The Promised Land

I've thought a lot about change since the beginning of this course, and since our conversation with Tom last Wednesday, I've added the topic of values-based leadership to my musings. My path wanders in different directions by memories of work experiences at my former employer, or encounters with the topics in conversations or readings.

This morning I had the chance to consider again the "40 years in the wilderness" metaphor that Tom used to describe the stage that his company is hopefully exiting. Specifically, my ears perked up in church when my pastor mentioned something to the effect of the Israelites' "faith that God would tell them when they got there", i.e. to the Promised Land. To need someone else to literally tell you when you've "arrived" or achieved change is certainly a different perspective, especially as we think about planned organizational change and the massive energy that is (in advance) poured into envisioning and describing what the change will look like, or how the system will be in the future.

When I was project leader for the development of a global competency framework at my last employer, I was asked by our external consultant to create a vision of the experience enabled by the new system. I cannot even describe how badly I did on that assignment! But I think I was mostly skeptical because the result belonged to the organization and not just to one person. I am equally skeptical of any leader who sees his/her role of visionary as an individual. Absolutely, many leaders have guided their organizations to success by providing a vision that becomes a source of competitive advantage. But as was discussed in Burke and Litwin's chapter on Causal Models, the leader's vision is often directly enabled by the external environment. Additionally, the leader must be responsive to and integrally involved in defining how the mission, culture and organizational behaviors are aligned to effect that vision or change.

I felt some sympathy for Tom when he described the leader that wanted to change the world. It is indeed visionary. But will this leader work with his team to determine exactly what that looks like and how to get the whole system there in one (profitable) piece? Or will he just tell them when they get there?

Another point made in Wednesday's class which has stayed with me was the amount of time dedicated to the effort to get the leadership team on board with values-based leadership. I recall that it was two years which seems long to me. I have to admit a personal bias for quick deadlines and rapidity in change efforts, but why in this case was that much time allotted or why did it take so long?

Looking for help in our readings on the pace of change, I've spent time in Chapter 25, The Recipients of Change by Todd D. Jick. He describes the evolution of change reactions and the need for people to proceed through stages, which "occurs over time and essentially, cannot be accelerated." He gives particular heed to allowing people sufficient time in the "acknowledgement" stage or in the "ending phase" which provides the chance to let go of the old and to confront the loss. Following that is a "neutral zone", also described as a wilderness (ahh, full circle for the Israelites and Tom's company!), where one is adrift yet also mustering energy for moving on. Jick cautions that many organizations push people into new systems and processes without allowing sufficient time in the wilderness. But how much is right - 40 years? 2 years? I understand why people resist and I agree with later readings that the resistance is sometimes helpful (chapter 26). But how much time does the organization allow the individual? How does it engage those that can move faster than others? What happens when multiple change efforts are in play but are paced differently?

On a personal note, I know that the rapid organizational pace was a huge part of why I enjoyed my last HR job so much. For example, the global competency project was allowed 10 months, from conceptualization to development to worldwide training to implementation. We were exhausted at the end but happy with the result. For the future, I wonder how to go about finding an organization that moves fast and with integrity. And if I don't find an organization that moves as quick as I do, how can I learn to best serve that organization?

The paradox... it's everywhere!

I am not sure if my eyes and ears are particularly receptive to the term "paradox" right not and even if so, why... but, I am reading and hearing of paradoxes everywhere!

Particularly, this is the paradox described on Wikipedia as the dialethea, wherein a statement is both true and false at the same time in the same sense. Or to express my conceptualization of the paradox, where a person, place or object exists in contradictory states at the same time. I'll give you some examples of the paradoxes that I've been "run over" with lately.

One.
Although there are likely many "Obama paradoxes", the one I read about most recently was how Obama was elected by a mass who saw him as ultimately accessible and representative of their own personal situation. However, as he has assumed the presidency, this accessibility is cut off at the knees by none other than the security detail and the image that Obama must assume as the "leader of the free world".

Two.
From The Power of Appreciative Inquiry by Whitney & Bloom, principle #7, The Enactment Principle sets up the "paradoxical practice" of putting into place in the present what is desired in the future. A person that wants to be someone different in the future, or an organization that want to change how it manages or operates in the future must "enact" that new character or style right now in the present.

Three.
My pastor uses the term "polarity" but speaks of its frequency in the Christian faith tradition, where two truths that are equally true but contradictory, exist in real tension. In one particular sermon, he described the tension between God's immanence (God our friend, in human flesh) and God's transcendence (God the mystery, the holy).

Four.
From Sandy Pideret's essay on Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence, ambivalent attitudes are both needed and debilitating in change processes.

Fifth.
In the sixth installment of the latest Ken Burns documentary, the idea of the national park in the U.S. is described as embracing two equally important but apparently contradictory thoughts: that the National Park system should preserve America's special places in natural conditions forever, AND, that they should be open and accessible for the enjoyment of all Americans. The show continues on that early park leaders glossed over the "paradox" arguing that the way to protect parks was to build public support for them by encouraging more and more visitors. However, following World War II, as the national park system turned 100 years old, and their facilities faced stress from more and more visitors, the "balancing act between preservation and use would be severely tested." The film goes on to show an interview with a historian William Cronon who says, "It's hard to imagine national parks existing without these tensions because they are precisely the right tensions that a democratic nation should have as it tries to figure out how to protect lands that are there for all people." This last quote was what made this particular illustration one of my favorites.

"Tensions" and paradoxes can be right and necessary for organizational change, for protection of resources and people, for evolution, and for revolution. Yes, culture is... good AND bad!

Grenier's Phases of Growth

In reading Larry Grenier's 1998 essay, "Evolution and Revolution as Organization Grow", I found myself writing questions in the margins of almost every page. This doodling is usually a sign I am passionate about a topic so according to the cartoon I just posted, that means I should blog about it!

Grenier describes organizational growth as phases of evolution, in which a management practice or style takes root, and revolution, in which specific structural or behavioral problem must be overcome before the organization can once again expand. Interestingly enough, these same terms have been used by Larry Hansen, a workplace safety management expert, to describe the efforts of companies to improve the effectiveness of their safety programs.

Hanson claims that most companies take evolutionary steps to improve their safety programs by implementing “tried and true” safety activities and “off the shelf” programs, and affixing catchy slogans and warning posters on facility walls. Hansen advises that instead, it takes a revolutionary action for companies to be world class safety-oriented organizations and specifically that management must believe that safety is “good business”. Management must drive the program but give the employees an ownership interest. He says, “To truly impact organizational performance (and results), safety leaders must change ‘what’s inside the boxes’, the basic beliefs, values, and prevailing assumptions of their organizations.” That sounds a lot like CULTURE to me, a phenomena with which I have already happily claimed a love/hate relationship.

Getting back to my notes from the margins…

Can an organization skip a phase? I want to see an organization that addresses the need for revolution “head-on”; an organization where a leader or management team wakes up, stands up and says, "Hey, let's skip this problem!" and decides instead to be proactive about how to get to the next phase of growth. That would be integrative change, i.e. a new and better model. This is also perhaps a bow to the strategic planning process where a robust SWOT analysis can uncover the inherent weaknesses and upcoming threats.

What happens when an organization at a more advanced phase of growth acquires a less “developed” organization? I want to see what goes on with an organization in Phase 1 – Creativity that is pursued by a company that is well into the red tape crisis that follows Phase 4 – Coordination.

How does this model apply to public sector organizations? Is there such a thing as a collaborative public-sector organization or do they remain mired in bureaucracy and red-tape crises?

As for what follows the Phase 5 – Collaboration stage, I love the idea of a dual organizational structure, allowing a habit structure to get the daily work done, and a reflective structure that is responsible for innovating the business and renewing the people. I am going to see if I can find out more about the European company that implemented the structure. I wonder if they’ve since experienced a revolution.

I am not so sure...

I am not sure that most bloggers read the memo about the need for authority; myself included. I have the "passion" half of the equation covered at least!

Like beauty, is authority in the eye of the beholder?

Credit where credit is due: I found this cartoon on www.careercapitalist.com