Doc,
Thank you for the response. I am unclear exactly what you are saying, so
let me try to paraphrase, and you can clarify where I am off-base.
The owner creates a vision, but this is not necessarily an act of
leadership. Others are attracted to it. They partner with the owner
around the purpose of the organization. Different people play leadership
roles in components of achieving the purpose or vision. Everyone plays
leadership and followership roles more or less at the same time. I think
you are implying that leadership by necessity can never be coercive, but
always depends on voluntary followership, or partnership.
You then say leadership is not hierarchical. This is related to the
statement above that leadership can not be coercive. I like your
statement, "Leadership has always depended on the clear-sightedness of
purpose, the communication of that purpose and the degree to which
partners (or followers) organized themselves around that purpose."
You then go on to say, "Mastery is critical to the development of
clear-sight; the understanding of purpose; the knowledge and skills for
furthering that purpose. To become a master involves the endless months
and years of experience, practice, failure, learning, growth and
understanding. Vision is a critical element of mastery. Mastery is where
the capacity for power is developed and sustained."
By and large I think this is correct. You also describe the components of
LO in the organization, and I agree with that. At the end you point out "
for this all to work, there must be many people willing to "speak when the
spirit moves them," to act authentically, to exercise their power for the
good of the organization--and others must be ready to listen--and all must
be ready to learn."
I would add that the original vision will evolve through the interaction
between the owner and the others. In some cases the original vision will
change so completely over time as to become difficult to relate to the
original vision. This is where the issue of leadership becomes sticky.
== end of paraphrase ==
I will bring back the hierchy concept because from a practical
perspective, it is all I know.
>From my perspective, I would say that the original thing the owner did,
"create a vison" is more than that. She created a _compelling_ vision
that was attractive to others, and (awaiting your response) I suggest this
is an act of leadership. In fact, creating a compelling vision may the
heart of what leadership is all about. The others who were attracted to
the original vision go on to provide leadership in their spheres of
expertise by creating compelling sub-visions that attract others (or
others find attractive) and that support the original vision. In a sense,
the visions cascade "downward" through the organization. These visions
undoubtedly interact with each other, and are influenced upward (by the
visions of others lower down the hierarchy) to modify the original
visions, and ultimately to change the original vision. I agree with you
that compelling vision -- the act of leadership -- can come from any
direction, and not be hierarchically determined.
To summarize the above paragraph, the owner created a compelling vision,
and others, who were attracted to it, created compelling sub-visions,
while simultaneously indluencing the original vision.
To me, there is a paradox -- which is essential to a healthy organization
-- that the vision that comes down, also is influenced and redirected by
other visions that originate all over the organization, but at the same
time, there is always an over-arching vision that the owner "buys in to."
This is in the nature of the role of owner, and it is in the nature of
hierarchy. I repeat, it is a paradox, but it is not a troubling one, and
does not, and should not, be resolved or made to go away. If it were
eliminated, then learning would disappear.
Let's look at what happens if someone does not buy into the current
vision. That person creates an alternative vision which becomes a focus
for learning by others. The proponent of the alternative vision attempts
to influence other visions, and ultimately to influence the current
organizational vision. A possible outcome is that parts of the
alternative get incorporated into the original, and parts of it are not.
The proponent of the change supports the newly-modified organizational
vision, and the company operates somewhat differently as a consequence.
However, another alternative is that the owner (or possibly others as
well) do not support any part of the new vision, but the proponent
operates on his new vision, even though it is not sanctioned. To give a
specific example, suppose the original vision has a core value of very
high customer service, and the proponent of the new vision wants to
eliminate that core value. This person may want to have average or
mediocre service in order to drive higher profits (for instance).
In the nature of a learning organization, there must be some discussion
and thought given to the new suggestion. However, it is the owner's
ultimate responsibility to accept or reject the proposal, and once
rejected, to insist on the original vision. If the proponent insists on
acting on his new vision, then it becomes the owner's responsibility (an
act of management, I guess) to terminate that person for acting outside
the accepted vision. The owner hopes that most people in the organization
will still feel compelled by the original vision, but of course, some will
not be. The owner hopes that most people will not leave the organization,
but that is a risk.
This appears to be a way in which the owner plays multiple roles, perhaps
also paradoxically. Providing the vision is an act of leadership,
allowing discussion of the proposed change is an act of learning, but once
the owner has decided (management?), then she must terminate the proponent
who refuses to follow the approved vision (Management). If the owner has
done all of this well, most people, especially those with the most power,
will still feel compelled by the vision, will see and understand the
necessity for the termination, and will not feel constrained in the
necessity to "speak when the spirit moves them" in ongoing discussions of
the vision and how it gets modified and executed.
I have used the owner as my example, but the same scenario could play out
around any of the sub-visions as well. It could occur anywhere in the
organization.
Doc, do you see how the leadership that occurs at all levels interacts
with the leadership (context-setting or vision) of the owner, and
interacts with the hierarchy? Do you see how leadership interacts with
management? To me, this is not a true partnership of equals, even though
I agree that "partnering" in some sense between the owner and others is
essential. Does it make sense to you?
I really appreciate your original response. Most of it I really do agree
with. It has helped me think through some of these complexities. It
appears to me that there is a tight linkage between leadership and
hierarchy, even though leadership occurs at all levels. Management and
learning are also tightly inter-woven. And I look forward to more
thought-provoking insights from you. Thanks.
--Rol Fessenden
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>