Leadership and Change

Bryan

Thank you for your comments on the Paradox piece. In response to your request to share stories I will be brief. One of the things I find particularly fascinating about this course, the readings and the discussions is how I look at myself and my role as a leader. I was chief administrator in a large, complex department at the U for 26 years and then moved to a central unit. I thought I knew about being a leader - and I did know some things - but what this course and these discussions allow me to do is to push myself just a little bit more, think a little more creatively, listen to what others are saying (or not saying).

I have trouble with the chart of tactical vs. strategic leaders not so much because I quibble with K&P's assertion but because they provide nothing that (to me) provides the basis for the proportions. I recognize that looking to the future is vital and I need to do more of it, but I would have preferred statistics or some validation of their divisions of time.

Sarah Waldemar

I wonder why "tactical leaders" are compared to "strategic leaders." What on earth is the difference, really? To me, the terms mean the same thing. Am I missing something, or did the authors make up their own definitions? Looking them up in the dictionary confirms my suspicions--they mean exactly the same. (Just an observation....) As to the question that Sarah poses, should I assume the authors obtained the information for the chart from their empirical research findings? If so, they forgot to back up the chart with figures. If not, it's only a personal assumption on their part.

As to Bryan's question, I can also say that "power" changed me at first. I've been humbled many times since. But I've always been blessed with the ability to see the forest despite the trees. I can see consequences of today's actions easier than most -- I find myself envisioning a future trail of actions and likely end result which helps me decide which direction to take today. What I find difficult is helping those higher on the chain of command to see the same vision I have, for many times those leaders are stuck in the here and now.

This week, I have been reflecting about K&P through the lenses of different roles of leadership. Some are afforded more official sanction to think to the future (strategic - policy - board members) than others, tasked more with day-to-day authority and responsibility (tactical - procedural - administration). Those diagrams in the book that are under discussion in this blog exchange may be a general encouragement to live that way, not just work that way. All leadership responsibilities I've held over the years have infiltrated past the work day. The nature of the conversations within the job, and those calculated risks that must be made, shape what I read, who I talk with, what I think about, and even how much time I need to spend alone in order to figure things out within myself. The most beneficial lesson I ever learned in the public sector was to frame three options for every problem, and then develop the framework within a method that everyone can agree upon. For example, my first step involves looking back at the past to determine what is in law, rule, policy, procedure, and -- most importantly -- past practice (or custom). This is consistent with K&P, but lacks those specifics. That served to send me methodically to usual places to find information, or consult with people and know how to guide my conversation. That baseline helped me talk with conviction to diverse stakeholders, and add their information to what I already had. I often found myself briefing THEM about what already exists in language. There is no way that I could hasten that process, ever, to compress down into 25 percent time. I have also never worked for any organization that can afford to allow leader teams or discussions to stray off into the future too far for too long. Future talk is better suited for retreat environments, or ad hoc task forces, or during ideas offered to broaden the the context of a given issue. When Gov. Ventura was elected, a handful of us had the privilege of meeting many, many hours with him during briefings, and listening to him reflect upon the department visits. Patterns emerged that were forward-thinking, and we captured them as published principles that fit onto fold-out business cards. The intention was no different than any governor faces -- to engage the appointed and classified staff of the executive branch in a new way of thinking. Leaders want their ideas to knit in like the big, long warp threads through their organizations, not a short little weft thread that doesn't structurally hold anything together. I suppose it's one thing if you're weaving a placemat and don't need a vision longer than 18 inches (or a year). But that doesn't work when your organization relies on biennial funding, and the bond houses are looking at 20-30 year debt capacity, and the state agencies are working on demographic information forecasted to 2030.
So what worked for me was finding the "watering holes" where future-thinkers gathered within the organization, out in the community, at the National Conference of State Legislatures, or the National Governor's Office, or at the State Legislative Reference Library, or the bars at Township Officers Association or Minn Assoc of Counties conferences. One of the greatest assets that comes back for believing in the power of coalition is the ability to tap into really smart, really experienced, really committed, and really balanced people's crystal ball powers. It also helps to spend a chunk of that time K&P set aside for thinking about the future in conversation with "real people" who aren't involved in any of the aforementioned activities. In Policy Paradox we learn about the power of the polis, and it's worth it to ride the bus for the wisdom one gets there about what people want from the future, if not what they believe the future will be. It's all one really big tapestry that I carry around and blend stuff into, but never consider that I'm more than the weaver.