First, there was discussion wanting leaders to be "value-free" or "value-laden". We cannot have it both ways, but we keep trying. For example, Hitler is deemed as a strong leader, albeit not one with positive values. However, he did have values, they just were not the values seen as positive. It reiterates the connection between values and the culture of an area. Heifetz shared 4 criteria for a definition of leadership that takes values into account: (1) definition resembles current cultural assumptions, (2) be practical, (3) point towards socially useful activities, and (4) offer a broad definition of social usefulness.
"Different values shed light on the different opportunities and facets of a situation." (p. 23) I read this and thought, "yep. Definitely." Depending on what a person values or what the position values will determine how a person will handle that situation. It leads me to think about my values. I remember in graduate school we participated in a values auction. There was a long list of values and each person had, like, $1,000 to bet with. We had to choose carefully on what we would bid on. Some would keep all $1,000 for one certain value, while others would try to get as many values as possible. It was an interesting way to looking at what is important to a person. I've used it several times since then. It always seems to spark conversation with the students and helps them reflect on what is important to them.
"The ability to adapt requires the productive interaction of different values through which each member or faction in a society sees reality and its challenges. Without conflicting frames of reference, the social system scrutinizes only limited features of its problematic environment." (p. 33) My first thought after reading this was the US Congress. It seems to explain why Congress is the way it is. We need to differing opinions to help see reality. However, I argue, that most of the times there is no attempt to try to understand the person. Most are focused on getting their thoughts, or values, heard; not necessarily hearing the other people's thoughts and values. So, where does that leave the country?
"As long as they serve this need [someone serving as a reference point], we imagine them larger than life. We do not realize that the source of their charisma is our own yearning." (p. 66) So, if we don't yearn for a certain value or action in a person, then does that person have charisma? Do we "follow" because that person is someone who "voices our poains and provides us with promise?" Is that how others see me, at times?
"For many problems, however, no adequate response has yet been developed. . . Problems that cause persistent distress do so because the system of accepted dependencies being applied to them cannot do the job." (p. 72) So, we need to think outside-the-box. We must be comfortable with adapting for the problem. What I realized throughout the book is there truly is no eay answer when it comes to leading and decision-making. Later in the book, Heifetz stated that leaders will always fail someone. Essentially, you cannot make everyone happy.
"Yet, people in authority are not generally expected to let their emotions go." (p.78) This connects with what I shared in the previous post. "Never let them see you sweat." We seem to always have that message forced on us. Why can't we? Does that not show we are human? However, "regular Joe-shamos" see their leaders as super-human, I think. Therefore, leaders must keep a strong front. Heifetz shared that it is important for leaders to have confidants and allies to help in these areas. Confidants are those people the leader can cry and complain to. Allies are people in other organizations that span the boundaries to assist the leader in situations.
Authority and leadership. We expect that these go hand-in-hand. But what we know is that leaders do not necessarily need the authority, formal or informal. Although the authority may help with impact, everyone can be a leader.
"Each faction has its own grammar for analyzing a situation." (p. 119) How in the world do we get anything done, then? It is crucial for leaders to be able to decipher theses different grammars in order to bring the groups together for a common purpose and result. The leader must span boundaries and encourage the factions to provide slack on their commitments for the greater good.
Heifetz talked about being about to go out on the balcony in a situation. Sometimes we are focused on being in the movements and steps of the situation that we cannot step back to see the whole picture. If you are in the balcony, it is easier to see the path and movements, essentially the big picture. This is necessary for a leader to be successful.
"Leadership means taking responsibility for hard problems beyond anyone's expectations. Many people wait until they gain authority, formal or informal, to begin leading. "(p. 203). We cannot wait for the authority to begin leading. When we decide to go above and beyond in job duties and expectations, that is a form of leading. We need to be comfortable with that. Those "small" gestures eventually lead to greater responsibilities and respect.
"The strategic challenge is to give the work back to people without abandoning them." (p. 251) Unless we work on delegating and putting work back to others, the leader will crumble. It is also important to set the pace of work. Heifetz shared a statement President Johnson made as a legislator, "You can put an awful lot of whiskey into a man if you just let him sip it. But if you try to force the whole bottle down his throat at one time, he'll throw it up." (p. 246) Baby steps with change or with adaptive work.
At the end of the book, Heifetz shared seven suggestions for bearing the responsibilities:
- Getting on the Balcony
- Seeing the Difference Between Oneself and One's Role
- Externalizing the Conflict
- Developing Partners (Confidants and Allies)
- Listening: Using Oneself as Data
- Finding a Sanctuary
- Preserving a Sense of Purpose
No comments:
Post a Comment