Mobilizing Adaptive Work
The Heifetz and Laurie reading, similar to Kouses and Posner, is a straightforward and logical read that is hard to dispute. I appreciate that H & L (Heifetz and Laurie) challenge the reader to clarify in their own mind; the difference between authority and leadership, that leadership can come from anywhere, that a common failing of leaders is addressing an adaptive issue as a technical problem, that adaptive issues require constituents to change behaviors and sometimes adjust values, that adaptive issues require leaders to alternate between being in the moment and mentally stepping out of the action to act as an observer assessing what is really going on, that leaders need to monitor and create a holding vessel for stakeholders to handle the stress of adaptive work, and that leaders need to mobilize others to do the tough work of solving problems.
All of this sounds great, but how do you mobilize others to action? My experience with gathering diverse individuals to dialogue important issues always seems to start out as a noble cause but then turns into a group of individuals with plenty of passion and no common ground. A section of these individuals politely state and insistently restate their agenda. None of these individuals is really listening, they are too busy trying to make their point. Another section of the group is silent, they may be recognizing the impassioned attempts of their co-workers as futile. Another section may be ineffectively trying to attempt ‘collaboration’ by listing common threads between disputing parties or they may try to get the silent constituents to speak.
This semester, in instances of tough dialogue, I’m making attempts to remember to step back and observe what is actually happening. Individuals that are pressing agendas may be forgetting common purpose, individuals that retreat into silence may be holding valuable information from the collective and may not feel their efforts respected, individuals attempting collaboration, have their hearts in the right place, but may not be addressing the real issue of conflicting values.
According to Heifetz, a leader is skilled at asking the tough questions. By bringing the group back to the ‘vision’ or the values of the company, constituents are asked to take ownership of the problem and view what is best for the common good. Adaptive problems take time because it may require a change of perspective or values. Stakeholders will not respond well to being told to change their perspective. Besides being controlling, at best, this will result in resentful compliance. However, if individuals discover the changes necessary to solve a problem on their own or as a collective, they are more likely to actively pursue the means to make the change happen since they see themselves as part of the equation.
Do you have any experiences to share that illustrate mobilizing others to address tough problems?
Comments
I love this line you wrote, "My experience with gathering diverse individuals to dialogue important issues always seems to start out as a noble cause but then turns into a group of individuals with plenty of passion and no common ground." I have been in so many of these groups that sometimes I think that's just the nature of human dynamics. Or maybe it's just a symptom of working at the University. This could be why I really liked the beginning chapters of K&P about creating a shared vision. I've been pushing at work to do the shared values exercise at the end of Chpt. 3(?).
Posted by: Ben Cashen | April 16, 2008 09:45 AM