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.

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.

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.

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.

Your thoughts and comments are encouraged!

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

Among our predictions are that leaders will become more system-centric and that the very meaning of the firm will change from self-contained entity to node in a network. In both cases, the importance of system success will grow relative to individual or firm success.  There will be new tensions to balance such as low cost vs. low impact. Each of the predictions is meant more as provocation for thought and conversation — we aren’t vain enough to think that our crystal ball is perfect.

I invite you to read the paper (link below) and share your thoughts. Agree or disagree, your voice is important to the conversation.

Pillar Trends RM final

You can read more about them in my latest post for MontaRosa.

The framework is designed to help bring the most critcal issues to the fore and ensure that the mid- and long-term implications are not overwhelmed by short-term considerations. I would appreciate your thoughts on this model. What do you think?