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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Rachel--I really enjoy reading your thoughts, and the places that they take you!
ReplyDeleteWhen you wrote about the role that Charles Luck has had in creating the vision for Luck Stone, it made me think of the writings of Schein on Organizational Culture and Leadership. Dr. Carter has referenced Schein several times this semester, and I'd be happy to share his book on Organizational Culture and Leadership with you. Schein writes about the role of dialogue to help make meaning of things--to help create a shared meaning of events, information or data, and that this is the process that results in organizational knowledge and learning. In Schein's world, the leader and the organizational culture are two sides of the same coin--but if indeed it's true that organizational learning is about shared meaning making, then it may be true in a learning organization that the leader is not the only one who creates the vision, and it's not just the leader who decides when the organization has arrived. I too am skeptical if too much power is put in the hands of the leader to solely create the vision. I think it would be interesting to have Tom come back in a couple of years to tell us if the organization has arrived, how they know if they have nor have not, and what dialogue (and with whom) occurs around that very question.