Guest Blog: The Inner Dance of Collective Leadership Webinar by Alain Gauthier

Author: Alain Gauthier

I was pleased to receive the expressions of gratitude – as well as a number of questions, during or at the end of the webinar. Since there was only time to address a few of them, I will provide some elements of response here, following the chronological order of the slides I used (which are available on the GTE website http://globaltransformingensemble.org/ under the Videos and Presentations sidebar). I have regrouped some of the questions on the challenges of moving from a hierarchical culture to a shared leadership culture.

Q: Have you developed written principles or guidelines for collective leadership?

A: I wrote an article on collective leadership a few years ago, which became a chapter of the book Leadership is Global – published by the Global Leadership Network (http://www.globalleadershipnetwork.net/about/leadership.php). As indicated in the Resources slide of the presentation (page 37), this article “Developing Collective Leadership” is downloadable from the GTE website under the side bar Writings and Papers. It includes some principles, guidelines, and tools, which apply particularly, well to diverse leadership groups spanning several sectors – private, public, and civil society. At the bottom of the following page, I mention other resources that also propose principles and guidelines.

Q: You talked at the start about how the old ways of domination may need to die or recede. What do you see as the biggest impediments to such a shift in culture, after some 8,000 years of practice?

A: The biggest impediments to shifting from a domination paradigm to a partnership paradigm are linked to the self-reinforcing cycle that connects ingrained individual habits of superior/inferior ranking, fearful or violent behavior, authoritarian social structures, and myths/stories that idealize domination/ violence and present them as normal. The partnership model is based on a virtuous loop that connects individual beliefs of equivalence (or equal value), mutual trust/low degree of fear and violence, more egalitarian structures and hierarchies of actualization, and myths/stories honoring partnership and presenting it as normal (see Riane Eisler’s book The Power of Partnership). The paradigm shift requires a level of both individual and collective awareness which leads to questioning both dominant behavior and authoritarian structures – particularly as the excesses and consequences of the domination paradigm become less and less tolerable, as experienced in several Arab countries around the Mediterranean at this time.

Q: How do we create and support collective leadership models when there is such a strong dominant narrative about "hero" leadership and when dominant western/capitalistic culture strongly supports individualism and competition?
A: The dominant narrative about “hero” leadership tends to be strengthened in times of crises and radical changes – such as the ones many people on the planet are experiencing right now. When one is overwhelmed by the world’s complexity and speed of change, the conventional reaction is to look for a “savior” with simple enough answers.

Dominant western/capitalistic culture emphasizes only one axis of relationship: the relationship to oneself – which is expressed by seeking individual freedom, success, and recognition. Collective leadership models can only be supported when people equally acknowledge the importance of other relationships: with others, with the larger community, with nature, and with spirit – to attain individual and collective well-being or harmonic vibrancy (see diagram page 30). Creating a collective leadership culture starts with the leader’s awareness of his/her deep connection with the whole and of the need to mobilize collective intelligence, in order to create solutions to today’s “tough” or “wicked” problems. Cultivating all these relationships simultaneously requires challenging one’s individual leadership beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors by engaging in personal and interpersonal practices.

Q: Very wonderful approach to collective leadership. Is your work influenced by Otto Scharmer (Theory U), etc.? I see a lot of parallels with their work.

A: Yes, my work has been influenced by a number of remarkable people with whom I have worked over the years, especially Peter Senge (organizational learning disciplines), Otto Scharmer (Theory U), Bill Torbert (Action Inquiry), and Susanne Cook-Greuter (stages of development and leadership development profile). These authors and researchers may not address collective leadership per se but their work provide some deep foundations for what are talking about.

Q: Any recommendations for data or resources we can use to convince leadership in an existing hierarchical-based organization of the benefits of moving toward this kind of model for the organization and its work output?

Q. Any suggestions for how to turn around a group that is more hierarchical with some power struggles?

A: Collective leadership is a relatively new field, but there are a growing number of resources about it. To my knowledge, The Leadership Learning Community’s website Leadership for a New Era offers one of the most comprehensive lists of resources in the field: http://www.leadershipforanewera.org/page/Collective+Leadership+%28Overview+and+Resources%29. I particularly appreciate the richness of two workbooks mentioned on that page: Joe Raelin’s Leaderful Fieldbook and The Center for Ethical Leadership’s Collective Leadership Framework Workbook – available for free download (see summary chart of the Framework on page 7). Another

worthwhile source is the Collective Leadership Institute (in Germany), particularly for their work on multi-stakeholder dialogues across sectors: http://www.collectiveleadership.de/english/references/concepts_and_tools.html.

In an attempt to “convince” leadership in a hierarchical organization to move toward a collective leadership model, one avenue I have pursued is to invite the senior leadership team in a dialogue that reveals both the benefits of looking at issues from multiple perspectives and the potential of collective intelligence. It works even better if the formal leadership group is willing to invite some other stakeholders in the conversations that they don’t usually welcome. The key for me is to create an awareness of the limitation of the individual leadership mind when tackling “adaptive” vs. “technical” problems (in Ron Heifetz’s definition – see his book The Practice of Adaptive Leadership).

Q: Any tips about how to develop transitional processes from a hierarchical culture to a shared leadership model?

Q: What kind of process(es) do you use to get initial buy-in to this framework from stakeholders?

Q: Are there tips or suggestions on how to create structures that support collective leadership?  This would be particularly interesting for groups that are not new but have something in place that needs to be transformed.
Q: Typical reasons for resistance to moving this way?

Q: How does/can this model help to manage up as well as down?
Q: Can you share a story or example of how you apply this to organization situation?

A: I have regrouped these questions because they all concern the “how to” in order to implement collective leadership. The workbooks I mentioned above point to a variety of answers and practices. My overall approach (or my “theory of change”) is to work with the forces that are already present in the field in order to start an organic change process. In any organization, there are people who are dissatisfied with the status quo and are willing to take personal risks to make change happen (the “innovators”). They are also people who can become active supporters (“early adopters”) of a change initiative taken by somebody else. I encourage the leadership (assuming they are open to it) to identify organization members (at all levels) that fit in these two groups and start quietly one or two change projects with a mix of innovators and supporters – in which a different form of leadership can be experienced. They can be given a few tools and practices to experiment with and then invited to share both the outcomes and the processes that they came up with during the project. Both the results achieved and the quality of participants’ experience might entice “wait and see” members (“late adopters”) to join additional change projects at a later stage. Meanwhile, it is useful to listen to each one of the “resisters” and try to understand what is at stake for them, so that they don't become more vocal during the experimentation phase. The book The Dance of Change by Peter Senge and his colleagues includes several illustrations of that change process. Because collective leadership represent such a departure from traditional leadership practices, it is crucial to pay attention – when initiating a change process – to the two interior quadrants (individual beliefs & intentions, culture) without neglecting the other two quadrants (individual behaviors, structures), as all of them are interdependent (page 15).  

Q: How do you go about coaching people to develop the 3 Hs?

Q: What would be the practices for the Hara level of leadership?

A: Our 3H model (Head, Heart, Hara – see page 18 of the presentation) points to a number of qualities that can be developed by engaging in various practices. In the presentation, I have listed some of these practices by category: personal (page 21), interpersonal (page 23) and integral co-leadership (page 35). Books such as Integral Life Practice by Ken Wilber et al describe some of them.

As Joan Kenley writes in her book Voice Power, “The hara is an energetic focal point located about two to four fingers’ width below the navel and two to four fingers’ depth inside the body… Recognized and honored by many cultures around the globe, it is experienced as a sense of being and knowing – beyond the mind. Its energy can be felt as a fullness that can become an intimate sense of completeness and self-sufficiency”.  It can also be experienced as a medium of deep connection with others and with the larger field. One simple practice is to breathe slowly and deeply while focusing one’s attention on that energy center – and then keeping the attention to that area throughout the day, noticing how it affects awareness and consciousness.

Coaching people to develop the 3Hs can be done by creating with them a safe field within which they are willing to experiment – and by helping them engage initially in some simple enough practices that they can include in their daily life. A collective leadership team can become both a supportive and practicing group for each of its members.

Q: Please expand on the notion of moment-to-moment awareness?

A: Moment-to-moment awareness emerges from acquiring a continuous consciousness of one’s interior state and behavior, as well as of the quality of “in- the-moment” relationships. It can be cultivated by developing body-mind sensory awareness, meditative practices, self-inquiry, improvisation, and collaborative action inquiry. A practical way to begin is to develop a three-dimensional sense of one’s arms and legs, as an anchor to other awareness practices.

Q: Is there a place for individual ego in collective leadership? In a way that is healthy?
A: Yes, there is a place for a healthy form of individual ego in collective leadership. One way to diagnose its degree of “healthiness” is to assess how identified one is to one’s views or opinions, i.e. the degree to which one is emotionally connected to or defensive about one’s positions, and how important it is to see one’s contribution be specifically recognized in a group dialogue – a need for individual ownership.

Q: How do you introduce collaborative action inquiry? How do you assess readiness, buy-in?

One of the most “natural” ways is to engage a group in a reflective dialogue (as Otto Scharmer calls it) during which each person is asked to suspend their assumptions and opinions (as if they were hanging in front of them to be observed), and be open to receive others’ inputs as equally valid perspectives. How well group members respond to that request is a good indicator of readiness. A possible next step is to examine together the outcomes of a past action and engage, not only in single-loop learning (how could we improve/modify that action), but also in double-loop learning (how did we frame that action, what were our assumptions), and in triple-loop learning (what was our intention in choosing that strategy and this action). All the dialogue skills are needed to do this well as a group: balancing advocacy and inquiry, deep listening, etc.

Q: Would you please say more about intercultural journeys?

When an individual or a group engages in a learning journey to discover another organizational culture, particularly in a different sector, there are a number of opportunities to challenge one’s assumptions and observe other practices. Openness, curiosity, and humility are required to benefit from such a journey.

 

Q: In our Polarity Map, what do the left and right poles represent?

A: In the illustration provided (on page 24) the left pole is rewarding individual excellence and the right pole rewarding collective excellence. What is important in using the Polarity Map is that each member advocates equally convincingly for the upsides of the right and left pole, whatever their original position might be. All members also contribute to identifying the downsides of the two poles. The objective is then to combine as many upsides as possible (thinking both/and) while minimizing the downsides. It is a great process to work out solutions on which the group is initially divided.

Q: Can you share more about what you use for self-diagnosis? Especially when there are members with a wide range of awareness of current beliefs?

A: The Conceptual Map (page 22) is a good place to start at the individual level, and it also provides a good opportunity for peer learning and coaching since the Map is usually shared with a partner. The group self-diagnostic tool (page 9) is useful for any group, irrespective of where they are on the developmental curve, because it provides a good basis for a dialogue about the differences in individual perceptions among members. I find the Co-leadership Questionnaire (pages 25 and 26) particularly useful for a group that has been engaged for a little while, at least formally, on a path of collective leadership and can benefit from a four-quadrant perspective on where they are.

Q: How do you measure success?

Some quantitative results can be used, of course, but there is usually a delay between the occurrence of qualitative shifts within a group and their materializ- ation as observable performance. I tend to rely on instruments that can be used before and after a period of intentional change. In addition to the two group instruments mentioned above, it is also possible to use the survey available on the GTE website (side bar: Participate in our Research), by having each member of the group take it before and after a change intervention.

I send sincere thanks to all the participants, and would like to share – with gratitude – a comment I received after the webinar: “I'm very moved. I've intuited and embodied this in my heart-centered community. You have built a theory and description that allows one to pass this process along more readily”.