one point seemed infallible. Consider, for example, the number of once great organisations that drove their old business models into oblivion during the global financial crisis that started in 2007. 121

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

I am not proposing that some degree of firmness about intentions is not valuable. In fact, robustness of approach and a degree of confidence are essential to success. What is proposed is that the leader become aware of her level of rigidity and examine the value and risks of such convictions within the ever-changing systemic context of the multiple containing environments of the organisation. “Fluidity”, on the other hand, refers to a leader’s ability to demonstrate flexibility and adaptability. It also alludes to a leader’s inclination to explore and learn new things. In this sense, it is an indication of the willingness of a leader to maintain an open system – one that is at least partially receptive to inputs from others. Table 5 shows the dimension of Rigidity and Flexibility in relation to behaviour under conditions of risk and safety. This differentiation is important, as the behaviour of leaders may change depending on the degree of pressure they experience. Behaviour in conditions of risk tends to be more closed, while conditions of safety tend to allow for more openness. Table 5: Rigidity and Fluidity IN RISK

IN SAFETY

RIGIDITY

Q1

Q2

FLUIDITY

Q3

Q4

Quadrant 1 shows behaviour of rigidity under conditions of risk. Once again, the leader may be justified in showing some resistance to change during risk, since the leader is attempting to protect or defend the organisation’s interests under these conditions. One of the risks of this behaviour is that the leader may hold an external locus of control, that is, the leader’s behaviour is the result of predominantly (or even exclusively) external factors, rather than the result of the leader’s internalisation of her own thoughts and learning. This could lead to a habit of reactive behaviour and may prevent the leader from learning about what is required to guide the organisation out of the risk it faces. 122

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

Even if the leader is determined to protect the current interests of the organisation and herself, rather than access new opportunities, the option may still be open for the leader to identify possible contingencies. This presents an opportunity that is slightly less open, but, at the very least, it explores alternative courses of action. It may even be argued that conditions of risk represent the greatest need for openness and learning, as it is precisely the old habits and previous strategies of the organisation that have created the conditions of risk. For the leader to close up her own system and behave with rigidity may therefore, in certain cases, be the worst behaviour to display under conditions of risk. Quadrant 2 shows behaviour of rigidity under conditions of safety. This behaviour may, at first glance, appear incomprehensible and unlikely for leaders, but closer investigation may make such behaviour defensible. Such behaviour is typically found in leaders who lack the confidence to venture. This lack of confidence may, in turn, be the result of the leader’s own lack of self-esteem or may emanate as a result of a working environment that punishes risk and castigates failure. Thus, while external business conditions may be safe from risk, the internal organisational environment may present risk to the leader’s behaviour. Similar internal self-destruction has already been alluded to in the description of the Al-Aima Bridge Effect above. It may be advisable for a leader under such conditions to become aware of unnecessarily high stress levels among staff and within the leader herself, and to introduce a very limited degree of risk as a means of navigating towards a greater acceptance thereof. Quadrant 3 shows behaviour of fluidity under conditions of risk. This behaviour illustrates an internal locus of control, that is, the leader’s behaviour is driven by internalisation of thought and insights, and is not exclusively driven by the risk factors in the external environment. As with all behaviour, this conduct introduces a number of risks. While it may be admirable that the leader focuses on her own thinking, the leader may be so enamoured of that internal thought process that external factors may be ignored. 123

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

It is advisable for leaders in this quadrant to remain open to external factors that may impact upon the system of the leader or the organisation. Such leaders will also benefit from consolidation of processes and protocols to ensure that the organisation is safeguarded against risk. Quadrant 4 describes behaviour of fluidity under conditions of safety. Fluid behaviour is most likely to occur under safe conditions, as they provide the optimal opportunity for exploration with limited risk. Leaders under such conditions who do not demonstrate fluidity are unlikely to do so under any conditions. They are in effect depriving their organisations of the benefits of innovation and organisational learning, even during periods of relative security. Leaders who do seize the opportunity for exploration have developed the requisite confidence for bold action. An enabling environment will offer the necessary support to allow leaders the freedom to explore under these conditions, providing ample space for speculation regarding, and exploration and anticipation of potential future risks and opportunities.

7.1.1.5 The awful truth: Self-consciousness and Selfawareness Another dimension that is critical to the synthesis of the system of the leader in the learning situation is that of Self-consciousness and Selfawareness. This continuum examines the degree of self-insight on the part of the leader. It is essential owing to the fact that it is ultimately the leader who will be required to find application opportunities from the learning content. While it is important for the leader to understand the environment, the leader also has to gain insight into her internal landscape in order for the optimal implementation of insights reached. “Self-consciousness” may be described as that state in which the leader becomes aware of her differentiation from others, but in which this difference has not been internalised and integrated into a coherent and dynamic system of being.

124

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

“Self-awareness”, on the other hand, describes a state of being for the leader in which those distinguishing elements of the leader’s complete make-up as leader, as well as those elements that are similar to others, have been synthesised into a coherent and congruent construct of self. It is a state in which the leader is aware of her own typical style and mode of behaviour as it may relate to •

decision making

•

engagement with others

•

the need for structure

•

physical characteristics

•

a world-view and philosophy

•

culture

•

behaviour under stress or in crisis

•

a problem-solving orientation

•

the taking of responsibility

•

learning style

•

personality

•

intelligence

•

and any other variable of the leader’s overall personal system that may impact the leadership style of that leader

Table 6 shows integration between Self-consciousness and Selfawareness in relation to whether the leader has a sense of comfort or discomfort with the state of being.

125

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Table 6: Self-consciousness and Self-awareness COMFORT

DISCOMFORT

SELF-

Q1: Dishonest with

Q2: Reverts to known

CONSCIOUSNESS

self

& proven; unwilling to

Activity; my

venture

appearance; reactive; self-obsessed; incongruent with self SELF-AWARENESS

Q3: Self-determining;

Q4: Receptive to

Process; my impact;

personal mastery and

learning

proactive; self-

performance wellness

integrated; congruent with self

Quadrant 1 shows a leader who is in a state of Self-consciousness (as defined above), but who behaves as though she has a sense of comfort with this state. Such a leader displays a lack of honesty with the self and therefore represents a state of false Self-awareness, that is, the leader is in a state of pretence and false modesty that prevents her from gaining real and profound self-insight from learning. Such leaders are unconscious that they may be closing themselves as systems and that they may be depriving their own systems of valuable energy for self-sustainability. They may find themselves suddenly on the verge of entropy without having monitored the decay of their systems. Quadrant 2 shows a leader who is in a state of Self-consciousness, but has a degree of discomfort with this state. Such a leader may have been made aware of her unusual or even deviant behaviour, and may even have realised the impact it has on others, but has not yet taken action to internalise the learning in an attempt to modify behaviour. For leaders with true intent for learning, this may be an interim phase on their learning journey toward Self-awareness. Leaders who feel overwhelmed and threatened by the provocation to their degree of self-insight may become defensive in response. They may, as a result, revert to the known and “proven” elements of their behaviour, that is, those characteristics of their behaviour that 126

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

they believe gave them the success and position they now hold. Such leaders are unlikely to venture and to explore the full potential of the learning journey available, because they actively close themselves up as systems. Quadrant 3 shows a leader in a state of Self-awareness who has developed a sense of comfort with the self-insight gained though learning and reflection. Such leaders have moved beyond Selfconsciousness, in which they became aware of characterising behaviour they display, and have internalised learning they have gained regarding themselves. These leaders may be conscious of gaps in their competency make-up, but they have taken action to migrate their own systems towards dynamic growth. They do not view learning as threatening, but as a means of introducing dynamic energy into their systems. Leaders in this state may be described as possessing personal mastery, as they have a degree of honesty about themselves and continuously take action to enthuse their systems through learning. Quadrant 4 shows a leader in a state of Self-awareness who has a degree of discomfort with this state. While the discomfort may be distressing to the leader, that leader is nonetheless receptive to learning. This is different from Quadrant 2 in which the leader has discomfort with Self-consciousness, in the sense that the leader in Quadrant 4 has already made the decision to learn and grow, despite the discomfort experienced. Leaders in this quadrant have not yet internalised learning and taken action such as those in Quadrant 3, but their intent allows their systems to be open to the dynamic energy represented by the potential of learning.

7.1.1.6 No country for old ideas: Degree of Change It is furthermore proposed that the leader also have awareness of the degree of change that both the leader and organisation have experienced in the recent past. It is important for the learning process that the leader appreciate such change, as insight into recent change may, in turn, provide great insight into the degree of receptiveness and the approach the leader has towards the learning opportunity. 127

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Table 7 shows the degree of change as high, medium or low on the X-axis, and the area of change, whether in the self or the containing and related environments, on the Y-axis. Table 7: Degree of change IN SELF

HIGH

MEDIUM LOW

IN ENVIRONMENT Expectation

Change in

from others on

others or

self

environment

Q1: Developed

Q2: New

Q3: New role for

identity

perception of self

self

Understand

Understand

Understand

impact

impact

impact

Understand

Understand

Understand

source

source

source

Quadrant 1 shows a leader who has experienced a high degree of change in the self. The exact reasons for the change should be explored, as the nature of the change may impact the degree of receptiveness of the leader. Consider, for example, a leader who has undergone a high degree of change as the result of being redeployed into a new role. This leader who has navigated the change successfully will have made great strides in developing personal adaptability and in learning about the new challenges the new role may present. Consider, now, the attendance of such a leader on a programme on Change Management with a focus on convincing leaders of the benefits of change – such a leader has already experienced the process and has already accepted the change. The programme may therefore offer little value to that leader, and may even appear insulting. As an example, I facilitated a programme on Change Management for a client, in which delegates had already navigated high levels of change as the result of a restructure. Leaders on this programme had experienced severe change and had already mastered the skills of managing personal change. As a result, they were highly unreceptive to 128

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

a programme that highlighted the benefits of change and encouraged openness to change, since they considered such learning outcomes as obvious theories of change that the chief executive officer (CEO) had required them to learn. Given their significant recent change, the programme had to undergo the Real-Time Design mentioned above, and we had to move from a focus on accepting change to anticipating change and preparing for the next disruption as a strategic imperative for sustainability. It is therefore clear that insight about recent change for the leader is not only required by the leader, but also by the facilitator of learning. It is further essential, as proposed above, that learning content itself should display the characteristics of a complex adaptive system so as to accommodate the learning needs discovered by the leaders and facilitator while on a course. The leader in such a situation may benefit from adapting behaviour in congruence with self-insight gained from the learning process in relation to insights gained from recent change. Quadrants 2 and 3 refer to change that occurred not in the leader but in the environment. The first change, proposed in Quadrant 2, describes a change in the expectation that others have of the leader. This typically occurs where the stakeholders of the leader have changed. There may have been a change in the network or immediate colleagues of the leader, or the ownership of the organisation may have changed. Another example is that the customers with whom the leader engages most frequently may have changed. The leader develops a new self-perception, as influenced by the new expectations on that leader. It is essential for such a leader to test the motivation of others for the changed expectations they have, as it may be due to a change in their needs, rather than the result of a change in the leader. The leader in such a situation may be well advised to adapt behaviour with a clear insight into the nature of the new relationships and expectations. Quadrant 3 describes a change not in the leader (Q1) or the expectations of others (Q2), but in the nature of others or in the environment of the leader. 129

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

An example of this from my experience is a trade union boss who became a CEO. In this case, a trade union managed the interests of its union members and also administered the benefit funds of its members, including the pension fund and medical aid fund. The head of the union realised an opportunity to strip out the benefit fund administration offering from the union and form a separate company to offer this service back to union. This would allow the newly formed company the commercial opportunity to administer benefit funds for other clients as well. As a result of the formation of the new company, the role of the leader changed from that of a union boss to that of a CEO of a commercial enterprise. While the union used to be an organisation under his control, it was now a client of his, and thus it determined the service levels it expected of him. One of the executives in the union now became the union boss and relationships were dramatically redefined. It is clear from this example that it was predominantly the nature of those in the containing and related environment that changed, thus impacting on the learning requirements placed on the leader. It is essential that the leader gain insight into the nature of a change in others or in the environment, as these elements form part of the system of the leader – the leader must accept the definition of her system as extending beyond the self and including contextual components and relationships. As a result, it is essential that the leader develop a new role identity and acquire a sense of comfort with the new role. A leader in such a situation may benefit from a review of system dependencies in the new system. The System Dependency Analysis below provides more insight. Whenever a leader experiences change, the leader will inevitably experience both a sense of loss and a sense of gain. The sense of loss is the result of those parts of the system that served the leader in the past no longer being within the boundaries of the leader’s system. It is important that the leader recognise this loss, as the leader may be prevented from directly harnessing these elements as resources in future.

130

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

As per Table 7 above, for instances where the degree of change is only medium, it is essential that the leader explore the potential impact of the change. It may not require dramatic self-transformation on the part of the leader, but demands at least a deep understanding of the system implications of the change. For changes in respect of which the impact is low, it is proposed that the leader have, at the very least, a clear indication of the source of the change. This may not be easily determined, as complex systems may hide triggers to change. The leader would be well served to identify at least one trigger of change. A detailed systems analysis may not be required, and, certainly, a complete redefinition of the self would be an overreaction and place too many demands on the leader, as minor changes occur almost continuously. A clear understanding of the source of the change may accelerate the leader’s insight into the change and will guide the leader should the change evolve (as systems tend to do) to become greater in impact. The sense of gain may be found in the rationale of the proposed change. It is clear that the rationale for the change may not have been designed around the needs of the leader, but rather based upon the needs of the organisation. The challenge for the leader experiencing change is therefore not only to cope with change in terms of redesigning processes, but also to identify the personal gain that may be derived as a result of the change, such as learning and new relationships and influence. Table 8 describes the loss and gain that may be the result of the change in relation to the risk and benefit associated with the change. Table 8: Loss and gain RISK

BENEFIT

LOSS

Q1

Q2

GAIN

Q3

Q4

Quadrant 1 shows the risk associated with the experience of loss, as defined above. Risks that may feature in this quadrant are associated 131

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

with the loss of resources no longer under the control of the leader. The leader may undervalue the loss of these resources or may be unaware of the loss of resources until the need to harness them recurs. Quadrant 2 in Table 7 describes the benefit that may be derived from a loss. Examples of elements in this quadrant include the removal of damage, risks, destructive forces and any other damaging elements of a system. It is important to note, however, that these elements did once serve a purpose in the system and were connected to other elements in the system. Therefore, the removal of these elements is likely to impact several other elements in the system due to the interconnectedness. Quadrant 3 shows the risk associated with gain. Often, gain can be viewed one-dimensionally, without full honesty by leaders regarding the risks involved in the gain. Acquisitions are classic examples of risk emanating from gain – holding companies acquire other companies, but also take on the debt and risk inherent to those acquired organisations. This is one reason why many organisations follow a policy of organic growth, which provides greater insight owing to the incremental and heuristic nature of the expansion of the organisation as system. Quadrant 4 shows the benefit associated with gain. This is perhaps the most obvious domain of the table, as leaders unusually note the benefit of something in their favour. What is perhaps less clear to leaders is the shadow side of the benefit, that is, the concomitant elements of gain such as described in the Authority Paradox. What is furthermore unclear to many leaders is the full benefit, as opposed to the obvious benefit. The full benefit requires a detailed exploration of the gain on the part of the leader. It requires leaders to ask questions about the full systemic benefit and the alternative value of gains beyond the obvious advantages. The exploration of greater synergy is one clear option for the examination of benefit beyond the obvious.

132

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

7.2 INDEPENDENCE DAY: THE LEADER’S PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY This was a thing we could not wait to learn. We saw the risk we took in doing good, But dared not spare to do the best we could. Robert Frost, “The Exposed Nest”

While insight about the self and the environment is essential for optimal learning by the leader, it is also essential that the leader should take action as a result of learning. The leader has to define a personal responsibility for the application of learning opportunities gleaned from the learning process. Table 9 shows the responsibility of the leader towards the self and towards others, as constituted by stakeholders of the leader. It also shows the responsibility to gain insight and to take action, both of which are viewed as valuable behaviours by the leader. Table 9: Personal responsibility from learning

TOWARDS SELF

LEADER’S INSIGHT

LEADER’S ACTION

Q1: Learn

Q2: Identify objectives & implement

TOWARDS OTHERS

Q3:Empathetic

Q4: Communicate

understanding

Quadrant 1 shows the leader’s responsibility towards the self to gain insight. The behaviour required from the leader in this quadrant is to learn. Such learning may be focused on the self, the environment or any of the stakeholders or other elements in the containing or related environments of the leader. “Insight” in this context is seen as a precursor of action, and is therefore essential for meaningful action to follow.

133

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Quadrant 2 shows the leader’s responsibility towards the self in relation to action to be taken. Leaders are required in this quadrant to translate insight into action. In its simplest form, leaders in this quadrant are required to identify specific objectives as a result of their self-insight and to start the process of implementation for the achievement of those objectives. It is essential that insight should translate into action, as the leader is compelled to achieve tangible results. In SLL, it is essential that leaders explore the systemic implications of their actions, and that they should not act simply as a reaction to learning or because their organisational cultures favour a bias for action. Quadrant 3 shows the responsibility of the leader towards others in relation to the required insight about them. The leader in this quadrant is required to develop an empathetic understanding of others. This means that the leader has to gain a full appreciation of the realities of others. This insight is essential due to the fact that these “others” form part of the system of the leader and will therefore impact upon the leader’s system. Developing a detailed understanding of the realities of others will provide the leader with greater insight about 1

how to navigate engagements with them

2

the likely expectations and the resulting reciprocal impact others may have on the leader

Quadrant 4 shows the responsibility of the leader towards others in relation to the action the leader is required to take. In simple terms, it is the obligation of the leader in this quadrant to communicate, within the full and complete meaning of communication. Without wishing to offer an exposition on the art of communication, only the most salient communication responsibilities are outlined here. The leader should, at the very least, communicate a clear and compelling ideal state – clarity on the future is essential for the most effective navigation to that destination. The leader should further create real and meaningful engagements with others regarding their 134

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

realities. In this sense, Quadrant 3 provides the insight for the action required in Quadrant 4. Communication in a systemic sense means gaining insight into the relative significance of people and events as leverage points within the system. It requires the leader to engage others not only on the leader’s views of the system, but also on the nature of others as systems in their own right and their (albeit partial) view of their role within the system. This will, in turn, provide the leader with valuable insight regarding the optimal way for the continuous and living design of the system. It is clear from the outline above that, while learning often emphasises insight, SLL encourages leaders to move beyond insight into systemically informed action. This move towards action should not be delayed until leaders have left the learning situation, but should be identified and planned at a high level during the learning situation, while the leader can still test her systemic reality against the learning content, the experience of the facilitator, and the experience and insights of the leader’s peers on the learning programme. Therefore, insight in SLL is not limited to an understanding of the learning content, but explicitly extends to insight about the systemic implications of learning content for the reality of the leader.

7.2.1 Rain Man: a Learning Need Locator How leaders have come to know what they do can often be a mystery. They have diverse experiences of work and exposure to concepts that all conjoin to form a holistic learning schema. One of the most critical elements of the learning process is the determination of exactly what the leader is required to learn. It is clear that systems other than that of the leader may wish to determine the answer to this question. These systems include the organisation, the facilitator or the canon of learning content in a relevant field of study. These systems may even include other leaders, clients or stakeholders further removed from the leader. Given the self-perceived supra-system status of the leader during the learning situation, it follows that the needs of the leader are paramount. These needs naturally lie within the context of the organisational objectives, but are best defined by the system that will implement the insights from learning, namely the leader. 135

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

While a Learning Needs Analysis may be conducted with specific learning challenges in mind, Table 10 provides a generic overview of typical focus areas of learning. Table 10: Focus areas of learning Knowledge

Skills

Attributes

Learning area Task technical People – relational Managerial Leadership Culture fit Potential

As the table demonstrates, the typical learning areas are listed in the far-left column and may include

136

•

task technical requirements: these competencies are areas related to the specific content of the job role

•

relational: these competencies are areas related to the ability of the learner to establish, develop and maintain sound working relationships in order to achieve results

•

conceptual: these competencies refer to the cognitive domain and relate to the need and ability to solve complex problems

•

managerial: these competencies include standard and generic management functions, such as planning, organising, budgeting, communicating goals, delegating tasks, et cetera

•

leadership: these competencies are defined by the full gamut of responsibility related to the creation of a future state

•

cultural: these competencies relate to the ability of the leader to integrate with the dominant norms and values of the organisation (It is not proposed that the leader should suspend personal culture, but simply that the leader should find a means of integration between personal culture and that of the organisation.)

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

•

potential: “potential” is defined here as the ability to learn and do more (Responsiveness to learning and consideration of higherlevel possibilities of achievement are key determinants.)

For each cluster of competencies, we should determine whether the competency requirements relate predominantly to Knowledge, Skills or Attributes. “Knowledge” implies technical, factual information as well as insight into typical technical challenges. “Skills” relates to the ability to execute specific tasks or series of tasks. “Attributes” relates to the overall approach, attitude and mind-set required for the successful resolution and completion of tasks. Knowledge, skills and attributes may be further defined in terms of 1

the people who require the learning

2

the specific area of knowledge, skills or attributes deserving of development

7.2.2 From here to eternity: Impact Scope Analysis One of the key considerations for the decision on the selection of learning content and the expectations organisations have of leaders is the overall impact the organisation expects the learning process to produce. In my experience, the very mention of the expected outcome of the learning process can create confusion, even for senior leaders. It appears as though the learning process is often the aim in itself – training departments have to prove that they have done training, and that is what they do. The dialogue on expected final outcome seems to disappear as soon as training starts. Given the reality that it is the leader who experiences the learning process, and not the leader’s staff, the organisation or other stakeholders, it follows that whatever impact will result from the learning process will be the direct result of the leader’s engagement with the vast array of components in the system. In this sense, 137

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

application opportunities from leadership development are therefore dependent as much upon the leader’s ability to understand, challenge and internalise learning, as they are upon the leader’s motivation and ability to perpetuate the insights gained from learning through engagement with stakeholders and processes. In my experience, the learning process will have an impact on three broad spectra of the leader’s system in the workplace, which, as Figure 2 shows, may be characterised as 1

self-impact

2

impact on others

3

strategic–reciprocal impact

Others

Themselves

Strategic-reciprocally

Figure 2: Impact Scope Analysis

The diagram shows the three areas in a triangle, because of the interrelated nature of the three areas of impact, as outlined below. “Self-impact” refers to the changes that will occur in the leader as a result of the learning process. This may influence the leader’s competence in a myriad of ways related to the leader’s knowledge, skills and attributes, as explained above. It is clear that self-impact will ultimately impact others, as leaders continuously influence others as part of their leadership role as significant actors in the organisational system. 138

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

“Impact on others” relates to the motivation and ability of the leader to impact other stakeholders as a result of the leader’s insights reached during learning. It is clear that the successful impact on others will ultimately impact the leader, as the leader is part of the system and is thus impacted through the continuous feedback loop that permeates the system – leaders are not immune to the reality of circular causality that flows from their decisions and actions. “Strategic–reciprocal impact” is a phenomenon observed as a further possibility that extends the scope of the impact of learning. This phenomenon occurs when the leader, as a result of insights reached, researches the realities of the organisation as system as a means of exploring that leader’s potential to have an impact beyond the leader’s immediate team or processes under the leader’s control. A leader who pursues strategic–reciprocal impact attempts to identify opportunities that will advance the organisation without having to be responsible for the implementation of the opportunities identified. It is partly an altruistic pursuit, as the leader’s own team will not gain the resources for the management of the initiatives that will drive the opportunity identified. But such work is also partly done in selfinterest, as any benefit bestowed upon the organisation as a result of the leader’s insight and drive for the opportunity, will ultimately be reciprocated through indirect benefit back to all the leaders of the organisation – hence the terminology of strategic–reciprocal impact. Table 11 shows a tool for the identification of specific learning needs in greater detail. It shows People on the Y-axis and Performance Areas, or specific areas requiring development, on the X-axis.

139

140

Senior leaders

providers

Suppliers / service

Clients

Teams

Support

Staff

Self

PEOPLE Finance & Cost

Process &

Operations

Engagement

Technology Strategy

Change &

Innovation,

PERFORMANCE AREAS Action

Motivation & Growth

Skills &

Learning,

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Table 11: Learning Need Locator

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

The far-left column (People) refers to the audience or immediate beneficiary of the learning process. Such beneficiaries may include •

self – this refers to learning required by the leader

•

staff – this refers to the immediate reports of the leader

•

support – this refers to staff who support the effectiveness of the leader, but do not report to the leader directly, such as HR, Information Technology (IT), Finance, Legal or other support departments

•

teams – this refers to development needs located in the way in which teams engage internally and with other teams in the organisation

•

clients – this refers to the beneficiaries of the core work of the leader and her team [These may be internal clients (also paid by the organisation) or external clients (those who pay the organisation for its services). One of the noteworthy current trends here is in the field of customer education, that is, facilitating for an organisation’s customers on the optimal use of its products and services.]

•

suppliers/service providers – this refers to those entities outside the immediate and controlled boundaries that deliver services to the organisation (It is essential that service providers have a deep understanding of the culture and processes that govern the organisation, as this provides clarity of context.)

•

senior leaders – this refers to those leaders to whom the relevant leader reports (It has already been clarified that, for the purposes of this book, the definition of Leadership includes anyone in an organisation who leads people, processes or thinking.)

Any of the beneficiaries above may require development on a range of Performance Areas. These Performance Areas include learning in relation to •

Process & Operations – this learning need relates to process sequencing and operational efficiency in the interest of optimal output.

141

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

•

Finance & Cost – this relates to the management of financial aspects of the organisation and extends to cost efficiency.

•

Technology Engagement – this refers to the interaction between people and the technology at their disposal. It may include development on the optimal use of technological resources.

•

Innovation, Change & Strategy – this relates to all areas aimed at advancing the organisation through the introduction of new focus areas and/or ways of doing. This Performance Area emphasises all that is new in the organisation.

•

Motivation & Action – this explores an action-orientation. It includes all areas that may advance or impede the taking of action, including the attitudes and determination of any of the beneficiaries identified above.

•

Learning, Skills & Growth – this refers to the ability of beneficiaries to respond to development as well as to the overall skills profiles of beneficiaries. It also includes the general culture of learning in the members of the identified learning audience.

The matrix described above provides the designer of learning, as well as the leader, with at least 42 options to commence the development process. Such an analysis suggests a respectful view of the beneficiaries as systems in their own right, with unique learning needs. The implication is that a great number of application opportunities from learning are likely, owing to the fact that an analysis of the learning needs of particular systems and subsystems has been made. A comparison between such an analysis preceding a learning event and the traditional approach of “get people in a room and teach them” makes clear the contribution of SLL as an approach for development. It is important to note that, in true systemic interactive complexity, all the People elements are in potential relationships with one another, as are the Areas of Performance, just as Areas of Performance are in potential relationships with other Areas of Performance. Such systemic interrelatedness offers great insight into learning needs, as it explores the possible causal relationships and therefore the areas of leverage for the learning process. This will, in turn, inform the 142

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

selection of content as a vantage point, as well as the selection of facilitators and the development of requisite mind-sets throughout the learning system.

7.2.3 The sum of all fears: strategic awareness While self-awareness is essential as part of the leader’s skills set, the role of a leader extends beyond an understanding of the self to an in-depth appreciation of the intentions of the organisation. If one accepts the tenet that it is the leader’s role to align people with the strategic objectives of the organisation, it is essential that the leader should have high levels of clarity about these objectives. Strategic awareness therefore forms the foundation upon which self-insight has to be contextualised. The leader now has to integrate self-insight with insight about the organisation.

7.2.3.1 Scenario Dependency Matrix One tool developed for the analysis of strategy and the improvement of strategic awareness is the Scenario Dependency Matrix. It provides a simple, yet dynamic, instrument for the balancing of possible scenarios. It was developed as a tool for learning in response to confusion that leaders often experienced when more than one variable impacted on their strategies. It is one way for leaders to avoid being paralysed by the complexity of multiple permutations. Table 12 shows the Condition on the X-axis and the Consequence on the Y-axis. Conditions refer to one set of possible scenarios and are prerequisites for the occurrence of Consequences. Consequences, in turn, are the direct results of the meeting of the Conditions identified. Both Conditions are expressed positively and negatively.

143

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Table 12: Scenario Dependency Matrix CONSEQUENCE

Then that Then not that

CONDITION If this…

If not this…

Q1: Positive Mutual

Q2: Alternative

Conditionality

Conditionality

Q3: Mutual

Q4: Negative Mutual

Exclusivity

Conditionality

Quadrant 1 shows a scenario of “Positive Mutual Conditionality”. This means that a certain consequence is directly dependent upon the occurrence of a specific condition. The occurrence of the condition will automatically lead to the identified consequence, whether directly or through a ripple effect in the system. This type of “If… then…” conditionality is vastly overused and often lacks the probabilistic nuances required from uncertainty. Consider, for example, the notion that, if we develop our leaders, they will be more productive. The reality is often that development means, simply, course attendance. Not only does this not deterministically lead to improved productivity, but it may, counterintuitively, lead to leaders being exposed to ideas during training that alert them to the futility of their attempts at work. With some clients, this has even led to resignation. Quadrant 2 shows a scenario of “Alternative Conditionality”. This means that a certain consequence will only occur if a specific condition does not occur. An example may be the belief that we will only improve performance if we do not accept errors. In reality, errors are a normal part of exploration (as a containing system). In the absence of exploration, new ways of improving performance are not explored, which may result in perpetuating current practices and patterns of behaviour. Quadrant 3 shows a scenario of “Mutual Exclusivity”. This means that the condition and the consequence are mutually exclusive, that is, if the condition occurs, the consequence will not take place. This is differentiated from Quadrant 2 in the sense that, in Quadrant 3, the condition does indeed occur, while, in Quadrant 2, it does not. 144

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

Consider, for example, the idea that, if we hire people with lower academic qualifications, our values will not flourish. This fallacy is not uncommon in traditional work environments where academic qualification is equated with almost all virtue at higher managerial levels. The reality is that value systems operate quite independently from the vast majority of values required for business success. Quadrant 4 shows a scenario of “Negative Mutual Conditionality”. This means that, if the condition does not occur, the consequence will also not occur. This is different from Quadrant 1 in the sense that, in Quadrant 4, the condition does not occur, whereas, in Quadrant 1, it does. An example here may be the belief that, if we do not communicate the strategy, staff cannot hold us accountable for its implementation, and, consequently, we will not disappoint their expectations – a perverse tactic often employed in environments of great uncertainty. In reality, the absence of communication on strategy creates a vacuum, which increases the very uncertainty this tactic was hoping to prevent. A positive example may be that, if we do not engage customers in the design process of future product ranges, they may feel disengaged from our offering. It is clear from the above examples that causality deserves closer scrutiny during the learning process.

7.2.3.2 Lost in translation: customer concerns Unless the programme is on Customer Service or strategic access to the customer, leadership development can be deafeningly silent on the impact on the customer. Such vast literature exists on the subject of the relationship between organisations and their customers that only a brief contextualisation within SLL will be done here. The key implication in SLL for customer engagement is that, if the leader is able to be the supra-system during the learning situation, then the customer may well have a self-perception of being the suprasystem during the service engagement. This view was expressed and met with interest at the presentation of a paper I delivered at the launch of The South African Experiment at the Johannesburg 145

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Stock Exchange on 20 October 2007, which had Customer Service for South Africa as its theme. The implication of this insight is that the leader with systemic awareness can appreciate the fact that the experience of the customer will be different from the experience of the leader – glaringly obvious when you say it like that! The leader is therefore required to examine in some detail the nature of the customer as system and respond to needs as they emerge from that system, rather than blindly pushing solutions based upon the reality of the system of the leader. This has significant implications for learning, since the trap in learning is often that the content, and not the customer, dominates.

7.2.4 Field of dreams: operationalisation While the effectiveness of the learning process is essential for the internalisation of learning content, it is critical for return on learning investment that specific application opportunities are identified. It is my view that there is growing disillusionment with so-called leadership coaches and leadership experts who expound, Oprah-like, on the virtues of congruence and integral living and leading, while businesses burn as customers’ needs are neglected and projects fail. The multidimensional orientation framework proposed identifies four generically applicable options for responses to strategic awareness reached. The leader only exercises these options once substantial insight has been reached as a result of the other dimensions in the framework. This ensures that the leader avoids emotional decisions and allows for options that will serve the leader’s true ideal state, based on honest analysis and significant self-insight. The options are explained below.

7.2.4.1 Emphasise It is essential that the leader move beyond an intellectual understanding of challenges and create plans for the implementation of those insights. This means that the leader should harness resources and align them behind the strategic intentions based on the insights 146

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

reached from learning. The call to “Emphasise” implies that additional time and resources should be dedicated to the intention. Leaders do indeed reach great insight in the learning situation, but they then often allow these insights to dilute into the day-to-day activity of managing operations. These day-to-day operations aim to retain current processes, rather than improve or redesign them. As a result, insights reached during learning often evaporate and seldom reach application in the workplace. Emphasis requires additional focus and investment of time and effort. Taking a conscious decision to emphasise certain intentions increases the likelihood that further value-adding action may be taken in the workplace.

7.2.4.2 De-emphasise Leaders often comment during learning that certain projects receive attention and resources beyond their value to the organisation or its people. This may be due to the personal ambitions of certain leaders in the organisation or may be the result of the legacy of leaders who have already left the organisation, the ripple effect of which is experienced far beyond its origin. Such disproportionate emphasis can become an organisational habit, and may be allocated to certain kinds of projects simply on the grounds that it is the dominant, accepted culture in that organisation. In SLL, leaders may gain insight of the disproportionality of resources allocated as the perceived value of certain projects with significant resources allocated to them may emerge to be false. This should not mean that these projects have to be removed in their entirety – they simply need to be adjusted and given an appropriate resource allocation. This process is referred to in the framework for this book as the process to “De-emphasise” disproportionately supported projects. We should note that this does not mean that leaders should pretend, in an “either... or...” manner, that these projects no longer exist, since, even after de-emphasis, they will remain in the systemic reality of the leader.

147

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

7.2.4.3 Ignore It may become clear in the learning situation that leaders have been focusing on entirely the wrong aspect to address a certain challenge – this is often the case when a systemic lens is applied. Their focus may have been skewed by personal ambitions or legacy policies that have created myopia for leaders and caused inappropriate strategies. One such example in my experience is the type of talent attracted to the contact-centre environment in newly created enterprises. Such companies often believe that attracting talented graduates presents them with the opportunity to “recruit from the call centre” for other positions in the organisation. The language often heard is that the contact centre needs “young, vibey, funky, bright staff”. The reality, however, is that the true nature of the work in many contact centres is highly repetitive and in no way represents the ambitions of “young, vibey, funky, bright staff”. This assumption then often proves to be false when it is realised that the average period of tenure in the contact centre is exceedingly short, which means that graduates do not enjoy the environment and do not stay in the organisation long enough to be promoted out of the call centre. Some of my clients now actively ignore graduates in their selection criteria for contact-centre staff. This strategy to “Ignore” certain aspects that deserved special attention in the past allows organisations to focus on the real challenges at hand. They no longer need to be blinded by deeply held perceptions that prove to be false as a result of learning.

7.2.4.4 Delete The last option proposed in this framework involves elements that should not be de-emphasised or ignored, but actively deleted. This call to “Delete” certain projects, processes, beliefs or risks encourages leaders to take bold steps to align themselves with their strategic intent and the insights reached from learning. It implies the complete removal of certain elements of the organisation, whether at a small or macrolevel. This action should not be limited 148

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

to the removal of energy from that element with the aim of causing its demise, since the slow process of deterioration may impact negatively on other elements of the organisation as the component decays. Consider, for example, the required action to deal with a senior leader who has repeatedly proven to be a destructive force and active barrier to advancement for the organisation. Allowing that leader to simply be ignored, allows for the rest of the organisation, especially the team led by that leader, to be negatively affected by the presence and decisions that leader is still able to make during his remaining tenure. It may be more advisable to remove the leader from the organisation completely in order to remove the threat posed. Even then, such “deletion” should be done with the insight that the leader may once again impact the organisation in future, as that leader will form part of an industry, as its containing system, in which the organisation aims to thrive. The call to “Delete” should not be read as an attempt to close up the system of the organisation and deprive it of life-giving energy. Rather, it is a redefinition of the system boundaries of the organisation to limit the impact of destructive forces.

7.3 HORRIBLE BOSSES: LEARNING SYSTEM LEVELS It is a central tenet of SLL that the leader holds a self-perception of having supra-system status during the learning situation. In practical terms, this means that the leader will tend to subordinate the systems of the organisation, facilitator and learning content to the realities of that leader’s own system. The risk of holding such a perception seems great: do leaders believe that they are more significant than the organisation? Table 13 shows the balance of supra-system status between the organisation and the leader. It shows the implications for the status of learning content in scenarios where both the leader and organisation act as suprasystem and subsystem in the learning situation.

149

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Table 13: Learning system levels ORGANISATION AS

ORGANISATION AS

SUBSYSTEM

SUPRA-SYSTEM

LEADER AS

Q1: Content as default

Q2: Content as

SUBSYSTEM

supra-system

propaganda

LEADER AS

Q3: Content as agent

Q4: Content as

SUPRA-SYSTEM

provocateur

irrelevant; power struggle emerges

Quadrant 1 shows the implications for the status of learning content if both the leader and the organisation act as subsystems in the learning situation. The implication here is that dual subsystem status of the leader and organisation creates a supra-system vacuum. In this case, this vacuum will be filled by the learning content. This means that the learning content becomes the supra-system, to which both the leader and organisation are subordinated. Such subordination of the systems of the leader and the organisation furthermore implies that their interests are not served. Learning content becomes the system that shall be served. Therefore, any challenges proffered by the leader in the learning situation may be denied on the grounds that the challenges do not fit in with the system of the learning content. Quadrant 2 shows the implications for the status of learning content if the leader is the subsystem in a process where the organisation is the supra-system during learning. The result is that the interests of the leader are subordinated to those of the organisation. This appears counterproductive, as it is the leader who is required to learn and to apply the learning within a personal context. Learning content in such a scenario is viewed as propaganda, that is, learning content aims to convince the leader of the reality of the organisation, irrespective of the leader’s real experience of that reality.

150

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

The leader’s reality is once again ignored in this scenario, and content serves as the flag bearer of messages by the organisation – content is presented as being above the review of the leader. Quadrant 3 shows the implications for the status of learning content where the leader is the supra-system, and the organisation acts as subsystem. In this scenario, the reality of the leader is paramount and becomes the system to be served by the learning process. You may argue that this places the leader in a position of power that may lead to abuse of the learning situation. This argument is easily countered by the philosophical vantage point that the leader in the learning situation behaves with integrity, and will therefore automatically pursue learning that will improve that leader’s effectiveness in the workplace. There is, in reality, no real alternative – the learning system cannot be designed with any other philosophical foundation that questions the integrity of the leader, as this would create a flawed design process ab initio. In a scenario where the leader is treated as the supra-system, the leader is at liberty to mould learning content to meet the exact needs faced by typical patterns displayed by the multiple components in the system of the leader. The learning content in this situation is viewed as agent provocateur, a tool for the accelerated accomplishment of the insights of the leader and the identification of application opportunities. The content bounces like a particle into the system of the leader and both systems are potentially impacted by the collision. This introduces a high level of authenticity into the learning process and creates the foundations for real and meaningful advancement of the leader and the organisation represented. Quadrant 4 shows the implications for the status of learning content in a situation where both the leader and the organisation behave like the supra-system. The implication here is that the two systems become embroiled in a struggle for supremacy. As a consequence, each system defines itself as independent through the formulation of its boundaries, since the rules each system creates as criteria for incorporation of the other system into itself prevent the healthy 151

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

integration of the two systems. Both systems behave defensively and reduce their permeability to protect their supra-system status. Leaders view content as attacking, and organisations interpret the comment of leaders as defensive and even as signs of insubordination. The ultimate result is that the learning content becomes irrelevant, since neither system is sufficiently open to allow for the free flow and interaction of ideas. Such learning interventions deliver almost no return on learning investment, as very little learning occurs – the majority of energy is spent on self-justification and the falsification of the claims of the other system. A prime example of such behaviour is found in cases of restructure, where organisations defend their decision (often made without immersive research) and leaders opposed to the restructure spend their energy on discovering the flaws in the arguments of the organisation in defence of the survival of their own systems.

7.4 DANGEROUS LIAISONS: DENCY ANALYSIS

SYSTEM

DEPEN-

SLL encourages all role players in the learning process to gain a deep insight into the reciprocal implications of recognising each role player as a system. It purports that the leader perceive the self as the suprasystem during the learning situation. This is done mainly because it is the leader who has to do the work and who experiences the learning process – learning cannot be experienced on behalf of another. As the leader does not learn or lead in isolation, it is therefore important to examine the relationships of dependencies between the system of the leader and the other systems involved in the leader’s world of work. The nature of the other key systems in the learning process (organisation, facilitator and learning content) has already been expounded upon above. Despite the fact that the leader may view the self as the supra-system during learning, the reality of organisational strategy translated into day-to-day operations may imply that the leader is not always the supra-system for operational implementation purposes. This poses a “learning status paradox” for the leader: 152

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

during the learning process, the leader is the supra-system, while, for the purposes of implementation of learning insights, other systems may be higher in status. In order to gain greater insight into the types of dependencies that the leader may experience for the implementation of learning insights, I have developed a simple diagnostic tool in order for the leader to analyse the nature of the dependency that she has upon other systems in the workplace.

7.4.1 Direct and indirect impact Figure 3 shows the Systems Dependency Analysis tool. The framework works on three dimensions. INDIRECT IMPACT

DIRECT IMPACT DEPENDENT

CO-DEPENDENT INTERDEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

Vision and growth Influence Existence Functional excellence Execution and functional outputs

Figure 3: Systems Dependency Analysis

153

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

The diagram shows that the reciprocal impact between the leader and other systems in the workplace may be direct or indirect. We can refer to the system that creates the first action as the originating system, whereas the system that perpetuates an impact generated by the originating system may be referred to as the intermediary system, since all impacted systems, in turn, impact at least two other systems and are therefore conductors of impact. Direct impact occurs where the leader takes action (based upon learning insight) that results in change in systems without the use of what I have described as intermediary systems, that is, systems that convey the impact from the leader to the other systems. Similarly, another system may have a direct impact on the system of the leader without the presence of an intermediary system. Indirect impact occurs when the leader takes action that effects a change in another system only as the result of a reaction by an intermediary system to the action of the leader. It may therefore appear that the impact on the final system is caused by the intermediary system, whereas it is the result of the action of the leader. Similarly, another system may cause an impact upon the system of the leader through first impacting an intermediary system, which then reacts and exerts an impact on the leader. It is clear that one action may impact upon a number of intermediary systems before the leader is impacted or before the leader impacts a distant system. It is therefore essential that the leader should appreciate the level of directness of impact that she has as well as identify the originating system that impacts upon that leader (where possible), as this will influence greatly the response the leader will have in terms of the impact reached. Failure to identify any of the intermediary systems may lead to uninformed decisions that will, in turn, affect yet more unintended intermediary systems and may not resolve the problems created by the originating system. It would be fair to question whether it is possible to describe a system that is the final recipient of the impact that resulted from action by an originating system. Is it possible to identify the final system that is 154

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

impacted by an action of an originating system? One reason for the validity of this question is the fact that systems outside the boundaries of the system under review may be impacted. Another reason is that one action ripples through various systems and may transform these systems in ways that are difficult to recognise as the direct result of an action by the originating system. Even with the advent of entropy in the originating system, the impact of its actions prior to entropy may well outlive the originating system. Consider, for example, the impact of decisions made by CEOs who are no longer with an organisation. It appears, therefore, that such a system (which may be referred to as “the end system”) may only be identified within a very specific context and within limited measurement criteria – the impact of an action by an originating system may survive in perpetuity through the impact it has on other systems.

7.4.2 Sources of dependency Systems may be dependent on one another in various ways and for various reasons. The model proposed shows five sources of dependency, that is, aspects that describe the successful functioning of the system. It is essential that leaders recognise the type of dependency that they have on other systems, as this will inform their decisions about other systems and influence their engagement with those systems. As the diagram indicates, the most fundamental aspect which may cause one system to depend upon another is the very Existence of the system. In such a relationship, a system cannot survive without the presence and contributions of another system. Naturally, this requires that the dependent system is open to the supporting system. Leaders who fail to recognise their dependency on other systems may make decisions that will create disengagement for those supporting systems and, as a result, cause the demise of the system of the leader. An example that I use frequently in the learning situation is the relationship of dependency that exists between the system of the leader and that of the customer – without the customer, the system of the leader perishes.

155

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Another aspect which may cause leaders to be dependent upon another system is Execution and Functional Outputs. In such a relationship, the leader can exist without the other system, but is unable to execute learning insights and, as a result, cannot produce outputs from operations. This implies a requisite degree of cooperation between the two systems. An example of such dependency is the relationship between the leader and the organisation – only within the context of the organisation is the work of the leader translated into the execution of meaningful tasks and the production of meaningful outputs. Without the framework of the organisation, the leader’s work is a random collection of activities, only potentially coherent within the mind of the leader. The next source of dependency that the leader may have on another system is Functional Excellence. This means that the leader can exist and even function at a basic level without the other system, but is unable to create outputs of the highest quality without the contribution of the other system. An example of such dependency is the relationship that exists between the system of the leader and the system of technology support that serves as tools for functional outputs. Such tools allow the leader to migrate basic operations to higher levels of excellence. Another source of dependency for the system of the leader is Influence. This refers to the ability of the leader to create an impact on others. This source of dependency extends beyond the ability of the leader to deliver Functional Excellence of her own. The leader now aims to create excellence in others through meaningful engagement with them. It is saliently obvious that such a relationship is dependent upon the existence of “others”, which may allude to any of a range of stakeholders in the broad definition in the leader’s system. One example of such a relationship is that between the leader and her staff. The next source of dependency for the system of the leader is Vision and Growth. This refers to the ability of the leader to articulate an image of the ideal state. The need for such a leader is now beyond the achievement of excellence by the self and even beyond the 156

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

inspiration of operational excellence in others – this leader is exploring new frontiers of possibility. This source of dependency also alludes to the ability of the leader to grow in terms of her competencies to lead in the new state of being for the system of the organisation. Once other sources of dependency have been fulfilled and once stakeholders have been engaged to a critical level of influence, the main subject upon which the leader is dependent for the fulfilment of this source of dependency is the system of the self. The leader is ultimately the supra-system during learning. The exploration of new frontiers is the ultimate expression of a desire to learn on the part of the leader. It is therefore the emerging characteristics of the system of the leader that will drive the accomplishment of the new state. In order to ensure that the requisite characteristics for success do indeed emerge, the leader must engage sincerely with the self and demonstrate the commitment and courage required for true selftransformation during learning.

7.4.3 Types of dependency He runs face forward. He is a pursuer. He seeks a seeker who in his turn seeks. Any who seek him seek in him a seeker. His life is a pursuit of a pursuit forever. Robert Frost, “Escapist – Never”

Given the nature of direct and indirect impact and the elements for which a leader may be dependent upon other systems as described above, we can gain further insight into system dependencies from examining the types of dependencies that may exist between the system of the leader and other systems in the workplace of the leader. Each source of dependency described above may be fulfilled depending on the nature of the type of dependency that exists between the system of the leader and another system. “Types of dependencies” refers to the nature of the relationship between the system of the leader and other systems, with specific 157

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

reference to those elements of the leader’s reality over which the leader does not have complete autonomy, that is, elements over which other systems may exercise significant influence. The diagram indicates four foundational types of dependencies. One type of dependency is described simply as Dependent. This means that the system of the leader cannot display certain characteristics without the existence of the other system, although the leader may be able to display other characteristics for which she has no dependency. Another type of dependency that may exist for the system of the leader is one in which the system of the leader and another system are Co-dependent. This means that not only is one system dependent on another, but that each system is also dependent on the other for the same characteristic to emerge in both of them, that is, they are dependent on each other for the same thing. An example of such a relationship is that between the leader and her peers: they depend upon one another for the same reasons, such as accurate information, support, sharing of strategic and operational insights, et cetera. The next type of relationship of dependency may be described as Interdependent. As with a Co-dependent relationship, two systems that are interdependent in SLL are both dependent upon each other, but, in this case, they are dependent for different reasons. An example of such a relationship may be that between the leader and a provider or vendor of services. The leader is dependent upon the provider for the service, while the vendor is dependent upon the leader for payment and value creation in the provider’s business. The final foundational type of dependency that may exist for the system of the leader is that of being Independent. This means that both systems can display certain characteristics without the existence and/or functioning of the other system. In my experience, leaders often quote as an example of such a dependency the relationship that they have with the organisation’s HR function. In a session with senior staff at one client, a decision was made, after much deliberation on the subject, to bypass the HR function in order to create operational 158

Chapter 7: Anatomy of a Leader as Student

excellence in certain areas in the business. This decision would naturally have had a significant impact on the executive leader of HR, who may have believed that these other units were dependent upon the service of HR for their excellence. Of course, given systemic reality of potential interrelatedness, decisions for complete independence should be taken with great circumspection. It is clear from the outline above that two systems may be in more than one type of relationship of dependency, that is, they may be independent for certain areas, but dependent for others and codependent for yet more areas of focus. It is critical that the leader create a map of the types and sources of dependency with others, as this will provide invaluable insights into the nature of the relationship with other systems and will, as a result, determine the nature of required engagement with those systems.

159

8

ALL THE KING’S MEN Learning synthesis

They will not find me changed from him they knew – Only more sure of all I thought was true. Robert Frost, “Into My Own”

One of the great challenges of a systemic endeavour is to create an elegant synthesis from the surprisingly disparate and divergent components within multiple containing and overlapping systems. The challenge is, to borrow a phrase from the nursery rhyme, “to put Humpty Dumpty together again”. Systemic Leadership Learning (SLL) is systemic in various ways, most notably because it examines the interconnectedness of multiple containing and temporarily overlapping systems related to leadership development. The interactive complexity that emerges from such a study is counterintuitive, since the purpose of exploring the interrelatedness is, of course, to aid understanding in order to design learning for greater output. The practitioner in the field (whether leader, learning designer, facilitator, coach, consultant or learning quality assurer) should not be overwhelmed simply because it appears complex or nonlinear, but should actively seek to make sense of the interrelated reality in which the practitioner is also an active organism. Such sense-making inevitably leads to sensing opportunities for enhancing the output of learning. Given the diverse and systemic nature of the proposal in this book, it is essential to translate the comprehensive models and frameworks into workable and practical principles and processes that render them user-friendly for industry leaders and leadership development professionals. This is essential, since, in the final analysis, this book positions itself as a form of Mode 2 Knowledge Production, which necessitates industry absorption of the work. 161

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

At the same time, I am acutely aware of the risk of employing a reductionist approach characterised simply by analysis in order to achieve a “bottom-line effect” – such an approach would be inherently contradictory to the qualitative and depictive nature of the research methodology and would undermine the intention of the book to promote a systemic approach to the learning process for leaders. A similar risk lies in designing a “step-by-step” guide, since such a process is almost inevitably a linear one or, at best, a decision-tree. This would once again challenge the content validity of this book as a proposal for systemic thinking. The very foundation of the book is systemic, as it proposes that a systemic appreciation of the learning process, with recognition of the roles and responsibilities of various systems present in this process, creates a holistic learning benefit that is indeed greater than the sum of the parts involved in the process. It is furthermore the intention – recognising that the reader will bring a personal, unique system to bear on this work – that leaders and leadership development practitioners need not employ the full gamut of concepts herein contained, but that they should feel at liberty to use parts of the book as it may suit their unique circumstances. This is not to negate the cohesiveness of the tenets of this book as a construct, but simply to recognise the realities of learning, the uniqueness of different leaders and the options for interpretation of this book. The dilemma of a systemic reality juxtaposed with the need of industry leaders and development practitioners to follow processes may be resolved by identifying a suitable starting point for the learning process. In SLL, this starting point is an understanding of the learning dynamics within a learning process characterised and guided by the principles of Systems Thinking. To that end, this book proposes a theory of learning that merges four central fields of study in leadership development, namely

162

•

Systems Thinking

•

Leadership

•

Learning

•

Story

Chapter 8: All the King’s Men

While the fields of Leadership and Learning have been merged to some degree in other literature, Systems Thinking has been largely excluded from the design process of learning, and, where it has been utilised, it has predominantly been limited to viewing the organisation as system. SLL views the entire learning process as systemic in nature and examines learning as an emergent system in itself. Within this systemic approach to learning, it is further a key tenet of the book that the leader has a self-perception of being the suprasystem during the learning situation (whether formal or informal). The recognition of leaders as systems, indeed as supra-systems in their own perception during learning, is a fundamental tenet for an approach to leadership development based on SLL. It is indeed a prerequisite of SLL that the system of the leader is recognised and understood in its full systemic reality. It is this reality that creates the context for the learning needs of the leader. Such learning needs are defined not by learning curricula, the organisation or a facilitator passionate about a field of expertise; they emerge as a result of an in-depth understanding of the system of the leader and the natural evolution of the learning process in which the leader is paramount, although patently not alone. The system of the leader is interpreted by means of a number of observed phenomena in SLL, including the Entrenchment Curve, the Authority Paradox, System Dependency and the leader’s role within the emerging system of learning. These tools help to create an indepth understanding of the system of the leader in order to design realistic learning processes that lead to real learning outcomes. The understanding of the system of the leader is further aided by a multidimensional orientation framework that provides insight into the unique reality of the leader. Such an understanding is important not only for the leader herself, but also for the other systems in the emergent learning system. SLL provides an approach that sees four systems in dynamic interchange in the learning situation, namely

163

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

•

the leader

•

the organisation

•

the facilitator

•

the learning content

Designers of a learning process based on SLL are required to evaluate each of these systems in order to determine the dynamic responsibilities these systems have within the systemic learning process. The organisation is responsible for ensuring mutual, realistic expectations between itself and its leaders, and to allow for learning that may not have been deterministically predicted before the learning process commenced, that is, the organisation is required to allow for the emergent characteristics of the learning situation. Learning content in itself is also an evolving system, while being simultaneously a system input into the system of the leader. SLL alerts learning designers to the risks of treating learning content and not the leader as the supra-system. Learning content should be sufficiently flexible and permeable to allow for the self-organising system of the leader to display learnings that are unique for each leader as well as for each potentially unique organisation. In a dynamic system of feedback loops, learning content is energised by the other major systems and the system inputs from the related fields of study. The facilitator in SLL is also recognised as a system and has a specific responsibility to understand the systemic nature of the learning process. The facilitator (broadly defined as any role player that enables learning), while likely to be passionate about a field of specialisation, is required within SLL to guide the evolution of the system of the leader in relation to the system of the organisation. This naturally implies that the facilitator needs to have a deep insight into the systems of leaders as well as of their organisations. In SLL, it is incumbent upon the facilitator to employ learning content only as a tool to serve the evolution of the learning process in the interest of the learning needs of the leader and organisation. This may be done by eliciting the unique story of each leader, whether as part of prelearning or as part of dialogue during the learning process itself. 164

Chapter 8: All the King’s Men

Like the system of the organisation, the facilitator may also make use of elements of the multidimensional orientation framework in order to understand the system of the leader and indeed her own system in greater depth. The model below shows the integration of the four systems of the Leader, Organisation, Facilitator and Learning Content. It demonstrates the interconnectedness of these systems and sets them within the systemic context of the fields of study of Leadership, Systems Thinking and Learning, supported by the use of Story. In SLL, these fields, too, are interconnected, and, in addition, each of the fields has an impact on each of the four systems. The model is shown in the shape of a molecule in order to underline the principle of quantum-connectivity and the multidimensional systemic reality of the learning situation as proposed in SLL.

Figure 1: SLL supra-model

165

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Another perspective on the graphic representation of the model is that of a mandala. A mandala is a concentric diagram used as an aid to meditation in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Mandala is a Sanskrit word that means “circle”. In the case of the model, the graphic representation above is aimed at focusing the mind. From the perspective of a mandala, the model has four access points, namely the four interacting systems, interwoven with four other gateways, namely the four fields of study. In the case of the SLL model, various circles have been used to create an overall circle. For this reason, it may also be viewed as a fractal. Fractals are parts of a whole that look similar to the whole. They thus display self-similarity. From this perspective, the SLL model is fractallike in the sense that each part is contained with each other part. An oversimplified fractal version of the SLL supra-model appears below.

Figure 2: SLL supra-model as fractal

166

Chapter 8: All the King’s Men

From a fractal perspective, each part of the SLL supra-model represents the whole model. With an appreciation of the interdependencies between various systems, SLL thus requires from all these systems to understand the system of the leader and to allow for the self-organisation of the learning process, guided by the learning needs of the leader as system, assumed to behave with integrity. Through this integrated approach to leadership development, leaders demonstrate learning in the interest of their organisations that is simultaneously true to their own systems. In SLL, leaders thus learn in a truly systemic way. The approach connects the systems of the leaders with other systems in a manner that allows for the emergence of systemically relevant learning outcomes.

167

9 THE REMAINS OF THE DAY: SLL AS IT MIGHT BE He knew a path that wanted walking; He knew a spring that wanted drinking; A thought that wanted thinking. Robert Frost, “A Lone Striker”

This book represents one of many current evolutionary points in the development of the learning process, as observed by one author in his own experience as well as the experience represented by some of the authors of literature reviewed and the members of reference groups consulted. Future scholars may observe significant developments in the leadership development process, which will allow them to challenge the effectiveness of the process far beyond the contribution offered here. One clear opportunity is to place the leader even more centrally in the learning process. While I have proposed the leader as suprasystem in the learning process, I have approached with some caution the exploration of providing the leader with more power than the organisation. Future scholars may examine a supra-system status for the leader not only in terms of conceptual self-perception, but also in terms of real power for the leader that exceeds, at least during learning, the power that the organisation exerts. They may thus explore the implications for learning if the leader has virtually no limitations from the organisation in terms of learning processes and expectations. It is anticipated that such exploration would yield even greater results about the learning potential of leaders and the value of such potential to organisations. It is likely that great insight will also be derived from an even more personalised analysis of the leader’s system. I have addressed the improvement of the learning process largely in terms of an overall characteristic of the leadership mind-set. More scientific assessment 169

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

of leaders with various psychometric profiles may provide elucidation on the further refinement of learning design and facilitation. Some work has already been done on learning receptiveness assessment, with scientific assessment instruments such as the LP-CAT and the CPP. These instruments, however, are limited to an assessment of the leader, and do not examine the interaction between the leader and the organisation. An understanding of the system of the leader may be further expanded through the investigation of the learning orientation and effectiveness of the leader in relation to the personality of the leader. The current research on the link between personality and learning receptiveness and effectiveness appears limited to a general learning orientation. More detailed work on these correlations may deliver more sophisticated insights into the development of leaders with a range of personalities. Within the South African context, there may be value in the analysis of different approaches to learning by various cultures. At this stage in the evolution of the country, the sensitivity around racial differences appears sensitive to the point of preventing research. Some work has already been done on the concept of African Leadership by scholars such as Professor Lawrence Mbigi and Doctor Reuel Khoza. This work tends to place cultural differences in leadership at somewhat opposite ends, although they propose integration in some cases. This is understandable owing to the novelty of the subject: scholarly work that exposes new distinctions tends to emphasise the distinction rather than the integration with other concepts. The work mentioned also tends to examine leadership more than leadership learning specifically. A great deal may be discovered from exploring the value of diversity in the learning situation for leaders. Future scholars may also wish to examine in greater detail the relationship between the system of the organisation and that of the leader. The focus in this book has been on the learning process of the leader – much work remains to be done on the learning process of the organisation as an entity, particularly as it relates to organisations learning about and from their leaders. 170

Chapter 9: The Remains of the Day: SLL As It Might Be

Learning content as system will also benefit from further work. The knowledge explosion as constituted by the internet and the dramatic increase in connectivity on a global scale present great opportunities for further exploration. The system created, for example, as a result of global engagement of leaders in different organisations poses interesting questions regarding the definition of system boundaries and the integration of various learning systems. The facilitator as system may benefit from research into the schema required by the facilitator in order to facilitate a Systemic Leadership Learning (SLL) process optimally. The value of internal as opposed to external facilitators, as well as the interaction between facilitators and the learning institutions they represent, will also benefit from further work. A study of other systems that contribute to the learning process may also offer elucidation. A selection of these appears below. Separate business units form systems in their relationships with the organisation. Scholars may explore the exact nature of business units as subsystems, and the evolution that occurs in business units that grow within organisations to become their own separate businesses, and therefore acquire supra-system status. Boards of directors also form systems that may impact on the learning orientation of both the organisation and the leaders that govern the operations. The willingness of boards of directors to learn in relation to their commitment for short-term financial gains is an area worthy of further investigation, particularly in relation to other work on corporate governance. The greater system of the job market presents more fertile ground for exploration. Leaders employed by organisations often leave to become leaders at other organisations, some of which may be competitors of the leader’s previous organisational home. In this sense, more evidence may be found that the leader indeed holds a self-perception of supra-system status.

171

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

Competitor organisations offer yet another area that demands systemic analysis, most notably in terms of the potential for cooperation by competitors and the implications for cooperative learning by these organisations. Such organisations form systems of industries and sectors that demonstrate their own characteristics as systems. It appears to me that the fact that different organisations in the same sector share characteristics implies that they operate as a system to some degree. The way an industry or sector learns may offer more insight into the learning process for leaders, especially as set against the background of the rules of corporate competition. Customers also form systems. As such, customers also learn about products and services from organisations. As systems, they interact with leaders and thus expose leaders to opportunities for learning. A detailed examination of the potential of this learning process may yet yield more insight into organisational and individual learning. Service providers also learn about organisations and the nature of leaders in those organisations. The system status of service providers presents at least a prima facie source of learning for organisations about themselves: service providers do not define themselves as part of the supra-system of organisations; they view organisations as clients and therefore as part of their own supra-system. Organisations, on the other hand, appear to define their service providers as subsystems of the organisation. Such unreciprocated definition of the system status of service providers may allow organisations to learn more about themselves by examining the views of service providers in more detail, specifically in relation to the view of service providers on the organisational and leadership effectiveness of their clients. Learning, by its very definition, implies a discovery of the new, at least viewed as new for those engaged in learning. Leadership, by its definition, leads people, processes and organisations towards the new. A Systems Thinking approach has, at its core, the aim of exploration of connections, the value of which is, at the very least, a new insight for the system explorers.

172

Chapter 9: The Remains of the Day: SLL As It Might Be

Perhaps no-one understands how leadership development really works. I am not implying that no-one is able to help leaders grow, only that I am not sure we really understand the nature of learning for leaders. As an analogy, consider that we may think we understand electricity because we can switch on the light, or we may pretend to understand waterworks because we can turn on the tap, or we may imagine that we understand cars because we are able to drive. These reasons we offer for our assumed understanding are simply the manner in which we have become accustomed to behave in relation to those things. They are less descriptions of our understanding and more simply ways in which we make a phenomenon manifest itself. By coaching or training or facilitating or consulting, might it be that we are doing the same? Are we simply bumping the side of the softdrink bottle while we assume that we understand and can predict the cavitation that results from it? My suspicion and hope is that, in the future, we will move closer to understanding the dynamics of the learning system in which leaders are active participants, and I suspect strongly that this emergent understanding will be guided by advanced insight into the interrelatedness of constantly interacting components of the learning system, each of which is in itself a living organism. The system of learning to lead presents to me one of the key leverage points in our society. It is Leadership (however defined) that advances social systems, and Learning that sustains them by keeping them open, dynamic, energised and alive. No need for us to rack our common heads About it, though. We haven’t got the mind. It best be left to great men of his kind Who have no other object than our good. There’s a lot yet that isn’t understood. Robert Frost, “The Literate Farmer and the Planet Venus”

173

10 REFERENCES 1.

Ackoff, RL. 1999. Recreating the corporation: a design of organisations in the 21st century. USA: Oxford University Press.

2.

Ackoff, RL. 1979. The future of operational research is past. The Journal of the Operational Research Society 30(2).

3.

Ackoff, RL. 1994. Systems thinking and thinking systems. System Dynamics Review 10(2–3).

4.

Adize, I. 1988. Corporate life cycles. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

5.

Allen, D. 2001. Getting things done. UK: Piatkus.

6.

Arden, P. 2003. It’s not how good you are, it’s how good you want to be. London: Phaidon Press.

7.

Argyris, C. 1999. On organisational learning. UK: Blackwell.

8.

Aubrey, R & Cohen, PM. 1995. Working wisdom – timeless skills and vanguard strategies for learning organisations. California: Jossey-Bass.

9.

Beatty, J. 1998. The world according to Drucker. London: Orion.

10.

Beaver, D. 2002. NLP for lazy learning – how to learn faster and more effectively. Wales: Vega.

11.

Beer, M & Nohria, N. 2001. Cracking the code for change. Harvard Business Review. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

12.

Bell, C. 2002. Managers as mentors. California: Berrett-Koehler.

13.

Bennis, WG, Schein, EH, Steele, FI & Berlew, DE. 1968. Interpersonal dynamics. Illinois: The Dorsey Press.

14.

Berne, E. 1974. Games people play. UK: Penguin.

15.

Blanchard, K. 1985. Leadership and the one-minute manager. Great Britain: Fontana.

16.

Blanchard, K. 1994. The one-minute manager. London: Harper Collins.

17.

Blanchard, K, Oncken, WJR & Burrows, H. 1990. The one-minute manager meets the monkey. UK: Harper Collins.

18.

Blanchard, K. 1998. Gung ho! London: Harper Collins.

19.

Booth, T, Potts, P & Swann, W. (eds) 1990. Preventing difficulties in learning. Great Britain: Blackwell.

20.

Bubnicki, Z. 2004. Analysis and decision-making in uncertain systems. London: Springer.

21.

Buckingham, M & Coffman, C. 2001. First break all the rules. UK: Simon & Schuster.

22.

Buzan, T & Buzan, B. 2006. The mind map book. Great Britain: BBC.

175

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

176

23.

Byrne, R. 2006. The secret. New York: Beyond Words Publishing.

24.

Campy, J. 1996. Re-engineering management. Great Britain: Collin Harper.

25.

Capra, F. 1989. Uncommon wisdom. Great Britain: Harper Collins.

26.

Capra, F. 2003. The hidden connections. Great Britain: Flamingo.

27.

Cartwright, J. 1999. Cultural transformation. Great Britain: Prentice-Hall.

28.

Castle, E. 1969. Ancient education and today. Great Britain: Pelican Original.

29.

Checkland, P. 1985. From optimising to learning: a development of systems thinking for the 1990’s. The Journal of the Operational Research Society 36(9).

30.

Chiu, T. 1992. Ross Perot – in his own words. New York: Warner Books.

31.

Chomsky, N. 2003. Understanding power. London: Vintage.

32.

Chomsky, N. 2005. Imperial ambitions. England: Penguin.

33.

Christopher, EM. 1996. Negotiating skills for business. London: Kogan Page.

34.

Cohen, W & Cohen, N. 1993. The paranoid corporation. USA: Amacom.

35.

Collins, J & Porras, JI. 2005. Built to last. London: Random House.

36.

Council for Higher Education. 2004. Criteria for programme accreditation. RSA: Department of Education.

37.

Covey, SR & Merrill, AR. 2002. Principle-centred leadership. UK: Simon & Schuster.

38.

Covey, SR. 1990. The seven habits of highly effective people. UK: Simon & Schuster.

39.

Covey, SR. 2004. The 8th habit. UK: Simon & Schuster.

40.

Covey, SR, Merrill, AR & Merrill, RR. 1994. First things first. UK: Simon & Schuster.

41.

Crainer, S. 1998. Key management ideas. Great Britain: Financial Times.

42.

De Bono, E. 1985. Six thinking hats. England: Penguin Books.

43.

De Liefde, WHJ. 2003. Lekgotla – the art of leadership through dialogue. Johannesburg: Jacana Media.

44.

Dearlove, D. 2000. The ultimate book of business thinking. Great Britain: Capstone.

45.

Dick, B. 2005. Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch. [Online] Available at http:// www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html (Southern Cross University, Australia). (Accessed 11 February 2008)

46.

Du Preez, M. 2004. Of warriors, lovers and prophets. RSA: Zebra.

47.

Eysenck, HJ. 1981. Intelligence: the battle for the mind. Great Britain: Pan Books.

48.

Fiddes, C & Overton, D. 2007. Business-driven action learning – delivering sustainable enterprise. Shared Solutions Ltd. www.shared-solutions.com. (Accessed 24 January 2008)

References 49.

Finger, S. 2000. Minds behind the brain – a history of the pioneers and their discoveries. USA: Oxford University Press.

50.

Fraser, S. (ed) 2006. Meet the CEO’s – essential leadership styles in today’s business world. Johannesburg: Penguin Books.

51.

Freiberg, K. 2004. Guts. USA: Currency Doubleday.

52.

Garten, J. 2002. The mind of the CEO. England: Penguin Books.

53.

Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. Systems thinking – managing chaos and complexity. USA: Butterworth Heinemann.

54.

Gibbons, M et al. 1994. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary society. London: Sage.

55.

Glaser, BG & Strauss, AL. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.

56.

Glaser, BG. September 2002. Constructivist grounded theory? Qualitative social research [Online journal] 3(3). Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/ fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glaser-e.htm. (Accessed 11 February 2007)

57.

Goleman, D. 1996. Emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.

58.

Groenewald, L & Groenewald, A. 2003. CEO leadership handbook. RSA: Moditure.

59.

Haig, BD. 1995. Grounded theory as scientific method. UK: University of Canterbury.

60.

Hämäläinen, RP & Saarinen, E. 2007. Systems intelligence in leadership and everyday life. Helsinki: Systems Analysis Laboratory.

61.

Hamel, G. 2000. Leading the revolution. USA: HBS Press.

62.

Hammersley, M & Atkinson, P. 1995. Ethnography: principles and practice. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.

63.

Hampden-Turner, C & Trompenaars, F. 1997. Mastering the infinite game. UK: Capstone.

64.

Handy, C. 1987. Gods of management – who they are, how they work and why they will fail. London: Pan Books.

65.

Handy, C. 1995. The empty raincoat. Great Britain: Arrow Books.

66.

Harman, W. 1998. Global mind change. USA: Noetic Sciences.

67.

Harris, TA. 1973. I’m OK you’re OK. London: Pan Books.

68.

Harvard Business Review on Turnarounds. 2001. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

69.

Heath, D. 1909. Principles of political economy. London: DC Heath and Company.

70.

Howe, MJA. 1993. Psychology of learning. UK: Blackwell.

71.

http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~comqtb/Grounded_Theory_intro.htm University of Hertfordshire. (Accessed 11 February 2008)

177

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

178

72.

http://tlt.psu.edu/suggestions/research/Blooms_Taxonomy.shtml15 Pennsylvania State University. (Accessed 7 January 2008)

73.

http://www.britannica.com/eb.

74.

http://www.cs.siue.edu. Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. (Accessed 7 January 2008)

75.

http://www.groundedtheory.com/index1.html. (Accessed 12 February 2008)

76.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary.

77.

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~ethnog/. Centre for Ethnography, University of California, Irvine. (Accessed 17 March 2008)

78.

http://www.toyota.co.za/toyotaworld/about_toyota.aspx. Toyota. (Accessed 26 February 2008)

79.

http://www.wikipedia.net.

80.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition.

81.

http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/ethno.htm. North Carolina State University. (Accessed 9 May 2008)

82.

Jackson, M. 1991. Systems methodology for the management sciences. New York: Plenum.

83.

Johnson, S. 1998. Who moved my cheese? UK: Vermilion.

84.

Kennedy, C. 1991. Guide to the management gurus. London: Random House.

85.

Khan, BH. 2007. Flexible learning in an information society. USA: Idea Group Inc.

86.

Knights, D & Scarbrough, H. 2007. Reassembling the relevance argument in organisational and management research: mode 2 and actor network theory. UK: European Group for Organisational Studies.

87.

Knowles, M. 1998. The adult learner. 5th ed. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publications.

88.

Kouzes JM & Posner, BZ. 1995. The leadership challenge. California: JosseyBass Inc.

89.

Lessem, R & Nussbaum, B. 1996. Sawubona Africa – embracing four worlds in South African management. Sandton: Zebra.

90.

Mace, CA. 1968. The psychology of study. England: Pelican Books.

91.

Marshall, DA. 2008. The dangers of purity: on the compatibility of “pure sociology” and science. The Social Quarterly 49(2).

92.

Matteson, M & Ivancevich, J. 1996. Management and organizational behaviour classics. USA: Irwin.

93.

Mbigi, L. 2000. African business renaissance. Johannesburg: Knowres Publishing.

94.

Mbuya, J. 2003. Holistic management. RSA: Fin Publishers.

Grounded

Theory

Institute.

References 95.

McGill, I, Brockbank, A et al. 2004. The action learning handbook: powerful techniques for education, professional development and training. UK: Routledge.

96.

Mitroff, II & Linstone, HA. 1993. The unbounded mind – breaking the chains of traditional business thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

97.

Mthembu, D. 2007. Team coaching. Randburg, South Africa: Knowres Publishing.

98.

Nyhan, B, Cressey P et al. 2004. European perspectives on the learning organisation. Journal of European Industrial Training 28(1).

99.

O’Brien, R. 2001. An overview of the methodological approach of action research, in Theory and practice of action research, edited by R Richardson. Brazil: Universidade Federal da Paraiba (English version).

100. O’Donell, MA & King, A. 1999. Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 101. O’Keeffe, J. 1999. Business beyond the box. Finland: Nicolas Brealey Publishing. 102. O’Neil, J & Marsik, VJ. 2007. Understanding action learning. New York: American Management Association. 103. Palmer, R. 1969. Hermeneutics. USA: North-western University Press. 104. Parsloe, E. 1999. The manager as coach and mentor. London: CIPD. 105. Peck, MS. 1990. The road less travelled. London: Arrow. 106. Peters, T. 2003. Re-imagine. Great Britain: Dorling Kindersley. 107. Phelps, R. (ed) 2006. Key trends in human capital. London: Saratoga, PricewaterhouseCoopers. 108. Pink, DH. 2009. Drive: the surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Penguin. 109. Pinker, S. 1997. How the mind works. USA: The Soft Back Preview. 110. Reason, P & Bradbury, H. 2006. Handbook of action research. UK: Sage. 111. Reber, S & Reber, E. 2001. Dictionary of psychology. England: Penguin Books. 112. Rieley, J. 2006. Strategy and performance. UK: Hodder. 113. SABSA Business School Expo. 19 September 2006. Collected Prospecti. RSA. 114. Sardar, Z & Abrams, I. 2004. Introducing chaos. UK: Icon. 115. Sawyer, RD (transl). 1996. The complete art of war. USA: West View. 116. Schuitema, E. 2003. Leadership – the care and growth model. Kenilworth, RSA: Ampersand Press. 117. Schumacher, E. 1973. Small is beautiful. Great Britain: Vintage. 118. Semler, R. 2003. The seven-day weekend. UK: Arrow Books. 119. Senge, MP. 1990. The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday Currency. 120. Slatter, S & Lovett, D. 1999. Corporate turnaround – managing in distress. England: Penguin Books.

179

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity 121. Stanford University. 2007. Converting strategy into action – Stanford advanced project management. Stanford: Stanford Centre for Professional Development. 122. Steinmann, N. 2006. Fundamentals for effective mentoring – raising giant killers. Randburg, South Africa: Knowres Publishing. 123. Styhre, A & Sundgren, M. 2005. Action research as experimentation. Systemic Practice and Action Research 18(1). 124. Sutton, RI & Pfeffer, M. May-June 1999. The smart talk gap. Harvard Business Review. 125. Szewczak, E & Snodgrass, C. 2002. Managing the human aside of information technology challenges and solutions. USA: Idea Group Inc. 126. Teerlink, R. 2001. Harley’s leadership U-turn. Harvard Business Review. 127. Tunheim, KA et al. 1997. Action learning: America Express Financial Advisors, in Designing training programmes, edited by Phillips & Ford. USA: ASTD. 128. Vaitilingam, R. 1996. Guide to using the financial pages – third edition. Glasgow: Pearson Professional Ltd. 129. Voros, S. 1999. The road to CEO. USA: Adams Media. 130. Wait, J, Meyer, J & Loxton, H. 2004. Human development – a psychosocial approach. RSA: Ebony Books. 131. Wheatley, MJ. Spring 1996. The unplanned organisation: learning from nature’s emergent creativity. Noetic Sciences Review 37. 132. White, A. 1999. Developing your staff. London: Piatkus. 133. Whitmore, H. 2002. Coaching for performance. Finland: Nicolas Brealey Publishers. 134. Williams, KA & Marek, EA. 1999. Ausubel and Piaget – a contemporary investigation. USA: Pennsylvania State University. Available at: www.ed.psu/ci/ journals/1999aets/willaims_marek.rtf. (Accessed 23 January 2008) 135. Winter, R. 1989. Learning from experience – principles and practice of action research. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press. 136. Wittgenstein, L. (CK Ogden transl) 1990. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge. 137. Zbar, V. 1996. Key management concepts. Australia: Macmillan. 138. Zweli, M. 2000. Creating a culture of competence. USA: Wiley.

180

INDEX A Action Learning 52, 101 traditional educational 52 activity 34, 37, 119, 126, 147, 156 aesthetic elegance 39, 89–90 African leadership 170 agent provocateur 150–151 Al-Aima bridge effect 62–63, 123 alignment 36, 72 ambitions 7, 44, 50, 148 personal 147–148 approach new 5, 13, 96 traditional 35, 41, 142 Approach Velocity 79 architecture, sufficient learning 93 arrested development 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 assessment 24, 44, 48, 57, 83, 95–96, 118–119, 170 attributes 44, 110–111, 137, 139 authority 47–50, 52, 79 higher levels of 49–50 leader’s 50 Authority Paradox 48–51, 132, 163 authors, respected 68 awareness, strategic 143, 146 B barriers 39, 47, 118–120 BEE (see Black Economic Empowerment) behaviour leader’s 115, 122–123 observable 32, 92, 94 benchmarking 69 beneficiaries 43, 70, 141–142 benefits full 109, 132–133 full systemic 133

holistic learning 162 best result 54–55 Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) 77 boundaries 5, 47, 63, 72, 75, 99, 120, 131, 151, 155 business units 29, 171 C capitalist system 7 causal relationships 75–76 CEO (chief executive officers) 2, 20, 67, 71, 76–77, 129–130, 155 change benefits of 128–129 degree of 128, 131 leader experiences 131 strategies 53 change management 7, 16, 18, 36, 77, 128–129 change mechanisms, strategic 18 chaos 14, 89 chaotic system 82 chief executive officers (see CEO) clarity 74, 76, 100, 102, 135, 141, 143 climate surveys 63 closed system 79, 120 co-facilitator 53 common practice 69–70 company way 58 competence 76–77, 111–112 leader’s 139 competencies 7, 36, 60, 109, 112, 136–137, 157 competitor organisations 172 competitors 58, 171–172 complex adaptive system 129 complex systems 14, 110, 131 components, contextual 130

181

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

conditionality 144 conditions of risk 122–123 conditions of safety 122–124 conservatism 5 consultation 6–7, 21–22, 31 content dated 67 digest 51 intended 34 key 86 leader filters 43 new 34 predesigned 44 predigested 20 selected 68 content curriculum 78 content design 19, 92 content designers 70 content selection 13, 66, 68–70, 72, 143 random 70 content sequencing 70 content systems 72 content validity 162 content-based websites 66 content-free coaching 106 content-selection principles 66 contextual relevance 39, 84 contextualisation, brief 145 continuum 38, 85, 110, 112, 119, 124 contradictions 43, 69, 83, 90 control 5, 36, 45, 49, 62, 69, 79, 107, 122–123, 130, 132 leader’s 139 creating context 84 Creative Thinking 36, 38 creativity 6–7, 39 criteria, qualitative delivery 84 culture 58, 64–65, 91, 125, 141–142, 147 negative impact of 64–65 personal 137 curriculum 65–66, 69 customer feedback 55

182

D de-emphasise 147 degree of change 128 degree of receptiveness 128 delete 148–149 dependency relationship of 155, 158–159 source(s) of 155–157, 159 design of learning programme 23 development programmes designing leadership 9 traditional leadership 96, 109 dimensions, multiple 13, 15, 29 discomfort 92, 125, 127 degree of 126–127 divergence 5, 7, 35, 38, 59 domains 33, 55, 101, 110, 132 dynamic system 124, 164 E economic system 47 education 1, 3–4, 44, 72–73 effectiveness 19, 38, 96, 141, 146, 169–170 leader’s 151 emergence 14, 21, 42, 55, 57, 62, 72, 82, 167 emergent system 163 emotional intelligence 8, 37, 44, 108 empathetic understanding 133–134 enablers 118–120 end system 155 energy 35, 50, 119, 149, 152 dynamic 127 engagement, leader’s 118, 138 entities 3–4, 21, 29, 41, 53, 75–76, 141, 170 Entrenchment Curve 46, 48–49, 163 entropy 126, 155 EQ 36–37, 108 excellence 156, 159

Index

executives 5, 7, 19–20, 66, 71, 77, 130 exhibition 90, 92–94, 96 photographic 88 exhibition room 92, 94 expectations, changed 129 expectations of leaders 59, 61 experience, positive 60, 64 external providers 17, 21

Grounded Theory 16–17 group 16, 19, 22, 38, 57, 62, 80, 93, 112 reference 169 group of leaders 74, 112 growth 58, 62, 80, 82, 85, 140, 153, 156 personal 32, 60 guide, individual learning 80

F

H

facilitation 16, 20, 23, 53, 83–84, 170 best-quality traditional 85 effective 85 optimal 82 facilitation process 20–21 strategic 76 facilitator external 171 internal 20 single 80 well-prepared 20 facilitator and learning content 99, 165 factors, external 122–124 feedback 15, 19, 23, 55, 64–65, 93, 105, 107 qualitative 89–90 feedback loops 93–94, 118, 164 financial autonomy 46 fluidity 90, 121–122, 124 behaviour of 123–124 form, learning session 82 Founder’s Syndrome 121 fractals 42, 82, 166 Functional Excellence 153, 156 functional outputs 153, 156

habits 122–123 hierarchical levels 56–57 honesty 60, 83, 118, 126–127 HR department 9 HR function, organisation’s 158 HR strategy 77 human resources (see HR) humility 20–21, 83, 86

G goals 61, 65, 114–116, 120–121, 137 personal 50

I identity 47, 51, 110, 128 image 88–90, 156 Impact Scope Analysis 137–138 impacted systems 154 imperatives, strategic 76 implications, significant 2, 20, 61, 146 incubation 94–95 industry consultation 22 Industry Consultation Questionnaire 23 industry representatives 22–24, 87 informal learning 32 innovation, culture of 36–37 input 15, 51, 59, 77–78, 87, 95, 121–122 external 87, 89 external learning 88, 96 minimal learning 95 integration 2, 8, 24, 36, 74, 96, 103, 125, 137, 152, 165, 170–171

183

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

interconnected systems 103 intermediary systems 154 unintended 154 internalisation, leader’s 122 internalised learning 127 interrelated systems 113 interwoven systems 52 inverse proportionality 19, 49 investment 1, 4–5, 10–11, 32, 49, 85, 99, 121, 147 IQ (Intelligence Quotient) 108 J journals 67 K key leverage systems 42 Key Performance Areas (KPAs) 20 knowledge applicable 31–32 current 33 elements of 111 leader’s 139 new 35, 59, 63 knowledge expansion 111 knowledge levels 111 Knowledge Transience Map 32–34 KPAs (see Key Performance Areas) L leader receptiveness 16 leader’s ability 108, 122, 138 leader’s business unit 41 leader’s experience 39, 89 leader’s insights 108, 133, 139 leader’s location 109 leader’s reality 8, 79, 88, 92, 116, 151, 158 leader’s staff 6, 138 leader’s system 35, 59, 78–79, 89, 93, 131, 134, 138, 156, 169 leader’s thinking 59

184

leader’s work 156 leader’s world 100, 152 leadership definition of 22, 108, 141 effective 27, 30, 40 global market 2 organisation’s 9 real 6 leadership authority 46 leadership coaches 146 leadership consultants 13, 105 interviewing 15 leadership decisions 116 leadership development effective 23–25 traditional model of 41, 57 leadership development consultants 22 leadership development industry 3, 20 leadership development practices, traditional 28 leadership development practitioners 15, 162 leadership development processes 1–2, 169 leadership development professionals 161 leadership development programmes 7, 13, 45 leadership development services 3–4 leadership development specialists 22 leadership effectiveness 172 leadership experts 146 leadership investment 96 leadership learning 170 leadership mind-set 60, 169 leadership programmes 35, 96 leadership roles 32, 100, 139 leadership style 125 leadership team briefs 9 learners 19, 24, 31–32, 84–85, 136 learning activity 21

Index

learning application opportunity 55 learning content closed 79 internalising 1, 106 memorising 78 moulding 151 open 79 right 24 status of 71, 149–151 sterile 97 subordination of 92 tested 71 learning context 43 learning curricula 163 learning design 21, 70, 161, 170 learning designer 161 learning dialogue 8 learning dynamics 162 learning effectiveness 81, 118 enhancing 42 learning engagements 82 learning environment 87 learning event 142 learning expectations 61 learning experience 6, 20, 44, 51, 54, 57, 63, 87, 96, 109 mundane 59 narrow 36 learning facilitation 19 learning fitness 61 learning form 56 learning groups 86 learning institutions 79, 171 learning interventions 152 learning investment 30, 32, 62, 146, 152 learning journey 58, 70, 110, 127 learning management 17 learning methodologies 13 Learning Need Locator 135, 140 Learning Needs Analysis (LNA) 23, 53, 136 learning objectives 70 learning orientation 170–171 Learning Outcome Parameters

Assessment 54–55, 175 learning philosophy 9 learning priority 85 learning programmes 7, 15, 19, 21, 23–24, 33, 35, 56, 84, 107, 135 formal 67 organisations sponsoring 62 learning providers 17–18 learning quality assurer 161 learning receptiveness 32, 111, 170 increasing 84 learning receptiveness assessment 170 learning requirements 18, 130 learning services 18 learning space 13, 39, 53, 101 learning status paradox 152 learning style 125 learning synthesis 161 learning system 42, 52, 100, 143, 151, 173 emergent 163 learning system levels 150 learning-coordination processes, internal 11 learning-design process 7 learning-designers 76 leverage 64, 142 limited systemic awareness 8 literature landscape 101 LNA (see Learning Needs Analysis) LOPA (see Learning Outcome Parameters Assessment) loss of resources 132 M macrosystem 71, 99 managers 1, 20, 38, 56, 60, 119 senior 5–6, 20, 120 mandala 166 mastery, personal 126–127 memory 51

185

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

methodology 13, 15, 17, 70, 93, 96 migration 30–31, 40, 108 mitigate 64–65, 89 model, multidimensional 110, 112 motivation 5, 10, 16, 33, 55, 89, 129, 139–140 leader’s 138 multidimensional orientation framework 3, 113, 146, 163, 165 Mutual Exclusivity 144 mutual expectations 59–60 myopia 117, 148 N navigate 38, 59, 93, 95, 105, 114 navigation 28, 80, 90, 97, 108, 110, 121 personal 88–89 Negative Mutual Conditionality 144–145 O objective reality 117 objectives 6, 78, 105, 119, 133– 134, 143 observation 19–20, 32, 59, 68, 94 observer 74–76 openness 32, 72, 122–123 operations 73, 80, 120–121, 140, 147, 152, 156, 171 opportunity cost 6, 10–11 organisation behaviour 101 Organisation Development 57 organisational action 37 organisational benefit 32 inhibits 35 organisational challenges 52 organisational commitment 24 organisational context 3, 32 organisational culture 54, 58, 63–65, 91 positive 65

186

role of 63 organisational design 71 organisational development 60, 99 organisational environment 44, 117 internal 123 organisational expectation 59–61 organisational fibre 37 organisational goals 50, 61 organisational growth 10, 39 organisational habit 147 organisational home 171 organisational leaders 88 organisational learning 101, 124 organisational life cycle 37 organisational objectives 81, 136 organisational performance 42 organisational politics 68 organisational profiles 16 organisational responsiveness 69 organisational rules 107 organisational self-awareness 62–63 organisational strategy 152 organisational systems 34, 41, 85–86, 139 complex 86 organisational theory 101 organisational tool 101 organisations hierarchical 46 innovative 37 modern 71, 107 nongovernmental 4 responsive 69 sponsoring 109 successful 69 unique 164 organisation’s ability 59 organisation’s customers 141 organisation’s interests 122 organisation’s values 60 originating system 154–155 outputs 156, 161 minimum system 58 overarching system 41 overlapping systems 161

Index

P Painting a Thousand Words 87, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97 paradoxical realities 51 participation 51 peers 15, 118, 120, 158 leader’s 135 perceptions, supra-system 107 performance 1, 3, 18, 58, 61, 115, 139, 142, 144 higher 108–109 performance areas 140–142 Performance Management systems 24, 37, 54 Personal experience 17, 53 personal system 31–32, 96, 125 personal system of understanding 32 personalities 16, 57, 64, 70, 125, 170 perspectives 54, 81, 100, 104, 166 supra-systemic 48 photographs, selected 89–90, 94 photography 87–88 position 27, 79, 106, 109–110, 127, 148, 151 leader’s 112 perceptual 109, 117 positional power 47 Positive Mutual Conditionality 144 potential contradictions 89–90 power 7, 22, 52, 61, 107–108, 115, 151, 169 limited 107 real 7, 169 practitioners 15, 161 prelearning 164 preparedness 19 pressures 51, 93, 121–122 priority 23, 49, 113 problem solving 36, 38, 58 programme designs 8 projects 10, 146–148

propaganda 93, 150 proposal 8, 14, 23, 31, 112, 161–162 providers 4, 9, 140, 158 provoke 89–90, 93 Proximity Perception Trap 75 psychology 72–73 publication 66–68 puritanical learning institution 80 Q quality 3, 9, 18, 31, 39, 66–69, 105, 107–108 quality assurance 4, 24 R randomness 69–70 rationale 29, 61, 131 real learning 19 real learning outcomes 163 realities of others 117, 134 Real-time Design 84, 129 recency 67 principle of 67 recent change 128–129 receptiveness 128 reciprocal expectation 60–61 reciprocal impact 41, 134, 154 recognition 36–37, 39, 56, 97, 102–103, 108, 162–163 reflection sheet 91 relationship new 130–131 potential 142 relentless demand for higher performance 108 relevance 34, 68–69, 74, 85 requirements 27, 30, 32, 40, 52, 58, 67 requisite thought architecture 89, 91, 93, 95 research 1–2, 13, 17, 27, 67, 70, 72, 87–88, 96, 105, 139, 171

187

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

degree of 71, 78 resources 11, 38, 76, 107, 114, 120, 131–132, 139, 147 respected authors 68 responsibility facilitator’s 33 leader’s 102, 134 personal 133 personal sense of 39 Return on Investment 3–4, 24, 54, 70, 92, 96, 99, 102reward 36–37, 54, 85 rigidity 90, 121–123 behaviour of 122–123 ROI (see Return on Investment) role leader’s 143, 163 new 128, 130 role of organisational culture 175 role players 152, 164 rules 30, 56, 58, 64–65, 71, 78, 80–82, 151, 172 S safety 69, 122–124 Scenario Dependency Matrix 143–144 scenarios 54–55, 75, 78, 114–115, 144–145, 149–151 possible 143 schema, holistic learning 135 scholars 169–171 selection 53, 62, 66–67, 69, 84, 109, 137, 143, 171 selection of leaders 7, 36 selection processes 7, 17, 74 self-awareness 13, 53, 110, 116, 119, 124–127, 143 self-consciousness 124–127 state of 126 self-defeating 114, 116, 120 self-impact 138–139 self-insight 21, 126–127, 129, 134, 143

188

degree of 124, 127 self-navigation 93 self-organisation 167 self-organising system 164 self-perception 2, 87, 101, 145, 149, 163, 171 supra-system 60 senior leaders 50, 63, 79, 83, 138, 140–141, 149 service providers 10, 18, 141, 172 system status of 172 services 3–4, 18, 35, 115, 130, 140–141, 158–159, 172 session 76–77, 92, 158 sets, leader’s skills 143 skills 37, 44, 58, 84, 110–111, 129, 137, 139–140 SLL(Systemic Leadership Learning) alerts learning designers 164 SLL approach 20–21 SLL framework 82, 84–85 SLL model 166 social systems 93, 173 sociology 72–73 sovereign system 46 sponsors 2, 82–83 stakeholders 31, 108, 116–118, 121, 129, 133–134, 136, 138–139, 156–157 state 31, 100, 115, 118, 124–127, 137 intended 30–31, 40 new 157 state of self-awareness 127 status 41–42, 47, 102, 153 dual subsystem 150 status quo 108–109 story 2, 53, 83, 96, 100, 103, 162, 165 leader’s 96 strategic–reciprocal impact 138– 139 strategy 8, 71, 91, 120, 123, 140, 143, 145, 148 turnaround 77

Index

subordination 45, 82, 88, 97, 150 sub-subsystem 41 subsystems 3, 28, 41, 80, 101, 106, 142, 149–151, 171–172 interrelated 21 suppliers 140–141 support 18, 20, 37, 52, 71, 77, 82, 88, 93, 105, 108, 124, 140–141, 158 supra-system freedom 48 supra-system status 3, 45, 47, 49, 80, 84, 102, 106, 149, 152, 169, 171 self-perceived 77, 136 system boundaries 149, 171 system dependencies 130, 157 System Dependency 163 System Dependency Analysis 23, 130 system feedback 64 system formation 65 system implications 83, 131 system inputs 77–78, 88, 164 system of chaos 14 system sets 90–92, 94–95 systemic 2, 29, 62, 73, 161–163 true 142 systemic analysis 71, 74, 83 traditional 110 systemic application 112 systemic approach 14, 68, 72, 101, 162–163 true 21, 72 systemic awareness 75, 83, 146 systemic challenges 51, 83 systemic context 165 ever-changing 122 systemic design 8 systemic endeavour 161 systemic evolution 34 systemic feedback loop 120 systemic implications 54, 56, 109, 134–135 systemic interchange 101

systemic interrelatedness 142 Systemic Leadership Learning (see SLL) systemic learning process 164 systemic lens 148 systemic nature 161, 164 systemic realities 43, 45, 53, 71, 74, 76, 113–114, 135, 147, 159, 162 full 163 multidimensional 165 systemic relatedness, internal 106 systemic sense 135 systemic techniques 84 systemic terms 71 systemic thinking 162 systemic understanding 61 true 47 systems complete 97 dependent 155 distant 154 final 154 greater 43, 71, 75, 83, 171 open 79, 122 traditional 43 Systems Dependency Analysis 153 systems hierarchy 42 systems implications 53 systems mind-set 29 Systems Thinking, applying 72 Systems Thinking and Learning 165 Systems Thinking and Story 100 T talented leaders 7, 35, 44, 59, 63 tasks 6, 41, 136–137, 156 teams 29, 139–141, 149 learning-design 21 technology 1, 121, 140, 142 temporary system 56 tenure 67, 148–149 theory 2, 16–20, 22, 27, 51, 71–72,

189

Systemic Leadership Learning: Learning to lead in the era of complexity

88, 101, 162 theory of systemic leadership learning 15, 87 titles 7, 27, 68, 90–91, 94–95 tool 3, 20, 32, 34, 41, 62, 78–79, 139, 143, 151, 156, 164 conceptual 15 system navigation 89, 93 traditional leadership development programmes 92 trainer 9–10, 19, 31, 41 training 9, 31, 85, 138, 144, 173 U understanding organisational culture 63 unique learning 142 unique level 44 unique system 86, 162 universities 18–19, 44, 66, 70 unsystemic reality 52 V vacuum, supra-system 150 validity 14, 16, 30, 39, 67, 69, 71–72, 77, 117, 155 value judgement 29, 31, 45 variables 15–16, 45, 111, 113, 125, 143 vendors 18, 158 veritable learning septicaemia 79 W workplace 8, 90, 138, 147, 151, 153–154, 157 worst result 54–55

190

NEW CONTACT DETAILS FOR KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES/KNOWRES PUBLISHING

Ground Floor, Yellowwood House, Ballywoods Office Park 33 Ballyclare Drive, Bryanston, Gauteng, South Africa, 2194 tel: (+27 11) 706 6009 fax: (+27 11) 706 1127 [email protected] website: www.kr.co.za