The SPIRAL
DYNAMICS® Leadership Program
Humans have been struggling to understand leadership - the
interpersonal dynamics that cause one person's behavior to influence
the perceptions and behaviors of others - throughout the history of
our species. There are many 'schools' of leadership, and almost all
have contributed new insights about how Homo sapiens works.
Books and conferences about the topic are endless. Leadership training
is big business. What NVCC can contribute is an organizing principle for
the various approaches because there are congruent forms of leadership
at each level on the spiral.
In our view, leadership is about interpersonal relations - whether
in management, education, psychology, coaching, business, governance,
or some other aspect of human affairs. Leadership studies seek to
explain the interpersonal forces at work in a leader:follower
relationship. Leadership of groups is a collection of one-to-one
interactions with a common purpose, an intention which might be
apparent or not, agreed or not. This influence occurs, both directly
and indirectly, in particular ways in different vMeme systems. Whether
dominated by sacrificial (communal) or expressive (individualistic)
systems is a major factor. Aiming leadership at the wrong systems
family, much less the wrong vMeme, is why leadership efforts sometimes
fall flat; focusing in like a laser beam at the right place helps them
to succeed. Sometimes the alignment comes 'naturally' and easily, and
sometimes it is a forced fit that requires a lot of effort. Since both
the leader and the follower are meeting needs, and the biopsychosocial
systems at work are indicative of those needs, accurate recognition of
both levels and the needs in their particular expressions is another
chunk that application of SD can flesh out greatly.
Basically, effective leadership is about congruence of both purpose
and coping systems. There is no such thing as a universal leader or
follower 'type,' nor are there traits of 'the leader.' In some
systems, the line between leader and follower is sharp; in others, it
is very fuzzy. Sometimes the roles reverse as situations change, and
sometimes leadership must be no more than subtle facilitation lest to
much authority trigger a backlash. Primitive efforts to describe
leadership are like slivers from a spectrum - prescriptive catalogs of
traits and behaviors that fit a narrow range. More sophisticated
approaches factor in context and interpersonal skills, adding some
flexibility. But few reflect the whole range of possibilities that
shining the light of leadership through a Gravesian prism does. Most
leadership models are niche-specific or else so general as to be
impossible to apply concretely. Laying a good understanding of the
spiral over them adds finesse and specificity.
Leadership can be transitory. Existential problems (life
conditions) might change, thereby taking a leader:follower
relationship out of alignment. Sometimes one or both can realign to
restore fit, sometimes not. And neuronal systems (mind capacities)
might change, causing perceptions of circumstances and other people to
be altered. In either case, what once was harmonious goes out of tune.
Sometimes restoring balance requires a change of either the leadership
or the followership, maybe both. Sometimes, a reframe of the
conditions or an adjustment of the style is enough to get a fresh
start. Leaders and followers come into alignment - and fall out of it
- because of situations outside and capacities inside. This is driven
by the double-helix forces in change.
The simplest formula is to build a leadership system that operates
1/2 system ahead of people to be led if they are open or somewhat
arrested. Build one that matches their level if they are largely
closed. Providing leadership from a half step ahead demonstrates
somewhat greater complexity without over-stretching, and allows for
growth. Matching provides stability in a status quo with minimal
threat when growth is unlikely. Operate with a style from too far
ahead and people don't know what the leader is talking about; operate
behind the curve and the followers ask what use the leadership is,
anyway. To do this, you must be able to differentiate among the
sub-systems with precision and know principles for dealing with people
thusly centralized.
The Design Question structures an analysis of appropriate
leadership. This deceptively simple question is: "How should who
lead whom to do what when? And why?" If you can provide a full
answer to this question, you're closing in on what
"leadership" needs to be.
How should... survey the tools, methodologies, means and
styles to see what's realistic and available; determine that the How
will fit the whom and is doable by the who; sort out
the options that are available, accessible, and practical. Expanding
this area might require training, hiring, or rearranging personnel
so the requisite competencies are in the right spots. Leadership is
an interpersonal relationship; ask if a good match in the
leader:follower dynamic is feasible.
who... profile potential leaders and assess their own
needs, as well as competencies to use necessary and congruent tools;
is there openness to deal with the whom? Personality and
temperament factors? The
leader must have the capacity to both understand the needs of the
follower and also to think a bit ahead, especially if the group to
be led is open, capable, and interested in growth. The who
might be considerably more complex in thinking and conceptual
capacities, but must be capable of building a system which fits the
follower:leader interaction at hand. Ideally, s/he (or they) can prepare
for change.
lead... differentiate the range of leader:follower
relationship styles to see which is most congruent; leadership means different
things at different levels; refine and align the form. There are so
many philosophies of leadership and useful models that it impossible
to sort for the right one, though determining a range of best fit is
a good use for SD. The skill lies in finding an approach which is
congruent with the people, work, and situation. It also means that
leadership1 is not leadership2 is not leadership3. Use the spiral to
sort out what "leadership" means in the particular context.
whom... profile the potential followers, those to be
influenced and led, to spot their needs and drives; what is/are
their worldview(s)? dominant coping systems? expectations? What are
they looking for from 'leaders?' What are their coping strategies?
What are their likely hot and cold buttons? This is
where all sorts of temperament and personality assessments are
appropriate so as to get the clearest picture of those to be led (or
managed or taught or coached, etc.). The more accurate the picture
of the client, the more likely a good frame to surround leadership.
to do what… look at the complexity of the work, the
thinking required, and milieu in which it exists; is the apparent
task the real purpose? Different tasks and functions require
different levels of thinking on the spiral. Ask the level of
cognitive complexity required, the interpersonal and technical
competencies, and the requisite capacities to deal with the demands
imposed by the work. Ask who might do it naturally, who might do it
with great effort, who might enjoy it, and who would find it punishing.
when? review the context and time initiatives to fit
lifecycle stages and align with change states and transitions.
Organizations are born, get excited, reach maturity, and fade away.
Societies and governance models do the same. Assess the lifecycle phase of the organization and what its energy is, then
adopt a leader:follower approach that fits with an eye to change,
either in process or pending.
Why? clarify strategy and intent, and ensure that what is
being done is worth doing; ask what business are we really
in? Before engaging in any kind of initiative to work on leadership,
organization design, strategic planning, or management development,
it's crucial to make certain that the objective is clear and that it
is broadly understood. Otherwise, vast energy and resources can be
squandered in generating 'noise' that ultimately neutralizes itself,
fragments, and goes nowhere. If it's not possible to answer
"Why are we doing this?" without thinking about it, job
one might well be to figure that out.
Given this process, how might you apply the Spiral model to leadership? After
asking the Design Question and fleshing out all of its parts, do some
spiral analysis and apply the models expanded on in training by:
Differentiating - needs of potential followers and aspiring
leaders
Building congruence - in systems and styles so leader:follower
(L:F) align
Interrupt that alignment if you want to
create dissonance as a change condition
Reinforce alignment if you want stability
Profiling - present state, desired state (if different), states
of change, and the most
likely and useful direction of change
Assessing life conditions in the milieu and mind capacities in
the people in which the L:F
relationship exists
Anticipating trends in people, markets, disciplines, and
societies as whole ecological
systems
Aligning leadership-followership relations to fit a context and
the vMemes operating in it now
and next
Knowing when to “lead”, when to “follow”, when to
"facilitate," and when to do nothing
"Organizations which keep managing in the ways which made
them successful in the first place are in danger of collapse"
- Dr. Clare Graves
Because conditions change
Because people change
Because markets change
Because societies change
Because ecological systems change
Because human nature changes.
For a discussion of our training, visit http://www.spiraldynamics.org/sd_in_action_leadership.htm
|