More Science May Not Be The Climate Change Answer

The battle between those scientists who believe in climate change and those who deny it continues to rage. Al Gore recently hosted an around-the-clock web broadcast entitled “24 Hours of Climate Reality.” A “map of climate change denial” was recently published in the New York Times detailing ideological and economics links in “the denial machine.” Deniers are unconvinced and see a vast liberal conspiracy built on shoddy science.

I am a climate change believer. I see it as one of the Pillar Trends that has the power to reshape our world and the way we live. However, I must ask: is the war for truth one that can be won?

In my latest paper, I explore the epistemology of climate change science. My conclusion is that more physical science is likely not the answer.  One must turn to the social sciences to better understand how we learn and come to hold the beliefs that we consider to be the “truth.”

I invite you to download the PDF: ClimateChangeSciencecc and leave your comments here.

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!

 

Leading Complex Systems

Over the spring 2011 semester I spent considerable time looking at the challenge of leading complex systems. This was the first of what will be a six-semester effort over the next three years. In this initial, broad brush examination I used the sustainable city as proxy for a complex system. I also looked at both the literature on systems and systems leadership as well as at traditional leadership work to see if I could discover why there seems to be such a vacuum of leadership at the system level. The resulting paper, very much a work in progress, is posted below.

Among my findings was that the traditional leadership literature — that which most of us are taught — comes up short on three critical points:

- Complexity: a leader must understand what kind of complexity he or she confronts and have a framework for dealing with it. There are dramatic differences, for example, between disorganized and organized  complexity (see the paper for details);

- Agency: how much do leaders control completely versus how much do they co-control and co-create with others. In complex systems, leaders control less and can influence more than they realize;

- Emergence: how much can leaders design versus how much must they help establish the conditions in which a positive outcome emerges. There is a strong predilection toward the former yet reality is closer to the latter.

I welcome your comments and will continue to post updates on this work as they are ready.
Download the PDF: Meta System Leadership