The Subtle Difference in Leadership of, in, and with the System

I recently completed a paper on the challenges of leading social change in meta-systems. Organizational change was one of the evergreen topics when I worked at Harvard Business School Publishing, i.e. you could sell books and articles about it forever as no one ever got it right. Move up to the level of a meta-system where you are trying to inspire global change in response to the big, hairy issues like climate change or urbaniztion and, well, things get really fun.

In the paper I put forth a conceptual framework for examining the leadership issues and it is build around three simple prepositions: of, in, and with. Leaders of a system, really a sub-system, such as a CEO of a company have one level of influence largely bounded by the extent of their authority. Leaders in a system, perhaps that same CEO  but working through a U.N. initiative or the head of an international NGO, have a larger level of influence as they don’t define it in terms of formal authority. They know that they must collaborate and move multiple stakeholders in order to be effective. A few truly achieve large scale, meta-system change and I call these leaders with the system. They articulate the inconsistencies within the system and lead the system to be true to itself. Their leadership is not motivated by personal gain or the self-interest of any entity other than the system itself.

Jim Spohrer of IBM, one of my advisory team members, has suggested that leading with a system may at the point where one moves beyond a zero-sum outcomes. That’s an interesting insight that I am going to explore.

“Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

The leader with a system I examine most closely in the paper is Martin Luther King, Jr. That’s why I am posting the paper today on MLK Day 2012. Others whom I would consider leaders with the system would be Gandhi, Mandela, and perhaps the Dalai Lama. That’s an illustrious, almost stereotypical list. I will be looking for more as my work progresses. I invite you to read the paper and give me your thoughts on the of, in, with framework.

Read the full paper here: Leadership of Social Change cc.

Should Patients Have a Role in Renegotiating the Health Care System?

I think that they do but perhaps that’s a radical notion. My co-authors and I were interviewed by NPR affiliate WBUR on the acrimonious negotiations between Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts and Tufts Medical Center. Our view: it would be a very different negotiation if patients were also at the table. After all, they have a stake in this too.

Interestingly, we created a scenario quite similar to this in the “novel” that runs throughout our book, Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving Conflict to Build Collaboration. A battle over money pits a major insurer against a local health system. Each sees the other as the source of pain. Only when they open themselves to see their own role in the problem does it become possible to imagine a new reality in which they both win. We hope that these two real-life organizations come to that same realization.

Please check out the story and leave your thoughts.

Leaders: Agents of Their Own Destiny?

I scanned the magazine rack as I walked through the airport recently and noted how almost all of them featured photographs of single individuals on their covers: a CEO, a celebrity, a politician. This focus on the individual is an extension of a narrative tradition that goes back at least as far as Homer. We like stories about heroes, villains, and victims and those stories are brought to life as compelling characters.

This tradition is also reflected in how we think about leaders: we relate the rise and fall of organizations through the stories of their executives, the successes and failures of armies through the exploits of their generals, and the triumph or defeat of social movements through the journeys of their most visible advocates. Bezos. Bloomberg. Petraeus. Gandhi.

The reality is not that simple.

Leaders never act alone. Rarely, if ever, do breakthrough ideas have a single parent.

Successful strategies, tactics, negotiations, and operations are not often the product of sitting alone in one’s room. Researchers use the term agency to describe the actions of individuals. The leaders described above are portrayed as individual agents—think “my idea,” “my vision,” or the title of a regular feature on CEOs in Harvard Business Review, “How I Did It.”

In my experience and research, leaders are more often co-creators or joint agents. I may have an idea, but you and several others add to it before it becomes the next big thing. Jeff Bezos has contributed mightily to the success of amazon.com, but he certainly didn’t do it alone. Employees, investors, suppliers, customers, and even competitors played roles in making the company what it is today. So, too, with the efforts of Mayor Bloomberg to make New York a more sustainable city.

Research on nonlinear systems at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere holds that change in a system comes not from the actions of one agent but rather from the interactions of two or more agents.

If you view global organizations and cities as complex systems, as I do, then evaluating and developing leaders as individual agents is foolhardy at best. These efforts are much better directed at improving how leaders foster interaction and build relationships.

In a recent literature survey, I found that the agency of leaders was an area not covered in great depth (see my recent post on complexity for another).

Warren Bennis wrote about “great groups” at Apple and other innovative companies as the successors to the “great man” tradition of leadership. He wrote about “the myth of the triumphant individual” that underlies much leadership thinking. Most others—from James McGregor Burns through Jim Collins—focus on the efforts of the individual rather than the individual as part of a group.

Creation is wonderful, but cocreation opens up far greater possibilities, unlocks more resources, and more effectively hedges the risk of overlooking either opportunities or pitfalls. Cocreation gives you the freedom to say, “I’m not sure. What do you think?” It allows you to more deeply engage followers, peers, and even potential naysayers.

As you think about your own leadership journey, I encourage you to keep agency in mind. Yes, you must think about what you will do, but try placing it the context of what you will enable others to contribute, how you will remove obstacles to others’ success, how you catalyze collaboration, and how you can ensure that credit is shared as widely as is deserved.

Heroic narratives may be easy—perhaps even essential in storytelling—but do not confuse them with what is actually essential to your success as a leader. Truly great leaders are masters of cocreation.

The Action Plan
• Watch the credits. The next time that you see a film, stay through the credits. You will see that the stars’ names may be in larger type but that there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of others who were essential to creating the film. Eliminate any of them and you would have a lesser experience or perhaps no movie at all.
• Create a genealogy chart for a great idea. Look at the last (or next) successful initiative in your organization and trace its lineage. From where did the seed emerge? Who was at the meeting where it was first surfaced? Who was it bounced off as it matured? How did you or another leader nurture the idea? Try to include everyone who contributed in some way to its development—and then post it on the wall for everyone to see.
• As you keep your leadership journal (and I encourage everyone to do so), periodically note the times when your actions have either encouraged or discouraged cocreation. Think about what worked and what you might have done differently.

A version of this post first appeared on BecomeaLeader.org.

Mayor Bloomberg photo from Flickr. Some rights reserved by makeroadssafe. City Year photo from Flickr. Some rights reserved by cityyear.

Renegotiating Health Care Excerpt Now Available

The second edition of Renegotiating Health Care has hit the shelves. It is my first book and I have to say that I am pleased with the end product. It has been a pleasure working with my co-authors and the team at Jossey-Bass.

If you’d like a free preview, please download the preface and first chapter with our compliments: RHC 2nd Ed Excerpt

I particularly enjoyed the opportunity to interview health care leaders from front line docs and nurses to hospital CEOs to policy makers and administrators. I encountered many smart, thoughtful people with interesting, innovative ideas about how to meet the challenges of high quality care at an affordable cost. You’ll meet many of them in the book — and I hope you’ll be tempted to send a copy to your representatives in Washington.

If you are interested in having me or one of my co-authors speak at your conference or meeting, please use the contact form on this site to be in touch.

Leading Transformations — Are You Ready?

My first post is up on becomealeader.org — a site targeted principally at social enterprise and non-profit/third sector leaders. It addresses the challenges of leading transformations (in organizations and in society). It is based on research from Harvard Business Review and Business Strategy Review and offers an action plan based on self-discovery, celebration of diversity of perspectives, and rethinking listening.

Your thoughts and comments are encouraged!