Leadership ConneXions - Issue 5
Welcome to Leadership ConneXions Issue 5. Leadership ConneXions currently reaches out to 1000 + subscribers.
This issue has the theme "Leadership". What better way to present on Leadership than by sharing with you an article by Paul Porteous, in which he makes a clear distinction between 'authority' and 'leadership'. It is easily one of the best articles I have come across in recent times, and does not mince words. After all, in a society in which someone orders a cup of hot coffee, scalds himself and then sues the provider successfully, something must be amiss. Where does my responsibility end? R. Muller
"It's Not My Problem, Mate!" - Leading in Uncertainty
Authorities are expected to provide answers; leadership in
contrast asks the difficult questions. Leadership is something you do
-it is an action, not something you are. We need to get beyond the idea
of someone being a "leader" and look instead to the issues to which they
are drawing attention byPaul Porteous
Our doubts are traitors
And make us lose the good we oft might win
By fearing to attempt.
Shakespeare. Measure for Measure (Lucio, Act 1 Scene 4)
LEADERSHIP
Leadership is probably one of the most misused words in public affairs today. A quick glance through the media on any day finds numerous references to "leadership" or lack of it, with endless opinion on whether it is good, bad, calculated, strategic or just plain confused. On one hand we ask for leaders who have the answer, the statesman exuding confidence who can provide clarity in troubled times. On the other hand, we know in our hearts that the image is flawed, and there are no simple answers for some of our most complex issues like child abuse, youth suicide, poverty and race relations.
Unfortunately, waiting for a hero to emerge has become something of a national pastime, especially for our political parties. On many critical issues facing Australia, we have been content as a population to allow "someone else" (usually 'the government' or some other 'authority') to take "ownership" of the problem and consequently take the blame when it is not fixed. In that sense, we sit back in judgment, deciding whether a politician, head of department or corporation has actually "performed" sufficiently well. In most cases, we judge that they have not -and support and perpetuate a system that ensures that they cannot. Bad outcomes are someone else's fault-our adversarial system of parliament, law and industrial relations demands it.
We like to personalise the problem, then sacrifice the individual in the hope that the problem will go away. Child abuse has been a good example where someone is ritually sacrificed (for example, former Governor General Hollingworth), giving the community a sense that something has been achieved - but really only buying us a few more years of avoiding the real issues. Child abuse in Australia at present is estimated at one formal notification to authorities every two and a half minutes (TAHW 2003-04) a true crisis-but we are unable to even discuss it openly. Instead we get distracted with arguing over whether the figures are sufficiently accurate. The idea that "we" as a community might be jointly responsible for "our" problems opens a Pandora's Box - witness the frustrations over refugee policy and the Iraq war.
A community that takes up that responsibility acts differently in its day-to-day living. Imagine if we actively supported ourrepresentatives in fulfilling their "role" of challenging us about these most difficult problems, instead of the usual reaction which is for us to attack them from their first day in office.
Ronald A. Heifetz in his seminal work Leadership without Easy Answer's (Heifetz 1994) helps clarify some of these dynamics by making a crucial distinction between authority and leadership. Authorities are expected to provide answers; leadership in contrast asks the difficult questions. Leadership is something you do - it is an action, not something you are. We need to get beyond the idea of someone being a "leader" and look instead to the issues to which they are drawing attention. This is inherently risky when you challenge strongly held beliefs and values of a community or organisation, but essential if communities are to be free to deal with their most difficult underlying problems.
With the emergence of an increasingly blame-based ethos, it is not surprising that politicians and the bureaucracy are risk-averse. This was best summed up a couple of years ago by a senior Federal Departmental official who told me simply, "We don't do risk". Risk is associated with potential failure which brings with it potential blame - and no one wants to read negative stories about themselves in the press or be hounded out of office.
Leadership in this climate is contorted to become an extension of "managerialism" - a focus on increased efficiency, performance management, mission statements, strategic planning methodologies and ten point plans and processes. But we know that none of these programs will make you into a leader - they may make you more efficient, but not improve your ability to exercise leadership. The real test is how you prevent something like "children overboard" occurring again-and that requires a degree of moral courage and ethics that goes well beyond anything a rationalist approach can offer It also requires a broader engagement with community.
Sadly, many people in organisations actively resist a broader engagement, seeing their ability to act confined within the parameters of their job position. They tend to self-censor more effectively than any external barriers or political pressure which might be placed on them. In that sense, they create walls around themselves that are rarely tested. These walls become reinforced over time, as does the bitterness associated with this lack of freedom.
Organisationally, this creates a reactive instead of proactive approach to a broader purpose-in fact, their purpose sometimes gets lost altogether as activity becomes a substitute for achievement. The popularity of Dilbert cartoons around offices reflects this sense of corporate hopelessness and helplessness. At the same time, people's reactions are almost immediately to blame authority-surely someone must be controlling such an environment-rather than taking responsibility
themselves. And if the organisation is dysfunctional and does not deliver on its purpose, then we rationalise that it is the organisation's fault and it might be time to change jobs and find another organisation.
Instead, organisation should be viewed as simply a means to an end - it is there to be used, even if ingrained corporate cultures suggests otherwise. This is the role of leadership: challenging that culture, motivating people to take a "proactive approach"; risk taking, pushing the limits of responsibilities, promoting achievement over bureaucratic process, and innovation and creativity against a "business as usual" attitude. Most importantly, leadership is not coming to people with answers but inspiring them to take action themselves.
Instead of fleeing from risk and uncertainty, we need to embrace it as an opportunity to find out what is really going on. What we are lacking is not "how" to do things but more importantly the question "why" we are doing it, and that involves exploring issues around purpose and the values gap between what we say and do. We have to give up waiting for a hero who can make the right call in a difficult situation. That is not leadership. Instead it is about how we undertake our daily lives in our own spheres of influence. It is about working in uncertainty, challenging the trend towards control, letting go of sacred cows and engaging with people in an honest way that poses the difficult questions rather than proclaiming the easy solutions. The leadership challenge then is not about developing leaders with a vision but developing communities with a vision. This is the environment in which new ideas may flourish.
THE "INFANT IDEA"
Most people have had experience with trying to introduce a new idea or concept. It tends to go two ways -either seen as the latest "answer" or fad, or it is opposed. Opposition might be because it is seen as "stupid" or seen as a "threat'.' For the former, it is always worth remaining open to the possibility that your idea is stupid - at worst it will at least help you refine it into something that might be worthwhile. Conversely, your idea may be considered a "threat" and opposed because it is worthwhile. In this sense, it fundamentally challenges the existing order - to the extent that, to use Thomas Kuhn's famous expression - a paradigm shift occurs (Kuhn 1962). Leadership tends to be exercised in situations such as these. It is a difficult space often characterised by confusion and chaos as people are pressed to swap the known status quo for an uncertain potential future with no guarantee of success.
Faced with the challenge of an "infant idea" organisations have to decide: Do we nurture it or strangle it at birth? Do we provide material resources to help it succeed and flourish? Or do we take Darwin's advice and create difficult conditions, certain in the knowledge that only the fittest will survive? The level of support for a new idea may often be determined by the political context (whose child it is?). Many Ministerial ideas can be treated royally, regardless of merit. However, in the absence of a crisis or defined problem there is a general reluctance to put resources into "infant ideas". This is a pity as Loehle (1996: 19), addressing the same point, asks us to consider whether two of the greatest ideas of modern times would receive support under our current system of thinking. Would Einstein really get a lifetime grant to "study the nature of space and time through conducting thought experiments in an armchair, supported by abstract mathematics" or Darwin, as a geologist, receive a 20 year grant to develop an all inclusive theory of speciation by collecting every possible fact?
It seems that generally, with limited resources, our institutions are more tolerant of manageable ideas and purposes, but averse to longer term commitments even though the rewards may be greater. We like little purposes and mild reform, but more challenging purposes are a bit too hot and spicy. This presents us with a problem. Some of our greatest ideas simply would not have come to fruition under this system.
Additionally, using the "infant" metaphor, the problem with separating our needs from those of our children does not make sense for the overall survival of the family. If we, as a society, lack respect for new ideas, then this must translate as a lack of respect for our members who come up with those ideas. Or, more accurately, come up with ideas or observations different to what we want to hear (think of the poor whistleblower, who now even needs special legislation to be protected, similar to an endangered species).
The danger here is what I term "human muzak", where we succumb to the lowest common denominator of acceptability. This is the greatest threat to new ideas and the environment in which they thrive. Posing questions becomes the main tool of trade and the following case study looks at how strategic questioning can move groups forward. In talking about leadership I will try not to use the "L" word too much, perhaps that can give us some better insight into what leading with a question might look like" in practice. The study is simply a snapshot in time and does not in any way purport to be definitive. Whether it is "leadership" by someone's definition is perhaps the wrong question to ask and probably falls into the trap of looking for an answer. But in the interests of exploring with might or might not work, it is worth a casual reflection.
This story continues with a real-life example of a government undertaking. To read the rest of this article, click here
Share highlights from your Leadership Journey
Do you have a story to tell? Have you found an article or web
site that really impacted on you? If so, why not share it with
Leadership ConneXions by simply including the details in a reply to this
email.
Help us grow Leadership ConneXions
If you enjoyed or learnt from this email and believe others may
also benefit, please forward this email in its entirety to three people;
including all links and attachments.