Two Principles the C-Suite can Use to Leverage Strategic Leadership Development to Enable Successful Organization Transformation
Elevating Leadership Impact: A Strategic Approach to Development
Increasingly CEOs seek a path to successful Organizational Transformation.
They also seek an effective ROI on their Leadership Development investments.
Yet, it seems few company leaders have learned how to effectively integrate their Transformation and Leadership Development efforts.
Our experience is that two Key principles can create a “fertile ground” for Leadership Development efforts to support and indeed enable overall organization transformation.
The first principle may be the most challenging for the established CXO. Consistently, leadership researchers tell us that a leader's ability to change their self-concept is crucial for Organizational Transformation (Avolio, Kagan, Torbert, Garvey, etc.) When a CXO can see their own development map and engage in their own (vertical) development, they develop more range in how they think (Nic Petrie). Perhaps even more importantly, by modeling their own development they also make “space” (Jennifer Garvey Burger) for others to develop. We get past the dilemma of executive ego and infallibility and the executive becomes a champion of change at both personal and organizational levels.
Multiple streams of research tell us that Leadership Development gains “the most traction within highly visible organization change and development efforts championed by senior leaders” (Beer et al, HBR, 2016). To make it clear, such an approach is the polar opposite of the CEO who conceptualizes transformation as “the changes that everybody else must make.”
When an Organization Transformation is expected it is common to create a new Organization Design with a compelling strategy and values. What is far less common is for a comprehensive and candid review of the barriers that exist to executing that strategy within the existing organization. A candid review only occurs when there is an opportunity to “speak truth to power.” Otherwise known as psychological safety (Amy Edmonson) and defined by her as the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes, and the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.
In our experience, such psychological safety is enabled by an executive team that takes its own development seriously, e.g. by repeatedly asking themselves, what might we be missing? Effective Leadership Development provides an ideal context for such candid reviews. We make it a part of our Leadership Development participant contract that effective, respectful confrontation is expected to support mutual learning.
The second principle is also challenging and possibly, for some, even counter-intuitive. It involves getting past the fundamental assumption that many leaders use, “that the organization is an aggregation of individuals” (Beer et al, HBR, 2016). In contrast, we encourage leaders to view an organization as a system of relationships that are inter-connected. When we can think and act systemically in this way we can become far more effective in integrating successful organizational transformation with Strategic Leadership Development.
HR practices have often emphasized individual competency models to design and measure leadership development. We also need to think beyond competencies and consider the capacities and capabilities needed for the future organization. There needs to be integration in the more systemic mindset of Organization Development practitioners with the predominant individual mindset.
Beer et all remind us that someone has to confront the CEO with the uncomfortable truth that execution of the transformative leadership strategy is less about individual deficiencies than it is about the policies and practices (in the system) created by the same senior management. Again, we are reminded that such a conversation will only occur when psychological safety exists (see principle 1) and when we can develop ourselves to think in terms of systems than simply of individuals.
One way to visually conceptualize these complimentary mindsets is within a polarity map. A polarity map is a tool that encourages us to look beyond black-and-white thinking and recognize the interdependent relationship between opposing concepts, like light and dark, which both have useful gradations. We can build the map in stages. The first is to identify the polarity itself:
The complete map below contrasts two perspectives: a Macro systems or Organizational Development (OD) mindset and a Micro, individual mindset, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of focusing too much on either one. This tool underscores the value of integrating these perspectives, allowing for a dynamic and complex approach that adapts to different situations, and shifting away from a simplistic understanding to one that acknowledges the intricate interplay between the two poles.
By employing these two principles CEO/CXO’s will elevate the strategic impact of their leadership development efforts and “spin the flywheel” of Transformation. Doing so calls out the responsibility of each CXO to their own continuous development. How each CEO/CXO thinks about their own leadership development and transformation matters profoundly deeply. Perhaps more so than ever before.
So, where do you see yourself, your CXO’s and your organization on the polarity map? Which principle is most important for your C-Suite?
Let’s discuss!