Sorry to repeat, I looked the formatting on the blog and it only has part of this and what is there is mostly unreadable.

Are Heifetz and Laurie pseudonyms for Kouzes and Posner? They lay things out so clearly, in such plain English and with a train of thought that is not only easy to follow but easy to apply to personal situations. As I read this I could see where their adaptive model seems to have been applied – the reorganization of some of the colleges at the University is an excellent example. I could also identify the struggle between an authoritarian stance and a leadership one. I call it parenting.

What is commonly known as “Wave I� was in the process for over two years. University authorities determined the problem and decided on a solution. As one step toward becoming one of the top three research universities in the country, and in order to better meet the needs of students, streamline the educational and administrative process, and provide better opportunities for interdisciplinary research, it was deemed necessary to realign some colleges and departments, and to eliminate General College. Authority determined the direction the University would take. Authority then offered protection – taking the heat from the press, alumni, parents and students. University administration next put in place those people who they had determined would best implement their plan. Once the changes had been implemented, the University’s administration moved quickly to ensure that each revamped college resumed the processes and legislative activities that ensure representation in the multitude of faculty committees, review and acceptance of students, and resumption of duties by all those affected. They ensured order was restored and norms could once again be maintained.

The adaptive side of this effort was equally well thought out. The transition was not easy for anyone, it was an extended period of disequilibrium. I cannot speak from actual experience as to how it modeled Heifetz and Laurie’s model of The Persistence of Disequilibrium (p. 70). I was not in a Wave I college and so was not subject to the pressure these changes brought people under, however I am familiar with the adaptive structure put in place and how they reflect the Technical vs. Adaptive model.

Teams were developed which included deans, faculty, students and staff who identified the challenges – everything from space allocation to renaming the colleges – this provided the “pinch of reality� necessary to begin a collaborative effort. Teams were given time and space on which to work on the project, however, the deadline for integration was firm so a level of pressure was maintained. The level of disorientation instituted by the adaptive leaders was substantial. Faculty tenure resides within their specific college. For many of them this meant the college with which they had been aligned would no longer exist, they would face new department chairs and deans, they would need to develop new comfort levels amongst new peers. Absent the tenure issue, these same issues faced deans, department head and staff. There was conflict at all levels. Some took the position that those colleges that were essentially closing were being subsumed by other colleges and therefore somehow of lesser value, or damaged goods. Since the merges have been completed, leaders have spent a great deal of time and resources in auditing values and mission statements, recognizing that what seemed to fit at the time of completion may need re-evaluation and revision. It ain’t over yet, folks.

I found myself thinking back to Terry’s reading (which was clearly my second favorite until now), and so looked to see if he addressed this idea of authoritative vs. adaptive modes of leadership and was disappointed to find that he seemed to recognize it existed but chose to back away from it. On page 15, he writes of “Leadership Development� and the fact that there is no “developmental process� for becoming a leader and that it would be virtually impossible to develop one. He then shows us that the way to the Leadership Hall of Fame is through spirituality – which, in turn fosters authenticity. At least in this piece I gained no insight from him about this particular disparity, rather about knowledge versus wisdom and the need to establish authenticity.

Now, briefly, to my comments about Heifetz and Laurie’s theories and parenting. I have not been able to come up with a situation other than parenting, in which one has to be both the authority and the leader – as they lay out the two perspectives and the roles associated with each. Parents place themselves in a position where they are required to fill both roles and where the balance of which one is in control when changes constantly – whether due to circumstances or the differences between children. It is sometimes amazingly difficult to decide which side of the fence to commit to. I believe that what matters is that children are allowed to see both aspects and that as they grow they become capable of discerning between the two. I don’t imagine that Heifetz and Laurie intended this model to serve as a parenting aid, but it’s kind of nifty – to me, at least – to discover it can serve multiple purposes!

Sarah Waldemar