Leadership Fails and What to Do
Leaders
have two ways of acquiring the knowledge and experience they need to function
in their organizations: success and failure. That’s it.
A
leader learns something when an idea or plan succeeds and its purpose is accomplished
or a problem resolved. When a nascent idea, born of intuition or insight,
evolves into a sophisticated strategy and resources can be allocated and
deployed, a positive outcome will assure an accumulation of new knowledge and
experience that will serve the leader and the organization well into the
future.
When
a seemingly good idea or plan goes awry and fails to achieve its intended
purpose, when intrusions of an unexpected sort intervene to divert the energy
and resolve needed to bring a project to completion, a leader learns something
here too—if the leader will take the time with others to discern and assess the
reasons that contributed to the failure.
Learning
from successes and failures is difficult work. In fact, such learning is
different in each scenario. It is easier to identify the factors that
contribute to success than it is to ascertain the elements that conspired to
bring about failure. Leaders want to maximize the factors in an organization
that lead to success, and minimize the problems that have the potential to
contribute to failure.
Unfortunately,
two of the greatest mistakes—the greatest leadership fails—are the inability to
recognize an organizational strength that is in fact a fatal weakness, and to
deal with organizational problems as though they were isolated and in need of
correction.
Let
me illustrate. It was once my happy lot to work for an educational institution
in California that had an extraordinary faculty, an assembly of individuals who
were well-known, widely published, and sought-after scholars and speakers. The
administration of the school was visionary, lean-and mean, and efficient, and
the school was interconnected with several other schools of like purpose. By
all accounts, students and money should have been flowing into the school, but
that was not the case. Instead, money and students went elsewhere, and soon the
school found itself in survival mode on the cusp of death.
The
school’s executive leadership and governing board assessed the situation and
determined that the solution was to appeal to and identify with an altogether
different constituency and student market. In effect, the leadership retooled
and realigned the institution and its purpose. Rather than throw money at
additional staff for fundraising and recruitment, they chose to reinvent the
institution in its changed context. At present, this educational institution is
doing okayin its niche, but it looks nothing like it did before the
transformation.
The
case of this school is a good illustration of the misunderstood distinction
between strengths and weaknesses, purpose and context, efficiency and
incompetence, continuity and transformation. A closer examination just might
reveal that a strength is undercutting capacity elsewhere in the organization,
or the sociocultural context of an institution is fundamentally in conflict
with its purpose, or routine activities done reasonably well by some standard
are masking ineffectiveness at more basic levels, or the resources invested in
organizational stability are really a perpetuation of denial of more inherent
challenges.
Leaders
are routinely presented with problems and challenges that can range from the
simple to the complex. Such problems and challenges can be viewed on a
continuum—the simpler the challenge, the easier the fix; the more complicated
the challenge, the more difficult the response. Because these challenges can be
seen on a continuum, it is important to recognize that there is a tipping point
where the nature of the problem and the social and organizational context in
which it occurs have shifted from being a nuisance to being a threat to the
well-being of the organization.
In
his book, Leadership Without Easy Answers, Harvard University professor
Ronald A. Heifetz makes a distinction between “technical problems” and
“adaptive challenges” facing an organization. This is an important distinction
to make for leaders and organizations trying to weather the changes in our
cultural environments. More importantly, it provides a set of insights into how
and why an organization’s successes may mask failure or weakness, and how
failure or weakness may not be susceptible at all to remedy apart from a
thorough alteration of the organization.
Heifetz
describes a “technical problem” as an organizational flaw or malfunction that
is easily identified and quickly resolved without complication. A light bulb
burns out, a section supervisor is ill, multiple computer systems fail to
communicate, etc. Problems of this sort can be solved by someone inside the
organization who has expertise and authority to get it done. Whatever changes
may be required are minimal and hardly extensive throughout the organization.
An
“adaptive challenge,” on the other hand, is an altogether different situation.
For one thing, it is much more difficult to identify and very easy to deny. A
remedy, should one be considered, will undoubtedly require significant change
in internal structures and relationships, a reformation in values, beliefs and
roles that are embedded in the organization. Such challenges frequently evoke
resistance in people who are reluctant to undergo the personal and professional
changes necessary. Moreover, having discerned the presence of an adaptive
challenge, leadership recognizes that the expertise needed to affect change
must be brought in from the outside; policy, procedures and knowledge base
currently in place are inadequate to meet the challenge.
Adaptive
challenge requires gaining new knowledge and skill, literally a new perspective
and way of analyzing, reflecting and working. It requires adaptation to
changing circumstances and environments. While adaptive work provides
opportunity to cultivate new knowledge and competence, it also involves loss
and disorientation because what was routine and familiar is now put aside.
A
very good illustration of the difference between a technical problem and an
adaptive challenge is high blood pressure. Viewed as a technical problem, the
solution is a visit to a physician and a prescription for medication—problem
solved!
But
when viewed as an adaptive challenge, the solution requires a fundamental
change in lifestyle and activity. It requires learning how to eat healthy, what
types of food are good and what types are to be avoided, and how best to
prepare them. It requires higher levels of physical activity and focus on
lowering stress. And just as importantly, it requires discontinuing activities
once thought part-and-parcel of one’s life.
We
are living in a time of great social, political and economic ferment on local,
national and global scales. Environments and contexts are becoming increasingly
diverse and this invites reflection on strategies of both technical and
adaptive adjustments. Well advised is the leader who reaches and crosses over
the tipping point in the ability to recognize the difference—and lead through
it to both personal and organizational transformation. The greatest leadership
fail is the inability to distinguish between these two, and to view adaptive
challenges as technical problems.
Now
bear with me for a moment. I want to tell you a story about a church—let’s call
it “Old First Church,” or OFC for short (name disguised to protect the guilty).
A
decade ago, OFC was a small-sized church in a suburban community. It had modest
growth in the preceding ten-year period, and even though a small number of its
older members had passed away, it showed a net gain in membership. It had
programs for children, youth, and young adults, though this latter group lacked
a critical mass. Most of its members were in the 45+ range, and a full third
were over 60.
The
church had meaningful worship with a strong pastor whose skills were in
preaching, administration, and pastoral care. OFC made their budget every year
(though not by much), and succeeded in fully subscribing a six-figure financial
campaign to do some major repair on the sanctuary building. The congregation
had an outreach program and a food pantry that was fully utilized by poor
people in the community. The educational programing for adults was rather
slim-to-nonexistent, but there was a nice family-oriented feeling that kept
people connected.
Then
the pastor left to accept a call from a new church, and the wheels fell off
OFC. They called a new minister, to be sure. But something had changed, and as
the new minister and congregation tried to put it together, they found that
they just could not get it on track. After a few years of trial-and-error, the
new minister left to take a new church. So OFC was once again without a
minister and the size of the congregation has become even smaller. To achieve
financial stability, the congregation sold its facility before the most recent
pastor left, but what followed was continued decline in programming and
membership.
Old
First Church is on the threshold of closing its (now rented) doors forever. It
can’t seem to find a reason to exist, one that is substantive, challenging, and
sustaining.
And,
more than anything else, it lacks purposeful leadership that can distinguish
between technical problems and adaptive challenges.
Sadly,
the story of OFC is not an uncommon story, not only for churches but for many
other organizations who find themselves at the threshold of closing up shop. It
doesn’t require diminished sales or clients or revenue to signal that closing
is just around the corner. It can also be the diagnosis in an organization
where people languish from the inability to focus on what they could or should
be doing to move an organization forward. It’s time to throw in the towel when
there is no willingness to change—or even recognize that change is needed.
Purposeful
leadership, on the other hand, is evident when there is a regular practice of
assessing the congruity between identity and purpose. Both of these are not
easy to discern, but neither of them achieves clarity without periodic focused
attention. The identity question asks, “Who are we?” and the purpose question
asks, “Why are we here?”
I
frankly cannot imagine that any organization could succeed, let alone thrive,
without fairly constant attention to these two interrelated questions. What’s
at stake in the identity question is the set of principles, values, standards,
ideals, and morals that shape and influence both the persons who are committed
to the organization and the conduct of the organization as it interfaces with
the larger public. The stake in the purpose question is equally profound,
namely the overarching and undergirding rationale for existence to begin with,
the fundamental goals and objectives that summon the organization into reality
and give warrant for the perseverance and tenacity of those who give themselves
to it.
Fashioning,
assessing and reforming identity and purpose all coalesce at the intersection
of leadership, organizational life, and larger public. This task involves deep
work that is risk-taking and vision-making. As I noted above, in the language
of Ronald Heifetz, this task entails adaptive work, not technical work; it’s
not solving a problem, but rather transforming the organization.
This
deep work is a challenge for leaders, and tragically, like the leadership at
OFC, the absence of purposeful leadership suggests the greater likelihood an
organization will decline.
On
the other hand, and happily, an organization can be reformed to achieve greater
levels of coherence and impact, if its leadership can lead in articulating
identity and raise the levels of commitment to an organization’s purpose.
Purposeful
leaders recognize that an organization can thrive only when it has a purpose
that provides both opportunity and meaning to those within the organization.
The problem with OFC is that it lacks anything more than a generic purpose; its
reason for being is incapable of generating enthusiasm, excitement, challenge
or opportunity. “Being there” or “being together” is not sufficient to sustain
even a simple, uncomplicated organization. The organization’s fundamental
reason for existing both reflects and influences the values and convictions of
those who share in its activities. This is especially true of the leadership.
Leaders
who desire to raise their competence, expand their impact, and strengthen their
resilience will need to commit themselves to several disciplines and
activities.
To
begin with, they will make time for reflection and conversation on identity and
purpose; this will enhance their ability to engage is strategic planning and
the recognition of what is needed to follow through.
They
will also engage others in their organizational culture in a collaborative
effort to assess the extent to which the organization’s structures and
activities are consistent with identity and purpose; this will augment the
support and buy-in among the principal players.
In
addition, they will envision the systems and resources necessary for sustaining
initiative and increasing capacity to accomplish both the smaller and larger
tasks required for collaborative effort toward success; this will assure that
an organization is nimble and responsive.
And
finally, they will be diligent in providing opportunity for individuals to
understand, evaluate, and enrich their personal/professional contribution to
the overarching and undergirding purpose; this will make it possible for
leaders and those lead to “find” and “place” themselves in a complex
organization that is purpose-lead. It will make it more likely that an
organization will achieve maximal effectiveness in realizing its purpose.
Comments