“When we notice the failings of others,
do we not fully see their virtues,
or more truthfully are we not yet ready,
to fully see our own?” ~ Stephen Forsyth
When asked recently to design a course in Sustainability for Systems Thinkers I wondered who could be considered the foundational thinkers who have inspired the present leaders in the sustainability field?
So I went to my community of practice and asked 12 leaders in sustainability thinking who I have had the privilege to work with to name their sources of inspiration. Their responses were worth sharing.
Being from many disciplines and backgrounds the composite list had many names in common and a diverse range of inspirations. Combining the contributions of all suggested the following three groups of writers, philosophers, activists, artists, architects, theorists and environmentalists (in no particular order):
The Inspiring (the pioneers):
E.F. Schumacher
Donella Meadows
Buckminster Fuller
Amory Lovins
Francisco Varela
John Elkington
Joanna Macy
David Holmgren
Peter Senge
Christopher Alexander
The Inspired who we follow in their work: Lance Gunderson, C. S. Holling, Gunter Pauli, Paul Hawken, Lester Brown, Ingrid Stefanovic, Lynne Margulis, James Lovelock, William A. McDonough, James Grier Miller, Jane Jacobs, Bill McKibben, Anne Wilson-Schaef, Margaret Wheatley, Myron Kellner-Rogers, Peter H. Kahn, Stephen Kellert, Jack Turner, R. Bruce Hull, Dexter Dunphy, Bill Torbert, Joseph Tainter, Thomas Homer-Dixon, Jared Diamond,
And The Inspirational who are applying their thinking in contemporary practice: Paulo Lugari, Frank Fisher, Darcy Riddell, Alexander Lazlo, Vandan Shiva, Ann Dale, Brian Walker and Graham Harris.
We hope to see your name on such a list some day soon.
“Each excellent thing, once learned, serves for a measure of all other knowledge” -
Sir Philip Sidney (English Statesman, 1554-1586)
Part of the rich experiences of 2007 was the opportunity to be a member of the inaugural cohort of 24 students from eight countries who participated in the foundation year of the Master of Arts in Integral Theory degree at John F. Kennedy University.
The Certificate program comprising the first 12 months was a 48 week course in four semesters covering 10 units to provide a sound grounding in Integral Theory. The course was conducted on-line 24/7 with two residential intensives held in Denver, Colorado and San Francisco, California and faciltiated by a remarkable faculty of practitioners.
The courses in the foundation Certificate program covered:
Integral Theory and AQAL
Integral Methodological Pluralism
Integral Applications
Integral Spirituality
Integral Life Practice
Applied Phenomenology
Developmental Psychology
Psychological Assessment
Multiple Intelligences
States of Consciousness
What was unique for me, apart from the opportunity to work with some of the best minds and facilitators in this emerging field, was the chance to research some papers on topics that I would not otherwise have had the chance to look into and integrate into my practice. These were:
1. An AQAL reconstruction of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions of countries
2. Reconstruction of Integral perspectives on radical feminism (Radial Feminism)
3. IMP analysis of Indigenous Australian cosmology and the spiritual dreamtime
4. AQAL Integral Ecology analysis of an eco-conservation and restoration project
5. Spiritual Kosmic Address analysis of Jelalludin Rumi and the emergence of 13th century Sufism
6. The harmonisation of trichotomies in ILP using Developmental Action Inquiry
7. A meta-perspective on Integral thought and practice using A.H. Almaas’ Nine Holy Ideas
8. Generation of the self-other line from birth to enlightenment with reference to Buddhist Lojong practice
9. Holarchy of subtle state consciousness progressions in navigation of the self-sense through archetypes
10. Integral applications and the shadow-psyche in principles-based sustainability management
11. Meta-reflections on the major modes of applied phenomenological inquiry (Husserl to Mahamudra)
12. The nine base energy-aikido forms in the 180 combinations of subtle-body-mind psyche-interactions.
That sure was a big (but delicious) meal to swallow in one gulp …
- burp!
“Better decisions lead to more interesting problems. Right decisions lead to a better business.” - Stephen Forsyth
As 2006 fades into the memory there is a brief chance for reflection. This year marks the close of a five year period for FCG and a busy year itself. The theme for the year was large systems change. The insight is into the impact of unseen leadership.
There was the focus nationally on water sustainability with the community consultation for the State Water Policy Framework, the development of the Water Reform Blueprint recommendations, moderating the Water Forum at the 2006 Future Summit and the design of Water Sustainability simulations to enhance our response capacities. In other places where the community is in surprise and needing urgent water management approaches, the proactive continue to prepare for the certainty of an uncertain future. Now holding over 3500 perspectives on water I know what a fully recharged aquifer must feel like.
There was travel to Sydney, Melbourne, Denver, San Francisco and Perpignan, France to continue participation in the Integral Community and the emergence of different aspects of integral practice globally. In August the initial Integral Theory program offered at John F. Kennedy University in San Francisco was launched, which I was accepted into. In September I gave a brief presentation at the second Integral Sustainability Seminar. In October I was invited to attend the first Integral International Development (Integral Sans Frontieres) group meeting in France. In December the initiators of Integral Africa began the next stage of their inspiring leadership journey. It is a great credit to the leaders of these groups who have been working for several years towards this point to now see the calibre of people attracted from all corners of the globe to continually contribute to these spaces.
The year in statistics was 41 flights, 56 workshops, involving 1,350 people, working in teams with 85 people from 16 countries, travelling over 106,000 km and also emitting 36 tonnes of CO2 (now offset as FCG is a carbon neutral organisation). The statistics mean little. The people mean a significant amount. This blog is an honoring of the invisible leadership that was clearly apparent in all the events mentioned. What continues to engage my attention is the passion and commitment of the people with whom I have the good fortune to work. While the knowability of when the work they are doing will be complete is distant, their clarity in the reason why is for them completely present.
Read more:
Integral Africa Case Study
Future Summit 2006 Report
Integral Sans Frontieres - Resources
“In knowledge there is power. In wisdom, humility.” - John Stoner (from Francis Bacon)
In the myriad of management theories regarding motivating people in their work there appears one approach that holds a combination of truths. In 1971 Dr. Clare Graves delivered an insightful (but obscure) paper titled “How Should Who Lead Whom to Do What?” (Read). It suggests that motivation theory may not have found the answer because we have been asking the wrong question.
The paper was before its time as it takes an integral systems view - looking at the psychology of the leader (I), the values of the led (WE), the policies in place (ITs) and the work to be done (IT) - so as to develop a whole approach to any management situation. His proposition: If any one of the four are out of alignment at their different levels, effectiveness is threatened.
Graves, in integrating many fields of personal and industrial psychology, concisely summarizes his conclusions on the styles needed for the management of the most talented:
“In this system the means to the end or organizational goals are restructured to fit the individual characteristics of the organizational member, rather than attempts to restructure that person to fit the organizational needs. The manager’s role is to rework the organization so that its goals are achieved utilizing the people as they are, not as someone wishes them to be or perceives they should be (1981:8)”.
Graves acknowledges here a subtle but profound premise - that people are already motivated. The perceived problem is that we would prefer they were motivated to do the same things we are - and in the same way. The paper goes on to ask the very different question about motivation theory. Rather than how to adapt people so as to motivate them, it asks how should we adapt our leadership to enable people who are already motivated to contribute at their best. It asks a question of us about our true motivation - not theirs.
The essence of his understanding has two truths. The first is that leadership is the art of leading people as they are. The second is to recognize when we are leading as we are. Which of the two approaches is easier: adapting our leadership style to the many ways people find meaning in their existence or requiring people to adapt to what we find meaningful? Not only is the second extremely difficult, in large and diverse organizations, it may also be unconscionable.
In Graves’ own words:
“This proposition is well represented in many managerial situations today. In many firms that I have observed I have seen training programs wherein the policy was to change the beliefs and ways of behaving of the manager. These firms developed managerial training programs designed to modify the beliefs of the manager as to how work should be conducted in order to bring them more in line with the organization’s preexisting methods and beliefs. (Seilers, 1968, p.134) These programs do not try to fit managerial development to the beliefs and ways of behaving that are those of the managing person. They attempt instead to get the managerial person to change his or her beliefs. When organizations foster this kind of incongruency they cast the managing person into a severe value crisis – a crisis which more often than not, reverberates to the detriment of effective performance in his managerial situation.”
In the emerging field of values management there is an enticingly real risk that while ostensibly respecting peoples’ values we will instead seek ways to manage those values. Seeking to manage people by managing their core values will have its own problems. Only those blinded by cleverness will walk into this trap. As any manager knows, people have a great resilience to being how they are.
To assist the unsuspecting, Graves has pointed us to a truth that helps us discern our own leadership motivations and the appropriateness of our leadership style - before we inquire as to the motivation of others.
For the leaders of Generation Y, and also for the new Generation Y Leaders - this simple truth is becoming increasingly apparent, as both seek to manage, and be managed, as they are.
Learn more:
“We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality.
All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.” - Aldous Huxley
The Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy (ISTP), which has over 80 post-graduate and 100 undergraduate students doing research into the many fields of sustainability, recently asked that we help coordinate an Advanced Sustainability course in Organizational Sustainability for Engineers Australia.
While probably not the first Integral Organizational Sustainability course in the world, we did design the course structure to look at all the facets of sustainability across 4 quadrants, 6 levels and 9 lines for all different types of organizations. The case studies presented by different leaders in organizational sustainability on Argyle Diamonds, Water Corporation, Pilbara Iron and the Sultanate of Oman covered a spectrum of approaches to the concepts, culture, systems and measurement of sustainability.
Talking about the levels of sustainability is always difficult, mostly because everyone’s approach is completely right - just at different times for different organizations. One thing that was different about this course was the way we integrated the stages of sustainability within the phases of sustainability - to see all sustainability steps as appropriate.
A useful way to look at this major part of an integral approach is provided by Dexter Dunphy’s perspective on the six phases of sustainability commitment:
1. Rejection
2. Non-Responsiveness
3. Compliance
4. Efficiency
5. Strategic Proactivity
6. The Sustaining Organization
Each of the six phases builds on (and assumes) the economic, social and ecological mastery of all the activities of all previous phases. It also holds within it the many different models of corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship that often confuse our sustainability thinking. It is a model of great depth that transcends and includes many initiatives across all stages. It correlates well with a 4Q approach.
What was rewarding about doing the course in this way was how the working groups were able to find the appropriate present level of sustainability existence for their organization and the (tetra-evolutionary) path to where their sustainability programs should be in the near future.
If we all only did this - how much better would our world be?
Read an early Chapter: (pdf)
Read the Book: Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability - Dunphy, Griffiths and Benn (2003)
Read a Case Study: Argyle Diamonds
See tetra-evolution
“If something is not worth doing (at all) - it’s really not worth doing well
(so find instead enjoyment in the attempt)” - Stephen Forsyth
I have been meaning to write about the Doug McKenzie-Mohr training on Fostering Sustainable Behavior. Many of those working locally on societal and social change went to his advanced workshop recently (and seeing so many people there was inspiring in itself).
His model for community based social marketing came out of his work as an environmental psychologist. It’s rare to see a perfect model for systemic change. It highlights why many efforts at developing a healthy society partially miss the mark - even though motivated by very good intentions. He has also created an amazing resource for societal growth (and an impressive network for those who want to log in and learn from the successes of others).
Many of the issues we face in our organisations and our communities we all have in common and now have the answers to (e.g. water demand management, organisational culture change, community waste reduction, energy efficiency etc.). So the question is not so much about “What to do?” but more “Why don’t we?”. Doug answers this question.
The five steps of: 1. Selecting the actvity to encourage, 2. Identifying barriers and benefits to change, 3. Developing strategies using tools that cover those barriers and benefits, 4. Conducting a pilot to test in the area of response and 5. only then, broadly implement and measure - all seem sensible and logical. It is the essential sub-elements covered in the workshop that make the discipline behind his approach exciting in its potential.
But the problem with perfect processes is we are imperfect beings. There are lots of things we miss. For example, the consideration of the barriers and benefits to change should look at the new behavior, and also the barriers and benefits of the existing behavior. It should also consider the physical (UR), socio-structural (UR), cultural (LL) and intentional (UL) reasons - such as the pragmatics of action, the supporting laws, peer pressure and individual awareness. We would not often do all sixteen sets of inquiry.
Some others things that came up for me in the workshop that impact on otherwise excellent programs of behavior change were:
1. Lack of a Compelling Vision - “I get what you are saying - but so what!”.
2. No Effect Data - “We changed something - but tell me again why we did this?”.
3. No Impact Analysis - “Oops! - sorry, we’ll now need to fix that”.
4. False Barrier Perception - “Oh - You didn’t ask about that!”
5. Cross Functional Actions - “What, we both did it?”
6. Invisible Response Costs - “We can change that - but 50 other things will change too!”
7. Ongoing Iteration - “We were 58% successful - but only had funding for one go?”
With careful analysis we can get them all. These programs for sustainable change can be successful.
What is more interesting is why we wouldn’t follow the model and Doug’s learnings when these are available. In asking the question “Why don’t they? ” - the real insight is “Why didn’t we?”. That asks something about our own thinking.
This was the topic of a research paper on Sustainability Assessment I gave at the IAIA conference in Vancouver last May. Given the choice of changing our thinking or changing the process - we’ll often unconsciously change the process - so it doesn’t work. That’s fascinating.
It means even if we know how, without help, we might not. It is one of the topics I am speaking on at the 12th International Conference on Thinking next month.
but more on that later …
“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge” - Daniel J. Boorstin
The events of Boxing Day 2004 caused all of us to reflect on our reaction to crisis and on the inspiring depth of our capacity for response.
It caused me to also review my papers from the MAAOE 2003 Conference - the theme for which was ‘Organisational Excellence in the Face of Crisis’.
In an insightful paper by Robert Herriot a different view of crisis was presented. Using the familiar examples of Cyclone Tracy and the Canberra bushfires he showed how a crisis is really the succession of decisions or circumstances that lead to an event, not simply the catastrophic trigger at the end of that sequence. After looking at the organizational lifecycles of 110 companies, his proposal is that excellence in decision making can avert crisis, or at least minimise the effects of the event. This is why the same ‘crisitic event’ can affect companies differently.
The (Oxford) dictionary defines ‘crisis’ as 1. a time of danger or great difficulty, and 2. a decisive moment or turning point. The second definition is often overlooked. These two meanings of crisis highlight the choice between two approaches - management ‘in crisis‘ - and the management ‘of crisis‘.
For example, one organisation I know of has found themselves in the position of not having the time to develop the skills needed to respond to the challenges ahead. They have decided to focus on their speed of response, rather than proactive prevention. While effective in the day-to-day… they no longer plan for or take holidays. Management in crisis has replaced the management of crisis.
The other approach is explained by Richard Slaughter in his integral discussion “Futures Beyond Dystopia: Creating Social Foresight”. He concludes that having a way to think about the complexity of the future can remove our fear of it. This requires of us the ability to clearly read the signs that point to a dangerous or diminished future, to interpret them correctly and to take effective action.
I suppose this is why we see each Board meeting or critical management decision that marks a potential turning point as being so important.
It is the way to avoid the great difficulties of the future.
Read article: Samith Dharmasaroja
Master Wu Li said: “Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment - chop wood, carry water.”
Those who thought they heard him say: “carry logs, chop water” - must sometimes wonder if they are doing it hard.
To progress - we must first begin,
and not mistake movement,
for conscious action,
on the actual path.
Just looking at the Blog record - the most recent post marks the 1 year anniversary of the launch of the Insights Blog.
Of course since then Blogging has boomed - but the original intent - the unfolding of the dimensions of sustainable organisational growth in theory and practice - continues unchanged.
During that time the FCG website has changed significantly to reflect that there is now a community of people worldwide examining and working with the issues that FCG was formed to answer.
At last count the Leaders in Excellence Network had 180 members from 11 countries. Having previously reached a stable equilibrium - it has recently begun to grow more rapidly again.
Future events over the next few months include:
1. FCG Fourth Annual Practitioners Lunch
2. Automation of the Subscriber Membership Database
3. Precis’ published on the Theory of Sustainable Growth of the Firm
4. The updated paper on Integral Sustainable Growth theory is completed
5. The World First Club 451 Meeting; and
6. Completion of the Website Case Studies
The only question is when is the right time to make this work plublic.
Watch this space.
William
“I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.” — Oliver Wendell Holmes
With the kind support of the Integral University, I was fortunate enough to travel to Westminster, Colorado last month to attend, present and facilitate a working group at the world’s first Seminar on Integral Ecology and Sustainability.
Seventy five of the leading thinkers and practitioners in sustainability from around the globe joined together to learn integral multi-disciplinary approaches to ecology and sustainability practices and to find out how we can work together, potentially on issues of global significance.
This emergent community includes Biologists, Environmental Scientists, Systems Modellers, Ecologists, Economists, Artists, Architects, Educators, Mediators, Community Leaders, Academics, Researchers and Practitioners with qualifications in Philosophy, Comparative Religion, Transpersonal Psychology, Anthroposophy, Child Psychology, Cultural Studies, Law, Economics, Ecopsychology, Permaculture, Mechanical, Water, Environmental and Aerospace Engineering and Interdisciplinary Technologies.
The significance of this particular event, is not that this is the first time something like this has been done, but that the Integral Ecology and Sustainability domain that organised the seminar is only one of 20 domains that the Integral Institute is forming for simultaneous launch in the next few months to create what they call the Integral Multiplex.
This will bring together into virtual space similar groups working in areas such as Integral Psychology, Integral Law, Integral Ecology, Integral Education, Integral Consciousness Studies, Integral Art, Integral Business, Integral Religion, Integral Medicine and Integral Transformative Practice all linked into one worldwide learning community.
One of the most interesting experiences from the Seminar I attended was a simulation involving over 50 participants in different roles modelling, in a day-long simulation, the 20 year management of the Florida everglades eco-system - putting the competing interests of developers, industry, environmental groups and fast growing communities into a real time dynamic learning space. This gives us a way to see and experience if what we do will be sustainable, before we do it - at a whole of society level.
People originating from Mexico, Russia, Canada, Taiwan, Germany, Brazil, Belgium, Australia, Philippines, Norway, Holland, England, Scotland and all corners of the USA worked together intensively for a week at a level I have not seen before.
These are all people with big hearts and big minds committed to big solutions to the multitude of micro-problems being faced by communities everywhere. The reverse slogan ‘Think Local Act Global’ becomes real in this space.
We have been waiting a long time for this - and it was an honour to be there to experience its beginning.
“It is not enough to be a great thinker - we also need to be great doers. Only with the combination of both are great things done.” - Stephen Forsyth
One of the most important things about knowing where you are going is being able to see your way. When you are working in a forest of complexity, seeing not just the trees, but also the whole map, is essential to finding the path ahead.
Evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker tells us that the way our mind lets us see objects (locating ‘where they are’, and ‘what they are’, and ‘where they are moving to’) has given us a unique ability to think about problems that are too big to be seen. Understanding how our mind works in the 3D physical world can help us to map the conceptual world, expanding our ability to manage complexity.
The Strategic Vision for the Waste Management Board of Western Australia is that we will live in a zero waste society, to be achieved over a 20 year span. The interim goal was to have halved our waste sent to landfill by the year 2000. Simple targets did not represent the complexity of the task. If you think about all the products our society creates - there are tens of thousands of ‘trees in the forest’. Managing wastes only after they have been produced makes this goal almost impossible.
Following an industry and community consultation process the Waste Management Board developed a map of the entire waste landscape - and then did something special - moving from two dimensional management into three dimensions.
In creating this landscape map the Board was then able to see all products and their lifecycles. Answering the question “What is it?” and “Where is it?” made locating what needed to be done much easier. However as the landscape is changing, they also need to know “Where will it be next?” to set priorities. Looking not just at some wastes, but all wastes at their source, the key to success came in finding a way to visualize priorities in a dynamic flow.
On 23 September 2004 the Minister for the Environment launched the Waste Strategy for Western Australia. This is a bit different for us, as the intangible benefit will actually become visible. While moving to this new management framework may take a few years, and the effects a few decades, having a map will at least allow a strategic vision to emerge. With this view the Board can explore the changing landscape with enhanced perspective and greater confidence - seeing the whole forest, while managing all of the trees.
(Read more - “Visualising Complexity- How the Mind Works”: Reflections Articles Series)
“The more you move towards your destiny, the more your destiny moves towards you.” - Stephen Forsyth
The essence of sustainable growth management is the conscious understanding of where an organisation is in its lifecycle. At each stage different dynamics are in play. Knowing what they are and should be makes them manageable.
For those that have seen many organisations at all their different stages this meta-perspective is easy. For most, to see it from within their own organisation, is very hard. What is happening is just the here and now.
Dr. Ichak Adizes is one person with that meta-perspective. He wrote the book on how organisations grow and die and what to do about it. His organisational lifecycle uses 10 stages. There are others (like Robert Jones or Lawrence Miller ) who have similar models. What is important and different about Adizes work is he identifies the key dynamics that exist and must be sustained in the organisation at each stage.
For example, he uses the four dynamics of Purpose, Administration, Entrepreneurship and Integration. An Infant (Paei) reactionary business does not shift to its prime growth phase until its dynamics change. Until it develops its ‘Administration’, sales may go up for a while but growth will stop. At the later stage of Bureaucracy (pA_i), removing the ‘Administration’ handcuffs is vital to survival. 
The insight is that all the management theorists are right - even those that contradict each other - it is just that they are right for different stages of the lifecycle. Knowing how the stages work means you know which part of the bookshelf to embrace, and those to avoid, for now.
But getting the stages right is only part. Despite what change management models may suggest, healthy organisations don’t often change character in jumps, but in gradual transitions, as tensions emerge and are resolved in a continuously reforming dynamic equilibrium. This process of transition will be uniquely different in each organisation.
The final part to sustainable growth management is in understanding the subtle dynamics in the transitions between stages. We then seek not to manage change, but to allow emergent change.
When we do this, development is less painful and more natural, relying not on survivalist shifts, but moving instead towards conscious sustainable growth. We achieve this when we go beyond the flatline leading to decline and begin truly emergent development.
If we can learn to do this in our organisations, just perhaps, we might be able to do this as a species.
“All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions, is called a philosopher” - Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
When in 1994 Henry Mintzberg, one of the fathers of strategic thinking, announced strategic planning’s demise the business management community mourned. If the world outside of an organisation could not be objectively determined with certainty, what hope was there for strategy?
In the meantime new tools and new schools of strategy abounded. After everyone had developed different approaches and discussed their relative merits, Mintzberg (and his co-authors) again helped us out identifying within the confusion 10 different schools of strategy.
At least we now know when asked ‘What is strategy?’ the answer will depend on which school we went to. But which one to choose? Everyone claims to be strategic and each approach claims to be right.
In exploring the question ‘What is strategy - and does it matter?’ Whittington discovered another part of the answer, identifying that the classical planning school was one perspective in four quadrants: Classical, Evolutionary, Processural and Systemic. What Whittington found, but could not yet see, was the four quadrants were a match with those in Ken Wilber’s integral analysis.
What we realise from this is we do not have (or need) one right approach to strategy, but multiple approaches, all of which are valid, depending on the circumstances, and the appropriate worldview. Four quadrants, ten schools and multiple lines of enquiry. We only need to choose the right mix to make the complex simple.
So how can we bring all the disciplines together in one frame?
For the last two weeks, I have been in Melbourne, studying with Chris Cowan and Natasha Todorovic connected with the National Values Centre in the U.S. looking into values management in large-scale systems change and the work of Dr C.W. Graves. In an insightful article they provide one example of many applications for this type of work and review the levels within worldviews of the 10 schools of strategic analysis.
When an organisation does not understand its external environment in cannot successfully grow. What we find is a ‘one paradigm - one tool’ approach may work, but if it is the wrong one for that organisation, it never will, regardless of how sophisticated an approach it might be. What we ideally need to do is be able to work across all ten disciplines to create a careful selection of processes from all the available tools, with respect for the operating worldviews.
To be strategic we need both insight and foresight. We also need to select from the best options, consciously and with clarity of the unknowns. Our strategic approach will always reflect our approach to strategy.
If our strategy approach is not making sense - it probably isn’t increasing our learning either - however we can always change schools, or at least play for a while in a different school yard, if we want to graduate - and that is what the 11th discipline - or integral strategy - is all about.
(Read more: Mintzberg’s views and his biography- and Ken Wilber)-(pdf)
“The art of progress is to preserve order admist change and to preserve change admist order.” -
Alfred North Whitehead
I was asked to give the closing lecture to this years graduating class of my old alumni last week. Something to allow reflection on their leadership journey and to help prepare for the next stage was the request. So we worked with Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey Cycle.
What was interesting was that some of the Masters graduates had travelled far and wide and had many more paths to explore on their journeys. Others were not on a journey. They had covered a great distance, but without travelling too far from home. Each had got different benefits from the experience. So what is it about leadership development programs that make them work - and work for different people in different ways?
The answer came at the same time as an accidental reunion of fellow journeymen from the Kimberley Odyssey we completed in May. Between us we have trained and worked with hundreds of leaders and read thousands of books and research articles on leadership development and all the questions they raise. That doesn’t mean the answers came easily.
At the Breakfast Brainstorm on Leadership we attended, all the participants had the opportunity to work through the same questions: about leaders being born not made, the role of mentors and false guides, the importance of development through challenge and trials, the role of self-awareness and why only some answer the call.
Within the many elements of the many stages of the complete leadership development cycle touched on in this forum in many parts - there emerged one theme. ‘You can not hope to lead others if you can not lead yourself.’ Leadership is different in its style and form in different environments, but it is the same in essence. It is about personal leadership first.
This gave me cause to reflect on the essential nature of leadership and the perspective required to lead, with the conclusion: ‘If you are ever to lead others you must be prepared to go on the journey yourself.’ That is your journey - not anothers.
From this we learn that leaders are both born and made, each person having their own unique leadership potential, that they must choose to find in themselves, before it can be developed. In the rush to develop leadership we sometimes take the ‘person’ out of the personal development component. In finding another’s style of leadership we may never find our own. When we understand this can we cease looking for ‘leadership’ and begin to find the true leaders.
The failure of leadership programs are rarely in their intent, but often in their design. When we realize that any program that does not ’see’ the unique complexity of each individual within its form will only develop a type of leadership - but not the leader within, we begin the real work and a journey into the unknown.
For those that have commenced their actual journeys - Go safely and with courage (and enjoy the view).
(More on the Hero Monomyth)
I recently was doing work with Rio Tinto’s project management team for the Yandi expansion and as an aside we looked at the 3 A’s of stress management.
To alleviate a stressful situation it helps to decide if it is something you can Alter, Avoid or Accept. Different strategies apply to each. Knowing which approach is appropriate doesn’t change the circumstances, but does mean you do not have to stress about it. This marks a shift from the management of stress to the questionning of whether the stress should exist.
Today the latest Journal of Humanistic Psychology (Vol.44/No. 3) arrived and in it is an article on ‘hardiness’. Hardiness is the ability to embrace an ambiguous future rather than just do what is done in the past. Essentially it is the ‘courage to be’.
Researcher Salvadore Maddi has conducted a 12 year longitudinal research project into the multiple components of hardiness which he groups into three C’s - Control, Commitment and Challenge. What is interesting is the link between the 3 A’s and the 3 C’s. The A’s are the approaches, the C’s are the capabilities needed to execute them. Both are needed as different facets of the whole.
Paraphrasing Maddi’s conclusion: “To tolerate and resolve stressful situations one must see them as:
a.) natural developmental pressures (Challenges to Accept)
b.) resolvable rather than unmanageable (Control to Alter) and
c.) worth investing in (Commitment or Avoidance).”
Those managers with high hardiness scores thrived on stressful situations and outperformed other groups. Those that had low hardiness scores, when faced with a new challenge, chose the past and were at risk of eventually entering an inescapable cycle leading to meaningless and boredom. As a result Maddi and his colleagues have been working out how to develop ‘hardiness’ and existential courage in organisational leaders.
The next stage is when an organisation itself develops this existential courage (avoiding a similar cycle of decline resulting from the acceptance of a stressful workplace).
All of this links back to the role of coaching in leadership development and the process of reversing ‘learned pessimism‘ in organisations - where the stressful actually then becomes the meaningful quest. This leads us to the insight that to find purpose in the challenges of our work, we must learn to break the cycle of belief (and acceptance) that life is meant to be stressful.
Understanding the 3A’s, (the 3B’s - see below) and the 3C’s is a simple way of beginning.
(and for those who understand the Enneagram - here is a way to manage the whole complexity- FCG Stress Enneagram)
“If clever people are so clever, why don’t they just make it simple.” - Stephen Forsyth
Powered by WordPress
