Social Responsible Leadership

Leader Development of Sustainable Living Organizations:

 A Conceptual Framework

Presented

International Leadership Association

International Conference 2006

Chicago, IL USA 

Extract:  Leadership is destined to evolve from its current mechanistic models to a more complex or living systems design.  Leadership greatness required for the future must be based on outcomes.  These outcomes must be morally and ethically aligned to elevate the organization, community and society.  The Leader of the future will use his/her charisma to motivate and empower followers to set aside self-interest and exert extra effort for the good of the organization, community, and society.  In return the followers will create, innovate and develop greatness within the organization, community and society.  This follower relationship will in turn empower the leader to higher standards.  This is an example of a complex living system, complex and simple.  The idea that complex, living systems have much to teach the business world because of their capacity to learn and grow despite radical changes in their environment. This document will show how this research team developed these opinions and views on the inevitable future of leaders. 

 Leadership is at a cross-road.  In our opinion the lack of greatness in today’s leaders, the lack of high moral and ethical standards, the Enron, Worldcom, Ahold and Royal Dutch Shell scandals to name a few, leadership is destined to change, but what path or direction will leaders seek?  This is the cross-roads.  This research team believes leadership is destined to evolve from its current mechanistic models to a more complex or living systems design.  Leadership greatness required for the future must be based on outcomes.  These outcomes must be morally and ethically aligned to elevate the organization, community and society.  The Leader of the future will use his/her charisma to motivate and empower followers to set aside self-interest and exert extra effort for the good of the organization, community, and society.  In return the followers will create, innovate and develop greatness within the organization, community and society.  This follower relationship will in turn empower the leader to higher standards.  This is an example of a complex living system, complex and simple.  This document will show how this research team developed these opinions and views on the inevitable future of leaders. 

Living Systems Theory

An integrated living-systems view of leadership is different from the commonly accepted Newtonian, or mechanistic, view of leadership.  The mechanistic paradigm espouses that leading organizations run well if they operate similar to machines, separated into narrow processes that are linked together.  The mechanistic perspective is generally held that preservation of an organization is preservation of its current form; therefore leaders and followers manage the parts so that the machine continues to function predictably.

            In a mechanistic approach, leading organizations focus on problem solving and define their success by their ability to effectively fix the parts of the system (Senge, 2000).  The Newtonian image of the universe reflects the belief that influence occurs as a direct result of force exerted from one person to another, cause and effect theory, and that in order to understand the whole, we must study the parts (Wheatley, 1999).  Similarly, reductionism defines the whole as nothing but a sum of its parts (Kauffman, 1980).  These perspectives disregard how the parts fit together and the patterns that exist between them as well as the behaviors and capacities that emerge as a result of leaders and followers working together.

            We observe the patterns and relationships among the parts, we can see the organizations of systems, thereby defining a system as a collection of parts that interact with one another to function as a whole (Kauffman, 1980).  Or as Wheatley (1999) states:

Each organism maintains a clear sense of its individual identity within a larger network of relationship that helps shape its identity.  Each being is noticeable as a separate entity, yet it is simultaneously part of the whole system.  While we humans observe and count separate selves, and pay a great deal of attention to the differences that seem to divide us, in fact we survive only as we learn to participate in a web of relationships. (p. 20).

Wheatley (1999) adds that systems and individuals exist symbiotically, and the relationships that exist within a system shape its reality and potential:

What is critical is the relationship created between two or more elements of a system.  Systems influence individuals, and individuals call forth systems.  It is the relationship that evokes the present reality, and the moment. (p. 36).

            Kauffman (1980) characterizes a system as one in which all of the parts must be present and arranged in the proper way in order to perform; taking away any part changes the system.  If it does not matter how the parts are arranged and nothing changes, if parts are added or taken away, Kauffman argues, then we are dealing with a heap and not a system.  Kauffman also asserts that the stability, change, and growth of systems depend on positive and negative feedback.

            Negative feedback is a process that negates disturbances in the system to create stability, such as how a thermostat regulates a heating and cooling system based on the surrounding air temperature.  Leaders perform a similar function when they evaluate and guide followers’ performance based on standard criteria that define expected outcomes for followers (Wheatley, 1999).  Positive feedback amplifies or adds to individual and organizational change, such as the way in which individuals invest rather than consume their profits in order to achieve greater wealth, which in turn gives each individual more to invest.

            The development of a living system is dependent on the continued flow of information passing through the positive and negative feedback in order to sustain itself (Vodicka, 2003).  Kauffman believes that any change will only be temporary if leaders and followers do not change the important relationships interacting within the system.  Conversely temporary and permanent second order change will alter the long-term behavior of a system as the change is imprinted on the combined relationships within the system.

            Whereas negative feedback maintain stability and equilibrium in a system, positive feedback creates disequilibrium that is necessary for the system’s growth.  Therefore, the internal and external forces that create disequilibrium are not a threat to the system, but an opportunity to reorganize and respond to new information or in theory to self-organize (Wheatley, 1999).  A self-organizing system is one that reorganizes itself into whatever form determined best suited for the present situation and maintains the system’s identity.  The system is not locked into one structure nor bound by physical or psychological rigidity.  Instead, the system, leader, organization, community and society must support fluid processes that deal with specific and ever-changing needs and “creates workplaces where people, ideas, and information circulate freely” (Wheatley, 1999, p. 82).

            In the midst of disequilibrium, a self-organizing system is stable because it has “clarity about who it is, what it needs, and what is required to survive in its environment” (Wheatley, 1999, p. 83).  Wheatley (1999) continues:

Self-organizing systems are never passive, hapless victims, forced to react to their environment.  As the system matures and develops self-knowledge, it becomes more adept at working with its environment.  It uses available resources more effectively, sustaining and strengthening itself.  It gradually develops a stability that then helps shelter it from many of the demands from the environment.  This stability enables it to continue to develop in ways of its own choosing, not as a fearful reactant (p. 84).

            Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1996) add that emergence and maintenance of the new system depends on the interaction of individuals but also on whether change is continuing to occur:

Systems emerge as individuals decide how they can live together.  From such relationships, a new entity arises with new capacities and increased stability.  Yet this system-wide stability depends on the ability of its members to change.  Strangely, the system maintains itself only if change is occurring somewhere in it all the time (p. 33).

            Unlike the mechanistic paradigm that focuses on the parts of a system, living-systems theory focuses on the whole or the collective.  Living systems are dynamic and are based on the following imperatives (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996):

·      Freedom to create oneself.

·      The need to preserve oneself.

·      The desire to form systems and relationships.

·      The capacity to invent, to discover original newness.

·      And, the need for meaning, contributions, and growth.

            From a living-systems view of leadership, leading organizations are systems that self-organize, create, think, adapt, and seek meaning.  If the organization or leader violates any of these imperative, the system and/or the organization will fail.  The key then is for leadership to facilitate a process and build organizational capacity to honor these imperatives.  By doing so, the leader and the organization is able to learn from itself and create appropriate and relevant change efforts based on new knowledge; hence, it is self-organizing and functions as a learning organization evolving into a living organization.  However, most leadership and change in organizations occurs at the surface level of structures, processes, and systems.  Organizations that apply their leadership and change efforts at this level often are unsuccessful in creating deep, second order change because the organizational leaders neither identify nor address the root causes of organizational issues.

The Conceptual Framework

            The conceptual framework is based on several facets of management and organizational theory that, when combined with effective transformational leadership, prepare organizations and leaders to effectively influence internal and external factors which could challenge their viability.  The external environment poses critical challenges to organizations and leaders in the form of global competition, environmental and community factors, needs being driven by the customer, constant rate of change, and technological advances.  Mergers and acquisitions compound these external factors, creating additional stress on internal factors.  Internally, failures and downsizing decrease levels of management and increase spans of control.  The cohort of workers is changing, as well as increased competition for workers.  More women and minorities are entering the job market, working alongside a generation of baby-boomers.  An intricate component of organizational success is the leadership capacity within organizations.  Currently there is a significant lack of confidence and availability of qualified leadership talent within organizations to help face the internal and external factors threatening their success.

            The challenges existing in today’s worldwide marketplace have called into question the type of leadership that can ensure survival and guide organizations to performance beyond expectations (Brown, 1987).  This call for outstanding leadership coincides with the profound changes organizations currently face.  These changes have transformed the role of leaders and the requirements to effectively lead in these turbulent times.  Since the mid-80s, a variety of authors have recognized the need to broaden leadership theory and research to better understand the type of leadership that can initiate and facilitate organizational transformation (Bass & Avolio, 1997).  There needs to be a new paradigm of leadership to promote change and development in individuals, groups and organizations (Bass & Avolio, 1997) to equip them to confront the extensive and fundamental changes occurring inside and outside the workplace (Kanter, 1983).

            The fundamental shifts required by organizations to face the current challenges requires the kind of leaders that Burns (1978), Bass (1985) and Tichy and Devanna (1986) have called transformational.  The identification of the paradigm of transformational leadership is considered a significant qualitative step beyond previous leadership models.  Transformational leadership, based on the work of Burns (1978), House (1977), Zaleznik (1977), and Bass (1985), incorporates the dynamic of influencing others by understanding and capitalizing on the emotions and perceptions within the leadership relationship.  For many researchers, this distinction reflects the differences in management and leadership, with management being more rational in nature and leadership more motivational (Clover, 1990).  Some researchers, including Burns (1978), would argue that the two are distinct roles played out by different people at different levels in organizations.  Others, including Bass (1985), see the two as integral skills necessary to effectively function in a leadership capacity.  The Full Range Leadership Model addresses this issue.

            Through direct and indirect relationships, leaders can influence the beliefs and behaviors of individuals, groups, and the organization.  Transactional leadership provides a solid foundation through constructive and corrective behaviors by clarifying work goals, sharing information, and establishing work standards and procedures, all of which are essential to individual performance effectiveness.  Transformational leadership augmented by transactional leadership motivates followers to meet their own intrinsic needs through their job and job performance.  Transformational leadership at the top of the organization defines the vision, mission, values and norms of an organization and develops the leadership capacity throughout the collective, resulting in organizational control, order and innovation.

            Transformational leadership championed and modeled at the top of an organization cascades through the organization, resulting in alignment of day-to-day activities and business needs and objectives.  Managers and supervisors ensure this alignment by supporting their own development and that of their followers.  In shifting their role from that of a traditional supervisor to that of a coach or facilitator, managers and supervisors provide the type of super-leadership that promotes and supports self-management of individuals and groups within the collective.

            Top managers who capitalize on their transformational power establish organizational systems and environments, job designs, and expectations of effective leadership behaviors that support the development and empowerment of the collective spirit and energy within an organization.  Constant and continuous communication is understood as an integral component of the organization’s shared network of power and intelligence.  From a systems perspective, transformational leaders develop organizational cultures based on a philosophy of empowerment.  Transformational leadership is considered an empowering form of leadership.  As part of the organization’s culture, empowerment develops a strong customer focus and builds the intellectual and leadership capacity to respond to customer needs.  Power is shared with followers; trust is shared between leaders and followers.  An empowering culture is one in which problem solving, decision making, and responsibilities for continuous improvement activities are shared at all levels.  As a result, performance in an empowering environment ensures that customer satisfaction remains high, creating opportunities for intrinsic job satisfaction; confidence, achievement and pride on the part of employees who helped contribute to the goal of creating and maintaining customer satisfaction.

            Consistency in transformation leadership behavior unleashes employee motivation.  Individuals are able to realize their own individual needs for development and satisfaction through their work and their alignment with the organization’s goals.  Job motivation is high due to organizational contributions in providing knowledge and skills that generate follower competence, job autonym, and performance feedback.  These core job dimensions generate a sense of felt responsibility, meaningfulness of work, and provide knowledge of performance results.  These critical psychological states result in increased effort and a willingness to work interdependently, which contribute to performance.  When properly rewarded through intrinsic and extrinsic means, performance generates both personal and organizational benefits.  Personal outcomes of satisfaction, confidence, achievement and pride contribute to overall organizational outcomes of lower turnover and absenteeism, increased retention, quality, and speed which contribute to organizational competitiveness, flexibility, and readiness for change.

            Organizations and leaders who have integrated effective transformational leadership behaviors at the top of the organization as well as throughout, and who have augmented transformational behaviors with transactional behaviors throughout, will generate the type of culture and motivation that results in organizational resilience, renewal, alignment, and agility that creates a viable, creative, and innovative organization.  Transformational leadership, when cascaded throughout the organization, develops an environment where collective talent creates a synergy that can result in organizational transformation.  For organizations and leaders to realize their full potential, they must develop a shared leadership capacity and intellect within their organization, and in so doing, enhance their abilities to manage the internal and external threats to their survival.

Figure 1:  Conceptual Framework

            This research project has examined several components of transformational leadership in the conceptual framework highlighted in Figure 1.  Leadership behaviors of members and teams are identified.  The cascading effect is examined through an analysis of individual and team leadership behavior scores.  This project analyzed the augmentation effect on the perceived follower satisfaction and perceived organizational effectiveness based on their perceptions of their leader’s behavior and on part of the teams based on perceptions of their team’s leadership behaviors.

Summary

            Our research found a unique relationship between the factors examined in this conceptual framework.  We found extremely strong relationships between the charismatic and empowerment attributes of transformational leadership and the Organizational Momentum attributes of organizational mass, speed and direction, as well at employee or follower satisfaction.  These relationships explained over 90% percent of the variance in our regression analysis.  Moreover, the most unusual factor was that Organizational Momentum attributes and follower satisfaction developed significant relations with attributes of transformational leadership by explaining 87% percent of the variance in our regression analysis.  If you add in the attributes of transformational and transactional leadership there was an even strong relationship in our study by explaining 97% percent of the variance.

            The constant tension between the ideal reality of the vision and the concrete reality of the present helps to keep the organization and organizational leaders on the proper path between accomplishing its day-to-day tasks and moving forward to achieve its dreams.  Any organization that wants to stay ahead in the future will strive to incorporate these values into its operating philosophy.  The organizational leaders will be forced to practice the attributes of transformational leadership and empower organizational employees or followers to set aside self-interest and exert extra effort to obtain the vision and goals needed to achieve the organizations inevitable future.

            The idea that complex, living systems have much to teach the business world because of their capacity to learn and grow despite radical changes in their environment.  But there is a danger that the principle of modeling organizations on these flexible systems will require leadership skills not readily available. 

References

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations.  New York, NY:            The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1997).  Full range Leadership Development:  Manual for the          Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.  Redwood City, CA:  Mind Garden, Inc.

Brown, M. D. (1987).  Leadership and Organizational Transformation:  A           Competency            Model, (Doctorial Dissertation).  Dissertation Abstracts          International, 49 (03A) 550.  Santa Barbara, CA:  The Fielding Institute.

Burns, J. M. (1978).  Leadership.  New York, NY:  Harper and Row.

Clover, W. H. (1990).  Transformational Leaders:  Team Performance, Leadership    Ratings, and Firsthand Impressions.  In Clark, K. E. & Clark, M. B. (Eds),       Measures of Leadership.  West Orange, NJ:  Leadership Library of America, pp. 171-184.

House, R. J. (1977).  Theory of Charismatic Leadership.  In 

Hunt, J. G. & Larson, L. L. (Eds), Leadership:  The Cutting Edge.  Carbondale, IL:  Southern Illinois     University Press.

Kanter, R. M. (1983).  The Change Masters:  Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the    American Corporation.  New York, NY:  Simon and Schuster.

Kauffman, D. L. (1980).  System One:  An Introduction to Systems Thinking.  Minneapolis, MN:  Future Systems, Inc.

Senge, P. (2000).  Lessons for change leaders.  In Hesselbeing F. & Johnston, R. (Eds.)           On Leading Change:  A Leader to Leader Guide. San Francisco, CA:  Jossey-Bass,           pp. 19-31.

Tichy, N. M. & Devanna, F. (1986).  Transformational Leadership.  New York, NY:  Wiley.

Vodicka, D. (2003).  New Sciences Literature Review.       http://www.dvodicka.com/files/The_new_sciences.pdf

Wheatley, M. J. (1999).  Leadership and the New Science, 2nd Ed.  San Francisco, CA:          Berrett-Koehler.

Wheatley, M. J. & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996).  A Simpler Way.  San Francisco, CA:         Berrett-Koehler.

Zaleznik, A. (1977).  Managers and Leaders:  Are They Different?  Harvard Business     Review, 54, pp. 67-78