life and leadership
It's been about a week since the co-op leadership camp, and I had such a good time that I think it deserves a few words. The food was good and plentiful. Desserts after lunch and dinner. I rarely feel let-down when I have a stomach full of tasty food.
The camp itself was well run, and it succeeded in getting me to think about aspects of myself that I had not seriously contemplated before. On top of that, the other co-ops on the camp were great to be around. They all appeared to be very bright, well-balanced people, and I enjoyed their company.
One thing that I've come to realise about myself is that I do have a habit of devouring the theory behind certain tasks when perhaps a more practical and experiential approach would achieve better outcomes. The people running the camp had a term they liked to throw around; "analysis paralysis". They'd use it if we stood around talking about ways to solve certain practical problems when perhaps we'd be better off spending more time physically trying a few things out. If I didn't play basketball, perhaps I'd be even more skewed in my approach to things in this regard. By playing basketball, I've definitely learnt that I can read and think all I want about shooting mechanics, staying mindful in game situations, playing with heart, and have all of these things as clear as day in my mind without actually implementing them on the court.
I don't doubt that this dynamic between theory and practice is particularly relevant when leadership is concerned. I can think about the theories on leadership that they talked about on camp until the cows come home, without actually applying any of these concepts. It seems that when I have doubts about the ultimate validity of certain ideas or concepts, I will neglect trying to implement these ideas at all, when perhaps actually testing the validity of these ideas through practice would be a great learning process.
By realising that I should be wary of getting caught up in theoretical concepts at the expense of learning through experience, I think that I can now safely write about some of the theories on leadership that I have been exposed to lately, which was my main aim when I set out to write this entry.
What is life?
Talk about starting off at the deep end. Still, based on some of the ideas that I have been exposed to lately, I don't think that I can adequately write about the theories behind leadership without spending some time in addressing this question. I'm currently reading The Web of Life by Fritjof Capra, and had read The Hidden Connections by the same author whilst I was overseas (I'm probably not reading the two books in the ideal order...). The latter book has a chapter on leadership in organizations, and it was mainly due to reading that chapter that I now feel the necessity of writing about a scientific understanding of life when talking about leadership. Much of what I write in this entry will be based around what I've read in these two books.
So first up, I'll talk a bit about Fritjof Capra's attempts to define the characteristics of living systems. In doing so, I don't mean to come close to addressing the depth behind the question of what it means to be alive and human, though I do get the odd glimpse of what it means to be fully alive by considering the implications of some of the things that Dr. Capra writes about.
I have two posters on my wall in front of my desk (I bought them both at one of the numerous poster sales held at Wollongong Uni, when I was living down there). One of the posters is Gustav Klimt's Mother and Child. The other one is a pastel drawing of two Native American women, and written in the corner of the drawing is the the following:
"All things are connected.
Whatever befalls the earth
Befalls the sons of the earth.
Man did not weave the web of life.
He is merely a strand in it.
Whatever he does to the web,
He does to himself"
- Chief Seattle, 1854*
*click
The above quote was also included in the beginning of Capra's The Web of Life. According to Dr. Capra, the paradigm that has dominated our culture for the past several hundred years is now receding (had a bit of a blab about this at the end of this post). The entrenched ideas and values of this paradigm include a view of the universe as a mechanical system composed of elementary building blocks, a view of the human body as a machine, a view of life as a competitive struggle, the belief in unlimited material progress through economic and technological growth, and the belief that a society in which females are dominated by males follows the basic laws of nature. These views are now being strongly challanged and revised, and the new paradigm that is emerging may be called holistic, in which the world is seen as an integrated whole rather than as a detached collection of parts. Capra suggests that the proposed new understanding of life that he describes in his books is at the forefront of this change of paradigms.
In 1944, Erwin Schrodinger published a book titled What is Life?, which apparently developed the idea that the basic molecules of life could be understood in terms of the laws of physics, and it is said that this book had a major influence upon the people who unraveled the structure of DNA, and helped pave the way towards molecular biology. Since 1944, despite 'breaking the genetic code', determining the structure of DNA and mapping the genetic sequence of the human species, all of this genetic and molecular biological work still does not tell us how a complex structure can emerge out of a random collection of molecules, what the relationship is between the mind and the brain, or what consciousness is. Schrodinger's question wasn't answered. Capra believes that a comprehensive understanding of living systems should not be eclipsed by the study of structure (substance, matter, quantity), as it has been in the past, but should also include the study of pattern (form, order, quality). That is, a study of the "configuration of relationships that determines a system's essential characteristics". He also feels that the study of process is a third criterion required for the comprehensive description of living systems. We've all heard the story that every 7 years, all the matter in our body is replaced. I don't know if that's just an urban myth, but there's no denying that there is a ceaseless flux of matter through a living organism. Our cells synthesize and dissolve structures, and excrete waste products. Our tissues and organs replace cells in continual cycles. The study of process that Capra talks about is the study of the activity involved in the continual embodiment of a system's pattern of organization.
Throughout the history of biology, various attempts have been made to define the concept of life. Expressing ideas within the above conceptual framework, and using recent formulations of models of self-organisation (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and the mathematics of complexity (e.g. 1), Capra feels that it is now possible to define a set of general criterion which clearly distinguish living systems from non-living systems, which are free of the flaws present in the previous attempts to define life. He feels that autopoiesis, "a network pattern in which the function of each component is to participate in the production or transformation of other components in the network", is the pattern of organisation of living systems. Such a network is 'organisationally closed', as all of the components of the autopoietic network are produced by other components in the network, but the system is open with regards to the flow of energy and matter. A living network continually produces itself in this manner. If it does not, we are not dealing with a living system. He feels that the structure of a living system is always 'dissipative', a term coined by Ilya Prigogine to highlight the seemingly paradoxical coexistence of change and stability. Dissipative structures maintain themselves in a stable state far from equilibrium as long as there is a steady flow of matter from the environment through the structure. A living dissipative structure needs a flow of matter from the environment (e.g. food, air, water etc.) to stay alive and maintain its order. Finally, Capra feels that cognition, the process of knowing, is the process of life. He identifies cognition with "the continual embodiment of an autopoietic pattern of organisation in a dissipative structure". Thus, the mind is not a separate entity but the very process of life, and mental activity is immanent in matter at all levels of life. Cognition is not an independent world, but rather the continual bringing forth of a world through the process of living. From this understanding of things, consciousness is a special kind of cognitive process that unfolds when cognition reaches a certain level of complexity. For more about this theory of cognition, I'd recommend reading this paper.
Leadership
So what does all of this mean in terms of leadership? At this stage, perhaps it would be useful to introduce an idea that was talked about during the camp. A distinction was made between 'success' and 'effectiveness' (I'm still not convinced that the choice of terms here was ideal, but ultimately, I guess it doesn't really matter). Success was seen to be the achievement of a set goal, for example, making money for shareholders, spreading religious faith or winning a sporting championship. Effectiveness was seen to be meeting the needs of the individuals working within the group. Using this terminology, it can be stated that you can often achieve success without being effective. These two terms were introduced to highlight the fact that two very different aspects of working within a group can be considered, and a primary objective of the weekend was to help us see how we could achieve success and effectiveness through situational leadership.
It was stated during the camp that to be an effective leader through situational leadership, it is vital to view the team as a vibrant, living system. According to the understanding of life outlined previously, living systems continually recreate themselves by transforming or replacing their components. They undergo continual structural changes while preserving their patterns of organisation, and understanding life means understanding its inherent change processes. To shed new light upon what it means to be an effective leader, it would appear beneficial to consider the extent to which human organisations are actually alive. Having done this, processes of organisational management can be designed to emulate life's diversity, adaptability and creativity, and effective success stems from the resultant meaning experienced by individuals through working in such an organisation. In the leadership activities that we undertook, one of the key sources of productivity appeared to be in being able to process information and to generate new knowledge, such that new capabilities emerge from the group. The understanding of life outlined in this entry suggests that the spontaneous emergence of order and the dynamics involved in the coupling of a living organism's structure with its environment, which results in the continual structural changes that are characteristic of all living systems, are the basic phenomena underlying the process of learning. By understanding the degree to which organisations and teams are living systems, the conditions in which knowledge creation and learning take place can be clarified.
Capra suggests that living social systems are self-generating networks of communications, hence, a human organisation will only be a living system if it is organised as a network. To be considered living, these networks must also be self-generating. In a community of practice, each communication creates thoughts and meaning, which give rise to further communications. In this way, the network generates itself by creating a common context of meaning, shared knowledge, and a collective identity for its members. Thus, the aliveness of a team or an organisation resides in its informal network of communications (click).
To understand where knowledge creation and learning can effectively take place within such a community, it is important to realise that, according the theory of living systems discussed in this entry, a living network will respond to disturbances with structural changes, and it chooses which disturbances to notice and how to respond to these disturbances. In a human organisation, what individuals notice will depend on who they are and the common context of meaning, shared knowledge etc. of their communities of practice. People will respond to messages in large part because of the meaning the message has to them. Thus, human organisations can not be controlled through direct intervention, but they can be influenced by giving meaningful impulses and guiding principles.
In living systems, the creativity of life is expressed through the emergence of new order. If there is a certain amount of openness within a human organisation and a willingness to be disturbed, meaningful disturbances coupled with an active network of communications can give rise to this spontaneous emergence of new order. As we were often told on the camp, the event triggering this emergence of new order can often be 'the little voice', and it is clear that for such little voices to be heard, there must be an active communication network in which such information can be expanded and amplified. Once the process of emergence has been set in motion, a point of instability is reached, which may be experienced as tension, chaos, uncertainty or crisis. The system may break down, or it may break through to a new form of order, based around new meaning. The new order comes as a result of the organisation's collective creativity.
Along with emergent structures, human organisations also contain designed structures. These are formal structures that are created for a purpose and embody some meaning; they provide rules, routine and stability. From the leadership activities that we participated in on camp, it became clear that both emergent and designed structures are needed in human organisations. Quite often, we'd be placed in situations where lateral thinking and the emergence of novelty were vital in achieving success. In other situations, where people already clearly understood how to achieve certain tasks, the importance of design in achieving an overall goal was obvious.
During the camp, we were mainly taught a situational leadership model, in which the leader must be able to take on different roles in their relationship with the human organisation that they are leading. The leader must continually adapt and reasses their actions to the needs of the situation. Four modes of leadership style were explained to us, and these styles of leadership involved differing levels of being 'directive' and being 'supportive'. For example, if people within the organisation had high motivation but few skills, it was suggested that we take a more directive approach. By understanding human organisations in terms of living systems, we can see that choosing which mode of leadership to adopt corresponds to finding a balance between design and emergence. A leader who is highly 'directive' and is able to hold a clear vision of an ideal form or state of affairs has a lot in common with a designer. On the other hand, by being 'supportive', directions aren't given out so much as conditions are created, the power of authority is used to empower others, and emergence is facilitated.
To be an effective leader, one must be able to recognise emergent novelty and be able to incorporate it into the organisation's design, however, not all emergent novelty will be viable, and a supportive culture must also include the freedom to make mistakes. The emergence of new structure may also shift power relations, and the collective empowerment resulting from the process of emergence may create a human organisation in which power and the potential for leadership are widely distributed. Thus, the situational leadership model suggests that not only should the leader not possess a fixed set of qualities, but the leadership role itself need not rely upon a fixed individual.
From this theoretical framework, it can be seen that different situations rely upon different styles of leadership. Sometimes solid direction and a firm framework is required, and the leader must know how to take command if necessary. During other times, the leader must be able to be flexible enough to facilitate an environment in which the emergence of novelty can proceed. Applying this theoretical knowledge would consist of much on-going practice in learning how to assess different situations which may require different styles of leadership, and in developing the leadership skills required to deal with such situations.
The camp itself was well run, and it succeeded in getting me to think about aspects of myself that I had not seriously contemplated before. On top of that, the other co-ops on the camp were great to be around. They all appeared to be very bright, well-balanced people, and I enjoyed their company.
One thing that I've come to realise about myself is that I do have a habit of devouring the theory behind certain tasks when perhaps a more practical and experiential approach would achieve better outcomes. The people running the camp had a term they liked to throw around; "analysis paralysis". They'd use it if we stood around talking about ways to solve certain practical problems when perhaps we'd be better off spending more time physically trying a few things out. If I didn't play basketball, perhaps I'd be even more skewed in my approach to things in this regard. By playing basketball, I've definitely learnt that I can read and think all I want about shooting mechanics, staying mindful in game situations, playing with heart, and have all of these things as clear as day in my mind without actually implementing them on the court.
I don't doubt that this dynamic between theory and practice is particularly relevant when leadership is concerned. I can think about the theories on leadership that they talked about on camp until the cows come home, without actually applying any of these concepts. It seems that when I have doubts about the ultimate validity of certain ideas or concepts, I will neglect trying to implement these ideas at all, when perhaps actually testing the validity of these ideas through practice would be a great learning process.
By realising that I should be wary of getting caught up in theoretical concepts at the expense of learning through experience, I think that I can now safely write about some of the theories on leadership that I have been exposed to lately, which was my main aim when I set out to write this entry.
What is life?
Talk about starting off at the deep end. Still, based on some of the ideas that I have been exposed to lately, I don't think that I can adequately write about the theories behind leadership without spending some time in addressing this question. I'm currently reading The Web of Life by Fritjof Capra, and had read The Hidden Connections by the same author whilst I was overseas (I'm probably not reading the two books in the ideal order...). The latter book has a chapter on leadership in organizations, and it was mainly due to reading that chapter that I now feel the necessity of writing about a scientific understanding of life when talking about leadership. Much of what I write in this entry will be based around what I've read in these two books.
So first up, I'll talk a bit about Fritjof Capra's attempts to define the characteristics of living systems. In doing so, I don't mean to come close to addressing the depth behind the question of what it means to be alive and human, though I do get the odd glimpse of what it means to be fully alive by considering the implications of some of the things that Dr. Capra writes about.
I have two posters on my wall in front of my desk (I bought them both at one of the numerous poster sales held at Wollongong Uni, when I was living down there). One of the posters is Gustav Klimt's Mother and Child. The other one is a pastel drawing of two Native American women, and written in the corner of the drawing is the the following:
"All things are connected.
Whatever befalls the earth
Befalls the sons of the earth.
Man did not weave the web of life.
He is merely a strand in it.
Whatever he does to the web,
He does to himself"
- Chief Seattle, 1854*
*click
The above quote was also included in the beginning of Capra's The Web of Life. According to Dr. Capra, the paradigm that has dominated our culture for the past several hundred years is now receding (had a bit of a blab about this at the end of this post). The entrenched ideas and values of this paradigm include a view of the universe as a mechanical system composed of elementary building blocks, a view of the human body as a machine, a view of life as a competitive struggle, the belief in unlimited material progress through economic and technological growth, and the belief that a society in which females are dominated by males follows the basic laws of nature. These views are now being strongly challanged and revised, and the new paradigm that is emerging may be called holistic, in which the world is seen as an integrated whole rather than as a detached collection of parts. Capra suggests that the proposed new understanding of life that he describes in his books is at the forefront of this change of paradigms.
In 1944, Erwin Schrodinger published a book titled What is Life?, which apparently developed the idea that the basic molecules of life could be understood in terms of the laws of physics, and it is said that this book had a major influence upon the people who unraveled the structure of DNA, and helped pave the way towards molecular biology. Since 1944, despite 'breaking the genetic code', determining the structure of DNA and mapping the genetic sequence of the human species, all of this genetic and molecular biological work still does not tell us how a complex structure can emerge out of a random collection of molecules, what the relationship is between the mind and the brain, or what consciousness is. Schrodinger's question wasn't answered. Capra believes that a comprehensive understanding of living systems should not be eclipsed by the study of structure (substance, matter, quantity), as it has been in the past, but should also include the study of pattern (form, order, quality). That is, a study of the "configuration of relationships that determines a system's essential characteristics". He also feels that the study of process is a third criterion required for the comprehensive description of living systems. We've all heard the story that every 7 years, all the matter in our body is replaced. I don't know if that's just an urban myth, but there's no denying that there is a ceaseless flux of matter through a living organism. Our cells synthesize and dissolve structures, and excrete waste products. Our tissues and organs replace cells in continual cycles. The study of process that Capra talks about is the study of the activity involved in the continual embodiment of a system's pattern of organization.
Throughout the history of biology, various attempts have been made to define the concept of life. Expressing ideas within the above conceptual framework, and using recent formulations of models of self-organisation (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and the mathematics of complexity (e.g. 1), Capra feels that it is now possible to define a set of general criterion which clearly distinguish living systems from non-living systems, which are free of the flaws present in the previous attempts to define life. He feels that autopoiesis, "a network pattern in which the function of each component is to participate in the production or transformation of other components in the network", is the pattern of organisation of living systems. Such a network is 'organisationally closed', as all of the components of the autopoietic network are produced by other components in the network, but the system is open with regards to the flow of energy and matter. A living network continually produces itself in this manner. If it does not, we are not dealing with a living system. He feels that the structure of a living system is always 'dissipative', a term coined by Ilya Prigogine to highlight the seemingly paradoxical coexistence of change and stability. Dissipative structures maintain themselves in a stable state far from equilibrium as long as there is a steady flow of matter from the environment through the structure. A living dissipative structure needs a flow of matter from the environment (e.g. food, air, water etc.) to stay alive and maintain its order. Finally, Capra feels that cognition, the process of knowing, is the process of life. He identifies cognition with "the continual embodiment of an autopoietic pattern of organisation in a dissipative structure". Thus, the mind is not a separate entity but the very process of life, and mental activity is immanent in matter at all levels of life. Cognition is not an independent world, but rather the continual bringing forth of a world through the process of living. From this understanding of things, consciousness is a special kind of cognitive process that unfolds when cognition reaches a certain level of complexity. For more about this theory of cognition, I'd recommend reading this paper.
Leadership
So what does all of this mean in terms of leadership? At this stage, perhaps it would be useful to introduce an idea that was talked about during the camp. A distinction was made between 'success' and 'effectiveness' (I'm still not convinced that the choice of terms here was ideal, but ultimately, I guess it doesn't really matter). Success was seen to be the achievement of a set goal, for example, making money for shareholders, spreading religious faith or winning a sporting championship. Effectiveness was seen to be meeting the needs of the individuals working within the group. Using this terminology, it can be stated that you can often achieve success without being effective. These two terms were introduced to highlight the fact that two very different aspects of working within a group can be considered, and a primary objective of the weekend was to help us see how we could achieve success and effectiveness through situational leadership.
It was stated during the camp that to be an effective leader through situational leadership, it is vital to view the team as a vibrant, living system. According to the understanding of life outlined previously, living systems continually recreate themselves by transforming or replacing their components. They undergo continual structural changes while preserving their patterns of organisation, and understanding life means understanding its inherent change processes. To shed new light upon what it means to be an effective leader, it would appear beneficial to consider the extent to which human organisations are actually alive. Having done this, processes of organisational management can be designed to emulate life's diversity, adaptability and creativity, and effective success stems from the resultant meaning experienced by individuals through working in such an organisation. In the leadership activities that we undertook, one of the key sources of productivity appeared to be in being able to process information and to generate new knowledge, such that new capabilities emerge from the group. The understanding of life outlined in this entry suggests that the spontaneous emergence of order and the dynamics involved in the coupling of a living organism's structure with its environment, which results in the continual structural changes that are characteristic of all living systems, are the basic phenomena underlying the process of learning. By understanding the degree to which organisations and teams are living systems, the conditions in which knowledge creation and learning take place can be clarified.
Capra suggests that living social systems are self-generating networks of communications, hence, a human organisation will only be a living system if it is organised as a network. To be considered living, these networks must also be self-generating. In a community of practice, each communication creates thoughts and meaning, which give rise to further communications. In this way, the network generates itself by creating a common context of meaning, shared knowledge, and a collective identity for its members. Thus, the aliveness of a team or an organisation resides in its informal network of communications (click).
To understand where knowledge creation and learning can effectively take place within such a community, it is important to realise that, according the theory of living systems discussed in this entry, a living network will respond to disturbances with structural changes, and it chooses which disturbances to notice and how to respond to these disturbances. In a human organisation, what individuals notice will depend on who they are and the common context of meaning, shared knowledge etc. of their communities of practice. People will respond to messages in large part because of the meaning the message has to them. Thus, human organisations can not be controlled through direct intervention, but they can be influenced by giving meaningful impulses and guiding principles.
In living systems, the creativity of life is expressed through the emergence of new order. If there is a certain amount of openness within a human organisation and a willingness to be disturbed, meaningful disturbances coupled with an active network of communications can give rise to this spontaneous emergence of new order. As we were often told on the camp, the event triggering this emergence of new order can often be 'the little voice', and it is clear that for such little voices to be heard, there must be an active communication network in which such information can be expanded and amplified. Once the process of emergence has been set in motion, a point of instability is reached, which may be experienced as tension, chaos, uncertainty or crisis. The system may break down, or it may break through to a new form of order, based around new meaning. The new order comes as a result of the organisation's collective creativity.
Along with emergent structures, human organisations also contain designed structures. These are formal structures that are created for a purpose and embody some meaning; they provide rules, routine and stability. From the leadership activities that we participated in on camp, it became clear that both emergent and designed structures are needed in human organisations. Quite often, we'd be placed in situations where lateral thinking and the emergence of novelty were vital in achieving success. In other situations, where people already clearly understood how to achieve certain tasks, the importance of design in achieving an overall goal was obvious.
During the camp, we were mainly taught a situational leadership model, in which the leader must be able to take on different roles in their relationship with the human organisation that they are leading. The leader must continually adapt and reasses their actions to the needs of the situation. Four modes of leadership style were explained to us, and these styles of leadership involved differing levels of being 'directive' and being 'supportive'. For example, if people within the organisation had high motivation but few skills, it was suggested that we take a more directive approach. By understanding human organisations in terms of living systems, we can see that choosing which mode of leadership to adopt corresponds to finding a balance between design and emergence. A leader who is highly 'directive' and is able to hold a clear vision of an ideal form or state of affairs has a lot in common with a designer. On the other hand, by being 'supportive', directions aren't given out so much as conditions are created, the power of authority is used to empower others, and emergence is facilitated.
To be an effective leader, one must be able to recognise emergent novelty and be able to incorporate it into the organisation's design, however, not all emergent novelty will be viable, and a supportive culture must also include the freedom to make mistakes. The emergence of new structure may also shift power relations, and the collective empowerment resulting from the process of emergence may create a human organisation in which power and the potential for leadership are widely distributed. Thus, the situational leadership model suggests that not only should the leader not possess a fixed set of qualities, but the leadership role itself need not rely upon a fixed individual.
From this theoretical framework, it can be seen that different situations rely upon different styles of leadership. Sometimes solid direction and a firm framework is required, and the leader must know how to take command if necessary. During other times, the leader must be able to be flexible enough to facilitate an environment in which the emergence of novelty can proceed. Applying this theoretical knowledge would consist of much on-going practice in learning how to assess different situations which may require different styles of leadership, and in developing the leadership skills required to deal with such situations.
posted by Gene at 10:30 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home