If you have been following this series of articles, you know that I have laid out an Integral Leadership model – of sorts. The “of sorts” is about the fact that it is one potential way of thinking about Integral Leadership. It is an approach that looks at leadership from the point of view of the people who are “in the system.” Particularly, it is a model that is descriptive, not prescriptive. Well, mostly not prescriptive.
Engagement is the process of leadership in which the individual leader and collective leadership interact to achieve goals and build their leadership effectiveness. In engagement we can find the relationship between the individual acts of leaders and the collective acts of leadership in the organization and business. This is the realm of behavior.
For some years I have thought there is a parallel of leader behaviors with Bion’s functions in groups. (Wilfred R. Bion. Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock …
In the last issue I presented the notion of attunement as a process in which an individual executive leader attended to the relationship between their own values, beliefs and assumptions and those of other executive leaders. This discussion could equally apply to the relationship between a CEO and the rest of the company, a team leader and other members of the team or to a middle level manager and the members of his organization. It could apply to any constellation
In the last issue we explored the idea of self-management, particularly, management of the relationship between intention and behavior. This encompasses how one’s espoused theories with values, beliefs and assumptions relate to the actions one takes. How, for example, does a leader’s values relate to how s/he manages action in relation to peers, subordinates and other stakeholders.
Fundamental to all of this is the fit between the leader’s intentions, values, beliefs and assumptions and those of the organization of which …
The articles offered on Integral Leadership to this point have been focused on one of four sets (individual or collective, internal or external) in four levels of leadership:
Getting individual leaders onto the same field. (Commitment to shared purpose.)
Assuring effective use of leadership resources. (Competence in leading.)
Appropriate teamwork. (Innovative players on a team of leaders.)
Building relationships and involving stakeholders in achieving business objectives. (Connected entrepreneurs in a leadership enterprise.)
It is interesting to me how things seem to come together for this publication. In the last issue I wrote about the leader as entrepreneur in relationships with stakeholders. Fundamentally this means initiating creative acts with stakeholders in the face of change and challenges. The summary article (below) presents one leader’s view of how to do this. He offers interesting propositions about community and connection with customers, employees, other stakeholders and even competitors. Consider his perspective as an affirmation of
It is an error to consider entrepreneurship as a realm to be left to the start-up of new business entities. It certainly is that. And, as Pinchot recognized a couple of decades ago in his book, Intrapreneuring, the quality of entrepreneurship is important inside existing businesses. 3-M is well known for keeping the entrepreneurial spirit alive in new product development through internal practices of boundary crossing and celebrating the stories of the creators of post-its and other products.
I’ve always wanted to be an iconoclast. I mean, an effective iconoclast: someone who can powerfully and successfully challenge our conventional thinking, our conventional wisdom. Perhaps that is why the subject of leadership interests me so much. Leaders cannot afford not to be iconoclasts of sorts. They need to continually challenge the conventional wisdom in order to assure that whether in business or other aspects of life we are able to successfully engage with this messy organic process of life
In the prior issue I described teamwork among leaders as inspired collaboration. Note that teamwork rests upon a foundation of organization and purpose, all dedicated to achieving evolving business objectives. This perspective is an example of how an integral approach allows us to shift from thinking about either/or (hierarchy or teamwork, for example) to both/and (leading and being a team player). James Collins and Jerry Porras came to advocate both/and in Built to Last.
The quote from Kevin Sharer, CEO of Amgen, the world’s largest biotech company, serves two purposes in support of the perspective, map and coaching approach I am laying out in these e-journals. First, it underscores the combined individual and collective perspective that is essential to assuring effective executive leadership in today’s business world. Second, it suggests that teamwork at the executive level is of vital importance. I will address each of these in order.
