Leadership Effectiveness #1

[samvara]

Moved from Wednesday (Australia Day) to Friday for the first class and thence back to Wednesday - holy crap it's hot today - made more exciting by being pre-cyclone weather *eyes Cyclone Bianca cautiously* I made it through most of the readings but slowed to a crawl on the last one.

I liked A new sciences outline for leadership development by Matthew R. Fairholm. The idea that we can view leadership through the lens of advancements in science makes me happy and I get stupidly excited when people bring up fractals - I think they were experimenting with those Mandelbrot screen savers when I was at a vulnerable age. Also: Go watch Nature by Numbers because it is beautiful.

The main ideas can be summarised in this handy table below; the bit I resonated with the most was Autopoiesis (a new word for me) as this is something I strongly desire in my environments and try to create it where I can. It also made me think about the OTW, about how AD&T has changed since 2007 and about how we paradoxically want strong leaders to make the decisions but also want to be able to make those decisions ourselves.... more thinking to come ;)

Leadership principles	Leadership technologies
Autopoiesis: information, interaction and issues of trust Organizations (as open systems) have the ability to self-organize if the proper context is preserved	Allowing a free flow of information, Designing feedback loops, Maintaining a relationship focus, Instilling and encouraging trust
Paradox: confidence amid uncertainty and ambiguity Uncertainty and ambiguity are a part of organizational life	“Getting on the balcony,” Fostering creative destruction, Seeing all change as people change
Fields and attractors: the place and purpose of vision and values Organizations and the people within them cluster around inherent structural forces	Emphasizing values, Listening to and watching values Vision-setting, Teaching and coaching
Fractals: the power of simple patterns The new sciences reveal that simple principles and patterns may create complex structures through random (non-controlled), autonomous action	Focusing on small and simple things, Encouraging autonomous structures, Recognizing that qualitative concerns matter most, Developing stewardship and delegation, "Counciling-with" others

I was less enthused by Why should anyone be led by you by Robert Goffee and Gareth Jones - less because I felt what they were saying was wrong and more because it didn't feel very new. Apparently inspirational leaders share four 'unexpected' qualities. I'd copy them in here but the PDF is 'secured' and I'm lazy. One thing that did jump out at me was 'selectively show their weaknesses.' It reminds me of a conversation a while back about asking for help while in a leadership role - it seems to me that showing vulnerability as a leader can be a good thing in that you are giving other people permission to show vulnerability as well. This is not only useful - people can ask for help, show (and then correct) ignorance etc, thus creating a more supportive and collaborative culture, but it means the leader doesn't have to half kill themselves trying to be superhuman.

The final reading; Creating leaderful organizations: how to bring out leadership in everyone by Joseph A. Raelin proposed a model of leadership where Leadership is fundamentally concerned with…

• Setting the mission or direction of a community
• The need to actualise specific goals and tasks towards that mission/direction
• Sustaining the commitment and cohesiveness of the community, and
• Balancing the cohesion of the community with it’s ability to respond to change

..and then went on to contrast the 'old' style of leadership (back when Men were Men and Women were GRATEFUL) with a 'new' style of leaderful community where leadership is performed by everyone.

Traditional leadership is:	While LEADERFUL is:
Serial	Concurrent
Individual	Collective
Controlling	Collaborative
Dispassionate	Compassionate

I feel like I see the latter style far more in volunteer organisations and I can also chart the style gradually changing in how AD&T was run from 2008 to now from something more closely resembling the former. I think it was a lot more traditional when it was a small(ish) band of passionate visionaries but that the style shifted heavily towards a more collective and collaborative approach as we developed a more compassionate style and people's confidence and trust came up.

I feel that this happens a lot with fannish projects - the individual(s) do amazing, creative things then burn out and the project is not able to be sustained - is this just me or is it a common perception?

Then we ran away... which in my case meant coming home to massive amounts of Ethiopian take-way. Yum!

Comments

[sara]

I dunno about fannish projects, but it happens CONSTANTLY in nonprofits.

This is part of why a lot of what I am doing right now at Day Job is saying look, guys, you are going to design the project and prepare to implement it. I will do the grant management and bring the cookies to meetings and so forth, but you will be moving things along. Because when all your projects fall down every time you have a staff change, your organization has a problem....

[samvara]

Hee, being organised, bring it on! From your posts it sounds like you're pushing for some pretty major (and important) cultural changes. Would you say the leadership style is one visionary carrying the load followed by said leader falling over in exhaustion?

My experience of working with non profits doesn't always reflect this - it also occurs to me that the WA Rogaining Association has Warren who is an acknowledged genius in the art of coordinating volunteers and in job design. WARA is very good at giving you bounded tasks that won't kill you or your happiness. This makes me think that maybe some of the more established organisations have learned that not burning out your people is critical. Then again, I don't know how/whether WARA would sustain its behaviour sans Warren.

So far my shortest definition of 'leader' is someone who carries and transmit the vision.

[sara]

I'm pushing for major cultural changes, but the biggest change I'm pushing for is getting away from the "a leader of great vision will emerge and lead us out of the wilderness," and toward a "we have the capability to collectively determine what our vision is and which way we should be walking" model.

I would say that my idea of leadership is to get the group to tell me what the vision is so I can help facilitate its implementation. Because as I've said at a lot of meetings, any time someone gets up in front of a room full of people and starts rattling on about their grand vision, what they're usually seeing is their own ego.

[samvara]

We used to joke about waiting for the messiah at one of my old jobs - I'm wondering where the person who pushes for decisions and makes things happen fits in this model. It often isn't the person who brought the 'vision' but I find it's an absolutely critical role.

In my observations though volunteering with the OTW, it was absolutely astolat who initially proposed the project and who the project coalesced around. In terms of creating and communicating the vision she was incandescent. I think it was very much a vision the community shared and that was why it was so powerful - it wasn't imposed and it wasn't just hers, we all wanted it.

So yeah, I am 100% with you on the group needing to define its vision so that it can then be implemented.

[sara]

I've been impressed, too, that she's managed to do things like rotate other people in and out of the board and comms there. One of the problems one of my nonprofits had to deal with was a fairly extreme case of "founder's syndrome," which if they haven't covered yet in your program they should -- it's when the vision-person needs to step back (or retire) and they can't or won't.

[samvara]

Yeah, having enough people to rotate in is essential - we worked hard in the AD&T committee to be able to change Chair and the various leads at least on an annual basis otherwise we'd all have burned out.

*grins* I hadn't thought of that but yeah, being able to let go at the right time is a valuable skill and encouraging someone to would be difficult.

[transcendancing]

Waaaaah your poll doesn't think I have permission to fill it out!

Though I can easily answer here in that yes with the phoenix, yes with the identifying as fannish and yes for the ticky (ticky!).

[samvara]

meep

It's set to be available to ALL - try again?

[transcendancing]

Still erroring, still indicates a permission issue :(

I can't add to your stats! How will you know I love you? :P

[samvara]

WELL CLEARLY, you don't love me ENOUGH.

*weeps*

[transcendancing]

I know!!! The poll knows the truth of things *sobs* My love... it can be defeated by random computer errors!

[samvara]

Humans (0) Machines (1)

This is so wrong :(

[transcendancing]

Indeed!!!

[samvara]

Poll was dead to me too, have re-made it - can you use this one?

[transcendancing]

We shall see!

[transcendancing]

Still erroring :(

[samvara]

Same, I give up :(

[transcendancing]

I love you!

[samvara]

I know :)

*snuggles*

[transcendancing]

*snuggles*

[enigel]

I came back to see if maybe I had better luck with poll today, and now it's gone! But at least I know it wasn't persecuting me. *g*

[samvara]

Could not get it to let people use it :(

Darn, I adore stats.