The Seven Zones of Leadership
In the introduction of The Seven Zones of Leadership, Terry summarizes his concept of leadership and authenticity that he originally explored in his book, Authentic Leadership: Courage in Action. The concept asserts that six "basic elements can be used to explain human action" (3). He uses these six elements to create the Action Wheel. By answering the questions in each dimension of the Action Wheel, leaders will find out "what is really going on" and therefore be able to make leadership decisions based on authenticity.
In The Seven Zones of Leadership, Terry takes this concept a step further by also defining seven "worlds." These "worlds" are the external factors that effect the choices or actions a leader takes. The worlds range from fixable and knowable to understandable to unfixable and unknowable (8). Ultimately, Terry's book will provide a "map of leadership reality and action, allowing you to locate your current situation and anticipate future developmental challenges" (17).
So leadership actions are based upon external factors. Terry asks the reader to "figure out and own your personal view" of leadership since the definition of leadership remains a personal one (10). I found myself defining leadership as "creating a mission and empowering others to carry out that mission." I realized that I came up with this definition because this is the exact thing that is missing in my organization. Does our very definition of leadership change based on external factors or by our "world"? What about change? I heard a CNN report on Saturday that said that democrats ranked "can make change" as their number one characteristic they are looking for in a new president. Would more Americans use the word change to define leadership today than 5 years ago because change has been lacking? If 2008's political campaign is any indication, it would certainly seem so. Click here for a piece that illustrates my point.
Chapter 2 begins by defining the framework for which the map will exist. The framework of the map includes three constants: boundaries (certainty and agreement), time, and chaos. Certainty levels vary from high to low, agreement levels from tight to loose (44). And while "future and past have direct bearing on our present experience, all actions occur in the present" (46). Within each zone, leaders may experience low levels of certainty coupled with loose agreement, resulting in chaos, which the author believes is both apparent and real (47). Using this framework, Terry goes on to describe the Seven Zones of Leadership and how to use the framework to map them out.
While Terry's seven zones are meant to organize leadership and create an easy guide to a messy concept, I personally found it lacking in examples and illustrations, which made it difficult for me to digest and fully grasp. Maybe it's because I'm new to the world of leadership discussion and theory. However, in the introduction, the author asks the reader to always be mindful of their own organization while reading this book. I found this to be a very useful tool in creating my own real-life illustration.
I realized that I have been able to watch my own organization move through a few of the zones. About 6 months ago, the founding president of our organization (a non-profit educational organization) fully retired and a new executive director from the outside was hired to take over. Before our new leadership, the organization was stable in Zone 1, as it probably had been for many years. Leadership was comfortable in their world and most of the long-time employees did not question it. The problem was that the organization was hiring people with fresh minds and forward thinkers. Those people were being stifled and suffocated as leadership had little interest in accepting change and continued to base all of it's actions on past experiences, with little room for advancement. I think the former president recognized this and sought out someone who would take the organization to the next level.
Suddenly, when the new leadership moved in, employees found themselves in a progressive environment where we are encouraged to explore the possibilities. We are asked to examine our capabilities and interests and apply them in the workplace. Our new leadership is investing in it's employees by providing a wide span of professional development opportunities never available before. It seems that in the last 6 months, the new leadership has been "Building Core Competencies" as described in Zone 2.
Based upon my earlier definition of leadership, I would place the organization in Zone 3. It's clear to me that we are lacking a uniform mission or vision and therefore experiencing sort of identity crisis, especially as we move from a more organic "ma and pa" organization to a professional and established leader in the field of international education. We are experiencing chaos in Zone 3. In order to reach a level of stability in Zone 3, a consulting firm, along with the organization's board, will be placing the organization under the microscope to create a strategic plan that will govern our actions for the coming months and even years. I hope that the plan will create a mission and vision that will be the foundation to carry us into the other zones.
With my limited experience, I would be interested in hearing other people's personal experiences with the zones. Can anyone share specific experiences, especially for Zones 4-7?
--Kristi Mueller
Comments
My personal experience is within the same organization for the past 16 years -- an "institutionally related foundation" associated with the UofM. We have moved through several of the Zones and are now stretching our muscles most often in Zone 4 - creating ownership. All voices speak up and WANT to be heard -- sometimes more good ideas are offered than we can address effectively! We are committed to continuous improvement and suggestions from all corners are respected and considered.
We have a Mission, Vision, Values statement that resonates with all of our staff and we know how our work contributes to the overall vision -- Zone 3 is our foundation. We are empowered by the executive officers and each other to make decisions based on experience and abilities, our shared vision, and the circumstances of the moment (the world). The integrity of the system is strong.
We often fall back on the safety net of Zone 3 -- our shared vision -- whenever we are testing out new strategies or forming new work groups to address a change or challenge from the outside (like changes in tax law, or a windfall multimillion dollar gift, or a drop in our investment returns, or an unexpected illness among our ranks). Zone 4 is feeling more comfortable, less threatening -- a sign that we are ready to tip-toe out to the edge of chaos again!
We are soon to move into Zone 5, as our CEO is retiring and the future CEO will certainly influence our culture. However, we are SOLID in our shared vision and we are getting more sure footed in owning the decision making process.
One potential obstacle/threat to our progress is the inevitable aging of our team members. We have two clusters of ages -- 55+ and 30-35 years. We may be facing clusters of retirements and career changes which would definitely slow us down. We hope that our culture -- which includes meaningful opportunities to balance work and "life" -- will provide sufficient flexibility to address the unexpected. It's curious that the 30 year olds often have parents the same ages as their colleagues but few of our interactions in our professional lives have the parent-child dynamic on the table. We focus on the tasks and our abilities to work together to create a future we all value. -- nan
Posted by: Nan Jahnke | February 4, 2008 05:53 PM
Kristi, you mentioned, "While Terry's seven zones are meant to organize leadership and create an easy guide to a messy concept, I personally found it lacking in examples and illustrations, which made it difficult for me to digest and fully grasp." I agree with you. This may be because I'm also new to leadership, but I didn't find myself buying into everything he was selling. Context and examples would've driven it home for me.
Must theses zones occur in order? Are they all 'true' and 'authentic'? In Zone 3 Terry claims that mastering systems thinking is vital to this stage. Do all leaders have a good handle on systems thinking? (Not from my experience.) Kotter would claim that Zone 5 (mission/focusing on the future) and Zone 4 (creating ownership) could happen earlier in the action wheel.
Posted by: Liz Kuivinen | February 4, 2008 08:19 PM
In response to your request for experiences on zones 4-7, I will like blend my thoughts with the comment re: societal shifts and the Kotter reading.
In politics, whether the civil rights movement or the environmentally critical policies that we face today, it's often necessary to understand WHAT to change, not simply that we need change. All too often we throw everything out in favor of something that is new. With the voter driven (or lobbyist influences) power cycles of democratic politics, there seems to be less emphasis on the shotgun approach: trying many little things that can influence a larger problem.
The civil rights movement that was referenced in the Kotter reflection is spot on. Driven by a Zone 4 peaceful statement for change, the persistence and presence of all that participated consistently represented the societal majority support for this structural shift. Several subsidiary movements sprung from this initial protest, for instance affirmative action.
However, as we follow affirmative action through its development, it has since become obscured. Are we evaluating recipients merely on their skin color? On their historical relationship with America, for instance, African-American families that weathered this social shift? Or any person of color that is discriminated against based on their appearance?
As a member of the National Committee for the Princeton Prize in Race Relations, we often discuss these issues. People note that Nigerians, one of the most highly educated African immigrant groups, are being preferenced for these scholarships. This application of the policy should be examined. If one is truly looking to provide opportunities to the disadvantaged (affirmative action looking to recognize the potential for advancement, not necessarily demonstrated by previous experiences), then the process of vetting applicants should be re-examined.
Again, this is a large example, and potentially abstracted from smaller scale leadership constructs such as companies or municipalities. Yet, by understanding how Terry's zones relate to larger societal shifts, we can understand some differences between participation in local leadership versus global issues. As we all know from the experiences of the Civil Rights Movement, the need for reparative action does not stop with one moment of recognition. It's an ongoing dialogue with current events, accepted policies, and individual participation.
Posted by: Sarah Wolbert | February 5, 2008 09:08 AM