Leadership for the Common Good
“When No One is in Charge�
In the last few years that I taught high school, I became more and more aware of an ideal that really bothered me among students. In general, there was this sense that only “experts� knew what they were talking about. Often I would hear them critiquing teachers in the school- what they had a degree in, what experience they had- (weighing credibility according to Kouzes and Posner?). I felt the students were often only willing to trust those people and institutions labeled as ‘experts’ or were ‘big names’ or ‘brands’ they knew.
In my particular way of teaching, I would often require students to be “in charge� themselves - to think about solutions to big challenges, to argue with the ‘experts’, and to run their own discussions of readings and ideas in American Government (what better way to learn about democracy?). I wanted them to understand that waiting for accepted leaders to step up and solve things for them was going to get them no where.
I thought about this a lot as I read the first chapter of Leadership for the Common Good, “When No One is in Charge�. Crosby and Bryson focus on the ways that large, complex public problems can be tackled, and through that argue that, “individuals, groups, and organizations, as well as many others, will have to be part of any significant beneficial change,�(4) that develops. They focus on how in our “no-one-in-charge, shared-power world,� (4) that a top-down organizational structure with “expert-based planning and decision-making� (5) doesn’t cut it for a world that is increasingly inter-connected.
Along with highlighting the challenges that any global or large-scale problem brings such as: disagreement on how an issue is defined, which groups play significant roles in it, and wide-ranging responses to proposed changes, Crosby and Bryson discuss the ways a new type of network organization has emerged. This network of organizations and stakeholders is in response to complex problems where no one is in charge and groups must share responsibility and leadership for something that is affecting many. The authors highlight how decision making in this model is very different from the “’rational planning’ approach associated with bureaucratic hierarchy.�(10).
I liked the discussion in this article about the “messiness� of planning and decision-making in the network model, where you may have organizations that completely disagree and different groups that have radically different goals or concerns around a larger problem. Shared-power itself is messy. As I work in an organization now that has all different levels of partnerships and shared goals I am interested in how power-sharing works, especially when groups have mixed motives. How does this look? How do groups manage this change as they move toward a power-sharing model?
Crosby and Bryson talk about the power-sharing model as developing power through collaboration, “a shared-power arrangement enhances the power of the participants beyond the sum of their separate capabilities,�(29) highlighting that “potential for effective leadership� lies not just in formal positions of power, but anywhere people are able to create collaboration and a unifying mission.
It seems to me that creating and working within social networks allows everyone to contribute their strongest assets, while providing participants a stake in a larger goal- a chance to contribute in their own ways to the common good. “Our view of leadership speaks to people’s yearning for empowerment and improved prospects for the themselves and their children,� (31). How does leadership grow through people working together towards a common, uniting goal?
As Crosby and Bryson talked about emerging problems, programming problems, and operational problems, while illustrating some of the biggest global issues we currently face, I couldn’t help but think about education. As we consider ways to educate our kids and young adults, it seems to me it is so important to help them understand how they can tackle large, no-one-in-charge issues instead of waiting for experts to do it for them. This is also especially important as we go through the next year in the election cycle… Do we choose a leader who promises to solve or do we choose someone who empowers us to solve with all of our resources and people? Leaders, as the authors define them, “inspire and motivate constituents through persuasion, example, and empowerment, not through command and control.�(32).
-Kristin Farrell
Comments
I agree that we have an increasingly inter-connected world and that hierarchical, top-down organizational structure cannot create lasting, positive solutions to the pressing global issues at hand. These are issues that can only truly be solved through a shared-power, collaborative effort. However, I'm finding it hard to get past the messiness of the process and the feeling that time is not on our side.
The shared-power, collaborative effort can be extremely time-consuming, especially when we are facing time-sensitive threats such as global warming, nuclear proliferation, etc. I work at the University, where committees are formed every day to solve various issues. The committees typically include a variety of stakeholders, partner units, and external resources to tackle the issue. The issue may or may not be resolved, but either way the time spent is usually immense - even for a relatively simple issue. Additionally, if the committee is not successful, members tend to point fingers at their neighbors, promoting a sense of unaccountability.
My main fear is that our global society may not be mature enough to successfully collaborate in a power-sharing structure in time to solve the major issues nipping at our heels. At the same time, I don't think these issues can be solved any other way.
Posted by: Nick Deffley | January 27, 2008 05:49 PM
Crosby & Bryson's Shared Power approach and Allen and Cherrey's Organic Change approach seem to mirror each other in their focus on influencing the system through a collaborative effort and release of control by one party, which is especially important in this interconnected, fast paced world that we live in.
While global problems were recognized, especially in the Crosby & Bryson piece, the deeply rooted cultural differences that lie just beneath these problems were not. I'd be interested to know how the authors of both pieces suggest using their respective approach to create change across cultural boundaries. What specific tools do leaders need to influence the system across borders in a respectful, mutual gain manner? I look forward to exploring this later in the semester.
Posted by: Kristi Mueller | January 28, 2008 06:25 PM
Although both the Allen/Cherrey and Crosby/Bryson articles speak to collaborative efforts as a mean to affect change, I found it easier to grasp the Systemic Leadership article. This, no doubt, is a reflection of my limited experience and involvement with large-scale social issues. However, I am intrigued by the global perspective of social case studies and how these networking idea could be applied to a single organization.
The large-scale perspective of the Crosby/Bryson article prompted me to wonder: How could I increase effective networking possibilities in my school (place of employment)? How can I sift through the ‘blame game’ of large/small group dialogues and shift group perspective toward group solutions vs. finger pointing? (Is this too controlling?) Individuals have passionate thoughts and opinions. What are some ways to channel passion toward proactive solutions?
****
Nick D. makes a great point in his posting, these processes take time! Maybe too much time. As I find myself more and more involved with collaborative events, I’m a little frustrated by weak follow-thru to these events and find myself searching for ways to make the process more efficient and time saving.
On the flip side, I love the heuristic element of problem solving as a group, it is messy at times (part of the fun), but also very satisfying and brings about a sense of social purpose. Individuals want to feel needed; to connect; to contribute. There are great ideas and creative individuals everywhere, not just in positions of power. Systems thinking; I’m a big fan.
I’d like to reiterate praise for Jan Hively, co-founder of the Vital Ageing Network, she is also a dynamic and inspirational as co-instructor of Baby Boomers Confront Innovation. She is a model of networking and collaborative spirit.
Posted by: Liz Kuivinen | January 29, 2008 06:11 AM
Something really jumped out at me in the "Leadership for Common Good" article. The sentence: "Many people will have power to thwart action in such a world, but few will have the will, faith, hope, and courage to say yes to new initiatives. The result is that even powerful people can feel frustrated and impotent." (p. 10)
Many years ago I worked for the local nonprofit Women Against Military Madness. I stayed in that job for four years largely because we had a visionary leader on staff and I admired her greatly. She shifted my thinking many times over the years that we worked together, but in reference to the above sentence I remember that she would often say it wasn't enough for peace organizations to be anti-war but that we had to vision what a pro-peace future would look like. She felt that the peace movement always had criticisms for our legislators, but few constructive ideas for peace for them to build on. That was definitely the more challenging work to do (proactive vs. reactive) but she certainly "Inspired a Shared Vision." One example of that was for the 15th anniversary of WAMM, we created a conference called "Making the Connections: Democracy Now!" that brought together a range social change organizations together to look at our commonalities. There are so many issues and problems that social change organizations face that we are apt to work in our narrow areas (environment, racism, militarism), but the purpose of the conference was to reveal the underlying issues common to all social change agencies in the spirit of working together better.
As the article later states (p. 16) "At some point in the policy change process, they have to created shared-power networks of groups and organizations that engage in issue-oriented political decision making aimed at developing widely shared appreciation of what the problems are and what can be done about them. They also need to help their constituents develop shared understanding of why it is important to solve the problems and what vision of the future they want to achieve."
I'm curious to find out more about "Inspiring a Shared Vision" in this class. I have worked with some visionaries in my career in the nonprofit sector, but I have generally assumed you're either a visionary or your not. I'm wondering if this is something that can be learned.
Posted by: Jackie Starbird | January 29, 2008 08:23 AM
I wonder Kristin, How many of your students use wikipedia as a source for a lot of their information/research needs and how often they might question those 'experts'. Or perhaps that falls under a 'brand' they know. All arguements of social inequality aside, I also wonder if they aren't already using the tools they need to "tackle large, no-one-in-charge issues." They just haven't yet realized the full potential of the social networking powers of sites like myspace and facebook.
I recently gave a talk about Web 2.0 at the College of Continuing Education Lifelong Learning Fest. Learning Life is a new program CCE is launching specifically targeting ageing baby boomers. The goal is to use new "Web 2.0" style technologies to generate a community of participation and interaction. The values my copresenter and I focused in on were: participation, interaction and community. The fact that web 2.0 is less about specific technology and more about a new culture where people's passions were a major force and Sharing Power aka "data" makes it work.
Web 2.0's collaboration style being a response to Web 1.0's top down structure. It's amazing how much people have embraced this idea. Here in the Office of Information Technology for the UMN we are now starting a new OIT 2.0 phase and what are we focused on? You guessed it, collaboration.
Posted by: Ben Cashen | January 29, 2008 03:54 PM