7 Personal development and leadership (you and the values)
(With extensive cooperation of Erna Oldenboom)
A new paradigm needs an adapted set of competencies for managers who want to manage within it.
Management in complexity (not of complexity), management in diversity, management in respect for multiple solutions and multiple truths, and management in paradoxes: these are the necessary skil s of the manager of today. “Wave or particle?” it only makes a difference in the eye of the observer, the manager. Machines cannot realize values and cannot make intuitive choices. Machines cannot choose between multiple possible truths; managers who behave and think as machines cannot either. In this chapter we explore personal development in order to eventual y come to a conversation about leadership.
We could write a little or a lot on this topic, but ultimately every individual will have to take responsibility for their own personal development. It is all related to personal activities and experiences and therefore not easy to write about, and even harder to explain how somebody should go about doing it. Despite the fact that many books have been written on the subject it is not easy to capture all the aspects and dynamics in a book. Having said that, what we can offer are some ideas, some suggestions, which might help you as individual to start your exploration. These suggestions can never be complete solutions. No instrument, independent of how good it is, is able to replace the necessary experimentation and change process a human has to go through. As I mentioned before, one eventual y has to lay down the path simply by walking it; that is always the case. Keep that in mind while reading this chapter. What is described here is only the intermediate part of the process to reach the goal, i.e. becoming a learning individual, not clinging to a fixed formula. While learning, the human advances in personal development.
In many dictionaries a “person” is often described in her relationship with theatre and the person is then a role that is played. Only in second-order does the “individual”, the personality comes across. It is good to remember Varela here when he defines “enacted cognition”. Enaction is typical y what a good theatre player does; she does not play the act, she becomes the identity, the personality of the person, the role she plays. Development is often interpreted as “giving growth, bringing to its full potential”. Educating and transferring knowledge are other ideas related to development that can be found in a dictionary. The duality between the individual and the “role” that the same individual plays in the network of people surrounding him proves to be very important and will be discussed further. Working at personal change, processes will always have to take place within the given framework of reality and within the existing human network. A person is only the personality he is within his context.
If we continue with the theatre metaphor, we could translate personal development as follows:
Developing and bringing to full potential the roles that the player plays (or could play) in the big theatre play (drama or comedy) that is cal ed life.
However, in a theatrical play we can anticipate with some certainty how it evolves. The set does not change all the time and the different roles are distributed and do not often change during the play either. During the rehearsals the roles and the interaction of the players are fine-tuned and, in general, we expect actors to stick to their respective roles. The play itself and the ending are known by the actors and directors upfront. At least, that is the case in most plays. The ambiance can be different, players can act better or worse, but we don’t expect actors to suddenly start doing different things from what is expected. A theatrical play takes place within the scripted framework and structure. Such a play is not real y a complex system. The play of life, on the contrary, is a complex system, an ever-changing, dynamic and non-linear system.
One could consider the life in which we are all actors as a big play. But a theatrical play can be interrupted at any time, during the rehearsals and the actual performance. We could rearrange the set, or even slightly adapt the roles and, after repeated rehearsals, we are going to achieve the desired results.
Why this theatre metaphor as an introduction to personal development? Since both the set (the context) and actor are important, but even more so, the interaction between the different actors within the dynamics of the “playing field”, and all this within the given limits of the play chosen. In real life, the play is not written yet.
The individual will have to explore and become aware of the possibilities and limitations of the play in which he performs, before being able to play a real y active role and a role that is possibly ever-changing. Without new insights, personal development doesn’t real y take place. I will highlight that when I talk about a possible learning structure for supporting personal development. The combination of new insights on the one hand, and the experience of a different learning approach, internal y oriented (reflexive) instead of external y (transfer oriented) on the other hand, are key to personal development. The insight element (the external y oriented, the transfer oriented) refers to the right-hand side part of Ken Wilber’s holistic figure. The focus on internal y-oriented learning has everything to do with the left-hand side of the same figure, i.e. the interpersonal as experienced by the individual and the highly subjective enaction of the “I”.
If we want to do something with the ideas of this book, we have to start searching for a more holistic understanding of different learning situations. As already suggested, we can only give sketches of possible actions, but keep in mind that life and in particular corporate life, offers many possibilities for such experiences on a daily basis. Instead of creating them artificial y we could also use reality as a large field of experimentation. To start off with, some personal coaching and acquainting yourself with some self-coaching techniques are very useful. This support could be organized and formal, for instance within the framework of a workshop if the aim is to create a more learning-focused team, or in a more individual setting of personal coaching if the aim is more a trajectory of personal development.
In order to keep it accessible, we cluster the possible actions that you can take in three segments, but they are ideal y parallel programs. Since it is you as an individual reading this book we start with the focus on the individual. Next we consider some potentialities of the individual within his network and, in practice, the organization or the company in which the individual is active. But even the organization or company cannot avoid the logic of complexity that is omnipresent. A learning individual within a non-learning organization only leads to frustration. Therefore it is necessary to touch upon some aspects that have to do with the organization or the company: we refer here to some fundamental choices that need to be made.
Focus on the individual
The prevailing paradigm, fitting a reductionist rational view of reality but one which we want to eliminate, is the following: One invents a learning path (or a learning plan) with fixed learning goals that use well defined means in order to reach the set goals in a set time after which we expect the learner to have become measurably smarter or better. Similar to the case of the theatrical play, we presume that we can anticipate the final result from the very beginning and that the roles are fixed. In doing so, we try to arrest our way of thinking as much as possible and the conception of our learning, and we keep it as confined as possible; that is what we often call personal development or renewal. We teach the individual to keep as closely as possible to the predefined play within its given set.
A more holistic approach, however, starts directly with the learner being able and willing to identify learning goals, and wants to maintain the freedom to continuously adapt those goals and in doing so, maintains the possibility to continual y learn. The deepest inner emotion of the individual then becomes the driver for possible change. A person takes responsibility for his own learning. There is no stagecoach driver sitting upfront on the box; every individual chooses his or her own path.
That also implies that if a person (or manager) is not able to access his inner emotions – which unfortunately often happens in the western world – the starting position is from the outset very difficult. The design of one’s own learning goals cannot be dictated by the world, the environment or what the company would like you to learn – the imagined wished-for behavior or the desired competencies that somebody should possess.
We cannot presume that somebody will walk the path that we have imagined for them, supported by those means that we have identified to be helpful and important and that will lead to better results. Even the goal that we have for another person is often clearer to us than to the individual.
We should not underestimate how extremely implicitly this process becomes internalized. As already discussed, we collectively keep such a system alive and under continuous reinforcement. Schools, youth clubs, social meeting places, TV programs, newspapers and radio flood our daily environment with messages that are consciously and unconsciously stored and metabolized in our bodies and these are many expressions of the culture in which we live. We seem to live in full freedom without realizing that this is only a “dependent” freedom, a relative freedom. Philosophical y we could question whether we are at all able to think out of our box. But in that case, all potential for continuously adapted learning, what I would like to call the real learning, would become obsolete.
The learning human, therefore, needs to return first to their own inner feelings and sensation. In the western world this is close to a kind of mission impossible, since we strongly underestimate the potential of the embodied mind (as described earlier), a mind/body driving energy. In our world, we often mix the power of thought with an extreme application of the analytical brain function.
Our actions (or our non-actions) are very much driven by our thoughts. Those thoughts are much more consistent than we often think. We are continuously searching for arguments to reinforce our thoughts and give them a higher level of truth. In doing so, we create our own world of thoughts and we keep it alive as much as possible. Our assumptions drive our thought, and eventual y drive our action.
If we think that the world will col apse as some religious groups do, then we will see conflict and problems, violence, disasters, etc. everywhere. On the other hand, if we think and observe in term of progress (growth) and if we define progress from a purely economic and technical viewpoint, we start considering countries as developed and less- or even under-developed countries. If we pay more attention in our actions and thinking to the rational side of our consciousness, we will observe the world in a more reductionist manner. If we prefer objectivism to subjectivism we again choose another angle. In doing so, at least I presume, there is something akin to dualism and that dualism would mean a difference between two things or viewpoints.
In Eastern cultures people pay more attention to personal experience (to the subject), since the objective side just exists and is factual y the same for everybody. The individual’s interpretation is what makes the difference. That personal sensation gets more attention and therefore there is less of a difference between the inner and the outer world. No doubt, it will be difficult for the learning manager to get close (enough) to their own inner feelings. Indeed, (guided) meditation is a possible way to get in touch with and re-discover the inner self. Experience has shown that it is extremely difficult to take the first steps on this learning path. Not only do we not have much experience with exercises like meditation (though ritual prayer is not necessarily that different), but unfortunately there is also a lot of esoteric movement around techniques like these that do not always pay it proper service. In our world, the search for the inner self is highly discredited – we pay a high price for this. Do not forget, however, that thought invariably leads to action. If you want to become a learning individual, you will have to start with focusing on your own learning goals.
You are where your thoughts are
Assure yourself that your thoughts are there
Where you would like them to be
Once this first obstacle is overcome, one cannot understand personal development independent of the culture or environment in which someone emerges. Personal development has to do with how someone considers their culture or environment. These thoughts give security and structure to our existence, but at the same time they limit our learning and/or they can make someone a prisoner of his own life. The “we” experience of culture refers to the left lower quadrant in Wilber’s holistic picture.
The personal learning aims are still central, but now we consider them within the network in which a person operates (very often the company). For simplicity, we can call that the external sensation of personal learning, but also then explore the fact that this part can be “shared”. What is learned, and how individuals experience that learning, remains highly personal. But part of the learning goals and part of what has been learned can now be shared. There is a common context.
In order to support this process, we have developed a methodology and have made it available via electronic media, for example through electronic learning platforms or corporate intranets. Particularly for companies and larger groups this latter variant is interesting and allows working on a somewhat larger scale while keeping the required flexibility.
The aim is to allow participants (managers, learning individuals) to realize their individual learning goals – walking the path to find the path – based on a personal responsibility. The anticipated result is that managers are able to manage their personal development plan better than before (beyond this organized course). The methodology consists of a number of steps and though we briefly describe them here, this description is in no way the methodology itself. Neither does this give real insight into the experience that the learner gets when applying this method.
At the start of the learning trajectory, there is an intake interview that roughly deals with the following questions, with the aim that participants explore their own current feelings:
• Who am I?
• What do I want to attain or what do I want to learn?
• What do I need in order to do that?
• How do I anticipate achieving that?
• By when do I want to have accomplished this?
The aim is to translate in a very detailed yet simple way, a number of individual wishes, intentions and expectations. Based on the results a personal learning coach could be sought. Next, participants start working on the more content-focused parts of the course, always using a learning-by-doing approach (in fact many other courses could fulfill this need, though some are better adapted for the purpose than others). A course in this context can never be a traditional knowledge transfer, teacher driven course. As already indicated, personal development can only flourish when learners are confronted with new insights, preferably insights that challenge the individual. Within the right circumstances the combination of new insights and personal development will continue. The trio of insight, form and meaningfulness (science, art and spirituality) that we identified earlier is the guiding principle for the entire methodology and course. This “course” could just be daily practice, which brings personal development squarely back into workplace learning.
One could use competency criteria and behavioral criteria, in order to facilitate the desired learning (see questions at the end of this chapter). The knowledge and innovation approach advocated in this book is clearly and exclusively one based on competency development. Competencies of possible interest to a manager that could be explored are: courage, initiative, independence, the capacity to deal with stress, capacity to convince, organizational sensitivity, ability to cooperate, flexibility, ambition, energy, etc. Of course, these criteria need to be adapted to suit different companies or organizations and to what each individual wishes to learn.
The role of the leader is hopeful y clear now: to stimulate, to activate, to motivate, to inspire and to increase enthusiasm. However, the success factor that underpins this approach remains the responsibility of the learner for their own personal learning. The learner decides where to go, firmly gripping the steering wheel. The learner reacts on what is offered, but also creates. The learner respects others’ opinions and listens to others. The learner contributes to the learning processes of all other participants, but also respects the privacy of others. In practice this list is longer but this offers some insight into the basic rules of the game.
This rather external approach to personal learning and development can only succeed if we do not ignore the emotional component in this learning and developmental process. Learning without emotions is like training a monkey for the circus.
Focus on the network
While we have paid much attention to the person (let us say the personality of the manager), personal development cannot be seen independently from the structures in which the individual operates. This book has highlighted these concepts a number of times. What can a manager do in order to become a learning individual within a non-learning environment? How can a manager create a learning environment? A few ideas could help give orientation in line with the paradigm developed in this book. We look at it as the person (manager) participating in the game called the company.
We general y observe that people leap quickly to potential solutions without real y listening to the problem and without using the power and insights of others. The manager is often immediately ready with his answer, his solution. There are many procedures in place to solve problems and even emergency procedures in case the first ones did not work. Depending on the target decided, an optimal path is automatical y deduced. And the target itself is almost automatical y generated by the question or the problem. Indeed a rather mechanistic way of organizing, but observing managerial practice, this seems to be the practice of the day. Add to this the hierarchical organizational form and we are faced with static, non-learning organizations. In even the best cases, the improvement of a procedure will often only lead to a marginal increase in efficiency. In the worst case it is completely counterproductive with no result. What can be done in such a case?
First of al , we have to observe that given the rather strict mechanistic basis of western management thinking, it is extremely difficult to change that radical y. Therefore, and certainly in the initial phases, some coaching, training or education will be necessary and will yield results. There are multiple possible ways of dealing with this and these should be considered case by case. Again this will depend on the people involved and the context within which they work.
What should be acquired first are the rules of the game of the network. In the previous chapter we elaborated in some detail on these rules of the game, but we will summarize them here. In order to allow a network to achieve autopoiesis, a number of conditions should be met. The network should be ring-fenced in order to (technical y) avoid deviation from the path and having elements of the process fall away. Returning to the analogy of playing soccer, it means that we should first define the soccer field and rules in order to avoid deviating into playing another game (remember that the field is an integral part of the game). The boundaries do not necessarily have to be too restrictive and therefore confine the playing area, but it has to be clear for all players. For soccer players it is clear that soccer is played within the lines of the field. If we move the boundary (and make the field larger for instance), we would not have exactly the same game on a larger field, but would instead create a different game altogether. The larger and more diverse the field, the more possibilities exist and the more potential the game has. Hence, the first task of the manager is to define the boundaries and size of the field.
Next, all players have to attempt to optimize and maximize their own interest. It is the role of the manager to bring together the players who contribute to a larger common purpose, yet still enhancing their respective interests. That common purpose is not easy to determine and it is also not the path to be followed. We will return to this later. Since each individual optimizes their own behavior, it is not required of the manager to give too much direction or exercise a lot of control. This is easier said than done.
Final y, participants should agree on a minimum set of rules of interaction and communication. In soccer the rules of the game are essential y that players should not touch the ball with their hands, should not kick and shove each other, etc. In business, rules would be mutual respect, clear, sufficient and continuous communication (and here knowledge management could again play a role), etc. It is
the role of the manager to co-create these rules in consultation and cooperation with players but, above al , to facilitate adherence to, and recognition of, the rules. In optimal conditions this communication should be easy and productive. As discussed in detail in some of my other books, this leads us rapidly into knowledge management as a facilitator for continuous learning.
In summary, the manager has three main tasks:
• Define boundaries and make sure that everybody knows and understands what they are;
• Motivate everybody to optimize their personal interest as much as possible while supporting individuals to contribute the best of themselves;
• Identify clear and simple communication rules with the aim of aiding effective communication.
In practice one could work at this in different work forms, though workshops have proven to be the most straightforward.
However, there is a small “but”. We should all know where we would like to go. When Alice in Wonderland asks the cat which path she should take, the cat’s question in turn was where Alice wanted to go. Since she did not know, the path didn’t matter much. If one doesn’t know where to go, every path is an equal y good one. That does not mean that a predetermined target absolutely has to be reached. But without a goal we cannot make any initial choices. If, when arriving at a fork in the road, you don’t know where you want to go, you cannot make a definite choice and you remain at this fork (or place in your career).
The human in his world
The goal has everything to do with the aim of the company. In many cases, a company does not real y have a vision. Most company “vision statements” are the same: service to clients, growth, quality, etc. They are almost interchangeable. And from that “vision”, managers automatical y attempt to plot a path: which steps should be taken in order to realize the vision?
However, there is frequently a step before that which is concerned with paradoxes and often mutual y exclusive choices: what is the value that the company is contributing to society? Next we should consider how the network could be organized (the minimal network requirements) to realize the choices made. That is what I would like to call a “business architecture” – it is the first sketch of the network organization that we want to grow, to cultivate.
This can clearly only be achieved by gathering people around a table. In order to avoid immediately falling back into attempts at defining the path, external facilitation is highly desirable. Some examples of fundamental choices that should be addressed in such workshops are:
• Short term orientation (shareholder value) versus longer term vision (sustainability)
• Are we in search of “simplicity” (limiting and controlling the complexity and hence the possibilities) or rather complexity (creative potential)
• Is the management approach one of control (spreadsheet management) or rather one of stimulating initiative
• Do we consider diversity as a creative force or rather as a disturbing factor
Concerning the design of a business architecture, different methods exist, though most of them are not based on the self-creating and self-organizing power of a network. When choosing a methodology it seems important to us that it should be based on a well thought-out paradigm, in line with the identified aims. And let us keep in mind that here too, order will lead to chaos.
Leadership: the driving force for realizing values
To accept a holistic management approach is to accept that responsible management goes far beyond the traditional, mechanistic and control-driven view. It even goes beyond the desire to create an interrelated economy because that interrelatedness (right lower quadrant in our holistic model) is only a consequence. The basis and drivers are values, purpose and meaning. It is a management style that is value-driven and that gives true meaning and space to everyone’s need for personal development, improvement, and ultimately learning. It further considers that the personal development of each employee provides the driving force and the energy for the success of the company. In other words, leadership becomes central in management.
Much academic research has been devoted to leadership, leadership styles and leadership training. Instead of replicating that here, this section develops a metaphor around the orchestra and its conductor, to generate a checklist for sustainable leadership. It is based on a 1999 BBC recording made in cooperation with the conductor Nierenberg and the BBC orchestra. The analysis of this metaphor will produce a leadership checklist – a set of questions to help evaluate existing leadership quality, and will also provide a learning path for creating more inspirational leaders. Nierenberg had placed a number of managers (as he cal s it – people that occupy the podium) inside the orchestra, in order to be able to make different types of observations. He then undertook a number of experiments with the orchestra during which he asked the managers to observe and reflect. Retrospectively this emerges as a superb course in leadership via experimentation. The main lessons learned from this powerful metaphor can be identified as follows:
First, accept for a moment that the orchestra is the company, with its multiple divisions, geographical locations, middle managers, etc. The purpose of the orchestra is to deliver a service (to create an emotional sensation with the audience – any sensation of joy, grief, danger, despair, etc. – whatever the score and composer chose it to convey). There is some hardware involved (musical instruments), there is a common process (the score), but all that is only in support of a service to be delivered in real time to a client. That is not so different from what most of the companies claim to do in Europe and the US. The conductor is the CEO. The conductor is not the best “first violin” that is afterwards promoted to conductor. If an orchestra were to do that, they would lose twice: first, they lose their best first violin, and second they risk appointing a conductor who’s not necessarily the best person for the job. Being a conductor is a profession that, of course, needs a more than average knowledge of music, playing instruments, harmony, etc. but that, above al , is a profession of leadership in its own right. A conductor is indeed a leader, a visionary, an inspirer.
Management often promotes the successful marketing manager or financial manager to CEO. And, if he or she is indeed a successful marketing or financial manager, the company loses the successful manager but it has no guarantee that it would have a good CEO, and unfortunately the promoted manager will most probably continue to have a functional focus. Like the orchestra’s conductor, being a manager is a profession in its own right, requiring good technical and functional knowledge, but most importantly he or she needs to be a leader that is able to keep the holistic view of the orchestra and, simultaneously, the service to be delivered to the audience. A conductor is not the one who plays the music. He or she has another role to fulfill – the role of the visionary leader, the motivator, the coordinator, the one that sets out the vision and takes the responsibility of the podium. In this way, a real y good CEO is no different from a real y good conductor.
Playing music involves many, many decisions to be taken, all individual y and most very smal , but taken together the interaction of multiple individual decisions makes or breaks the success of the music performance. Each musician has the capacity of balance between activity and restraint. Both are equal y important, both for playing the instrument and for coordinating with the others. Each and every individual should be able to perform his or her task. These are the essential cornerstones of the service eventual y delivered. The instrument (the hardware) real y becomes part of the body. It appears that the violin (for example) is nothing more than an extension of the body. And ultimately the body plays the music, not the violin. The violin is only the sensory connection with the external world. Two musicians playing the same score on the same instrument can create a different sound and a different sensation. While playing, all the senses are engaged, senses that go far beyond analytical or technical skil s. Delivering a service has to do with all the senses, with emotions, with