Introduction
Over the course of the last 6 months, it has become abundantly clear to me that we have entered an extended period of adaptation. As issues and various problems have surfaced, those involved have called into question fundamental assumptions about how to work and how to serve their customers. As a result, beliefs, priorities, and habits are being challenged, and certain systems are being re-examined. Clearly, new ways of thinking and working are being explored. All involved also know that they need to learn more in order to better define the problems before them, and to maintain perspective in spite of the complexities and complications that abound.
Diagnosis Before Action
When I am asked about how to begin doing this level of work, I always defer to the in-depth expertise and research done by Ron Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky in their book, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World (Harvard Business Press, 2009). These authors point out that diagnosis should always precede action. In particular, this level of diagnostic work begins with the question: What is really going on here?. Furthermore, the question needs to focus on the “self and system levels.”
After data collection and problem identification (the what), those involved need to move into the interpretation of the data (the why), and then create a plan of action or intervention (the what’s next). As Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky explain, “The single most important skill and most undervalued capacity for exercising adaptive leadership is diagnosis.” I agree 100% with this perspective.
For me, one very interesting thing about their research falls into two categories. First, “Systemic and personal realities always play out simultaneously.” Second, “Shared language is important in leading adaptive change.” When I think back over nearly 40 years of doing this work, and when I have witnessed exceptional leaders mobilize people to deal with tough and challenging adaptive problems over extend periods of time, I realize that shared language changes the capacity of the group to deal with adaptivity. Furthermore, these same leaders work on the systemic level related issues, while also coaching people through the “personal realities” related to the adaptive challenges. Through shared language, it is synchronicity of these two actions, i.e. systemic work and personal work, that helps these leaders do solid diagnostic work and to co-create workable interventions.
As part of this work, the aforementioned authors remind us that “yesterday’s adaptive challenges are today’s technical problems.” This little fact is often lost in the rush to create a solution to an adaptive challenge. They also point out that “people prefer status quo to doing things differently,” and that “what people resist is not change, but loss.” Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky note that “the common factor generating adaptive failure is resistance to loss.” So part of our work during extended periods of adaptation is to determine what is and what is not being lost. “Successful adaptive changes build on the past rather than jettison it…. [they] determine what is essential to preserving the organization’s heritage and what is expendable.” I have witnessed that when this kind of work is done well, there always is a connection back to mission and purpose.
However, Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky note that leaders who are dealing with adaptive challenges “need to accept that you are in the business of generating chaos, confusion, and conflict, for yourself and others around you.” This will require you as a leader to build “up your tolerance for disorder, ambiguity, and tension.” One way they recommend to do this is to “remind yourself that you (as a person) are not your role (as someone seeking to lead change).” They also encourage leaders to not go it alone and to identify their scope of authority.
In particular, I think they are spot on when they advise adaptive leaders to “grow your own personal network outside of the system you are trying to change” and to talk regularly with confidants, and people outside the environment in which you are trying to lead adaptive change, who are invested in you, not the issues you are addressing.” They call this anchoring yourself in multiple communities.
Face Two Competing Demands
In the same year that Ron Heifetz, Alexander Glasgow, and Marty Linsky published the aforementioned book, they also published an articled called “Leadership in a (Permanent) Crisis” in the July-August 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review. Multiple times over the course of my career, I have encouraged leaders to read this article and to discuss it with their team. Given current events, I again encourage people to read it. The common language and perspective that is gained from this article will come in handy and will make a difference.
As the article notes, there are two distinct phases during a crisis, namely the emergency phase and the adaptive phase. They point out that “people put enormous pressure on you [the leader] to respond to their anxieties with authoritative certainty, even if doing so means overselling what you know and discounting what you don’t.” Furthermore, leaders “face two competing demands. They must execute in order to meet today’s challenges. And they must adapt what and how things get done in order to thrive in tomorrow’s world.” With this in mind, they acknowledge that “an organization that depends solely on its senior managers to deal with the challenges risks failure.”
While there are many important points and helpful insights within this article, the three that speak to me today I believe can help with an extended period of adaptation. First, a leader must “create a culture of courageous conversations. In a period of sustained uncertainty, the most difficult topics must be discussed.” This ability to talk about difficult things is critical to building trust and solving problems. While perspective may be challenged, the holding of these crucial conversations are very important to generating effective solutions and creating better systems to handle the emerging adaptive problems.
Second, a leader “must use leadership to generate more leadership deep in the organization.” In particular, they must “distribute leadership responsibility,” and “mobilize everyone to generate solutions by increasing the information flow that allows people across the organization to make independent decisions and share lessons they learn from innovation efforts.” Over time, this will create a “culture of interdependence” and build capacity for thriving in tomorrow’s world.
Third, Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky write more about the personal element of leading an organization through challenging times. They suggest people in leadership “give yourself permission to be both optimistic and realistic,” “find sanctuaries where you can reflect on events and regain perspective,” and “reach out to confidants with whom you can debrief your workdays and articulate your reasons for taking certain actions.” They conclude by offering some critical advice: “don’t lose yourself in your role. Defining life through a single endeavor, no matter how important your work is to you and to others, makes you vulnerable when the environment shifts. It also denies you other opportunities for fulfillment.” In sum, during extended periods of adaptation self-care is as important as organizational care. We need to be kind to ourself as much as we need to offer grace to those around us. The combination of these three elements will help over the short and long haul as the work become complex and complicated.
Two Choices For Surviving Adaptation
Mark Nepo in his book, Surviving Storms: Finding The Strength To Meet Adversity (St. Martin’s Essentials, 2022), writes that we are living in a world where people are experiencing “our loss of relationship, the isolation of technology, the dissolution of reality, the loss of a common good, the press of narcissism over inclusion, and [an] addiction to violence.” From my perspective, all of these elements are impacting leaders at the professional and personal level. They make the work of being an adaptive leader difficult and complicated. And yet, as a leader, we have to keep moving forward, thoughtfully and carefully, in spite of these elements being present.
Upon reflection, I think there are two critical choices that need to be made at times like this. The first choice is to invest time and energy into resource building. Because we suffer from negativity bias and a tendency to default to old choices, which are not always effective choices, we need to expand on the resources we have in order to improve our perspective, awareness, and understanding of how to proceed in a disciplined and effective manner.
For me, this translates into three personal actions related to the first choice. One, I need to set aside more uninterrupted time for reflection. This choice reminds me to follow the advice of Trappist monk and poet, Thomas Merton who wrote, “Take more time, cover less ground.” Therefore, I need to go deep into self-reflection. As Mark Nepo reminds us in the aforementioned book: “When things break down or don’t go as planned, there are always three archetypal questions we are called to ask ourselves: What needs to be repaired? What needs to be reimagined? And what needs to be left dismantled?” These questions engage a more holistic perspective and ask me to think through the choices before me.
Two, I need to spend more time reading a diversity of authors, recognizing that I am not the first person to go through a situation of this nature. And by doing this reading, I will learn from others’ past and current experiences. “Reading is an honor and a gift from a warrior or historian who - a decade or a thousand decades ago - set aside time to write,” notes Jim Mattis and Bing West in their book, Call Sign Chaos: Learning To Lead (Random House, 2019). “If you haven’t read hundreds of books, learning from others who went before you, you are functionally illiterate - you can’t coach and you can’t lead.” And coaching and leading are critical during adaptive problem solving.
Three, I need to invest more time with trusted coaches and mentors in order to leverage their expertise, insights, and wisdom. This is one of the most challenging of choices because during extended periods of adaptation, time pressure is substantial. People expect solutions and they expect them now. But based on personal and professional experience, I have learned and relearned that making the time for this level of dialogue and sharing can transform my perspective and understanding. It also can be a source of grounding in common sense and lived experience.
The second choice needs to happen at the same time as my first choice. I need to stop self-criticism and self-judgement. Over the decades, I have observed and been present with many leaders who struggle during extended time periods of adaptation. What becomes abundantly clear is that many leaders are experiencing some level of grief, namely denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance during adaptation. The difficult part for all of them is that they would rather not deal with grief. So, they turn this grief into self-criticism and/or self-judgement as a response to the stress and difficulties that arise. While I understand how this default choice happens, we must recognize that this is neither helpful or productive. Instead, it reflects a desire for control and order in a time period where these are not typically present. If we seek to lead ourselves and others through adaptive periods, we need to stop making this choice for it has never resulted in effective outcomes or healthy ways of coping. Instead, it leads to either self-abandonment or aggression towards others. None of which will allow for dialogue and problem solving to take place.
Again, I turn to Thomas Merton who wrote, “Perhaps I am stronger than I think.” This is a subtle and profound truth. When we learn to tap into our inner strength and to use it for good in the midst of adaptation, we are role modeling healthy leadership and healthy self-care. We also are creating a work environment where people can come as themselves and learn to build on their own strengths. In short, the combination of these two critical choices create the conditions for transformation in the midst of adaptation. And this is the desired outcome we seek during such times.
To be continued on Tuesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment