New ways of thinking for the complex world

THE WICKED PROBLEM OF LEADING IN A COMPLEX WORLD FUTURE THINKING FOR NEW ZEALAND

ANN BRAITHWAITE

TURQUOISENZ

CONTENTS About the project .......................................................................................................... 3 Executive summary ....................................................................................................... 4 Nothing stands still ........................................................................................................ 6 Leadership is critical to New Zealand’s prosperity ..................................................... 10 Today’s approaches are necessary but not enough ................................................... 12 There is no silver bullet ............................................................................................... 15 Experiment and refine ................................................................................................. 20 Challenging the status quo ......................................................................................... 30 Final thoughts ............................................................................................................. 32 References .................................................................................................................. 33 About the author ......................................................................................................... 34

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

1

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

2

About the project ‘At their heart, Challengers find ways of addressing the question Does it have to be like this?’

Dehnugara and Breeze1. It’s a question many in leadership development have been pondering.

In 2010, Nick Petrie proposed that future breakthroughs in leadership development will be discovered in a ‘drunken-man stumble’ on a messy path of innovation2. This project, in partnership with Inspire Group, is about joining Nick, and other Challengers, on that path in the hopes that together we can

take a further step along its winding course.

Over the last 6 months we have interviewed academics, HR and OD specialists, and (of course) those in business who daily live the challenge of leading.

Thanks all for your time, thinking and restlessness with the status quo.

With the personal, corporate, societal, and environmental tests ahead of us we need many more Challengers in our society, of that I am sure.

Tim Smit Co-founder & CEO Eden

3

Executive summary A paradigm shift in our understanding and practices of leadership is required to meet 21st Century challenges.3 S M Martinez US Army War College

You’ve heard it before - the world is changing at a pace never before seen. Today, the seemingly permanent is disappearing at an alarming rate leaving behind it a wake of confusion accompanied by a clamour to go faster, do less with more, bring order to the chaos, return profit to the shareholder and keep the Minister happy. The pace and degree of change, and the complexity and interdependence of challenges faced in 21st Century New Zealand, has thrown up a shortfall in our leaders’ ability to manage them.

This led us to ask what was needed to develop leaders and leadership today for tomorrow.

Instead of looking offshore for the latest international study, we decided it was time to draw on the collective wisdom of those here in New Zealand who are as passionate about this work as we are, and find out what was needed for leading in our unique and complex world. Inspired by various international and local studies, not least of which Nick Petrie’s Future Trends of Leadership

Development, we asked four simple questions4.

• What are the current approaches being used that you think are most effective?

• What do you think we should be doing more of in terms of developing leaders?

• What should we be doing less of, stop doing or phase out?

• Where do you see the future of leadership development heading?

From these we it was clear there was a restlessness with the status quo.

Collectively there was an appetite to challenge and extend leaders, and develop leadership in new ways better suited to the dynamics of today’s world. What was less clear was how to go about it.

III.

IV.

V.

interactions have increased creating more unpredictable variation.

Intractable (wicked) problems are no longer the exception – leaders are routinely faced with problems to which there is no known solution or correct answer.

Social complexity is increasing – exposing greater fragmentation in understanding and ownership of, and possible solutions to, problems.

Paradox is the norm – a world of contradicting co-existing states must be managed.

LEADERSHIP IS CRITICAL TO NEW ZEALAND’S PROSPERITY

NOTHING STANDS STILL

For us leadership effectiveness is not a nice to have ideal. It is an economic imperative. We have one of the lowest rates of productivity growth in the developed world and work harder and earn less than most other people in the developed world. Ineffective leadership has a significant part to play. The statistics are sobering.

We believe there are five key underlying conditions to which greater attention must be paid if leadership practice is to successfully

• NZ firms are ranked 14th of 17 OECD countries in effective people management (2011).

To that end, we offer this paper as a contribution toward challenging the status quo and to provide a stepping off point for those who are inspired by and ready to experiment with new approaches.

negotiate the challenges of the 21st Century.

I. Boundaries are more permeable – the pace, nature, scale and reach of influencing factors is greater than ever before.

II. System dynamics are in continuous flux – interdependence and

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

• NZ organisations are typified by cultures that promote aggressive and passive behavior concurrently.

• Only 23% of New Zealanders are engaged in their work.

• Only 19% of our leaders are.

4

If for no other reason than our continued prosperity as a country, new approaches to developing leadership must be found.

TODAY’S APPROACHES ARE NECESSARY BUT NOT ENOUGH We have found that while today’s approaches will remain necessary and important to progressing leaders through the various stages of development, these alone will not be sufficient to close the gap in capability. Individual leaders require new paradigms and ways of thinking in order to reconcile and apply multiple diverse mental frameworks so they can respond and adapt to complex contexts. In addition, because leadership emerges from complex systems of human interactions, more attention to working with systems to stimulate the emergence of leadership events is needed. Finally, the prevalent confounding practices, which undermine development efforts, must be mitigated in order for future efforts to flourish.

THERE ARE NO SILVER BULLETS

Developing leaders and stimulating leadership is a complex matter and by definition, complex matters have no best practice or correct answers.

No silver bullets. However, greater attention to individual and system factors can inform development efforts and increase the favourable odds.

For individual development the following areas warrant particular attention: • Conditions for cognitive development – todays prevailing complex conditions are ideal.

• Identity – which is fundamental to how we think, relate and behave.

• Sensemaking – developing increased ability to respond to recognized and ambiguous situations by adopting more and differing sensemaking frames.

From a system perspective, three aspects of interactions should inform development work: • Leadership is a group process – leaders are relationally conferred.

CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO While we know there are no sure-fire, single answers to developing leaders or stimulating leadership because of its complex nature and very indefinability, we wondered if it was possible to draw out a framework compatible with traditional approaches and at the same time with the complexity of a networked, dynamic and interdependent world. It was.

We pose 8 questions to ask of any development programme that we believe will increase the likelihood of developing leaders and stimulating leadership that goes beyond conventional thinking.

• Network position – has impacts on the individual, and the individual has impacts on the network.

• Emergent leadership - arises from system interactions.

EXPERIMENT AND REFINE Working with complex systems requires experimentation, reflection and refinement. We present a sample of techniques and approaches we have found useful. Each of these has been deliberately designed and developed to work with the individual and system conditions and dynamics discussed here.

5

Nothing stands still Of you suffer it is not because things are impermanent. It is because you believe things are permanent.

Thich Nhat Hanh Bhuddist Monk

When the seasons change, or the wind shifts direction, we accept these things do not last, make adjustments and continue on with relative ease.

However when our jobs change, the economy nose-dives, new technologies impose themselves upon us, and we lose our comfortable routines, we act as if these things were permanent, and we experience a level of distress as we try and adjust to the change.

We hold expectations that certain things will and should remain the same. That certain ways of operating are best, that how we organize and manage work is the appropriate way to do so, that our models, tools and ways of thinking are the right ones to address the challenges we face.

And yet, the world around us fails to conform to these expectations. In fact, it often throws them back in our face and marches on relentlessly changing around us, the seemingly permanent disappearing at an alarming rate leaving a void of confusion underpinned by an ever increasing clamour to go faster, do

less with more, bring order to the became increasingly easy for us to chaos, return profit to the shareholder traverse the globe physically, and and keep the Minister happy. virtually, so that today the boundaries between nations, communities, This is the world all too well known organisations and individuals have by the leaders in the organisations we been, and continue to be, radically interviewed. For these organisations altered from what they once were. the pace and degree of change, the New Zealand has a proud history as complexity and interdependence of part of this globalization from Kupe challenges faced, and the growing and Cook through to those who have gap between these and their leaders’ shaped technology, science and all ability to manage them was a manner of disciplines around the consistent theme. globe.

No surprises there you might say – we have been hearing that for some time and from many sources5. We agree. What we haven’t been hearing enough about however is the underlying conditions, and the implications these have for leaders, and leadership, in New Zealand.

We believe there are 5 key underlying conditions that must be better understood and to which greater attention must be paid if leadership practice is to successfully negotiate the challenges of the 21st Century.

I. II. III.

Boundaries are more permeable System dynamics are in continuous flux Intractable (wicked) problems are no longer the exception Social complexity is increasing Paradox is the norm

As boundaries became more permeable, and technology advanced, so too societal changes occurred. Each generation became more technologically able than, and concurrently challenged the norms, traditions, mindsets and social boundaries of their predecessors. It is the same today.

What is different now however is the pace at which this is occurring and the nature, scale and reach of influencing factors (ideas, information, technologies, perspectives) across these more permeable boundaries.

SYSTEM DYNAMICS ARE IN CONTINUOUS FLUX

As boundaries become more permeable, the interdependence of, and interactions within, the systems in which we find ourselves increases BOUNDARIES ARE MORE and become more subject to PERMEABLE unpredictable variation. Added to From the moment isolated tribes of humans first encountered each other, this, the rate of knowledge globalization has been with us, slowly processing and creation is occurring but steadily bringing the world closer at an unprecedented rate, paradoxically making the system together. As technology advanced it IV. V.

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

6

more ambiguous, incomplete, and indecipherable than ever before. We recognize this as a complex system where the dynamics are continuously in flux, where the structure of the system affects those people and things within it and they in turn affect the structure, and where small changes can produce disproportionately large effects.

The unpredictable dynamics of the system fail to respond as expected and solutions cannot be imposed – they must be encouraged to emerge. This is the world of intractable problems.

Why is this so important? It means that influences and influencers can potentially appear from anywhere at anytime and drastically alter a situation rendering it unrecognisable, irrelevant or simply more confused and uncertain than it may already have been. Anyone anywhere can emerge as a competitor, leader, expert or protagonist without formal authority, recognized credentials or traditionally defined power and still exert profound impact on the system6. Combined with the small world phenomenon of human (and many other) networks7, this means the rules of the game have changed.

While much of what organisations manage and lead will continue to include so called ordered (or linear) problems where cause and effect is clear, or knowable, and traditional management approaches will suffice, more and more CEOs are routinely faced with wicked problems8.

These are problems to which there is no obvious solution, hindsight fails to provide foresight, and best practice can turn out to be worst practice9.

INTRACTABLE (WICKED) PROBLEMS ARE NO LONGER THE EXCEPTION

Most of us spend our lives acting rationally in response to a world we recognise and understand ...but which no longer exists.

Eddie Obeng Pentacle

In Conklin’s characteristics of wicked problems we can see what our leaders are up against10: I.

We are in a new world where old ways of operating, while still relevant in part, are no longer enough. The power bases underpinning the system have shifted and our traditional business models and thinking, based around command and control, hierarchy and formal delegations, are unable to respond to what feels like guerilla warfare. The systems, enterprises, education, organisations, institutions and ways of leading of yesterday are insufficient for today, and will not serve us tomorrow.

The implications for leadership in a world of wicked problems are vast. It implies that new ways of organizing are required and entirely new ways of thinking too. Moreover, no longer are these conundrums the exceptional experience11. Indeed for a significant proportion of New Zealand’s senior leaders, these are in fact the norm, with more tractable problems being handled further down the organizational structure.

II. III. IV. V. VI.

You don’t understand the problem until you have developed a solution There is no stopping rule Solutions are not right or wrong Each is essentially unique and novel Every solution is a ‘one-shot operation’ There is no given alternative solution

You may need to read that twice. For more see Six characteristics of wicked problems p8.

SOCIAL COMPLEXITY IS INCREASING Tackling wicked problems is essentially a social process of making sense of the problem in order to address it (rather than defining to solve it) 12. When wicked problems meet increased social complexity, the potential of fragmentation between those trying to make sense of the problem, and at the same time trying to encourage solutions to emerge, is increased13. This is because social complexity brings greater diversity of perspectives, world views, frames of reference, beliefs and sense-making systems, 7

TURQUOISENZ

Six characteristics of wicked problems J Conklin: Dialogue Mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. 2005

You don’t understand the problem until you have developed a solution.

Every solution that is offered exposes new aspects of the problem, requiring further adjustments to the potential solutions. There is no definitive statement of ‘the problem’: these problems are ill-structured and feature an evolving set of interlocking issues and constraints.

There is a no stopping rule.

Each is essentially unique and novel.

No two wicked problems are alike, and the solutions to them will always be custom designed and fitted. Over time we can acquire wisdom and experience about the approach to wicked problems, but one is always a beginner in the specifics of a new wicked problem.

Every solution is a ‘one-shot operation’.

Since there is no definitive ‘the problem’, there is also no definitive ‘the solution’. The problem-solving process ends when you run out of resources such as time, money or energy, not when an optimal solution emerges.

Every attempt has consequences. This the ‘Catch 22’ of wicked problems: you can’t learn about the problem without trying solutions, but every solution is expensive and has lasting consequences that may spawn new wicked problems.

Solutions are not right or wrong.

There is no given alternative solution.

They are simply ‘better/worse’ or ‘good enough/not good enough’. The determination of solution quality is not objective and cannot be derived from following a formula.

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

A host of potential solutions may be developed but another host are never even thought of. Thus it is a matter of creativity to devise potential solutions, and a matter of judgement to determine which should be pursued and implemented.

8

TURQUOISENZ

so giving rise to varied realities as to what a particular problem actually is, who owns it and how to tackle it14.

Perversely, traditional approaches that initially appear helpful can end up hindering the process because they are not suited to complex issues15.

PARADOX IS THE NORM

The previous four conditions create a world of contradiction for leaders where incompatible co-existing states are the norm – this is the increasingly normal world of paradox.

Leaders are asked to solve problems when in reality what is required is the continuous In New Zealand diversity (in the management of incompatible alternative states, for example, widest sense of the word) is 16 increasing , intergenerational maintain organization stability and differences are purportedly becoming transform, minimize risk and more marked, and boundaries, innovate, control and empower18. geographic, social, knowledge (and so forth), are becoming more Our leaders need to be better permeable, compounding the equipped to navigate, adapt to and work with these underlying conditions challenges for leading in a world wicked problems17. in order to deal with relentless change, increased complexity and dynamic, interdependent challenges.

All this against a backdrop of

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

increased social complexity and shifting boundaries.

Or do they? Can’t we just muddle along as we are? Indeed, muddling along seems a reasonable strategy if there is no chance of predictability in a complex world. If the figures are to be believed, then the answer, in New Zealand at least, is a resounding no.

For us, leadership excellence is not an idealized nirvana – it is a necessary and urgent requirement if New Zealand is to prosper and grow.

9

TURQUOISENZ

Leadership is critical to New Zealand’s prosperity Despite leading the world in fundamental pre-requisites for prosperity, ‘New Zealanders work harder and earn less than most other people in the developed world’.19 From the New Zealand Productivity Commission we know that New Zealand has ‘slipped from one of the wealthiest countries in the 1950s to … around 26th in the OECD’ and has one of the lowest rates of productivity growth in the developed world20. In terms of competitiveness New Zealand ranks 25th in the world (in continual decline since 1997)21 and has a GDP per capita which now lags behind Australia by 35% 22.

Leadership is the top priority in developed and growing economies.

Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends 2014

Although multiple variables impact our prosperity, the impact of leadership and effective management is well recognized23. We know that skilled leaders are ‘key to building higher order competencies and dynamic capabilities in firms’24 and thereby creating environments where innovation and skill development can flourish, in turn positively affecting productivity and profitability 25.

So how do NZ leaders stack up? Our research indicates that while we have pockets of exceptional leadership and cases of amazing individual leaders, the majority of our leaders are not as effective as we need them to be today. Other studies have found similar themes. In 2011 NZ firms were ranked 14th in a study of 17 OECD countries for people management. The findings tell us that while some New Zealand firms are as good as any in the world, there is a substantial tail of firms that are mediocre and this tail is particularly influential in overall economic performance and competitive standing 26. For a country with a proud history of leadership exploits from our very inception as a nation, this seems puzzling.

Because the effectiveness of people management is largely internally determined by organisations themselves, rather than a factor of external forces27, we looked to the leadership characteristics and culture of our organisations for insights.

Our interviewees described the leader’s world as one of contradictions with the following demands being typical: • Avoid risk - Innovate • Manage poor performance – Avoid conflict • Be agile – Ensure stability • Empower and engage – Maintain control • Fail fast – Don’t make mistakes

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

• No.8 wire –Evidence based/ Rigorous governance The infrastructures of our organisations drive leaders to grapple with these incompatible states as if they are ‘either/or’ type problems to be solved, when in fact they need to be treated as paradoxes to be led and managed 28. From the Human Synergistics’ State of the Nations report on leadership styles and organizational culture in NZ, this tension is clearly reflected with over half our leaders having a negative impact on staff, and organisational culture.

According to their data, our organisations are characterised as being concurrently aggressive and passive with typical behaviours being29: • Find fault and oppose the ideas of others • Play people off against each other in a win-lose performance framework • Work towards narrowly defined objectives • Encourage staff to put each other down to gain status • Enforce a no tolerance approach to errors And the same time: • Avoid blame and shift responsibility to others (keep your head down) • Avoid the tough conversations • Conform and make a good impression

10

TURQUOISENZ

Despite what leaders say and think, they don’t act in ways that create the workplaces they say they want.

Shaun McCarthy Human Synergistics

• Carry poor performance as an overhead These characteristics have profound effects on both individuals and the organization as a whole. The aggressive/passive polarity creates a highly stressful environment for both leaders and those they lead. It is associated with low levels of satisfaction, motivation and commitment, and in turn, organizational adaptability and performance. We see people becoming exhausted, hiding, freezing and attacking in response.

Human Synergistics report that while the average individual in a formal leadership position in New Zealand is adopting more constructive behavioural styles, and that there are great examples of exceptional leadership, for the majority, their underlying thinking and approaches have not changed and so we continue to see these negative styles playing out30.

Against such a backdrop, it is no surprise that Gallup’s 2013 State of the Global Workplace report found only 23% of NZ employees were engaged in their jobs. The links between employee engagement and organizational productivity are well established and Gallup emphasizes the detrimental effect active disengagement can have on economies – estimated at upwards of USD550 billion. New Zealand’s ratio of actively disengaged in the workforce is similar to the US therefore we can estimate a similar order of magnitude effect for our economy (although data for NZ is not provided)31.

•

Perhaps the most troubling finding from Gallup is that the engagement ratings of the very people relied upon to turn these results around and influence engagement in the rest of the organization are even lower: in New Zealand ‘only 19% of employees in leadership positions are engaged in their jobs’ 32.

It is evident that all that has been done to date has not been sufficient to develop and stimulate the caliber of leadership New Zealand needs to prosper. It appears too that the pace, scale and interconnectedness of change plays a huge part in this, outstripping our ability to learn. More of the same thinking will not be enough to close the gap and secure our economic future.

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

11

TURQUOISENZ

Today’s approaches are necessary but not enough When we compared what leadership approaches organisations were considered effective with what interviewees said should be stopped, phased out or used less, there was an unmistakable correlation between the two. We challenged our VI. interviewees on this and found it was less about what was being done, and more about how it was being done, and the underlying context (our previous 5 key factors) in which it VII. was being done, that was problematic.

VIII.

CONFOUNDING PRACTICES UNDERMINE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS It became clear that current development interventions are regularly compromised by unhelpful organizational practices. Interviewees consistently told us of the following: I. Development opportunities being used as a proxy for performance management and as a remedial tool.

II. Development opportunities being used as rewards and/or to build CVs. III. Undertaking development activities as a means of (political) compliance– being seen to do the right thing.

IV. Packaging for export – secondment opportunities used to move people on rather than develop them.

V. Essential component parts for effective development were, for many differing reasons, missing

– for example, no reinforcing mechanisms to embed learning and behavior change, lack of support for individuals in making changes day to day in the workplace.

Expectation of an instantaneous cause and effect result from a development intervention and improved leadership or performance.

Delivery modes and content not appropriate for the individual, organization, time or context.

Individuals not willing or able to engage in the process, for multiple reasons including cognitive ability, developmental state, motivation and interest, clear purpose or simply a lack of or the wrong timing.

These practices are contrary to the many years of research, applied practice and evidence available to guide and inform leadership development efforts. Based on our sample they appear to be widespread. They are reportedly of great concern and frustration to our interviewees, who are battling these practices to bring effective leadership development to their organisations.

For the handful of those lucky enough to be in organisations which were not subject to the above practices, and who were, naturally enough, seeing benefits of improved leadership, there remained however a feeling that this still wasn’t enough.

While individual improvements were

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

Leaders are developed in the classroom and on the job to effectively lead their intra-organisational environment. This approach is undoubtedly necessary, but it is no longer sufficient for those leaders who must confront wicked…problems that transcend organisational and institutional boundaries and span the greater enterprise.

Nickerson & Sanders Tackling Wicked Government Problems

evident, and in many cases heroic efforts were made, overall this was often failing to translate into improved collective performance for the organisation.

NEW PARADIGMS ARE NEEDED If overall organizational performance often doesn’t improve, should we continue to do these things? We should. However, we believe the 5 underlying conditions described earlier mean the development of leaders and stimulating leadership within NZ should be approached as a complex challenge.

We agree with Nickerson and Sanders that the traditional approaches to development of the 12

TURQUOISENZ

individual leader, freed of the confounding practices described above, will continue to be necessary and important, and that current modes of delivery have their place in this33.

However this alone won’t be enough to improve cognitive agility and the ability to lead through paradox in a ever more dynamic system. An increased focus on adopting new paradigms, developing skills in nonlinear thinking (the ‘ability to conceptualise and reconceptualise different and possibly contradictory information and scenarios’34), and using new meaning-making approaches35, is vital. Methods and approaches need to change to better respond to and work with those dynamics.

It is interesting to note those who are already trialing such methods and techniques (more on these later) continue to use many of the modes (classroom, workshop, study, experience, reflection, virtual and so forth) we are familiar with. The content, context and assembly of interventions and practices then seem paramount, rather than the mode of delivery.

And for us, even this will not be enough; the story doesn’t end there.

Focusing solely on the individual will not be sufficient.

BEYOND THE INDIVIDUAL LEADER As we know, in a complex system it is the unpredictable interactions of the entities (people, things, information) in the system that trigger

events to occur. It is the interaction, rather than the inherent qualities (although these are important) of the things themselves that matters most.

This led us to explore the underlying assumptions held about leadership generally to see if a complex systems perspective could yield useful insight.

The developmental approaches our interviewees described, and those of many of the new approaches referred to above, are centred on developing the individual leader, the underlying assumption being that leadership resides in a person or small group of people and is directed outward from the leader(s) in order to control, influence or change others in service of their intent. We know this is incredibly important36, but wondered about what gives rise to acts of leadership in the first place. We concluded the interactions in a

EVERYTHING IS CHANGING - NOTHING IS CHANGING During the course of this research we noted that many of the modes through which new skills, thinking and interactions are shared and initiated are evident in both effective and ineffective leadership development, and in traditional and new approaches. They include: • Organisation centred - stretch assignments, job rotations, job shadowing, peer support/ buddying.

• Individual centred – reading, developing thinking, reflection and mindfulness exercises, processing multi-source feedback, dialogue, self-study, writing.

• Formal education programmes – executive programmes, tertiary education, professional accreditations.

• Informal – unplanned or opportunistic interactions used to acquire new skills, information, connections, and habits or behaviours.

• In person interaction – workshops, classroom, seminars, conferences, coaching, mentoring, conversations and dialogue.

• Virtual interaction – webinars, social media, online forums, posting material online, accessing material online.

These and other emerging modes all have their place. The trick is how we chose from and best use these modes to support development that embraces new ways of thinking and adopts new paradigms better suited to the complex world of today’s leadership and the socially complex space in which it occurs. © ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

13

TURQUOISENZ

complex system must have a role to play. And, indeed they do.

[Leadership is] an intrinsic property emerging out of complex systems of human interaction. Leadership is embedded in those interactions.37 Hazy, Goldstein & Lichtenstein 2007

In other words, leadership acts happen (emerge) at any given point, in any given setting, as a result of innumerable interacting influences that take place to create the situation in the first place. From a complexity perspective leadership is a system event – rather than a personal attribute. Only one of the interacting influences involved is the individual and their inherent qualities.

These interactions explain why emergent leaders (often people who didn’t think they were leaders) and leadership itself can appear as if out of nowhere. The situation ‘will generate previously unexpected and unknown leadership capabilities’ with leadership transcending the capabilities of any individual person, organization, or pre-identified set of solutions 38. It also explains why many good individuals (who know what to do and who want to do it) struggle to enact great leadership when their context conspires against that occurring.

to improve productivity and become prosperous, we must pay attention to both the development of individuals (their skills and cognitive agility) and to the complex, dynamic system interactions which shape their world, and stimulate leadership events.

Approaches are needed that take both these into account if we are to have any hope of stimulating effective leadership today for tomorrow.

We believe that to develop the caliber of leaders required for New Zealand

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

14

TURQUOISENZ

There is no silver bullet It is about this point that a beautifully designed model, complete with catchy title, purporting (however modestly) to be the ‘correct’ answer is traditionally presented. Developing and stimulating leadership however is one of those wicked problems Conklin describes and much as we would like to say we’ve got it all figured out, we haven’t. We have no silver bullet to offer. In fact no one has.

By definition, in a complex environment there is no single answer, no best practice, no right way to do it. In fact, often times, best practice ends up being worst practice 39. Searching around in the hope that someone else has already figured it out is not however without its merits, as we shall see later.

THE INDIVIDUAL While skill development will remain important and inextricably linked, we consider it to function in support of the main act, cognitive development (in the sense of changing how rather than what we think). While far from the whole landscape, the following areas warrant particular attention: I. Conditions for cognitive development II. Identity III. Sensemaking

CONDITIONS FOR COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

The good news is conditions are, for the most part, incredibly right for developing new ways of thinking and making sense of the world, perhaps in a way they have never been before. Through our own Before we delve into some of the research and that of many others, our approaches and methods that are leaders tell us they: emerging as useful, it is important to highlight some aspects relating to the • Are consistently frustrated by the situations, challenges and individual and to the wider system dilemmas they face that should inform whatever • Are feeling the limits of their current assembly of interventions are taken ways of thinking up with the aim of developing leadership. These are highlighted with • Care about what they do These are three of the four conditions the intention of raising awareness that McGuire and Rhodes 40 found that in a complex system all interactions within it have potential to are essential to pull us from one stage of development to the next affect the system itself and thereby increasing our ability to deal individuals within it in unpredictable 41 ways. Therefore, when choosing how with ever more complex situations . to intervene (for leadership development purposes or something These prevailing conditions suggest cognitive development should be else), it is important to be cognisant naturally occurring, and on a wide of, and monitor for, unintended scale. However, as we have shown, it consequences and adjust is not. We believe this primarily pivots accordingly. © ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

A new theory of leadership is needed which incorporates the principles of complexity while matching common experience.

Nickerson & Sanders Tackling Wicked Government Problems

on Keegan’s fourth condition being weak or absent for most leaders: • Sufficient support to persist in the face of anxiety and conflict.

Moving through stages of development is hard. It takes time, energy, desire and tenacity. An absence of support, oftentimes, makes it impossible (despite best intentions).

Absence of support can occur at both the organizational and individual levels. The prevailing cultural behaviours in New Zealand organisations, such as ‘enforce a no tolerance approach to errors’, together with practices such as using development as a means of political compliance and the absence of reinforcement mechanisms, all point toward a context that often does not provide the adequate support for individuals. Those seeking support at the individual level report it can be difficult to find appropriate mentors and guides (the pool is small), and when they do, the prevailing organizational dynamics often

15

TURQUOISENZ

dominate to minimize the otherwise positive effect of that support.

However, we do see organisations and individuals overcoming these shortfalls and it shows in the leadership within their organisations.

We suggest organisations take stock to see where adherence to practices and ways of operating are unhelpfully reinforcing the status quo and where small adjustments can be made that will open the way for more effective support to enable individuals to better develop.

accelerate a change in ways of thinking and operating quite quickly 47. Because identity has such a profound impact on how individuals operate in the world, and because current methods are too slow in meeting the rate of change around us, it is essential greater attention is paid to working with identity if we are to expand the cognitive ability of leaders at the required pace.

IDENTITY

SENSEMAKING

Our identity is fundamental to how we think, relate to others and behave (cognitive psychology notwithstanding) and is becoming an increased focus of attention for leadership development 42. Identity influences how we go about interacting with others, organizing our work, how we dress, the language we use and the formality we adopt (amongst much else). There are four particularly important aspects of identity to understand for leaders and leadership development: I. The dominant identity held in a moment drives behaviour.

II. Identity is influenced by context.

III. Dominant identity can be triggered to switch (and therefore trigger different patterns of behaviour).

IV. Identities can be reshaped.

Sensemaking is the ability or attempt to respond to both recognized and ambiguous situations. It involves fitting data into existing mental models and concurrently fitting the models around the data in ‘a continuous effort to understand connections (which can be among people, places, and events) in order to anticipate their trajectories and act effectively 48. This is about the ‘interplay of action and interpretation rather than the influence of evaluation on choice’ 49.

Identity can hold us strongly in place cognitively and behaviourally even when all about us demands a different response. Conversely identity triggering and reshaping can

For more - see Identity concepts applied.

When the data and/or models don’t fit, adjustments are made to accommodate the one with the other and resolve the unrecognized situation. Very occasionally, the model is entirely discarded and a new one constructed from the data alone, or adopted from elsewhere.

Sensemaking is reflected in development theory from Piaget’s theory of cognitive development 50 to more recently Torbert & Rookes

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

Action Logics 51 and Keegan’s constructive developmental theory of adulthood 52.

Keegan asserts that sensemaking is the fundamental activity of a human being where we construct evermore complex ways of interpreting and knowing to bring coherence to the patterns we use to understand and therefore interact in an ever more complex world 53. In other words, it is the process of creating situational awareness and understanding in situations of high complexity or uncertainty in order to make decisions.

There is no feeling, no experience no thought no perception independent of a sense-making context.

Keegan 1982

With sensemaking such an elemental aspect of development, and existing mental models failing to serve the complex world we find ourselves in, it is time to use sensemaking methods more widely to allow adjustments, accommodations, and perhaps entirely new models to come into play.

There is no feeling, no experience, no thought, no perception independent of a sense-making context.

Keegan 1982

16

TURQUOISENZ

Identity concepts applied Dominant identity drives behaviour We each hold multiple identities at the same time, any of which can become dominant depending on the context we find ourselves in. For example, in any given day you may be living out the following identities: leader, colleague, subordinate, parent, spouse, sibling, sports team fan, coffee drinker, gym goer and so on.

We are able to switch between these easily and indeed operate with many identities in play at once. The way particular individuals understand themselves as a leader (their leader identity) drives the options they believe they have in terms of how to act. And how they act as a leader may be quite different to how they act when another identity dominates.

A way to think about this is that an individual who easily deals with conflict constructively outside work, may find a similar situation incredibly difficult or handle it less effectively at work. How come? Their work identity is driving them to behave in a different ‘right’ way than their outside work identity was.

Identity is influenced by context

If identity drives behaviour we can say context shapes it. For example, a context which favours high competition, avoidance of blame, conformity and shifting responsibility will in all likelihood constrain the behaviour of an individual whose dominant identity favours collaboration, innovation and risk-taking. The context in this way can seriously affect how individuals operate regardless of their preferred and natural styles, and indeed can create perfect dynamics for increased stress and disengagement as in this example.

Dominant identity can be triggered to switch The Christchurch earthquakes provide a stark example of identity triggering in action. In one example, individuals whose role identity required them to ‘lead the community in a time of crisis’ (and subordinate personal needs) found the event triggered their ‘head of family’ identity which overrode the work identity and triggered different behaviour (i.e. abandoning their post). In the same organization others with no such formally conferred leadership role found their identities were triggered in such a way that they stepped into the breach and suppressed other obligations in order to provide the leadership needed 43. There are numerous other stories from Christchurch. However, circumstances do not have to be so extreme to trigger a switch in identity, they occur continuously in our everyday and organizational life, and can be actively triggered to switch using perspective shifting techniques44.

Identities can be reshaped Identity is socially constructed through sense-making interactions with the world. Because identities are so constructed, it is possible to deconstruct and reshape them, thereby affecting how individuals achieve desired states and ways of being. By reshaping a leader identity it is possible to create new leadership options 45. Nicholson and Carroll have shown that identity reshaping manifests in a number of ways from46: • Shaking up – identities are unsettled, disrupted and agitated • Cutting apart – leadership myths are broken and new provocations offered • Letting go – part of an identity is discarded • Floundering – the faltering and frustrated thrashing around experienced in making sense of individual and collective identities.

• Being playful – consciously trying out different identities

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

17

TURQUOISENZ

THE SYSTEM We saw earlier the important role interactions play in the emergence of leadership in complex systems. We focus here on three aspects of those interactions that should inform future attempts to stimulate leadership.

I. II.

III.

Leadership is a group process – leaders are relationally conferred Network position – impacts the individual, and the individual impacts the network Emergent leadership arise from system interactions

Leadership is a group process where leaders are relationally conferred What leads us to follow some people and not others? Social psychology is one of the disciplines that provide insights that are useful from a complexity standpoint. Here leadership is seen as a social process in which ‘leadership does not flow from fixed, stable qualities of the individual, but from a person’s perceived position within the nexus of intra-group and intergroup relations that define the identity of the group’54. What matters is how the individual is perceived relative to others and followership is a function of how much the leader embodies, defines and is better able to express the commonality and ‘truths’ of the wider group to which they belong 55.

In practical terms this means that certain individuals become legitimised as leaders through their perceived place in the group of individuals who chose to form

around, interact with (to a greater or lesser extent), and follow that individual. Social media provides a salient example of how this occurs with experts and leaders being legitimised through online interactions, and emerging into influential positions without formal structures or sanction.

Two interesting implications arise from this. The first is that the process happens regardless of any formally conferred leadership power of the individual. Secondly, different styles and types of leadership (and therefore individual leader) may be more able to be effective in one situation than another so leadership changes hands dynamically – that is, leadership is distributed as situations unfold.

Network position in the system affects both the impact on and of the individual An individual’s network position impacts their ability to influence others and the wider system.

Likewise, the effect of the system and others in it on individuals is a factor of an individual’s network position. All elements of the system influence this process – social interactions, technology, geography, occupation, to name a few. While the small world phenomenon 56 (commonly known as six degrees of separation 57) demonstrates the human ability to traverse and search a complex web of interactions effectively, the same phenomenon greatly impacts the way in which individuals can influence and therefore are influenced by the

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

network in which they sit – for better and worse.

Network position can affect behaviour, decisions, adoption of novel ideas and practices, innovation development and uptake, and even physical wellbeing (eg healthy eating habits). Christakis and Fowler summarise this in the following set of principles 58: I. We shape our network II. Our network shapes us III. Our friends affect us IV. Our friends’ friends’ friends affect us (3 degrees of influence) V. The network has a life of its own An organisation’s network position works in the same way as this and directly impacts its own and the country’s prosperity 60, as well as affecting the network position of the individuals within it.

(For more see - Network principles applied)

Emergent leadership arises from system interactions We saw earlier that leadership can be enacted through (arise from) any interaction in a complex system with leadership itself becoming yet another of the interactions in the mix.

As events and situations unfold, at every moment there is opportunity for leadership to emerge. The dynamics of the interactions affect the selforganising properties of complexity and therefore what indeed emerges.

By tracking, modeling and studying interactions from which leadership emerges, it is possible to better 18

TURQUOISENZ

understand and later encourage those dynamics that prove beneficial61. Advances in the use of network science are enabling greater insights than ever before into these dynamics and providing useful new tools and techniques.

By being aware of the above dynamics and applying this

awareness proactively for the benefit of leadership development, we increase our chances of assembling approaches, techniques and interventions that are appropriate for addressing the complex question of leadership. In the next section we highlight some of these techniques as suggested starting points for

shifting the current leadership development paradigm.

Network principles applied N. Christakis & J Fowler: Connected: The Amazing Power of Social Networks and How they Shape Our Lives.

2010 I.

We shape our network - deliberately all the time; size, structure, breadth and depth. (Leiberman argues that our brains are wired to connect and this need is even greater than our need for food or shelter 59)

II.

Our network shapes us – your place in the network affects your susceptibility to anything flowing through the system from gossip, new ideas to disease.

III.

Our friends affect us – what flows across the connections is crucial and the flow is fundamentally determined by the tendency of humans to influence and copy each other. For example diners sitting next to heavy eaters eat more.

IV.

Our friends’ friends’ friends affect us (3 degrees of influence) – this is called hyperdyadic spread and means things happening in the system beyond a point we can easily discern affect us greatly. A disturbing example of this in action is suicide cascades in non-susceptible teens.

V.

The network has a life of its own – it has properties that are neither conceived of nor controlled by people in them. Traffic jams are a simple example, and culture (where complicated shared behaviours are exhibited without explicit co-ordination and awareness) is a complex one.

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

19

TURQUOISENZ

Experiment and refine here, we are not suggesting linear based approaches are no longer All models are wrong. But needed – they are. We do however some are useful. wish to emphasise and share thinking that is suited to the messy space of wicked problems, complexity, and George Box network dynamics as this is where Statistician our organisations are struggling most.

We can take heart however. Mess and chaos are places in which We have spent some time setting out emergent and novel practice some of the conditions, dynamics comes to the fore. The following are and elements of the complex world of some of the approaches, models, individuals, and the wider system in techniques and thinking which we which they operate. In this section we have found useful in the messy highlight a number of techniques and spaces and suggest are worth approaches that are consciously experimenting with, reflecting on and designed to work with these refining for your own situations. conditions rather than ignore or pass over them. They provide ways to help TAKE OFF THE change how we think about the BLINDFOLDS world, and consider both the individual and wider system.

Dehnugara and Breeze challenge Dave Snowden is fond of saying ‘all things are valid within boundaries’ 62 and this is a useful mindset to bring when exploring these approaches.

None is a silver bullet – none on its own will be the solution to all problems and situations. Different situations, groups and circumstances will respond better to some and not to others. Experimentation and practise will be necessary to see what works well under what conditions. And what worked in one organization or for one individual or situation will not necessarily be able to be replicated successfully elsewhere.

Although we have purposely focused on the complex side of the equation

organisations to see through their own ingrained thinking and ways of acting, to recognize where this unhelpfully accepts or reinforces the status quo. They use a process called Witnessing the Establishment to move organisations away from the pervading industrial revolution paradigm of ‘security through certainty’ to a position of ‘safe uncertainty’ 63. As part of this process they facilitate the unpicking of four subtle organizational blindfolds they believe stop leaders and leadership teams exploring new uncharted territory: • Arrogance – the belief you are the best/right, untouchable, not to be questioned • Avoidance – steering clear of conversations you know are going

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

to get messy (often done by referring things up the line) • Agreement – easy agreement (with principles / concepts) that unravel when tested against the complexities of daily organizational life, and to which increased levels of control are usually applied • Antagonism – taking up an antagonistic position in response to new or challenging thinking as a means to avoid engaging and reduce anxiety. Leads to a lot of leadership energy being wasted on competitive/ defensive position In these blindfolds it is easy to recognize many of New Zealand’s organizational and leadership style propensities as shown by Human Synergistics’ research. Taking the blindfolds off is hard work. Even raising consciousness of these blindfolds and styles of leadership however can be a step toward removing them.

20

TURQUOISENZ

Witness the establishment K. Dehnugara & C. Breeze: The Challenger Spirit. 2011 The following are useful questions to use when addressing organisational blindfolds.

Inner work • • • • •

How much do you feel you owe the current establishment for your success?

Since working here what have you become less sensitized to?

What are you avoiding, knowing that if you really see it you will have to do something?

What aspects or issues that others complain about in your organization do you have little time for?

What are the subtle things you notice in yourself that are an indication of something deep

Outer work • How could you immerse yourself and your team in really experiencing the organization from the perspective of staff, customers, associates etc?

• How can you encourage your team to notice more of what is going on in the organization and to share what they are learning?

• Which areas are the Challenger bright spots and what happens there?

• Which areas are most demonstrative of the Establishment shadow? What happens there and what effect is it having?

• Which conversations do you believe are off limits and why?

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

21

TURQUOISENZ

SENSEMAKING Weick, one of the leading thinkers on sensemaking, explains that sensemaking processes: • Organise flux • Start with noticing and bracketing (information and data) • Label the information or data • Use retrospect (hindsight) to understand patterns • Make presumptions (about what might be going on) • Trigger action (experimentation and trying things out) • Organise through communication Using these processes it is possible to understand a set of circumstances explicitly and take action 64. The following approaches and models incorporate these principles.

KLEIN’S DATA/FRAME MODEL

Klein Data-Frame Model Making Sense of Sensemaking 2: A Macrocognitive Model. 2006

some sort of frame to plausibly link the events – this may be adopting a Klein’s approach starts with the new alternative frame, or creating one notion that when faced with a where none exists that is plausible. situation we bring a pre-existing This is akin to running a new mental perspective, viewpoint or mental model (frame) and try and fit data to it simulation (rather than retrospectively explaining how something unfolded). in an attempt to make sense of the Klein calls these ‘transition situation. Frames may be models, maps, stories or diagrams. The frame sequences’ – the idea that we believe one thing leads to another – and shapes and defines what is relevant explores how these operate in data (and what is discarded as practice. irrelevant) and in turn, the data shapes the frame itself. This process Klein has found that skilled decision is captured visually in the diagram. makers tend to shift quickly to elaborating a different or Most relevant to our research is the competing frame when anomalies Reframe side of the model where the are detected in the current one. He existing frame is questioned and suggests the best approach for doubted to the extent that a new developing our sensemaking skills frame is sought. The goal is to find may be in acquiring a richer set of © ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

frames rather than improving sensemaking as if it were a separate skill 65. In support of this idea, we share two alternative sensemaking frames: The Cynefin Framework and Participative Narrative Enquiry.

22

TURQUOISENZ

THE CYNEFIN FRAMEWORK Dave Snowden’s contextualization framework 66 is a useful means to understand complex contexts in a practical way. The sensemaking process, and dynamics of each domain, is a useful guide for decisions and actions. The boundaries between domains are permeable and the boundaries of domains move depending on the context being considered, and what perspectives people bring to the process.

Simple (ordered) domain The relationship between cause and effect is obvious and solving problems requires little expertise. The approach to problems in this domain is to: • Sense the situation • Categorise it against known patterns • Respond to it – best practice can be applied Manufacturing, IT help desk scripted solutions and basic financial processes (eg credit control) are examples in this domain.

Complicated (ordered) domain The relationship between cause and effect is not obvious but can be discovered through analysis and investigation. Expertise is required and the work is evolutionary (not revolutionary). Solving problems requires expert knowledge. The approach to problems in this domain is to: • Sense the situation • Analyse by applying expert knowledge

• Respond to it – by selecting from good practice Examples in this domain include matrix organizational structures and scientific research. In this space, we may not know something ourselves but we have a hunch someone else probably knows and/or with enough effort we can find out.

Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them.

Laurence J Peter The Peter Principle

Complex (un-ordered) domain Cause and effect can be understood in hindsight but can not be predicted in advance. The approach to problems in this domain is to: • Probe – using safe-fail experiments • Sense what is working and not working (having the effect you are hoping for) • Respond to it – stabilize/scale emergent practices that arise from experiments This is the home of politics, culture change programmes and leadership.

Disorder domain The relationship between cause and effect is not known, people revert to their preferred perspective which they use to make decisions (ordered versus unordered, simple versus complicated, complex versus chaotic).

The italicised text emphasizes the essential mechanisms we use to understand and drive action within a domain (categorise, analyse, probe, Chaotic (un-ordered) domain act). As a starting point, using the There is no obvious relationship framework to understand how we between cause and effect at a tend to see the world and therefore systems level and solving problems how we make decisions and lead can requires little expertise. The approach prove powerful. Beyond this stepping to problems in this domain is to: off point, the framework supports • Act to stabilize or contain the exploration of a number of more situation advanced techniques and assemblies • Sense the situation of techniques that are useful in • Respond to it – novel practice is tackling wicked problems. applied In the chaotic space control is sought. Examples include dictatorships, coups, and civil emergencies where central control is imposed.

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

23

TURQUOISENZ

Cynefin Framework respectively showing: the Basic Framework, as applied to leadership, as applied to Network Dynamics: D Snowden.

See also Kurtz’s confluence model which contributed heavily to the development of the Cynefin framework and draws on the Tipu Ake ki te Ora organic leadership model and other traditional methods 67.

PARTICIPATIVE NARRATIVE ENQUIRY Participative narrative enquiry makes sense of complex situations by using personal stories as raw data. It is particularly useful when considering situations that fall within the Complex domain. Kurtz, a leading developer of these methods, asserts that when the context means values, beliefs, feelings and perspectives are of utmost consideration, such methods are superior to those used when facts, opinions, arguments, and evidence can give greater understanding of the situation 68.

Essential to the process is that individuals make sense of their own stories for themselves, and the group of individuals makes sense of the collection of stories.

The enquiry aspect of the process is fundamental because it challenges individuals to move beyond current thinking, perspectives and assumptions at the individual level and toward new thinking, achieving something new, and arriving at a new place.

Participative narrative enquiry projects have three phases: • Collection – stories are told and collected and interpreted from as many perspectives within a group as possible. Ideally a ‘cloud of perspectives’ surrounds each story.

• Sensemaking – involves using the stories to better understand a situation or issue, to give it meaning.

• Return – outputs of the process are returned to the community (in various forms) and stories are

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

told that would not have been told before.

If you’ve used this framework and made a mess of things, congratulations. You’ve done it right.

Cynthia Kurtz Confluence Model

24

TURQUOISENZ

Participative Narrative Inquiry Model (including supporting stages): C Kurtz 2013

NETWORK SCIENCE Network science helps us to uncover what is really going on in networks from the point of view of an individual person or organization within it, and from the point of view of the network itself – how the dynamics of the system act in totality. Developing an understanding of networks and applying the associated concepts and practices to wicked problems, complex issues and paradox situations

can help leaders think and act differently. The following are a few of the ways network science can usefully be applied.

Diffusion Used to understanding how ideas, information, behaviour and norms spread across a network. Think of this as the spread of a rumour, idea or disease. The properties of the network strongly influence how this happens, and the position of any one individual in it influences

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

how they are affected by it (and affect others). If you are introducing change to an organisation, understanding diffusion can be the secret weapon in your thinking.

Collective intelligence Used to understand how to leverage the network interactions to solve complex problems. A great example is the mapping of the human genome where initially institutes held their discoveries 25

TURQUOISENZ

Managed networks may be the ‘least bad’ way of making wicked problems governable.’

E Ferlie Professor Public Services Management Kings College,

a change process, the entry of a competitor in a market, or a community group ceasing to operate.

Boundary spanning Used to work on increasing collaboration between groups to maximize collective working across boundaries while retaining helpful cohesion and expertise within siloes.

London

Interaction triggers secret. When the Sanger Institute started publishing their findings the process sped up enormously and so did new discoveries based on sequencing. Estimates of the beneficial increase in speed vary by decades rather than years 69.

Resilience of networks to attack / change Used to understand what impacts changes to the makeup of a network will have. Examples include the impact of divesting a team or division, merging with another organization, losing a key expert, disengaging an opinion leader during

This recent area of research is exploring the nature of interactions that give rise to leadership happening as well as which sort of interactions can trigger our brains to think differently (and heighten cognition).

Interactions can also be used to trigger identity switching in individuals to reframe a network in a new way and trigger new behaviour70.

Innovation dynamics

Surprisingly this work shows that breaking down all siloes isn’t the best answer to achieving great innovation.

Rapid information flow across a network and imitation practices (i.e.

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

copying someone else who has a slightly better idea than you) need to be combined with cul de sacs in the network where novel ideas resistant to influence from outside are able to flourish. For organisations this means we need both excellent information exchange across the organization and to allow room for individuals and groups to remain siloed and work on novel ideas.

Egonets This is the network around a single entity (person or organization).

Understanding the egonet is important for individuals at different career stages, and for organsations from maturity and competitor standpoints.

See Network Science Applied for a closer look at two network science concepts working together - The Nexus Effect (from boundary spanning) and Participative Network Reframing (from interaction triggers).

26

TURQUOISENZ

Network science applied Let’s suppose you are one of the many who are finding permeable boundaries mean you not only have to lead within your organization but between organisations as well 71. You are being asked to manage the organization (or division within it) as a cohesive and effective unit, and at the same time collaborate across boundaries that inevitably arise as a result. Consider the following provide practical steps to work through the challenges.

THE NEXUS EFFECT Ernst and Chrobot-Mason have developed the Nexus Effect model to help with the paradox of retaining a cohesive unit or organization and concurrently spanning boundaries 72.

Manage the Boundaries – develop own group identity before crossing the divide • Buffering - define the boundaries and shield from outside threats • Reflecting - see both sides of the boundary and enable others to do so too.

Forge common ground – focus on similarities and common mission • Connecting - build person-to-person links to develop trust between individuals in different groups • Mobilising - reframe the boundaries to create a shared identity that works for the different groups Discover new Frontiers • Weave newly framed boundaries together • Transforming – reinvent the groups as part of a new shared collective identity Ernst and Chrobot-Mason: Boundary Spanning Leadership: Six Practices for Solving Problems, Driving Innovation and Transforming Organizations. 2011

That’s a good list of what to do but how can you say Forge Common Ground? Network science and sensemaking can be combined to help.

PARTICIPATIVE NETWORK REFRAMING Participative Network Reframing 73, using participative narrative enquiry sensemaking and network analysis methods, enables groups to ‘see’ a network, and the boundaries and interactions within it in a new way.

Individuals share stories about experiences that reflect their specific context and then undertake sensemaking of the data. From this different network maps reflecting different sensemaking frames are created and analysed.

The process triggers alternative perspectives of how the network is shaped and works so there are multiple views of the network, its boundaries and the potential dynamics within it. When the network is reframed and perceived in new ways like this, those within it more readily accept new ways of ‘seeing’ the network and adopt new identities that are aligned with that perception. The process triggers new connections to be made (in person and through the adoption of more connected identities), which in turn trigger different interactions.

When the reframing results in ‘seeing’ the network as more interdependent, more permeable, with more in common than not, with less network resistance and/or increased perceived social reward, increased collaborative behaviour can be triggered.

Braithwaite: The effects of abstracted group identities on knowledge sharing networks: a case study of IBM NZ Ltd. 2008

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

27

TURQUOISENZ

MANAGING PARADOX A useful tool for unpicking and understanding the dynamics of paradox is Johnson’s Polarity Management. Johnson shines a light on the tendency in today’s organisations of treating coexisting incompatible states as ‘either/or’ type problems to solve, rather than ‘both/and’ polarities (or paradoxes) to manage. Rather than trying to the optimum choice from two (or more) alternatives solutions to a problem, Johnson gives us a means to look at incompatible co-

existing states by considering both the up and down sides of each so that they can be managed in unison.

He calls these the extremes of a polarity.

Using this method it is possible to identify underlying assumptions and biases that drive the swing of the pendulum between either end, and then explore ways to understand and manage both polarities. Johnson’s pithy question Is it better to breathe in or out? encapsulates polarity thinking well and aptly differentiates it

from either/or type problems such as Shall we eat at this restaurant or that one?

In applying Johnson’s model it is important to remain cognisant of underlying identities, perspective bias and accepted correct ways of thinking that will dictate how individuals interact with the process 74.

Polarity Management framework. B Johnson 1992 Polarity Management – Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. 1992

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

28

TURQUOISENZ

LEARNING WITHOUT BOUNDARIES

NEW RULES FOR A NEW WORLD

Eddie Obeng believes that the pace, scale and interconnectedness of change in today’s world exceeds our ability to learn. He maintains we are continuing to approach the world with outdated approaches that inherently demand our learning keeps pace so we can find the ‘correct answers’ 75. He suggests that rather than try to learn faster, we need to think differently and adapt our approaches to the new paradigm. He has developed practices and continues to develop experiments that challenge problem solving norms in organisations by using greater iteration and speed, fast safe-fail experimentation and utilisation of networks and dynamic systems thinking. The methods are as memorable for their playful names as they are for their practical application – Rat Holing, Sticky Steps and Blowing Bubbles for example. His New Rules for a New World provide a great challenge and checklist for leaders wishing to get ahead of the learning curve by thinking differently.

I.

Say And (not Or) – is your solution integrative?

II. Assume Fair=Different (not Equal) – does your solution recognize the need to tailor actions to meet different populations/needs?

III. Change dependence to interdependence – is your solution capable of selfgovernance?

IV. Do nothing of no use – is your solution designed to ensure focus on delivering to your goal of making money (or delivering benefit to society)?

V. Stakeholders rule ok – is your solution designed around the people who have to deliver it and live with the results?

VI. Make time fit- to what extent have you scoped your solution to the possible rather than the (nice to have) impossible?

VII. Chunk it or Junk it - have you reduced the scope to de-risk your solution appropriately?

VIII. All constraints into meat space – have you ensured that your

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

solution appropriately uses new technologies?

IX. Unlearn everything - have you ensured that your solution appropriately uses new knowledge?

X. Don’t change anything – have you taken into account the overall impact of change on your ability to deliver results?

XI. Loop it up – is your solution self-sustaining?

XII. Go virtual – have you developed a solution with powerful results where the effect is more important than the form? Where technology enables beyond tradition?

Today, what happened yesterday no longer predicts tomorrow. Today what worked yesterday won’t work tomorrow.

Eddie Obeng Pentacle

29

TURQUOISENZ

Challenging the status quo We know there are no sure-fire, single answers to developing leaders or stimulating leadership. We do know however a lot about the dynamics and conditions, and stages of development which underpin them.

We wondered therefore if it was possible to draw out a framework compatible with traditional approaches and at the same time with the complexity of a networked, dynamic and interdependent world. It was.

Base DNA

Be mindful of development stages

In hushed tones accompanied by ‘Don’t quote me on that’ courageous interviewees said the unspeakable – not everyone can or should do leadership roles in our organisations.

We need to ‘stop promoting the wrong people’ 76. These comments fly in the face of the current rhetoric that ‘everyone is a leader.’ Can both these be true? They can.

Neuroscience has been doing a great job recently of reminding us that our brains haven’t evolved much 77. The fundamental processes of the brain persist as will, for now at least, the development stages we go through as humans. We must continue bringing the next generation of leaders through these stages, being cognisant of what stage individuals are at and support their transition While all of us are capable of acts of through stages. By increasing leadership in the right circumstances exposure to situations that bring Before experimenting with any as befits our talents, propensities, the them to the edge of what they don’t situation at hand, and our motivation know to stimulate cognitive development approaches, traditionally focused or otherwise, it to take up a the mantle (however expansion we can accelerate briefly), not all of us are cut out, or transition. There is also real is imperative to consider the foundation from which we set out necessarily want, to be formally opportunity to introduce new thinking the starting conditions. appointed organisational leaders. and paradigms into earlier stages Many are the cases of the technical (alongside traditional ones) to expert or ideas guru being promoted accelerate normalising such new THE STARTING into a leadership role where they are thinking and paradigms sooner. For CONDITIONS Development efforts which ignore or forced to give up much of what example, the Victoria University MBA gloss over the starting conditions and makes them successful and gives program is one of only a handful in context against which they are set, them satisfaction, and take on the world that includes complexity tend to deliver mediocre outcomes at responsibilities and work they neither thinking and network science best. Paying attention to the following seek nor have great capability in. principles in its programme to is particularly important.

Conversely, few are the organisations complement the typical, still brave enough to appoint those who important, aspects you would expect display excellence in the appropriate to find.

Confounding practices leadership skills when their technical Failure to mitigate the confounding depth may not be the equal of others. We don’t underestimate the degree of practices prevalent in our It is time for organizations to adjust challenge that comes with ensuring organisations, such as lack of the infrastructure of HR practices, starting conditions are as conducive reinforcement in programmes, ill structural arrangements and as possible. Our research indicates timed or compliance-based remuneration in order to that for the majority this will require a attendance, will see even the best accommodate a change.

We applaud significant challenge to the status quality and well pitched development those Challengers we came across in quo. founder. Before heading off into new territory and introducing new models, this study who are doing just that. concepts and ways of thinking, we can’t recommend strongly enough that attention needs to be paid to ensuring the ground is prepared. © ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

30

TURQUOISENZ

The challenge however does not end there. We must also test if the approaches being adopted stack up against the dynamics and underlying conditions that play out in a complex space. We offer a guiding framework for that purpose (below).

If development efforts are able to answer yes to these questions, we believe it will increase the likelihood of developing leaders and stimulating leadership that goes beyond conventional thinking. Such leaders and leadership will see New Zealand evolve organisations with engaging,

productive cultures, underpinned by work practices and approaches that reflect ways of thinking and interacting that are aligned for the interdependent, fast changing 21st Century. We believe this no nice to have ideal. Rather it is a necessary imperative if New Zealand is to grow

Eight guiding questions for development Are the starting conditions conducive?

As far as possible, have confounding practices that undermine development been mitigated?

Has the base DNA and development stages of individuals been considered?

Is imparting new information tied to new ways of making sense of the world?

Will the way information is shared be done in a way that requires new sensemaking frames to be used?

Will this place people on the edge of what they don’t know?

Where are people at now? Does this take them to the edge of their comfort zone? Does it pose problems that are not readily solvable using existing thinking and abilities?

Will this make current ways of thinking apparent?

What will be done that will make visible the thinking processes that underpin opinions expressed, decisions made and action taken?

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

Will this challenge those ways of thinking?

What will be included that will ensure underlying beliefs, assumptions, and sensemaking frames are challenged and new ones tried out?

Will this encourage continual interaction between the individual and the environment?

How will this ensure individuals and the environment are continually interacting and making adjustments?

Does this work with the dynamics of the environment?

How will the dynamics of the environment be used to encourage new interactions and opportunities for leadership to emerge?

Does it help change the very way we know things?

What will be done to reinforce new thinking and practices which embrace emergence, elaborate ways of sensemaking and extend thinking

31

TURQUOISENZ

Final thoughts We have covered a lot of ground, and skipped over much more, to bring together our thoughts on developing leaders and stimulating leadership.

We cast our net widely in the pool of Challengers and proposed ideas and methods that are simply best guess experiments that may help us as a nation, through leadership, improve our prosperity.

paradox. It will be difficult because we all of us contribute to the very paradigm we are trying to change.

And it will be difficult most of all because we are human.

It often seems easier to do nothing, using all sorts of rational reasons to excuse ourselves from the challenge 78. And nothing may be the option many take. We don’t believe they’ll be around long.

Each of these will require new skills and new mindsets to even attempt let alone master.

We hope more and more people will join us in becoming Challengers of It will be difficult. It will be difficult the status quo, in service of New because of the underlying conditions Zealand’s future. Being an observer and culture dominating our and commentator will not be organisations. It will be difficult enough – it will require because of impermanence, participation and courage. Each of permeable boundaries, wicked us must take a few ‘drunken steps’ problems, social complexity and of our own.

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

Here is Edward Bear coming downstairs now, bump bump, on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is as far as he knows the only way of coming downstairs, but sometimes he feels there is really is another way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it.

A A Milne Winnie the Pooh 1926

32

TURQUOISENZ

References N. Petrie, Future Trends in Leadership Development, 2011 S. Martinez, Emergent Leadership: Linking Complexity, Cognitive processes, Adaptability and Innovation. 2007 3 With thanks to Nick Petrie who asked these same questions in Future Trends in Leadership Development, 2011 4 E. Obeng, New Rules for a New World. 1997 5 For example: On Dec. 17, 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi, a young man in rural Tunisia, poured gasoline on himself -- and ignited an entire region. One by one, the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya toppled their rulers.

6 D. Watts, Six Degrees. 2003 7 Rittel, Horst W. J.; Melvin M. Webber, Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4:155-169 1973; J. Nickerson and R. Sanders (Eds), Tackling Wicked Government Problems. 2013; IBM, Capitalising on Complexity: Insights from the Global Chief Executive Officer Survey. 2012; A. Hutchison and P. Boxall, The critical challenges facing New Zealand's chief executives: implications for management skills, Asia Pacific journal of Human resources, 52(1): 23-41. 2014 8 M. Fischer, Organizational Turbulence, Trouble and Trauma: Theorizing the Collapse of a Mental Health Setting. Organization Studies 33 (9): 1153–1173. 2012 9 J. Conklin, Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. 2005 10 ibid.

11 Conklin Interview: K. Christensen, Building and Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Rotman Magazine, Winter: 17-20. 2009 12 ibid.

13 ibid.

14 M. Fischer, Organizational Turbulence, Trouble and Trauma: Theorizing the Collapse of a Mental Health Setting. Organization Studies 33 (9): 1153–1173. 2012 15 Department of Labour, Workforce 2020 – Forces for Change in the Future Labour Market of New Zealand. 2008 16 Deloitte Consulting LLP and Bersin by Deloitte, Global Human Capital Trends 2014: Engaging the 21st-century workforce 17 B. Johnson, Polarity Management – Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. 1992 18 S. Hendy and P. Callaghan, Get off the Grass – Kickstarting New Zelanad’s Innovation Economy. 2013 19 New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), Industry productivity and the Australia-New Zealand Income Gap. Public discussion document, Wellington. 2011 20 Institute of Management Development (IMD) 2013 World Competiveness Yearbook 21 S. Hendy and P. Callaghan, Get off the Grass – Kickstarting New Zelanad’s Innovation Economy. 2013 22 R. Green, R. Agarwal, P. Brown, H. Tan, andK. Randhawa, Management Matters in New Zealand: How does Manufacturing Measure Up? 2011; N.Bloom, S. Dorgan, J.Dowdy, J. Van Reenen, Management Practice and Productivity: Why they matter, Management Matters. 2007 23 Ibid.

24 A. Grimes, and R. Fabling, HR Practices and Firm Performance: What Matters and Who Does it?, MED Ooccasional Paper 2007 1 2

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

25

R. Green, R. Agarwal, P. Brown, H. Tan, and K. Randhawa, Management Matters in New Zealand: How does Manufacturing Measure Up? 2011 26 ibid.

27 ibid.

28 B. Johnson, Polarity Management – Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. 1992 29 S. McCarthy (Human Synergistics International), The State of the Nations - The Research Results Book 2013: Australia and New Zealand, 2013; S. McCarthy (Human Synergistics International), The State of the Nations - The Research Results Book 2010: Australia and New Zealand. 2010 30 S. McCarthy (Human Synergistics International), The State of the Nations - The Research Results Book 2013: Australia and New Zealand. 2013 30 Gallup, State of the Global Workplace Report 2013. 2013 31 ibid.

32 J. Nickerson and R. Sanders (Eds), Tackling Wicked Government Problems. 2013 33 M. Hitt , B. Keats and S. DeMarie, Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive 12(4), 22–42.1998.

34 K. Weick, Making Sense of the Organisation: Volume Two. 2009 35 N. Petrie, Future Trends in Leadership Development. 2011 36 J.Hazy, J. Goldstein, and B. Lichtenstein (Eds), Complex Systems Leadership Theory: New Perspectives from Complexity Science on Social and Organizational Effectiveness. 2007 37 L. Rego, and R. Garau, Stepping into the Void: Reflections and insights from a forum on Crisis Leadership convened at the Center for Creative Leadership. 2007 38 M. Fischer, Organizational Turbulence, Trouble and Trauma: Theorizing the Collapse of a Mental Health Setting. Organization Studies 33 (9): 1153–1173. 2012 39 C. McGuire and G. Rhodes, Transforming Your Leadership Culture. 2009 40 W. Torbert and D. Rooke, Action Inquiry: The Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership. 2004; R. Kegan, The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Development. 1982; D. Rooke, Organisational Transformation requires the presence of leaders who are Strategists and Alchemists. 2001 41 H. Nichollson and B. Carroll, Identity undoing and power relations in leadership development. 2013; H. Ibarra and L. Guillen-Ramo, Identity-based leader Development. 2010; G. Petriglieri and J. Petrigglieri, Identity Workspaces for leadership development. In S. Snook, N. Noharia and R. Khurana (eds). The Handbook for Teaching Leadership: Knowing, Doing and Being.

2010 42 Personal communication – Community services provider organization Christchurch 43 A. Braithwaite, The effects of abstracted group identities on knowledge sharing networks: a case study of IBM NZ Ltd. 2008; G. Klein, D. Snowden and A. Braithwaite, Singapore Combined Armed Forces & Homeland Security Sensemaking Experiments.

2006 44 Ibarra and L. Guillen-Ramo, Identity-based leader Development. 2010; G. Petriglieri and J. Petrigglieri, Identity 33

TURQUOISENZ

Workspaces for leadership development. In S. Snnok, N. Noharia and R. Khurana (eds). The Handbook for Teaching Leadership: Knowing, Doing and Being. 2010 45 H. Nichollson and B. Carroll, Identity undoing and power relations in leadership development. 2013 46 A. Braithwaite, The effects of abstracted group identities on knowledge sharing networks: a case study of IBM NZ Ltd. 2008 47 G. Klein, B. Moon and R. Hoffman, Making Sense of Sensemaking 2:A Macrocognitive Model. 2006 48 K. Weick and K. Sutcliffe, Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization science 16(4) 409-421. 2005 49 J. Piaget, The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. 1977 [L'equilibration des structures cognitives. 1975] 50 W. Torbert and D. Rooke, Action Inquiry: The Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership. 2004; Kegan, The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Development. 1982 51 R. Kegan, The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Development. 1982. p11.

52 N. Popp and K. Portnow, Chapter three Our Developmental perspective on Adulthood. NCSALL Reports#19. 2001 53 P. Hatt and J. Uhr (eds), Public Leadership—Perspectives and Practices (Chapter Five –Identity Confers Power: The New View of Leadership in Social Psychology). 2011 54 ibid.

55 S. Milgram , The small world problem. 1967; J. Travers and S. Milgram, An Experimental Study of the Small World Problem.

1969.

56 D. Watts, Six Degrees. 2003 57 N. Christakis and J. Fowler, Connected: The Amazing Power of Social Networks and How they Shape Our Lives. 2010 58 M Lieberman, Social: Why our Brains are Wired to Connect: 2013 59 R. Haussmann and D. Riddik, Economic Development as Self-Discovery. Journal of Development Economics 72:603-33.

2003 60 J.Hazy, J. Goldstein, and B. Lichtenstein (Eds), Complex Systems Leadership Theory: New Perspectives from Complexity Science on Social and Organizational Effectiveness. 2007 61 D. Snowden –personal communication 62 K. Dehnugara and C. Genkai Breeze, The Challenger Spirit.

2011. p48 63 K. Weick and K. Sutcliffe, Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization science 16(4) 409-421. 2005

© ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

G. Klein, B. Moon and R. Hoffman, Making Sense of Sensemaking 2:A Macrocognitive Model. 2006 65 D. Snowden, Complex Acts of Knowing. 2002; C. Kurtz, and D. Snowden, The New Dynamics of Strategy: sense making in a complex and complicated world. in IBM Systems Journal 42(3): 462-483. 2003; C. Kurtz, The Wisdom of Clouds. 2009 66 C. Kurtz, Confluence Model – see http:// www.storycoloredglasses.com/p/confluence-sensemakingframework.html.

67 C. Kurtz, Working with stories in your community or organization: Participative Narrative Inquiry (pre-publication issue). 2013 68 Sir Mark Walport, Government Chief Scientific Advisor and formerly Director of The Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom – personal communication 69 A. Braithwaite, The effects of abstracted group identities on knowledge sharing networks: a case study of IBM NZ Ltd. 2008 70 J. Yip, C. Ernst and M. Campbell, Boundary Spanning Leadership: Mission Critical Perspectives from the Executive Suite. 2011 71 C. Ernst and D. Chrobot-Mason, Boundary Spanning Leadership: Six Practices for Solving Problems, Driving Innovation and Transforming Organizations. 2011.

72 A. Braithwaite, The effects of abstracted group identities on knowledge sharing networks: a case study of IBM NZ Ltd. 2008 73 B. Johnson, Polarity Management – Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. 1992 74E. Obeng, New Rules for a New World. 1997 75 Interviewee comment 76 A. Ringleb and D. Rock, The emerging field of NeuroLeadership. Neuroleadership Journal, 1: 1-10. 2008 77 J.Hazy, J. Goldstein, and B. Lichtenstein (Eds), Complex Systems Leadership Theory: New Perspectives from Complexity Science on Social and Organizational Effectiveness. 2007 78 R. Keegan and L. Lahey, Immunity to Change: How to Overcome It and Unlock Potential in Yourself and Your Organization. 2009 64

34

TURQUOISENZ

About the author Ann Braithwaite specialises in leadership development, organisation problem solving, and complex change. Ann supports her consulting work applied thought leadership, research expertise and practical insights from her many years of practical experience.

Ann helps leaders to ensure development and change activities are implementable from an organisation point of view, while enabling desired changes. She believes in using the natural networks and energy of the organisation and has had

significant success with this approach.

on the use of narrative research for Volvo Research Institute.

She holds a Masters by Research in Business Strategy (First Class) from the University of Greenwich, UK where she was also a visiting lecturer on the MBA (International Finance) programme.

She has co-designed and delivered various projects with global thought-leaders on complexity, knowledge sharing and decision-making. As a Fellow of the Omega Centre University College of London, Ann advised

Ann Braithwaite

Š ANN BRAITHWAITE TURQUOISENZ 2014

35