The Ark of Leadership: An Integrative Perspective
By William Bergquist, Jeannine Sandstrom and Agnes Mura
To download this sample chapter, click the red button below.
To purchase the book, click the link on book title above.
Chapter 6
Leadership on the Ark (I): The Context and Setting
A central tenant of an appreciative perspective on leadership is recognition and understanding of the complex situations in which leaders find themselves. Different approaches to leadership and decision-making must be taken in different situations—to not only address a specific organizational issue but also provide a container for the anxiety associated with issue and a process of metabolism that converts the anxiety into thoughtful action.
In this chapter we reintroduce the five Best Practices of Chapter One, along with the styles of leadership that were presented in Chapters Three and Four. As we have already noted, each of the Best Practices competencies and styles of leadership is aligned with quite different notions about the purposes, functions and values associated with making decisions in today’s organizations. They also introduce different ways of managing anxiety under difficult circumstances.
The Leadership Preference Residing Inside Peter Armentrout’s Head and Heart
More complex issues emerge as the coaching sessions continue between Peter and Catherine Townsend. Some of these issues concern the storm that is swirling around not in the environment but instead inside Peter. The internal storm intensifies as he prepares to address even greater challenges in his work life (and even his personal life as he prepares for retirement). A guru in Western Canada speaks of the Delicate conditions to be found in our mid-21st Century psyche. Peter certainly is faced with some delicacy regarding how he works on his internal context with the guidance and assistance of Catherine Townsend. Once again, this is executive coaching and not psychotherapy. Anxiety and fears (as well as hopes) are factors to be consider—not mental health issues to be resolved. Executive coaching is about care and consideration rather than cure. It is about the very important and tangible exercise of appropriate and inappropriate use of–or excessive reliance on—specific leadership styles or Best Practices. We are looking ultimately for effective performance not healed hearts and minds.
Catherine and Peter approach the exploration of his internal context by returning to his preference for Azure Blue leadership and his comfort in engaging specific Best Practices. In what ways might Peter create conditions out in his business that call for Azure Blue leadership? Is his Azure Blue deployed as a way to manage Anxiety to be found in the challenging environment in which Peter is doing business? Are there specific Best Practices (such as Best Practice 1) that he chooses to engage regardless of the need for this specific Best Practice? Are there some Best Practices that Peter tends to avoid or that he looks to other members of his organization to engage? If he is delegating specific Best Practices, then he must determine if this delegation is appropriate. And if it is working? Catherine invites Peter, as she often does, to consider specific instances in which he has delegated leadership responsibilities. She is now encouraging Peter to not only examine his behavior (and the response to his behavior), but also to reflect on the thoughts and feelings (especially levels of anxiety) that were elicited by this delegation. At this “mature” level of executive coaching, the internal context becomes an important point of inquiry.
A Contextual Model
Given the challenge of guiding organizations that operate in a VUCA-Plus environment, many leaders have either given up on the creation of a unified theory of leadership or have grown cynical of any theory that purports to tell them how to operate—or how to resolve a specific issue (let alone manage the attendant anxiety). Contemporary leaders are inclined, therefore, to dismiss any prescriptive model that identifies a right and wrong way of operating. They are beginning to turn instead to more contextually based models that address the complex dynamics of most mid-21st Century organizations.
Relationships are key here. As Margaret Wheatley suggests in drawing an analogy (and connection) between quantum physics and organizational functioning, “nothing is independent of the relationships that occur. I am constantly creating the world—evoking it, not discovering it—as I participate in all its many interactions. This is a world of process, not a world of things.”[i] We are always making decisions in relationship to the environment in which we find ourselves. There are moments and places within an organization when specific types of leadership are needed to address specific issues and manage specific modes of anxiety. In short, each of us can provide certain kinds of leadership functions in specific moments and places.[ii]
Leadership is likely to be effective in an organization if there is a good match between the leader’s needs and style at that specific moment and place, and, at that same moment and place, the organization’s needs, preferred style of operation and unique source and character of anxiety (all components of an organization’s short-term situational climate and long-term enduring culture).
The context for leadership concerns this matching process. A high-tech leader may find, for instance, that she must be capable of and willing to shift her style when working with a relatively immature work group or with a group that is highly mature. Within this context, however, and in her working relationship with members of this group, she may help to promote their maturity, thereby necessitating yet another change in style (which may or may not fit with her own ability or willingness to shift).
A long-time manufacturing leader might find that members of the production unit that he has worked with for many years are all about to retire or they are fasted with new technologies (such as robotics) that are changing the way they work and the amount they need to learn. Their boss of many years will be facing his own learning curve: he must now lead a new team of workers or an old team that is “learning new tricks” (unlike many old dogs).
Similarly, the nature of a task or the processes of leadership in the organization may change. Leaders must shift gears when entering varying situations. If they are effective, however, leaders will also influence these situations. As a result, leaders may be forced to shift roles precisely because they have helped to bring about a change in context. This is a give-and-take process that requires guidelines regarding the contexts in which each of the four styles is most (and least) appropriate. We offer some preliminary ideas regarding these guidelines and suggest that leadership coaching often focuses on these guidelines.
With the assistance of her coach, our high-tech leader can readily identify her own preferred style. She can also identify one or more of the strengths associated with each of the four styles, particularly as these strengths are used in an appropriate or inappropriate manner by this leader in the multiple contexts in which she finds herself every day in the workplace. Our long-time production leader can similarly identify one or more of the strengths associated with each of the four styles, particularly strengths related to working with a new team or with an old team that must change. In both cases, an executive coach who takes an appreciative approach can help their client identify moments in the past when they have been successful in the engagement of leadership styles and practices that are outside their usual wheelhouse.
Given this desire for and commitment to learning about, embracing and appreciating past successful use of specific styles and performance preferences, we turn to the fundamentals regarding the context within which each style and affiliated leadership practice is often most appropriate.
The Assertive (Red) Leader and Best Practice 2
In many settings, a forceful, clearly focused demonstration of executive authority is not only appropriate but also sorely needed. This is especially the case when the environment in which an organization is operating tends to be volatile and unpredictable. Innovation is required alongside a leaning toward action. The assertive decision-making leader is one who points an organization in a specific direction and gets the organization moving.
Mobilization
Heifetz describes this approach to leadership when he writes of people who tend to mobilize others to tackle tough problems.[iii] Leadership, in this mode, is not just a stance or perspective. It is an activity. Assertive (red) leaders are seen as hard working and as people who also encourage others to work hard. At their best, these leaders not only promote innovation, but also collaboration (Best Practice 2). Specifically, the job of an assertive leader who is engaging Best Practice 2 is to identify the gap(s) that exist between the current and desired conditions of the organization.
The current condition is often articulated or clarified by the thoughtful leader (discussed below), whereas the state in which the organization would like the organization to be is often articulated or clarified, as we will see, by the inspiring leader. The assertive leader then tries to fill the gap between this real and ideal state. Alternatively, she tries to change the organization’s appraisal of its current condition (often discounting the contributions to be made by the thoughtful leader) or commitment to its desired state (often discounting the contributions to be made by the inspiring leader).
In the first instance, the assertive (red) leader would suggest that if we can’t get from where we are to where we want to be, then perhaps we should find somewhere else to go. In the second instance, the assertive leader suggests that we either rethink where we are now or ignore the information that we have so that we don’t get bogged down in despair or pessimism. Both of these frames are innovative in nature and only are likely to work if the reframing is a collaborative effort (Best Practice 2). When the assertive leader is simply ramming the frame down the throats of those working with him then the innovation is likely to topple.
Ideas and Actions
Assertive leaders tend to focus on ideas and action. They like a bright new strategy or a new way to be creative. Best Practice 2 lives in their interests and priorities. The big challenge for the Assertive leader typically involves the first half of the Best Practice 2 focus—which is collaboration. Our red leaders are often intolerant of groups—especially nonproductive groups! They are impatient with extended expression of feelings or images of some amorphous desired state. They also tend to grow impatient with extended review of financial or production data, alternative proposals, critical analyses or systematic planning strategies. This is where the Blue and Rainbow orientations of many successful Best Practice 2 leaders come to the rescue. The impatience of Red is matched by the concern regarding human welfare of Azure Blue and the desire for productive relationships to be found among those with a Rainbow orientation.
There is much to admire among the assertive leaders. They want to get on with their work, are willing to devote considerable energy to getting the job done and are not afraid to get started and readjust the plan once they are underway. Assertive (red) leaders are usually willing and even eager to take risks. Yet they also want to establish clear lines of authority and responsibility so that nothing will distract them from getting the job done. If the action is not successful the responsible party can readily be identified, provided lines of authority and responsibility are firmly established.
Anxiety and Action
All of this makes sense in a VUCA-Plus world. Anxiety is being contained by establishing these boundaries of authority and responsibility. The anxiety is being metabolized in turn by a focus on achievement. Anxiety is converted into action. Adrenaline is produced and deployed to fuel the action. Negative stress becomes U-Stress when members of a team have left behind the state of freeze and helplessness so that they might now entertain a sense of hopefulness while doing something to address a challenging issue—and as result finding some success. As they say in the world of professional baseball, the team with great clubhouse spirit is the team that is winning.
Ronald Heifetz suggests five primary tasks for what we are calling the assertive leader.[iv] All five seem to relate to the metabolism of anxiety. First, the assertive leader should direct attention to the central issues of the organization (some Royal Purple). Second, he should ensure that information about the organization is gathered and tested (a bit of Golden Yellow). Third, the assertive leader should manage information and use this information to frame the central issues of the organization (some Tangy Orange). Fourth, he should help to identify and bring together, that is orchestrate, the conflicting perspectives of the organization (invitation to Rainbow). Finally, the assertive leader should pick appropriate decision-making processes with regard to addressing the central issues and conflicting perspectives of the organization (Verdant Green is invited in).
Appropriate Uses of Strengths
The assertive (red) leader is a courageous leader. If a real or potential enemy is present, the assertive leader is even more likely to be successful in recruiting support for an action-oriented, high-risk venture. She might not need much of the collaborative spirit of Rainbow if the threat is knocking on the door or massing at the gate. The assertive leader is valued for his decisiveness. The assertive leader often stands out in stark contrast to the quest for uniformity and conformity among some managers. The successful assertive leader is likely to exhibit and encourage entrepreneurial and intra-perineurial (innovative) norms in the organization.
The assertive (red) leader is particularly effective in the startup phase. His job at the beginning is one, as Heifetz notes, “[of] directing, protecting, orienting, resolving conflicts, and establishing norms … He may appear larger than life because he is indeed doing so much. At the source of the organization’s energy, he infuses people’s work with meaning. As the founding father, he is likely to be invested with charisma by those around him.”[v] The assertive leader moves ideas into action, building on the Analytic Verdant Green’s identification of distinctive advantages that are held by the organization in which he works. As an intra-primeur, the assertive leader takes risks that hold the potential of rich benefit. In cooperation with Analytic Verdant Green leadership, he learns from the mistakes that inevitably occur when taking risks. In their encouragement of entrepreneurship, assertive leaders, with the guidance of a Rainbow orientation can exhibit the skill of enablement. They encourage others to take risks and learn from their mistakes.
The effective assertive leader also embraces an appreciative perspective. They discover, honor and help to champion the ideas that are offered by other people. Combining the Ruby Red with a Royal Blue perspective, the successful Assertive leader helps to defend and protect younger and more vulnerable members of the organization. In this way, the organization can fully benefit from new and often refreshing perspectives. As Scott Page notes, this diversity of perspective enhances the quality and creativity of decisions being made. It is in this appreciative blending of collaboration and innovation that Best Practice 2 is fully realized.[vi]
To be successful in his entrepreneurial role, the assertive leader must hold the trust of members whom he is leading. She is likely to hold this trust if she works alongside of or fully integrates in her own practices the collaborative spirit of the Rainbow perspective. Best Practice 2 builds trust. It goes even further. The assertive leader must meet three different criteria with regard to trust. First, members of the group must trust the competencies of the assertive leader (Ruby Red is relevant here). They must believe that this person knows what he is doing. As Heifetz has noted, members of organizations have every right to expect that people who command authority in their organization possess strong problem-solving skills.[vii]
Second, effective assertive leaders must be trusted for their intentions. A whole lot of Azure Blue should be introduced here. Members of the organization will follow assertive leaders only if they believe that these executives truly care about the welfare of those who work for them as well as the welfare of the overall organization. Third, assertive Ruby Red leaders are effective if those who follow them trust their perspectives and values. Some of the rationally oriented sharing of information and perspectives that is found in Thoughtful Golden Yellow is invaluable in producing this third level of trust. Heifetz suggests that predictable values must be present if authority is to be effective. Azure Blue must be present. Members of an organization must know, share and rely on the perspectives and values held by their leaders.[viii] If an assertive leader seems to be quite different from his subordinates, they are less inclined to trust him and are also less inclined to accept either his authority or direction.
If these three forms of trust don’t exist, then an assertive leader must fall back on coercion or manipulation in order to be effective. Ruby Red stands raw and exposed. Without the trust of their followers, Assertive leaders often create work environments that are filled with intimidation, close monitoring, indirect communication, and covert threat. When these conditions exist, trust in the competencies, intentions and perspectives of the leader further drops off, leading to an even greater need for coercion and manipulation. A vicious cycle begins, usually leading to the demise of either the assertive leader or the organization (if the leader is very powerful).
Inappropriate Use of Strengths
The assertive (red) leader needs assistance from the other leadership perspective. Without this assistance and corrective guidance, the assertive leader is most often criticized for lack of purpose or impulsiveness. In an effort to move the organization from contemplation and deliberation to action, the assertive leader often acts for action’s sake, failing to consider a long-term vision or purpose for the organization.
Fight is engaged—but it is engaged against lions that don’t really exist or are actually tigers or hippos (which might be even more dangerous). Assertive leaders, as a result, will often seem to be wandering around without clear direction—looking this way and that way for a crouching lion. They tend to sacrifice the core values of the organization in an attempt to achieve their short-term goals and objectives. Assertive leaders will sometimes mistake the means for the ends, spending insufficient time building broad-based support for a specific set of end points. Ultimately, while they portray themselves as self-sacrificing heroes—the isolated Assertive leader is actually a self-serving ineffective warrior.
The tendency for assertive leaders to act impulsively comes from their eagerness to move forward without adequate attention to the current state in which they and their organization find themselves. They want to reduce anxiety by taking action—regardless of the consequences. The assertive leader is to be admired for charging out of the organizational foxhole and exhibiting considerable courage in exposing himself to the enemy’s fire. This courage is essential for innovation to be successful. However, it doesn’t do much for the anxiety that exists in this threatened organization. It seems that courage might be essential, but it is not sufficient. The assertive leader is likely to leap out of the foxhole without knowing why she is at war or without checking to see if she has brought enough ammunition to defeat the enemy. Anxiety increases under these conditions. There is no metabolism—only organizational meltdown.
We can admire the fallen hero—but would prefer her to remain alive so that she might continue fighting on behalf of our organization (and can help with the metabolism of the anxiety). She is more likely to stay alive if she asks for support and guidance from colleagues who come to their work from differing perspectives regarding leadership. This request for assistance and support is not a sign of weakness. Rather, it represents the start of metabolism. Our anxiety is reduced (and transformed) when we act by helping out one another (rather than charging out of the foxhole). We discover that we are “not alone.” We engage an appreciative perspective and discover that our colleagues have strengths and competencies that are relevant to the challenges being faced. Diversity is now valued and fully deployed to “defeat the enemy” (especially when we find that the enemy is actually “us.”)
Our challenged leader could also benefit from an executive coach—someone who can remind the leader of Best Practice 2. The coach might even help her client better engage Best Practice 2 and appreciatively observe how this practice is being engaged by others in the organization—so that collaboration and innovation are to be found in abundance within this leader’s organization.
The Inspiring (Blue) Leader and Best Practice 1
While the assertive leader provides the fire to move an organization forward, the inspiring leader helps an organization decide where it wants to, or should, go. Engaging Best Practice 1, the Inspiring leader provides the vision and values. The vision and values, in turn, provide not only direction for an organization but also a strong and durable container for the anxiety that inevitably arises when an organization begins a new journey or reaffirms an existing one.
Shepard and Husband
If members of an organization know where they are going and have the full and inspiring support of their leader in moving forward, then the anxiety they experience is metabolized into directed action toward some important goal. Like Abraham leading his flock of Israelites to the promised land (despite the Red Sea and the environmental challenges of the Sinai desert), Inspiring leaders shepherd and shelter members of their organization.
While the assertive leader can burn up the resources of the organization; the inspiring leader, using Best Practice 1 can help to “husband” the existing resources of the organization–and attract new resources from outside the organization. In helping to recruit and import resources from outside the organization, Inspiring leaders serve as the strange attractors (of which chaos theorist and, more recently, organizational theorists, speak).[ix] Often with minimal effort, the inspiring leader attracts media attention and the interest of people who are only vaguely acquainted with her organization. Like many gurus (ranging from Buddha to Jesus) the inspiring leader often seems to gather people and resources around her without even trying.
Discernment and Commitment
The inspiring (blue) leader helps the organization decide which resources to use and articulates the reasons for doing so. The inspiring leader encourages an organization to look at its potential in a thoughtful and discerning manner. The inspiring leader draws attention to that which is important in the organization and away from that which is unimportant or distracting. The inspiring leader often asks simple questions as a way of drawing attention to important matters. How do we deliver help to people who really need it? What really is our business? Why are we doing this? What would our founder think about what we are doing right now? This process of discernment creates the conditions for slow thinking on the part of everyone in the organization who is engaged in problem-solving and decision-making.
The inspiring (blue) leader also helps to build community—organized around the Best Practice 1 vision and values. She is engaged with other members of the organization (and stakeholders of the organization) in defining vision, values and purpose. These Best Practice 1 endeavors help to build commitment to the organization and its mission. An inspiring leader is a person who cares about the welfare of others. This care resides at the heart of Azure Blue leadership. She believes strongly that the ends do not always justify the means.
Focusing on the intentions of the organization, the inspiring leader constantly turns with Best Practice 1 guidance to the enduring values of the organization. While the Ruby Red Assertive leader is needed by an organization to bring about necessary change, the Azure Blue Inspiring leader is indispensable in helping to reduce anxiety and heal the wounds that are brought about by these processes of change. Furthermore, Best Practice 1 ensures that these changes relate to the organization’s mission and are aligned with its values.
Values, Relationships and the Ideal
The inspiring (blue) leader focuses on values, on relationships—and on the ideal state of the organization. Like the Ruby Red assertive leader, the Azure Blue inspiring leader often grows impatient when members of a group dwell too long on facts and figures. The inspiring leader always wants to know what the human implications are that lie behind these facts and figures and wants to know how these numbers relate to the core values and vision of the organization. The inspiring leader tends to react negatively to facts and figures because they are often used to ground the organization in so-called reality. Organizations soon lose sight of their vision when they are constantly looking down at their ledgers and policy manuals.
The inspiring leader, however, grows uncomfortable with the assertive leader’s desire to charge ahead with a new idea and immediately act. The inspiring leader often believes that assertive leaders act without considering the human cost and without ensuring that the action leads in the desired direction. The unilateral actions that are taken by assertive leaders may destroy relationships, shatter a sense of community and destroy commitment. The inspiring leader plays a critical role in an organization when she encourages the organization to build a strong base of trust and support before moving out into a stressful and turbulent world. In this regard, she is fully aligned with Best Practice 1.
Appropriate Use of Strengths
The inspiring leader provides an organization with direction and a sense of purpose. This is the Azure Blue sense of priorities and the Best Practice 1 way of operating. An inspiring leader wants to know what is missing in the organization. In this regard, the Azure Blue leader is acting a bit like a Verdant Green leader. Slow, thoughtful analyses are required. What is the tough question that this organization never asks about itself? What has this organization lost and must find again? What is needed to make this an excellent organization? The answers to these questions do not come from numerical analyses or policy manuals. Through these questions and through her own actions in the organization, the inspiring leader repeatedly draws the attention of members back to the central, convening vision, purpose and values of the organization.
The inspiring leader constantly pulls energy into an organization and focuses it on that which is truly important. In doing so, the inspiring leader helps to define the basic and recurring patterns of the organization. The inspiring leader can attract attention to the core vision, purposes and values of an organization primarily because she knows how to engage Best Practice 1 by relating the personal aspirations of members to the vision and purposes of the organization. She is also in a position to convince members that the vision can and should be attained.
Frequently, the inspiring leader formulates the vision herself and plays a central role in building community and commitment around this vision. The inspiring leader may also become the steward or servant of the vision that is established and enacted by other members of the community. The inspiring leader no longer holds the vision herself. The vision is built by and shared with the entire community. The inspiring leader works hard to make sure it is realized or at least that the organization consistently works toward the vision. In this monitoring of progress, the Azure Blue leader is following the lead of Royal Purple leaders—for vision without action is nothing but verbiage and PR from a Royal Purple perspective. Temporarily playing the role of Equitable Royal Purple leader, the Inspiring leader often assumes the painful but necessary role of referee or guardian—making sure that everyone is abiding by the rules and working toward the mission.
As Best Practice 1 teachers: the actions of all members of the organization should be aligned with its core values and directed toward the organization’s mission. Inspired by a compelling vision of the future, members of the organization (like Abraham’s flock) are journeying to the “Promised Land.” This alignment, in turn, requires that the Azure Blue leader move across the leadership spectrum to request the advice and talent of the Purposeful Tangy Orange leader—who can help set up a tactical (and longer-term strategic) process that provides guidance for this alignment of action and values. The successful journey across a desert like Sinai requires that a map be drawn!
Inappropriate Use of Strengths
The Inspiring leader is most often criticized for being impractical or soft. There is not enough Analytic Verdant Green or hard-nosed Royal Purple mixed in with the Azure Blue. A bit more guidance from Best Practice 1 would also help. The first of these criticisms is justified when the inspiring leader distracts an organization from the needed consideration of its current reality. It is always tempting to look up at the sky and dream when the world that surrounds us isn’t very pleasant or when it is devoid of any prospects of success. A Verdant Green leader respectfully taps on the Azure Blue’s shoulder.\
Ruby Red Assertive leaders often suggest that Inspiring leaders are too soft. They believe that the inspiring leader’s overriding concern with building community and commitment often keeps an organization from getting the job done. If we wait for everyone to make a firm commitment to a new project, it will never get off the ground. Furthermore, people often begin to feel like they’re part of a community only when the community begins to act and achieve real results.
A Royal Purple leader might whisper in the Azure Blue’s ear: “I can help you get this initiative launched without sacrificing vision or values. I’ve been doing this for many years.” The Tangy Orange leader might also join this collaborative launching effort. It is only up to the Azure Blue leader to acknowledge that they need some help. While seeking support is in the bailiwick of the Azure Blue perspective, it is surprising to observe many Azure Blue leaders venturing out on their own and ignoring their own advice.
The Ruby Red Assertive leader is correct in suggesting that desired outcomes are often not fully understood or appreciated until an organization begins to enact a new project or program. An Azure Blue leader should listen to the Ruby Red pronouncement at this moment. This pronouncement is fully in accord with Best Practice 1. There are often unanticipated early benefits associated with a new project that add further value. The Analytic Verdant Green leader can often help the Inspiring leader anticipate and build on these added benefits. Golden Yellow and Tangy Orange leaders can provide evidence that commitment builds when people see that something tangible really will occur.
The Inspiring leader sometimes fails to fully appreciate the compelling force of action. They might overlook (or deny) the potentially disruptive role that can be played by someone who is always pointing toward an uncertain future—rather than celebrating what has already been accomplished. An appreciative perspective held in particular by Verdant Green and Rainbow leaders will motivate the acknowledgement and honoring of past successes in aligning mission, vision and values with actions. Best Practice 1 provides the guidelines for replication of this success. All forms of leadership on deck for the new VUCA-Plus challenges we are facing! . . . And perhaps a recounting of lessons learned by Abraham can assist in planning for a new initiative.
The Thoughtful (Yellow) Leader and Best Practice 5
Contemporary organizations need both assertive and inspiring leaders. However, today’s organizations also need decision-making leaders who are thoughtful about both the current resources of the organization and specific needs that the organization can realistically meet. Best Practice 5 focuses on responsibility and accountability. Both of these emphases require Thoughtful Golden Yellow calibration. While the inspiring leader prefers to live on the high plains, looking up at the sky, the thoughtful leader prefers to live in the forest. He prefers to dwell among things that he can touch and cultivate. A thoughtful leader likes to focus on tangible matters and likes to alter his world in a responsible and systematic manner.
Responsible and Systematic
To be responsible, requires that members of an organization are clear regarding Best Practice 5’s commitment to providing a road map to realistic organizational policies and procedures. A bit of the Royal Purple perspective is appropriate here, for the policies and procedures must not only fit with the distinctive structure and process of the organization—but must also yield the equitable treatment of all employees. Without this Royal Purple “corrective” a Golden Yellow analysis can neglect the people while providing volumes of paper and numbers.
To be systematic requires a broad view regarding the interdependency of all organizational operations. One is not being realistic if they view everything through siloed binoculars. There might be clarify regarding some specific operation, but not a clue about how this operation fits with and is influenced by other operations in the organization. To repeat the distinction offered by Miller and Page, organizations are not just complicated with many moving parts, they are complex with parts that are intimately linked to one another. Thoughtful Golden Yellow and Best Practice 5 realism dictate a recognition of complexity and a view from above and beyond organizational silos. Some Purposeful Tangy Orange assistance makes sense. Systemic analysis is only useful if it translates into thoughtful tactical and strategic planning. Maps are fine, but action requires more direct guidance (such as the steps to be taken in following the Map).
Measurement
While the assertive leader tends to consume resources and the inspiring leader brings in resources, the thoughtful (yellow) leader tends to conserve and cultivate existing resources. Best Practice 5 calibration is critical in this regard. We need to know what we have and how well we are conserving and cultivating the resources already in our possession. Empowered workforces always require the skills of measurement—as advocated in the social-technical school of organizational effectiveness. Building on the more general movement over the past century toward “workplace democracy” [x], Social Technical Systems (STS).[xi] involve systematic planning of operations within an organization—this planning (and subsequent execution) being engaged by self-managed work teams.
Whether these teams are involved in the production of automobiles (Volvo being noteworthy) or the printing of newspapers[xii] they are deeply involved in the ongoing measurement of their own processes and outputs. It seems that empowerment of work forces is not just founded on a desire for equitable treatment and the creation of meaningful work opportunities. This empowerment also requires that the workers know what is happening in very concrete terms. Best Practice 5 must be in full operation among those engaged in the STS initiative. Without valid and useful information and without effective tactical (and strategic) planning, effective workplace democracy is only a fable.
While the Inspiring Azure Blue leader tends to create dreams and asks simple questions, the thoughtful leader asks for information and poses hard, analytic questions. While the assertive leader encourages risk-taking and leads the organization toward irreversible, transformational change, the thoughtful leader encourages reflection and leads the organization toward small, incremental changes that can easily be reversed if needed. As Jochens notes[xiii], STS requires a focus on variance—being aware of small changes in the production process that can readily be corrected. An awareness of variance, in turn, requires ongoing gathering of information and a commitment to “just-in-time” testing of reality.
We find Purposeful Tangy Orange leadership playing a critical role in STS operations—especially with a leaning toward tactical planning and a strong dose of Ruby Red. A Thoughtful Golden Yellow perspective is necessary—but not sufficient if the organization is to be agile and adaptive in its confrontation with the VUCA-Plus challenges of mid-21st Century life. We also find that a fair sampling of Azure Blue must be present to not only off-set the Ruby Red push for action, but also to ensure that there are clear goals and purposes to guide the evaluation of variance and production success. Jochens observed that his own STS team identified three clear goals that guided them not only during the design phase, but also during the ongoing operation of their self-managed newspaper production process.[xiv] These three goals were on-time papers to the customer, production of a quality product, and doing the work at or under budget. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all work groups were committed to these time-sensitive, quality-sensitive and budget-sensitive goals!
What Do They Need and To Whom Do We Listen?
The thoughtful (yellow) leader focuses on information and grows impatient when members of an organization ignore reality. For example, a thoughtful leader encourages his organization to be grounded in knowledge and information. She asks: What do we now have? What is distinctive about us? What do our customers need? How will our employees react if we take this action? A thoughtful leader also tends to look for technical expertise and wants people around who know what they are doing. Visionaries often have compelling but impractical dreams precisely because they are not aware of what is feasible. Wheatley describes a thoughtful leader’s perfect setting when she writes of the wave of information spreading broadly in an organization and the rich interweaving of data and interpretation.[xv]
While most thoughtful (yellow) leaders would hope for the blending of reality and action, they have little tolerance for people who tend to act without reflecting on lessons learned from the past. The thoughtful leader also is guided by Best Practice 5 calibration. He looks for substantial documentation and measurement once action is begun, suggesting that only with careful monitoring of new projects will the organization know how successful it is in achieving its goals.
Thoughtful leaders urge members of their organization to learn more about themselves and their organization while in the process of enacting their project and achieving their goals. They will be effective learners, however, only if they assess what is happening and compare their performance to that of previous work groups. Calibration, in other words, is married to learning. A learning organization is aligned with a measuring organization (STS) if the learning is to be based on fact-based analyses rather than wishful (but fabricated) narratives.[xvi]
Appropriate Uses of Strengths
The thoughtful (yellow) leader offers wisdom to his organization and assumes that the questions he possesses are often just as important as the answers. These questions produce a pause in the organization. Kahneman’s slow thinking is engaged, while the usual (habitual) and often self-fulfilling fast thinking is set aside at least temporarily. Frequently, the questions being asked by the thoughtful leader encourage a reconceptualization of the problem being addressed. This reframing process is particularly important in a world filled with complex and often paradoxical problems. The thoughtful leader recognizes that the meaning of any event or problem depends on how this event or problem is framed.
We find that work teams involved in STS initiatives are often involved in this reframing—especially because members of the team are themselves intimately involved in the organization’s daily operations. They know which questions to ask and which assumptions to challenge because they know what’s really happening day-to-day in their organization. These workers are realistic and Golden Yellow reigns precisely because they are fully engaged in this reality. There is no sitting on the fifteen floors in the C-Suites. Reality is right there. It is only a matter of getting sufficient distance on occasion from the immediate operations to do some measurement and some slow thinking. Best Practice 5 is engaged, and Tangy Orange leadership is walking hand-in-hand with Thoughtful Golden Yellow leadership to bring about and sustain effective workplace democracy.
We can get more specific about this reframing process as it relates to Best Practice 5 and Purposeful Tangy Orange. Many difficult problems can be reframed as incentives or goals, so that people are motivated to try harder or create something new and innovative. Alternatively, the problem can be framed as a symptom of some much deeper issues. Perhaps the organization should quit providing this particular service or manufacturing this particular product. What if we quit serving this troublesome customer and looked elsewhere for a more appropriate clientele? Thoughtful leaders also realize that it is very difficult in complex and often fragmented situations for any one person to have all the information or knowledge about the organization.
This is where the STS emphasis on teamwork and collaborative measurement makes sense. Information and knowledge tend to be gathered from diverse sources, using diverse methods. This information and knowledge, in turn, is widely dispersed, leading the thoughtful leader in collaboration with all members of the organization to focus on asking the questions and helping to identify appropriate sources for receiving valid and useful information upon which responsible answers can be based.
A thoughtful leader often assumes the role of teacher. He may also define himself as a co-learner with other members of the organization—given that the lessons learned today may not be applicable tomorrow. In his role as learner, the thoughtful leader tends to emphasize reflection on one’s own practices, as well as openness to alternative interpretations and perspectives regarding complex and recurring problems.[xvii] In order to make progress in solving these recurring problems, Ronald Heifetz suggests that “the task of leadership consists of choreographing and directing learning processes in an organization or community.”[xviii] To this important suggestion, we would add that this learning must be done in conjunction with ongoing calibration of performance (based on clear responsibility and accountability). As we have already emphasized, learning and calibration must be united—under the auspices of Best Practice 5.
Inappropriate Uses of Strengths
The thoughtful (yellow) leader is often criticized for never going beyond data gathering and analysis. The STS team can’t spend all of its time measuring and sitting around doing the analysis. The assertive leader is particularly inclined to be critical of the role played by thoughtful leaders in slowing things down (through that “damnable” slow thinking). The assertive leader often wonders if the thoughtful leader is simply risk-aversive—and as a result the thoughtful leader is preventing the organization from being agile and innovative. Assertive leaders suggest that the organizations can best learn by doing and that most of the information is only speculative at best.
Sometimes the thoughtful leader is also criticized (usually by the inspiring leader) for seeming to be insensitive. Just as the assertive leader may fail to account for human needs and feelings when moving an organization to action, so may the thoughtful leader fail to consider the human factor when exclusively focusing on facts and figures. They can use some gentle guidance from the caring Royal Purple advocate. While the thoughtful Golden Yellow leader might be of value in working closely with an STS team, this leader is inclined to focus on the “technical” rather than the “social” aspects of STS. Measurement is critical—but so is a caring and collaborative team spirit.
Inspiring and assertive leaders are also likely to be critical of the thoughtful leader’s overriding concern for being realistic. Unless some attention is given to the ideal state and to what people really want, rather than just to the current state and what people already have, there will be no incentive to take risks or get on with the job of improving the current state. We can only learn by making mistakes, and the thoughtful leader is often unwilling to make mistakes, despite his emphasis on learning. The assertive leader will suggest that an organization only learns by engaging the real world. The inspiring leader will suggest that an organization only learns when it tries to improve itself and move toward some desired state.
There is truth in both these approaches to learning (making mistakes and confronting the real world). Both approaches offer an important correction to the cautious tendencies of the thoughtful leader. We can re-introduce STS at this point. We find that STS exemplifies the Ruby Red emphasis on doing and learning by doing—and the Azure Blue vision of a workplace democracy. Perhaps, there is a meeting place for Red, Blue and Yellow in the enactment of STS. At the very least, the role played by all three primary leadership perspectives and practices in the initiation and maintenance of STS brings to the fore a fourth leadership perspective and practice—namely the Rainbow (to which we are about to turn).
Before leaving the domain of Golden Yellow and the promise of STS, we must ask a disturbing question: why isn’t STS more widely engaged? Why has it been abandoned in many organizations where it was introduced. We propose that the answers to these questions reside at least in part in challenges associated with Rainbow leadership. It seems that Rainbows are not always created with enthusiasm and Rainbow leadership can lead to burnout and disfunction. But more about this shortly. First, we identify several of the distinctive characteristics of Rainbow leadership and its close alignment with Best Practices 3 and 4.
The Collaborative (Rainbow) Leader and Best Practice 3 and 4
The three primary and three blended colors gather together when creating a Rainbow. The same occurs when diverse leadership styles and Best Practices are assembled and integrated on behalf of inspiration, diversity (differences) and community. They are also brought together so that the very important and varied roles played by leaders are acknowledged and honored. Leaders, in other words, are appreciated—and in this appreciative setting they can work from their distinctive strengths to assist the achievement of important goals.
This fourth Rainbow leadership style has been given considerable attention over the past two decades. Under the best conditions, the collaborative Rainbow leader works with groups of people to engage and enhance all forms of leadership that are inherent (and often undiscovered) in these groups. The collaborative leader provides the ground for an organization. She anchors the inspiring leader’s vision, as well as providing a balance between the decisive actions of an assertive leader and the caution of a thoughtful leader. It is through the engagement of Rainbow leadership that an organization can be most agile in the face of challenging VUCA-Plus challenges.
Appreciating and Expanding Existing Resources
Whereas the assertive leader consumes resources and the thoughtful leader conserves resources, the collaborative leader expands the use of existing resources. While the inspiring leader tends to recruit resources from outside the organization or grows new resources inside the organization, the collaborative (rainbow) leader draws attention to unacknowledged ideas and competencies within the existing organization. She appreciates that which already exists and encourages use rather than conservation of existing resources. And with this appreciation of existing resources comes an inevitable attraction of new resources. We are much more likely to assist an organization that is already filled with engaged resource than supporting an organization that is struggling to find resources (and often does not make effective or full use of the resources it already has).
The Collaborative Rainbow leader takes great joy in discovering, uncovering and enhancing the hidden talents of people in an organization. In this way, she is aligned with Best Practice 4’s focus on diversity and differences. In her appreciation, the Rainbow leader is inspiring (Best Practice 3) and creating community (Best Practice 4. She believes that an organization will find all the resources it needs if it will only make a solid commitment to its employees. Furthermore, this organization will also find and engage resources that it didn’t even know it needed—these are the resources provided by a diverse population of employees and stakeholders. There is abundance in Diversity.
Making Good Trouble on Behalf of Diversity
All of this is well and good. People of different color, age and gender are welcomed to the table. New ideas are articulated and honored! But is this diversity always really welcomed? Is not the Rainbow leader at times a “troublemaker”—someone who gets in “good (and often necessary) trouble”, as John Lewis (the civil rights leader) often advocated. Does not a Rainbow emerge only in the midst of a storm? Ron Heifetz suggested that the collaborative leader often goes against the grain:[xix]
“Rather than fulfilling the expectations for answers, [the collaborative leader] provides questions; rather than protecting people from outside threat, one lets people feel the threat in order to stimulate adaptation; instead of orienting people to their current roles, [the collaborative leader] disorients people so that new role relationships develop; rather than quelling conflict, one generates it; instead of maintaining norms, one challenges them.”
While the inspiring Azure Blue leader helps to define the mission for which resources are created and consumed, the collaborative Rainbow leader ensures that all members of the organization have a say regarding this mission. They are all sitting at the table when important priorities are established. This resides at the heart of Diversity. While the organization doesn’t have to self-managed, as in the case of STS, it does have to be one in which key decisions involve all constituencies—and it takes an effective Rainbow leader engaging in Best Practice 4 to make this happen.
The Rainbow leader ensures that the personal aspirations of members of the organization are taken into account when this mission is defined. Furthermore, in alignment with Best Practice 3, personal aspirations help to “inspire” the organization-wide aspirations. Like the inspiring Azure Blue leader, the collaborative Rainbow leader strongly emphasizes community and commitment. Like the thoughtful leader, the collaborative Rainbow leader strongly emphasizes the importance of information as a vehicle for empowerment.
Change and Learning
Like her assertive Ruby Red compatriot, the collaborative Rainbow leader believes that people often feel good about working with one another when they are set free to begin work on an actual project—this is where STS comes fully alive. People also feel good about working with one another when they can learn by doing something and making mistakes rather than by just planning or dreaming. Once again, STS comes alive. While the assertive leader tends to encourage change and the thoughtful leader tends to slow down change, the collaborative Rainbow leader often guides the change that naturally takes place. Ideally, she works closely with the inspiring Azure Blue leader by helping people deal with the fear and resistance that inevitably accompany any major change effort. In this work, the Rainbow leader is serving in the critical role of metabolizer of the anxiety associated with change.
In seeking to do their own metabolizing of anxiety, an assertive Ruby Red leader will shift either the organization’s definition of its current condition or its commitment to a specific desired state—if the gap is too great between the real and ideal. By contrast, the collaborative Rainbow leader will encourage members of the organization to live in the gap, retaining both the realism of the thoughtful leader and the idealism of the inspiring leader. Living in the gap means acknowledging the hard work that has yet to be done in realizing at least part of the dream.
The collaborative leader is likely to struggle alongside other members of the organization in reducing the size of the gap between where the organization is and where it wants to be. Yet, in the midst of this struggle, the Rainbow leader is shining through the storm. She models courageous and effective leadership in the midst of anxiety and storm. Her own work influences (and inspires) other people with whom she works to become courageous leaders themselves. Best Practice 3 is alive and well!
Appropriate Use of Strengths
Collaborative (rainbow) leadership is invaluable to organizations for two primary reasons: flexibility and connectivity. The collaborative leader can be flexible, moving into a variety of different roles and balancing off both the strengths and weaknesses of assertive, thoughtful or inspiring leaders, particularly if any one of these three approaches becomes too powerful. Typically, the collaborative leader moves easily back and forth between a formal leadership role and a supportive role as an active member of the work group.
There are rarely major struggles within the group because both the collaborative leader and her followers view the collaborative leader as someone who is special in some circumstances but just like other members of the group in other circumstances. Gibb describes just such a flexible model of leadership:[xx]
“Followers subordinate themselves not to an individual who is utterly different but to a member of their group who has superiority at this time and who is fundamentally just as they are. . . . The leader inevitably embodies many of the qualities of the followers.”
The collaborative leader is truly a context-oriented leader who accommodates many different conditions and needs.
Second, the collaborative Rainbow leader connects with other people both inside and outside the organization. By encouraging broad-based participation, she fosters relationships and builds networks. Whereas assertive, inspiring and thoughtful leaders sometimes are inclined to go it alone, the collaborative leader works with others and pulls people out of their spaces of isolation into a world of interdependence and connectivity.
Empowerment: The effective Rainbow comes to their role as leader in their organization through a particularly distinctive and important strength. They are always primarily concerned with the active involvement of all members of an organization in its ongoing operations. They wish for (and work toward) something even more ambitious. They are intent on Empowering all members of the organization. This requires attention to communication flow, management of conflict, effective problem-solving, and deliberative decision-making. Put together, these four areas of attention constitute the Empowerment Pyramid (see graphic portrayal)—and relate directly to the four stages in the formation of an empowered team (see Chapter Twelve).
Communications: Specifically, the collaborative Rainbow leader first seeks to expand and improve communication, both up and down the organization. Here is where Best Practice 4 community-building comes to the fore. Information flows both up and down the organization. Opinions also flow both ways—accompanied by processes and settings that enable information to be further clarified and opinions to be challenges (especially with regard to biases, assumptions and narrow silo perceptions). Some basic communication skills—such as are identified and described by Robert Bolton[xxi] in his classic People Skills—can provide invaluable (even if usually under-appreciated).
Conflict-Management: Rainbow-based attention next turns to management of the conflict that inevitably arises from a more open flow of communication. Even without increased diversity in an organization, increased communication up and down the organization will itself crate some “good trouble.” The effective Rainbow leader knows something about the management of conflict and differences among those people with whom she works. In Best Practice 3 we see an emphasis on “emotional intelligence.” This intelligence is particularly important with regard to conflict. If she is not herself an effective conflict-manager, then the effective Rainbow leader will bring in someone who is skillful in this regard—or she will hire an executive coach to assist her in this management.
Problem-Solving: Rainbow attention then turns to problem-solving. The Rainbow leader attends, in particular, to the acquisition of problem-solving skills by members of her organization and to the design of organizational structures that encourage effective problem-solving. The Best Practice 3 focus on leadership is particularly relevant at this point. Future Rainbow leaders must be especially skillful in helping their teams address challenging issues (often found in VUCA-Plus environments).
This means analyzing and solving problems that are multi-tiered. nested and often set in polarities [xxii]Furthermore, these problems are often quite elusive—and they are always shifting in a “dancing” landscape.[xxiii] All of this means, as we have often noted, that mistakes will often occur and that learning from these mistakes is imperative. The Rainbow leader is a life-long learner and in this commitment to learning influences and inspires other future leaders. Best Practice 3 is being exemplified.
Decision-Making: Finally, collaborative leaders turn to decision-making processes. They seek to expand the capacity and opportunities of all members of the organization to participate in appropriate decision-making processes. The collaborative leader is also concerned about full and appropriate use of all resources in the organization. This includes acknowledging the contributions made by assertive, inspiring and thoughtful leaders. Not only does the collaborative leader encourage leadership at all levels of the organization—the collaborative leader may themself come from any level of the organization.
As Heifetz suggests, “many people daily go beyond both their job description and the informal expectations they carry within their organization and do what they are not authorized to do. At a minimum, these people exercise leadership momentarily by impressing upon a group, sometimes by powerfully articulating an idea that strikes a resonant chord, the need to pay attention to a missing point of view.”[xxiv] These leaders who come from the “foot of the table” rather than the head provide or help to generate new information and provide unique, timely perspectives on the information that is generated.[xxv]These leaders from the foot of the table help to articulate key values or (even more often) exhibit and exemplify these key values through the actions they take. Emergent leaders, according to Heifetz, articulate new ideas that strike a resonant chord.
Typically, the primary problem confronting the collaborative Rainbow leader is one of managing the complex process of moving back and forth between the real and ideal, between reflection and action, between caution and risk. Collaborative leaders are accustomed to addressing the conflicts that are inevitable in keeping an organization attuned to these various tensions. Rather than avoiding conflict by opting for one leader style, the collaborative leader believes that conflict is a sign that the organization is trying to balance and integrate these differing perspectives.
Good Trouble and the Chalice: The spirit of collaborative Rainbow leadership is exemplified in the engagement of Rainbow leaders in enactment of the Empowerment Pyramid and engagement of Best Practices 3 and 4. This spirit is also effectively conveyed in the description offered by Wheatley regarding the role of disorder in today’s organizations. We create disorder (“good trouble”), suggests Wheatley, “when we invite conflicts and contradictions to rise to the surface, when we search them out, highlight them, even allowing them to grow large and worrisome. . . No longer the caretakers of order, we become the facilitators of disorder. We stir things up and roil the pot, looking always for those disturbances that challenge and disrupt until, finally, things become so jumbled that we reorganize work at a new level of efficacy.”[xxvi]
There are several important lessons for the collaborative leader to learn if she intends to roil the pot. First, the disruption must engage many people. The collaborative leader can’t do it alone. Best Practice 3 is knocking on the door. Leadership must be inspired so that it can be shared. The collaborative leader needs all colors of the Rainbow. If she does go it alone, then the disruption is easily dismissed as the product of a troublemaker or crazy person.
Second, having increased the challenge for members of the organization, a collaborative leader must know how to provide sufficient time and support for members of the organization to absorb and respond to this disequilibrium. Best Practice 4 is knocking on the door. Community is to be built This is a key role for the effective collaborative leader. She must ensure that there is a balance between the challenge associated with conflict, chaos and the support offered by the group and by the leader herself.[xxvii]
Riane Eisler emphasizes the critical (but often unacknowledged) role played by women in providing a chalice or container for a group—especially as it moves to being a team (see Chapter Ten).[xxviii] In providing the chalice, a collaborative leader makes an organization a safe and supportive place in which its members can tolerate the uncertainty and stress associated with conflict and chaos. Heifetz similarly describes the role of leaders in providing and managing a holding environment.[xxix] Physicians often serve this containing function in their relationship with patients. Parents also serve as containers in working with and supporting their children—and collaborative leaders create a holding environment when they effectively facilitate the adaptive work of their organization. The collaborative leader “contains and regulates the stresses that [this adaptive] work generates.”[xxx]
Inappropriate Uses of Strength
The strengths of collaborative Rainbow leaders also get them in trouble. This type of leader is sometimes unpredictable. She takes on many different roles and shifts from moment to moment depending on the needs of the organization. These shifts can be perceived as a sign that this person doesn’t know what she wants to do. Alternatively, this approach to leadership is considered highly expedient. Some members of an organization will conclude that the collaborative leader can’t be relied on to take a consistent position on any critical issue.
These accusations often have little substance. Nevertheless, the apparent inconsistency of collaborative leaders sometimes engenders a lack of trust among those with whom they work. If these changes do have substance, it is often because the collaborative leader is focusing too strongly on the needs and dynamics of the group—and efforts to create a time out of the group. The Rainbow leader is inclined to forget about the needs of the organization or the enduring vision to which the group should direct its attention.
A second recurring problem concerns the collaborative leader’s lack of control over the environment in which she works. The holding environment that is so critical to effective group participation can never be guaranteed by the collaborative leader. The collaborative leader can shape the stimulus but not manage the response. She can spark the debate and conflict but never fully orchestrate it.[xxxi] There is also a tendency for collaborative leaders to be viewed in quite different ways by various constituencies of the organization, lending even more weight to the problem of trust. As in the legendary story of the blind men portraying what they see when touching only one part of an elephant, the portrayal of a Rainbow leader is likely to depend on the setting in which this leader is being viewed or the specific issue being addressed by this leader.
Members of the organization who are looking for the thoughtful leader are likely to perceive the collaborative leader as too idealistic or action-oriented, whereas those who are looking for the inspiring leader will perceive the collaborative leader as too anchored in the current world or too impulsive. Finally, those members of the organization who are looking for an assertive leader will perceive the collaborative leader as wishy-washy and indecisive or too idealistic. The Best Practice 4 Community is in disarray. There is little in the actions of the Rainbow leader to inspire emerging leaders. The rainbow is fading, and pot of gold is nowhere to be found.
Conclusions
The challenge for a collaborative Rainbow leader, therefore, is to educate other members of the organization about this unique leader style. This is a principal ingredient in effective Best Practice 3. More generally, the task of all responsible members of an organization is to learn about the role of context in determining appropriate leader styles. All responsible members should learn how to identify the appropriate criteria for determining the leader style that fits best with a particular setting and at a particular place and time. This matching process is never easy.
A contextual model of leadership offers no simple formula for success. As long as all members of the organization view this matching process as an ongoing learning opportunity, the organization is likely to be well served. We must remind ourselves and our colleagues that rainbows emerge from stormy weather. Peter Armentrout might keep this in mind as he seeks to introduce more collaboration into his organization. Our Ark is now afloat on a sea of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, turbulence and contradictions (VUCA-Plus). We should be grateful that all styles of leadership have been welcomed into our Ark and that we are in possession of a guidebook that tells us about all five best practices. It is now up to us to make appropriate use of the wisdom embedded in each perspective on leadership and in each of the legacy practices.
We offer three chapters in which various dimensions of the external context are considered—especially as they relate to Best Practices and leadership styles. In Chapter Seven we explore the type of work being done in an organization, while in Chapter Eight we look at the type of issues being confronted in the organization. Finally, in Chapter Nine, we review five other characteristics: the external environment, organizational structures and operations, organizational ownership, maturity level of the individuals and groups with which leader is working, and organizational culture. We will briefly consider each of these characteristics and suggest ways in which each of the five Best Practices and four leadership styles relates to this characteristic.
__________________
[i] Wheatley, Margaret (1999). Leadership and the New Science; Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, p. 68.
[ii] Wheatley describes Max DePree’s notion of “roving leadership” using similar terms: “[roving leaders] emerge from the group not by self assertion, but because they make sense, given what the group needs to thrive and what individuals need to grow.” Wheatley, Margaret (1999). Leadership and the New Science; Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, p. 22.
[iii] Heifetz, Ronald (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 15.
[iv]Heifetz, Ronald (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,, p. 113
[v] Heifetz, Ronald (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 62-63
[vi] Page, Scott (2011) Diversity and Complexity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[vii] Heifetz, Ronald (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 107
[viii]Heifetz, Ronald (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,, p. 107.
[ix]Wheatley, Margaret (1999). Leadership and the New Science; Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
[x] Melman, Seymour (2001) After Capitalism: From Managerialism to Workplace Democracy. New York: Knopf.
[xi] Taylor, James and David Felten (1993). Performance by Design: Sociotechnical Systems in North America. Englewood, Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[xii] Jochens, Donald (1998) A Study of a Sociotechnical Systems Intervention on Productivity in the Production Operations of a Daily Newspaper Group. Dissertation Prepared at the Professional School of Psychology.
[xiii] Jochens, Donald (1998) A Study of a Sociotechnical Systems Intervention on Productivity in the Production Operations of a Daily Newspaper Group. Dissertation Prepared at the Professional School of Psychology, p. 28.
[xiv] Jochens, Donald (1998) A Study of a Sociotechnical Systems Intervention on Productivity in the Production Operations of a Daily Newspaper Group. Dissertation Prepared at the Professional School of Psychology. p. 96
[xv] Wheatley, Margaret (1999) Leadership and the New Science; Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, p. 65
[xvi] Argyris, Chris and Schon, Donald, Organizational Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978.
[xvii] Schon, Donald (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
[xviii]Heifetz, Ronald (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 187.
[xix] Heifetz, Ronald (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 126.
[xx]As quoted by Ronald Heifetz: Heifetz, Ronald (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 284.
[xxi] Bolton, Robert (1986) People Skills. New York: Touchstone/Simon and Schuster.
[xxii]One of the original presentations on this taxonomy of issues was presented by Bergquist and Mura in their book on coaching: Bergquist, William and Agnes Mura (2011) Coachbook: A Guide to Organizational Coaching Strategies and Practices. Sacramento, CA: Pacific Soundings Press. A more recent update of this taxonomy was presented in Bergquist’s essay on coaching challenges in the mid-21st Century that relate to COVID-19: : Bergquist, William (2022) The VUCA Plus Challenges of COVID-Related Dancing on a Moving and Warped Plane. Library of Professional Coaching. Link: https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/concepts/best-practices-foundations/the-vuca-plus-challenge-of-covid-related-expertise-dancing-on-a-moving-and-warped-plane/ A even more recent update has been provided by Bergquist, in associated with Jeremy Fish, in their description and analysis of complex systems as found in contemporary health care systems: Fish, Jerome and William Bergquist (2022) The Complexity of 21st Century Health Care. Library of Professional Psychology. Link: https://library.psychology.edu/the-complexity-of-21st-century-health-care/
[xxiii] Miller, John and Scott Page (2007) Complex Adaptive Systems. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
[xxiv]Heifetz, Ronald (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 185.
[xxv]Heifetz, Ronald (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press p. 184.
[xxvi]Wheatley, Margaret (1999) Leadership and the New Science; Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, p. 116.
[xxvii] Sanford, Nevitt (1966) Self and Society: Social Change and Individual Development. New York: Atherton: Sanford, Nevitt (1980) Learning after College, Berkeley, CA: Montaigne Press.
[xxviii] Eisler, Rianne (1987) The Chalice and the Blade. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
[xxix]Heifetz, Ronald (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 104-105.
[xxx]Heifetz, Ronald (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 105.
[xxxi]Heifetz, Ronald (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 207.