Reflection on Kouzes & Posner Chapter Five
Did anybody seeking wisdom about organizational change models find an “aha!” moment reading Kouzes and Posner’s 5th chapter this week? Unfortunately, I did not.
Out of respect for the blog dialogue about posting as early as possible, I am posting this reflection separately from a personal example you may seek out on the personals page. The irony is that Kouzes and Posner encouraged my personal leadership during three rich days picking up more pieces of an emerging puzzle of my 17-year-old son’s forward-looking leadership over his future aspirations. When an opportunity opened to travel to Seattle for three days to see the opening of Tosca at the opera and Roman Antiquities at the art museum, we took advantage of the time away. With encouragement from Kouzes and Posner, it became a time to emulate characteristics they identified:
• Image the possibilities by reflecting from the past, and then changing the mix of time spent between the present and future sufficient to figure out the picture from all the “puzzle” pieces (pp. 106-110); • Find a common purpose using “transformational leadership” skills to listen intently, identify a common purpose, and engage followers in a “cause” they can commit to, rather than merely a plan. The authors describe three “taking action” steps that honestly did not read much differently to me than the language of the two essentials: • Determine the “something” you want to do. • Picture what you will do next. • Survey your constituents about their aspirations.
In the presence of a young man who increasingly is taking leadership responsibility for his own life decisions, these words served us well.
As a lead investor in his next entrepreneurial venture, I am deeply interested in what he is thinking, and made a concerted effort to listen carefully without distractions or bias. At a personal level, the authors gave me plenty of inspiration about how to engage forward-thinking within myself and in the context of the dynamic, changing, relationship my son and I enjoy.
However, when I tried to apply the content of chapter five to real world organizational examples, their model seems too superficial, too optimistic, and too preordained in today’s messy, shared-power world.
The source of their optimism may be found in the international survey results published in an earlier chapter (Table 2.1 pp. 30-31), where “forward-looking” has consistently ranked as the second-most mentioned attribute of leadership in surveys of people in 11 nations where the authors conducted research since the mid-1980’s. I wonder if they overly interpreted one of their own research findings to bias toward their own preferences. In 2007, seven out of 10 American respondents valued this quality second to “honesty” (89 percent), with opinions in other countries ranging from 76 to 88 percent. Does anyone wish to comment on this thought?
The class begins exploration of organizational change models this week. That aforementioned statistic seems worthy of further consideration by each of us as we seek deeper understanding of what leadership means in this time of dramatic external pressures upon all organizations. What does this overwhelming preference for leaders who are “forward-looking” mean?
I am interested in how the rest of the class interprets that statistic. Given all that is written about the difficulties leaders face encouraging the adoption of change within organizations, and the devilishly difficult tasks associated with engaging followers in discussions beyond the present, I find it inconceivable that an equivalent measure of public permission comes with that desire for forecasting ability. What does that overwhelmingly positive statistic actually entitle leaders to, or burden leaders with, in fulfillment of line responsibilities for envisioning the future?
This week’s readings cover a wide range of leadership philosophies that touch upon, but do not exactly answer, this question. All authors agree in principle that leaders are responsible for paying attention to the future more than the people they are attempting to lead. O’Toole offers the most compelling argument that leaders today face the most difficult challenges in history due to the combination of external forces that require organizations to “transform,” not merely change (xi, xii). The authors all include case studies that illuminate aspects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators that force leaders to think far ahead of most people. Kouzes and Posner tend toward flowery language and stories with happy endings. I was grateful for the street-smart, honest discussions in Van de ven about management lessons taken from analyzing six public sector implementations that were “prone to disintegration” (pp. 57-58, especially Bryson and Roering, 1989). Did anyone else find it refreshingly honest that O’Toole documented that “bad luck” was the only attribution that spared failed entrepreneurs from leaders and investors who otherwise would deny them further opportunities in the future? I empathize with O’Toole’s confessed frustrations with barriers to organizational change, and became intrigued with the spectrum of dramatis personae of change (chart on p. 245) that he offers to analyze complex motivations of groups helping or hindering organizational positioning for the future.
Prof. John Bryson says that leaders without followers are just folks with a New Year’s resolution. Nobody wants to look that clueless, as Bolman and Deal write in their very apt section, “The Curse of Cluelessness” in Reframing Organizations. Yet, I fear we may if we aren’t careful to figure out how to reconcile what seems like a paradox: leaders must be forward-looking, but not effect change in the structure they are attempting to lead.
I invite comments. How many of you feel you could take Chapters 1-5 to your workplace or board obligation and begin making tangible recommendations for systems changes?
Login to the blog
Post a new entry
Subscribe in a reader
Comments
I personally find that establishing credibility is paramount to leadership success. Clarifying your values is definitely next on my list, but articulating and exemplifying them are two different things. Unless you walk the talk, others will not learn those values, nor will they live them. Having a vision of how things look in the future is what excites people and motivates them to "buy in" to your ideas.
None of this is new, for I feel we all understand these attributes are necessary for change to be considered let alone embraced.
Change is difficult; I find it easier to blame higher-ups for the dictate, point and scream "it's her fault!" or raise my hands in the air as if to say "can't help it!" Unfortunately, that isn't always possible or fair (albeit tempting). Bottom line is that leaders often get beat up, sometimes unfairly, and perhaps many times because reasons for the change haven't been communicated effectively enough. My question still remains how to get the resisters to accept change without bringing in a whole force of advisers to make sure you haven't "slipped up" in your presentation--and even then it doesn't seem to help.
I won't even go into how I recently thought a change of paint color on the office walls and hallways would be nice (recall the adage "no good deed goes unpunished"). It's really rather an amusing story. I eventually won approval from the masses, but discovered once again that even small changes can be a challenge (to think I could have just done it without anyone's approval almost makes me want to cry, for the amount of time spent was probably not worth my effort to create the acceptance to my proposed change). But I digress....
Posted by: Cheri Ptacek | February 25, 2008 10:01 PM
Cheri, I responded to your comment via e-mail when the copy tracked back to me there first. However, for the benefit of the rest of the class, let me repeat that I felt O'Toole shed considerable light on how to understand, if not empathize, that behavior. I was particularly taken with the clear-headed manner of speech used to explain how and why groups appear to defend the organizational customs and resist leadership. That may explain why Bolman and Deal (2005) note that consultants typically don't get very good results. They become the object of that frustration and scorn. In your case, the have-less group had less paint chips. I still haven't unraveled all the motivations at play within the school district. Thanks for writing. Wendy
Posted by: Wendy Wustenberg | February 26, 2008 03:00 AM
In this chapter K&P write about leaders being responsible for “prospecting the future,” and I believe this is what they are referring to when Wendy raises the question about the value of being “forward-looking” as the characteristic second only to honesty in what people admire in leaders. We rely on leaders to be “keeping their eyes on the prize” and for guiding the organization into the future, while the followers are carrying out the present day activities to keep the organization running. I see this as the “vision work” that leaders must provide, which I’m not convinced is something that can be learned. This characteristic seems to me to be innate to an individual.
K&P write that for the strategic leader on the front lines of supervision, a future might be a year from now, for middle level leaders, three to five years, and at the senior levels it should be at least ten. When they say that executive leaders responsible for entire organizations in the national and international arenas have to look out twenty years and beyond, I am bewildered by the complexity of considerations that would need to be taken into account. But then, I’m someone who has always avoided the classic job interview question, “where do you see yourself in five years?”
In reading about The Body Shop founder Anita Roddick this week, I read repeated accounts of her passion for making a difference in the world and her hopes for radical social change. What gives me some reassurance in developing potential for leadership is that you don’t need to have it all mapped out from the get go is that Roddick simply started a beauty products business and began to plug her social change values into it. With her unbridled passion and optimism, plus a unique vision, she did nothing less than create a business model for incorporating social responsibility as a competitive edge.
Posted by: Jackie Starbird | February 26, 2008 07:39 AM
Somebody asked “how many of you feel you could take Chapters 1-5 to your workplace or board obligation and begin making tangible recommendations for systems changes?” As far as I am concerned, this book is full of famous aphorisms and successful examples. The reader need to pay attention to what kind of leadership aspects are missing and what need to be strengthened. Even you have learnt one sentence from this text book and applied it into your life-long pursuit of the cause, the benefit will be more than your imagination. Kouzes & Posner noted "you need to do more to reflect on your past, attend to the present, prospect the future, and feel your passion." This reminded me of the famous Chinese saying made by emperor Taizong: take a copperplate as a mirror, we can see ourselves how to comb hair and dress up properly; take history as a mirror, we can learn why there was a rise and a fall; take people as a mirror, we can consult with for what is right and wrong”
Taizong was the second emperor of the Tang Dynasty of China from 626 to 649 AD. Taizong’s reign has been regarded as a golden age in Chinese imperial history. Taizong himself has been regarded by Confucianists as a model ruler, a view echoed in the West where he has been described as “probably the greatest monarch in China’s history”. A good case in point is that emperor Taizong paid more attention to get rid of the negative experience of the former dynasty. He abolished the harsh laws issued during the Sui Dynasty, as well as completely revising the penal and tax codes. Is it a good example of “reflect on your past?” But, here, the past means not only the individual’s past but the organization or nation’s past.
Posted by: Kun Yang | February 26, 2008 10:19 AM
Regarding taking K&P chpt. 1-5 to my workplace. To be honest, I already made a recommendation to my director that we do one of the exercises at the end of the chapter on shared values. The exercise was on writing your credo and developing a set of shared values. I think that represents the kind of activities that are missing in a lot of organizations.
Perhaps I have had a different experience so far in life, being relatively young and never having been a 'manager'. By trade, IT, I've primarily been a team lead or project manager. Positions that are frequently difficult because you are trying to get everyone to a destination but typically you lack real authority. This means you need to engage team members on a different level. Appeal to their sense of purpose, 'act' excited to be launching a PeopleSoft Financials implementation.
That's why I've been enjoying K&P because for me I need to be in touch with leading teams of people by being a leader, not a manager. Perhaps it would be different if I were already in a strategic management position for a corporation, but then, perhaps people in those positions have already shown great leadership skills. Maybe the reason why K&P don't use examples of major CEOs we've all heard of is because they are targeting low level managers instead of high level management.
As in all things, context matters.
Posted by: Ben Cashen | February 26, 2008 05:50 PM