Leadership: From diagnosis to dialogue; from standing out to standing in
…seven possible shifts in the ways that we conventionally make sense of leadership in organizations
1. From elite practice to emergent property
Leadership would be recognized as an emergent property of people in relationship, not as an elite practice confined to individuals at senior levels in organizations…
2. From individual dynamism to interactional dynamics
The approaches to selecting, developing and recognizing the contributions of formal leaders would shift considerably. The focus would be on the complex dynamics of interaction…rather than on the current preoccupation with the traits, styles, competencies and so on of individuals who occupy formal leadership positions…
3. From controlling to contributing.
Those in formal leadership positions…would accept that they were not in control of organizational outcomes…
4. From diagnosis to dialogue.
The currently dominant view on leadership, based on a rational-scientific model of organizational dynamics, assumes that strategic and operational challenges can be dealt with by expert diagnosis – whether a leader’s own or that offered by specialist advisors. In contrast, an informal coalitions perspective would see it as inappropriate to look at organizations through a scientific lens; with its evidence-based explanations, rigorous analytical methods, and claims of predictability and certainty of outcome. Instead, it would recognize that knowledge in a social process is co-created through the everyday conversations and interactions that take place locally – between specific people, at specific times and in specific circumstances. Ongoing dialogue, focusing on joint sensemaking-cum-action taking, and seeking to tap into people’s collective wisdom, would therefore be seen as the essence of strategic and operational leadership.
5. From standing out to standing in.
Today’s conception of organizational leadership assumes that this is provided by someone (or a cadre of people) with outstanding ability - individuals who ‘stand out from the crowd’ in terms of their intellectual capacity, charisma, vision, courage…from an informal coalitions viewpoint, a central element of the formal leadership role would be one of ‘standing in’ – that is, actively participating in the conversations around import-ant emerging issues (as Ralph Stacey might describe it). This means paying attention to what’s going on in the day-to-day conversations and interactions that comprise the organization; seeking to shift the patterns and content of interactions in organizationally beneficial ways.
6. From certainty to curiosity
The search for, and expectancy of, certainty and predictability would be replaced by the valuing and practice of curiosity…rather than a presumption that the leader’s role is to provide all of the answers…
7. From colluding to confronting
Realizing the above shifts in thinking and practice would bring with it an increasing tendency for people (and particularly leaders) to confront - rather than collude with - the basic myths that sustain current management orthodoxy.
- Chris Rodgers
Related
Leaders are not in control of outcomes
Leaders determined by whether they get a following
(Source: informalcoalitions.typepad.com)
