October 2012 – Dr. Ray Wheeler

October 30, 2012

Missional Churches Re-shaping Things to Come: a quest for something deeper

The Future and Three Essential Commitments
It is a political season and political discourse causes me to think about the future. However, I find the political discourse of part of the church disappointing in both its lack of depth and failure to show character that looks different from the norm. What is the shape of the church tomorrow? How will the church re-shape the future? What is important to remember every day when taking single steps into the future? There is, I am sure, more than one answer to these questions. The variety of cultural and geographic situations of the local church guarantees an assortment of answers. One thing seems persistently true in every culture – thinking about the future has a dual character of release (freedom from the ineffective and imprisoning) and rebirth (an entrance into trauma that makes new). Release and rebirth reflect the nature of God’s promise and leads me to think about the future in two ways.

First, I think about the local church. I have served in the church as a campus pastor, pastor, church planting supervisor, executive pastor, missions director, board member, and 2 and 3-year-old teacher for over forty years…it does not seem that long! Time has reinforced my appreciation for the fact that new generations must wrestle with how to be the authentic and vibrant church. New insights and forms consistently disrupt and encourage how I think about faith.

Second, I think about the business stewardship with which I am entrusted i.e., how businesses create, communicate and deliver value to customers through the products or services they design and manufacture or offer. Businesses cannot ignore the social changes facing the local church and their own business any more than other leaders can. The reality is that the church by nature is a catalyst to change (transformation) and not just a victim of social change. As believers we have to embrace the disruption of our thinking because the promise of God woos and summons us to a new future. I like the way Ed Stetzer and Thom Rainer put it in their new book:

The alternative to this biblically mandated transformation is to pick a rut and make it deeper. And this is just what many churches have done, preferring, even if not consciously, repetition or even stagnation. As leaders we sometimes fool ourselves into thinking that just managing the status quo is good enough…Rather than missionary disciples for Christ going out into the world, we have a group of people content to go in circles.[1]

I have seen businesses and congregations dig ruts that look too much like a graves – they have either gone out of business or gone bankrupt. The only way I see to avoid following in a similar path is to engage the sometimes uncomfortable and always transformative vision of the future the work of God brings. Isn’t it strange that the promise of God is simultaneously comforting and disconcerting?

In thinking about the church and business in today’s social environment I cannot avoid the need for three essential commitments. In my view without commitments like these the church fails miserable at being a differentiated body of people. Without commitment the church floats somewhat aimlessly amid the currents of culture without making any real difference and without demonstrating any real change. I attempt to explain these commitments below.

Engage the Conversation

Commitment 1: Engage the conversation about how the church relates to the culture. One of my friends complained that the church can never get this right. It is right to say that the conversation is perennial, and it needs to be. Culture is not static. New generations grow in changing contexts and express different ways of addressing their situation’s critical questions.

Paul S. Minear in his book on the images of the church reinforces the necessity of thinking about how to reach the world in which we live. Conversations about how to relate to the culture necessarily start with a commitment to Jesus as Lord. Minear’s insight is sobering:

Yet we know enough concerning God’s design for the church to be haunted by the accusation of the church’s lord: “I never knew you.” So there is much about the character of the church to which the church itself is blind. Our self-understanding is never complete, never uncorrupted, never deep enough, never wholly transparent. In every generation the use and reuse of the Biblical images has been one path by which the church has tried to learn what the church truly is….[2]

Commitment to Jesus as Lord result in a devotion to learning that is characteristic of a close friendship. Friends are attentive to each other. Friends discover preferences and share dreams and fears. It is disappointing to find church leaders who are more self-assured than humble learner – can we really afford to behave in ways that contradict the words of Christ while claiming to act in the name of Christ? By learning I don’t mean academic learning. Instead I mean a willingness to face one’s self and one’s context with the realization that knowledge is incomplete and perspective is always limited. The most effective leaders I know live transparently as learners – they constantly work on relating to their world authentically. Their congregations don’t run into ruts but race toward a powerful vision. Learning means constantly looking and listening for what the church needs to fulfill its vision in a constantly changing social context.

Demonstrate Conviction

Commitment 2: Undiluted and transparent conviction is essential to saying anything important.

In a day when pluralism is emphasized as a social necessity (respect for people who hold opposing views or differing cultural perspectives is essential for a civil society) it also unfortunately acts as a barrier to real communication.

Pluralism means several different things. In common terms it describes the reality that ethnic, religious, political differences identify groups of people as distinct from one another. Sociologically it defines a policy or theory that minority groups within a society should support their cultural differences and share overall political and economic power. Philosophically the term describes the theory that reality is made up of many kinds of being or substance and (1) may not be definable or (2) that a plurality of realities actually exists. Each of these nuances is used in various ways when people talk about pluralism.

For this discussion pluralism can be categorized in two schools of thought; identist (all religions are oriented toward the same religious object) and differential (religions promote different ends – different salvations). In this definition it is safe to say that evangelicals generally define pluralism differentially i.e., we recognize that different ideas of salvation or the need of salvation exist but that Jesus claimed a unique status and a single reality in the midst of these differences.

Here is the challenge. There are those who consider any unique conviction to be a denial of pluralism (a loss of respect for any other view). My contention is that without clear convictions communication cannot take place because without clearly stated convictions there is no opportunity to agree or disagree there is simply an artificial truce that goes nowhere. Luther, who was not known to hold back on his convictions and opinions, describes a Christian’s basic conviction this way:

The chief article and foundation of the gospel is given you …when you see or hear of Christ doing or suffering something, you do not doubt that Christ himself, with his deeds and suffering, belongs to you. On this you may depend…to have a proper grasp of the gospel, that is, of the overwhelming goodness of God….This is the great fire of the love of God for us, whereby the heart and conscience become happy, secure, and content. This is what preaching the Christian faith means. This is why such preaching is called gospel, which in German means a joyful, good, and comforting “message”….[3]

The good news of God’s great love and goodness as revealed in Jesus Christ is at odds with certain religious and social views. This does not cut its universal application – it affirms humankind’s universal dilemma i.e., the quest for meaning and the diagnosis that the lack of meaning stems from separation from God. In the biblical view there is no exception to this diagnosis (Rom. 3:23 and 6:23).

This clear conviction does not need to be reduced to unbending bias, cultural/ethnic hegemony or squishy acquiescence of one’s deep convictions. If the church is going to say anything important today it has to be honest and transparent about its assumptions and beliefs and to allow for the scrutiny of its convictions with the confidence that God really is at work in the world around us. An example of this kind of conviction occurs in Paul’s defense before Festus and Agrippa in Acts 26 (see vs. 24-28).

Hans Küng carries the idea of conviction further. The way the church lives out its attributes determines its credibility and authenticity. There is a point at which the clarity of difference summons a decision to believe or disbelieve.

“That the world may believe” (Jn. 17:21) depends entirely upon whether the Church presents her unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity credibly in accordance with this prayer of our Lord. Credible here does not mean without any shadows; this is impossible in the Church composed of human beings and indeed sinful human beings. Credible does mean, however, that the light must be so bright and strong that darkness appears as something secondary, inessential, not as the authentic nature….[4]

One implication I find in Küng is that authentic living does not need “spin”. If being credible means that the light need to be stronger than the darkness then I understand this to mean that being credible is not only living out one’s conviction but admitting when one’s behavior does not align with one’s convictions. In our experience in business admitting mistakes or errors and working with our customers to find a solution creates far more credibility and customer loyalty than trying to cover things up. Isn’t the same true for the church?

Make a Contribution

Commitment 3: Contribution to the world around us in measurable meaningful actions is the earmark of grace.

The church father Cyprian summarized what is sometimes missing in more esoteric theological reflection on the nature of the church. Cyprian wrote in more concrete terms about the nature of the church i.e., how should the church behave? The third commitment may be framed as a question, how does the behavior of a congregation impact its neighbors?

In conclusion, my dear brothers, the divine admonition never rests, is never silent; in the holy Scriptures both old and new, the people of God at all times and in all place are stirred up to works of mercy…’Share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house. When you see the naked, clothe him; and do not neglect the household of your own family. Then shall your light break forth in due season and…the glory of God will encompass you.[5]

I love Cyprian’s insistence that the impulse to contribute to the world around us is divinely motivated and never at rest. When I look at the unknown future I find courage in the fact that if our company continues to be stirred up to works of mercy i.e., to contribute to real needs we will never end up in ruts that look like graves and lead to demise. The same is true for the church.

Conclusion

There may well be other important aspects of facing the future but it seems to me that if we engage in conversation with those around us and do it with honest convictions with the goal to make a real contribution then the future does not present itself as a threat but as an opportunity. Will there be such a thing as the church in 20 years? Yes. I am more confident to assert that if we keep up a commitment to conversation, conviction and contribution the as expressed in congregations and in business will offer a quality and vital impact in society. What does your conversation, conviction and contribution look like? Does it lead unmistakably to Christ? Or, is it muddled, muddied and misleading? Join me in making a measurable difference by being a living demonstration of what it means to be a believer.

[1] Ed Stetzer and Thom S Rainer. Transformational Church (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing, 2010), 3.

[2] Paul S. Minear. Images of the Church in the New Testament (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2004), 25.

[3] Martin Luther, “A brief Instruction on What to Look for and Expect in the Gospels” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, 2^nd ed, Timothy F. Lull ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 95.

[4] Hans Küng. Structures of the Church (New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1982), 27.

[5] Cyprian. “On Works and Alms” in Documents in Early Christian Thought, Maurice Wiles and Mark Santer eds. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 210.

October 21, 2012

It’s Not About Experts – It’s about Nerve, Endurance and a Commitment to Learning

Convenient Misconceptions
The conversations started over a year ago when an executive in one of my clients approached me, “You are the leadership guru,” he began, “how will you get the CEO to become a leader?” I was a little surprised by the intensity of the statement especially because the scope of my assignment had little to do with directly working with the executive team. However, this was not the first time a COO has approached me with this level of frustration.

“I won’t,” I responded.

He looked me up and down for a moment.

“What do you mean?” he continued.

“How long have you been with this CEO?” I queried.

“About 15 years,” he answered.

“Hmm, over that time how has the rest of the team, yourself included, adjusted to the CEO’s poor leadership? What changes in your own leadership perspectives have to occur if the CEO did become the leader you want him to be? What has changed now that makes the CEO, you and the rest of the team open to change that was not in play before now? What makes you think I can bring change you have either been unable or unwilling to initiate in the last 15 years?” I had more questions but I could see that I had already more than amply primed the pump.

It is not uncommon in a consultation to be viewed as the answer to all an organization’s most troubling problems. In fact it is a little heady to be viewed as one possessing such power…that is until reality pops back up. In my younger days I would have jumped into the middle of this discussion and outlined a change project that failed to take into account the systems, organizational culture and long-term relationships that had authenticated the leadership of the CEO (warts and all) for so long. In my earlier days I often failed to appreciate that pushing on a system to change only meant having the system snap back with the same force to expel me. The simple fact is knowledge is only a small part of a transformative process. It opens the door to new perspectives and may inform future decisions. But it cannot make people travel a path they don’t want to pursue.

The COO sat across the table from me silent. When the conversation started back up we talked about the questions I raised. “One thing that is different,” he began, “is that you have challenged the CEO in a way none of us ever have before. He is talking about change now where before he acknowledged that he was the limiting factor to the organization but he would not step away from his role.”

“What will you do with the observation you just made,” I asked. “In what ways have I challenged the CEO that you have not? What makes this challenge so effective? What step will you take next since you are in a place to do far more change organizationally than I am?”

At this the conversation shifted to talk about how to define leadership and how leaders develop. Over the course of the next several months the COO and I met periodically to continue the discussion and to talk about communication and where the company needed to go in his view. The COO talked about his conversations with the CEO and how they had changed to be more transparent or open.

The COO’s opening statement about guru’s was a convenient misconception. In his frustration and resignation with how things were it seemed far easier to assume a holding pattern that waited for some outside force to start the changes he felt were needed. Convenient misconceptions are simply ways to avoid the stress of upsetting the status quo. All of us weigh the cost to change. We understand that in some cases acting like a turtle under duress seems safer – withdraw, pull down a paycheck and try to reduce the impact living at odds with either core values or sense of purpose. But, convenient misconceptions ultimately show up for what they are – denial.

The Change – it begins internally

Month’s passed and the COO invited me to lunch. “I want to talk about a different future,” he said in his call, “this is strictly confidential.”

“I understand, I will keep the conversation confidential and I would love to go to lunch” I replied.

At lunch the COO laid out his plan to either take over the role of the CEO or step down from his role as COO. “I cannot continue in either the scope of my role as now defined or the tension of this role knowing that without significant change we may be in trouble in just a few years. I want to do something significant. I can do it here or somewhere else,” he told me at lunch.

The problem in all interpersonal relationships is the challenge of preserving self in a close relationship. Somewhere along the way the COO had lost his sense of self. He now began to reclaim it and to decide how he would stay a differentiated person while simultaneously maintaining a healthy interaction with the CEO and the rest of the company’s leadership team. This requires maturity that Friedman defines as, “…the willingness to take responsibility for one’s own emotional being and destiny.”[1]

Leadership is an emotional process and not only a process of analysis and data. The significance of this shows up in how a leader deals with resistance. In this case resistance from the CEO was not something to avoid. Instead the CEO’s resistance was a reality associated with the shifting balances in the emotional processes of a relationship system of the company. Resistance was inherent in change the COO wanted to pursue and was not caused by the company’s “…specific issues, makeup, or goals….”[2] The capacity of the COO to identify and manage this emotional process began a road to change. This kind of self-management that addresses and not avoids emotional issues is paramount to success in leadership.

Now what?

The COO invited me to help with the changes he mapped out. I reviewed his plan and provided feedback. When he presented his plan to the CEO and to the board the plan was enthusiastically received. We met again after the board meeting and the COO outlined his next steps.

“Your job is changing pretty dramatically,” I offered.

“Yes, I suppose it is,” he stated.

“May I suggest that the transition you are now entering, and that your entire team is entering, is the same as though you were moving to a new company altogether?” I asked. He agreed with this assessment and we talked about how he would approach his first 90 days. I recommended the book by Watkins, The First Ninety Days. In his book Watkins points out that,

… transitions are critical times when small differences in your actions can have disproportionate impacts on results. Leaders, regardless of their level, are most vulnerable in their first few months in a new position because they lack detailed knowledge of challenges they will face and what it will take to succeed in meeting them: they also have not developed a network of relationships too sustain them.[3]

In the transition the COO has entered he has to manage the shifting balances of the emotional processes in the company and do this while matching his strategy to the situation. Understanding the situation of the company is the first step in outlining a strategy that has the potential to succeed. It is now imperative that the COO find the right formula for success especially now that he secured the changes he wanted. So what does it mean to match strategy to situation?

Match Strategy to Situation

Understanding the developmental stage of the organization provides a basis for engaging the right kind of leadership approach. If the business situation of the company is not understood then it is easy to set the wrong goals and then fail to meet them. In the first 90 days of a transition it is important to establish credibility and knowing the business situation is critical. Watson’s ST_ARS model (i.e., is the business a start-up, turnaround, realignment or sustained success?) is a simple diagnostic tool that can guide critical leadership/management decisions.[4]

Figure 1: ST_ARS model[5]

The goal in a transition is to focus energy on the actions that set up the greatest chance of success in a new environment. Figure 2 below summarizes the choices. Focusing energy in a new assignment is a function of three core questions:[6]

How much emphasis will you place on learning as opposed to doing?
How much emphasis will you place on offense as opposed to defense?
What should you do to get some early wins?

Figure 2: Focus Energy on the Right Approach

By offense Watkins means activities such as identifying new markets, developing new products/technologies and building new alliances.

By defense he means protecting current market share positions, strengthening products and realigning relationships. In turnarounds a good defensive position includes pairing things back to the most valuable core and identifying the most valuable employees. New relationships are important to forge with the right people so that the team that results is ready to work in a new direction. Friedman’s work around systems in leadership relationships is an important addition to Watkins at this point.[7]

Friedman defines the difference between healthy (differentiated) and unhealthy (non-differentiated) people and the dynamics involved in various relational triangles. His point that all relationships are three-sided versus two-sided is an important insight to a leader stepping into any new situation particularly in the case of the COO who has a team made up of new and existing members all of whom must now redefine themselves in light of the shifts in reporting structure. The COO must decide the situation of his own company. Consider your situation. What challenges and opportunities do you face?

See the Challenges and Opportunities of Transition Times[8]

In a start-up people are excited and hopeful. The challenges include:

Building structures and system from scratch without a clear framework or boundaries.
Welding together a cohesive high-performing team
Making do with limited resources

The opportunities in a start-up include:

You can do things right from the beginning
People are energized by the possibilities
There is no preexisting rigidity in people’s thinking.

Clearly a leader has much more flexibility in a start-up. Remember however that flexibility also means the leader’s own strengths and weaknesses will mark the company. Diversifying leadership by acquiring good mentors and choosing the right employees helps prevent adopting fatal flaws.

In a turnaround the focus stays on key issues like vision, strategy, structures and systems. The challenges include:

Re-energizing demoralized employees and other stakeholders
Handling time pressure and having a quick and decisive impact
Going deep enough with painful cuts and difficult people choices

The opportunities of a turnaround are:

Everyone recognizes that change is necessary
Affected constituencies (such as suppliers who want the company to stay in business) may offer significant external support
A little success goes a long way.

In realignment the goal is to pierce the veil of denial that has allowed the organization to get too close to irrelevance. The challenges a person faces in realignment include:

Dealing with deeply ingrained cultural norms that no longer contribute to high performance.
Convincing employees that change is necessary.
Restructuring the top team and refocusing the organization.

The opportunities a person faces when leading realignment include:

The organization has significant pockets of strength
People want to continue to see themselves as successful.

When leaders find themselves in successful organizations where the assignment is to sustain success the objective is to invent a challenge the organization can rally behind. The challenges faced by leaders in successful organizations include:

Playing good defense by avoiding decisions that cause problems
Living in the shadow of a revered leader and dealing with the team he or she created
Finding ways to take the business to the next level

Successful organizations present great opportunities as well:

A strong team may already be in place
People are motivated to succeed
Foundations to continued success (such as the product pipeline) may be in place

Conclusion

The COO’s journey has changed from tedious boredom plodding toward retirement to enthusiastic purpose striding to a new future. I appreciate the invitation to work alongside this team as they pursue a different future. The road ahead is not without deep challenges. Even though the team agrees on the need for change not all of them anticipate how the changing relational structures and strategic emphasis impacts their relationships, skill development and leadership capacity. Those who are weakest in their self-differentiation will have the hardest time adjusting – if they do adjust.

Remember, it’s not about experts – it’s about nerve, endurance and a commitment to learning. So how do you assess your own sense of purpose and your role in the organization in which you work? Do you have the courage or nerve to be an agent of excellence and/or change? The COO’s own change and self-differentiation ran parallel to his willingness to step away from a good paying job to pursue his sense of purpose and a more meaningful relationship. The CEO could easily have agreed to his departure. I suspect however that the COO would have found the pursuit of purpose a far greater force than the temporary loss of revenue. In your situation ask yourself the following questions and see where they lead you.[9]

Which of the four ST_ARS situations are you facing?
What are the implications for the challenges and opportunities you are likely to confront?
What are the implications for your learning agenda? Do you only need to understand the technical side of the business, or is it critical that you understand culture and politics as well?
Which of your skills and strengths are likely to be most valuable in your situation and which have the potential to get you into trouble?
What is the prevailing frame of mind? What psychological transformation do you need to make and how will you bring it about?
Should your focus be on offense or defense?
When you dig deeper, what is the mix of types of situation that you are managing? Which portions of your unit are in start-up, turnaround, realignment, and sustaining success modes? What are the implications for how you should manage and reward the people who work for you?

[1] Edwin Friedman. Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, Margaret M. Treadwell and Edward W. Beal eds. (New York, NY: Church Publishing. [Kindle Version downloaded from Amazon.com], 2007), 235 of 5400.

[2] Friedman 292 of 5400.

[3] Michael Watkins. The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at all Levels (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2003), iv.

[4] This is another way to describe where a corporation or company is at in its life cycle. Compare Ichak Adizes. Corporate Lifecycles: How and Why Corporations Grow and Die and What to Do About It (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988). The model also takes into account the insights from Ken Blanchard in his work on innovation/revitalization showing how revitalization must occur as an organization approaches its prime. See Ken Blanchard and Terry Waghorn. Mission Possible: Becoming a World-Class Organization While there’s Still Time (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1997).

[5] Watkins, 63.

[6] Watkins, 69.

[7] Edwin Friedman. Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix Margaret Treadwell and Edward Beal eds. (New York, NY: Church Publishing, 2007).

[8] Watkins, 66.

[9] Watkins 77-78.

October 19, 2012

Develop Next Generation Leaders – Bridging Different Perspectives

“The most important leadership activity,” Bobby said, “is identifying and developing leaders.” In my business and non-profit experience equipping a new generation is a high priority quest today. Leadership development is not just concerned with specified succession and talent planning but understanding how to reach emerging markets or effectively reach a growing demographic diversity.
The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) recently released a study that had two important insights about the next generation leaders now in need of development.

First – what is it that excites today’s leaders about the emerging generation? Several things stood out in the CCL report:

Their comfort/skill with technology and social networks for information/connectivity. (See: http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/ExpandingLeadershipEquation.pdf).

Their creativity, openness to new ideas and the fresh perspective they bring.
Their multi-cultural/global awareness and tolerance of difference.
Their adaptability, learning-orientation and acceptance of rapid change.
Their confidence and willingness to take a stand or challenge the status quo.
Their enthusiasm, dedication and work ethic.
Their collaborative and team-orientation – their willingness to work across boundaries
Their strong sense of ethics, service-oriented leadership and desire to make a difference.

The potential inherent in new technologies for doing great and good things is inspiring – even with the dark side of technology. Every new generation has to wrestle with the dark side of change. The fact is that they way we do business today, the way customers find us, the way customers buy are all radically different than even ten years ago. The changes are both breath taking and astonishing.

Yet I remember one of my mentors telling me, “Ray, I am not impressed with talent. I see a lot of talent. I am impressed with character that shapes talent into consistent outcomes, commitment and endurance.” The same idea is said about today’ s emerging leaders and it is a message that should be heard. In my experience the weakest of these traits (when I find weakness) rests on the confidence and assertiveness of emerging leaders. Some emerging leaders need help identifying their own uniqueness and how to relate – a need discussed in one of my earlier blogs see http://wp.me/pYuoc-9K.

The survey results also identified what many leaders are concerned about in the development of emerging leaders namely:

Their unjustified/unrealistic sense of entitlement, need for instant gratification and affirmation
Their lack of ability to communicate effectively face-to-face and their over-dependence on technology
Their lack of a strong work ethic, focus/commitment/drive, that they don’t always seem self-motivated
Their lack of learning opportunities (mentoring, positive role models, training adequate to future challenges they will face)
Their lack of a strong sense of values, ethics, or social responsibility
Their lack of reflection/self-awareness/maturity
Their overconfidence and resistance to input or feedback

Clearly the perceptions don’t apply to every emerging leader. However, in both my non-profit work and work in business I see these two sets of traits constantly. So what? CCL’s survey results set the stage for some great conversations. How is your organization leveraging the development of its emerging leaders? Mentors need to know how to lead emerging leaders into owning their development and becoming truly differentiated people. Emerging leaders don’t have to wait to be mentored…find mentors! In one of my relationships with an emerging leader the sense of entitlement demonstrated itself in this person’s assumption that by simply showing up with a college degree they would be made a manager. Their disappointment when they were overlooked for a promotion was palpable. However, they were overlooked for their failure to take advantage of mentoring and other informal learning opportunities.

How are you addressing the dynamics described in the lists above in your organization or company?

October 12, 2012

a teenage advocate

Terry’s article on the fate of Malala Yousafzai captured my own sense of being stirred to action in light of this atrocity. The capacity of humankind for injustice in action and in inaction points to the reality that the world needs a transformational influence. It is this need that I find answered in my own encounter with Jesus the Messiah. If you are a reader of my blog then I hope you see that when I talk about faith I am not talking about blind parochialism but an encounter with God that I cannot avoid and will not treat with triviality but with deep curiosity, enduring reverence and explicit impatience with any form of religious expression that fails to reflect that nature and character of the God revealed.
I commend this article to you. a teenage advocate.

October 7, 2012

Don't Try to Change Me – Discovering the Differentiated Leader

An inauspicious start to a critical engagement
“Don’t think you can change me…don’t even try.” The department director shot these words at our introduction.
I caught the eyes of my friend darting toward mine to see if I would buckle or flinch in the first volley. I smiled and while grasping the hand of the director to shake it I looked into his eyes and said, “That is the last thing I would attempt…I am not here to change you I am here to help you leverage the success of the department you have built to the potential you see for it. Is that ok with you?”
“Ok,” he responded. He looked surprised.
“Well then I have two rules,” I continued “and I need you to agree to them before I begin or I will pack up and walk out.”
“What are they?” the director queried.
“First, you give me permission to discover the unvarnished feedback of your employees,” I began. “Second, you agree to debrief with me at the end of the project to tell you what I have learned. Do you agree?”
“I agree,” he said and looking at my friend “he is not a bad guy Tim.”
“I told you Dick, he is good at what he does.”
This engagement germinated when Tim had asked me one night what I my research focus was in my doctoral program.
“I am looking at how hope impacts the development of existing and emerging leaders in complex organizations” I responded to his inquiry.
As we talked more about the insights I had gathered in my field research Tim asked, “Would you be willing to see if that fits at the school district? Our department could really use something like this and we have no budget for consultants right now.”
Tim told me that the technical maintenance unit developed in the early 1980s. The director and his secretary were the first employees. At the time of the project the unit operated with 80+ unionized employees. The unit’s original assignment was limited to fulfilling EPA directives on the abatement of asbestos contamination. Today the unit handles abatement of every potential environmental health risk to students. Not only has the complexity of regulatory compliance increased but the volume of work within this metropolitan school district increased with its initiatives to meet its plan of reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance.
The growth of the department, its technical focus, its existence within a complex metropolitan school district and the fact that its original director was still the leader made this an irresistible field study.
I negotiated for permission to publish my findings (I didn’t know school districts had so many attorneys). The District finally gave permission to publish my work as long as I never mentioned it by name.
Tim had initiated a focus on best practices in management at every level of the department. He had a long leash that resulted from the fact he served as the de facto director for several months the director was recuperating from a significant health challenge and that Tim had the highest respect for the expertise of the director. Tim’s respect was both professional and personal. This respect provided the safety net the director needed to extend trust to my research project.
Classic leadership tensions
In the course of doing the field research some interesting observations emerged:

Growth in the scope of leadership responsibility requires a change in how the leader works.
Growth in the scope of leadership introduces political (relational) challenges not clear before.
Growth in the scope of leadership responsibility reveals gaps in a leader’s capacity.
Growth in the scope of leadership requires that a leader find new sources of feedback.
Demands on capacity require a change in time management strategies.
Demands on capacity require a leader to leverage organizational sovereignty (i.e., depend on the skills and abilities of others and expand the scope of decision-making versus insisting on one’s own perspective exclusively).
Growth in the scope of responsibility requires an ability to find and engage other leaders.

Change was not an option for this department. A vortex of constant and discontinuous change resulted from the department’s growth and contentious budget/philosophical changes in the District. A chronic degree of mistrust and anxiety existed among the employees I interviewed and surveyed. I prepared to debrief with the director at the end of the research project. I could not help but remember his edict, “Don’t try to change me.”
When changes occur what is impacted?
The Director’s warning about challenging him to change was intriguing in its own right. He had already faced a wave of change but struggled with altering his behaviors in ways that are classic to a founder. He managed like a tyrant in that he refused to delegate control of decisions – he was the bottleneck of his department that threatened to push the department in into dangerous lapses of execution. He was the first in and the last out of the office often working 16 hour days. He had destroyed his family, had few friends and was losing political capital in the District because he did not know how to relate with peers. As captain of his own ship he worked more like a pirate barking orders and threatening to keel-haul inefficient crew.
The Director was on a collision course with the future – a future that no longer needed a pirate at the helm of an underfunded loosely supervised division. He had sailed into the center of the District’s maintenance budget in part by the fact he is an internationally recognized expert in his field and in part because of the success he had achieved over the years in raising recognition of the dangers of environmental pollutants and the need to give safe educational environments. The problem was not a fight for recognition and budget in the bureaucracy. The problem was the director’s own lack of self-regulation in the face of tension. He did not know how to relate to the organization he had built. He had no idea how to relate to the larger bureaucracy of the school district. If change did not occur the District would slowly dismantled the maintenance unit and absorb it into other departments.
The Director’s initial bark, “don’t try to change me” was not the bark of a blind tyrant hell-bent on running the department into the ground. It was a statement of recognition that he felt he could not compete on the same ground as the polished political apparatchiks of the District office and was not sure he wanted to – but he did need to adjust something. So how does a pirate accustom to effecting immediate and sweeping change, immediate execution of ideas with full budgetary discretion alter behavior enough to avoid being abandoned by his allies i.e., the District he serves?
The power of reflection in defining context
After talking with the Director and his team I realized the Director did not see how his own success altered the political terrain. The director faced two big crises: readjust his approach to his own team or risk losing the best and the brightest that were all frustrated by the repressive tyranny of the director’s micro management (he did not trust them and they knew it). The director had to readjust his approach to the District that now saw him as a policy maker and not an odd ball outlier – he now had power but he did not realize it. There are few things more dangerous than a leader that possesses power but fails to exercise the self-awareness to realize the extent (or limitations) of their power. The Director was still fighting for recognition of his expertise and the importance of student health. But, he had won that war – the District had become a model for school districts around the nation for environmental health.
In my curiosity about what the Director had done and my probing about how the changes he initiated had altered District policy both of us gained insight into the shifting political terrain in which he now functioned. We had several three-way interviews between the Director, Tim and me. Tim was a master at pointing out the Director’s accomplishments, offering deep respect and bringing the current challenges to clear definition. These conversations forced a reflection of the type top leaders desperately need – a strategic reassessment of their position. The Director however had never taken the time to do this on his own because he was too busy fighting the good fight to realize that he was wining fewer battles because the opponents had moved. He ended up wounding his political alliances and most trusted employees. Tim served as the Director’s first mate inside the office and as his emissary to the District. Without Tim’s respect for the man and his accomplishments the Director’s survival in his role was doubtful. The Director realized two things in these conversations based on his reaction to me.
First, the district trusted his opinion about the law and regulations around environmental safety. The former pariah was now a recognized expert. He had accomplished something significant and meaningful. The problem was that while he had achieved a new status he did not know how to behavior relative to his new status – he is like a championship boxer who after beating his opponent continues the fight with the referee trying to name him the champion. The failure to change behaviors based on the changing environment makes more enemies than friends.
Second, the Director was rapidly losing the political capital needed to keep his clout in the organization he had created from scratch. He still had fight left and still had battles to win but had not defined them appropriately. The Director sensed the loss of political capital but had interpreted it as an irrational outside threat and not a self-inflicted wound to his own credibility. His dissonance upon realizing this had shaken his confidence in himself. Tim used the opportunity to drive both realities home with data that was affirming, disarming and incontrovertible. The Director became more inquisitive and open to learning. This was the easier of the changes. As the Director grasped the new limits of his fight and talked about what needed to happen next in his department and beyond. He became quite inspirational in the weeks we talked together – he is passionate about environmental health.
The breakthrough
How did this change occur? At the end of the field study I prepared a report and the Director and I sat down to lunch to discuss my findings.
“Ok,” I began. “You committed to hearing feedback at the completion of my research. I am ready but I need two actions from you. I want you to commit to doing these actions for three months without fail. Will you give me that commitment?”
The mood of the lunch shifted at the tension and competition of our first meeting reemerged. The director repeated his first words to me, “Don’t try to change me!”
“We already agreed to these ground rules, Dick,” I responded. “Your insistence on resisting feedback only tells me that you would prefer to sabotage your entire division and sacrifice it on the altar of your own hubris. Is that what you are telling me?”
“Geez, you are ….”he paused, “…ok what do you want me to do?”
I asked, “In your own words who are you?”
He floundered for a moment grasping for what I meant.
“I am an expert in my field. I am focused. I want to make a significant contribution in life. I am gruff and impatient with incompetence. I am a man of few friendships but I think they are deep,” he replied.
“Ok,” I said, “…your team agrees with all of this but they don’t trust you.” He looked rather stunned as founders often do. I explained that in my experience founders are very capable of outlining how they have sacrificed. Founders ably describe the risk they assumed in the pursuit of success. Yet they are blind to the sacrifices and risks taken by those they have inspired to help them achieve their big goals. Granted, the risks incurred by employees seem small in comparison to putting family, assets, and reputation on the line like founders often do. However founders inherently infer that a proportional sacrifice is required of all their key employees. It takes a different shape usually in long hours and high demands and initially low pay. If the employees sacrifice remains unacknowledged and devalued then a mutiny occurs. The casualty of such a mutiny is not limited to the founder – everyone is hurt.
It was quiet for a long time – I felt little compulsion to rescue Dick from whatever internal reflection he was doing in the silence. Finally he said, “Ok, I will commit to your suggested actions.”
“Great,” I replied. I need 20 minutes of your time each day. I need 10 minutes in the morning and 10 minutes in the evening. As your employees arrive I want you to walk out of your office and greet your employees by name.” For all the years Dick had worked to build the department he always arrived up to 60 minutes ahead of his employees and stayed for up to three hours after they left – and never left his office. Only two people dared to enter his office without being invited – Tim, his first mate and Dick’s secretary. Employees summoned to Dick’s office endured scolding on their failure to consider all the aspects of their projects. Dick would itemize their failures and send them back to correct their mistakes. If anyone pushed back during these interactions Dick would launch into a review of his published work and his stature as an expert.
“I can do that,” Dick replied.
“Ok, then 10 minutes before the end of the day I want you to come back out of your office and thank your employees for their hard work.” I said.
“What? They are paid for that work. That is their thanks. They and the union give me nothing but grief with all their gripping, their grievances – we spend so much time with union reps and attorneys over this crap that we fall behind on critical projects.” Dick’s face had begun to glow with a reddish hue.
I stared right back at him, “You gave me your word that you would keep your commitment. Are reneging? I am happy to leave you the bill for lunch and go home now. But, I need to know if you have the integrity to keep your word.”
Dick stopped mid-breath. “Why do I need to thank them for doing their jobs?”
“Because,” I said, “…they are doing their jobs. They could be out sitting behind the district buildings drinking beer and simply reporting that they are working. They could be doing all kinds of things that would destroy this department.”
“They try that crap and they will be fired,” Dick retorted.
“Good,” I said, “you need to be consistent in excellence and in the management of the task. That excellence is not the problem here. Thank them every day because they perform the work you assigned to them. And if any of them are not you have the disciplinary processes in place to discuss that problem – use them consistently. The question is; will you keep your commitment?”
Dick agreed. In the months that followed I checked in with Dick in a surprise visit. He was noticeably happier and his employees in the department caught me and thanked me for whatever it was I had done to make Dick human. A year later the department inherited all maintenance functions in the district. Eventually Dick moved to a new position that allowed him to be the knowledge expert and put Tim in the Director seat. The employees, Tim and Dicks all told me that the consult had been a success. The real success however is that Dick emerged as a fully differentiated leader. He was never the best friend of his team. However he had become human and began to allow his direct reports to thrive. By appreciating their work Dick begun to recognize their expertise and slowly backed away from micromanaging every detail.
Conclusion – what is a differentiated leader?
A differentiated leader is a person whose identity exhibits several critical behavioral characteristics. Dick had started the department as a differentiated leader but then because of the capacity shift that occurred as the department grew he fell into regressive and reactive behavior. As his identity reemerged several critical behaviors returned and grew in-depth. Being a self-differentiation leader requires:[1]

The capacity to go it alone. Dick’s capacity to move with or without popular support had built the department. His failure however to extricate himself from the emotional binds of the less emotionally mature leaders in the district had caused him to retreat from this position of leading to a defensive position that ultimately made him the victim of District “politics”. Dick despised the feeling of helplessness – he overcame it by reasserting his willingness to engage people.
The ability to recognize and extricate oneself from emotional binds. When Dick began to re-engage his team he had to face the reality that his retreat from relationships to isolation in his office had only complicated the emotional binds of the less emotionally mature. The more he retreated the more his employees turned to grievances and work slowdowns to express their malcontent.
Recognition of the folly of trying to will others to change. Oddly enough the director resisted strong-arm tactics to change his style while simultaneously trying to force others to change. He faced two points of resistance: (1) the intransigent and emotionally regressive who needed to be reminded to take responsibility for their own well-being and destiny and (2) those who were attempting to “will” the director to change by amplifying grievances and work slowdowns. The fact is that when change (or crisis) is “…viewed in terms of proportional or systems thinking and not straight line, linear thinking, then outcomes other than mere capitulation or escape become possible….mobilization of an organism’s resources such as resiliency, determination, self-regulation, and stamina.”[2]
The modifying potential of a non-anxious presence. The department under the Director’s insistence on capitulation by the union had become reactive i.e., attempts to squelch or side step union activity resulted in a greater degree of intransigent resistance on the part of the union and attempts by potential leaders to escape the conflict by blending into the environment as though they could exist unseen by the reactive parties. When the director changed his approach by exercising awareness and thankfulness it altered his anxiety and de-escalated the reactive anxiety of the employees. Conversations began to look at the larger issues faced by the department and new contributors emerged from the shadows with new solutions.
The ratifying power of endurance in crisis. Tim demonstrated endurance in the process. He stayed by the Director’s side providing honest feedback and creative perspectives and remained engaged with the employees refusing to allow them to capitulate their part of making the department a success. His endurance encouraged participation and the possibility of change in the minds of the employees.
The self-regulation necessary for dealing with reactive sabotage. As the department began to make a shift toward change some saw change a more threatening potential than the undercurrent of reactive conflict that had been the norm. Dick’s new found fortitude helped him engage the transparent conversations needed to lay out the opportunity and the result of not taking the opportunity. He began to see that the union agreements restricted more than his behavior, it outlined expectations on the employees. Not everyone exercised self-regulation. A couple of the employees requested transfers to other departments because they resented the new more positive environment and higher degree of personal responsibility. Dick and Tim transferred employees who failed to assume personal responsibility. Each transfer reduced the number of sabotaged union negotiations and project deadlines. Sabotage follows effective leaders.
The factors in the leader’s own being that cause him or her stress. In the private conversations Dick talked about the collapse of his marriage and his health and his faith. He wanted to find a way to renew his faith and health…his marriage had ended in a rather nasty divorce. As he came to terms with the impact of his spiritual and physical health he saw how his own struggles had contributed to his poor leadership and the slow erosion of trust and integrity in the department. To the degree leaders exercise self-awareness about the factors that cause them stress they are effective in mitigating the stress of others. (See the comments on emotional intelligence in http://raywheeler.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/servant-leadership-and-corporate-social-responsibility/.)

So how is your differentiation as a leader? Can you describe what makes you unique? Do you exercise the seven traits outlined above? In what ways do you see improvement may be needed or advised? Who are you talking to about it? Dick had two trusted advisors that led him through significant changes in perspective – Tim who worked for him and me who served as a timely mentor/coach. If you don’t have a trusted advisor who provides clear and unvarnished feedback it is time to find one. Let me know your thoughts in the comments. Thanks.

[1] Edwin Friedman. Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. Margaret M. Treadwell and Edward W. Beal eds. (New York, NY: Church Publishing. [Kindle Version downloaded from Amazon.com], 2007).

[2] Friedman (2007)

October 7, 2012

Don’t Try to Change Me – Discovering the Differentiated Leader

An inauspicious start to a critical engagement
“Don’t think you can change me…don’t even try.” The department director shot these words at our introduction.

I caught the eyes of my friend darting toward mine to see if I would buckle or flinch in the first volley. I smiled and while grasping the hand of the director to shake it I looked into his eyes and said, “That is the last thing I would attempt…I am not here to change you I am here to help you leverage the success of the department you have built to the potential you see for it. Is that ok with you?”

“Ok,” he responded. He looked surprised.

“Well then I have two rules,” I continued “and I need you to agree to them before I begin or I will pack up and walk out.”

“What are they?” the director queried.

“First, you give me permission to discover the unvarnished feedback of your employees,” I began. “Second, you agree to debrief with me at the end of the project to tell you what I have learned. Do you agree?”

“I agree,” he said and looking at my friend “he is not a bad guy Tim.”

“I told you Dick, he is good at what he does.”

This engagement germinated when Tim had asked me one night what I my research focus was in my doctoral program.

“I am looking at how hope impacts the development of existing and emerging leaders in complex organizations” I responded to his inquiry.

As we talked more about the insights I had gathered in my field research Tim asked, “Would you be willing to see if that fits at the school district? Our department could really use something like this and we have no budget for consultants right now.”

Tim told me that the technical maintenance unit developed in the early 1980s. The director and his secretary were the first employees. At the time of the project the unit operated with 80+ unionized employees. The unit’s original assignment was limited to fulfilling EPA directives on the abatement of asbestos contamination. Today the unit handles abatement of every potential environmental health risk to students. Not only has the complexity of regulatory compliance increased but the volume of work within this metropolitan school district increased with its initiatives to meet its plan of reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance.

The growth of the department, its technical focus, its existence within a complex metropolitan school district and the fact that its original director was still the leader made this an irresistible field study.

I negotiated for permission to publish my findings (I didn’t know school districts had so many attorneys). The District finally gave permission to publish my work as long as I never mentioned it by name.

Tim had initiated a focus on best practices in management at every level of the department. He had a long leash that resulted from the fact he served as the de facto director for several months the director was recuperating from a significant health challenge and that Tim had the highest respect for the expertise of the director. Tim’s respect was both professional and personal. This respect provided the safety net the director needed to extend trust to my research project.

Classic leadership tensions

In the course of doing the field research some interesting observations emerged:

Growth in the scope of leadership responsibility requires a change in how the leader works.
Growth in the scope of leadership introduces political (relational) challenges not clear before.
Growth in the scope of leadership responsibility reveals gaps in a leader’s capacity.
Growth in the scope of leadership requires that a leader find new sources of feedback.
Demands on capacity require a change in time management strategies.
Demands on capacity require a leader to leverage organizational sovereignty (i.e., depend on the skills and abilities of others and expand the scope of decision-making versus insisting on one’s own perspective exclusively).
Growth in the scope of responsibility requires an ability to find and engage other leaders.

When changes occur what is impacted?

The Director’s warning about challenging him to change was intriguing in its own right. He had already faced a wave of change but struggled with altering his behaviors in ways that are classic to a founder. He managed like a tyrant in that he refused to delegate control of decisions – he was the bottleneck of his department that threatened to push the department in into dangerous lapses of execution. He was the first in and the last out of the office often working 16 hour days. He had destroyed his family, had few friends and was losing political capital in the District because he did not know how to relate with peers. As captain of his own ship he worked more like a pirate barking orders and threatening to keel-haul inefficient crew.

The Director was on a collision course with the future – a future that no longer needed a pirate at the helm of an underfunded loosely supervised division. He had sailed into the center of the District’s maintenance budget in part by the fact he is an internationally recognized expert in his field and in part because of the success he had achieved over the years in raising recognition of the dangers of environmental pollutants and the need to give safe educational environments. The problem was not a fight for recognition and budget in the bureaucracy. The problem was the director’s own lack of self-regulation in the face of tension. He did not know how to relate to the organization he had built. He had no idea how to relate to the larger bureaucracy of the school district. If change did not occur the District would slowly dismantled the maintenance unit and absorb it into other departments.

The Director’s initial bark, “don’t try to change me” was not the bark of a blind tyrant hell-bent on running the department into the ground. It was a statement of recognition that he felt he could not compete on the same ground as the polished political apparatchiks of the District office and was not sure he wanted to – but he did need to adjust something. So how does a pirate accustom to effecting immediate and sweeping change, immediate execution of ideas with full budgetary discretion alter behavior enough to avoid being abandoned by his allies i.e., the District he serves?

The power of reflection in defining context

After talking with the Director and his team I realized the Director did not see how his own success altered the political terrain. The director faced two big crises: readjust his approach to his own team or risk losing the best and the brightest that were all frustrated by the repressive tyranny of the director’s micro management (he did not trust them and they knew it). The director had to readjust his approach to the District that now saw him as a policy maker and not an odd ball outlier – he now had power but he did not realize it. There are few things more dangerous than a leader that possesses power but fails to exercise the self-awareness to realize the extent (or limitations) of their power. The Director was still fighting for recognition of his expertise and the importance of student health. But, he had won that war – the District had become a model for school districts around the nation for environmental health.

In my curiosity about what the Director had done and my probing about how the changes he initiated had altered District policy both of us gained insight into the shifting political terrain in which he now functioned. We had several three-way interviews between the Director, Tim and me. Tim was a master at pointing out the Director’s accomplishments, offering deep respect and bringing the current challenges to clear definition. These conversations forced a reflection of the type top leaders desperately need – a strategic reassessment of their position. The Director however had never taken the time to do this on his own because he was too busy fighting the good fight to realize that he was wining fewer battles because the opponents had moved. He ended up wounding his political alliances and most trusted employees. Tim served as the Director’s first mate inside the office and as his emissary to the District. Without Tim’s respect for the man and his accomplishments the Director’s survival in his role was doubtful. The Director realized two things in these conversations based on his reaction to me.

First, the district trusted his opinion about the law and regulations around environmental safety. The former pariah was now a recognized expert. He had accomplished something significant and meaningful. The problem was that while he had achieved a new status he did not know how to behavior relative to his new status – he is like a championship boxer who after beating his opponent continues the fight with the referee trying to name him the champion. The failure to change behaviors based on the changing environment makes more enemies than friends.

Second, the Director was rapidly losing the political capital needed to keep his clout in the organization he had created from scratch. He still had fight left and still had battles to win but had not defined them appropriately. The Director sensed the loss of political capital but had interpreted it as an irrational outside threat and not a self-inflicted wound to his own credibility. His dissonance upon realizing this had shaken his confidence in himself. Tim used the opportunity to drive both realities home with data that was affirming, disarming and incontrovertible. The Director became more inquisitive and open to learning. This was the easier of the changes. As the Director grasped the new limits of his fight and talked about what needed to happen next in his department and beyond. He became quite inspirational in the weeks we talked together – he is passionate about environmental health.

The breakthrough

How did this change occur? At the end of the field study I prepared a report and the Director and I sat down to lunch to discuss my findings.

“Ok,” I began. “You committed to hearing feedback at the completion of my research. I am ready but I need two actions from you. I want you to commit to doing these actions for three months without fail. Will you give me that commitment?”

The mood of the lunch shifted at the tension and competition of our first meeting reemerged. The director repeated his first words to me, “Don’t try to change me!”

“We already agreed to these ground rules, Dick,” I responded. “Your insistence on resisting feedback only tells me that you would prefer to sabotage your entire division and sacrifice it on the altar of your own hubris. Is that what you are telling me?”

“Geez, you are ….”he paused, “…ok what do you want me to do?”

I asked, “In your own words who are you?”

He floundered for a moment grasping for what I meant.

“I am an expert in my field. I am focused. I want to make a significant contribution in life. I am gruff and impatient with incompetence. I am a man of few friendships but I think they are deep,” he replied.

“Ok,” I said, “…your team agrees with all of this but they don’t trust you.” He looked rather stunned as founders often do. I explained that in my experience founders are very capable of outlining how they have sacrificed. Founders ably describe the risk they assumed in the pursuit of success. Yet they are blind to the sacrifices and risks taken by those they have inspired to help them achieve their big goals. Granted, the risks incurred by employees seem small in comparison to putting family, assets, and reputation on the line like founders often do. However founders inherently infer that a proportional sacrifice is required of all their key employees. It takes a different shape usually in long hours and high demands and initially low pay. If the employees sacrifice remains unacknowledged and devalued then a mutiny occurs. The casualty of such a mutiny is not limited to the founder – everyone is hurt.

It was quiet for a long time – I felt little compulsion to rescue Dick from whatever internal reflection he was doing in the silence. Finally he said, “Ok, I will commit to your suggested actions.”

“Great,” I replied. I need 20 minutes of your time each day. I need 10 minutes in the morning and 10 minutes in the evening. As your employees arrive I want you to walk out of your office and greet your employees by name.” For all the years Dick had worked to build the department he always arrived up to 60 minutes ahead of his employees and stayed for up to three hours after they left – and never left his office. Only two people dared to enter his office without being invited – Tim, his first mate and Dick’s secretary. Employees summoned to Dick’s office endured scolding on their failure to consider all the aspects of their projects. Dick would itemize their failures and send them back to correct their mistakes. If anyone pushed back during these interactions Dick would launch into a review of his published work and his stature as an expert.

“I can do that,” Dick replied.

“Ok, then 10 minutes before the end of the day I want you to come back out of your office and thank your employees for their hard work.” I said.

“What? They are paid for that work. That is their thanks. They and the union give me nothing but grief with all their gripping, their grievances – we spend so much time with union reps and attorneys over this crap that we fall behind on critical projects.” Dick’s face had begun to glow with a reddish hue.

I stared right back at him, “You gave me your word that you would keep your commitment. Are reneging? I am happy to leave you the bill for lunch and go home now. But, I need to know if you have the integrity to keep your word.”

Dick stopped mid-breath. “Why do I need to thank them for doing their jobs?”

“Because,” I said, “…they are doing their jobs. They could be out sitting behind the district buildings drinking beer and simply reporting that they are working. They could be doing all kinds of things that would destroy this department.”

“They try that crap and they will be fired,” Dick retorted.

“Good,” I said, “you need to be consistent in excellence and in the management of the task. That excellence is not the problem here. Thank them every day because they perform the work you assigned to them. And if any of them are not you have the disciplinary processes in place to discuss that problem – use them consistently. The question is; will you keep your commitment?”

Dick agreed. In the months that followed I checked in with Dick in a surprise visit. He was noticeably happier and his employees in the department caught me and thanked me for whatever it was I had done to make Dick human. A year later the department inherited all maintenance functions in the district. Eventually Dick moved to a new position that allowed him to be the knowledge expert and put Tim in the Director seat. The employees, Tim and Dicks all told me that the consult had been a success. The real success however is that Dick emerged as a fully differentiated leader. He was never the best friend of his team. However he had become human and began to allow his direct reports to thrive. By appreciating their work Dick begun to recognize their expertise and slowly backed away from micromanaging every detail.

Conclusion – what is a differentiated leader?

A differentiated leader is a person whose identity exhibits several critical behavioral characteristics. Dick had started the department as a differentiated leader but then because of the capacity shift that occurred as the department grew he fell into regressive and reactive behavior. As his identity reemerged several critical behaviors returned and grew in-depth. Being a self-differentiation leader requires:[1]

The capacity to go it alone. Dick’s capacity to move with or without popular support had built the department. His failure however to extricate himself from the emotional binds of the less emotionally mature leaders in the district had caused him to retreat from this position of leading to a defensive position that ultimately made him the victim of District “politics”. Dick despised the feeling of helplessness – he overcame it by reasserting his willingness to engage people.
The ability to recognize and extricate oneself from emotional binds. When Dick began to re-engage his team he had to face the reality that his retreat from relationships to isolation in his office had only complicated the emotional binds of the less emotionally mature. The more he retreated the more his employees turned to grievances and work slowdowns to express their malcontent.
Recognition of the folly of trying to will others to change. Oddly enough the director resisted strong-arm tactics to change his style while simultaneously trying to force others to change. He faced two points of resistance: (1) the intransigent and emotionally regressive who needed to be reminded to take responsibility for their own well-being and destiny and (2) those who were attempting to “will” the director to change by amplifying grievances and work slowdowns. The fact is that when change (or crisis) is “…viewed in terms of proportional or systems thinking and not straight line, linear thinking, then outcomes other than mere capitulation or escape become possible….mobilization of an organism’s resources such as resiliency, determination, self-regulation, and stamina.”[2]
The modifying potential of a non-anxious presence. The department under the Director’s insistence on capitulation by the union had become reactive i.e., attempts to squelch or side step union activity resulted in a greater degree of intransigent resistance on the part of the union and attempts by potential leaders to escape the conflict by blending into the environment as though they could exist unseen by the reactive parties. When the director changed his approach by exercising awareness and thankfulness it altered his anxiety and de-escalated the reactive anxiety of the employees. Conversations began to look at the larger issues faced by the department and new contributors emerged from the shadows with new solutions.
The ratifying power of endurance in crisis. Tim demonstrated endurance in the process. He stayed by the Director’s side providing honest feedback and creative perspectives and remained engaged with the employees refusing to allow them to capitulate their part of making the department a success. His endurance encouraged participation and the possibility of change in the minds of the employees.
The self-regulation necessary for dealing with reactive sabotage. As the department began to make a shift toward change some saw change a more threatening potential than the undercurrent of reactive conflict that had been the norm. Dick’s new found fortitude helped him engage the transparent conversations needed to lay out the opportunity and the result of not taking the opportunity. He began to see that the union agreements restricted more than his behavior, it outlined expectations on the employees. Not everyone exercised self-regulation. A couple of the employees requested transfers to other departments because they resented the new more positive environment and higher degree of personal responsibility. Dick and Tim transferred employees who failed to assume personal responsibility. Each transfer reduced the number of sabotaged union negotiations and project deadlines. Sabotage follows effective leaders.
The factors in the leader’s own being that cause him or her stress. In the private conversations Dick talked about the collapse of his marriage and his health and his faith. He wanted to find a way to renew his faith and health…his marriage had ended in a rather nasty divorce. As he came to terms with the impact of his spiritual and physical health he saw how his own struggles had contributed to his poor leadership and the slow erosion of trust and integrity in the department. To the degree leaders exercise self-awareness about the factors that cause them stress they are effective in mitigating the stress of others. (See the comments on emotional intelligence in http://raywheeler.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/servant-leadership-and-corporate-social-responsibility/.)

[2] Friedman (2007)