Leadership and Change

Cheri,

I agree with you in that moving toward shared leadership seems a difficult process. However, I think hierarchy is probably a necessary part of successful shared leadership. As Fletcher and Kaufer state, “We might see-and even need to see-figureheads at the top. But models of shared leadership recognize that these visible “heroes” are supported by network of leadership practices distributed throughout the organization” (22). Chances are, the formal leader of a company might actually instigate a shift toward shared leadership, since few others in the hierarchy would have the ‘authority’ to make that organizational decision. Of course, individuals from the middle of the organization could incorporate shared leadership tenets on their own in an attempt to build a ‘collective.’ However, this might be a slow process, but who knows?

You mentioned, “the powerful folks eventually silence the rest.” Does power equate to control? I hope there are some leaders motivated by the ‘common good.’ Formal leaders might see shared leadership as an opportunity, not a threat.

One tenet I found exciting was: Shift III: Leadership as Learning. Each employee, at all levels in an organization, carries valuable experiences and ideas that are unique only to them. If department-crossing, self-in-relation dialogue was valued as part of the organization, potential to build trust across hierarchical lines and across departments could actualize the company into a productive learning organization.

The four levels of dialogue are intriguing. As a musician, I’m always striving for the ‘optimal experience’ (Csikszentmihalyi) in performance, that feeling that you’ve transcended the notes and are lost in the music. This experience is even more of a ‘rush’ when it happens in an ensemble (group). The ‘collective optimal experience,’ from the perspective of a musician, is amazing when it happens. All band members know ‘it’ is happening and everyone is in the ‘zone’ jointly creating and effortlessly challenging each other as if we were one mind a part of shaping a unique, magical musical experience. I understand the four levels as a musician, and I see the exciting transferable experience in self-as-relational dialogue experiences. The ‘collective’ transcends their ‘self,’ each individual offering their expertise into the collective pot-culminating in a unique collective solution/idea/innovation. Exciting.

In response to comments made by Liz, first I agree that hierarchy will probably always need to exist, which was my point (in a semi-sarcastic way). And I agree that some leaders are "motivated by the common good," but I still hold firm that power gets in the way, regardless of intentions and effort. Sometimes the power that leaders hold takes over more strongly within some than others; on the other side of the coin, regardless of how team-oriented the leader is, those with less power may be affected by the underlying power position of the leader.

And finally, shared leadership works great when all members of the group are perceived to be on the same level, such as in a musical ensemble. I see the same dynamics happening when administrators within the Medical School get together, learning from one another (although it is probably much more exciting when music is being constructed).

Perhaps the closest we can come to shared leadership within a heirarchical organization is when all members are invited for input and feel comfortable doing so, yet even then it can be difficult. I'm reminded of my tenure as the Administrator of a law firm in Minneapolis that lived (they thought) by a book (wish I could remember the name of the author) about shared leadership and constructing a non-heirarchical organization. They firmly believed they were living this existence of everyone being on the same level. They made it work semi-successfully amongst the attorneys (partners and associates), but though the staff were invited to be part of various committees that made decisions, the staff all felt a distinct separation from the attorneys. It didn't work because, I think, in the end somebody still is in charge (and, in this case, it was the entire group of attorneys). The attorneys just couldn't understand why the staff didn't accept or integrate into their plan, but the "power thing" stood in the way (the staff's words to me). As much as the attorneys tried, they still believed deep down that they were in charge, and that belief came through loud and clear in small ways.

It's amazing how power changes people in even very small ways that are sometimes invisible to the leader. It's human nature.

I think there are two key elements that are not addressed in the chapter. The first is perception of held power and the second is personality type. While reading this chapter, I was reminded of my dreaded weekly staff meetings. I say dreaded because our meetings often last several hours. I work in an office of 13 women and anyone who wants to speak up can have their say on just about anything, regardless of “status” within the organization. Needless to say, I have also experienced stagnation due to inability to come to a consensus. However, along the way, there are certain team players that speak louder and more often than others. When the issue is finally resolved, the ones who lobbied the loudest will usually get what they wanted, while the more passive bunch feels like they have not had a say. The passive members perceive that the aggressive members have all the power, when in fact, everyone has equal say. Do I assume that everyone in my office needs some training on what it means to have shared power and how to act (if this is, in fact, the way we are operating) or is one person meant to facilitate shared power to ensure that everyone is involved? How do strike a balance between passive and aggressive personalities so that everyone feels like they share the power?

I think Kristi really brings some very interesting questions to the table. The personality type issue is something that I have been thinking about since day one when K&P professed that anyone can be a leader. My response to that is that not everyone has the right personality or the want to be a leader. So, in those situations and in the situation of Kristi's staff meetings, what can be done.

In reading Paradox and Possibility (P&P) I was intrigued by something early in the article. The idea of collective learning is discussed on page 24 and I think the idea can be tied not only to Kristi's staff meetings but also to our class. The concept of collective learning talks about different stages with the first being "talking nice." Think about our first postings on this blog, our comments the first week or so seemed to be on the 'nice-side' - more agreeing. As time went on we became to "talk tough" and challenge one another's ideas. And then we started to have somewhat of a "reflective dialogue." And while we have made it through the first 3 stages, I don't think that we are quite at a "generative dialogue," and maybe we'll never be there, but it is interesting that while our class is not essentially an organization, we are somewhat embracing shared leadership.

In Kristi's situation, I think there has to be one person to facilitate shared power, but maybe this is a good way to start - through collective learning.

Jen

I only got to page 24 of this chapter before I just had to get some thoughts on paper. Putting aside all the problems and challenges that are introduced in the chapter, the single thought of the group and leader interaction and joint leadership resonated with me. In the world of safety, very little, or maybe even nothing happens because one person (even a great leader) pushes it. To move an organization towards change and better practices you need as many people as possible. I think of it as a grass roots movement, but with members from many different layers of the company.
As a safety specialist (= safety leader) I am constantly trying to enlist other employees and working with them through the concept of 'safety is everyone's responsibility'. Nothing would happen without their involvment and I, as a leader, would not be able to grow and adjust course without their feedback. The social interaction (p23) that the authors write about in Shift II, is what makes safety happen in my company. Slowly, but steadily.

I believe the Stone Center paradigm of growth through connections as opposed to a more traditional model of growth as a process of separation and individuation is important, teachable and more extant in Western society than Pearce and Conger allow. . The "five good things" that happen when groups of selves in relation work together toward a mutally agreed upon goal actually happen with great frequency in our culture. Witness successful sports teams, performance groups like Liz's orchestra, etc.

There is leadership in these groups; a team captain is generally selected as an exemplar of the behavior needed to succeed. Coaches who are at the top of their field recognize that they are just a part of the puzzle, part leader, organizer, motivator, teacher and mentor. Sports teams, and orchestras are 'learning organizations', adapting new skills to their play, learning new music, studying patterns of opponents, or the playing techniques and styles of other music groups.

Successful athletic coaches must be adept at altering the vision of their players from self to Surrey's 'self-in-relation.' There are numerous examples of teams made up of the most highly skilled position players who nevertheless lose to teams of with lower paid players and less impressive statistics. "We played as a team." is an often heard explanation for underdog's triumph against big odds. The paradox here is that succees in team sports is due to masculine attributes. Athletes make powerful swings, strong moves to the basket, show great courage on the field of battle, etc. Yet it is a higher level of relational competence during play that most often determines who wins.

Leadership on the field of play is also dynamic and fluid with all players rotating through leading roles as plays develop in different zones and relating to offensive or defensive situations. Everyone gets to be the hero at one point or another. Their idea that Western thought is handicapped by the myth of individual achievement, and that growth in connection is accidental seems antiquated in light of these examples.

Hillman deliberately avoids the use of the word 'self' in his book, asserting that such a word swallows 'genius, angel, daimon and fate,' which are in his context all relational aspect inherent to the individual. These are also constructs of Western thought.

Cheri, I agree that shared leadership has been happening all along, and that cooperation is really within our nature as human beings. Power is about controlling wealth and resources, and often is accumulated by great teamwork. To Kristi's point, is there always a need to reach group consensus for action to occur? Are there ways to ensure that the apparently passive members of the group add their input?