It started as an overheard conversation in Delhi, India and ended up as an unforgettable day in London, England. Specifically, Wembley stadium.

The over-heard conversation was between delegates on a leadership programme in which I was involved. They were chatting about how one of their number had tickets for the soon to be played FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Everton, but the ticket-holder in question was unable to use them. Clearly there could be no doubt as to my course of action. At the next available opportunity I approached the unsuspecting target like a scud missile and confirmed the accuracy of the information. Indeed, it was true: he was the owner of the prized tickets and instantly also my new best friend. What followed was the magnanimous offer to relieve him of his dilemma and take the three tickets from him. He agreed and the deal was done. A couple of calls home and travel plans had been made and thoughts of companions now commanded urgent attention.

Gary came to mind first. Ardent Liverpudlian and Everton diehard, someone not ashamed to wear the vintage pink (I know, I know…what were they thinking!) Everton strip and the person with whom I had a standing bet for every derby game. The bet? The loser has to place an advert in the paper acknowledging the Victor’s team as superior. Needless to say, Gary has become personal friends with the local paper’s classified advertising editor.

Then there was my dear wife Vicky. Two problems here: firstly this was shaping up to be a boys weekend and secondly, Vicky is a Newcastle fan. As such, Wembley represents a strange and foreign place and I considered it unfair to subject her to such unfamiliar treatment. It would be like taking a hungry kid into a McDonalds and having him read the menu, look at the pictures and watch others munching on their Big Macs – but then callously denying him food of his own. It just wouldn’t be right, would it? I might add that this humane and considerate stance has been met with an unexpectedly hostile non-appreciation, the likes of which I simply cannot fathom, try as I might. I have been told that time will heal but I’m just not sure I have enough time left for that to happen!

Then there was my colleague and Manchester United fan, Graeme. Based in London his local knowledge could prove useful and did mean that I could overlook his misguided football allegiance. Besides it might be fun to have him get us safely to the destination then out him as a Manchester United follower in the company of 87 000 Scousers. Being the refined gentlemen they are, I have no doubt that they would take to heart the need to gently re-educate him in the finer ways of football scholarship. It would be entertainment towards a noble end. How can you argue with that?

The three tickets then were accounted for and the matter settled. Or so I thought. Gary at the 11th hour could no longer make it. Whilst offering a semi-plausible domestic excuse I fully understand his limited threshold for punishment. After all, it is a long way to go to get a beating. The unexpected availability of the third ticket surfaced a number of potential suitors – both old and new. The Newcastle fan in the mix erroneously, and somewhat presumptuously, believed this to be the sign for her inclusion. A sister-in-law, and personal disciple in the ways of Liverpool, believed this would be just reward for her devoted following of the Red Men. And of course she had a point. However, as any sane family man would quickly realize, her inclusion at the expense of one’s own spouse would mean years of irrevocable family discord and potential grievous bodily harm. It was simple too great a risk to take and the only fair call was to leave them both behind.

Then there was a Liverpool friend who was aggrieved at being overlooked in the initial poll but was offered a match-day scarf and programme in appeasement. I am optimistic that our friendship will be fully restored with the passing of time. The final choice was to invite Amy (13) – the oldest daughter of Graeme and devoted but uninitiated Liverpool supporter. Rescuing Amy from the familial clutches of Manchurian allegiance and turning her head and heart towards Liverpool  I regard as one of my finest achievements. Her inclusion would undoubtably seal a life-long commitment to Liverpool. It was the responsible thing to do. A choice which had an eye on the future generation and the continued following for the great club. I can almost see the great Bill Shankly nod his head in approval at the choice made. His nod was all I needed.

And so the tricky selection issue was sorted although I recognize that it might take several more months before the dust of the selection process finally settles. It was a selection process to rival that of King Kenny’s team selection for the big day. In this regard he and I share much in common and I can now fully empathize with his stress around selection. We’ll chat about this should we meet anytime soon.

What a day it was! The fans poured into the magnificent Wembley, humour accompanying every step as the banter back and forth went unabated. There was also the underlying emotion marking the event: the loss of red and blue stalwart, Gary Ablett; the personal tragedy of Liverpool keeper Brad Jones (who’s five year old son had recently died of leukaemia) coupled with Jone’s own bizarre elevation to the first team; the 23rd  anniversary (on the Sunday) of the Hillsborough disaster (a FA Cup semi-final in which 96 Liverpool fans lost their lives); and of course the rich history and tapestry these two great clubs brought with them. Separated by a point in the league and the form table turned on it’s head, opinion was divided as to who carried the tag of favourite into the game. Rumours of King Kenny’s job on the line with the bizarrely timed sacking of his Director of Football days before and David Moyes (the Everton manager) declaring that the ‘whole nation wanted Everton to win’. The stage was well and truly set.

The first goal to be scored was at what was the ‘Kop end’ for the day – and exactly where we were fortuitously (if you believe in such a thing) seated. it was a defending calamity that led to the goal and somewhat indicative of what had been a cruel season for my team. Polite discussion between Liverpool defenders as to who’s job it was to hoof an unclaimed and bouncing ball to safety, resulted in gifting the Everton striker with a simple goal. The rest of the first half is best forgotten as Liverpool struggled to come to terms with having given away such a soft goal and Everton for their part, seemed content to sit things out and strangle the game.

‘Surely I couldn’t have come all this way for it to end like this?’ was my desolate half-time thought whilst scoffing a roast beef bun the size of Surrey itself and enjoying the sponsors liquid.

The taunting of the blue half of Wembley went on unabated and was almost unbearable. I was at once glad not to have Gary next to me and having to endure his gloating (not to mention his singing!). But the critical thing to remember here was that it was only half-time. Our anthem after all does remind us to ‘keep your head up high’ as we walk through the storm. It cajoles us to walk on through the wind and the rain with ‘hope in your heart’. It was a time to remind ourselves and the Red Men on the pitch of this – and did we just! A stirring rendition of the anthem greeting the warriors who made their way out for the second half and we didn’t have long to wait until things were level.

A horrendous defensive error saw that man Suarez swoop for the equalizer and suddenly it was game on. In truth there was always only going to be only one winner from that point on and both set of fans knew it. The fact that it took until the 87th minute for that winner to come mattered not. It was as inevitable as the golden sky at the end of the storm. Staying behind with the red half of Wembley to salute our heroes and sing ‘Fields of Anfield Road’  were moments I’ll never let go of – it was a time and an occasion where  a man-tear was appropriate and not at all out of place. It was amazing how quickly the blue half of the stadium emptied. That too was entirely understandable.

The victory glow remains undimmed. The Liverpool kit that makes up my entire wardrobe for this brief visit, is greeted with congratulations from strangers that range from restaurant waiters to flight attendants. I feel as though I scored the winner myself! Then their are the envious looks from those silly enough to declare their misdirected support for lesser teams. I feel like a giant amongst mere mortals.

So, it was a trip beyond financial justification and one that has carried no small amount of personal risk. Was it worth it? You bet! Regardless of how we perform in the final against Chelsea, there will always be the memory of one glorious day at Wembley. A day on which we defeated our greatest adversary (although some might argue that this description belongs to Manchester United) and possibly rescued a dismal season. A day that ensures the continued agony of the blue side of Merseyside who haven’t achieved FA Cup success over the Reds since 1906. It was King Kenny’s day. It was our day – all the Red Men be they on the pitch, in the stands or living the moment from wherever they were.

This all said, there remain some pertinent leadership lessons to be made. No matter what your football allegiance, here are seven timeless leadership reminders from one epic day at Wembley on the 14th April, 2012:

1.    Leadership involves risk. Trust your gut.
2.    Pick your friends for the journey wisely and know that you can’t please everyone.
3.    It is not over until it is over.
4.    If you are going to sing, don’t sing the blues!
5.    Don’t gloat. Unless it is against Manchester United.
6.    To every great victory there is always a cost to be paid. (Don’t ask)
7.    And finally, you’ll never walk alone.

As the immortal Shankly once said, “Football is not just about life and death, it is more important than that”. Never a truer word spoken…

Anyone got tickets for the final?

No related posts.

Several years ago I was privileged to be selected for the Rotary’s Group Study Exchange Programme. Four candidates and our Rotarian team leader spent six weeks in Toronto, Canada. There we met senior business and community leaders including lunch with the Canadian debuty Prime Minister. It was a wonderful experience and we all benefitted from a programme that Rotary rightly regard as their premier exchange programme.

We also attended the international Rotary Conference in Niagra Falls and it was there that I had some earlier suspicions confirmed. Rotary was an organization in crisis. It was a crisis that had nothing to do with the sterling and commendable work they do; rather it was a crisis of an aging membership. As I looked around the room at delegates who represented Rotary, there was by my reckoning, nobody under 35. Further involvement in Rotary on my return including a strategic think-tank left me uncertain that Rotary were capable of surviving the future. Aware of the problem they seemed stuck in ways and habits that militated against finding answers. One such requirement was the weekly attendance demand placed on members. This is something that makes sense to the Silent generation but would never work with Gen X. Then there was the reluctance to embrace technology, specifically social media. Those in charge of Rotary at best were ignorant of the social media revolution and at worse, deeply suspicious of such new ways. Either way it meant that Rotary was precluding itself from the new world and were their own worse enemy in making the changes necessary for survival. I heard several ideas and earnest conversations aimed at guiding Rotary into the future but there was little to enthuse over and I was left with an impression of a wonderful organization that would slowly slip off the radar into oblivion.

Today I read of something that gives me a glimmer of hope that my original diagnosis of Rotary’s future might be misplaced. I read of a South African Rotary initiative to launch what they called ‘corporate clubs’ endorsed by Nedbank and Mike Brown (CEO). The initiative seems to have freed itself of the shackles that have inhibited previous efforts to grow a younger membership and might just succeed. I hope it does. Rotary might well need to embrace further changes and be willing to overhaul their corporate and public image. Their situation is not dissimilar to that of the Scouting movement. Some years ago Scouts in Europe were in dire straits for much the same reasons as Rotary – an inability to attract the next generation into their ranks. TomorrowToday were invited to engage with Scouts in addressing this challenge, work that came from work I had done with King Gustov of Sweden, the world Patron of Scouts. They listened to what it is we had to say about Generational Theory (TomorrowToday are global experts in the subject having presented, taught and consulted on it in some 45 countries) and then did the work necessary to turn the crisis around.

I hope Rotary will enjoy similar success. An understanding of Generational Theory would be a good platform on which to add other initiatives to that of the Corporate Club. Not only will the challenge be to attract younger membership, it will be one of growing their cultural and ethic representation.

No related posts.

I am sure that like me, there are many sitting in a state of stunned non-comprehension at what is unfolding across the UK. What started out as fairly innocuous protests have spread into mob rule and urban terror, the likes of which Britain has never experienced. How did things escalate so quickly? Why have the law enforcement agencies been unable to deal with it? Why such lawlessness and destruction? Where are the parents of those on the streets? In essence, how could British society have come to this?

When the youth are restrained and the damaged cleared, the scars of what has happened will haunt British society for a long, long time. What has taken place will have rocked the British – well those sane and sensible at least, to the core. The shear scale and nature of the terror that has gripped the streets of London and elsewhere will demand deep introspection and will pose several haunting questions. It will provide and demand a look in the mirror and I suspect that what is reflected, will not be to their liking.

In short British society has failed. It has experienced a meltdown of epic proportions. It is something that some have warned about but few could have envisaged. The failure goes to the very heart of society – the home, and specifically, the parents. How else can you explain it? Yes, schools and educators share in the responsibility as well as various community structures and organisations but putting the burden of blame here is to deny the essence of all that has gone awry. The underpinning horror of it all was the age of those perpetrating the vandalism, looting and violence. Report after shocked report spoke about ‘young people’ at the heart of the mayhem, repeating the ages (11 years old was the youngest age I heard reported) as if by doing so, some sort of waking from the nightmare would materialize. It was scarcely believable and hard to comprehend. The appeal of the acting Police Commissioner for parents to contact their kids and see to it that they returned hope was akin to whistling in the wind. Did he really think that if parents did not know where their children where after dark that they would be able to summons them home with a phone call? “Sod off” would have likely been the kids response, the battle for parental control and respect long lost.

The events over the past few days will reverberate into the days, months and years to come. Solutions will have to be found but those solutions will require decades to implement. How do you reform a society? How do you address deep-seated educational shortfalls? How do you instil discipline and values that would serve as a balk ward against such indiscriminate behaviour? If the questions are deep, the answers go even deeper. I suspect the Brits will need all the help they can get but first they will need to climb off their moral pedestal in order to reflect, learn and ultimately, do what is necessary.

I recall the disparaging reports about South African society and our readiness to welcome the world to the World Cup. I have long been aware of the snide and condescending tone of British tabloids to anything African and now suddenly the boot seems well and truly on the other foot. I must admit to a slight smug sense of “well, well… look at this” when the first acts and images of the riots were reported. However, any misplaced glee that this could be happening in London of all places, quickly gave way to horror and sadness at what was unfolding. No one should take delight in what has happened – although of course many will and in this response sits yet another lesson to be learnt for the British.

The reality is that such urban violence is not far from many who think it impossible. And lets be clear about one thing: Social technology is not to blame here either. Yes, it is a ‘tool’ that has made possible what has taken place but so too is it a tool that can be used for good. Social technology cannot be blamed and if it is, it will be no different from those forefathers who sought to ban the printing press for fear of the information such technology would spread; or those in South Africa some decades ago who adopted the same attitude towards television. Blaming the medium through which lawlessness spreads is to miss the point entirely and lets hope that in the aftermath of what has occurred in London and elsewhere, the real issue is not obscured by such recriminations.

I hope for healing. I hope that some good may ultimately emerge from the ashes of these past days. Change is always possible. Great things can come from the bad. Good can replace evil. If you want evidence, look no further than South Africa. Whilst challenges of course remain, our recent past stands as a beacon to change, hope and commitment. It takes a village to raise a child and never has this been more needed than is at the present time in the UK. Whilst there is much soul-searching and work that will need to be done there , let’s not be complacent here; ours is a village worth looking out for and so let’s make sure we do just that when it comes our most precious resource – our children. We have been given a sober warning; we need to pay heed!

No related posts.

I remember once reading that middle-age happens when you keep thinking that in a couple of weeks you’ll be back to normal.

To be honest I am not sure that I am clear as to exactly what constitutes ‘normality’ – or at least if I once was, I no longer am. This applies particularly when I hear Vicky’s mom say, ‘Why can’t everyone just be normal like me?’

Perhaps any home inhabited by junior tribe members sooner or later has to discard the ‘normal’ tag. Well, at least if they’re honest they do. How else do you explain the bold, matter of fact announcement of one Sipho Coats that he had named a certain part of his anatomy, which, I hasten to add, I’ll refrain from mentioning explicitly in this suitable-for-all-ages story.

‘Given your WHAT a name?’ was mom’s shrill reaction which was quickly balanced by my more composed, ‘That’s interesting son, what is your . . . er . . . um . . . ah’s name?’

‘Free Willy 2,’ came the reply.

Stunned non-comprehension was followed by much hilarity, something clearly not understood by the proud owner of Free Willy 2.

Despite protestations, backed-up by solid research, that this sort of behaviour was considered normal within the male species of the tribe, all attempts to secure mainstream recognition for the practice failed.

All of which brings me to the point of asking: What is normal? Certainly in today’s world, and increasingly in tomorrow’s world, ‘normal’ is an ever-shrinking concept as tolerance for diversity and globalisation increase. Leading from the presumption that others will see and interpret things the way you do and share your world view, is a sure recipe for failure. Skilled leaders are those who are able to lead in the midst of diversity.

As people increasingly resist the melting pot of the ‘one-culture-fits-all’ mentality, leaders will be required to learn and live by a different set of rules and embrace new skills for twenty-first century leadership.

For most leaders this will not be a walk in the park. But failure to make such adjustments will ensure that one loses touch with those one leads – and perhaps there can be no more serious failure of leadership than that reality.

No related posts.

‘It’s your turn,’ accompanied by a rib-breaking jab to my side proved to be a firm deterrent to any further sleep and left me in no doubt that to protest would be about as successful as Custer’s last stand. Arising from the fog of coma-like slumber when all the sane world is sleeping is never easy but the fact that I did so was aided by the knowledge that unless rapid progress was made towards this end, further collateral damage could be expected.

As my mind and body desperately tried to find each other I locked on to the source of this intrusion into my sleep: Keegan’s cries of ‘Daddy, Daddy’ were as unmistakable as they were persistent. As I made my way to his room I wondered just how to ensure that in the future night calls could be rewired to ‘Mommy, Mommy’ and ‘Daddy, Daddy’ reserved for daylight saving only. Programming this kind of software into kids could make me a hero, a rich hero, to millions of fathers all around the world, I thought to myself; I would become a legend amongst men. Arrival at my destination curtailed any further development of this line of thought, but I promised myself that I would revisit this potentially ingenious idea.

‘Daddy, there’s a lion in my room,’ were the words that greeted me as I popped my head around the door and instantly I understood why it was I who had been called to duty. Lion-tamer, Superdad – a life-threatening situation that required the bravest of the brave . . . a job for dad! An exhaustive search ensued, one that Keegan watched wide-eyed from the safety of his bed, interrupting me from time to time to offer suggestions that had me looking in places where no self-respecting man-eater would choose to hide – a pencil case for one.

Eventually, the search concluded, I submitted my ‘no lion’ report to a clearly doubtful client and turned to leave the room to return to the sleep that I had left behind. It was as I turned off the light that I heard Keegan mutter to himself, ‘Of course there is a lion here. I see him every time I close my eyes.’

Seeing what others see when they close their eyes is something leaders who know how to inspire vision and nurture dreamers need to be able to do.

Organisations need dreamers, the fringe thinkers, the people who see things others don’t. It often happens that such people are not an easy fit in organisations and one is tempted to wish life without them. In his book Maverick Ricardo Semler writes that every company should be paying someone to be looking out the window. To be taking in the big picture, to be surveying the landscape, to be dreaming of what could be. Leaders are often under pressure to be this person, the person with their eyes wide shut. While this isn’t necessarily the best place for leaders, you do need to ensure that someone is doing this and when their report is given and the lion is spotted, the leader needs to be the one who declares loudly and clearly, ‘Well, why not?’

Such leaders are often called visionaries.

No related posts.

“I’m six now” were the first words to greet me on the morning of 1 December (a nice change to the usual rasping…”coffee”, emerging from the semi-comatose form lying next to me). It was also the first morning in six that the sun had shown itself, a nice touch I thought and somewhat appropriate for Sipho’s birthday.

Six years is a momentous milestone. It heralds the first of many years spent in formal education – a process where the kid gets smarter and the parents poorer. It is marked by the acquisition of his own set of wheels and will become the year of mastering the skills that will help keep him on top of them, not under them. Though the tough part is knowing that the latter invariable precedes the former. Still, it is a skill that lasts a lifetime as portrayed by a 90 year old riding her bicycle around Scotland on some late night travel programme I happened to watch the other night.

It will be the only year that he attends the same school as both his older brother and sister (spare a thought for the teaching staff won’t you). It will be the time he learns all those important six-year-old-type-things that, stacked together, reveal further glimpses of the life being shaped before our very eyes. An awesome process indeed and of course every parent of a six-year old knows exactly what I am talking about.

It doesn’t seem six years ago that as a family we sat on the lawn of a children’s home laying siege to a tiny baby on a blanket whom our presence surrounded. I had come directly from a bus that had transported 60 rowdy young people home from a youth camp, and was tired yet elated to be meeting ‘our new son’. Our adoption application had been in process for several months and finally we were nearing the end, or I guess, the beginning. As we sat there I remember the social worker repeatedly asking us, “Do you like him?” A strange question I remember thinking at the time.

It wasn’t difficult to settle on the name ‘Sipho’ (meaning ‘Gift’ in Zulu) and somehow ‘Daniel’ tagged along bringing with it the heroic exploits of the Daniel of old who got to share a room with some lions.

So Daniel Sipho arrived and suddenly the theory of adoption gave way to the practical. There were many moments in those early years that we wished we could just freeze the frame – except of course for the nappies! There were so many and often humorous encounters with curious strangers who more often than not proved to be generous in their on-the-spot support, encouragement and on one occasion loud prayers. We in turn had to find a way to explain ‘adoption’ as there is no such Zulu word for a concept that is unknown.

In both name and presence Sipho is a gift to those who inhabit the Coats household. People have often said to us, “Sipho is such a fortunate little boy!” They really don’t understand. It is the other tribe members who are the fortunate ones. At several points the adoption process brings you face to face with your most basic values and motivations. What a gift that is!

Leaders often fail to see the ‘gift’ embedded in situations and processes that invite inspection of one’s basic values and motivations. The situations may be those tough or unusual circumstances where the temptation to avoid altogether or take a wide detour is strong. However, they may also be one of those frequent opportunities along life’s journey that gifts us with the opportunity to pause at a milestone, celebrate and reflect on the journey traveled and that which lies ahead. All too often we readily apply themselves and the resources at our disposal, to the ‘what?’ ‘how?’ and ‘when?’ type questions – the practical stuff…after all they are the ones which keep us busy and looking productive.

But it is the ‘why?’ question we neglect.

Perhaps we started with it but then over the long haul it fades into the disappearing horizon and we think that having entertained it once means that we never have to return to its demanding scrutiny.  We need to take the time to revisit the ‘why?’ – it takes us to the very core of things and once there we must be prepared not always for answers but sometimes to just be content that we are in that space. To be content that we have found a clearing in the thicket of our schedules, activities and busyness that surrounds us. It is that pause space which gifts us with the exhilarating, perhaps scary opportunities to recreate and discover new beginnings.

Celebrate the milestones but remember the beginnings. And don’t neglect to look-out for the ‘gifts’ that life puts in our path – they invite discovery!

No related posts.

There can be little doubt that the biggest challenge leaders will face into the future will be the impact of social media technology on leadership. Whilst in the United States last month I picked up a book titled, ‘Open Leadership: How Social Technology Can Transform The Way You lead’ by Charlene Li. It is a rapidly filling space as everyone jumps into providing insight and assists in navigating this terrain. The problem is that the majority of leaders are simply not comfortable in this social media world and exactly how to ‘connect the dots’ poses bigger comprehension problems. Yet it is unavoidable and social media is having a massive impact on information, communication and relationships within organizations. Of course, all three of these areas are of primary concern for any leader. As we have engaged with addressing this challenge through TomorrowToday there has been an overwhelming response to that which we have had to say and suggest. This week the Spar Leadership Development Programme (SLDP) in which I am involved will dedicate an entire day to focus on the impact of social media. This is a smart move by Spar even if there are a few skeptics who still need convincing!

The bottom line is: ignore this meteorite at your peril!

No related posts.

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

No related posts.