It's Christmas time. The notion of God as a human child should shock, confuse and amaze us. Its profound significance is utterly beyond words. Yet God's paradoxical incarnation was expressed hauntingly and captivatingly in this meditation from the Late Late Service community in Glasgow, drawing on the mysterious opening words of John's gospel.
Image of the invisible, image of the invisible God...
In the beginning was the word, this early word, the first word, mysterious voice talking behind the back of the universe, back before its beginning. The I am who I am word, the with God word, the was God word. A voice that called us into being across the reaches of infinity, the without whom nothing word, an unheard of word behind words, world making word, speaking the language behind language.
Body of the untouchable, body of the untouchable God...
When babies try to tell us what they want by pointing, babbling, playing, copying, making us feel good by learning our names, playing out endless games of things appearing and disappearing. They hide behind their hands then take their hands away and - there they are. And bit by bit they show themselves. But were these also God's desires, to recognise and name and know - to communicate? To play some cosmic language game with us, God's word play, to show and tell and communicate?
Weakness of the all powerful, weakness of the all powerful God...
And the word became flesh, and the word became word-less flesh, a baby with no words. And the voice of the maker became a hungry voice, a cry for food, a cry for milk. The voice that made gravity cried out for fear of falling. The voice that made woman cries out for a woman's breast and screams with disappointment when it is denied.
Crying of the invulnerable, crying of the invulnerable God...
There are no words yet, only the cry of flesh. No way of telling, only the depth of need. If only this is God, this word made flesh that looks and feels and acts like flesh, then now God is this small thing, is a baby that can be dropped or hurt or left unfed, left unchanged, left wet and smelly or be child-abused. If this is God with no words and if this word-less God is God, then God has flesh like our flesh, bones like our bones, needs to be taught to speak...
I've posted a 40-second meditation on this theme on YouTube ('christmas paradox'). May you know God's presence, hope and peace this Christmas time.
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Qualities of Leadership
Philosophically and practically, I find myself quite conflicted over the leadership competencies agenda.
On the one hand, we use a capability framework at an INGO where I work for assessment and development purposes and, on the whole, it provides a useful touchstone for these purposes. It was derived from observations globally of what seems to make people successful within the organisation's cultural environment (although I’m not sure what criteria were used to denote ‘success’). It provides a basis for awareness raising, focused conversation, critical reflection, practical action (e.g. developing new insights or ways of doing things). So, pragmatically-speaking, it does prove a useful tool.
On the other hand, there’s something about analysing leadership competencies that can feel reductionist. I think that’s where my underlying discomfort lies. I’m reminded of a philosophy lecturer during my theological studies who introduced the idea of a beautiful rose. "A poet tries to capture and express the rose’s beauty in colourful, creative language. It’s about its intangible qualities – beauty, essence, spirit, impact." Perhaps, by analogy, we might experience this phenomenon in leaders as personality, character, charisma, X factor.
What’s interesting for me is that ‘beauty’ isn’t just about the rose – it’s about how I perceive, experience and respond to it. It’s not just what I see, it’s what I attribute to it, what I feel and do as a result. By analogy, I wonder if what I regard as ‘good leadership’ in a particular time and context is really the result of a complex combination of personal qualities emerging and interacting in a specific social/political/cultural environment. It’s influenced by what I notice (and don’t), what I attribute success to (and don’t), what happens when the leader interacts with people’s history, culture, values, expectations etc.
This may explain why different leadership qualities prove successful in different contexts. I’ve had personal experience of this. For example, I once led a highly successful youth group in the North of England. I tried applying the same leadership style and approach with a youth group in the South and it was a terrible failure. I’ve also noticed how in the same situation, different people respond to the same leader’s leadership differently. One person is inspired where another feels disengaged. As with the rose, there’s some kind of dynamic interplay between stimulus and responder.
This makes me wonder which, if any, leadership qualities are universal and which, if any, are contingent on context.
Staying with the rose analogy, the scientist dissects the rose in order to understand and explain it. This form of inquiry can explain the rose at a basic structural level but it won’t explain why people buy roses for their partners. I guess, for me, defining competencies can feel more scientific than poetic. There’s something about the dissecting that risks missing or even diminishing the quality of the whole.
I’m reminded of Nevin’s seminal work on Gestalt consulting: "The whole is more than the sum of the parts, as the arrangement of configuration of the parts is what gives an object its unique quality. In the case of singling out a tree in a park, the object is perceived almost immediately as a tree even if our attention is drawn to some parts more than to others. Studying only isolated, single parts of the tree (trunk, roots, branches, leaves etc) does not allow one to experience that which we call ‘tree’."
I've been prompted to consider two other issues which are related to the above. Firstly, whether it’s more meaningful to speak of leadership qualities and management competencies than leadership competencies. I'm not sure, but 'quality' somehow holds for me that sense of mystery that lies beyond transferable capability.
Secondly, whether we should inquire into what factors are making the difference in a specific real time and context rather than focusing on distilling and codifying generic leadership qualities or capabilities ‘out of context’. In other words, should we pay more (or equal) attention to evaluating leadership on the basis of what is achieved, what its effects are, which values are safeguarded etc. rather than the simple (in theory, if not in practice) qualities or capabilities the leader displays? It’s a difficult one. What results do we attribute to the leader and what do we attribute to other causal or contributing factors?
I’m reminded, by analogy, of the difference between Investors in People and Best Companies. Investors in People evaluates inputs (e.g. specific processes and practices) with the assumption that prescribed inputs (‘good practice’) will lead to desired outputs. By contrast, Best Companies evaluates whether desired outputs (staff engagement) have been achieved in a specific organisation and inquires into what has contributed to those results (e.g. confidence in leadership during tough economic times).
This poses interesting questions and challenges for leadership (as distinct from management skills) development: whether it’s possible and, if so, what we are trying to develop and how best to go about developing it.
The approach we’ve used in the INGO has focused mainly on developing cultural aspiration, holding ‘leadership conversations’ (getting leaders together to chat about what’s real and important for them and seeing what emerges), inviting stakeholder feedback, participating in executive coaching and action learning. I would love to hear how others are approaching leadership development and to draw on their ideas and learning too.
One final thing occurs to me. I've noticed how many leadership characteristics could be regarded and framed as essentially self-balancing. For example, visionary yet realistic; flexible yet robust; inspiring yet listening; humble yet assertive; courageous yet empathetic; strategic yet grounded. I can draw these ‘polarities’ as spokes on a wheel with 'person' at the hub and 'context' at the rim. There's something about what mode or quality influences change in a specific environment. I'm going to give more thought to that.
On the one hand, we use a capability framework at an INGO where I work for assessment and development purposes and, on the whole, it provides a useful touchstone for these purposes. It was derived from observations globally of what seems to make people successful within the organisation's cultural environment (although I’m not sure what criteria were used to denote ‘success’). It provides a basis for awareness raising, focused conversation, critical reflection, practical action (e.g. developing new insights or ways of doing things). So, pragmatically-speaking, it does prove a useful tool.
On the other hand, there’s something about analysing leadership competencies that can feel reductionist. I think that’s where my underlying discomfort lies. I’m reminded of a philosophy lecturer during my theological studies who introduced the idea of a beautiful rose. "A poet tries to capture and express the rose’s beauty in colourful, creative language. It’s about its intangible qualities – beauty, essence, spirit, impact." Perhaps, by analogy, we might experience this phenomenon in leaders as personality, character, charisma, X factor.
What’s interesting for me is that ‘beauty’ isn’t just about the rose – it’s about how I perceive, experience and respond to it. It’s not just what I see, it’s what I attribute to it, what I feel and do as a result. By analogy, I wonder if what I regard as ‘good leadership’ in a particular time and context is really the result of a complex combination of personal qualities emerging and interacting in a specific social/political/cultural environment. It’s influenced by what I notice (and don’t), what I attribute success to (and don’t), what happens when the leader interacts with people’s history, culture, values, expectations etc.
This may explain why different leadership qualities prove successful in different contexts. I’ve had personal experience of this. For example, I once led a highly successful youth group in the North of England. I tried applying the same leadership style and approach with a youth group in the South and it was a terrible failure. I’ve also noticed how in the same situation, different people respond to the same leader’s leadership differently. One person is inspired where another feels disengaged. As with the rose, there’s some kind of dynamic interplay between stimulus and responder.
This makes me wonder which, if any, leadership qualities are universal and which, if any, are contingent on context.
Staying with the rose analogy, the scientist dissects the rose in order to understand and explain it. This form of inquiry can explain the rose at a basic structural level but it won’t explain why people buy roses for their partners. I guess, for me, defining competencies can feel more scientific than poetic. There’s something about the dissecting that risks missing or even diminishing the quality of the whole.
I’m reminded of Nevin’s seminal work on Gestalt consulting: "The whole is more than the sum of the parts, as the arrangement of configuration of the parts is what gives an object its unique quality. In the case of singling out a tree in a park, the object is perceived almost immediately as a tree even if our attention is drawn to some parts more than to others. Studying only isolated, single parts of the tree (trunk, roots, branches, leaves etc) does not allow one to experience that which we call ‘tree’."
I've been prompted to consider two other issues which are related to the above. Firstly, whether it’s more meaningful to speak of leadership qualities and management competencies than leadership competencies. I'm not sure, but 'quality' somehow holds for me that sense of mystery that lies beyond transferable capability.
Secondly, whether we should inquire into what factors are making the difference in a specific real time and context rather than focusing on distilling and codifying generic leadership qualities or capabilities ‘out of context’. In other words, should we pay more (or equal) attention to evaluating leadership on the basis of what is achieved, what its effects are, which values are safeguarded etc. rather than the simple (in theory, if not in practice) qualities or capabilities the leader displays? It’s a difficult one. What results do we attribute to the leader and what do we attribute to other causal or contributing factors?
I’m reminded, by analogy, of the difference between Investors in People and Best Companies. Investors in People evaluates inputs (e.g. specific processes and practices) with the assumption that prescribed inputs (‘good practice’) will lead to desired outputs. By contrast, Best Companies evaluates whether desired outputs (staff engagement) have been achieved in a specific organisation and inquires into what has contributed to those results (e.g. confidence in leadership during tough economic times).
This poses interesting questions and challenges for leadership (as distinct from management skills) development: whether it’s possible and, if so, what we are trying to develop and how best to go about developing it.
The approach we’ve used in the INGO has focused mainly on developing cultural aspiration, holding ‘leadership conversations’ (getting leaders together to chat about what’s real and important for them and seeing what emerges), inviting stakeholder feedback, participating in executive coaching and action learning. I would love to hear how others are approaching leadership development and to draw on their ideas and learning too.
One final thing occurs to me. I've noticed how many leadership characteristics could be regarded and framed as essentially self-balancing. For example, visionary yet realistic; flexible yet robust; inspiring yet listening; humble yet assertive; courageous yet empathetic; strategic yet grounded. I can draw these ‘polarities’ as spokes on a wheel with 'person' at the hub and 'context' at the rim. There's something about what mode or quality influences change in a specific environment. I'm going to give more thought to that.
Friday, 23 October 2009
Paradoxical Insight
I had a brief conversation with my 9 year old daughter as I was leaving the house this morning. ‘How come you’ve got sausages in your packed lunch?’ I asked. ‘I have them on special occasions’, she replied. ‘So what’s so special about today?’ I asked, now intrigued. ‘I’m having sausages!’ she replied, without flinching. I did laugh. I love the way that children don’t feel bound and constrained by the logic and patterns of thinking that we as adults allow ourselves to become tied up by. There’s a freedom and playfulness that allows new perspectives, insights and ideas to emerge.
I became conscious of how quickly I move from a free flow of ideas to judging and evaluating them, discarding any that don’t fit with my preconceived notions and expectations of how things are or should be. I limit myself by the boundaries of my own imagination, stifling creativity and paradoxical insight without even knowing it. I’m reminded profoundly of the biblical challenge, ‘unless you become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven’. It’s about seeing the invisible, hearing the unspoken word, discovering a way where there is no way.
I became conscious of how quickly I move from a free flow of ideas to judging and evaluating them, discarding any that don’t fit with my preconceived notions and expectations of how things are or should be. I limit myself by the boundaries of my own imagination, stifling creativity and paradoxical insight without even knowing it. I’m reminded profoundly of the biblical challenge, ‘unless you become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven’. It’s about seeing the invisible, hearing the unspoken word, discovering a way where there is no way.
Three Dimensional Change
The only constant is change (Heraclitus).
How we conceive, initiate and respond to change depends as much on personality, culture and preference as rational consideration. As one writer expressed it, ‘what passes for rationality is often irrationality in disguise.’ In a western leadership and management culture still dominated by rationalism, sound decisions reached by intuition are often post-rationalised in a quite literal sense to sound credible and gain buy-in. Against this backdrop, I’ve become interested in the notion of 'change management', something of a paradox in complex, fluid organisations and environments.
It strikes me there are three interrelated dimensions that each impact on whether change is successful and sustainable. The first is Change Leadership, perhaps summarised succinctly by vision, courage and engagement. The second is Change Management, focusing on design, implementation and process. The third is Change Resilience, the ability to thrive in the midst of uncertainty by maintaining faith, flexibility and hope. It’s a combination of these factors, not change management on its own, that makes all the difference.
How we conceive, initiate and respond to change depends as much on personality, culture and preference as rational consideration. As one writer expressed it, ‘what passes for rationality is often irrationality in disguise.’ In a western leadership and management culture still dominated by rationalism, sound decisions reached by intuition are often post-rationalised in a quite literal sense to sound credible and gain buy-in. Against this backdrop, I’ve become interested in the notion of 'change management', something of a paradox in complex, fluid organisations and environments.
It strikes me there are three interrelated dimensions that each impact on whether change is successful and sustainable. The first is Change Leadership, perhaps summarised succinctly by vision, courage and engagement. The second is Change Management, focusing on design, implementation and process. The third is Change Resilience, the ability to thrive in the midst of uncertainty by maintaining faith, flexibility and hope. It’s a combination of these factors, not change management on its own, that makes all the difference.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Beyond Awareness
‘There’s value in raising awareness, but the real question is what a person or team chooses to do with that awareness.’ I made this comment to a colleague today who works in team development using various psychometric tools.
I’ve noticed implicit assumptions among some practitioners using such tools (e.g. MBTI or MVPI), as if enabling team members to understand more about themselves and each other will of itself lead to improved relationships and effective working. I don’t doubt the value of psychometrics when used well but I do want to add other dimensions to the awareness-raising equation. My sense is that fundamental and sustainable development in an individual or team only really occurs when the A of Awareness is matched by the corresponding A of Attitude and A of Action.
It’s quite feasible, for instance, that in some team environments and cultures, greater awareness will simply lead to greater competitive advantage at an interpersonal level (‘now that I know this about you, I can use it against you to my advantage’). The issue of Attitude is, therefore, really points to deeper issues of underlying beliefs, values and intention. How can we encourage and build humanistic values in individuals and teams so that they will use what they learn ethically and to mutual rather than selfish advantage?
It’s also quite feasible that team members will learn new things about themselves and others but fail to act differently on the basis of that awareness in their day-to-day interactions. It’s like the biblical notion of a person looking in a mirror then walking away only to forget what he or she looks like. The issue of Action, therefore, is really about securing commitment to new behaviour and making it stick. How can we ensure that what will feel alien for people at first will become second nature over time?
So there is the challenge. To approach psychometrics in teambuilding with a wider perspective in view and to broaden our practice to (a) inquire into values and (b) ensure implementation.
I’ve noticed implicit assumptions among some practitioners using such tools (e.g. MBTI or MVPI), as if enabling team members to understand more about themselves and each other will of itself lead to improved relationships and effective working. I don’t doubt the value of psychometrics when used well but I do want to add other dimensions to the awareness-raising equation. My sense is that fundamental and sustainable development in an individual or team only really occurs when the A of Awareness is matched by the corresponding A of Attitude and A of Action.
It’s quite feasible, for instance, that in some team environments and cultures, greater awareness will simply lead to greater competitive advantage at an interpersonal level (‘now that I know this about you, I can use it against you to my advantage’). The issue of Attitude is, therefore, really points to deeper issues of underlying beliefs, values and intention. How can we encourage and build humanistic values in individuals and teams so that they will use what they learn ethically and to mutual rather than selfish advantage?
It’s also quite feasible that team members will learn new things about themselves and others but fail to act differently on the basis of that awareness in their day-to-day interactions. It’s like the biblical notion of a person looking in a mirror then walking away only to forget what he or she looks like. The issue of Action, therefore, is really about securing commitment to new behaviour and making it stick. How can we ensure that what will feel alien for people at first will become second nature over time?
So there is the challenge. To approach psychometrics in teambuilding with a wider perspective in view and to broaden our practice to (a) inquire into values and (b) ensure implementation.
The Bleeding Edge
Operating at the leading edge, forging forward into the exciting unknown can be a thrilling experience, a real opportunity for learning, development and discovery. At the same time it is the place of greatest risk, the place of greatest potential cost if we get it wrong. That’s the mark of courageous leadership – taking the risk, seizing the opportunity, stepping outside of our comfort zones to discover what’s possible, ready to bleed if our best efforts fail.
I was amused by a colleague yesterday who spoke of this phenomenon as ‘living at the bleeding edge’. We’re involved in a team leading an international NGO through a potentially radical strategy and change process. I can feel my own excitement and anxiety, the opportunity to contribute something that could really add value and yet, at the same time, nagging fears about whether I’ll prove good enough, whether the outcomes will achieve what we’re hoping for.
It’s at this point where I’m reminded most of my profound need for God’s grace, to give me courage to step into the unknown, to inspire with wisdom, to become more than I thought possible, to brace myself against my worst fears and to trust him if all else fails. I’m learning by this experience that the courageous leader is not the one who lacks fear but the one who overcomes fear by doing what’s right in spite of that fear. May God help me to be that leader.
I was amused by a colleague yesterday who spoke of this phenomenon as ‘living at the bleeding edge’. We’re involved in a team leading an international NGO through a potentially radical strategy and change process. I can feel my own excitement and anxiety, the opportunity to contribute something that could really add value and yet, at the same time, nagging fears about whether I’ll prove good enough, whether the outcomes will achieve what we’re hoping for.
It’s at this point where I’m reminded most of my profound need for God’s grace, to give me courage to step into the unknown, to inspire with wisdom, to become more than I thought possible, to brace myself against my worst fears and to trust him if all else fails. I’m learning by this experience that the courageous leader is not the one who lacks fear but the one who overcomes fear by doing what’s right in spite of that fear. May God help me to be that leader.
Sunday, 4 October 2009
An Unexpected Kindness
I had the unexpected pleasure last night of being taken to see and hear a rock band in the back room of a local pub. The sound was phenomenal and, as I stood by the huge stage speakers, I could literally feel the beat and bass rhythm pulsating throughout the whole of my body. What struck me as much as the songs, band and exuberant atmosphere in the crowd was something about the singer’s personal presence.
In the midst of all the dramatic strutting and air guitar playing, he would periodically move to the edge of the stage, lean forward toward the crowd, fix his eyes momentarily on an excited individual and smile with a glint of real warmth and affection. He looked at me in this way on one occasion and I was surprised how uplifted I felt. It was like the power and impact of an unexpected kindness from a stranger.
There is an African greeting which quite literally means, ‘I see you.’ How often do I pause and see the person in the crowd, smile at the stranger, show unprompted kindness, lift the other by simply acknowledging the gift of their being?
In the midst of all the dramatic strutting and air guitar playing, he would periodically move to the edge of the stage, lean forward toward the crowd, fix his eyes momentarily on an excited individual and smile with a glint of real warmth and affection. He looked at me in this way on one occasion and I was surprised how uplifted I felt. It was like the power and impact of an unexpected kindness from a stranger.
There is an African greeting which quite literally means, ‘I see you.’ How often do I pause and see the person in the crowd, smile at the stranger, show unprompted kindness, lift the other by simply acknowledging the gift of their being?
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
A Human Conflict
I was experimenting with an internet chat room the other evening and found myself in conversation with an 18 year old Israeli who now lives in Germany. The conversation was casual and lighthearted until I asked him how he was now living in Germany. 'Because my parents were both killed in Israel by a terrorist bomb on a bus when I was six years old. I moved here to live with my grandparents.' My fingers were still on the keyboard but it was some moments before I could think how to respond. I felt stunned. I had worked in a Palestinan hospital some years ago and seen life through the lens of Palestinian experience. This conversation reminded me how important it is to see conflict as multi-dimensional and human. News reports sanitise us to the true nature of conflict with clinical expressions like 'surgical strike' and 'collateral damage'. I'm reminded that its real people who are the perpetrators and victims of conflict and that to take sides in a closed-minded way is to do violence to our common humanity.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Travelling at the Speed of Life
Have you noticed how people from different cultures have different norms for personal space, rules of conversation, volume of speech etc? I returned from my first visit to Africa last week and was struck by a different cultural speed of movement. At first I wondered if it was because of the heat and humidity but I’ve experienced the same conditions in Asia without the same slowing down impact on speed. Perhaps it’s correlates with a deep cultural outlook – ‘Why rush? What’s the urgency?’
I became conscious of how, by contrast, I instinctively rush around, even when there was no apparent need to do so. I felt challenged. Why am I so driven? What impact does constant high-speed activity have on my health, perspective and relationships? Have I lost sense of pace, harmony, perspective, priority, ability to notice the important things, to live in the eternal Presence? This is the real gift I bring back from Africa – an opportunity to see things in a new light, to approach life afresh, to reconsider God’s perspective and to live anew in that liberating truth.
I became conscious of how, by contrast, I instinctively rush around, even when there was no apparent need to do so. I felt challenged. Why am I so driven? What impact does constant high-speed activity have on my health, perspective and relationships? Have I lost sense of pace, harmony, perspective, priority, ability to notice the important things, to live in the eternal Presence? This is the real gift I bring back from Africa – an opportunity to see things in a new light, to approach life afresh, to reconsider God’s perspective and to live anew in that liberating truth.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Leadership and Engagement
Best Companies research in 2008/9 points to 'trust in senior leadership' as the biggest single factor affecting staff engagement (and, thereby talent retention, performance and impact) in the current climate. This is probably because turbulence in the economic environment is creating real anxiety. Employees need to believe that leaders know what they are doing and have the ability to steer the organisation through and ensure its survival.
In the third sector, I’ve noticed over the past year that leaders and employees are expressing a concern that their ministry should not suffer adversely in this climate. In other words, people in this sector are motivated by and concerned for their organisations’ mission and are keen to ensure it is safeguarded.
Bearing in mind these points, the questions and anxieties some staff may be carrying at the moment could be framed as 'Are they (beneficiaries) safe..?'; that is, will leaders keep their interests at the forefront of their minds and not get distracted. 'Are we (organisation) safe..?'; that is, are leaders focusing on and prioritising the right things bearing in mind external and internal opportunites and challenges. 'Am I (me) safe..?'; that is, do the leaders value and care about me?
In the Christian organizations I work with, there’s an additional implicit question at the heart of this matter. ‘Is He (God) safe..?’; that is, will leaders stay faithful to the organisation’s Christian identity, values and sense of calling or compromise these things for expediency’s sake as they navigate through tough times.
Although different people experience change dynamics differently and it's hard for leaders to make concrete reassurances in these unpredictable times, this frame could form a useful backdrop for leadership communications over the coming months. The challenge is how to manage tensions between these potentially competing agendas and demands whilst maintaining a genuine sense of focus, integrity and hope.
In the third sector, I’ve noticed over the past year that leaders and employees are expressing a concern that their ministry should not suffer adversely in this climate. In other words, people in this sector are motivated by and concerned for their organisations’ mission and are keen to ensure it is safeguarded.
Bearing in mind these points, the questions and anxieties some staff may be carrying at the moment could be framed as 'Are they (beneficiaries) safe..?'; that is, will leaders keep their interests at the forefront of their minds and not get distracted. 'Are we (organisation) safe..?'; that is, are leaders focusing on and prioritising the right things bearing in mind external and internal opportunites and challenges. 'Am I (me) safe..?'; that is, do the leaders value and care about me?
In the Christian organizations I work with, there’s an additional implicit question at the heart of this matter. ‘Is He (God) safe..?’; that is, will leaders stay faithful to the organisation’s Christian identity, values and sense of calling or compromise these things for expediency’s sake as they navigate through tough times.
Although different people experience change dynamics differently and it's hard for leaders to make concrete reassurances in these unpredictable times, this frame could form a useful backdrop for leadership communications over the coming months. The challenge is how to manage tensions between these potentially competing agendas and demands whilst maintaining a genuine sense of focus, integrity and hope.
Saturday, 2 May 2009
The Partnership Business
Business partnership is a new way of working for many in OD and HR and it can feel both exciting and challenging. I’ve found through experience that the nature of this relationship and what it looks like, who does what, what makes it work well in practice etc. is influenced by a range of factors beyond formal job descriptions. These include implicit expectations of one-another (‘this is the part I believe I/you should play); historical experience (‘this is how we’ve always done it in the past’); interests, preferences and skills of each person (‘this is what I can/would like to contribute’); capacities of each person to deliver (‘this is what I have time/expertise to do’); quality of relationship (‘you understand me/I can trust you’).
Confusion, frustration or misunderstanding can arise if different parties carry different implicit assumptions or expectations about one-anothers’ roles, responsibilities etc. The models or paradigms sketched out below are intended therefore as tools to help surface similarities and differences by asking, ‘is this how you see my/your role?’, ‘which aspects of this work best for us?’, ‘what should we each do more of, less of or differently?’, ‘what would make the biggest improvements in the future?’ etc. The models are not mutually exclusive and the OD/HR professional may need to flow between models depending on circumstances - and contract accordingly.
Model 1: Internal consultant (performance coach)
OD/HR role: consultant, coach, mentor to leader. Focus: develop leader’s capacity to achieve his or her goals. Relational modality: ‘transformational’. Features: listens, questions, challenges, advises.
"You [leader] are responsible for good people leadership, management and development in your part of the organisation. Partnership means bringing my [OD/HR] knowledge and expertise to bear alongside yours to help you make wise decisions and to succeed. I will help you identify key issues that you would do well to bear in mind and, as appropriate, offer you challenge, guidance and advice. Unless there are legal, ethical or policy issues that are compelling or prohibitive, the final decision will ordinarily be yours as line-leader/manager. I bring three key contributions to the table: my consulting, coaching and mentoring capabilities; my expertise in the OD/HR field (e.g. change leadership and performance development); my knowledge and relationships within and outside of the organisation. I have three interrelated goals in mind: to help you understand and address the issues, challenges and opportunities you face; to ensure a wise and successful outcome for the organisation; to build your capacity to understand and deal with similar issues in the future."
Model 2: Co-leader (joint stakeholder)
OD/HR role: joint leader/stakeholder with leader. Focus: ensure OD/HR and leader achieve shared or complementary goals. Relational modality: ‘transfunctional’. Features: listens, proposes, negotiates, decides.
"We [leader and OD/HR] hold shared responsibility for good people leadership, management and development in your part of the organisation. Partnership means pooling our knowledge and expertise to achieve a better outcome than either of us could achieve on our own. We will each bring our own agenda and contribution to the table: e.g. personal style, vision and values; roles and responsibilities; group/team goals; knowledge of key issues; professional experience and expertise; proposals for the way forward. We will draw on these to learn from each other and agree the way forward. We will take shared ownership of issues and actions as joint stakeholders. I have three interrelated goals in mind: to work with you to understand and address the issues, challenges and opportunities we both face; to find mutual solutions that satisfy our respective goals and responsibilities; to ensure a wise and successful outcome for the organisation."
Model 3: Service provider (task supporter)
OD/HR role: service provider for leader. Focus: resource leader to achieve his or her goals. Relational modality: ‘transactional’. Features: listens, offers, informs, provides.
"You [leader] are responsible for good people leadership, management and development in your part of the organisation. Partnership means providing you with practical support by doing tasks that you don’t have the time or technical expertise to do (e.g. recruitment processes, drawing up contracts). My [OD/HR] role is to supplement your work and thereby release you to focus on other tasks. The focus of our relationship is on achieving people-related tasks that you identify as priority in a timely and efficient manner. I will provide you with technical information and advice where it is appropriate (e.g. in areas of policy or procedure) and be willing to intervene directly in situations where you believe my expertise could be most usefully deployed (e.g. personal development, mediating conflict). I have two goals in mind: to ensure that people-related tasks are accomplished according to policy and good practice; that you are released to work on higher priorities."
Confusion, frustration or misunderstanding can arise if different parties carry different implicit assumptions or expectations about one-anothers’ roles, responsibilities etc. The models or paradigms sketched out below are intended therefore as tools to help surface similarities and differences by asking, ‘is this how you see my/your role?’, ‘which aspects of this work best for us?’, ‘what should we each do more of, less of or differently?’, ‘what would make the biggest improvements in the future?’ etc. The models are not mutually exclusive and the OD/HR professional may need to flow between models depending on circumstances - and contract accordingly.
Model 1: Internal consultant (performance coach)
OD/HR role: consultant, coach, mentor to leader. Focus: develop leader’s capacity to achieve his or her goals. Relational modality: ‘transformational’. Features: listens, questions, challenges, advises.
"You [leader] are responsible for good people leadership, management and development in your part of the organisation. Partnership means bringing my [OD/HR] knowledge and expertise to bear alongside yours to help you make wise decisions and to succeed. I will help you identify key issues that you would do well to bear in mind and, as appropriate, offer you challenge, guidance and advice. Unless there are legal, ethical or policy issues that are compelling or prohibitive, the final decision will ordinarily be yours as line-leader/manager. I bring three key contributions to the table: my consulting, coaching and mentoring capabilities; my expertise in the OD/HR field (e.g. change leadership and performance development); my knowledge and relationships within and outside of the organisation. I have three interrelated goals in mind: to help you understand and address the issues, challenges and opportunities you face; to ensure a wise and successful outcome for the organisation; to build your capacity to understand and deal with similar issues in the future."
Model 2: Co-leader (joint stakeholder)
OD/HR role: joint leader/stakeholder with leader. Focus: ensure OD/HR and leader achieve shared or complementary goals. Relational modality: ‘transfunctional’. Features: listens, proposes, negotiates, decides.
"We [leader and OD/HR] hold shared responsibility for good people leadership, management and development in your part of the organisation. Partnership means pooling our knowledge and expertise to achieve a better outcome than either of us could achieve on our own. We will each bring our own agenda and contribution to the table: e.g. personal style, vision and values; roles and responsibilities; group/team goals; knowledge of key issues; professional experience and expertise; proposals for the way forward. We will draw on these to learn from each other and agree the way forward. We will take shared ownership of issues and actions as joint stakeholders. I have three interrelated goals in mind: to work with you to understand and address the issues, challenges and opportunities we both face; to find mutual solutions that satisfy our respective goals and responsibilities; to ensure a wise and successful outcome for the organisation."
Model 3: Service provider (task supporter)
OD/HR role: service provider for leader. Focus: resource leader to achieve his or her goals. Relational modality: ‘transactional’. Features: listens, offers, informs, provides.
"You [leader] are responsible for good people leadership, management and development in your part of the organisation. Partnership means providing you with practical support by doing tasks that you don’t have the time or technical expertise to do (e.g. recruitment processes, drawing up contracts). My [OD/HR] role is to supplement your work and thereby release you to focus on other tasks. The focus of our relationship is on achieving people-related tasks that you identify as priority in a timely and efficient manner. I will provide you with technical information and advice where it is appropriate (e.g. in areas of policy or procedure) and be willing to intervene directly in situations where you believe my expertise could be most usefully deployed (e.g. personal development, mediating conflict). I have two goals in mind: to ensure that people-related tasks are accomplished according to policy and good practice; that you are released to work on higher priorities."
Saturday, 14 March 2009
Through the Eyes of a Child
I love the way children are able to challenge our preconceived ideas and assumptions in such refreshing and disarming ways. I was having a conversation with my two young daughters this week, for instance, about 'the fall' in the garden of Eden. As I spoke, Ruth looked increasingly concerned: "Do we still have snakes like that today..?" Hannah added, our cousin has a snake. I don't like them at all." I responded by explaining that this was a special 1-off case and that Satan disguised himself as a snake in order to trick Eve and get her and Adam to trust and and make friends with him rather than God. "Well, if that was the plan," replied Hannah immediately, "why didn't he disguise himself as a fluffy rabbit?" Good point. God calls us to approach him with childlike simplicity and trust. Children remind us to avoid placing too much confidence in our sophisticated ideas and beliefs and to walk in simple faith instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)