Download Dynamic Leadership

This article is © Copyright 2000 Pilgrims Ltd. The copyright owners reserve all rights to its
reproduction.
Major Article 2
Dynamic Leadership
Leadership as a journey
Nick Owen, London, UK
Menu
Introduction
Appropriate Leadership
Values, Complexity and Emergence
So what does this mean for Leadership?
The Wave Leader
The Change Leader
The Integral Leader
Level 6: Inclusive Leadership
Natural Hierarchies of Sustainability
Keeping Development open and flowing
Three givens for Relationship Building
Seven qualities of Leadership
A final Metaphor on Leadership
Introduction
Adrian Underhill’s informative and provocative article, Learning Leadership and ELT
Today, raises many crucial points in the current debate about leadership, its nature, and
relevance to education, business, and politics. It may well be argued that the search for
appropriate forms of leadership is the single major challenge facing the world today for
all the reasons Adrian mentions, and more.
While agreeing with much of what Adrian has written, I’d like to look at the nature of
leadership from some additional perspectives. In particular, to offer the idea that rather
than there being ‘a new paradigm for leadership,’ there are various effective paradigms
for leadership, not all of which are new or necessarily need changing. The paradigm
that Adrian offers of ‘leader of leaders,’ and ‘leadership as partnership’ is a fine concept,
but it begs the questions: “Is everybody ready for this?” and “Does everybody want
this?” I want to look at the journey that needs to be made so that this can become a
reality.
Where I absolutely agree with Adrian’s thinking is the idea that leadership – in whatever
form - should allow every person to contribute and participate in ways that make sense
to them, and that attention be paid to their personal development as much as to their
professional development. There needs to be a healthy interrelationship between work
skills, technology and infrastructure, organisational culture, and personal
consciousness. 1 This is as true for educational institutions as it is for the workplace.
However, I suggest that there are many different types of leadership, and that the key
question is which type of leadership is appropriate for which groups of people in which
particular contexts, and that what is appropriate leadership in one context or with one
particular group of people, may be completely inappropriate in other contexts and with
other groups. We do not live in a one-size-fits-all, flatland, world. 2
Appropriate leadership
A useful starting point is the following metaphor: Farmers don’t grow crops; they create
conditions in which crops can grow. This seems to me to be the essence of empowering
leadership, suggesting that the crops are not passive but have an active part to play as
well as the farmer. The best leaders ensure that the environment is healthy,
appropriate, and that everything in it can thrive whatever its particular requirements.
Within this environment people can develop at their own pace, in ways that make sense
to them. Leaders don’t lead people; they create conditions in which people can thrive.
Not all individuals, groups, communities, organisations, cultures, and nations are at the
same level of development. Any flatland approach to leadership is doomed to fail.
Development is vertical as well as horizontal. The differing and uneven conditions in
which the human species lives gives rise to different coping strategies through which
people can survive within their milieu. Compare the different expectations and attitudes
of a child growing up in an inner city ‘jungle’ to those of a child growing up in an affluent
suburb. Compare the expectations of a child in bourgeois Paris to one in brutalised
Fallujah.
Life conditions are dictated by five principal factors: 3
The geographical place: the physical conditions, natural or man-made in which we live
and the habitat it offers, eg urban jungle or Saharan cave dwelling.
Historical epoch: a culture’s stage of emergence, eg 21st century Rome or 16th century
Kabul.
Human problems: our requirements for existence and survival, eg is there electric
supply 24 hours a day or clean water from a tap?
Societal circumstances: our placement within hierarchies of power, status, and
influence which differ from society to society, and within societies
Biological factors: the innate codes and potentials with which every child enters this
world; no two people respond in exactly the same way to the same conditions
Each of these five factors gives rise to the development in people of thinking and
valuing systems appropriate for the conditions in which they live. When the conditions
change, their valuing and thinking systems may change to accommodate, and new
strategies will need to be developed to cope with the new challenges. Nevertheless,
each different set of valuing and thinking systems requires different styles of leadership,
and this is as true for schools and classes, and the methodological approaches they
utilise, as it is for political systems, business organisations, and families.
Values, Complexity, and Emergence
One way to think about appropriate leadership is to recognise developing trends in
complexity of social organisation. In fact, this can be noticed in the development of
individuals just as much as in societies and cultures. As conditions of life become more
complex, our coping strategies must become more sophisticated in order to deal with
this complexity. What emerges is a natural hierarchy of complexity in thinking and
values where each level is interdependent with all previous levels. None are better or
worse, just appropriate.
One particular model of leadership which I have found useful suggests the existence of
seven [+] levels of development at which leadership needs to operate, where each of
the levels functions at an incrementally more sophisticated level of social, economic,
cultural, and political complexity.4 Thus what the group or individual values will
determine the appropriate style of leadership.
Where the individual/group values:
Survival from moment to moment
Belonging, bonding, knowing who we
are, sense of ‘tribe’
Egoic/heroic
self
expression;
surviving in a ‘jungle’
Stability, structure, self-discipline,
obeying the rule of law; following the
‘one true way’
Applying knowledge to get ahead,
exploit available resources to achieve
a better life
Inclusiveness, a society of equals in
which all humans can share earth’s
benefits
Complexity: the systemic relationship
between all sentient beings; the need
to preserve the deep ecology of the
whole planet
The style of leadership will be:
1. Instinctual: a caretaker
2. Paternalistic: a caring parent,
chief, or shaman
3. Autocratic: the tough and
respected boss; the strong one
4. Authoritarian: the properly
qualified leader, the Teacher
5. Strategic: the smart operator who
knows and exploits the ways of the
world, plays to win, and rewards
success
6 Consensual: a facilitator who
promotes participative leadership
through which all are consulted and
‘wealth’ is shared
7. Integral: the leader[s] who can
bring the best out of all the previous
levels,
and
recognise
their
contribution, and their right to be who
they are
Reality is of course more complex than this, and many communities are in transition
between one of these levels and the next. And in many communities - such as
classrooms, families, organisations, and nations - individuals may be at different levels
in the depth and sophistication of their thinking. The model is a metaphor, as all models
are, and a useful way of testing theory against experience.
What do these levels mean in practice and where might we experience them? 5
Social
Organisation
Examples
General: Trauma victims; intensive care units
1. Politics:
Education: Individuals need psychological help,
medicine, and should not be in the
Disorganised bands classroom
General: Gangs, tribes, football fans, clubs, families
2. Politics:
Chiefs, shamans chosen from within group
Education: Primary education; rituals, group activities
Inward looking
groups
General: Dog eat dog societies; lawlessness
3. Politics:
Tough leader ruling through strength & fear
Education: Some 2 education; test boundaries, who
controls the classroom? Short activities
Power hierarchies
General:
Societies ruled by law, ethics, and religion
4. Politics:
Rightful authority: kingship, simple
democracy
Education: Self-discipline, obedience, duty, sacrifice
Formal hierarchies today
for future rewards. Seat work
General:
Societies ruled by reason, logic, &
5. materialism
Politics:
Risk taking; multi-party democracies
[US/UK]
Mobile hierarchies Education:
Acquire knowledge for personal
advancement;
use hi-tech tools, computers, etc
General:
Societies governed through consensus
6. Politics:
Participative leadership, social
democracies
[The Netherlands, Scandinavia]
Education:
Acquire knowledge for collective
Community advancement;
networks
focus on social issues, participative
learning
General:
Interconnectedness of all life forms and
7. systems
Politics:
Just emerging. The Third Way?
Democracy one
choice among many. Value competence
and
Functional systems
knowledge above collective ignorance.
Education: Flexible & flowing. Can adjust to work with
all
previous levels and styles in ways they
need
So what does this mean for leadership?
It means that effective modern leadership needs to be adaptable and flexible, to have
the breadth and sensitivity to apply different strategies for leading, influencing and
motivating. It needs to bear in mind that no leader can change or motivate anyone
directly. People will only change and get motivated according to their perceived need to
change, and their desire to move towards things they value within their own worldview.
However, we can identify three types of leader. If we think of the above seven levels of
complexity as waves of development, we can recognise the following leadership
approaches.
1. The Wave Leader who operates at the same level as the group s/he leads. She
is in tune with their values, needs, and desires. She knows exactly how they think
and how they get motivated. She gets the best out of them because she
understands them. This type of Leader is important when individuals, groups,
and organisations are perfectly suited to their milieu.
2. The Change Leader who is perhaps half a step ahead of the group on the
journey towards greater complexity. If they are at Level 3, he is navigating the
territory between Levels 3 and 4. He understands their issues and can support
and guide them in making the necessary transitions. This Leader is important
when individuals, groups, and organisations need to adapt to greater challenges
and complexities in their environment.
3. The Integral Leader who has evolved to Level 7 thinking and can handle both
complexity and the dynamic relations that exist between all the previous waves of
development. The Level 7 leader recognises the interdependence of each of the
levels and creates an environment where all can contribute in their own ways,
and in which they can develop as and when they are ready to. This is the Leader
as Farmer referred to earlier. This type of leader is highly desirable in complex
systems where people are centred at many different levels.
The problem is that very few people are developed to this level of systemic thinking and
operating. Another problem is that a lot of people would like to think that they are. We
should certainly want to develop people to this level but it will take time since people
have to pass through each of the levels sequentially, as each level teaches the codes
essential to develop to the next level. As an example, this writer spends much of his life
moving between levels 3, 4, and 5. He can comprehend Level 7 intellectually, but he is
certainly not yet living it.
Level 6 Inclusive Leadership
Another problem is Level 6 leadership. This worldview often refuses to recognise the
existence of levels at all. To many at Level 6 everyone is equal, and should be treated
equally. This would be great in a perfect world where everyone can be caring and
sharing. But we live in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. As Lawrence
Kohlberg has suggested: ‘Every human being has equal rights, but everything they say
and do is not of equal value.” 6
Anyone who has worked in a tough inner city school knows that before any successful
teaching can be done, deep seated needs at Levels 3 and 4 have to be met. A teacher
may have to establish assertively where power is centred, and create a stable, secure,
fair and safe environment where learning can take place. Only once Level 4 is
established can a student begin to access the codes for higher level operation. In
addition, each different level requires different methodologies for success. Broadly
speaking, Levels 2 – 4 require more teacher centred approaches, Levels 5 & 6, more
learner centred approaches, Level 7 more autonomous learning.
Perhaps I should make it clear that teacher centred does not mean in the interests of
the teacher. The child and his or her development remains central to the process of
educating. The teacher’s role is to hold the space through which each child can
progress as complexity develops in its cognitive, moral, affective, kinaesthetic, linguistic,
somatic, interpersonal, spiritual, etc. lines. This means that the teacher as leader needs
to be flexible and adaptive, and to have a range of strategies suitable for children at
different stages of their development. [Piaget made this point too.] The most important
thing is that the teacher and staff need to have a clear understanding of child
development and a clear vision of what a progressing and well-formed education is
Thus, the nature of the teacher’s interventions at Levels 3 or 4 will be very different from
Level 6. One of the dangers is that certain teachers who operate out of a Level 6 [or 5]
values system may want to impose their own values on children who need different
methodologies. Of course, you also find teachers operating out of Levels 3 or 4 who
attempt to impose their favoured methodologies on students operating out of Level 6
with equally unsatisfactory results.
As an aside, an effective way to challenge Level 6 flatland thinking is to ask whether they think George Bush’s grasp of complexity
is the same as theirs. ! Incidentally, Level 6 consistently underestimates GW’s street-smart intelligence. He is a Wave Leader,
perfectly in tune with the Level 4 values of Middle America.
Natural Hierarchies of Sustainability
Level 6 has a deep distaste for hierarchies [which is what the levels are]. But this is
based on the mistaken assumption that all hierarchies are bad, as indeed some are. But
our planet is based on natural hierarchies of complexity without which life would not be
possible. Such hierarchies are life giving and sustaining. The hierarchies are
interdependent and each makes an important contribution in its own way. As an
example, take the relationship between atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, ecosystem,
biosphere. The relationship is one of embrace, each more complex level literally
embraces the other and holds its integrity. Notice that if you destroy a lower level of
hierarchy, for example cells, all the higher levels will also be destroyed.
This is why the move towards Level 7 leadership is so important because it recognises
the value and contribution of each system, and can understand and mediate the
conflicts that arise between them. It recognises that development is like a ship passing
through a flight of locks. It can only go through the locks sequentially, moving on only
when each stage has been satisfactorily negotiated. Level 6 on the other hand doesn’t
recognise the stages and may become easily disappointed when people operating out
of ego-centric Level 3 fail to ‘care and share.’ In such cases, Level 6 may resort to
blaming the ‘system,’ failing to recognise that personal responsibility and recognition of
others is developed mainly at socio-centric Level 4.
Keeping Development Open & Flowing
Thus good leadership recognises that it is essential to allow people to be who they are
at their own level, and to move upwards [or downwards] when they are ready to do so.
Excellent leadership needs to recognise what are healthy behaviours that help keep the
systemic relationships open and flowing, and what are unhealthy behaviours that seek
to restrict people or force them into doing things they are not ready for.
2.
3.
4.
Healthy
Co-operative
working;
group
activities
Creative; testing boundaries; ego
celebration
Self discipline, structure, law
Unhealthy
Fatalistic; sacrificial; exclusive
Aggressiveness;
domination;
bullying
Rigid; authoritarian; rule bound
5.
6.
7.
abiding
Apply knowledge; push laws of
reason;
improve
material
conditions
Participative;
caring;
compassionate; justice for all
Greediness,
exploitativeness;
materialistic; lack of compassion
Devalue complexity; devalue task
and
competence;
smugness;
meanness
Deep
ecology;
concern
for Arrogance; detachment
complex interrelationship of all
living things
The good news is that even if we are not Level 7 leaders ourselves, if we are ‘healthy’
and open to development then we can make sure we work with people who do have
more complexity than ourselves. Many of the greatest leaders have been people who
were not the most skilful in all technical applications of their work, but were the ones
who were able to identify the best people and build effective relationships between them
for the good of the whole. 7
An orchestral conductor is a good metaphor for this type of leader. S/he is not
necessarily the best violinist or trombonist, but knows how to get the best sound from
the ensemble. The conductor operates through the participation and consent of the
individuals in the group to achieve the desired results. In fact the etymology of the word
conductor can trace its roots to the Latin conducere: ‘to lead together.’ However, in
certain contexts conducere could mean ‘to serve’. The concept of the servant leader, it
appears, has been around at least 2000 years.
Gender Issues
Two final things that I would like to take up from Adrian’s article are the heroic and postheroic labels; and the male – female division. Heroic leadership [that is Level 3
leadership in my model] is perfectly valid when it is appropriate. And there are plenty of
examples from history and contemporary events which clearly prove that women are
capable of heroic acts of leadership. I would also suggest that post-heroic leadership is
too general a term. There are different kinds of leadership emerging after the heroic
phase, and once again their effectiveness depends upon their relevance and
appropriateness to the situation, their match with the people and value systems
involved, and the intended results.
Having said that, it is certainly the case that Levels 3 through 5 favour leadership as an
expression of maleness, indeed a desirable attribute of maleness. Women can and do
succeed here, but they have to demonstrate the leadership qualities that these levels
value. Level 3 respects toughness and strength. Level 4 favours leaders in the image of
the Maker, and gods in monotheistic cultures tend to be male; male dominance is
frequently interpreted as God’s law in fundamentalist societies. [Not fair I know, but
that’s the dominant value system.] Level 5 is achievist and whoever can deliver the
goods is acceptable. Here women begin to re-emerge in leadership positions but they
have a tough task and often have to behave more like men in their aggressiveness and
competitiveness than the men themselves.
I say re-emerge because in pure Level 2 societies women and men were traditionally
respected equally and shared leadership positions. World-centric Level 6 respects
equality and places emphasis on relationship rather than task where – according to
most psychological types inventories – most women score higher than men. At Level 6,
equal opportunities legislation ensures women, minorities etc., take more leadership
roles whether they are ready for them or not. And, of course, as more women and
minority groups do succeed in leadership roles, and as Life Conditions continue to
change, the definition of leadership also begins to change.
Level 7 makes no distinction between gender, colour, culture, educational background,
class, or any other immaterial factor. Whoever is competent forms the leadership core.
So wherever you are in your journey of emergence through the levels of complexity,
what can you do to communicate effectively with everybody, and engage in various
forms of leadership with others, in appropriate ways, regardless of their level of
emergence?
Three Givens for Relationship Building
First, demonstrate politeness and respect. People have the right to be who they are.
Second, seek to develop open and trusting relationships where you say what you want
in the way you want it. Actively listen and respond to what others have to say, and don’t
run hidden agendas.
Third, demonstrate full responsibility for everything you do and say. Every level
responds well to personal integrity.
Seven Qualities of Leadership
In my recent book on leadership and motivation, 8 I identify 7 essential attitudes and
ways of being for leaders. These seven qualities seem to me to be central to the art and
science of sensitive, responsive leadership. They offer the possibility of a partnership-fit
with people at each of the different valuing and thinking levels. When partnership-fit
exists, leaders will get active, open, participation rather than stubborn resistance or
passivity. They are:
The Integral Leader – the leaders able to see the whole context from multiple
perspectives; they recognise the need for both professional and personal development
in individuals, and that these must be appropriate to the existing cultures, values, and
infrastructures. 9
The Pragmatic Leader – the leaders who can connect the bigger picture to the practical
requirements of day-to-day implementation
The Present and Aware Leader – the leaders who see the world as it really as, not as
they would like it to be, and respond accordingly
The Leader who demonstrates Integrity – the leaders whose behaviours, skills, values,
beliefs, sense of identity, and vision are completely aligned and support the talk they
walk
The Leader who takes Personal Responsibility – the leaders who recognise that
personal responsibility is liberating and empowering; and that blame only serves to
make one a victim to external circumstances
The Contributing Leader – the leaders who are more concerned with giving than taking,
whose attention is on the development of their organisation rather than their own
personal aggrandisement
The Leader as Change Agent – the leaders who make change possible, and when it is
appropriate sponsor it, support it, and when necessary provoke it
A final metaphor on leadership.
Many years ago my friend Christopher was a junior manager at Yorkshire Water
Company. He was asked by his line manager to visit a senior engineer at his home in
Huddersfield. Chris knocked on the door and was invited in. “Would you like a cup of
tea?” the engineer asked. While Chris waited for the kettle to boil in the kitchen, he
looked out of the back window expecting to see a garden. Instead he saw row upon row
of fish tanks, stacked one on top of the other, each filled with a different species of fish.
“I didn’t know you kept fish,” said Chris. “Nay lad,” replied the old engineer, “I don’t keep
fish, I keep water.”
Now that’s great leadership, if you think about it.
Sources:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Wilber K
Wilber K
Beck D & Cowan C
A Theory of Everything
Ibid
Gateway, 2001
Spiral Dynamics: Mastering
Blackwell, 1996
Leadership & Change
Beck D & Cowan C
Ibid.
Beck D & Cowan C
Ibid.
Kohlberg L
The Philosophy of Moral
Harper Collins, 1981
Development: Moral Stages &
The Idea of Justice
Collins J
Good to Great
Random House, 2001
Owen N
More Magic of Metaphor:
Crownhouse, 2004
Stories for Leaders, Influencers
and Motivators
Wilber K
Ibid.
Values,