Who is a Leader?

Are You a LeaderThere is an old saying, “in today’s world, its not what you know but who you know that counts.” Now lets modify it to fit the context of leadership, “in today’s world it’s not what you know that makes you a leader; it’s who you are that counts.”

I am working from the assumption that anyone writing and reading in the leadership development space has long since moved beyond the ‘either you have it or you don’t’ paradigm that sees organisational leadership as a simple ‘talent’ issue.  More than likely also is acknowledgement that having a good tool kit is only one aspect of leadership and that development implies ongoing endeavors.  Possibly even, systems thinking is the lens through which the issue of developing leadership is viewed.

There is currently quite a buzz about leadership and systems thinking.  The language of complexity and chaos theory pervades blogs, academic writing, and discussion about systems thinking and its practical application to the field of leadership development.  There is also a significant buzz to the opposite effect in terms of the lack of practicality despite any attractiveness of the theory.

It seems to me, however, that whilst the pace of change has increased exponentially, the world in which we humans live has always been complex to a greater or lesser degree.  Really, all that has changed is that some of us now see it from a different perspective.

Similarly, viewing the world from a simple ‘either/or’ world view is just that; it is a way of seeing things, a paradigm – which unfortunately for those in the minority – still largely dominates the world of organisations.  It also seems to me, to use a very crude analogy, that to try to persuade doubters of the practical application of a systems thinking approach is a bit like a pacifist trying to prevent war by fighting.

I sometimes wonder whether the benefit of systems thinking is not so much in any practical organisational application, but more in giving us a lens though which we can view who we are, and where we fit in the complex world in which we live and work.  That is, being more conscious about who we are and what we seek to create in the world enables us to create more meaning and satisfaction in our lives.  Being and not doing is to me, the real power of systems thinking and is also the ‘who’ of leadership.

I think the following story gives a flavour of what I am trying to describe.  Or company did some work with a group of leaders not so long ago.  We were looking at the place of personal growth and self-development in the role matrix of being a leader.  About half way through the session a question was posed to the leaders group about what they might change in themselves in order to generate a different outcome with a ‘difficult’ employee.  The response from one leader (let’s call him William) was clear, and somewhat bluntly delivered, “Why should I care?  As far as I am concerned they either like it or lump it!  If they don’t like my leadership they can go and work somewhere else”.  There was a momentary and rather shocked silence in the group before my well practised ‘group leader’ swung into action and we moved forward with the session as adequately as possible.   But, in that moment, what I was really conscious of was that I wanted to say, “Well you SHOULD care about the poor people who work for you!”

This incident led to some soul searching within me in the weeks following, and I wish to share some of my thinking with you.  My first reflections were thus:

  1. Systems thinking tells us that everything we are is learned.  No matter how blessed our genes, early life experiences and later experience in life and work, no leader is capable of optimally managing every situation he or she faces; nor is he or she beyond learning something new.  .
  2. Further to that, Ken Wilber in his Integral Theory describes the development of a new paradigm as both ‘including and transcending’ a previous paradigm.  Systems thinking also tells us that a holistic systems thinking approach is a more sophisticated paradigm than the mechanistic cause and effect, ‘either / or’ view of the world this leader was demonstrating.

But, despite the comfort of knowing this, something didn’t quite sit right in me.  The only way I can articulate what I was also thinking goes something like this…. Who am I to judge? ‘I am right and he is wrong’ is not a systems thinking way of seeing this situation.  So I began to reflect on and examine the situation from the perspective of some of the following understandings about systems thinking that we use in our work:

  • We human beings operate in our work and play in a network of relationship where it is impossible to fully see and understand the extent of the whole picture.
  • Even if we could see it all it is only a snapshot of a moment in time and then the next interaction occurs and the whole picture changes.
  • We cannot anticipate what will happen next.  We can warm up to what is possible but ultimately we have to act in the moment to respond as best we can to the situation or person we encounter.
  • How we respond is dependent on our personal ‘role system’ or the role repertoire we have developed within ourselves over time.

(N.B. a role comprises the values, beliefs, somatic experience and behavioural expression of a whole world view that occurs in response to another person or situation).

  • ‘Who we are’ emerges from our role system.
  • There has to be a sufficient level of perturbation in a system for change to occur.  Challenge is often the first step to change and every challenge is an opportunity to learn something new and add to our role system – or for changes to occur in the wider social system.
  • We can also choose to grow our role system (or wider social system) by being consciousness of what we are seeking to create.
  • Just as ‘we are what we eat’, who we are will largely determine who will follow us.

As I reflected on the situation I came to the following understanding:

  • The leader in question works for a large and successful family-owned business. There is a very low staff turnover and many staff remain in the business over their entire working lives.  They don’t consider themselves poor at all!

We have observed that many people who choose to work in family-owned and operated businesses tend to be comfortable or perhaps more accurately familiar with and accepting of the dynamics of such a family system; and perhaps originate from similar family systems themselves.  In such situations there is little need for change to the leadership practices in the business and the ‘FIFO’ principle works well.

  • In our work I have learned, sometimes painfully, that the way we work is not for everyone, not everyone is ready, willing and / or able to work with a systems thinking approach and the situation I have described was one of those occasions.   There simply was no requirement for William to change.

I myself however, found that I was really challenged by how judgmental I felt in the moment of William’s response.  My personal reaction to this situation was incongruent with my view of myself as a leader.  I highly value diversity, and struggled with the idea that I might expect William to see the world from the same lens as I did; or that I would believe his response was less acceptable than mine (even though I did).  This situation provided a platform for my learning and for growing who I am as a leader.

A wise teacher once said to me when I was struggling to deal with a situation where I was not the formally mandated leader, but it seemed that rest of the group I was working with were looking to me for some sort of leadership.  He said, “Leadership is conferred by the people who follow you.  The question here is not, Are you the leader?  The question is, Who is the leader you choose to be?”

Connect with Arohanui-Grace: Website | Twitter | LinkedIn

Leaders Hold The Power to Engage

Engaged LeaderLeaders Hold The Power to Engage: I recently came across an article in my local newspaper, The New Zealand Herald, entitled 70% of Workers Thinking of Quitting.  In it, a local recruitment company quotes a study they carried out with 10,000 employees in Australia and New Zealand in which 70% of employees say that they are considering moving jobs.  About 60% of respondents also say they feel they deserve a salary increase. The article seems to hint that employee salary expectations and thoughts about changing jobs are linked.  Accompanying the article, the NZ Herald put an online poll, for which the question was “How do you feel about your salary?”  I couldn’t help thinking there was something missing.

For many years, I have read articles and studies that consistently show that salary is not the #1 factor in job satisfaction, nor employee retention.  People want to spend eight hours of their day deriving some kind of meaning and genuine satisfaction from their work.  They want to enjoy their relationships with others and be part of a workplace culture that values connection.  They also want opportunities to learn and grow; not just technical expertise that enables them to be better at their jobs, but also learning experiences that enhance their lives.

The focus on salary in that recruitment survey seemed a little one-dimensional and the link between the two questions seems specious to me.  It is like the person who, when asked why they keep wearing those old hole-y socks replies that it keeps the elephants away and when told there are no elephants around, says, “See? They work.”

The Executive General Manager of the recruitment company who carried out the study suggests that businesses “fine-tune their recruitment strategies to find and retain high-performers who can make the biggest difference to the bottom line.”  All good advice, and to my mind, recruiting and retaining excellent staff is not just about the $$ figure attached to a position.  He goes on to say, “There’s also an opportunity for smart employers to think beyond just the salary and offer attractive, tailored remuneration packages to individual employees.”  Again, to my mind, still something missing.  I don’t want to say that the survey was wrong in its findings, I simply want to suggest that there is lots of information missing before we can come to a categorical conclusion about the reasons for people wanting to jump ship.  To my mind, thinking about keeping staff on board is not purely about money, nor about “creative remuneration packages”.  They certainly help, but they are only part of the big picture and I believe that, even if people have an acceptable salary and are given free car parks and gym memberships as sweeteners, poor management will be a far more influential factor in staff turnover and low engagement.

As I read that NZ Herald article, another study, by Dr. Rhema Vaitianathan of Auckland University’s Business School, sprang to mind.  Dr. Vaitianathan produced a comprehensive study in 2011 in which she found that NZ managers were amongst the worst in the world for retaining and promoting good staff.  Her results focused on the leadership failings of NZ managers.  While her study showed NZ managers as being particularly lacking in effectiveness and leadership skills, I note from this article in Human Capital Online that talent management company DDI carried out an international study showing that bosses right round the world are seen as poor leaders.

The director of DDI UK and one of the authors of the report says, “Workers report that managers fail to ask for their ideas and input, are poor at work related conversations and do not provide sufficient feedback on their performance, so it’s no wonder employee engagement levels are low. Leaders remain stubbornly poor at these fundamental basics of good leadership that have little to do with the current challenging business climate.”  Just as I thought, it’s the world over, not just in New Zealand.

The time has come for us to look at our world through a systems thinking lens.  I think if you ask people, “Is your salary enough?” most would probably say no.  It is too narrow a focus, however, to say that employee engagement is therefore linked to salary expectations.  To take a systems thinking perspective means we stop looking at phenomena through a narrow zoom lens, but we use the wide-angle lens and take account of the many factors that influence engagement at work.  Systems thinkers don’t just focus on one dot and try to make meaning of it; they look at the many dots and connect them.  Systems thinkers know that events and phenomena are rarely one-off or disconnected and look for patterns within the whole system, not just one part of it.  So with the issue of retention, a systems thinker will look for other reasons why 70% of staff are thinking of changing jobs, not solely remuneration.

When study after study around the world indicates that, on average, about 20% of a workforce is actively engaged and 20% is actively disengaged (actively bad-mouthing their workplaces), there is enormous potential to tap into the remaining 60% who are not engaged but could be.  As I said, salary is one component, but it is only part of a wider system.  For many managers and organisations, this can come as a bit of a relief in these times of economic austerity.  Even though salary and bonuses are probably the most expensive ways to increase retention, they are sadly the first and only things that many managers default to.  There are ways to generate greater engagement and it is not simply by raising salaries: it is by investing in developing leaders.

In a 2009 study on employee engagement for the UK government, Will Hutton, Executive Vice Chair of the Work Foundation is quoted, “We think of organisations as a network of transactions. They are of course also a social network. Ignoring the people dimension, treating people as simply cogs in the machine, results in the full contribution they can make being lost.”  To me, it follows that employment is not simply a transaction.  To think of a recruitment or retention strategy solely in terms of financial reward is too mechanistic, too transactional.  Employment is a relationship, not a transaction.

In that 2009 study, the authors, David MacLeod and Nita Clarke, state very clearly, the “joint and consequential failure of leadership and management is the main cause of poor employee engagement”.  So in order to ensure that recruitment and retention strategies have any chance of success, they must sit alongside action on leader development.  It’s not a cliché for nothing that people join good organisations and leave bad managers.  MacLeod and Clarke point to four key factors that can contribute to increased engagement: leadership, engaging managers, voice and integrity.  Leadership emerges when leaders at all levels of organisations provide a compelling story and vision that is worth signing up to.  Engaging mangers are those who have developed themselves sufficiently to be able to empathise with staff, provide useful ongoing feedback and are available to provide guidance to people.  Voice is important because in the modern workplace, people want to be heard.  Managers who listen well and regularly act on what they hear have a major impact on morale, and people who feel listened to will also feel valued and trusted.  Finally, integrity comes about when people see managers and leaders act consistently and line with a clear set of values.  They will come to trust managers who do this and trust engenders commitment.

Being mindful of my call to think systemically about things, I am sure that there are other factors that I’m missing and which are also influential in ensuring the further recruitment and retention of good people.  Accordingly, I look forward to hearing from others who wish to add in and expand this conversation.

Connect with John Wenger : Website |  Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn