The Debate

In Chapter 15 of Reading the Room, a structural dynamics analysis of Barack Obama, I identified the President as a Bystander in Open System Meaning. The downside of this profile (see chapters 2-5) is a tendency to internally follow and process information while simultaneously gearing up for a response (a strong move and oppose would be appropriate). Romney's strategy, a blast of words misrepresenting even his own position, overwhelmed Obama's strategy of presenting facts. The result was that he seems slow, detached, and ineffectual. All a consequence of an otherwise effective behavioral repertoire based on the above, sited, profile.

Raising the Bar for Leaders and their Coaches

1.    Introduction

 

     It is the very nature of the beast—leadership is a high-pressure position whose occupants are expected without rest to make decisions that affect the lives of constituents and the well being of the entities they oversee. That it is lonely at the top has become a cliché, and though the spoils, when they come, may be plentiful, it is well that more and more leaders are, like kings of yore, hiring executive coaches to advise them.

This brief paper is a snippet from a soon-to-be-published book, Reading the Room: Group Dynamics for Coaches and Leaders,[1] that attempts to put leadership in a new conceptual perspective — that of structural dynamics — that is firm in its belief that leaders who do not develop a model of their own are vulnerable to hidden forces originating both in personal histories and current environments. Unexamined and left to chance, these forces take leaders down paths that too often do serious damage. Having a practice model of his or her own is my answer to this leadership dilemma. Needed — and this is crucial — is a coach who herself is armed with a model for how to help leaders develop their models in the context of leading their management teams.

Four Developmental Stages

While helping the leader develop his practice model, his coach simultaneously guides him through four developmental stages.

Stage 1: Functional Awareness

       In the functional awareness stage the leader comes to understand how the structure and patterns of communication in all his relationships play out in key face-to-face relations (Structural Dynamics is a theory of face-to face-relationships), differently with each of his management team members and with his private partner and or spouse[2]

     Once a leader can recognize behavioral profiles in action[3] and can read them in himself and in the room where interactions take place, the coach can lead him to the origins of these behavioral patterns in himself. These are key stories gathered from childhood through young adulthood and determine his typical ways of interacting with others.

     Later in this stage, coaches round out leaders’ discovery of the self in action by helping leaders see their shadow behaviors, or, more dramatically, their dark sides. These, too, originate in stories, inconveniently and often destructively rising to the surface in high-stakes situations. The leader gains much in understanding what these are and where they come from.

   Stage 2: System Awareness

       Systems thinking relies on circular rather than linear ideas about cause and effect. No theory in my opinion has contributed more to our understanding of how organizations work. Many leaders have been exposed to it, but for the greater part have yet to grasp it to any meaningful degree. Repeatedly the coach will focus the leader on system awareness. For example, she might point out circularities at the heart of a controlling system. “What is it about your behavior that causes X, whom you can’t stand, to behave toward you in such a way that you can’t stand him?”

       A leader who fails to understand circularity in communication risks cutting off valuable feedback about goings on in the organization. Poor insight into systems may be at the root of why his or her most valuable close relationships fail. Without good systems-thinking skills, the leader may also not understand how the organization works and how its parts interact—how, for example, if people in marketing fail to communicate effectively with people in sales or product design, the product may ultimately sit on a shelf.

   Stage 3: Moral Awareness

       The moral dimension of leadership behavior has come to occupy a central place in structural dynamics theory.  This stage of the process aims at promoting moral awareness in leaders, meaning basically an awareness of the forces that tempt fundamentally good people to do basically bad things.

       Lawrence Kohlberg and others have begun calling attention to moral behavior and its corruption in leaders and their organizations.[4]  Business schools, the most prolific generator of leaders and decision makers, are adding moral behavior to their curricula. If the fall from grace of some of their best and brightest graduates is indicative, however, that curriculum has a long way to go.

     Stage 4: Responsible Self-Evolution

       Advocates of structural dynamics insist that leaders and their coaches make the demanding but rewarding effort to develop and continue to “build their models.” The advocates also hold their coach trainees to this same standard.

       The capacity for responsible self-evolution is my phrase for addressing the question, “When does the power to acquire skills and knowledge shift from others to the self?” In this stage, when leaders have achieved functional, systemic, and moral awareness, and have achieved an initial grasp of what I call communicative competency,[5] structural dynamics recommends that they take responsibility for developing a model of their own making; a leadership model that is uniquely theirs.

Four Steps in Model Development

Four things are essential for building one’s model:

1.     Knowing one’s personal model[6] is the first step. Your personal model is unveiled in the first stage, achieving functional awareness. It has a profound influence on what leaders do and say, and thus on any model they attempt to imitate or develop.

2.     Working with a coach with an articulated model of her own, and a model for helping leaders develop their own.

3.     A meta-model for developing any model in the realm of human systems.

4.     A pre-existing model context; here, Structural Dynamics’ Accelerating Team Performance.⁷ It provides a framework that anchors the leader’s effort to build his model from the ground up.

 A Model of Models

Model building may sound dauntingly abstract. Where does one begin? How does one sort through the plethora of models that have bombarded the marketplace of ideas on leadership. To think about what to look for as you unearth and organize your model, it is useful to have an organizing set of theories (or requirements) that I call a meta-model. The meta-model, (or “model of models”) is a framework that defines the aspects of a fully formed and robust model. Within it we can organize and interrelate the pieces of our models. Any social meta-model needs to propose three kinds of theories: theories of the thing, of change, and of practice.

A Theory of the Thing

       A theory of the thing describes the entity on which your model focuses:

§  What is it? For example, Reading the Room presents a systems-oriented theory and examines the skill of leadership.

§  What are the underpinnings of that skill? Reading the Room singles out communicative skill, beginning with communication in face-to-face relations.

§  What assumptions does the thing (in this case, leadership) depend on? One assumption is that leadership often entails leading high-performing teams; such teams identify a second thing in SD’s model.

§  What skills are required of a high-performing team? In a high-performing team, each member acquires communicative competency, an understanding of the structure of successful and unsuccessful communication and how they contribute to each.

A Theory of Change

     The theory of change describes how to bring about change for that thing on which your model focuses. It describes the nature of change and how change happens within or for that entity.

§  What are the prerequisites of change (in our case, the changing of a person to become a better leader, or a team to function with maximal effectiveness)?

§  How does change happen? What brings it about?

§  How does context—time, place and person—affect change?

§  Does change occur the same way in an intimate human system versus a larger, more impersonal one?

For the thing called leadership:

§  If leadership’s goal is optimal personal and team performance, what is the baseline (in our model, low-stakes behavioral propensities) and what is the standard (for us, communicative competency in both low and high stakes) at the other end?

§  Through what stages do leaders and their teams evolve?

A Theory of Practice

          

     A theory of practice fully articulates the conceptual underpinnings of what the practitioner does on the ground, based on his understanding of the thing and its theory of change.  [Note: Your theory of practice should not be confused with your practice model. The latter is what the practitioner does in the room. It is circularly derived from interaction with our meta-model’s three component parts.]

§  What is the conceptual language system behind the practice (in our case, structural dynamics) model?

§  How do the methods, techniques and tools used in your practice model reconcile with your theory of practice?

§  What is the theoretical rationale behind a practice model designed to occur in distinct stages (three, in our case)?

§  Is the theory behind the practice consistent with the goals of the practice?

Building Your Own From Pre-Existing Models

Structural dynamics posits three phases to building a model—imitation, constraint, and autonomy. In seeming contradiction to the first phase just cited, SD contends that it is not possible to imitate another’s model, not for long anyway. Our personal models and other “constraints” see to that. Still, it asks leaders and coaches who undertake model development, to begin with two of its own models—one on leadership, and the other on how to lead teams. Models get built, according to Structural Dynamics, by constraining and being constrained by existing models such as these.

The Bar Raised High

It must be evident that this brief paper has a rhetorical message. It insists that leaders and those who coach them must undertake the lengthy, demanding, but rewarding journey through our three phases of model building if the quality of leadership is to be raised. Building a model includes articulating it, making it public, and responding to constraints by those who challenge its premises. This not only raises high the bar on leadership, it brings transparency and accountability to a new level.   

---

[1] Reading the Room: Group Dynamics for Coaches and Leaders is scheduled for release in April by Jossey-Bass, an imprint of John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 

[2] SD theory alleges that leaders have real lives that affect their work behaviors and vice versa, and that love and intimacy play a role in leader behavior.

[3] An assessment instrument, the Behavioral Propensities Profile, measures the leader’s characteristic behaviors, including how different profiles interact and often clash. See www.kantorinstitute.com for details.

[4] Kohlberg, Lawrence (1981). Essays on Moral Development, Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

[5] Communicative competency refers to the ability to read dysfunctional communication structures in the room and to make the appropriate vocal action oneself or to call upon another whose profile and repertoire more appropriately fill the gap.

[6] Your personal model is a systematic framework for how you experience, interpret, and act on events, in particular, the verbal communication structures you encounter in closely held, two or more person groups. Part One of Reading the Room is devoted to explicating how one’s personal model manifests itself in low-stakes situations; and Part Two how these propensities play out when the stakes are raised. It recommends that leaders, all team members, and the leader’s coach all take the assessment instrument, the Behavioral Propensities Profile.

⁷ See Reading the Room, Chapter 12, page 302.

A Model of Models

Model building may sound dauntingly abstract. Where does one begin? How does one sort through the plethora of models that have bombarded the marketplace of ideas on leadership. To think about what to look for as you unearth and organize your model, it is useful to have an organizing set of theories (or requirements) that I call a meta-model. The meta-model, (or “model of models”) is a framework that defines the aspects of a fully formed and robust model. Within it we can organize and interrelate the pieces of our models. Any social meta-model needs to propose three kinds of theories: theories of the thing, of change, and of practice.

A Theory of the Thing

       A theory of the thing describes the entity on which your model focuses:

§  What is it? For example, Reading the Room presents a systems-oriented theory and examines the skill of leadership.

§  What are the underpinnings of that skill? Reading the Room singles out communicative skill, beginning with communication in face-to-face relations.

§  What assumptions does the thing (in this case, leadership) depend on? One assumption is that leadership often entails leading high-performing teams; such teams identify a second thing in SD’s model.

§  What skills are required of a high-performing team? In a high-performing team, each member acquires communicative competency, an understanding of the structure of successful and unsuccessful communication and how they contribute to each.

A Theory of Change

     The theory of change describes how to bring about change for that thing on which your model focuses. It describes the nature of change and how change happens within or for that entity.

§  What are the prerequisites of change (in our case, the changing of a person to become a better leader, or a team to function with maximal effectiveness)?

§  How does change happen? What brings it about?

§  How does context—time, place and person—affect change?

§  Does change occur the same way in an intimate human system versus a larger, more impersonal one?

For the thing called leadership:

§  If leadership’s goal is optimal personal and team performance, what is the baseline (in our model, low-stakes behavioral propensities) and what is the standard (for us, communicative competency in both low and high stakes) at the other end?

§  Through what stages do leaders and their teams evolve?

A Theory of Practice

          

     A theory of practice fully articulates the conceptual underpinnings of what the practitioner does on the ground, based on his understanding of the thing and its theory of change.  [Note: Your theory of practice should not be confused with your practice model. The latter is what the practitioner does in the room. It is circularly derived from interaction with our meta-model’s three component parts.]

§  What is the conceptual language system behind the practice (in our case, structural dynamics) model?

§  How do the methods, techniques and tools used in your practice model reconcile with your theory of practice?

§  What is the theoretical rationale behind a practice model designed to occur in distinct stages (three, in our case)?

§  Is the theory behind the practice consistent with the goals of the practice?

Reading this article (Doctor Panels Urge Fewer Tests for Patients), two Structural Dynamics concepts immediately come to mind—Moral Decision-Making and effective Cross-Model Conversation (see below).  The article recommending that “doctors curb the use of 45 common and often unnecessary medical tests and procedures” is encouraging since most previous attempts to rein in unnecessary care have faltered for the obvious reason: a loss of income.  Doctors asking other doctors within their ranks to sacrifice material gain is all but astonishing.  Arguably, to achieve these recommendations, members of the panel must have engaged in cross-model conversation, one—perhaps the best—means for resolving differences.


(Moral Decision-Making At the core of leadership is the act of making decisions.  All decisions have a moral component, but moral decision-making is a special class of decision making, for at its core is a moral action.  We define moral action as a willingness to sacrifice something—money, place or advantage—in order to do the right thing.  Most moral decisions result in a winner and a loser.  In Moral Decision-Making there is compassion for the other, and a willingness to set aside self-interest to a larger cause.

Cross-model conversation is a very specific process for dialogue, grounded in the idea that the difference between the ways two people view the world is not a problem if they have a way to constructively explore these differences. Cross-model conversation is a two-way reflective conversation dominated by sincere inquiry into how the other views the world. It aims at deepening the discourse by offering the other an opportunity to substantiate or supplement his or her model and by doing the same with one’s own. Two principles underlie the process: 1) that difference is a key source of learning about ourselves and our models, and 2) that it is pointless to assert that one model is “better” than another. Every model has its limits, which we must face in order to be able to grow. The only “bad” model is one that does not recognize its own limits, wrongly assumes it is complete, and presumes itself better than other models.

A complete Glossary of Terms will be available coming soon.)

Where to From Here?

I've been away for many months. My book, Reading the Room (RTR), is scheduled for release late April/early May. For now I am putting aside the Obama Chronicles, but may return to it after the book's publication. It contains an entire chapter dedicated to applying Structural Dynamics theory to Obama in his first term. I am hoping it will attract enough attention for me to resume comments, particularly as the presidential campaign heats up. In the meantime, I will devote my blogs to other subjects that are highlighted in Reading the Room as these apply to other significant events appearing in the news.

The Obama Chronicles

The last chapter of my soon-to-be published book, Reading the Room, applies its theory, Structural Dynamics, in an analysis of President Barack Obama’s behavioral profile. These chronicles will, from a Structural Dynamics (systems) point of view, comment on the dilemmas Obama faces as he seeks reelection and the decisions he makes in the period leading up to the election and beyond.

A June 2nd article in the New York Times, Employment Data May Be the Key to the President's Job, begins “No American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2%”. Today, roughly 9% of Americans who want to work are unemployed. The chances of reducing this rate to the article’s alleged threshold are dim if not grim. A second article in the Times of this same day, A Way Through the Debt Mess , describes how Lyndon Johnson faced the problem of how to raise the debt ceiling while also raising taxes. Obama faces the same debt dilemma, which is linked to unemployment. Johnson’s tactics offer important lessons.

In systems terms, Johnson, a master politician and tactician, looked for pressure points, what we would call leverage points, to move a stuck system. When a system is stuck, Structural Dynamics says, it is sometimes necessary to perturb it. The idea is that when a stuck system is “blown up”, so to speak, and the dust settles, it will have changed. Such tactics do not come natural to Obama. Let us say that, with reelection at stake, he has no choice and must consider imitating Johnson’s famous ability to twist arms in order to get his way.

Two Testy Questions

I’m back doing this blog after a lapse of just over a year. What follows is a departure from the venue I’d established, as you will see. I’m doing a book which threatens to cross a couple of boundaries, and I’m seeking reactions. The book, Reading the Room, redefines what leadership is all about. In it, I raise some issues that are a challenge to the publisher and probably to some readers as well. In the first, I take the position that those I call behavioral consultants (those who deal with the behavioral rather than the strategic side of consulting) should, with proper training, be free to elicit from leaders what I call their Childhood Stories of Imperfect Love. Some would say that I’m crossing the boundary into the territory occupied by therapists. I take this position because (a) these stories are already in the room when the stakes are raised for leaders, and (b) that many behavioral consultants are already entering this territory behind closed doors but not advertising that they are doing so.

The second issue is just as tender, and could arouse objection. I am recommending that leaders be required to develop and articulate their own leadership model. It occurs to me that lawyers must pass the bar, surgeons go to medical school for an MD and more schooling for a specialty—why, then, should leaders not do something similar? Why not, to be a little facetious, require them to get a “PhD in Leading”? In any case, why should they not develop a model which gets tested in action, rather than simply setting them free after they complete a stint in business school, which may offer courses in leadership, but does not prepare leaders for what they do in the real world.

I would be interested in thoughts about these two issues.