We have begun to explore the resources that authority brings to directing this process

Annex 3

Personal Notes on Leadership without easy answers (Heifetz) & The powers to lead (Nye)

Laurent Ledoux

ledoux.laurent@gmail.com 0478 62 14 20

29/05/09

Adaptive leadership

Notes synthesized mainly from Leadership without easy answers

by Ronald Heifetz Harvard Business Press

2 key distinctions

Technical vs adaptive problems: points to the different modes of actions required to deal with routine problems in contrast with those that demand innovation and learning

Leadership vs authority: provides a framework for assessing resources and developing a leadership strategy depending upon whether one has or does not have authority.

The term leadership involves our self-images and moral codes. We cannot talk about a crisis in leadership and say leadership is value-free.

Leadership is a normative concept because implicit in peoples notions of leadership are images of a social contract. Imagine the differences in behavior when people operate with the idea that:

Leadership means influencing the community to follow the leaders vision versus

Leadership means influencing the community to face its problems.

In the first instance, influence is the mark of leadership; a leader gets people to accept his vision, and communities address problems by looking to him. If something goes wrong, the fault lies with the leader.

In the second, progress on problems is the measure of leadership; leaders mobilize people to face problems, and communities make progress on problems because leaders challenge and them do so. If something goes wrong, the fault lies with both leaders and the community.

Theorists ask the following important questions:

How and why do particular individuals gain power in an organization or society?

What are their personal characteristics?

What functions do they serve?

How do they realize their vision?

How do they move history, or does history move them?

What motivates them and how do they motivate others?

Hidden values in theories of leadership: confusion between means and ends

1. Hero Trait approach (Thomas Carlyle 1841; Sidney Hook: The hero in history 1943): some men are eventful, while others are event-making: place value on the historymaker; suggestion that the mark of a great man is his historical impact. Placing Hitler and Gandhi in the same general theory does not render the theory value-free, it leaves its central value influence implicit.

2. Situationalist view (Herbert Spencer 1884): the times produce the person and not the other way around. But leaders are still assumed to be those people who gain prominence in society.

3. Contingency theory: synthesis (1950s): the appropriate style of leadership is contingent on the requirements of the particular situation. For ex., some situations require controlling or autocratic behavior and others participative or democratic behavior. The mark of leadership is still influence, or control.

4. Transactional theory: field of inquiry expanded into the specific interactions between leaders and followers the transactions by which an individual gains influence and sustains it over time. Based on reciprocity. But do not evaluate the purpose to which influence is put or the way purposes are derived. Leadership-as-influence implicitly promotes influence as an orienting value, perpetuating a confusion between means and ends.

Prescriptive concept of leadership 4 criteria to develop a definition of leadership

1. must sufficiently resemble current cultural assumptions: mobilize: motivating, organizing, orienting, and focusing attention.

2. should be practical: activity rather than position (allows for leadership from multiple positions and for the use of various abilities depending of the situation/culture)

3. should point toward socially useful activities: by setting goals that meet the needs of both the leader and followers: more than influence. But what are those needs?

4. should offer a broad definition of social usefulness:

Moral elevation? (Mc Gregor) socially useful goals not only have to meet the needs of the followers, they also should elevate followers to a higher moral level: Transformational leadership. Need to construct a hierarchy of orienting values: risks of becoming too general or impractical.

Legitimacy? based on a set of procedures by which power is conferred from the many to the few. But leaves no room for outsiders when social progress may require that someone push the system to its limit (Sakharov; Havel; King;)

Organizational effectiveness? At what?

Adaptive work? Consists of the learning required to address conflicts in the values people hold, or to diminish the gap between the values people stand for and the reality they face. Requires a change in values, beliefs, or behavior. Mobilize people to learn new ways. The leader intervenes in peoples lives and social systems with the aims of increasing their adaptive capacity, their ability to clarify values and make progress on the problems those values define.

Getting people to clarify what matters most, with what trade-offs

Orchestrating these conflicts among and within interested parties, and not just between the members and formal shareholders of the organization who should play a part in the deliberations

Including competing values: not a value-free process; values are shaped and refined by rubbing against real problems

Advancing goals and designing a strategy that promotes adaptive work

Keeping social distress within a bearable range

Hitler a leader?

If influence alone: yes

Met the needs of both leader and followers: yes many shared his goals

Organizational effectiveness: yes for a time at least he succeeded in restoring the German economy

Elevate ? no. played to peoples basest needs and fears.

Legitimate authority: no. maintained his political dominance through terror.

Adaptive work: misdiagnosed Germanys ills and brought his nation to disaster.

Advantages of viewing leadership in terms of adaptive work

Points to the pivotal importance of reality testing: process of weighing one interpretation of a problem and its sources of evidence against others (Hitlers error was not only moral but also diagnostic). To produce adaptive work, a vision must track the contours of reality; it has to have accuracy, and not simply imagination and appeal.

Allows us to evaluate leadership in process.

Need not to impose our own hierarchy of human needs. Questions:

Are its members testing their views of the problem against competing views within the community or are they defensively sticking to a partic. perspective, suppressing others?

Are people testing seriously the relationship between means and ends?

Are conflicts over values and the morality of various means open to examination?

Are policies analyzed and evaluated to distinguish fact from fiction?

Drawbacks: connotes coping.

To lead or to mislead

For a social system to learn, old patterns of relationship - balances of power, customary operating procedures, distributions of wealth - may be threatened. Old skills may be rendered useless. Humans can learn and cultures can change, but how much and how fast? Applied to cultures, raises the question: Adapt to what, for what purpose? We perceive the problem whenever circumstances do not conform to the way we think things ought to be. This involves not only the assessment of reality but also the clarification of values. Typically, a social system will honor some mix of values and the competition within this mix largely explains why adaptive work so often involves conflict.

Example of Easter Island (Polynesia - 500 years ago):

Abundance of palm trees

Adaptation meant variation on known methods

But as population grew and number of trees began to dwindle: situation that their repertoire of responses could not master.

Beliefs became impediments to further adaptation. Even grander stone figures. Human sacrifice and cannibalism.

1722 trees were gone. Starvation.

Could have avoided it through productive interaction of different values (relationship with divine spirits vs. direct relationship with nature; traditionalists vs. heretics): both factions had a grasp of some critical dimensions of reality.

Mix of values provides multiple vantage points from which to view reality. Conflict and heterogeneity are resources for social learning. Although people may not come to share one another's values, they may learn vital information.

Adaptive challenge is a particular kind of problem where the gap (disparity between values and circumstances) cannot be closed by the application of current technical know-how or routine behavior. Leadership: taking actions to clarify values and asking questions like:

What are we missing here?

Are there values of competing groups that we suppress rather than apply to our understanding of the problem at hand?

Are there shared values that might enable us to engage competing views?

Disequelibrium dynamics 3 forms how to turn 2 into 3

1. current problem presents no new challenge: response from the current repertoire may restore equilibrium successfully

2. no ready solution: still try to apply response from its repertoire; only restores equilibrium in the short-term at the cost of LT consequences

3. learn to meet the new challenge

Why do we fail?

Misperceive threat

Perceive threat but the challenge exceeds the cultures adaptive capability

Fail to adapt because of the distress provoked by the problem and the changes it demands: work avoidance mechanisms: blaming, scapegoating, externalizing the enemy, denying, jumping to conclusions, finding a distracting issue

How to distinguish work from work avoidance? How can we counteract it? Pacing the work - Example of Father & child

When the subject of discussion is suddenly taken off the table

When the level of stress associated with an issue suddenly drops

When the focus shifts from attending to the problem itself to alleviating the symptoms of stress

When responsibility for the problem is displaced to an easy target

The functions of dominance in primate societies at least 5

Choosing the direction of group movement (dominate the attention of the band, serve as a reference point by which the rest of the band orient themselves)

Protecting the group from predators

Orienting members to their status and place

Controlling conflicts (serves a control function, mediating aggression within the group and maintaining stability)

Maintaining norms, including norms of mating and resource allocation

Human societies

Dominance in children: attention focus upward in the hierarchy

Small adult groups:

When men and women who do not know one another from a new group and undertake a task, they routinely establish a hierarchy of roles: the authority structure establishes places and roles for group members, and by so doing creates a coordinating and problem-solving mechanism. When members know to whom to turn, they feel calmed.

The group often informally selects and authorizes one of its own members to chair the group in place of the person designated by the scientist in charge (formal and informal authority roles do not necessarily overlap

The group looks to its chairperson for certain services

Authority: Conferred power to perform a service reminder of two facts

authority is given and can be taken away

authority is conferred as part of an exchange: Given your know-how, I give you the power to make decisions to accomplish a service, and Ill follow those decisions as long as it appears to me that they serve my purposes.

Dominance:

as theoretical types of power relations, dominance and authority can be viewed as distinct.

Dominance relationships are based on coercion or habitual deference

Authority relationships are voluntary and conscious

In reality they often overlap.

The victim does not authorize the gunman

But all too often, power is just taken, and deference to it indicates no authorization whatsoever. Deference over time may become authorization, even without deliberate decision.

Thus not all authority relationships are the product of a conscious and deliberate conferring of power. Often, like dominance, they are produced by habitual deference. Many of us have been so conditioned to defer to authority that we do not realize the extent to which we are the source of an authoritys power. Many people take their powerlessness for granted.

We forget that we are the principals. But in authority relationships, both principals and agents make choices. We often fail to appreciate that the relationship between the public and its government entail an implicit exchange of services. Often, the deal to confer power in exchange for a service is made so automatically that the phrase social habit may fit better than social contract.

On the contrary for children for example, what was previously habitual deference may become conference.

Authority and culture

Our capacity to internalize the teachings of authorities enables the formation of culture and consequently, large and flexible societies and organization. In a large social system, the norms that guide peoples behavior have to be portable. We have to be able to act our parts as members of a society without constant reference to an authority figure. Thus, our cultural norms fulfill in many ways the social functions of authority.

The existence of a robust culture, however, cannot replace entirely the need for an authority system. The office of authority provides a position about which peoples expectations cluster. Indeed the perpetuation of the culture requires a trustworthy network of authorities so that children internalize a fairly coherent set of norms.

In societies with well-established and coherent institutions, authorities may primarily play a symbolic role as the embodiment of cultural norms. Indeed, during long periods of stability, the role of authority may even seem to vanish. But it never disappears entirely.

Apparently, people always need to glance, at least on occasion, toward some central figure, even if only a figurehead. The function of the headman is to symbolize the norms and their community.

Stress and charismatic authority

What happens at the start-up of an organization when corporate norms have yet to be formed, or when an established society faces an adaptive challenge and must renew itself?

Yet, over time, as a way of doing business develops, the office of senior authority takes on a life of its own. The charisma is transferred from the person to the office, where it then rubs off on whoever holds it.

When the stress is severe, we seem especially willing to grant extraordinary power and give away our freedom.

We attribute charisma to people who voice our pains and provide us with promise.

We do not realize that the source of their charisma is our own yearning. What would have become of Hitler had he been born in normal times?

Charismatic authority can generate a mindless following or devolve into bureaucratic institutions that rely on central planning and control.

Focusing upward, people lose touch with their communities, markets, and personal resources.

Mobilizing adaptive work

Authority relationships are enormously productive: the social functions we call upon authority to serve need to be met.

Yet many of us have mixed feelings about authority. How should social functions be met in the context of adaptive work, in times of distress?

How can one fashion and use authority relationships to mobilize rather than hinder a communitys adaptive efforts?

Technical problems

Most emergency rooms have rotations and turnover in their teams, making a comprehensive set of norms unrealistic. Looking to the person in authority to serve critical functions therefore seems entirely appropriate.

The staff of an emergency room faces a kind of problem similar to many everyday situations. These problems are technical in the sense that we know already how to respond to them. Often, they can only be accomplished with mastery and ingenuity. They are not easy, nor unimportant. But they are technical because the necessary knowledge about them already has been digested. For these situations, we turn to authority with reasonable expectations.

For many problems, however, no adequate response has yet been developed.

In stress situation, our inclination to look to authority may generate inappropriate dependencies. We look to our authorities for answers they cannot provide.

What happens then? Authorities, under pressure to be decisive, sometimes fake the remedy or take action that avoids the issue by skirting it.

But in the LT, some problems get worse, and then frustration arises both with the problem situation and with those people in authority who were supposed to resolve it.

In response to our frustration, we are likely to perpetuate the vicious cycle by looking even more earnestly to authority, but this time we look for someone new offering more certainty and better promises. We may rid ourselves of our current authorities in the hope that if only we had the right leader our problems would be solved.

The flight to authority is particularly dangerous for at least 2 reasons:

because the work avoidance often occurs in response to our biggest problems and

because it disables some of our most important personal and collective resources for accomplishing adaptive work.

Distinguishing adaptive from technical work

The practice of medicine illustrates the distinction between technical and adaptive problems, and the dynamics these problems generate.

Type I: situations in which the patients expectations are realistic: the doctor can provide a solution and the problem (Infection) can be defined, treated and cured on the basis of

using the doctors expertise

shifting the patients burden primarily onto the doctors shoulders. The patient appropriately depends on the doctors know-how, and the doctor depends on the patients trust, satisfaction, and willingness to arrange payment.

Type II: the problem is definable but not clear-cut solution is available. The doctor may have an idea, a proposal but the patient must help to create the solution. (Heart disease).

the dependency on authority appropriate to technical situations becomes inappropriate in adaptive ones.

The doctors authority still provides a resource to help the patient respond, but beyond her substantive knowledge, she needs a different kind of expertise the ability to help the patient do the work that only he can do.

Type III: the problem definition is not clear-cut, and technical fixes are not available. Learning is required both to define problems and implement solutions (chronic illness, advanced stage of cancer). In these situations, the doctor can continue to operate in a mechanical mode by diagnosing and prescribing remedies (and a remedy of some sort can usually be found). Yet doing so avoids the problem-defining and problem-solving work of both doctor and patient. In II & III situations, treating the illness is too narrow to define the task. For example to define the primarily problem as a cancer may be a denial of reality if it is at an advanced stage. Cancer is then a condition.

The patients real work consists of facing and making adjustments to harsh realities that go beyond his health condition: making the most out of his life; considering what his children may need after he is gone; preparing his wife, parents, loved ones, and friends; and completing valued professional tasks.

Unfortunately, neither doctors nor patients are inclined to differentiate between technical and adaptive work. The harsher the reality, the harder we look to authority for a remedy.

The story of Steve & Connie Buchanan & Doctor Parsons suggests what an authority can do when the authority does not know the answer: the authority can induce learning by asking hard questions and by recasting peoples expectations to develop their response ability.

In contrast, Plato argues in The Republic that people need a philosopher-king to counteract their ignorance (medical analogy). The expertise required of leadership is for Plato a substantive vision of the good: he failed to appreciate the medical difference between technical and adaptive work. Parsons used her authority relationship like a containing vessel for the familys learning process: she not only set the agenda, she also regulated stress.

Implications:

In a medical setting, a problem will lack clarity because the patient has not yet reasoned and separated the problem into Type I and II components.

In a complex social system, a problem will lack clarity because a multitude of factions will have divergent opinions about both the nature of the problem and its possible solutions. Does global warning present a problem needing attention? Which scientist should we trust?

The critical strategic question becomes: whose problem is it? And the answer is not so obvious.

Still, medicine and politics present similar dilemmas.

3 general implications:

1. an authority figure exercising leadership has to tell the difference between technical and adaptive situations because they require different responses. She must ask the key differentiating question: does making progress on this problem require changes in peoples values, attitudes, or habits of behavior? With adaptive problems, authority must look beyond authoritative solutions. Authoritative action may usefully provoke debate: it becomes a tool in a strategy to mobilize adaptive work toward a solution, rather than a direct means to institute one. This requires a shift in mindset:

One must be prepared for an eruption of distress in response to the provocation.

In contrast, the mindset which views authoritative action as a solution would logically view an aggravated community as an extraneous complication to making headway, rather than an inherent part of making progress.

2. Having an authority relationship with people is both a resource for leadership and a constraint:

Resource because it can provide the instruments and power to hold together and harness the distressing process of doing adaptive work.

Constraint because it is contingent on meeting the expectations of constituents.

3. As learning takes place, Type III situations may be broken down partially if not completely into Type I and II components.

The case of William Ruckelshaus of the Environment Protection Agency: This case illustrates the implications discussed out of the Parsons case, in a large and public system.

Implications:

EPA had no real experience in orchestrating public deliberation, public thinking on problems: what could pollution experts say about the value of jobs versus the value of health, or ways to cope with a risk-filled life, or paths to economic diversification?

The regional EPA office exhausted itself in the undertaking. Was it worth it? 3 significant benefits:

1. Within the EPA itself, the staff at HQ began to appreciate what it meant to be on the frontlines.

Routine procedures to involve the community began to change.

In following years, the EPA began to act as a frequent sponsor and forum for negotiation among stakeholders to resolve environmental disputes.

The focus on risk management broadened the mission of the EPA, giving a larger context to its previously narrow scientific orientation.

2. The Tacoma experiment in public deliberation restored the credibility of the EPA. The former head of EPA had crusaded against the excesses of the environmentalists and polarized public debate by framing the issue starkly as a trade-off between jobs and the environment.

3. The communities of Tacoma and Ruston began seeing the need to adapt (public engagement).

Ruckelshaus cut against the grain when he insisted that the public realize that the job of regulating pollutants was not simply a technical matter of setting safe thresholds of emission. Trade-offs (which means losses) would have to be made that involved value conflicts not amenable to scientific analysis. Otherwise, agencies like EPA would continue to be called upon to do the impossible, to provide fixes for what could not be fixed by fiat from above.

The stories of Parsons & Ruckelshaus suggest a strategy of leadership consisting of several principles:

1. They identified the adaptive challenge, the gap between aspirations and reality, and focused attention on the specific issues created by that gap.

2. They regulated the level of distress caused by confronting the issues. Not just a matter of planning and then implementing the plan by force of their authority (against Kotter)

3. They kept attention focused on relevant issues.

4. They devised a strategy that shifted responsibility for the problem to the primary stakeholders.

Not only constrained them but also provided them with several kinds of power: must know the tools at her disposal.

Two forms of authority

Formal authority is granted because the officeholder promises to meet a set of explicit expectations (job descriptions, legislated mandates,)

Informal authority comes from promising to meet expectations that are often left implicit (trustworthiness, ability, civility,): brings with it the power to extend ones reach way beyond the limits of the job description.

Authority as a resource for leadership framework for assessing strategic assets for mobilizing adaptive work.

The relationship with group provides a holding environment for containing the stresses of its adaptive efforts.

It gives the capacity to command and direct attention.

It gives access to information (the group reveals itself to the authority)

It gives control over the flow of information.

Attention and access to information brings the power to frame issues

It gives means to orchestrate conflict and contain disorder.

It gives the power to choose the decisionmaking process (consultative, autocratic, consensual, or some variation)

1. Managing the holding environment

holds the patient in a process of developmental learning, to transform Type III problems into Type II.

Consists of any relationship in which one party has the power to hold the attention of another party and facilitate adaptive work, regulating the stresses that work generates.

Consists of bonds of trust, or of fear, mutual need, and brute force or its threat: holding environments formed initially by purely coercive means can provide a potent way to transform stresses into adaptive change. But not always. The opportunity for adaptive work is often squandered within both noncoercive and coercive authority relationships.

The strategic task is to maintain a level of tension that mobilizes people (pressure-cooker metaphor): Parsons constructed a pressure cooker made from relationships of informal authority derived primarily from trust.

Trust in authority relationships is a matter of predictability along two dimensions: values and skill.

Without this predictability, civilization itself would not be possible: unpredictable painful events are more distressing than predictable ones.

Example of the Mafia and the 17th century Spanish throne: Distrust percolates through the social ladder, and the unpredictability of sanctions generates uncertainty in agreements,

How fast Parsons could change the expectations of her patients would have 3 broad determinants:

The severity of the adaptive challenge and the stress it generated.

The resilience of the patient and their support system

The strength of the holding environment provided by her authority, for containing and channeling the stress of the challenge.

Parsons regulated the level of stress by pacing and sequencing and by organizing support services that would meet specific needs.

Pacing consisted of gauging the correlation between how much pressure the family could stand and how much pressure the next piece of adaptive work would generate.

Her actions served 2 functions:

they directed the attention to the adaptive work issues and

they tested the waters, the current resilience of the system.

It required an inner discipline, poise.

Ruckelshaus also took steps to increase trust and contain the distress outside and within the agency.

2. Directing attention

Attention is the currency of leadership

Can also be dangerous: turning itself into a lightning rod of attention; you then have to take the heat.

Yet without it, Ruckelshaus could not have made his point to the nation.

3. Gathering and testing information reality testing

Because authorities are expected to know, they are given access to information.

This gives a special vantage point.

But it does not translate directly into latitude for taking action (might not have a clear authorization to communicate it).

One has to communicate subtly, taking into account the particularities of the constituents, their network of support, and the harshness of the news.

4. Managing information & framing issues

More than a conduit of information. The task is to frame issues so that people comprehend the opportunity and challenge to them.

The central question is: Has the issue fastened in peoples minds?

The basic strategic logic is as follows: People are more likely to pay attention to arguments and perspectives about which they feel some urgency. Urgency, well framed, promotes adaptive work.

This may happen at the cost of attention to other issues.

5. Orchestrating conflicting perspectives

2 key resources: the right to mediate and the power to arbitrate

The essence of the problem consists of orchestrating the conflicting voices into some sort of harmony.

Pieces of the puzzle information about the problem lie scattered in the hands of the stakeholders across divisions, interest groups, organizations, and communities.

To lead a group of factions, one has to sense the separate languages.

Leading across boundaries requires permeating and reforming the boundaries.

Ruckelshaus announced that a ruling was imminent and that the public would bear the weight of deliberating on it: this cast 2 coals into the fire at once: the issue itself a ruling on arsenic emissions, and the process of decision public participation rather than authoritative decision-making.

The workshops themselves were highly structured, actively facilitated by staff to ensure that no individual dominated the conversation.

6. Choosing the decisionmaking process

Requires judgment based on several factors

The type of problem

The resilience of the social system

The severity of the problem

The time frame for taking action

Adaptive situations tend to demand a more participative mode of operating to shift responsibility to the primary stakeholders.

Takes time because the problem lies largely in their attitudes, values,

Nevertheless, autocratic process ok

If the social system has little resilience.

If problem so severe that it could overwhelm the society.

Crisis situation

One becomes more autocratic exclusive when the issue is likely to overwhelm the current resilience of the group or society given the time available for decision.

The case of Johnson, King & Co.

Main implications: Johnson leads with authority he can pace the work, modulate the stress, King & co lead without formal authority.

Leading without authority:

Benefits:

latitude for creative deviance

issue focus

frontline information (need a base, take counsel, also from antagonists)

Drawbacks:

Little control over the holding environment: need to regulate distress by modulating the provocation

Take the authority figure as a barometer

Reduce vulnerability of becoming a lightning rod by providing a context for action in order to avoid being killed as a messenger

Become a living embodiment of your cause/issue but avoid becoming the issue yourself

Risks:

Temptation to identify the authority figure as the audience for action: the audience is the group

Key questions to ask to mobilize the real stakeholders:

Who are the primary stakeholders and how might they change their ways?

What expectations do they have of their authority?

How could the authority figure begin to reshape those expectations to provide yourself with latitude to take action?

What could one do, leading without authority, to reshape those expectations to pave his way?

Johnson & Vietnam: took the stance that leaders lead and followers follow

Inapt analogies

Accepted as truth the domino theory

Poor and untested assumptions about the psycho and history of the Vietnamese

Fail to ask and answer critical policy questions:

Would the north Vietnamese be inclined to bargain?

Will to prosecute a long war in Asia?

Was it ethical to fight this war?

Miscalculated the costs of going to war

Ignored the lessons of his domestic policy successes (voting rights)

Failed

to face the nation with the adaptive challenge of Vietnam (did not dare to face the risk of letting South Vietnam fall by engaging a public debate)

to keep the level of distress within a productive range (what might have seemed in his mind an effort to pace the work became instead an act of misleading the nation)

to discipline attention

to distribute responsibility

to use dissent as a source of insight and options

Not just a personal error or failure of character: historical trends favoring presidential autonomy in making war to do differently would have required a sea change in the prevailing conception of the Presidents responsibilities in Foreign Affairs.

Personalized language of his reasoning (p. 159)

Technical reasons for autocratic action

Various requirements of making foreign policy

Need of unity behind the President

Military crisis requires dispatch (clear chain of command)

Intricacies of foreign policy require the substantive expertise of experienced professionals

Negotiations require decisiveness

President sits at the hub of military and diplomatic channels of secret information

Thus, democracy demanded good results for the people, not big debates?

Ok in a routine problem situation but in the case of Vietnam these requirements were either unachievable or did not apply?

Sustained unity could not be achieved through autocratic action needed to ripen the issue

Long war

Age of television

Did not require split-second decision making time for deliberation

Basic questions of values and priorities were political and not technical

Necessity in international negotiations for a single point of responsible authority does not reduce the negotiators need for support

Questions posed by the Vietnam war were not the kind that required secrecy: just war? Worth the costs?

Treated Vietnam as a technical problem

Failed to create a holding environment for getting others to share responsibility for tough issues and for protecting voices of dissent (Mansfield, Fullbright) and hereby sacrificed the political tools at his disposal to reality-test his policy.

Squandered his unique position as orchestrator of the policymaking process: Vietnam became Johnsons war, not Congresss and not the Nations.

When Pacing the work becomes work avoidance

Good reasons to avoid or delay the distress

May permit giving priority to more important issues

Provide time to strengthen the societys problem-solving abilities.

Pacing might resemble work avoidance because both can involve deception.

But the deception associated with pacing is a temporary tactic

Having to know the answers

Johnson viewed foreign policy as a job for technical experts, not as a proper realm for the politics of inclusion

His strong personal need to dominate most situations (disciplined by legislative politics into exceptional mastery of the participative process) stood untethered in an unfamiliar context with traditions and norms that reinforced dominance.

These two factors limited his freedom to raise hard questions and prevented him from engaging in a mode of learning to have decisive answers.

Placing oneself

Authority figure must decide where to place himself in relation to an issue:

Circumvention, with the risk of backing into a potential crisis (Johnson on Vietnam)

Frontal challenge getting out in front and becoming the bearer of bad tidings by introducing the crisis

Riding the wave staying just in front of the crisis, anticipating the wave and trying to direct its power as it breaks (Johnson on civil rights)

Had Johnson exercised leadership in Vietnam, he may still have suffered defeat. Leadership is no guarantee of survival. Quite the opposite. But it may increase the odds of survival.

He might have used variations of the other two strategies.

Of course, the policy may not have conformed to the expert opinion of his advisers, but adaptive work often requires giving up a measure of expert control over the outcome. Should have wrestled some of his questions more fully to the mat.

However, it would very likely have cost Johnson in just the currency he hated most to pay: legislative attention to the Great Society. All options would have required Johnson to face loss and to prepare others for it. Something had to give. To varying degrees, each strategy would likely have its costs in terms of both the Great Society and American conceptions of role and foreign interest.

By making the President the decision-maker instead of the leader of the nations problem-solving, Johnson lost his vantage point and his leverage over the holding environment.

Nixons downfall and Carters malaise

2 powerful forces reinforced Nixons predilection toward autocratic behavior:

The polarizing trends of the Vietnam years

The historical trends toward presidential autonomy in foreign affairs heightened during the cold war

Hence, ascribing Nixons downfall solely to character is too easy.

The tragedy of Nixons downfall is not only the tragedy of one man. The tragedy is the work neglected. Political ousters sometimes function in part as avoidance mechanisms, providing society with a false or incomplete diagnosis (it was all the leaders fault) and a diversion from its own adaptive work still to be faced.

Carter tried without great skill but courageously to challenge the nation to face problems of both values and habits.

But he neglected to lead the public through a similar learning process. Instead, he merely delivered the answers.

He may have believed in facing people with hard problems, but seemed not to know how.

Authority constrains leadership because in times of distress people expect too much. They form inappropriate dependencies that isolate their authorities:

Raise hard questions and one risks getting cut down, even if the questions are important for moving forward on the problem.

Thus, the need for leadership from people in authority becomes ever more critical during periods of disequilibrium, when peoples urgency for answers increases.

Yet that role is played badly if authorities reinforce dependency and delude themselves into thinking that they have to have the answers when they do not.

Designing effective interventions Key steps (for more info, see The practice of Adaptive Leadership by Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky)

Step 1: Get on the balcony

Step 2: Determine the ripeness of the issue in the system

Step 3: Ask, Who am I in this picture?

Step 4: Think hard about your framing

Step 5: Hold steady

Step 6: Analyze the factions that begin to emerge

Step 7: Keep the work at the center of peoples attention

Surviving leadership Key principles (for more info, see Leadership without easy answers by Heifetz)

Pace the work

Avoid the temptation of martyrdom

Distinguish self from role

Externalize the conflict

Use partners

Listen, using oneself as data

Find a sanctuary

Preserve a sense of purpose

Bibliography for these notes

Leadership without easy answers by Ronald Heifetz The Belknap press of Harvard University Press, 1994 (includes all the cases discussed during the lectures)

Leadership on the line by Ronald Heifetz & Marty Linsky Harvard Business Press, 2002

The practice of Adaptive Leadership by Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow & Marty Linsky Harvard Business Press, 2009

Leadership can be taught by Sharon Daloz Parks Harvard Business Press, 2005

Notes synthesized from The powers to lead

by Joseph Nye, Harvard Business Press

I. Defining leadership

A leader is best when people barely know he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him; worst when they despise him

Lao Tzu, 630 B.C.

One ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved Still a prince should make himself feared in such a way that if he does not gain love, he at any rate avoids hatred

Machiavelli, 1513

1. What can we deduce from these two quotes?

Effective leadership requires a mixture of skills: a mixture of soft and hard power skills that Nye calls smart power.

Nye defines leaders as those who help a group create and achieve shared goals. Some try to impose their goals, others derive them more from the group, but leaders mobilize people to reach those objectives.

Leadership is a social relationship with three key components: leaders, followers, and the contexts in which they interact.

Polls show that people today are less deferential to authority in organizations and in politics.

Soft power is becoming more important.

Leadership theorists speak of shared leadership and distributed leadership. They suggest images of leaders in the center of a circle rather than atop a hierarchy.

Not everyone agrees though. Kramer warns that in all our recent enchantment with social intelligence and soft power, weve overlooked the kinds of skills leaders need to bring about transformation in cases of tremendous resistance or inertia.

2. Do leaders matter? Yes but

Leadership is ubiquitous, and leaders are all around us. People persist in looking for heroic leaders although leadership is actually much more broadly distributed in societies.

HBS study of the effects of CEOs on corporate performance: accounted for about 14% of the difference in performance, ranging from 2% to 21% in telecommunications:

Any variable that accounts for 10% of the variation of complex social phenomena is a factor to be reckoned with.

On the other hand, these findings hardly support the magical view of causation popularity attributed to leaders.

Eventful vs. event-making leaders (philosopher Sidney Hook)

Eventful leader influences the course of subsequent developments by his actions. The mythical little Dutch boy who stuck his finger in a leaking dike and saved his country was an eventful leader.

Although Reagans actions had some effect and he was eventful, he did not create the fork in the historical road. Causation was more complex. The most important underlying cause was the failure of the centrally planned Soviet economy, the death of Andropox, the rise of Gorbatchev,

Event-making leader doesnt just find a fork in the historical road: he helps to create it. Such leaders are called transformational in the sense of changing what would otherwise be the course of history. They raise new issues and new questions.

After Sept. 11, 2001, any American president might have responded to the Taliban governments provision of sanctuary to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but in choosing to also invade Iraq, Bush created a fork in the road and became a transformational rather than merely eventful leader.

Leaders are like surfers waiting for a big wave: individuals do not control the waves, but can ride them. Individuals do not control events or structures, but can anticipate them and bend them to their purpose to some degree.

Leaders have different degrees of effect on history, which are not captured by Hooks oversimplified distinction, and transformational change is often a matter of degree.

According to Robert Tucker, leaders matter a little more, a little less, depending on:

how they diagnose those problem situations for their political communities,

what responses they prescribe for meeting them,

and how well they mobilize the political communitys support for their decisions.

Yet generating influential ideas is not the same as mobilizing people for actions.

3. Defining leaders and leadership

Leadership means mobilizing people for a purpose. It is a relationship that orients and mobilizes followers.

Einstein was a leader in the simple sense of making breakthrough scientific discoveries that others followed, but like the front-runner in a race, he was not much interested in those who followed.

Lincoln had to understand the mix of motives in his fellow citizens, the counterbalancing intensities with which the different positions were held, and in what directions they were changing, moment by moment.

A leader needs to understand followers: This is the time-consuming aspect of leadership. It explains why great thinkers and artists are rarely the leaders of others (as opposed to influences on them).

Nye defines a leader as someone who helps a group create and achieve shared goals.

Leadership is the power to orient and mobilize others for a purpose. Holding a formal leadership position is like having a fishing license; it does not guarantee you will catch any fish.

Leadership is not just who you are but what you do.

The test of a leader is whether a group is more effective in both defining and achieving its goals because of that persons participation.

Not only are leaders and followers often interchangeable in small groups, but in large groups and organizations, most people wind up leading from the middle, serving as leaders and followers principals and agents at the same time.

Some chamber orchestras work without conductors, and some jazz groups shift the lead constantly.

Some radical groups (such as the environmental group Earth First!) pride themselves on being leaderless, but that is because they make the mistake of equating leadership with formal authority.

We can think of leadership as a process with three key components: leaders, followers, and contexts. The context consists of both the external environment and the changing objectives that a group seeks in a particular situation.

4. Heroic and alpha male approaches to leadership

Human seek heroes, but not all heroes are leaders, and not all leaders are heroic.

Alpha male theory of leadership (psychiatrist Arnold Ludwig):

The reason that would-be leaders are always ready to try their hand at ruling seems to be because they have little other choice:

Any vacuum in leadership seems to unleash powerful social and biological forces within potential candidates to ensure that any power void will not exist for too long.

The tendency for this response seems coded in their genes and represents a latent archetypal response in much the same way as male chimps and baboons must challenge the existing leader whenever they sense they have the slightest chance to win, and often even when they do not.

People are constantly playing games, literally and metaphorically, to establish dominance in status.

Yet if humans are hardwired by nature to be led by alpha males, how do we explain the possibility that for most of our genetic history we had no alpha males?

Situational leadership of most hunter-gatherer groups in which the leader varies with the groups circumstances, in which seniority exists, but there is nothing that even approaches the idea of a chief or Big Man);

Some human cultures today still have no such leaders.

Another effect of the traditional heroic approach has been to support the belief that leaders are born rather than made, and that nature is more important than nurture.

This belief focuses our attention on the selection rather than training of leaders (favorable prejudices towards tall men, IQ,).

But context is often more important than traits: Churchills traits did not change in 1940; the situation did.

Traits-centered approach has not vanished, it has been broadened: traits have come to be seen as consistent patterns of personality rather than inherited characteristics, mixing nature and nurture.

For example: a group of employers was asked to hire workers who had been ranked by their looks. If the employers saw only the individuals resumes, beauty had no impact on hiring. Surprisingly, however, when telephone interviews were included in the process, beautiful people did better even though unseen by the employers. A lifetime of social reinforcement base on their genetic looks may have encoded into their voice patterns a tone of confidence that could be projected over the phone. Nature and nurture became thoroughly intertwined.

In the view of most analysts today, institutional constraints such as constitutions and impartial legal systems must circumscribe such heroic figures.

Otherwise, such societies that rest on heroic leaders will not be able to develop the civil society and broad social capital that are necessary for leading in todays networked world.

Nature and nurture intertwine, but nurture is much more important in the modern world than the heroic paradigm gives it credit for.

As Grint observes, It would be strange if leadership was the only human skill that could not be enhanced through understanding and practice.

The U.S. Army categorizes leadership learning under 3 words: Be, know, do:

Be refers to the shaping of character and values, which comes partly from training and partly from experience.

Know refers to analysis and skill, which can be trained.

Do refers to action and requires both training and fieldwork. Most important, however, is experience, the emphasis on learning from mistakes & a continuous process that results from what the military calls after-action reviews.

II. Leadership & Power

1. Defining Power

Power is the ability to affect the behaviour of others to get the outcomes you want. You can do that in three main ways:

you can coerce them with threats (Hard - sticks),

you can induce them with payments (Hard - carrots), or

you can attract or co-opt them (Soft).

Getting the outcomes one wants by attracting others rather than manipulating their material incentives.

Managers cant control everything. They must instead work through influence, persuasion and an awful lot of training. And corporate culture the common organizational values that people learn is often what guides people, not the rules or the instructions of any one manager.

In behavioural terms, soft power is attractive power. In terms of resources, soft power resources are the assets tangible and intangible that produce such attraction.

Soft power can provide what fund-raisers call the power of the ask. An index of leaders power is the frequency, size, and range of requests they can successfully make of you. In institutions with flat hierarchies like universities and other non-profit organizations, soft power is often the major asset available to a leader. Once that soft power has eroded, little else is left. People just say no.

In many real-world situations, peoples motives are mixed.

Command power the ability to change what others do can rest on coercion or inducement.

Co-optive power the ability to shape what others want can rest on the attractiveness of ones values or the ability to set the agenda of political choices.

Power always depends on the context of the relationship: the domain of your bosss power in this case is limited to work.

Sometimes people define power as the possession of resources that can influence outcomes. A person or group is powerful if it is large, stable, and wealthy. Analysts call this the vehicle fallacy. Richest politicians do not always win the elections.

2. The power of followers: Why do people follow at all?

One can think of Hitlers followers in terms of concentric circles:

with true believers like Goebbels, Gring, and Speer as inner core;

they are followed by a circle of good soldiers like the Hamburg Reserve Police Battalion 101, who, in a show of crushing conformity, willingly executed Jews and Poles;

an outer circle of complicit bystanders who knowingly acquiesced;

and a further circle of passive bystanders who made no effort to know what was behind the myths and propaganda;

beyond them were those who refused to follow and resisted, many of whom were killed or coerced into silence.

Leadership, like power, is a relationship, and followers also have power both to resist and to lead. Followers can be defined by their position as subordinates or by their behaviour of going along with leaders wishes. Followers empower leaders as well as vice versa.

This has led some leadership analysts like Ronald Heifetz to avoid using the word followers and refer to the others in a power relationship as citizens or constituents.

In modern life, most people wind up being both leaders and followers, and the categories can become quite fluid.

Followers behaviour can be ranked by its intensity and sorted into categories (Kellerman) such as:

alienated,

exemplary,

conformist,

passive, and

pragmatic.

A successful middle-level leader persuades and attracts his boss as well as his subordinates. Richard Haass, who served in several American administrations, uses the metaphor of a compass:

North represents those for whom you work.

To the South are those who work for you.

East stands for colleagues, those in your organization with whom you work.

West represents those outside your organization who have the potential to affect matters that affect you.

Effective leadership from the middle often requires leading in all directions of that compass.

Lee Iacocca was a successful executive at Ford Motor Company, but not in all directions. Leaders in the middle who forget to attract and persuade in all directions often cease to be leaders.

Even when they do not take initiative, followers have the power to set constraints on leaders.

In the hunter-gatherer societies discussed earlier, followers use ridicule, secession, ostracism, and even assassination to limit leaders who try to claim more power than their followers are willing to grant.

3. The mixture of hard & soft power

Weber identified three ideal types of authority of legitimated power. Two depend on position and one on person.

Under traditional authority, a person follows another because the latter is chief or king or emperor by right of some traditional process such as heredity.

Under rational or legal authority, a person follows because the other is president or director or chair and has been properly elected or appointed based on rational criteria.

Under charismatic authority, a person follows another because the latter embodies a gift of grace or exceptional magnetism.

The distinction between informal personal power and power that grows out of a formal position is not exactly the same as the distinction between hard and soft power (link with Heifetz).

Some leaders without formal authority, such as gang leaders, may effectively use coercion as well as charisma, and

some military officers have the soft power of charisma as well as the hard power conveyed by their position.

But generally, those without formal authority tend to rely more on soft power, whereas those in formal positions are better placed to mix hard and soft power resources.

People are drawn to others both by their inherent qualities and by the effect of their communications.

Some communications are designed to limit reasoning and frame issues as impractical or illegitimate in such a way that they never get on the agenda for real discussion.

During periods of insecurity, leaders may appeal to patriotic rhetoric to exclude criticism from the public discussion. At this point, persuasion blurs into propaganda and indoctrination.

Hard and soft powers are related because they are both approaches to achieving ones purpose by affecting the behaviour of others.

Sometimes intimidators have a vision, belief in their cause, and a reputation for success that attracts others despite their bullying behaviour.

Although some studies suggest that bullying is detrimental to organizational performance, the Stanford psychologist Roderick Kramer argues that bullies who have a vision and disdain social constraints are great intimidators who often succeed.

While some studies report that Machiavellianism (defined as manipulative, exploitive, and deceitful behaviour) is negatively correlated with leadership performance, other studies have found a positive relationship.

So where does leadership theory now stand on the roles of hard and soft power?

As David Hume pointed out more that two centuries ago, no individual alone is strong enough to coerce everyone else.

Except for some religious leaders, such as the Dalai Lama, who combines personal and positional power, soft power is rarely sufficient. Psychologists have found that too much assertiveness by a leader worsens relationships, just as too little limits achievement: Like salt in a sauce.

CEO Jeff Immelt: When you run General Electric, there are 7 to 12 times a year when you have to say, youre doing it my way. If you do it 18 times, the good people will leave. If you do it 3 times, the company falls apart.

The ability to combine hard and soft power into an effective strategy is smart power.

Machiavelli may be correct that it is better for a prince to be feared than to be loved, but we sometimes forget that the opposite of lover is not fear, but hatred. And Machiavelli made it clear that hatred is something a prince should carefully avoid.

Soft power is not good per se, and it is not always better than hard power. Nobody likes to feel manipulated, even by soft power.

In a competition with soft power, it matters very much what you and others think.

If I shoot you to achieve my objective, it does not matter much what you think.

Like any form of power, soft power can be wielded for good of bad purposes, and these often vary according to the eye of the beholder.

Bin Laden possesses a great deal of soft power in the eyes of his followers, but that does not make his actions good from an outside point of view.

It is not necessarily better to twist minds than to twist arms.

4. Powers and networks

In todays information age, the control of information flows in networks is an important source of power for leaders. So also is the ability to process vast, diverse flows so that the information becomes knowledge and not mere noise.

Think of the difference between friendships and acquaintances.

Valuable information if more likely to be shared by friends than among acquaintances.

But weak ties that reach our further may provide more novel information.

Strong ties may provide the power of loyalty but be resistant to change; weak ties may provide the necessary information and ability to link diverse groups together in a cooperative, successful manner.

A great democratic politician has to be a person with a great capacity for shallow friendships.

Leaders will increasingly need to understand the relationship of networks to power and how to adapt strategies and create teams that benefit from both strong and weak ties.

Equally interesting for the question of leadership is what globalization is doing to the group question Who is us?

Humans have always been capable of multiple identities, but traditionally they took the form of concentric circles that tended to weaken with distance.

In todays global world, a better metaphor might be networks of Venn diagrams.

Leaders are identity entrepreneurs who increase their power by activating and mobilizing some of their followers multiple identities at the cost of others. Intergroup leadership becomes more complex and more important.

The other major change in the macro-context of leadership is the information revolution.

Technology democratizes social and political processes and, for better and worse, institutions play less of a mediating role.

The information revolution is affecting the structure of organizations. Polls show that people today are less deferential to authority in organizations and politics.

In 1930, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase tried to explain the rise of the modern corporation. Why not just rely on markets? His answer was transactions costs.

The classic economic theory of the firm as a hierarchical organization that internalizes functions in order to reduce transactions costs (think GM) is being supplemented by the notion of firms as networks of outsourcing (think Toyota or Nike).

But today, more companies now consist essentially of intangible assets such as patents plus the values embedded in their brands. The proportion of intangible assets to shareholder value at Fortune 500 companies has steadily risen from about 50 per cent in 1980 to 70 per cent today.

So that Hierarchical, command-and-control approached simply do not work anymore. The reduction of transactions costs does not need to go through formal hierarchical organization anymore.

In dynamic, complex, and ambiguous contexts like the dotcom environment, the traditional view of a leaders being decisively in control is difficult to reconcile

Effective leadership depends on the use of multiple leaders for capable decision-making and action-taking.

The way that governments work is also changing. They are constructing and using market mechanisms for public purposes.

Postheroic leadership depends less on the heroic actions of a few individuals at the tope and more on collaborative leadership practices distributed throughout an organization.

5. Types and Skills of leaders (charismatic & transformational)

Leaders come in a great variety of sizes, shapes, and types.

Because Nye is primarily interested in the types and skills of leaders that are relevant to modern democratic societies and organizations, he focuses on the currently dominant theoretical approach, called the neocharismatic and transformational leaders paradigm.

Charismatic leadership

One of the most common ways to differentiate types of leaders is to call them charismatic or non-charismatic. Charisma produces soft power, for better and for worse.

In common usage, charisma is the special power of a person to inspire fascination and loyalty. Charisma is the Greek word for divine gift or gift of grace.

Weber said that personal charisma lasts only as long as it receives recognition and is able to satisfy the followers or disciples. In other words, there is a sociological as well as a psychological dimension to charisma.

Does charisma originate in the individual, in the followers, or in the situation? Some theorists say all three.

The power that charismatic leaders unleash among their followers can do great good or great harm.

Some theorists categorize negative charismatics as those who are prone to grandiose projects, inattention to details, unwillingness to delegate, failure to create institutions that empower followers, and lack of planning for their succession.

On the other hand, there have bee historical moments when positive or reparative charismatic leaders like Gandhi, King and Nelson Mandela have released energies among their followers that have transformed social and political situations for the better.

Some theorists distinguish between:

close charismatics, who work best in small groups or inner circles where the effects of their personality are felt directly, and

distant charismatics, who rely on more remote theatrical performance to reach and move the broader imagined communities that they aspire to lead.

In the first case, the personal charm is felt directly; in the latter case, it is projected and mediated.

Other theorists distinguish:

socialized charismatics, who use their power to benefit others, and

personalized charismatics, whose narcissistic personalities lead to self-serving behaviour.

Resources help reinforce charisma:

In ancient times leaders often wore special clothing, masks and ornaments that conferred on them a larger-than-life appearance;

For modern executives, the same function is played by private planes, limousines, palatial homes, exclusive seats at sporting events, and other trappings of corporate power.

Edwards concluded that charisma is more easily identified after the fact than before it ex post rather than ex ante. It is hard to use charisma to predict who will be a successful leader.

Followers are more likely to attribute charisma to leaders when they feel a strong need to change, often in the context of a personal, organizational, or social crisis.

The British public did not see Churchill as a charismatic leader in 1939

but a year later, his vision, confidence, and communications skills made him charismatic in the eyes of the British people given the anxieties they felt after the fall of France and the Dunkirk evacuation.

Yet by 1945, when the public focus turned from winning the war to the construction of a welfare state, Churchill was voted out of office. His charisma did not predict his electoral defeat. The change in followers needs was a better predictor.

Transformational and transactional leadership

Transformational leaders empower and elevate their followers. Transformational leaders mobilize power for change by appealing to their followers higher ideals and moral values rather than their baser emotions of fear, greed, and hatred.

Charisma in the sense of personal magnetism is only one part of transformational leadership.

For leadership theorist Bernard Bass, transformational leadership also includes:

an element of intellectual stimulation (broadening followers awareness of situations and new perspectives) and

individualized consideration (providing support, coaching, and developmental experiences to followers rather than treating them as mere means to an end).

Transformational leaders are contrasted with transactional leaders, who motivate followers by appealing to their self-interest.

Transactional leaders use various approaches, but all the rest on reward, punishment, and self-interest.

Just as hard and soft power can be complementary, the two types of leadership style are not mutually exclusive.

Leaders can pick from a menu of hard and soft power resources.

Many leaders use both styles at different times in different contexts.

Achieving transformational objectives may require a combination of both hard and soft power, and the mix may change over time. Some hard power leaders have a vision that provides soft power.

Although the term transactional is clear, the concept of transformation is confusing because theorists use it to refer to

the objectives of the leaders,

the styles they use, and

the outcomes they produce.

Those three dimensions are not the same thing.

Sometimes leaders transform the world but not their followers, or vice versa;

Sometimes they use a transactional style to accomplish transformational objectives.

Consider the example of Lyndon Johnson.

In the 1950s, Senator Johnson deeply wanted to transform racial injustice in the South, but he did not use soft power to preach to or inspire a new vision in other senators.

Instead, he misled his fellow southerners about his intentions and used a transactional style of hard power bullying and bargaining to achieve progress toward his transformational objectives in passing a civil rights bill in 1957 that was anathema to many of the supporters who had made him majority leader. He did not change his followers, but he did begin to change the world of African Americans in the South.

Franklin Roosevelt is often cited as an example of a transformational leader;

In the 1930s, he used the soft power of inspirational communications to help achieve his transformational goals of social reform, transforming the views of his followers in the process.

But after he failed to transform American isolationist attitudes, FDR used very indirect transactional bargaining to pursue his goal of moving U.S. foreign policy toward support of Great Britain before World War II.

Given this confusion in the theory, it is better to use different terms to describe leaders objectives and their styles.

With regard to leaders objectives of changing the views of their followers, we can use Burns term transforming.

In relation to changing the world, we can refer to leaders objectives as ranging from status quo to transformational.

We can distinguish leaders styles by how they use hard and soft power resources.

A leader may use both hard and soft power styles to achieve transformational objectives or incremental objectives or to preserve the status quo.

Nye uses the terms

transactional style to characterize what leaders do with their hard power resources and

inspirational style to characterize leadership that rests more on soft power resources.

It would be more accurate to display leaders in various positions in a two-dimensional space rather than restrict them only to one of the four quadrants, since leaders adopt different styles in different contexts.

Sometimes leaders (and their followers) seek to preserve the status quo or adapt only slightly.

As we will see, some business theorists define leadership in terms of change and contrast it with mere management. But this biases the concept against conservative leadership.

Imagine an isolated monastery where monks want an abbot who does not introduce cable television or the Internet. Preserving a groups valued way of life can be an important form of leadership.

Abraham Zaleznik of Harvard Business School criticized management education and described managers as merely embracing process and seeking stability, while leaders tolerate risk and create change.

The secret to success lies in the ability of leaders to combine hard and soft power resources in appropriate contexts.

Michael Mumford and Judy Van Doorn describe such hybrid types as pragmatic leaders.

They use the example of Benjamin Franklin, who often wanted to change the status quo;

Franklin did so not by inspirational appeal, but by careful analysis of social and power relations and then working (often behind the scenes) through elite networks to develop coalitions to implement his vision.

Theorists argue that transactional leadership styles are more frequent and effective in stable and predictable environments, and an inspirational or soft power style is more likely in periods of rapid and discontinuous social and political change.

Some leaders tend to be relationship-oriented. Other leaders are more task-oriented.

The former tend to rely more on inspirational skills and soft power,

The latter more on transactional skills and hard power.

The nature of the group, the clarity of the task, and the resources of their position all determine situational control.

III. Critical power skills

1. Soft power

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence is the self-mastery (discipline) and empathic capacity (outreach to others) that allow leaders to channel their personal passions and attract others.

The idea is not new. In the 1920s, the psychologist E. L. Thorndike defined social intelligence as the ability to act wisely in human relations.

There is uncertainty about how the two aspects of emotional intelligence - self-control and empathy toward others relate to each other.

Clinton, for example, scores low on the first and very high on the second dimension.

It is a learnable skill that increases with age and experience.

If emotional experience is not authentic, others will likely find out in the long run, but successful management of personal impressions requires some of the same emotional discipline and skill possessed by good actors. Acting and leadership have a great deal in common.

Moods that start at the top, tend to move the fastest because everyone watches the boss. Closely watched CEOs and presidents are always conveying signals, whether or not they realize it.

Communications

Effective public rhetoric can partly compensate for poor organizational skills (the ability to attract and manage an effective inner circle of followers)

Both masses and the inner circles of followers can be attracted and inspired but the inner circles are a must.

Hitler was skilful at communicating with both distant and inner-circle audiences.

Stalin relied primarily on the latter.

Truman was a modest orator but compensated for his lack of public rhetoric by attracting and ably managing a stellar set of advisors.

Setting the right example is another crucial form of communication for leaders.

Vision

Part of what leaders communicate is vision, or skill in articulating a picture that gives meaning to an idea and inspires others.

Usually such visions provide a picture of the future and encourage change, but some visions can portray the past or the status quo as attractive and encourage people to resist change.

Some management experts think it is more important to know your company well and pick the right people than to worry about vision.

Some leaders think that vision can solve most of their problems, but the wrong vision can do damage, and an overly ambitious vision can also hurt.

The former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt once quipped, People with vision should go see a doctor.

In practice however, a successful vision often arises from the needs of the group, which are then formulated and articulated by the leader (link with Heifetz):

Everyone asks, Whats your vision? But you offend many people and get into trouble by answering too quickly.

The smart response at the beginning is What do you think? and then listen before you articulate your vision.

To be sustainable, a successful vision must also be an effective diagnosis of the situation a group faces (link with Heifetz).

A movement leader can promote a vision that is miles ahead of his followers, but a president with multiple objectives and responsibilities must maintain a continuous dialogue with the public that keeps him from moving too far ahead of his followers (link with Heifetz).

Analysts can judge the vision of a leader in authority in terms of whether it creates a sensible balance between realism and risk, and whether it balances objectives with capabilities.

One of Tony Blairs great strengths as a leader was his ability to articulate a vision. A serious weakness has been his patchy attention to detail.

As Teddy Roosevelt once put it, I hold the man worthless who is not a dreamer, who does not see visions; but I also hold him worthless unless in practical fashion he endeavours to shape his actions so that these dreams and visions can be partially realized.

2. Hard power skills

Organizational skills

Organizational skill is the ability to manage the structures, information flows, and reward systems of an institution or group.

This includes the encouragement of leadership at lower levels in their organizations.

Especially important is the effective management of flows of information relating to both the inputs and outputs of decisions.

Good leaders construct teams that combine these functions, making sure to hire subordinates who can compensate for the leaders deficiencies in managerial skills. More recently, there has been a renewed interest in leaders as managers.

The organizational skills required for leaders as managers should not be confused with the efficiency or tidiness of a well-run organization.

Organization and management refer to leaders ability to ensure an accurate inflow and outflow of information for making and implementing decisions.

Effectiveness is more important than efficiency.

Franklin Roosevelt, for instance, ran an inefficient organization with overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities.

Tom Peters argued that top managers cannot hope to solve all problems in a tidy fashion, but what they can do is: generally shape business values, and educate by example. A crucial component is assuring that unfiltered bad news can reach the leaders and be acted on promptly.

Machiavellian political skills

When Roderick Kramer calls political intelligence the ability to size up the weaknesses, insecurities, likes, and dislikes of others so that you can turn them into your instruments, he is referring narrowly to the Machiavellian political skills that are crucial for the hard power of threats and inducements.

Kramer contrasts such hard political intelligence with the social intelligence. The starkest point of contrast between these two kinds of leaders is how willing they are to use hard power skills.

The psychologist David McClelland has shown that people with a strong need for power are more effective leaders, but only if they also develop an internal capacity to restrain their use of power.

Kramer points out that his great intimidators are bullies with a vision, aiming at an objective rather than just manipulating others to prove who is the stronger.

Pure bullying defined as repeated actions designed to humiliate and dominate others tends to be counterproductive, though it is a common human behaviour.

The politics of fear can be effective, but they are not the only political skills, nor the best skills in all circumstances.

Too much hard Machiavellian power can interfere with and deprive leaders of their soft power.

Moreover, a style that works in one context may not work in another.

The moral of the story, of course, is not that hard or soft power is better, or that an inspirational or a transactional style is the answer, but that it is important to understand how to combine these power resources and leadership styles in different contexts.

3. Contextual intelligence

Neustadt wrote From one situation to the next, the leaders influence swells or diminishes depending on how personal operating style fits organizational needs and outside conditions.

Horses for courses: some horses run better on a dry track and some on a muddy course.

Leadership is an interactive art in which the leader is dancing with the context, the problem, the factions, and the objective (link with Heifetz).

What counts as an appropriate response to a situation is interpretive and contestable.

There is no one way to lead a team.

Success depends on the accuracy and completeness of the leaders mental model of the situation, skill in executing the behaviours required by that model, and the ability to harvest the lessons of experience.

Contextual intelligence as the ability

Contextua1 intelligence implies both:

a capability to discern trends in the face of complexity, to understand an evolving environment and to capitalize on trends.

Intuitive diagnostic skill that helps a leader to align tactics with objectives to create smart strategies in varying situations.

adaptability while trying to shape events.

Leaders and policy entrepreneurs do more than push. They also lie in wait - for a window to open. Like surfers. Leaders with contextual intelligence are skilled at providing meaning or a road map by defining the problem that a group confronts.

Others have called it judgment or wisdom, an acquaintance with relevant facts of such a kind that it enables those who have it to tell:

what fits with what;

what can be done in given circumstances and what cannot,

what means will work in what situations and how far,

without necessarily being able to explain how they know this or even what they know.

Many psychologists define intelligence as the ability to solve problems or create products that are valued in one or more cultural settings. This involves a collection of intelligences.

Some argue, for example, that for a skill to be an intelligence, it should have some overlapping correlation with general intelligence. The idea of contextual intelligence meets that requirement. It consists partly of cognitive analytic capabilities and partly of tacit knowledge built up from experience.

Contextual intelligence is also correlated with the skill of emotional intelligence.

George w. Bush has famously described his leadership role as being the decider. But deciding how and when to decide is as important as making the final decision.

What should be the composition of the group the leader turns to?

What is the context of the decision?

How will information be communicated, and how much control does the leader maintain over the decision?

Without contextual intelligence, being a decider is not enough.

Ronald Heifetz argues that the first thing a leader needs to diagnose is whether the situation calls for technical and routine solutions or requires adaptive change.

In Heifetzs useful metaphors, a leader needs to gain perspective by going to the balcony to observe the swirling activity on the dance floor, regulate the level of distress, give the work back to the people, and protect voices from below.

The following five dimensions are particularly important for the intuitive skill of contextual intelligence:

a) Understanding culture context

b) Distribution of power resources

c) Followers needs and demands

d) Crisis and time urgency

e) Information flows

See details below for each dimension

a) Understanding cultural context

Culture is the recurrent pattern by which groups transmit knowledge and values. Some aspects of human culture are universal; other dimensions are particular to a group.

The culture of the group sets the framework for leaders. They determine the criteria for leadership and thus determine who will or will not be a leader.

Managing culture is one of the most important things that leaders do. If leaders do not become conscious of the cultures in which they are embedded, those cultures will manage them. (Schein)

Effective leaders inspire followers through the careful management of emotion, but appropriate levels of emotional expression vary with cultures.

Leaders with contextual intelligence understand that policy change sometimes requires a change of group culture, and they develop a sense of how malleable a given culture can be under different circumstances.

Many a corporate merger that looked lucrative to investment bankers because of economic synergies and opportunities comes a cropper because of cultural differences. One of the dangers in any acquisition is the acquiring company assuming their culture is the right one.

When encountering different environments, whether national or organizational, some people are better than others at learning the appropriate cues to figure out quickly what is happening in a culture. Such skills can also be learned. Cultural intelligence is a subset of contextual intelligence.

b) Distribution of power resources

Culture and power are closely related, since which resources produce power in a given domain depends heavily on the objectives that are expressed in a culture. An army general faces a different set of options from those that confront a church pastor.

A groups political culture as well as its formal structures and unwritten rules determine what power resources are available to leaders in any particular situation, which in turn shapes their choice of transactional and inspirational styles.

Leading others who consider themselves the leaders equals is different from commanding troops where hierarchy is the norm. Running a law firm or consulting partnership is different from running a manufacturing corporation. Many of these people do not consider themselves followers but independent elites. They respond poorly to a command-and-control style and have the power to resist their formal leaders.

Even when the political culture is not overly egalitarian, leaders need to understand whether they are in an executive or a legislative situation. In the latter case, the only hope of success is to assemble majority coalitions. It is often impossible or too costly for a leader to win everyone to a common position, but some followers bring more companions into the fold than others.

Leaders also need to understand the sources of their authority (link with Heifetz).

Leaders also have to be able to assess the strength of loyalties that exist in small groups and in wider imagined communities.

Where identities are strong and noble purposes predominant, an inspirational call to serve the group can generate considerable soft power.

In other circumstances, such efforts may merely produce cynicism and a backlash of negative reactions; an appeal to tangible interests and rewards would be more effective.

There is also a need to understand the symmetrical or asymmetrical nature of the interdependence leaders share with other members of the group.

To paraphrase the economist Albert Hirschman: What options to others have for exit, voice, or loyalty, and how does that affect their power?

They must also know the structure of incentives in the game that is being played. Is it positive or zero sum? If it resembles a zero-sum prisoners dilemma in which ones loss is the others gain, will it go on long enough that the other can be taught an optimal cooperative strategy of tit for tat, or will the game end too soon for such a strategy to succeed?

Finally, in modern democratic societies, leaders need to understand the difference between the politics of public and the politics of private contexts and how that affects the distribution of power.

Measures of merit, such a profit, are more precise and less contested in private organizations.

Efficiency often takes second place to considerations of due process in making public decisions, and secrecy and confidentiality are more restricted.

Some of these skills in political assessment can be taught; some come naturally (or not at all).