Patricia M. G. O’ConnorDavid V. Day
A clear sense of identity serves as a rudder for navigating difficult waters.[1]
Consider the following scenarios:
An industry innovation leader attempts to recoup slipping market share after the introduction of a new business model involving the outsourcing of the customer service function to overseas contractors.
A multinational organization struggles with honoring a local practice for doing business (in this case, bribery) while simultaneously upholding a strong company value of fair, above-board negotiations.
A rising star executive suddenly finds her previously successful stakeholder strategy obsolete, when a national security breach shuts down her operation, leaving her to respond to unexpected demands from the media, federal and local authorities, and community groups.
Given the complexity of challenges facing organizations, it is critical that all employees shift how they think about leadership and their role within it. They must move from seeing themselves as independent actors (“me”) to seeing themselves as an interdependent collective (“all of us”) whose purpose is to produce leadership when and where the organization requires it. Only in this way will organizations be able to adapt to a highly complex world. But developing what we refer to as “collective leadership identities” goes against the grain of most people and organizations.
Attempting to understand and practice leadership solely as something that individuals in position of authority do ignores the broader context within which leadership occurs. It ignores the interaction effects of all who participate in leadership, and the shared beliefs that drive those interactions. For these reasons, there has been increased attention given to “postheroic” forms of leadership that attempt to understand how leadership capacity develops among a collective and to design ways to help develop it more deeply in organizations.[2]
In this chapter, we explore how one methodology—action learning—supported two organizations’ efforts to address complex challenges, in part by developing collective leadership identities. We begin by defining what we mean by leadership identities, explore why identity development is important, and address how this approach goes against the grain of established leadership practices and beliefs. We then provide illustrations from two case organizations that enhanced their collective leadership identities as well as produced outcomes of tangible benefit, in the form of competitive and innovative strategies, work processes, and tools.
Identity, simply put, is how one thinks about oneself and answers the question “Who am I?” Identities (like organizations) are dynamic and multilevel phenomena that are created and recreated over time through social processes. For example, an identity that is tightly held at one point in time, such as high school basketball team member, may no longer be important in middle age (representing the dynamic component). In terms of the multilevel nature of identity, someone might identify with being a member of a company (collective level) and also with being a scientist (individual level).
Regarding the specific question, “Who am I in relation to leadership?”, both individual-level (that is, leader identities) and collective-level (that is, leadership identities) understanding are thought to develop. Leader identities are informed through a variety of adult development processes, including ongoing self-development, changing views of self in relation to others, and group influences. These identities are molded through both direct and vicarious personal experiences in leadership contexts. The rising star executive in our opening example has found herself in a situation that has significantly challenged her understanding of what effective leadership will require of her going forward.
Collective leadership identities are thought to develop through purposeful efforts to create or change organizations, communities, and societies. These identities are shaped through shared practices that require interaction among various systems, engaging in paradoxes, and inquiry into the collective’s purpose. As noted by the example at the beginning of the chapter, employees of multinational corporations often find themselves in the position of having to surface and make sense of conflicting practices across countries within which they operate. Attempts to resolve these contradictory perspectives—in this case, on the use of bribes—challenges assumptions about who we are as an organization and what values we hold to be important.
Research and theory on identity is consistent in arguing that it is a multidimensional construct. We do not have an identity, but rather a composite of subidentities. Some people hold more subidentities than others or have them more highly integrated. An example of this can be seen by looking at the various roles that people hold. Someone might consider herself a mother, a civil engineer, a gardener, and perhaps a leader. These different facets of identity may be differentially salient depending on the situation. When these roles conflict, as they sometimes do (for example, sick child sent home from school on the day of a major project deadline), they can lead to an experience of role stress. To the degree that these various roles are internalized as facets of identity, these kinds of conflicts can lead to more chronic identity crises. Another example involves a vice president of business development who also participates in a lobbyist group that aggressively targets the cigarette industry. One Monday morning he is given responsibility for landing a sizable contract with a tobacco conglomerate. In this situation, both identities—rainmaker and activist—are salient and thus in considerable conflict.
There are two aspects of identity that are central to the action learning initiatives we discuss. The first regards the extent to which an identity as a leader is internalized. One of the goals of leader development initiatives is to raise this facet of identity to awareness so that it can be reflected on and enhanced. Put another way, if someone does not consider himself a leader, then it is unlikely that he will undertake self-initiated challenges to further develop his leadership skills. Furthermore, there is less of a chance that he will contribute to the major leadership tasks of the organization. Understanding oneself as a leader is an organizing and motivating force for cognition and behavior (that is, thinking and acting like a leader).
A second identity-related aspect central to the initiatives is that one’s self-concept is organized around three fundamental components: individual self (me), relational self (you and me), and collective self (all of us).[3] From this hierarchical organization of self, people seek to construct their identities in terms of their unique individual traits (me), through interpersonal relationships with others (you and me), and by means of their group membership (all of us).
Take the previously mentioned aspect of identity as a leader. At the individual level, a person would tend to think in terms of specific traits or other personal characteristies that distinguish them as an effective leader (for example, “I am a leader because I persevere in reaching my goals”). At the relational level, the self as leader would be defined mainly in terms of the significant relationships one had formed with others (for example, “The relationships I build and maintain with significant others in this organization define my leadership”). At the collective level, the self as leader would be viewed mainly through identification with a broader collective such as an organization (for example, “Working together, we are industry leaders in this field”).
An interesting aspect of identity is that individuals hold all three levels of self-concept. However, only one of these self-concepts can be active at any point in time, and these self-concepts tend to differ in strength or development. So if I am thinking about myself as an individual leader, it is impossible for me to think simultaneously as a relational or collective leader. In terms of differential strength of self-concepts, it should come as no surprise that there is a prevailing tendency among managers to think about leadership as an individual-level phenomenon. Due to cultural and socialization influences, an individual leader identity may be overly (perhaps chronically) accessed in workplace situations, which suppresses other, more inclusive, forms of leader identity. As a result of this highly developed “me leadership” identity, the kinds of collective effort needed to address the complex challenges faced by organizations today are often restricted. Thus, one of the overarching goals of the initiatives discussed in our cases is to prime the relational and collective aspects of leader identity. The ultimate objective is to get individual leaders to work together relationally and collectively in accomplishing the major leadership tasks needed by the organization.
The research from this emerging field of leadership and identity has demonstrated that leaders not only can develop their own self-concepts but can also support this development in their followers. This is of great importance because, as Lord and Brown note in a review of this area of research, “After all, subordinates produce the desirable organizational effects that are generally attributed to their leaders.”[4] The implication is that if followers construct themselves entirely around an individual self-concept, there will be little cooperative effort toward trying to attain more collective goals. Especially in terms of moving beyond transactional approaches to leadership (“You do this and I will reward you with that”), leaders need to access more inclusive levels of self-concept in followers. Extending this logic to a broader level, the question driving the initiatives we describe is whether the organization can serve as a proxy for “leader” and through supporting action learning initiatives build more inclusive and collective leader identities in its “followers” (who happen to be the senior leaders in the organization). Table 3.1 summarizes the fundamental leadership identity elements just discussed.
As evidenced by the scenarios at the opening of the chapter, organizations and their leaders are facing increasing episodes of “vu jade”or the opposite of déjà vu—“I have never experienced anything like this before.... I have no idea what is happening.... I have no idea who can help me.”[5] Or . . . “I can’t identify!” Vu jade is essentially the state of being rudderless. There is little argument that the challenges faced by organizations and societies today are far too complex and unpredictable for any single individual or team to effectively address. And yet we persist in recognizing and developing leadership as an individual phenomenon.
There are some very powerful examples of why more collective forms of leadership are needed. One memorable case pertained to helping the South African government and the African National Congress opposition to implement a peaceful transition from authoritarian apartheid to a racially egalitarian democracy.[6] The exact details of how the team of facilitators assisted with this remarkable transition are beyond the scope of the chapter. But suffice it to say that it was not accomplished by any single leader setting the course of action to take and then building the commitment to make it happen. Instead, the team worked with members of various constituent stakeholders who were simultaneously engaged in scenario-planning exercises built on the fundamental assumption that there was more than one possible future and that the actions they and others took would determine which future would unfold. Through collectively envisioning a shared future and mapping out how to go about realizing it, writing about apartheid Kahane came to recognize that across many contexts there is a widespread “apartheid syndrome.” As he explains:
By this I mean trying to solve a highly complex problem using a piecemeal, backward-looking, and authoritarian process that is suitable only for solving simple problems. In this syndrome, people at the top of a complex system try to manage its development through a divide-and-conquer strategy: through compartmentalization—the Afrikaans word apartheid means “apartness”—and command and control. Because people at the bottom resist these commands, the system either becomes stuck, or ends up becoming unstuck by force. This apartheid syndrome occurs in all kinds of social systems, all over the world: in families, organizations, communities, and countries [italics in original].[7]
It is clear from this example that we live in a world that is increasing in both the diversity of its people and the interdependence of its processes. One of these dynamics alone can challenge organizations beyond their present leadership capacity. When taken together, these challenges can escalate exponentially in ways that can leave organizations struggling to make sense and adapt effectively. As information flows more easily through traditional hierarchical and geographic boundaries, more and more individuals become connected. As individuals connect, the diversity of expertise, worldview, and demography brought to bear on any given situation, task, challenge, or opportunity increases. In a world of interdependent diversity, we need to more fully understand the interplay among leader identities, the relationship between individual and organizational identity, and perhaps most important, the influence of both of these on an organization’s capacity to address complex challenges.
One reason why developing collective leadership identities is so difficult is the persistent and historical influence of heroic leadership figures in religious, political, corporate, parental, and community contexts. For example, leadership (and leader) profiles and typologies of individuals abound: strategic, servant, visionary, charismatic, transformational, authentic, and on it goes. The public’s appetite appears virtually insatiable for leader biographies, prescriptions, pearls of wisdom, and so-called nuggets of truth. But these forms of individual-based leadership are limited because they require that the hero-leader make sense of a leadership challenge, come up with a viable solution, and then convince “followers” to, well, follow. The kinds of complex challenges faced by organizations today render heroic leadership models extremely limited if not obsolete. It is unrealistic to expect that any one individual (hero or otherwise) can make sense of these types of ill-structured, complex challenges, let alone devise a correct strategy or solution.
It is thus clear that identities inform both how leadership is understood and how it is accomplished. In this way, leadership identities exert an important influence over the beliefs and practices that are experienced by employees as “the organization.” Development practices that target the evolution of leadership identities at both levels enable organizational capacity to address complex challenges in ways that other investments in executive and organizational learning do not. The practical aspect of identity is that it is a developable resource for organizations that can serve as a sustainable competitive advantage. Specifically, it can help organizations accomplish leadership in the forms of more innovative direction, more flexible alignment, and more sustainable levels of commitment.
Thus, the goal of leadership development is not merely a matter of having smarter, more passionate, and more self-aware individual leaders. It is a matter of recognizing the limits of individualism. The development of strong, independent selves—informed by our experiences, philosophies, mental models, values, assumptions, and worldviews—can limit our effectiveness in accomplishing leadership in an interdependent and diverse world. The ultimate—and challenging—goal is to develop identities that simultaneously support both independent and interdependent leadership practices. We now turn to case illustrations from two organizations working to realize this goal.
In this next section of the chapter, we describe the practical application of the ideas that have been put forth thus far. Specifically, we provide a detailed description of the action learning methodology, and illustrations of best practices from two case organizations with which we have collaborated.
One of the major challenges associated with developmental efforts in organizations is how to link individual leader development with more collective leadership development.[8] Or, put another way, how can organizations develop an individual’s capacity to participate in more collective forms of leadership in order to build the overall organizational capacity for setting direction, creating alignment, and building commitment?[9] The factors associated with the development of identity and self-concept just discussed offer a promising lens for building links across levels. To the extent that action learning engages participants emotionally, cognitively, and behaviorally in the actual leadership context of their organization, it is a methodology well-suited for supporting multilevel identity development.
As an organizing frame for the initiatives we are about to discuss, we define leadership as the social structures and processes that yield direction, alignment, and commitment.[10] This perspective on “what” leadership is leads us to make certain assumptions about “how” leadership is developed. The focus on the social aspects of leadership helps overcome the limitation of treating individuals and the organizations they work within as distinct from each other. The emphasis on structures and processes advances an argument that leadership can be enhanced by directly developing the work that is actually done in an organizational context by people participating in leadership, as opposed to focusing entirely on individual leader attributes. Finally, a focus on direction, alignment, and commitment defines leadership as real work that accomplishes important outcomes for the organization that lends a pragmatic frame for output-driven managers.
In each of the two cases presented, the primary developmental methodology used was action learning. Action learning is a systematic way by which individuals, groups, and organizations learn in the context of real (not simulated) work. It attempts to balance the role of action and reflection for the purpose of learning from experience and developing more complex ways of knowing, doing, and being.
Action learning creates an environment that promotes just-in-time learning without the need to transfer from a classroom experience back into a workplace. Furthermore, action learning primes the development of shared practices, which are required for a group to navigate the relationship between individual and collective leadership identities. In our practice, action learning refers to (1) the achievement of both the performance and learning objectives of an organization’s leadership development agenda; (2) through real work on strategically important complex challenges; (3) engaged by senior-level, peer-based, nonexpert teams; and (4) supported by coaches, sponsors, and a steering committee.
There are various schools of thought concerning action learning, but we draw primarily from the approach that emphasizes purposeful reflection and questioning inquiry into personal and organizational belief systems. As with most action learning applications, these initiatives incorporated (1) projects that addressed highly complex challenges, (2) off-site programs, (3) team coaches, and (4) project sponsors. Due to the organization-level change targets, these initiatives also incorporated much rarer elements, such as a thorough up-front “discovery” process (that is, needs assessment), the establishment and ongoing advisory function of a steering committee, the crafting of an explicit learning agenda, and the deployment of a multidimensional evaluation strategy. Three other core elements of these two cases that differentiate them from typical action learning initiatives are summarized in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2. Elements of Case versus Typical Action Learning Initiatives.
Element | Cases | Typical |
|---|---|---|
Target Population | Teams of senior managers addressing issues of strategic importance | High-potential middle managers, as either individuals or teams |
Task Structure | Teams spend time in the early phases of the initiatives sense making and clarifying their project charter/complex challenge | Teams are assigned an already clearly defined project charter |
Developmental Purpose | To understand and experiment with more interdependent leadership practices for achieving the organization’s mission | To develop individual leader competencies |
As the developmental purpose of both initiatives was to create more interdependent leadership practices, it might be useful to provide an illustration. An example of what we consider to be an important leadership practice is that of engaging across boundaries, which can be understood as a manifestation of the relative amount of development at all three levels:
Individuals must develop awareness and knowledge related to the organizational boundaries most relevant to a given project, including why engagement has been difficult or nonexistent to date.
Teams must develop efficacy with tools that support more inclusive and effective ways for groups—typically separated by these boundaries—to engage with one another (for example, the use of large-group dialogue).
Organizations must develop structures and strategies that not only support but also encourage and reward the practice of engaging across boundaries (for example, institutionalizing a process to support groups to more interdependently craft joint strategic goals).
It was hypothesized that as leadership practices are the integration of all three levels of development, directly working to enhance the practice would increase the likelihood of change in leadership identities. Although evaluation processes are still ongoing in the two case organizations, preliminary reports have indicated (1) a broadening of leadership identity (that is, a shift in primary concern from “me” to “all of us”) and (2) increased efficacy in engaging in more interdependent leadership practices.
It should be noted that classroom-based methodologies (that is, programs) have been shown to be effective in developing cognitive aspects of leadership (for example, increased self-awareness, deepened understanding of key concepts), and to some extent the emotional aspects of leadership (for example, strengthened connection to the organizational purpose). Programs also provide an opportunity for participants to stop and reflect on key leadership issues in a safe, confidential environment. The primary limitation of programs as compared to action learning is that little behavioral development can be practiced, demonstrated, and sustained as a result of a multi-day off-site experience. Even when cognitive, emotional, or behavioral change is experienced through programs, it is almost exclusively at the individual level, that is, the development of the “self as leader” identity. We consider programs as an important but insufficient methodology for multilevel identity development. Action learning provides the opportunity and tools to develop the “leadership through relationships” and “leadership through collectives” identities. The cases incorporated programmatic elements into the overall action learning initiative, garnering the benefits from both methodologies.
Action learning was expressly designed to address multiple levels of identity development. At an individual level of identity (that is, me producing leadership), through working with a project team, individual leaders reflect on what kinds of unique skills and leadership strengths they as individuals bring to the team. As with most “classic” leader development initiatives, individuals are provided feedback about their individual personalities based on their responses to self-assessment inventories. In essence, participants have the opportunity to work on their individual knowledge, skills, and capabilities as leaders.
At the relational level of identity (that is, my relationships producing leadership), action learning includes the opportunity to gain an understanding and enhanced self-awareness of one’s impact on others through the use of 360-degree feedback assessments. This encourages adopting an interpersonal, relational perspective in terms of how relationships can profoundly shape and define leadership.
At the collective level of identity (that is, all of us collectively producing leadership), action learning emphasizes gaining an understanding of “who we are” as an organization and visioning who we want or need to be—that is, what is our desired organizational image. Thus, it could be said that the highest-level objectives of these action learning projects are to build explicit links between individual self-concepts and organizational identity and image.
In illustrating examples of what we consider to be best practices, we draw examples from two leadership development initiatives. The first initiative is ongoing in a faith-based health care system with a strong service-focused culture. In April 2006, it launched its third cohort of executives into a 14-month leadership development process, involving a total of seventy-six senior managers to date. The overarching objective of its leadership development initiative is to advance the understanding and practice of the mission in enhanced and useful ways. In that mission is regarded as this organization’s core strategic attribute, it is believed to have a significant influence on the outcomes of leadership (that is, direction, alignment, and commitment). To underscore the criticality of this relationship, the initiative referred to “mission leadership” as the central developmental target. This fit well with at least two levels of identity, as individuals learned to more fully lead from a mission perspective and the organization sought to develop collective, cross-boundary leadership practices guided by the mission imperative.
The second initiative took place in a quasi-governmental service agency with a strong operations-focused culture. In September 2005, it completed the pilot phase of a 6-month leadership development process involving a total of 100 executives. The overarching objective of this leadership development initiative is to build capacity in the organization to address complex challenges relevant to its transformation. “Transformation” refers both to an actual Transformation Plan for keeping the organization viable as well as to the transformational organization change required to achieve the plan. For example, the organization was challenged to shift from a primary focus on internal operation excellence to developing greater capacity in scanning and engaging the external environment. Engaging in a shift in core capability holds clear implications for changes in identity, at both the individual and organizational levels.
“Build capacity in the organization” refers to leadership capacity, which the organization recognized as developed through individuals (skills, perspectives, knowledge), groups (norms and tools), and systemic practices (strategies, processes). Each case organization participated in an initial discovery process that surfaced three or four specific collective leadership practices (see Table 3.3) that once developed would likely move each organization toward its respective overall objective.
Table 3.3. Targeted Leadership Practices.
Health Care System | Service Agency |
|---|---|
Practicing and developing a greater sense of “systemness”[*] resulting in:
| Practicing and developing the leadership capabilities on a systemwide basis:
|
[*] Systemness refers to greater leveraging of the benefits of the whole system, while continuing to enjoy the specialized contributions of the individual hospitals, clinics, and regional entities that comprise the system. | |
Although representing seemingly very different leadership contexts, the two organizations have four commonalities that led them to experiment with new development practices. Readers may recognize these same factors in their organizations:
Each is experiencing threats to their sustainability.
For the health care system, the specific threat is the dwindling number of religious founders that originally gave rise to the organization, requiring greater numbers of secular members to take up the vision and drive of its early founders.
For the service agency, the specific threat is sweeping changes in the business model of the 200-year-old organization.
Each organization recognized the limits to building only individual leader capacity. Each sought an approach to leadership development that not only developed individuals, but also developed the practices and culture of the organization to equip them to more effectively address the threats to their sustainability.
Each organization recognizes mission orientation as providing key competitive advantage, in terms of providing a rich and storied history in which to ground the organization, attracting and retaining highly committed employees, and yielding superior “above and beyond the call of duty” performance at all levels. As one organizational member observed, “We may not agree on everything, but we all believe in the importance of our mission. And that is what helps us overcome our differences and ultimately pull in the same direction.”
Each organization is looking to a critical mass of senior managers (that is, two- to three-down from the CEO) to collectively leverage the mission and help develop the organization forward. These populations are considered to have a significant role in shaping the future of the organization.
Each organization is also beginning to understand and experience identity’s role in translating mission from statement to strategic action. That is, the way in which senior managers primarily understand the source of leadership (that is, me, my relationships, or all of us) influences how they attempt to put the mission into action. For example, does a manager rely on her own abilities, draw insight and support from key relationships, or engage collectively with others to accomplish leadership? There is a strong argument that the individual—and increasingly the relational—approaches to leadership may be insufficient to address the complexity involved in translating missions from statement to strategic action. Table 3.4 outlines for each of these two initiatives the overall objective, the specific developmental targets and implications for identity.
Table 3.4. Initiative Objective, Developmental Targets, and Implications for Identity.
Organization
Overall Objective of Initiative (Why?)
Developmental Targets (What?)
Implications for Identity (So what?)
Health Care System
To advance the understanding and practice of the mission in enhanced and useful ways
Practicing and developing a greater sense of “systemness” resulting in:
Achieving operational excellence
Strengthening individual and organizational identity
Recruiting, retaining, and developing talent
Understanding and practicing “systemness” requires a clearer sense of the individual identities within organizational units as well as the collective; the ways in which the mission is interpreted and applied in day-to-day decisions is shaped by the relative integration of individual identities with the larger, collective identity
Service Agency
To build capacity in the organization to address complex challenges relevant to its transformation[*]
Practicing and developing the leadership capabilities on a systemwide basis:
Engaging across boundaries
Leading from an integrated understanding of the organization
Demonstrating a shift from internal environment to external environment
Bringing best of self to the organization
Transforming how organizations fulfill mission-critical objectives requires employees to understand the organization’s desired collective identity, the implications of the shift from actual to aspired, and the relationship between their self-identify and that of the developing collective
[*] Transformation refers both to an actual Transformation Plan for keeping the organization viable and to the transformational organization change required to achieve the plan. The plan was devised in order to equip the organization to continue to fulfill its mission.
Although a variety of best practices aimed at individual-, team-, and organizational-level development were incorporated into these initiatives, the focus here will be on those practices that supported the development of collective leadership identities. Specifically:
Creating alignment with organizational identity
Building collective self-concepts, and
Developing systemic social networks
This dimension concerns clarifying and developing the relationship between individuals participating in leadership (“me”) and the broader organization (“all of us”). For example, what is the interplay between an individual’s efforts to advance his leadership career and the organization’s imperative to advance the collective corporate reputation? This relationship is a dynamic one that is constantly under construction and influencing not only an employee’s commitment levels but also the broader practices that occur within organizations. Creating alignment with organizational identity does not suggest the desire for a direct fit between an individual’s self-concept and that espoused and enacted by the broader collective. Pushing this alignment too far, individuals can risk losing an overall sense of self if their identity is overly prescribed by job or career issues. Alignment in this sense is not only developing an ability to understand the relationship between individual’s sense of self-concept and the identity expressed through organizational policy and practice. It also requires learning how to preserve alignment in those situations where an employee does not recognize in the self the attributes demonstrated in the collective. Given the earlier observation about the increasing number of issues associated with workforce diversity, we imagine such situations will become more and more frequent.
The action learning initiatives were designed to give participants an experience that would explicitly call out the practical implications of identity alignment. Because the teams were composed of diverse members and were tasked to address a complex challenge facing the organization, the teams were required by the nature of the work to wrestle with alignments and misalignments. The teams’ initial insights addressed what can be described as “surface” identities, such as those classically bestowed on headquarters and field operations, functional specialties, line (revenue center) and staff (cost center), and on geographic regions.
These insights were drawn out by the action learning leadership coach, through periodic debriefings and just-in-time interventions. This was the primary role of the coaches who facilitated the team’s use of structured reflection and dialogue to ensure collective learning and the integration of insights into their project work. At times, the reflection and dialogue was welcomed. Other times it surfaced defensiveness, indicating a lack of readiness on the part of individuals or the team to address identity issues. In these instances, the coach recognized the lack of readiness, encouraged the team to consider identity differences as important (and not necessarily negative) input to collective work. The coach then brought the team back to the task at hand.
It is to be noted that coaches conduct explicit contracting with their teams at the beginning of the initiative to negotiate roles and clarify expectations for the coach’s participation. If this was not first accomplished, intervening on topics as delicate as identity may have been perceived as inappropriate and could have resulted in hampering rather than helping the team’s development.
As teams worked the project, they began to use less differentiated “us versus them” language and began to better appreciate ways in which alignment was both desirable and possible. Of course, this was not always accomplished with ease. As teams dug deeper in the projects and the organization, and through numerous opportunities for reflective thinking, they identified the “deeper” identities that gave rise to competing commitments between groups within the organization. Some of these deeper identity issues included diversity in values, change orientation, learning and risk-taking preferences, use of authority and, ultimately, ingrained beliefs about how leadership is most effectively accomplished. The result of these insights was greater self-awareness on the part of the team members as to how their identity shaped their actions and, in some cases, attempted to shape the actions of others. It also resulted in significant awareness of a team and organizational identity. From this individual and team learning, the teams developed a deeper appreciation of the sources of conflict and misalignment within organizations.
Shared identification with the organization’s mission (that is, “all of us”) served as a powerful reintegrating mechanism when team members and organizational stakeholders found themselves divided by different assumptions about roles they each should play in the project (that is, “me”). For example, several teams encountered resistance from groups in the organization who identified themselves as “owning” the issue that the action learning teams were addressing. These groups adopted a defensive stance, possibly confused and threatened by this novice team “mucking around in our work.” Beyond the learning benefits of overcoming that defensiveness, those teams that were able to effectively collaborate with the formal organizational groups produced project recommendations that have a higher likelihood of organizational adoption.
Another example of the balancing act between preserving individual identities and aligning with the broader, collective identity of the organization is captured in this quote from a hospital administrator in the health care case organization, who was a member of an action learning team tasked with examining the issue of enhancing physician relations:
Physician relations is a challenge for us, in terms of really engaging them in the organization’s mission. We know from experience—and in interviewing docs—that their primary focus is their practice. If you ask them about what they are professionally committed to, they are more likely to talk about their specialty or their patients, rather than our system. They simply don’t identify with us and our goals. Or if they do, they identify with it in a less than positive way. Given they are not technically our employees and have challenges of their own to deal with, I can’t say that I blame them for not taking a bigger role as, how you would say, a “corporate citizen.” And yet, they hold a very central role in the eyes of our patients and their families. And, thus, our mission.
This identity development dimension addresses the need for individuals to build collective self-concepts in addition to developing a clear and grounded self-identity. There were three nested collectives that managers potentially identified with: (1) the action learning leadership team to which they belonged, (2) the program cohort comprised of multiple teams, and (3) the broader network of program alumnae. From a leadership development perspective, the purpose of building collective self-concepts is to move highly effective individual managers from focusing solely on developing their personal leader identities to focusing on the broader identity dynamics that connect (or divide) collectives in their attempts to achieve direction, alignment, and commitment in complex contexts.
Developing from self as leader to self as a participant in a collective leadership community resulted in a shift in developmental complexity of the leadership practice. The assumption here is that in order to effectively address complex challenges, organizations need to develop and deploy more developmentally complex leadership practices. Teams that were capable of moving from “us” to “all of us” also reported higher satisfaction with the developmental experience and generally were more successful in producing project outcomes of tangible benefit to the organization.
Three different methods were employed to assist the teams in building collective self-concepts (see Table 3.5). The first was the introduction of norms, tools, and practices designed to move a group of individuals into a mindful collective. For example, a norm of stopping, reflecting, and silently writing down ideas (that is, structured self-reflection) was employed to initiate and regulate team discussions. (While initially introduced and reinforced by the action learning leadership coach, the intention was for the team to eventually adopt and initiate this practice on their own, when they recognized a need for it.) This allowed for more focused and shared participation, and avoided one or more “loud voices” from dominating the discussion and possibly overinfluencing the direction of the thinking. This helped to enhance team learning. When individuals are given a chance to capture their ideas in a thoughtful way and to share those ideas aloud with a team, it allows them to focus more attentively on others when it is no longer their turn to share. It can also help individuals begin to pay attention to and address the nonverbal dynamics and other processes developing in the room, which often provide more powerful data than the specific contributions of any one member.
Table 3.5. Methods for Building Collective Self-Concepts.
Purpose | Method |
|---|---|
Support shift from mindful individuals to a mindful collective | Adoption of tools and norms that encourage more focused and shared participation in leadership tasks |
Recognize relationship between collective self-concept and effectiveness with addressing the complex challenge | Use of collective, reflective processes such as fishbowls, open space, and lessons-learned debriefs |
Test organizational readiness for collectives other than the senior executive team to provide direction on what in the organization must change and what must remain the same | Conducting small experiments, regularly checking assumptions with key stakeholders, and noting organizational response to changes proposed by action learning teams |
A second method used was reflective processes focused on getting the team and the broader cohort to recognize the relationship between collective self-concepts and effectiveness at addressing complex challenges. The reflective processes varied from fishbowls to the use of open space and lessons-learned focused debriefing sessions. A couple of examples of the relationship between collective self-concepts and effectiveness might help to illustrate this connection:
I experience us as a very driven team. That excites me! But on the other hand, we say we’re going to follow a certain group process, and then 5 minutes later we’re all off doing our own thing. We’ll never get anywhere on this project if we’re constantly dividing and conquering. It’ll be lots of individual action and potentially no collective results. (Vice president, Finance, making an observation during a team work session debriefing)
If we each continue to think only of ourselves as individual executives—and not as a collective force in this organization—our challenges will continue to seem insurmountable. What will it take for us to recognize that we, as a group of executives, have the ability and opportunity to help the organization do a better job of challenging assumptions that limit our ability to think outside the box? (Attorney, contributing to a fishbowl dialogue)
A third method for developing collective self-concepts was testing the organizational readiness for collectives of managers other than the top executive team to provide direction on what in the organization must change and what must remain the same. This is a particularly delicate issue that arises through action learning initiatives, insomuch as it calls into question the relationship between hierarchical authority (that is, looking up for the direction on change) and peer-based leadership (that is, working across organizational boundaries to determine the needed change and then producing it). The action learning projects are designed to produce outcomes of tangible benefit to the organization and to provide a practice field for developing more complex leadership practices intended to serve the organization well beyond the life of the project. Both of these objectives require, and generally achieve, individual and organizational change.
The third dimension of building collective leadership identities involved the development of systemic social networks. Systemic social networks are the web of inter- and intra-organizational relationships that facilitate the creation of meaning, strategic action, and forward progress on shared goals. These are distinct from a particular individual’s social networks, which are generally created to support individual needs, such as information, advice, or career advancement.
There were two sets of systemic social networks developed as a result of the initiative:
The networks accessed and/or developed by each team in order to accomplish the action learning leadership project work, and
Postprogram alumnae networks accessed in order to continue developing more effective leadership practices for addressing complex challenges
Social networks are developmental insomuch as they give shape to the overall organizational identity. They are also instrumental in that they provide the vehicle for getting things done in the organization. Social networks can be launched or altered through leadership development initiatives in ways that support the program’s objectives. For example, one of the targeted leadership capabilities of the service agency was to more effectively engage across boundaries. This capability is easy for those with broad and deep networks. Unfortunately, historical organizational practices kept executives within their silos, limiting the relationships with other units and geographic regions. Thus, boundary crossing was both difficult and not completely welcomed. Recognizing the power of and need for the executives to be working more laterally, social network development was designed into the initiative.
Systemic social network development was accomplished through five tactics:
Up-front composition of program cohort and action learning leadership teams. As stated earlier, teams and cohorts were composed of diverse members. They were considered diverse not just from the standpoint of demographics, but diverse in terms of who they were typically connected to and worked with.
Project work that required the sharing of individual networks and development of collective networks. As the teams were given projects in areas for which none of them had deep experience or expertise, the work required them to access those outside of the team, introduced team members to their contacts, and gave members greater exposure to a greater diversity of organizational colleagues.
Guidance and support from executive sponsors. Each action learning leadership team had a project sponsor who was not expert in the content area of the project and thus was not a project customer or stakeholder. This was done intentionally to help the sponsors resist steering the project and instead focus on the team learnings and processes as they navigated through the organizational system. Sponsors brought deep experience with the organization’s dynamics—particularly how to effect change in the organization—as well as political and other systemic perspectives due to their respective positions. Sponsors helped the teams develop social networks through introductions to key people in the system, helping the team gain access to otherwise inaccessible people, and gave advice to the team regarding who they should be involving in the course of the project.
Standing invitation to access networks. At the conclusion of each cohort’s experience, participants repeatedly reported that, going forward, they would make themselves available to anyone in the cohort who needed them. Several reported that if they had a list of calls to return, and any alumnae of this initiative was among them, they would get priority. The trust created as a result of working together on a challenging project forged the network, and all were invited to access the network any time, for any reason.
Promotions and transfers to extend the network. As alumnae of the initiative received promotions, transfers, and other new job assignments, the social networks became extended further into the organization. For example, an alumnus of one cohort was promoted to hospital CEO and became a project sponsor for a team in the following cohort. Needless to say, this CEO extended his new network to this team, which enabled the team to navigate their project challenge with greater confidence.
This chapter advanced a perspective grounded in both theory and practice that highlights the importance of developing collective leadership identities as a strategy for helping organizations more effectively address complex challenges. The case study organizations discussed in this chapter used action learning to integrate in real time both the developmental and the performance requirements of navigating increasingly complex business environments. The shift in emphasis from “me” to “all of us” is, of course, an ongoing process in these organizations. Nevertheless, the profound insights and innovative project outcomes produced by the participating cohorts provided compelling cases of what is possible for the rest of the organization.
When learning is intentionally situated in the context of real work, the potential for developmental growth increases, but so do the factors that can inhibit learning. Many action learning interventions fall short of their targets due to lack of organizational readiness to engage in a practice that holds learning and experimentation as critical an outcome as the more traditional performance metrics. It should be noted that while action learning can deliver significant outcomes, like any other developmental methodology, it requires expert and ongoing facilitation. We strongly encourage practitioners who are less familiar with the methodology to seek assistance from experienced professionals, and to speak with other organizations that have used the methodology, before embarking on initiatives such as those described within this chapter. It should also be recognized that action learning is not a panacea for an organization’s leadership development needs. It is an expensive, time-consuming, and challenging intervention that requires unequivocal support from the top to be successful. And even then, of course, there are no guarantees of universal effectiveness.
Despite these caveats and potential boundary conditions, action learning has been demonstrated to be one means for developing broader leadership capacity in an organization. We believe that the underlying psychological mechanism on which much of the success hinges is the development of collective leadership identities. It is very difficult to imagine how collective identities could develop without people working together in meaningful and purposeful ways to enhance the leadership of their respective organizations.