An anecdote about the cost of ending a conflict by using power.

It was an important moment in my career as corporate HR specialist in a large industrial organisation. I was leading a competency management project and got half an hour to present my results to the HR management team. The HR director Peter* was the former operations director. He was appointed to bring order and efficiency in HR and was sceptic about new HR projects. I was well prepared, but not for what happened during the meeting.

I knew I could expect resistance from the recruitment manager, Mia. For my project I fostered free choice for managers to participate or not. I was convinced that “you can’t make the grass grow by pulling on it.” Mia believed more in clear rules, zero tolerance and control for non-compliance. My own manager Josy came to my rescue when Mia kept defending her view. The conflict between Mia and Josy escalated, fueled by their ambition to take over the activities of the other.

At a certain moment Peter intervened. He said: “Well, I don’t know exactly what you two are fighting about, but clearly one of you is too many.” He said it with a smile. The quarrel stopped immediately. Mia and Josy felt caught as pupils doing something wrong on the playground. The rest of the team, all men, joint in a silent coalition with Peter. They took a distance from the conflict as if it were a cat fight and had nothing to do with them. I was appalled by Peters lack of empathy. But I was also in awe for his way of ending a difficult conflict and installing a clear norm in his team. I respected his strong leadership.

It’s only recently I came to rethink the situation and its consequences. My project suffered from the unresolved conflict. HR kept speaking in different tongues to its customers and lost credibility. The conflict between Mia and Josy continued to fester till  both finally left the company. They left a mess of poorly  integrated HR practices and defensive team behaviors. The price of shutting the conflict down abruptly was huge.

Peter could have taken a different road by saying: “Waw, I feel the tension rising. You seem to have struck a sensitive chord. This could be important for all of us. Let’s make some time to explore this further. Tell me more!” By doing so he would have created psychological safety in his team to discuss difficult and personal topics. The other team members would have felt empowered to join the conversation. Peter would have discovered an important value conflict within his team that had relevance for the whole organization: how to empower managers and employees?

Any comment?

* Names are fictional.

New Research: What Sets Effective Middle Managers Apart

Once more a study shows that middle managers who act as middle leaders are next to senior managers the most important determinants for innovation/change in organizations today.  Read this Harvard business review blog post on some great research:

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/05/reinventing_middle_management.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date

Kwetsbaarheid en liefde als motor van authentiek leiderschap

“Is het voldoende veilig voor iedereen? Dat bewaken is mijn hoofdopdracht en die van HR. Of misschien meer nog mijn levenswerk,” aldus Joost Callens (Durabrik) tijdens een bijzonder gesmaakt seminarie over authentiek leiderschap georganiseerd door ITAM en Empathos. “Als het veilig is, dan ontwikkelen mensen zich en krijg je vertrouwen in je organisatie.” Meer dan 100 mensen tekenden in op het seminarie en waren ook effectief aanwezig in de inspiratieruimte van Durabrik.

Kwetsbaarheid blijft centraal staan in het leiderschap van Durabrik. En als concentrische cirkels rond Callens’ persoonlijke ontwikkeling krijgen medewerkers alle kansen om te groeien, worden klanten persoonlijk en inspirerend aangesproken en zet Durabrik zich in om van de wereld een betere plek te maken. Het klinkt klef en in zijn uiteenzetting voel je Callens ook worstelen met de juiste manier om dit verhaal over te brengen. Niet te serieus, maar ook niet te relativerend. Niet te passioneel maar ook niet te zakelijk. Juist dat zoeken gaf zijn verhaal de kracht van doorleefdheid en dus authenticiteit.

Kwetsbaarheid stond ook centraal in de academische duiding van de concepten authentiek leiderschap en leiderschapsontwikkeling door Dr. Hannes Leroy, verbonden aan Antwerp Management School, Johnson School of Business  en IESEG Business School en mede-oprichter van Empathos. “Voor mij is de kern van authentiek leiderschap kwetsbaarheid. Da’s de weg om trouw te blijven aan jezelf, aan anderen en aan collectieve waarden.” Die kwetsbaarheid ontwikkel je door zelfbewustzijn en hanteer je door zelfregulatie. “Transformationeel leiderschap, situationeel leiderschap, … ga zo maar door, ze hebben allen hun gelijk in een bepaalde context. Het probleem is dat we dagdagelijks terugvallen op onze automatische piloot. Het is enkel door ons daarvan bewust te worden dat je keuzevrijheid verwerft. Dat is authenticiteit en meta-analyses tonen aan dat dit het meest werkt.”

“Hoe geraak je dan van die “ik ren dus ik ben”-ingesteldheid die ons zo typeert naar een hoger bewustzijn? Hoe vermijd je dat je automatische piloot je in de afgrond van angst, depressie, burn-out rijdt?” Drs. Bjorn Prins, o.m. oprichter van ITAM, reikte vanuit zijn praktijk van mindfulness een belangrijke component aan. “Mindfulness zorgt voor psychologische flexibiliteit en dus voor welzijn, betrokkenheid, performance.” De deugden zijn genoegzaam bekend en ondertussen ook wetenschap gevalideerd. Maar het werd wel heel gepolijst en clean voorgesteld alsof je van mindfulness alle heil kunt verwachten in organisaties. Leroy vulde aan met authentieke leiderschapsontwikkeling, hoe je met ervaringsgerichte technieken mensen op een veilige manier zichzelf kunt laten ontdekken. Maar de scepsis bleef. Pedro De Bruyckere, formuleerde het treffend vanuit het publiek: “Authentiek zijn op de werkplek? Yeah right.” 

Om hierop te repliceren was Wouter Torfs (Torfs Schoenen) juist gecast. Hij maakte de cirkel rond. “Ik kijk nu met de lens van liefde naar mijn werknemers. Dat verandert veel. Dan doe je een beroep op het potentieel van je mensen. Ze krijgen de opdracht om zich te ontwikkelen als mens in de volledige zin van het woord. Als je mensen vertrouwt, dan krijg je het ook terug.” Ongeduld en ongedurigheid zijn vijanden van authentiek leiderschap. “Vroeger was ik vooral met de horizontale dimensie bezig. Hoe communiceer ik beter? Hoe ga ik met het personeel om? Nu telt voor mij het verticale. Ik heb leren leven met wat ik niet kan en zoek vooral verdieping. Ons bedrijf maakt dezelfde evolutie door: 20 jaar geleden was het klantgerichtheid, nu is het “360° zorgzaamheid leidt naar 360° winst“.

De boodschap kwam aan. Je kon een speld horen vallen als hij vertelde over de weg die hij en zijn bedrijf de voorbije twintig jaren afgelegd hebben. “Ik ben twintig jaar geleden in het water gesprongen en ik ben er nog altijd mee bezig. Het heeft tijd nodig. En ik nodig je uit om jezelf die tijd te gunnen. Zwemmen onder water is voor mij meer en meer de essentie van het leven. Misschien is dat ons lot als mens om onszelf steeds beter te leren kennen.” Nog beklijvender werd het als hij zijn onzekerheid over authenticiteit deelde met het publiek: “Kan je aan je medewerkers zeggen dat je aan de rand van een burn-out staat? Betekent authenticiteit dat je zegt aan je personeel dat je niet gelooft in de toekomst van je bedrijf? En ik zie soms wel welke processen zich afspelen tussen mensen, maar wanneer moet je dat benoemen?”

Of anders gezegd: authentiek zijn is één ding, authentiek verantwoordelijk zijn iets heel anders. “Het komt er dan ook op aan om strategisch handig te zijn, maar terzelfdertijd spiegels op te zoeken. Ik bescherm mezelf ook door me regelmatig terug te trekken in een groepje van collega-ondernemers waarin alles gezegd wordt. Ook dat ik bv. overal opdraaf op TV en zo, en dat ik mezelf aan het verliezen ben.”

Slotsom? “Het is een worsteling. Je kan niet zomaar altijd jezelf zijn. Zodra dat je jezelf vindt mag je daaraan ook niet vasthouden, omdat je dan opnieuw muurtjes bouwt. Daarom is het zo belangrijk om liefde, vertrouwen te ontwikkelen en te geven. ” En daarmee was de  cirkel rond. Een rijke avond met ervaren bedrijfsleiderschap en jeugdig “sturm und drang”

Nog een persoonlijke beschouwing: ik volg Torfs & Callens nu al een tijdje op hun weg en ik stel vast dat hun verhaal steeds doorleefder wordt en dieper persoonlijk en organisationeel verankerd is. Geen wonder dat de zaal vol zat zonder al te veel reclame. Authenticiteit werkt magnetisch.

Any comment?

Hoe kan autoriteit plaats maken voor leiderschap?

Gisteren stelde Karel Van Eetvelt, voorzitter van Unizo, de Groep van 10 opnieuw in vraag: ‘We slagen er niet in voor de grote uitdagingen een begin van een oplossing te zoeken. Daardoor organiseren we onze eigen irrelevantie.‘  Hoe relevant is deze publieke bekentenis van onmacht? Is dit een voorbeeld van leiderschap? Draagt zijn oproep bij tot de verandering die hij noodzakelijk acht?

Heifetz maakt  onderscheid tussen autoriteit en leiderschap. Autoriteit is een mandaat om verantwoordelijkheid te dragen voor andere mensen, bv. door verkiezing, selectie of aanstelling. Zo’n mandaat blijft intact zolang die gezagsfiguren kunnen zorgen voor “de goede orde”. Zodra ze er niet meer in slagen om de richting te bepalen en om voor orde en bescherming te zorgen, verliezen ze hun geloofwaardigheid en dreigen ze hun mandaat te verliezen. 

Leiderschap zorgt voor verandering op momenten dat de normale gang van zaken niet meer voldoet en de bestaande instituten haperen. Leiderschap benoemt “de olifant in de kamer” en toont aan dat een organisatie niet langer kan doorgaan zoals ze bezig is, dat de bestaande autoriteit faalt. De boodschap van leiderschap is: “zo kunnen we niet verder”. Leiderschap is dan ook de pretbederver voor autoriteit, “the skunk at the lawn party” (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002, p. 142). Bovendien doet veranderen pijn, heeft het een bepaalde kost. Of zoals Heifetz & Linksy (2002, p. 20) het formuleren: “Leadership requires disturbing people – but at a rate they can absorb.”

Van Eetvelt wil leiderschap opnemen vanuit een positie van autoriteit en maneuvreert zich daarmee in een moeilijk parket. Hoe kan je nog gezag uitoefenen als je het gezag van de club waartoe je hoort publiekelijk te grabbel gooit? Hoe kan je nog tot de club behoren als je er afstand van neemt? Terzelfdertijd is hij slecht geplaatst om verandering te bepleiten omdat hij reeds zo lang deel uitmaakt van het establisment. Daarmee klinkt zijn oproep tot verandering niet heel neutraal.

In het beste geval zorgt zijn geloofwaardigheid als persoon en het mandaat dat hij heeft van zijn organisatie voor een verhoogd collectief bewustzijn “dat er iets moet veranderen”. Misschien heeft hij reeds alternatieven voorbereid en voor voldoende draagvlak achter de schermen gezorgd om effectief tot het vernieuwd sociaal overleg te komen dat hij bepleit. In het slechtste geval heeft hij ingeboet aan invloed binnen de Groep van 10 en is de verandering die hij noodzakelijk acht verderaf dan ooit. In ieder geval voelt zijn oproep ongemakkelijk aan omdat autoriteit en leiderschap moeilijk samen gaan.

Any comment?

HEIFETZ, R., & LINSKY, M. (2002). Leadership on the line. Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Leadership goes beyond formalities.

A few weeks ago, I was preparing a customer meeting with a colleague. The goal of the meeting was to present our leadership programs. I didn’t feel the need to prepare a lot. I like to go into meetings without presentations, leaflets or other formal material. For me it’s about connecting personally. I ask open questions and explore the context up to the point that I can connect my own story to it. The formal stuff can wait.

My colleague reasoned vice versa: the client asked information, so she wanted to provide information and prepared a slide deck. I’m no sales specialist or customer relationship expert, so I went a long with her and inserted my own slides. We went into the meeting and it wasn’t very comfortable. I got frustrated because we got stuck in the content of things, and my colleague wasn’t comfortable either because she felt I wanted things to happen differently.

Last week the same question arose when discussing in a work group how to manage the design process of a new leadership program. Should meetings be very well prepared with a strict agenda and clear roles and responsibilities? Should we do a lot of analytic work to understand the context and demands? I pleaded differently. I wanted to skip formalities, minimize the analytics and maximize time for exploration and sensemaking. I also advocated strongly the “we build the bridge as you walk on it” principle (Quinn, 2004). A few certainties were enough for me: a target delivery date, some milestones and common working principles. You could call this a holding environment (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002).

Thursday I presided the jury for the Antwerp Young Entrepreneur of the Year. The four candidates had to present themselves and their company and again the topic arose. Two of them chose for an informal approach, two had a very well crafted presentation. What would you prefer or recommend to someone? What would convince you more? I noticed that I barely watched the content of the formal presentations. I was observing the non-verbal behavior and looking for connection, emotion, and clues of credibility, passion, values.

Reflecting on these incidents, it seems as if managing the formal side of things is no longer enough to be succesful in the workplace. Of course plans, presentations, budgets, proposals, reports remain important. And a lot of people still focus only on these formalities. But their impact to convince, motivate, inspire, call for action seem to decrease. The story behind the formalities, the underlying dynamic of projects, the emotional connection between people have become more important. Probably this has to do with the increasing pressure and complexity in work environments. It’s no longer possible to “manage” things. We want to skip formalities to go faster and to be more flexible.

There’s no one rule or guideline. I understand that skipping formalities can be considered as lack of professionalism or even laziness. And without formalizing things, there’s lack of transparency which can lead to unfairness and lack of accountability. But from the leadership point of view, formalities are probably more an obstacle for change then an enabler.

Any comment?

Heifetz, R.A. & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Quinn, R. (2004). Building a bridge as you walk on it: a guide for leading change. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Middle managers & leadership – part 4 – results of the Leadership for Middle Management program

As mentioned here and here, the role of the middle manager is transforming to the point that they may be the most important people in your company today (Mollick, 2011). There are a multitude of reasons for this, but just to mention two:

1)      More horizontal structures increase the importance of middle managers in achieving competitive advantage (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1994; Currie & Procter, 2005; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Frohman & Johnson, 1993).

2)      Middle managers do not invent the corporate strategy but are the ones who realize the strategy. Several studies have shown that they can hinder the implementation of top-down strategic initiatives by foot-dragging and sabotage (Guth & MacMillan’s, 1986; Kuratko & Goldsby, 2004), which is sometimes the result of individual and group-level interest  (Meyer, 2006; Sillince & Mueller, 2007). Moreover,  their emergent behavior often diverges from, and eventually affects, the retrospective redefinition of official strategy by top managers (Burgelman, 1994).

The transformation in essence is moving away from a middle managers role into being a middle leaders.  Middle managers have to become more self-authoring, and actors of social change, rather than targets of it. In a world that has become so complex as the one we’re living into today shared leadership is needed.  They have to step up, develop a leadership identity and get involved in the strategy making process.

And this what we have set out to do in our middle managers program since two years. It takes  7 days spread over 7 months. It exists out of a mix of action (training, experiencing things, …), theory (professors teaching towards new insights), and reflection (reflecting on the theory, and action, integration things in the existing context).

The first two days we move inwards on who the middle managers are.  Everything becomes personal. What is your story as a middle manager? What are your values? What are your struggles? We also learn them the skill of telling a good story, and give them theoretical insights on leadership and apply it to the position of a middle manager.  After one month there is an intervision about a reflection paper where they have to integrate all that they have learned from the first two days.

After another month, the next two days start and we make an outward movement now. We focus on what is organizational complexity, what causes it in your organization? They learn how they deal with uncertainty and get insights on change management, etc. After one month there is again an intervision on a change experiment they had to carry out.

The last two days are about moving forward. They know now to an extent who they are, and how the world around them is changing, so the question becomes how to handle this. Therefore, they get insights on trust-building and trust-repair, on the importance of social capital. They receive political skills training, and have to reflect on where they want to stand within 2 years, and how their social capital will help them, etc.

After another month, there is the lift-off day: it is about making their personal leadership pitch, and keep growing as a leader without the support of the program.

A first analysis

We  did a first analysis on the longitudinal results of the first group of middle manager who went to the program.  We measured right before the program, right after the program and 7 months after the program was finished. Before I explain the results in detail let us be humble and start with  some limitations of the study.

Limitations

1)      The sample is very small: 18 middle managers (average age: 41,3 years; 12 men/6 women). The small sample implies two things: 1) the changes have to be quite big to become significant; 2) you’re limited in the techniques you can use to analyze the results (we used a one-way ANOVA with repeated measure for now).

2)      The results are self-reported changes. We tried to get input from the N+1, but they often did not complete the whole questionnaire, and that would have decreased the sample size even further.

3)      We do not have a control group.  The sample exists, however, out of 13 different companies, so that limits the risk that the observed  changes are caused by something else than the training.

More info on the analysis can be attained on request.

The results

I have chosen to present the results following the ‘iceberg’ model of Spencer and Spencer (1993): starting with the observable and then going deeper and deeper under the waterline.

Role ambiguity  & the  4 roles of the middle manager

We see a significant decline after each measurement in role ambiguity. Role ambiguity is a lack of clarity about performance expectations relative to other role expectations and one’s own expectancy-related uncertainty.  A typical item is: “I don’t know what is expected of me” (House, Schuler & Levanoni, 1983).

Hence, it seems that our middle managers know better what is expected of them. The next question is then: what is it that they do?  We have chosen to measure the four middle managers roles described here.  Although we observe  a consistent increase in implementing strategy and facilitating adaptability the increase was not significant (p= .15), but if the sample becomes bigger the chances that it will become significant are not unlikely. The same is true for the increase in synthesizing information after the program has ended. Interesting to note, however, is that we observed a marginal decline in championing alternatives during the program. This combination seems to suggest that the middle managers sell fewer strategic ideas to top management, but  7 months after the program are implementing strategy more, as well as exploring alternative ways to do it based upon their vision. It would be interesting to see if the non-significant increase we observe of championing alternatives after the program is a time-lagging effect.

Political skills & being values-driven

In order to sell strategic alternatives to the top, and to manage the many stakeholders, middle managers need political skills (Dutton et al. 1997; Rouleau & Balogun, 2011; Ren & Guo, 2011). As sais, this is something we train them on and we see a positive increase after the program which remains after 7 months. We train them especially on the dimension social astuteness. This is the ability to ‘read the situation’, understanding social interactions and interpret behavior well. In addition, as the program focuses also on authentic leadership development especially the first two days (i.e. going below the waterline, rather than just train them on skills) we see a logically increase in apparent sincerity (i.e. coming across or being authentic, sincere, and genuine) during the program, which remains stable afterwards.

A similar pattern is observed for being values-driven. Being values-driven means that one measures his or her success based upon his/her own values (psychological subjective success), rather than climbing up the corporate ladder within an organization (vertical objective success) (Hall, 1996). In addition, we also observe a significant increase that stabilizes after the program for the attitude to manage one’s own career in terms of performance and learning demands (self-directedness) (Briscoe & Hall, 2006). The combination of those two  career attitudes are labeled a protean career attitude.

Motivation to lead & orientation to lead

Provided that our middle managers experience over a period of 14 months less role ambiguity, are better able to read the political landscape, and steer their career more on their own success criteria it is not surprising that we also observe a difference in their motivation to lead. Especially after the program is finished, most effects become stronger.  At first we see a small increase during the program in leading out of a sense of duty or responsibility (social normative) (e.g. “I feel that I have a duty to lead others if I am asked”), but after the program we see a clear increase in leading because they like to lead others. They enjoy leading and see themselves as leaders (i.e. affective motivation to lead) (Kark & Van Dijck, 2007). As we try to develop a leadership identity in this course, this is good news.

Obviously, as we have discussed many times before on this blog, one can wonder what is meant by leading. The results demonstrate that due to the program they believe leadership is more a shared process of meaning-making.  This orientation is based on the idea that the difficult demands of modern life are too much for a single leader to handle (see Pearce & Conger, 2003), and the focus is on the process of leadership, which inherently includes ‘follower’ involvement.  Leadership is seen as a property of the group, rather than one individual, and is understood to emerge as a result of collaborative interaction. Leadership is a shared responsibility of all group members (Hiller, 2005).

Focus at work: prevention or promotion?

Finally,  we measured the self-regulatory focus of the participants. Higgins (1997) proposed that people have two basic self-regulatory systems: promotion and prevention.

Individuals with a prevention focus tend to notice and recall information related to the costs of loss, failure, or punishment. They are likely to value safety and follow rules. They approach tasks with vigilance and concern themselves with accuracy. They are concerned with what they ought to do, acting out of obligation and in accordance with expectations. They act in a manner that avoids negative outcomes and complies with explicit expectations or policies (Kark & Van Dijck, 2007).

Individuals with a promotion focus attend to goals related to ideals and growth and advancement (Higgins, 1997, 1998). They direct energy toward pursuing opportunities to grow, gain, or achieve aspirations, and they direct energy away from maintaining the status quo. This mindset is likely to manifest itself in cooperative and creative behavior that goes beyond the minimum role expectations. (Kark & Van Dijck, 2007).

Stated differently, a prevention focus leads to management, while a promotion focus leads to leadership.  The results show clearly that at the start of the program they come in as managers. This focus on management does not decline over time, but their focus on leading does and remains stable. This make sense: changing is things is about finding that balance between maintaining some of the existing, while introducing the new thing.

Summary

In sum, the middle managers that followed our program tell us that over a period of 14 months they:

1. Experience less role ambiguity
2. Develop a greater ability to read the political landscape
3. Steer their careers more on their own success criteria
4. Enjoy leading more and see themselves as leaders
5. See leadership as a shared responsibility
6. Direct their energy toward pursuing opportunities to grow, gain, or achieve aspirations, and away from maintaining the status quo.

Obviously, because of the design of the study our results do not proof 100% that our program works, but they are encouraging for at least two reasons. First, as mentioned: provided the small sample size the changes have to be large in order to become (marginal) significant. The fact that they are is good news. Second, all changes, even the ones that were not significant were in the direction we expected given the goals of the program.

As we will keep running this program new data is on its way. This will allow us to do more fine-grained statistics in the future and will help us to fine-tune  and optimize the program further.

I want to thank Daan Sorgeloos for his help in collecting the data.

Click here for part 1, part 2, part 3

Any comments?

References

Burgelman, R. A. (1994). Fading memories: A strategic process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 24-56

Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2006b). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers: Combinations and implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 4–18.

Currie, G., & Procter, S. (2005). The antecedents of middle managers’ strategic contribution: the case of a professional bureaucracy. Journal of management studies, 42, 1325-1356.

Dutton, J., Ashford, S., & O’Neil, R. (1997). Reading the wind: how middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategy management journal, 18 (5), 407-425.

Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. M. 2000. Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25: 154-177.

Floyd, S., & Woodridge, B. (1994). Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle management’s strategic role. Academy of management executive, 8 (4), 47-57.

Frohman, A.L. & Johnson, L.W. (1993). The middle management challenge: moving from crisis to empowerment. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Guth, W. D., & MacMillan, I. C. (1986). Strategy implementation versus middle manager self-interest. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 313-327.

Hall, D. T. (1996). Protean careers of the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 8–16.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46.

Hiller, N. (2005). An examination of leadership belief and leadership self-identity: constructs, correlates, and outcomes.  Unpublished Doctoral thesis.

House, R. J.,  Schuler,R.S. & Levanoni, E. (1983). Role conflict and ambiguity scales: Reality or artifacts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, .334-337.

Kark, R. & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-528.

Kuratko, D. E., & Goldsby, M. G. (2004). Corporate entrepreneurs or rouge middle managers? A framework for ethical corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 13-33.

Meyer, C. B. (2006). Destructive dynamics of middle management intervention in postmerger processes. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(4), 397-419.

Mollick, E. (2011). Why middle managers may be the most important people in your company? http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2783

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: the Oxford University Press.Pearce & Conger, 2003

Ren, R., & Guo, C. (2011). Middle Managers’ Strategic Role in the Corporate Entrepreneurial Process: attention-based effects. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1586-1610.

Rouleau, L., & Balogun, J. (2011). Middle Managers, Strategic Sensemaking, and Discursive Competence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5), 953-983.

Spencer, L.M. & S. Spencer (1993). Competence at Work. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Sillince, J., & Mueller, F. (2007). Switching strategic perspective: The reframing of accounts of responsibility. Organization Studies, 28, 155-176.

Middle managers & leadership – part 3: how to become a middle leader?

“Which leadership book or training can you recommend me? How can I become a middle leader?” These simple questions require very complex answers if you consider all dimensions of leadership. Day, Harrison and Halpin (2009) advocate an integrative model of leadership development with three levels. The first, visible level targets skills. Leadership is a question of expertise. Theory and training can help to acquire the right skills and knowledge for the right roles. Middle leaders learn to develop their social capital, influence their stakeholders and lead in a transformational way.

The second level is less visible and targets identity changes. Leadership is a question of ‘being’. The degree and the way one sees oneself as leader determines the leadership behavior. It’s not because someone is trained to tell stories in a convincing way, that that person develops his own story. It’s not because someone is told to empower his employees in an inspiring way, that he or she will increase his or her own personal power. Conscious identity development is what accelerates leadership development (Day et al., 2009).

Identity develops by planned reflection, positive experiences, feedback and support (Day et al, 2009). During leadership workshops, we create identity workspaces (Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2010) by asking middle managers to draw or express their position in the organisation. We explore their biography and connect the dots between defining moments in their life and look for the relationship with their leadership DNA. We analyse and challenge their implicit leadership theories. We let them project their leadership future and construct in this way “provisional and potential leader selves” (Ibarra, 1999) which they in turn can further develop. All these exercises aim at self-in-context awareness fuelled by peer coaching, feedback and continuous reflection.

The last level of development described by Day et al. (2009) is adult development. Kegan and Lahey (2010) define three qualitatively different levels. “Socialized minds” are team players and try to live up to the expectations and definitions of their environment. “Self-authoring” people are on the next level and have their own compass. They make choices on personal basis. Their identity is a coherent whole of personal values and beliefs. They can take full ownership and learn to lead. The “self-transforming mind” is the final stage, as they see the limits of any belief system, hold inner contradictions and tensions without trying to ‘solve them’. Their self is no longer dependent on one clear identity. They lead to learn.

Adults develop during their life span different identities, capacity for critical thinking, self-regulation and moral judgment in a never-ending process of disintegration and integration (Day et al., 2009). We all develop our “ABC”, while fulfilling our duties and taking on responsibilities. Without disturbing events or experiences our ABC becomes stronger and stronger. Others discover at a certain moment that their “ABC” doesn’t work anymore, e.g. by a personal tragedy or a very tough assignment. These people live the disintegration of their “ABC” and can develop a “DEF”. This transformation needs support and safety, e.g. in the form of trust, mentoring, coaching and a development culture.

Leadership develops against this broader background. As organizations need more and more middle managers to develop their “ABC” into a “DEF”, they need to design transformational experiences and provide proactively support and safety to accompany them on this journey. This also means that they have to take into account the developmental readiness of people and to create a context for personal and life long adult development.

In the last blogpost of this series, we’ll share our research results on the leadership program we created to develop middle managers into middle leaders and that is based on the insights developed above.

Any comments?

For Middle managers part 1 click here, and for part 2 click here, and part 4 here.

References

- Day, D., Harrison, M., & Halpin, S. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development. Connecting adult development, identity and expertise. New York: Routledge.

- Petriglieri, G. & Petriglieri, J.L. (2010) “Identity Workspaces: The Case of Business
Schools.” Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9 (1), 44-60.