Anybody who knows me, knows that I am a Liverpool supporter through and through. My firstborn and eldest son, once the the name ‘Liverpool’ had been roundly condemned at the time of his his debut some 24 years ago (still can’t understand the rejection), was eventually named Keegan. Enough said.

This week Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez left the club by mutual agreement between himself and the board. In how he left is a sharp lesson for leaders and companies everywhere – especially those who face the reality of a mobile workforce who will be walking out your doors most likely sooner than you would like. I have blogged on this story and the embedded lesson  on the TomorrowToday blog

No related posts.

I am about to board a flight to Beijing where I will be involved in the Global Leaders Conference (GLC) together with Graeme Codrington (TomorrowToday/ UK) and Nick Barker (Director of the Asia Pacific Leadership Program). I will be presenting on ‘Rethinking Strategy’. Looking forward to this trip – one which always yields wonderful insights, new learning and an expanded network.

I will be sure to share some of these with you over the next few weeks.

No related posts.

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

Following a presentation on Invitational Leadership at a two day workshop for senior leaders at a prominent multi-national, the CEO of the company and I engaged in a chat about values and the role they play in a company. He invited me to email him some thoughts around the four values his company had framed.

This then is my response…

Dear Yves,

Thank you for the invitation to reflect on the four values – diversity, trust, integrity and quality – around which your company is orientated. They are good words with powerful meanings and certainly have the capacity to inform attitudes, shape behaviour and inspire performance. I hope then that these brief thoughts serve to further enhance your conversation around your values.

Diversity. A great deal of words and text swirl around this single word. It is a word that assumes different meanings in different contexts and certainly here in South Africa, ‘diversity’ has more often than not come to mean ‘transformation’. However I don’t think this is where we should go in our reflection on diversity. Whilst doing some work in the Asia Pacific Leadership Program at the East West Center in Hawaii recently, I was privileged to hear a lecture by Professor Peter Hershock on this very topic. He made a striking point that was graphically reinforced by a powerful analogy. Peter’s point was that we often mistake diversity for variety. The analogy he then employed to illustrate this was to contrast a zoo with that of an eco-system. The zoo represents variety. A wide range of animals on display, each animal contained neatly within their own cage. The entire ‘system’ of the zoo is totally dependent for survival and sustainability on external interventions. Cut off the lights and stop the feeding and over time the ‘system’ will die. This Peter said, was an example of variety.

Diversity, Peter went on to explain was like an eco-system where various systems connect, collide and co-exist in a self-organising and sustaining dance. This is a place of chaos, adaptation and dynamic evolution. This is experienced in greater measure at the place where the respective systems intersect – the eco-tones. In this system external interventions are not required for sustainability as the system adapts and evolves in response to any external influence. Predictability and certainty are in short supply in this context and yet there is an abundance of creativity, spontaneity and resilience. It is a dynamic environment. This, Peter suggested, offers us a better picture and metaphor for understanding and dealing with diversity.

The more I thought about it, the more it seemed that we have opted for variety as opposed to diversity within our corporations and organisations.

Understanding diversity in this manner, as an eco-system rather than a zoo, would I suggest, change a great deal about how we approach the management of the subject. Furthermore I don’t think one can ‘do’ diversity – it is not a verb but rather it is an adjective: diversity simply is – it exists all around us and is, in a connected world, unavoidable. Flying back to South Africa recently I sat next to an American gentleman who somewhat candidly informed me that he “didn’t do diversity” which in his context was used as a polite way in which to frame his racial prejudices. I suppose one has a choice to not engage in diversity but such isolation merely robs one of the growth, creativity and richness that diversity offers. Diversity, or the eco-tones are uncomfortable spaces as they will always question assumptions, challenge expose prejudices and challenge worldviews. But all this is to be welcomed in the name of growth in a paradoxical world. And if growth and participation – or ‘staff engagement’ as you frame it, are the desired outcomes, then diversity and all it brings is not optional.

One final comment pertaining to diversity in the South African context. You heard me speak about the fact that I believe that South Africa has a significant contribution to make to the global conversation on diversity. I want to suggest that it is companies like yours that need to take what you know and don’t know around diversity to the global stage. Be bold in doing so for out there is a world floundering in this area. You, your company and South Africa has much to offer in this regard. Perhaps more than you realise!

Trust. Without it there can be no real leadership. The challenge is that trust takes time to develop but can so quickly be destroyed. In the pursuit of order without control, trust becomes the currency that regulates relationships. One can afford to pardon honest endeavour that fails to meet expectations; but one cannot afford to overlook situations where trust given has been abused and broken. This is the ‘unpardonable sin’ in the context of a relational economy. However care needs to be taken to unpack what it is you mean by ‘trust’ in order to ensure a common understanding of exactly what is meant by this term. Both cultural and personal nuances can play havoc with trust and so be sure to put it in context and come to a common understanding as to what trust within your context will look like. Often we talk about the need to ‘earn trust’ but like the teacher who told his class he would start by giving all the pupils 100%, I like the idea of giving trust before it is earned. I think by doing so, as risky as it might be, you will be surprised at how people step up to the plate. We spoke about learning from kids (which reminds me to ensure that I send you my book, Everything I know about leadership I learnt from the Kids)  and so perhaps a clue as to how best to go about instilling trust in your work place, would be to ask how you achieved that at home? Just a thought. I wonder what your staff would say when asked to complete the following sentence: I feel trusted when…

Integrity. I recall reading that the root from which the word integrity emerges is intergratis. This carries the idea of ‘integration’. In other words integrity is about integration. Integration of what? you might ask. Well I think it has to do with the link between who we say we are (as individuals or as a company) and who we really are; between what we say and do; between our values and our behaviour; between the unseen and the seen. The best description of ‘presence’ (we often hear someone as having ‘presence’) that I know of is that presence, is that place where the inner world of oneself, meets the outer world of activity. I am sure you will know what I mean here and will be able to instantly recall such people who have crossed your path for whom this is a fitting description. I can recall an informal chance meeting with Nelson Mandela where there was the opportunity for some intimate conversation during which I was stuck by Madiba’s ‘presence’. Of course there have been many others who touch our journeys for whom the same is true but who don’t have the public stature of someone like a Nelson Mandela. Just this past week I was part of a conversation that intersected the concept of integrity. During the conversation I came to realise that integrity is a personal thing. It looks different to different people. This concerns me a bit but has certainly got me thinking as to what integrity might look like in a world where it seems that situational ethics holds sway. However it also serves to remind me that we live in a sea of diversity and as comfortable as it would be to have ‘my’ interpretation of integrity as the norm, this simply is not the case. Because of this reality, I have something to learn.

Quality. This is perhaps the easiest of your four values to determine and measure. Ensuring quality of products has become a non-negotiable in this highly competitive environment and any flaws in this area are quickly exposed and tend to spread through the public domain like a virus. Stories of poor quality, shoddy workmanship get passed on and do immeasurable damage to reputation and I would guess sales and therefore turnover. However quality can be applied to more than products and I would guess that this would have been in the thinking of those responsible for penning this value in your context.  In addition to quality pertaining to products, there is quality of life, of work and of environment. All these play a vital role in building and leading healthy organisations. Conversations around quality need to engage staff and extend into these additional areas. After all they are areas that impact on all of us and because of that, we all should be able to contribute what we think could be done to improve the situation or where the benchmarks should be set. Aside from this, another thought linked to quality: Whilst quality is essential in the selling of your product, it is also something that, along with reasonable pricing, is now taken as a given. As we move into what we in TomorrowToday.biz call a ‘Connection Economy’, another factor emerges as essential in order to maintain a competitive advantage. That addition factor is relationship. The ‘quality of relationship’ is the new determining factor in not only why I should buy your product, but why I would want to work with you. Your staff, especially those who are in contact with potential and existing clients, need to understand this reality. Today I will be making contact with a door manufacturing company to tell them that their total neglect of not following through on their repeated promise to contact me, has cost them the job. They have a quality product for which I was prepared to pay, however their lack of relational savvy has let them down. In the Connection Economy we increasing base our purchasing or business decisions on the quality of relationship.

Well thanks for the opportunity to reflect on your four values. I trust some of these thoughts will be useful in the ongoing conversation that you are having in this area. Our values drive behaviour and so I would encourage you to ensure that your company’s values never get reduced to mere words that hang on the wall but rather that they are imprinted on the minds and hearts of all your staff. I would hope that they are lived and experienced on a daily basis by all who are in or come into contact with your company. Conversation in this area in never ‘done’ as with each person who leaves or joins your group, the dynamics change and with that the value expression.

I look forward to our paths crossing again somewhere along the journey. Till then, everything of the best as you lead in these challenging times.

Related posts:

1. The Inconvenient Truth for Leaders

Traditional leadership learning programmes are in need of revision. In spite of a massive emphasis and investment in leadership education, the return on this investment has often disappointed. This in part can be explained by traditional models of developing leaders not keeping pace with the rapidity and complexity that characterize the context in which leaders are required to lead. Jack Welsh has been quoted as saying that when, “the rate of change outside exceeds the rate of change inside, the end is in sight”. Keeping pace with this rate of change and developing leaders with sufficient adaptive intelligence is the challenge of leadership education programmes. At the heart of every leadership development programme there is a need to return to the fundamental question: ‘What is leadership and how do I learn it?’ It is a questions that serves as the custodian of several important questions that in turn will give shape to the educational / developmental context:

• What is leadership?
• How do I learn it?
• How do I learn it?
• How do I learn it?

MBA programmes have traditionally focused on knowledge acquisition in a classroom setting. There is need to understand leadership development as a process in which there is as much emphasis on character development as there is on knowledge / skills acquisition.  The majority of leadership theory holds that both character and skills are required for effective leadership. The emphasis on the latter has partly been due to how we have chosen to measure the programmes in which substantial investment has been made. We know how to do the ‘external’ aspects of leadership development but this needs to be balanced by a new emphasis on internal approaches to learning leadership. Some of these internal approaches and tools would include disciplines such as reflection, narrative, conversation, visioning and inquiry.

Related posts:

1. SLI – Strategic Leadership Intelligence

In a technological age of instant, easy and cheap communication speaking to one another has never been easier. Why, just in a few hours I am scheduled to be in a skype conference call that links Hong Kong, Boston and Durban! So although it has never been easier to connect, knowing who to connect with becomes the challenge. The ability to network has to be matched by an ability to trust those with whom you are connecting. Trust matters.

This is especially so when it comes to using easy online means of connecting to explore potential business opportunity. I read of a case recently where an American telecoms entrepreneur by the name of Andres Ruzo was looking to expand his business into Latin America. He was connected to one Vladimir Vargas, another IT entrepreneur based in Costa Rica, who was looking to expand his business northwards. The connection was made by a mutually respected priest that both IT men knew…and trusted. This formed the cornerstone to a successful business enterprise (ITS Infocom) than is currently on the brink of going global. Technology made the connection possible but trust was the essential ingredient in making the connection successful.

In the early days of the ‘virtual world’ people would engage and explore this new ‘reality’ through assuming an online alias.  You could become anything you wanted as you connected and build your virtual life – one detached from the ‘real you’. However, over time as mainline life activities started to happen online – banking for example, real people began to increasingly put real information ‘out there’ and a metamorphic transition in online authenticity occurred. Facebook being the epitome of this shift in real people putting real information online to enable personal connection. Central to this new level of connecting is trust.

Trust is the very currency of all relationships and rather than hesitate in the face of opportunity presented by new ways of connecting, the real challenge is how best to develop trust in these new channels through which we connect.  So whilst the means through which we connect has changed and will continue to change, the need for trust does not.  And it just might be that ‘who we know’ and how we then use our network will become the main portal for trust to flow in a world of limitless connectivity.

No related posts.

Kurt Lewin’s well known maxim states: There is nothing so practical as a good theory. Most leaders I know, when it comes to leading people are somewhat thin when it comes to the theory side of things. Most lead others based on their own experience of having been led – where often the, ‘how not to do it’ is the louder voice of lessons learnt!

The reality is that ‘theory’ underpins all our actions, intentionally or not. John Maynard Keynes in his 1936 work, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, wrote: The ideas of economist and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves to some defunct economist”. Point is, whether we acknowledge it or not, we lead out of some or other ‘theory’.

So the question for leaders is: what is that theory which shapes your behaviour and actions? This is the ‘unseen’ work for all leaders: the dynamic work of paying attention to their theory. Being able to articulate your theory is the building block to being an intentional leader; someone who knows the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’ and the ‘how’. It is important, for without doing this work, personal change and the ability to shift paradigm becomes impossible.

I once attended a Salzburg Seminar where the session title was, ‘Linking the Theory and Practice of Leadership’. The sixty or so international participants were equally divided between the ‘theorist’ (leadership academics) and the ‘practitioners’ (those directly involved in organizational leadership). The two groups mixed liked oil and water. When the ‘theorists’ spoke the ‘practitioners’ rolled their eyes as if to say, “when you enter the ‘real world’ you will see how impractical what you saying actually is!”. Of course, when the ‘practitioners’ spoke, the ‘theorists’ in turned rolled their eyes as if to say, “well if you listened to what I have been saying you would know why you are having that problem!”.

And so it went, back and forth, for an entire week.

We need both. Leaders need to work harder at understanding, exploring and articulating the ‘theory’ behind their leadership. Those who think, study and write on the subject need to work harder at understanding some of the reality of the context into which they speak. Building a bridge between theory and practice is important work that leaders everywhere can neither afford to ignore nor neglect.

Related posts:

1. The Inconvenient Truth for Leaders

Ron Heifitz of Harvard makes the distinction between the ‘dance-floor’ and the ‘balcony’. For leaders, being on the dance-floor is often more inviting and comfortable than being on the balcony. Why? Well, it was on the dance-floor where they first got noticed; it is on the dance-floor where they excelled; it is on the dance-floor where their reputation was forged and it is the dance-floor that offers the familiar, the comfortable. But, it is from the balcony where the patters are to be seen; It is the balcony that provides the perspective that leaders require. Getting to the balcony can be hard work and as one leader I chatted to recently put it, “It seems that all I spend my time doing is running up and down the stairs between the dance-floor and the balcony!”

Sharon Parks in Leadership Can Be Taught wrote, “To exercise leadership you need to build a systematic framework that will yield a bigger picture and give you access to a larger field of understanding and action.”

To do this one needs to be on the balcony. Leaders need to be on the balcony if they are to lead effectively. There simply is no other choice.

This aim of this blog is to offer a view from the balcony!

No related posts.

The 2010 Global Leaders Conference has been relocated to Beijing (from Shanghai) and promises to be the best yet. This will be the third edition and has seen this event grown from strength to strength. The conference brings together a diverse group of participants  including those from both the corporate world as well as the academic world. Key Note addresses are followed by a variety of elective sessions that follow the general theme of the conference. I have been involved in all the GLC’s to date and have been able to provide opportunity for both Prof Nick Barker (with who I work in the Asia Pacific Leadership Program in Hawaii) as well as Dr Graeme Codrington (TomorrowToday.biz UK) to address the conference (Graeme is a key Note speaker at the 2010 GLC). Whilst sitting on the International Board of Advisers for the GLC, I have addresses various topics over the past events including presentations on, Generational Theory, Global Leadership Trends and work-shopping the Enneagram. I have also facilitated various plenary panel discussions and assisted in the design of the GLC programme. I have found the GLC to offer a rich experience of China,  provide valuable opportunity to network and gain firsthand learning about this vital part of the world.

Related posts:

1. Departing for Beijing

The Strategic Leadership Intelligence programme is an exciting new initiative and collaboration between Graeme Codrington, Pete Laburn and Keith Coats. All of us are heavily invested in several current local and international leadership education programmes run through leading business schools; All of us are concerned that much of constitutes current leadership education is missing the mark. A quick way to test this is to interrogate current investment in such programmes (which is extensive) and then evaluate the state of corporate leadership and its ability to adapt in a changing world.  There are many contributing factors for this inability to change the way we do leadership education – one being that it has now become ‘big business’ in its own right; it has become a successful business model, and changing what has worked well, in spite of current evidence to the contrary, is no easy task.

The SLI programme proposes and explores important new paradigms in how we both understand and practice strategic leadership. It offers both theoretical and practical insights to  things not currently being taught in the majority of leadership education programmes. The design and structure of the SLI programme allows it to be customized and is flexible to suit a variety of needs. It also allows for an exciting ‘adaptive experience’  to be built into the programme format – an experience that offers either an authentic African bush experience or a visit to China.

Related posts:

1. Learning Leadership: Change Needed!