INVITATIONAL LEADERSHIP – a Model for the Future

Introduction:

Proposing future models is always going to be a risky business. Of course, get it right and one is potentially elevated to “guru” status and placed among the Nostrodamus and Faith Popcorn’s of the world. British management writer / broadcaster / economist, Charles Handy has said that we need to expend energy attempting to make sense of the future without allowing our past, however glorious, to get in the way of our future. He also makes the point that life can only really be understood backwards but has to be lived forwards. Certainly then, surveying the landscape of the future only serves to highlight the current paradoxes that populate our present. Understanding such paradoxes is what is important rather than attempting to resolve them, a futile endeavor by the very definition of the term “paradox”. In essence leadership will shift from, “having all the answers” to “framing the right questions”.

In her dynamic book, Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly likens her attempt to charter the future as similar to that of the explorations of those early sea adventurers whose early maps and accompanying commentary were, “descriptive but not predictive, enticing but not fully revelatory”. She adds, “They (the explorers) pointed in certain directions, illuminated landmarks, warned of dangers, yet their elusive references and blank spaces served to encourage explorations and discoveries by other people…they contained life-saving knowledge, passed hand to hand among those who were willing to dare similar voyages of their own” (Leadership and the New Science,XIII)

I would hope that this paper would serve to encourage you in your own voyage of discovery and perhaps contribute towards some “life-saving” knowledge in the process of mapping and living effective leadership in the domain in which you serve.

The Context:

What is beyond doubt is that the future is not what it used to be. The rapid advances being made in the world of biogenetics (what the metaphor of “brain” was to moderns, “genes” will be to postmoderns), nanotechnology and vapor-phase technology are gathering revolutionary momentum. Artificial intelligence is already present in fifth-generation computers and the sociological scaffolding of belief is groaning under the strain of supporting an outdated worldview.
Some futurists claim that at the current rate of urbanization (world cities growing at 8 million people per month with half the world’s current population living in cities) we are moving from a world made up of countries, to a world made up of cities. It has been said that not only will the life expectancy of today’s teenagers increase to 120 years but also that within their lifetime there will be people who won’t understand what “country” means. Writer / thinker / teacher Leonard Sweet makes the point that already science and technology make-up at least half of postmodern culture (adding that the church invests little of it’s energy in these areas except for, “periodic sloganish outbursts of critical concern” (Quantum Spirituality p.132).

The current leadership models within our organizations and institutions with which we are familiar, are grounded in a particular context referred to as the “Newtonian” worldview, shaped primarily by the genius of Sir Isaac Newton and French philosopher / mathematician Rene Descartes during the course of the seventeenth century. In essence, Newtonian thinking held that the world was like a machine, the whole made up by the parts. To understand the machine one only had to remove the individual part, examine it and replace it. So too to fix it. It was this framework / worldview that informed the industrial revolution which in turn paved the way for our contemporary organizational hierarchies, establishing the “rules of the game” in so far as leading organized work is concerned. This represents a gross over-simplification of events and influences that have led us to our current context but are sufficient for the purposes of this paper.

Newtonian thinking led organizations to champion the twin towers of control and predictability – marshaling their energy and resources accordingly. In this context leadership evolved to be something that was always “at the top”, always visible, controlling, strong and the place where the “buck stopped”. The desired state was one of equilibrium and stability, achievable by imposing control, constricting people’s freedom and inhibiting local change. The ‘system’ in which this took place would be described as a ‘closed’ system. This was a system where information was controlled and chaos and change minimized. It is noteworthy that nature has taught us that the attempt to manage for stability and to enforce an unnatural equilibrium always leads to far reaching destruction. In essence (and ironically), managing for stability threatens the very system itself.

However, as explorations into the subatomic world gathered momentum from the early part of this century, a growing dissonance with Newtonian thinking emerged. The “rules of the game” that held true in the Newtonian universe, collapsed in the subatomic world being explored. The subatomic world offered a new landscape of connections and paradox, of phenomena that could not be reduced to simple cause and effect, or explained by studying the parts as isolated contributors. The early pioneers / adventurers of quantum theory,
Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg found that at the end of each question they asked in an atomic experiment, nature replied with a confusing paradox.

Growing out of this new understanding emerged an alternative worldview, one that provides some critical reference points for the way in which we view organizations and leadership. For one thing, there appeared to be a fundamental “connectedness” in this new order which refuted the matter / persona dichotomy of the Newtonian worldview. A Swiss physicist, J.S. Bell proposed a theorem in 1964 (and confirmed experimentally in 1982 by Alain Aspect at the University of Paris) that proved that the world is fundamentally inseparable. In other words that matter could be affected by non-local causes and be changed by influences that travel faster than the speed of light. Wheatley makes the point that we have broken the world into parts and fragments for so long that we are not well prepared to see that a different order is moving the whole. Finding new ways to think about, to see, sense and comprehending the whole, represents one of greatest challenges for today’s leadership. Bohm makes the point that the notion that the “fragments” of our world exist separately is an illusion, one that leads to conflict and confusion. (Leadership and the New Science p42).

Berkley University physicist, Henry Stapp, has described Bell’s Theorem as, “the most profound discovery in the history of science”. Bell proved that everything is connected to everything else. We are not sure how this connectedness works, but there is a certainty that there is “separation without separateness”. Nothing can be understood in isolation, everything has to be seen as part of the unified whole. The notion that the world and our universe are made up of ‘separate things’ is an illusion. In the language of this new science, this is referred to as the “butterfly effect”. Edward Lorenz, a meteorologist, first drew attention to this by asking whether or not the flap of a butterfly wing in Tokyo affects a tornado in Texas or a thunderstorm in New York? His answer was an emphatic, “yes”. There is a Chinese proverb that states, “If you cut a blade of grass, you shake the universe”.

Understanding this connectedness has vast implications for our constructions of organizations and leadership now and into the future. Future leadership will be built on epigenesis: the formation of an organism out of genetic / memetic characteristics rather than generic principles, but one that advances in complexity of form and structure. (“Memes” is a term first coined by Richard Dawkins and refers to culturally transmitted ideas and customs that have been implanted in the human brain by social interaction and historical development).

Ironically the Christian worldview and faith has catered for such all along but it has been this worldview’s own lack of understanding / appreciation that has served to limit their knowledge / experience of such richness. Herein lies another irony. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that other cultures / worldviews, ones traditionally regarded as being outside that of the “Christian” perspective, have understood and lived out this deeper reality of our fundamental connectedness. It is a little like the triumphant sound of the early explorer who believes that he has discovered a “new land” only to find others for whom that place has been home for quite some time! In this regard there is much we can learn from diverse cultures such as the Native Americans, the Japanese or the Zulu tradition of South Africa. For instance, the Zulu spirit of “ubuntu” holds that there is a common “nervous system” we all share. There is a Zulu proverb that states, “When a thorn is stuck in the foot, the whole body stoops to pick it up”. It grows from a profound understanding that the individual gains his or her significance from their relatedness / belonging / connection to the whole / community / tribe.

The desire for mastery and prediction can never be satisfied in this “newly” discovered nonlinear world (“new” in the sense of our scientific understanding: both the ancient Hindu and Buddhist traditions have a cyclical worldview and indeed, a Christianity that takes it’s eschatology seriously, must also be considered as nonlinear). In a nonlinear world the smallest variance has the capacity to change and impact the entire system. New science sight (or “New Lights” as Leonard Sweet refers to people with such 20/20 vision) sees organizations as holistic, open systems and not merely as parts that make up the whole. This fundamental connection / networking is the real nature of Nature as God made it. Sweet writes that, “Hierarchal or centralized control structures are not how things will get done in the future…Postmodern religious communities will be constructed, less as independent separate parts, and more as networking centers and social organisms constituting an indivisible whole in which relations to other people and things are constitutive of actual entities” (Quantum Spirituality p143).

Learning to view the whole system is difficult. Most scholars of leadership are in agreement that the one common characteristic of leadership is that of ‘vision’. In any leadership context, seeing the ‘big picture’ is vital. Richardo Semler, in his book Maverick states that every organization should pay somebody to “look out the window”. However our traditional analytic skills can’t help us in this quest as analysis only serves to narrow our field of awareness and actually prevents us from seeing the whole system – the panoramic view. Seeing the big picture is reliant on work involving the whole group. Wheatley makes the point that as people engage together to learn about their collective identity they are able to see how their personal patterns and behaviors contribute to the whole. This then empowers them to take personal responsibility for changing themselves. (Leadership and the New Science, p144).

This type of ‘collective inquiry’ is reflected in the Quaker practice of the ‘Clearness Committee’ and has some important lessons for leadership in the new paradigm. Leaders need to be able to see what they are doing as they are doing it; this is where the true learning is. Scott Peck refers to this as the ability to, ‘metamood’. (Metanoia comes from a Greek word meaning a “fundamental shift of mind”). To develop this ‘observer self’ requires patience, practice and no small amount of curiosity. This provides the raw materials from which to fashion the tools that enables the leader to deal with diversity. Dealing with diversity is a challenge inherent with open systems and a prerequisite of future leadership. Leaders can’t deal with the challenge of diversity because someone has told them along the way that it is, “the right thing to do”. Leaders embrace diversity because of how they ‘see’, how they ‘view the whole’, coupled with a fundamental belief in people, something that will be elaborated on later.

In Greek mythology, the creation of the world was attributed to two primal forces: Gaia, mother of the earth who brought form and stability and Chaos, the endless, yawning chasm devoid of form or fullness. According to Greek myth it was the engagement and opposition of these two primordial powers that created everything we know. These two mythological figures inhabit our contemporary imagination and science as we explore more deeply the working of our universe.

Chaos it now appears is a vital and necessary ingredient in the process of change, change which leads to a greater / higher evolvement. It is chaos’ great destructive energy that dissolves the past and gifts us with the future. This is true at both the personal and organizational level. When we concentrate on individual moments or fragments of experience, we see only chaos. However, when we stand back and look at what is taking shape, we see order. Ancient myths and new science both teach that every system that seeks to stay alive must hold within it the potential for chaos. As organizational planner / author T.J. Cartwright frames it, “Chaos is order without predictability” (Planning and Chaos Theory p44). Stacked against this reality the leader who tries to control and ensure a predicable, chaos-free environment is heading for a leadership abyss.

Coming to terms with this on a personal level is essential before living it out as a leader. Of course both are a never-ending process. Put simply, leadership into the future, without a willingness to engage in the often painful interior excavation / work / soul-searching, will not withstand the shift or change in paradigm / worldview. Danish philosopher / writer, Soren Kieregaard said, “To venture causes anxiety, but not to venture is to lose one’s self…And to venture in the highest is precisely to be conscious of one’s self”. Kets de Vries, in his book Leadership Mystique (which he subtitles, “a users manual for the human enterprise”) puts it this way, “If leaders don’t reinvent themselves, they may lead the organization down the drain.” (p114). It reminds me of my experience recently with the CEO who wanted all the benefits of a “participative” management style but was blind to his own overt autocratic leadership. It would be this “blind spot” of his that would first have to be seen / identified and then challenged before any meaningful progress could be realized.

Author / Quaker / contemplative Parker Palmer, makes the point that the institutions and culture of the day reflect the dominant worldview of the time. As a shift in a worldview occurs, the culture and institutions experience a “cultural lag” meaning that they don’t immediately reflect the shift that is taking place. An illustration of this would be that in the old worldview of Newtonian thinking, competition was central to the paradigm.

This of course was fuelled by social Darwinism’s “survival of the fittest” mantra or as the poet Tennyson put it, “red in tooth and claw”. Accordingly, the institutions and culture reflected this reality. However in a quantum worldview, the dominant metaphor is one of connectedness. The rate at which this is reflected and represented in our current institutions and culture, lags behind the pace at which the quantum worldview is replacing the old Newtonian paradigm. So too would this hold true for leadership as new expressions and metaphors are being sought and grappled with to reflect the fundamental shifts taking place. (Although not the focus of this paper it is worth noting that this is an absorbing point to expand on within the context of evangelism both now and into the future).

The Model:

So what then is “Invitational Leadership” and why is it that, against this backdrop, I am confident that it will emerge as the leadership model for the future?

Invitational Leadership has been cultivated directly from Invitational Theory, a theory embedded in an educational context and worthy of elaboration in order to understand it in the context of leadership.

The term “invitational” was chosen for its special meaning. The English invite is a derivative of the Latin word invitare, which means ‘to offer something beneficial for consideration’. Translated literally, invitare means to ‘summon cordially, not to shun’. Implicit in this definition is that inviting is an ethical process involving continuous interactions among and between human beings.
Invitational theory is a collection of assumptions that seek to explain phenomena and provide a means of intentionally summoning people to realise their relatively boundless potential in all areas of worthwhile human endeavour. It is based on two successive foundations: The ‘perceptual tradition’ and the ‘self-concept theory’. These two foundations, each supported by decades of scholarly research and writing, provide invitational theory with both substance and structure.
In applying invitational theory, a most important question is “What is the fit among perceptions of various individuals?” The perceptual tradition maintains that human behaviour is the product of the unique ways that individuals view the world. The perceptual viewpoint places consciousness at the centre of personality. It proposes that people are not influenced by events so much as their perception of events. The perceptual tradition was beautifully presented in the 1962 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming, edited by A. W. Combs.
A second important question in applying invitational theory is “Who am I and how do I fit in the world?” This question derives from the second foundation of invitational theory: self-concept theory. Self-concept is a complex and dynamic system of learned beliefs that each person holds to be true about his or her personal existence.
The theory maintains that behaviour is mediated by the ways an individual views oneself, and that these views serve as both antecedent and consequence of human activity. Self-concept theory was developed by Jourard (1968), Rogers (1969), Purkey (1970) and many others.
Invitational leadership offers a logical extension to the perceptual tradition and self- concept theory and builds on these two foundations. These foundations provide a rationale for the four basic assumptions made in the theory and are the means by which invitational leaders ‘take guard’ in order to face the challenges of leading.
These four assumptions provide the ‘character challenge’ for Invitational leadership and provide the personal raw material from which purpose, direction and behaviour can best be shaped. The four assumptions, which take the form of four propositions, are: trust, respect, optimism, and intentionality.

Trust

Human existence is a co-operative activity where process is as important as product. A basic ingredient of invitational theory is recognition of the interdependence of human beings. Attempting to get others to do what is wanted without involving them in the process is a lost cause. Given an optimally inviting environment, each person will find his or her own best ways of being and becoming.

Respect

People are able, valuable, and responsible and should be treated accordingly. An indispensable element in any human encounter is shared responsibility based on mutual respect. This respect is manifested in the caring and appropriate behaviours exhibited by people as well as the places, policies, programs, and processes they create and maintain. It is also manifested by establishing positions of equality and shared power.

Optimism

People possess untapped potential in all areas of human endeavour. The uniqueness of human beings is that no clear limits to potential have been discovered, in the same way that a skilled sculptor (Michelangelo) “uncovers” the image (the David) in the marble. In his book, Synchronicity, The Inner Path of Leadership, Jaworski states that, “leadership is all about the release of human possibilities”(p66). For Invitational leaders optimism regarding human potential is not an option, it is a prerequisite. It is not enough to be inviting; it is critical to be optimistic about the process. No one can choose a beneficial direction in life without the hope that change for the better is possible. From the standpoint of invitational theory, seeing people as possessing untapped potential determines the policies established, the programs supported, the processes encouraged, the physical environments created, and the relationships established and maintained. It was this point that was referred to in earlier discussion on the leader’s need to lead in the midst of diversity.

Intentionality

Human potential can best be realised by places, policies, processes, and programs specifically designed to invite development and by people who are personally and professionally inviting with themselves and others. An invitation is defined as an intentional act designed to offer something beneficial for consideration. Intentionality enables people to create and maintain total environments that consistently and dependably invite the realisation of human potential.

The four essential propositions of invitational theory: trust, respect, optimism, and intentionality, offer a consistent stance through which leaders can create and maintain an optimally inviting environment. While there are other elements that contribute to invitational theory, these propositions are the key ingredients.

What then would be the possible application areas for such leadership? There are five areas that exist in practically every environment, all of which can contribute to the success or failure of every leader. In the same way as everyone and everything in hospitals should invite health, so everyone and everything in every setting should democratically and ethically invite the realisation of human potential. These five areas are the, people, places, policies, programmes and processes. These five “Ps” make up the ‘ecosystem’ in which individuals continuously interact and in which leadership occurs.

While everything in life adds to or detracts from success or failure, nothing is more important in life than people. It is the people who create a respectful, optimistic, trusting and intentional society. In the past much of leadership was seen to have to do with accomplishing certain tasks, achieving predetermined goals regardless of the people concerned. The invitation leader consciously and consistently invites others to participate in creating their own future, giving them the space and opportunity to do so. It has been said that no person on their deathbed wishes they had spent more time at the office. During the course of 2001 I had the privilege of being a travel companion with a friend dying of cancer. Days before his death I asked him what had been the greatest gift he had received as a result of his illness. “The importance of relationship” was his immediate answer. An invitational leader leads with this awareness, even when called on to make tough decisions and see a task achieved.

The physical environment (place) offers a practical starting point for Invitational leadership because places are so visible. Almost anyone can recognise smelly restrooms, cluttered offices, peeling paint, or unkempt buildings. Fortunately, places are the easiest to change because they are the most visible element in any environment. They also offer the opportunity for immediate improvement. Richardo Semler provides some challenging examples of this in his story of transforming his company (Semco) in San Paulo, Brazil.

Policies refer to the procedures, codes, rules, written or unwritten, used to regulate the ongoing functions of individuals and organisations. Ultimately, the policies created and maintained communicate a strong message regarding the value, ability, and responsibility of people. The invitational leader constantly questions and invites the review of these policies to ensure they serve the current environment and needs and are working towards what is trying be achieved. Stories of policies that are intended to serve the customer / client but which accomplish the exact opposite are of course legend in customer care training.

Programmes have an important part to play in leading in an inviting way because programmes often focus on narrow objectives that neglect the wider scope of human needs. For example, special programmes that label people can give individuals ideas about themselves that negate the positive purposes for which these programmes were originally created. Open system leadership uses networks; Newtonian mindsets still rely on boxes. Invitational leadership requires that programmes be monitored to insure that they do not detract from the purposes for which they were designed.

The final P, processes, addresses the ways in which the other four P’s function. From the early Greek Heraclitus to the most recent thinking in science, life has been described as a process. Process looks ‘backstage’, at the forces behind what is seen on the stage of life itself. Processes address such issues as co-operative spirit, democratic activities, collaborative efforts, ethical guidelines, and humane activities. They focus on how the other P’s are conducted. It is the role of the Invitational leader to be the ‘Gatekeeper’ but not sole custodian for the processes at work within his / her organization. Although we see change at the material level, processes that are immaterial invariably cause the change. The invitational leader learns to develop a sixth sense for these invisible processes rather than the things they engender. Learning to live in a process world that defies employing a ‘methodology’ to cope with such a reality is a challenge for the invitational leader.

Wheatley captures the required role change for leadership in these areas as being one from, “master creator” to moving into the, “dance of life”. It is then an invitation to hear the music and then dance! Priest / scholar / author Henri Nowen, in his book Clowning in Rome, plays on the metaphor of the circus, suggesting that the movement needed for authentic leadership is one from being (or trying to be) the highly admired and skilled trapeze artist (who performs high above everyone and which requires one to crane their neck in order to catch a glimpse of their breathtaking stunts) to that of the clown. The role (in the circus context) with whom we can so readily identify and with who we are invited to share in both their tears and laughter. Nouwen’s perspective on leadership (In the Name of Jesus) represents a challenging shift for the ‘Newtonian’ leader and yet sits easily with the concept of invitational leadership. This of course would also hold true for Robert Greenleaf’s ‘servant leadership’ yet, invitational leadership goes even further than Greenleaf’s notion of the leader as a servant.

In addition to its focus on the five areas of people, places, policies, programmes, and processes, invitational theory identifies levels of functioning for the leader. Being human and less than perfect, everyone functions at each level from time to time, but it is the level at which people typically function that determines their approach to life and their ultimate success in personal and professional living.

It is useful here to contemplate the complexity of invitational theory. Many people think they already understand the concept of “inviting.” They see it as simply doing nice things–sharing a smile, giving a hug, saying something nice, or buying a gift. While these may be worthwhile activities when used caringly and appropriately, they are only manifestations of an invitational stance one takes. This invitational stance determines the level of personal and professional functioning.

The following levels (attributed to W. C. Howell) provide a check system to monitor each of the Five Ps (places, policies, programmes, processes, and people) found in and around any human endeavour and that reflect invitational leadership in action.

Intentionally Uninviting

The most negative and toxic level of human functioning involves those actions, policies, programs, places, and processes that are deliberately designed to demean, dissuade, discourage, defeat and destroy. Intentionally uninviting functioning might involve a person who is purposely insulting, a policy that is intentionally discriminatory, a programme that purposely demeans individuals, or an environment intentionally left unpleasant and unattractive.

Unintentionally uninviting

People, places, policies, programmes and processes that are intentionally uninviting are few when compared to those that are unintentionally uninviting. The great majority of uninviting forces that exist are usually the result of a lack of an invitational stance. Because there is no philosophy of trust, respect, optimism, and intentionality, policies are established, programmes designed, places arranged, processes evolved, and people behave in ways that are clearly uninviting although such was not the intent.

Individuals who function at the unintentionally uninviting level are often viewed as uncaring, chauvinistic, condescending, patronising, sexist, racist, dictatorial, or just plain thoughtless. They do not intend to be hurtful or harmful, but because they lack consistency in direction and purpose, they act in uninviting ways. Leaders who function at the unintentionally uninviting level may not intend to be uninviting, but the damage is done. Like being run over by a truck: intended or not, the victim is still dead.

Unintentionally Inviting

People who usually function at the unintentionally inviting level have stumbled serendipitously into ways of functioning that are often effective. However, they have difficulty when asked to explain why they are successful. They can describe in loving detail what they do, but not why.

An example of this is the “natural born” teacher. Such a person may be successful in teaching because he or she exhibits many of the trusting, respecting, and optimistic qualities associated with invitational theory. However, because they lack the fourth critical element, intentionality, they lack consistency and dependability in the actions they exhibit, the policies and programmes they establish, and the places and processes they create and maintain.

Leaders who are unintentionally inviting are somewhat akin to the early barn- storming aeroplane pilots. These pioneer pilots did not know exactly why their planes flew, or what caused weather patterns, or much about navigational systems. As long as they stayed close to the ground, followed a railway track, and the weather was clear, they were able to function. But, when the weather turned bad or night fell, they became disoriented and lost. In difficult situations, leaders who function at the unintentionally inviting level lack dependability in behaviour and consistency in direction.

The basic weakness in functioning at the unintentionally inviting level is the inability to identify the reasons for success or failure. Most people know whether something is working or not, but when it stops working, they are puzzled about how to start it up again. Those who function at the unintentionally inviting level lack a consistent stance–a dependable position from which to operate.

Intentionally Inviting

When individuals function at the intentionally inviting level, they seek to consistently exhibit the assumptions of invitational theory. Mizer who described how schools could function to turn a child “into a zero” presents a beautiful example of intentionality in action. Mizer illustrated the tragedy of one such child, and then concluded her article with these words: “I look up and down the rows carefully each September at the unfamiliar faces. I look for veiled eyes or bodies scrounged into an alien world. “Look, Kids,” I say silently, “I may not do anything else for you this year, but not one of you is going to come out of here a nobody. I’ll work or fight to the bitter end doing battle with society and the school board, but I won’t have one of you coming out of here thinking of himself [sic] as a zero”. (Cipher in the Snow, p10).

In invitational theory, everybody and everything adds to, or subtracts from, human existence. Ideally, the factors of people, places, policies, programmes, and processes should be so intentionally inviting as to create a world where each individual is cordially summoned to develop physically, intellectually, and emotionally. Leaders who accept the assumptions of invitational theory not only strive to be intentionally inviting, but once there, continue to grow and develop, to reach for what is referred to as the ‘Plus Factor’.

When people watch the accomplished musician, the headline comedian, the world-class athlete, the master teacher, what he or she does is made to seem so simple. It is only when people try to do it themselves that they realise that true art requires painstaking care, discipline, and deliberate planning.

At its best, invitational theory becomes “invisible” because it becomes a means of addressing humanity. To borrow the words of Chuang-tse, an ancient Chinese philosopher, “it flows like water, reflects like a mirror, and responds like an echo.” At its best, invitational theory applied to leadership requires implicit, rather than explicit, expression. When the leader reaches this special plateau, what they do appears effortless. Football teams call it “momentum,” comedians call it “feeling the centre,” world class athletes call it “finding the zone, fighter pilots call it “rhythm.” In invitational theory it is called the, “Plus Factor”. A good example of this factor was provided by actress/dancer/singer Ginger Rogers when describing dancing with Fred Astair. She said, “It’s a lot of hard work, that I do know.” Someone responded: “But it doesn’t look it, Ginger” to which she replied, “That’s why it’s magic.”

Invitational leadership, at its best, works like magic. Those who function at the highest levels of inviting become so fluent that the carefully honed skills and techniques they employ they become invisible to the untrained eye. They function with such talented assurance that the tremendous effort involved does not call attention to itself.

Invitational leadership encourages individuals to enrich their lives in each of four basic dimensions: (1) being personally inviting with oneself; (2) being personally inviting with others; (3) being professionally inviting with oneself; and (4) being professionally inviting with others. Like pistons in a finely tuned engine, the four dimensions work together to give power to the whole movement. While there are times when one of the four dimensions may demand special attention, the overall goal is to seek balance and synchronicity between personal and professional functioning.

Being Personally Inviting With Oneself

To be a beneficial presence in the lives of others it is essential that invitational leaders first invite themselves. This means that they view themselves as able, valuable and responsible. They are the kind of leaders who remain open to new experiences and who adopt a positive learning attitude throughout their entire life. These leaders see the need to, on a regular basis, reinvent and renew themselves and take the opportunities and develop the disciplines to do so.

Being personally inviting with oneself takes an endless variety of forms. It means caring for one’s mental health and making appropriate choices in life. By taking up a new hobby, relaxing with a good book, exercising regularly, learning to laugh more, visiting friends, getting sufficient sleep, growing a garden, or managing time wisely, people can rejuvenate their own well-being. Much is currently on the shelves in the leadership section of bookstores on precisely this aspect of leadership. It is well documented from a variety of standpoints that without being inviting with yourself, it is not possible to be truly / authentically inviting towards others. In a Christian context, loving yourself in a healthy manner is a prerequisite for loving others.

Being Personally Inviting With Others

Being inviting requires that the feelings, wishes, and aspirations of others be taken into account. Without this, invitational leadership could not exist. In practical terms, this means that the social committee might be the most vital committee in any organisation.

Specific ways to be personally inviting with others are simple but often overlooked. Getting to know colleagues, sending friendly notes, remembering birthdays and significant anniversaries, enjoying a staff social, practising politeness, being vulnerable, celebrating successes are all examples of invitational leadership in action.

Being Professionally Inviting With Oneself

Being professionally inviting with oneself can take a variety of forms, but it begins with ethical awareness and a clear and efficient perception of situations and oneself. In practical terms, being professionally inviting with oneself means trying a new method, seeking certification, learning new skills, returning to graduate school, enrolling in a workshop, attending conferences, reading journals, writing for publication, and making presentations at conferences.

Keeping alive professionally is particularly important because of the rapidly expanding knowledge base. Perhaps never before have knowledge, techniques, and methods been so bountiful. Canoes must be paddled harder than ever just to keep up with the knowledge explosion.

Being Professionally Inviting With Others

The final dimension of invitational leadership is being professionally inviting with others. This involves such qualities as treating people, not as labels or groups, but as individuals. It also requires honesty and the ability to accept less-than-perfect behaviour of human beings.

In everyday practice, being professionally inviting with others requires careful attention to the policies that are introduced, the programmes established, the places created, the processes manifested, and the behaviours exhibited. Among the countless ways that leaders can be professionally inviting with others are to have high aspirations, fight sexism and racism in any form, work co-operatively, behave ethically, provide professional feedback, and maintain an optimistic stance.

Leaders who combine the four dimensions of invitational theory into a seamless whole are well on their way to putting the theory into practice.

Concluding Thoughts:

Invitational leadership is the intentional invitation to others to participate in / create their own future, a future that is connected. Leonard Sweet makes the point that New Light leaders will be “playing away” in this postmodern culture (p.194). For those placed in positions of leadership the challenge is there: the leadership of the future ought to be the leadership of your present! Confucian philosopher, Meng-Tzu said, “If the King loves music, there is little wrong in the land.” Leaders will need to actively recognize and embrace invitation and participation as the way to lead into the future, confident that as they do so and untidy as it certainly will be, ‘little can go wrong in the land’.

Bibliography:

Bennis, Spreitzer, Cummings (Editors). the future of leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2001
Binney, G & Williams, C. Leaning into the Future, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London, 1997.
Blumenfeld, Y. (Editor). Scanning the Future, Thames & Hudson, London, 1999
Bohm, D. Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge, London, 1980
Boon, M. The African Way: The Power of Interactive Leadership, Zebra Press, 1996
Boyett, J & J. The Guru Guide, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1998
Cartwright, T.J. Planning and Chaos Theory. APA Journal, 1991
Combs, A. W. (Ed.). Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming. Washington, D.C.: Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1962
Corbin, C. Great Leaders See the Future First, Dearborn, Chicago, 2000.
Chowdhury, S. Management 21C, Financial Times Prentice Hall, GB, 2000
De Pree, M. Leading Without Power, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1997
Drucker Foundation, Hesselbein, Goldsmith & Beckhard (Editors). The Leader of the Future, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1996
Drucker Foundation, Hesselbein, Goldsmith & Beckhard (Editors), The Organization of the Future, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1997
Gibson, R. (Editor). Rethinking the Future, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London, 1998
Greenleaf, R. The Power of Servant Leadership, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 1998
Grulker, W. Ten Lesson from the Future, @One Communications, Johannesburg, 2000
Kets de Vries, M. Leadership Mystique, Prentice Hall, London, 2001
Handy, C. Beyond Certainty, Arrow Books, GB, 1996
Handy, C. The Empty Raincoat, Arrow Books, GB, 1995
Jaworrski, J. Synchronicity – The Inner Path of Leadership, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 1996
Micklethwait, J & Woodridge, A. The Witch Doctors, Mandarin, UK, 1997
Mizer, J.E. Cipher in the Snow. NEA Journal, 53, 8-10. 1964
Nerburn, K (Editor). The Wisdom of Native Americans, New World, California, 1999
Nouwen, H.J.M, In the Name of Jesus, Darton, Longman & Todd, London, 1989
Nouwen, H.J.M, Clowning in Rome, Darton, Longman & Todd, London, 2001
Purkey, W.W. & Novak, J. Education: By invitation Only. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa, 1988
Semler, R. Maverick, Century, London, 1993
Spears, L.C. (Editor). Reflections on Leadership, John Wiley & Sons Publishers, 1995
Sweet, L. Quantum Spirituality, Whaleprints, Dayton, Ohio, 1991
Wheatly, Margaret. Leadership and the New Science. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 1999

Related posts:

1. Learning Leadership: Change Needed!
2. SLI – Strategic Leadership Intelligence