Two stories of changing MAP to achieve a leadership silver bullet
by Miki SaxonLast week I wrote Pssst, want a leadership silver bullet? and Simon Cooper started a conversation saying in part, “You are right though the transition is rather simple once people really get it. Leadership comes from within and requires an adjustment in attitudes and values along with the exhibition of some new behaviors.”
I disagreed regarding the simplicity of changing MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™), because the need for change must first be recognized.
I asked “What happens when the change required in the workplace goes against a person’s fundamental beliefs?” and said that we’d explore this in detail today.
A while back, a client asked me to work with a manager who was having productivity, motivational and retention problems within his group.
In talking I realized that he already knew what to do, but seemed unable to implement the knowledge. I initiated several conversations and encouraged him to talk freely and tangentially to the actual subjects.
What emerged was a profile of a deeply conflicted man, one whose personal beliefs were grounded in fundamentalist teachings that women are less intelligent than men and should bow to the man’s will.
Granted, this was a private belief, but as part of his MAP it affected how he managed a group that was roughly 40% women.
The final result was that his deeply held religious beliefs prevented him from implementing viable management or leadership for/with his female workers. The problems continued and he eventually left the company.
However, I had a different result from a similar situation; what was unusual in this one was the person’s awareness of his own internal conflict.
On one level he saw the females in his group as valuable contributors, but that view was eclipsed by his ingrained religious beliefs.
Changing his MAP meant changing/modifying his religious beliefs—not simple by any means.
What made this even worse was that the conflict was not only affecting his group, but also the resulting internal and external stress was affecting his health.
The solution that we finally worked out was grounded in his boss’ desire to keep him because he believed in his value and his own desire to modify his MAP. To that end
- He moved from a management position to an individual contributor;
- He worked with both me and a therapist to find comprises by which he could modify his MAP without losing his faith.
It took nearly eight months, but he did it and was promoted back to a management position. The cool thing is that his new group is more than 50% female and has become one of the most productive groups in the company and with little turnover.
Image credit: flickr
November 6th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Wow, that is fascinating. People really can’t fake it can they? The second story is great. It’s hard to believe this is still a problem in America.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Hi Lela, unfortunately it’s the first story that is most prevalent. Not necessarily regarding women, although that’s far more common than you would think, but all kinds of prejudices that reside deep in people’s MAP. Prejudice means ‘pre judging’ and people do it frequently through their assumptions on a myriad of stuff, both large and small.
Extreme beliefs of any kind are rigid by definition and rigid doesn’t allow for compromise. Sadly, it seems to me that these rigid attitudes have covertly increased in the last few decades. Maybe someday the overt efforts will outnumber the covert attitudes as noted here and here.
Thanks for visiting and adding to the conversation.
November 6th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I appreciate you sharing this perspective, and I really resonate with it. I’m concerned when I see postings such as Jim Stroup’s latest blog http://managingleadership.com/blog/2008/11/06/getting-what-you-pay-for/ where he blames various management ‘fads’ or the consultants who bring them in for their failure.
At the heart of these approaches is the personal leadership of the leader, or the ‘MAP’ as you put it. You can’t ‘do’ these techniques to an organization. Most effective approaches require significant cultural change, and 70+% of the corporate culture is shaped by the leadership. Which means, to make the change corporately, leaders have to have the courage to look in the mirror and see how they are part of the problem. Then they have to be brave enough to deepen their personal leadership and shift their MAP.
That’s the core of the success of many of these approaches, not the approaches themselves, and that’s why most organizations fail with them – because their treat them as techniques without realizing that they themselves have to transform to transform the organization.
November 6th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Hi Ravi, Thanks for joining us and adding to the conversation. I’m don’t share your concern for what Jim wrote, in fact, I’m in total agreement with him on the problems caused by many consultants who bill themselves as expert in an area that’s hot when, in fact, they aren’t. I’m reminded of the CEO who knew my work with culture and wanted me to help inject a Six Sigma component in his company’s culture. Much as I’d have like the business I had to turn it down, since my only knowledge of Six Sigma is from articles (not to mention that I disagree with much of what I’ve read). Three consultants I know offered to do it; their expertise was only slightly better than mine, but they would have been happy to take the contract.
I see that as a separate problem from the one of MAP and so-called leadership. I, and Jim, too, are proponents of leadership at all levels. Sure, the top person needs to enable a culture in which this can happen, but that can happen actively or passively through benign neglect. (I should mention that passively can be dangerous to the company’s health.)
Both issues can be seen in Best Buy. Its culture of innovation from any level was established by Brad Anderson, the guy at the top, but ROWE, the radical new approach to working was created and implemented by two HR women. Like many real innovations, ROWE requires earth-shaking changes in every person’s MAP and at every level of the company.
I’m waiting for consultants to jump on this without training (which is available) and botch its implementation because they won’t really understand not only how to do it, but also how to sell it and the MAP needed to embrace it.
I agree that the boss establishes the cultural framework, but the boss isn’t necessarily a leader.
November 6th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Hi, Miki. First of all, I don’t deny that consultants who play with the latest book of the month create a problem when trying to implement it. That is definitely an issue.
Yes, innovation can come from different parts of the organization, but to ‘stick’ it needs the full ‘buy-in’ and engagement of leadership. I’m reminded of the study in the late ’80s that showed that having top management support was not a major driver for creating a quality culture, but the lack of it was the biggest roadblock to success. That’s a subtle, yet powerful distinction. Leaders can’t make it happen, but if they’re not on-board it will not work – people can read if they really buy-in or not.
Yes, the MAPs, in your terminology, need to change across the organization. All I’m saying is that if they don’t change in the leadership, the approach won’t work, even with a consultant who understands it. It’s not the approach’s fault in that case. It’s management thinking that it’s a technique as opposed to a change in thinking they have to live.
I think I’m in agreement with you overall. Definitely on the last point – a boss does not a leader make. And it’s the ‘bosses’ – the ones who aren’t leaders and who don’t see how they impact the situation – that I’m speaking of.
November 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Hi Ravi, I think our disagreement lies in the idea that not only must “leadership” must be found in the top person or that person is inept, but also that one person can bring down or lift up an entire company. Boss=leader=savior or devil. Remember Peter Drucker’s comment “Leadership is all hype. We’ve had three great leaders in this century – Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.”
If anything, we-the-world should recognize, enable and encourage ‘leadership’ in every living being, not just the chosen few. That way there would always be a majority to rise up and throw the bums out wherever and whenever they surfaced.
November 6th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Actually, we are in complete agreement. I believe that, as much as it is better than bureaucratic or autocratic leadership, the visionary/ transformational leadership we’ve talked about for the past few decades is no longer enough, if it ever was. Things are far too complex for one person to have the vision, and true ownership doesn’t happen across the organization if it’s only the ‘leader’s’ vision they have to sign on to.
My work is in co-creative leadership, where the leader steps out of ego to admit that (s)he has only one piece of the puzzle and must engage all the other players (within their organization and beyond) to co-create the vision and the way forward – where each person takes ownership of their part/passion as well as the whole that they co-created.
Just as with visionary/ transformational leadership, it’s hard to maintain this style if the leadership at the top is not aligned. They don’t make it happen, but if they’re not on-side, they can choke it. The champion can come from anywhere in the organization, but the leaders at the top must be open to grow these capacities.
The job of the ‘leader’ at the top is to create a leader-ful organization. It’s this co-creative leadership that I believe is needed in today’s world, and if I’m reading your post correctly, I think that’s what you’re speaking of too. Am I correct?
November 7th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I’m not sure, Ravi. You keep referring to the ‘leader’ as synonymous with the person in front/at the top and that still seems to subscribe too closely the cult of individual leadership for my comfort level.
To me, leadership is of the instance, and when that instance is gone/over than the person who stepped into the leadership role often steps back and another takes the lead in new circumstances.
Perhaps the problem lies in the semantics. I’m not a big fan of jargon, it tends to cloud understanding—or at least it clouds mine:)
November 7th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Hi, Miki. I do agree that leadership has to emerge from throughout the system. The power of the leader at the top, if they don’t subscribe to this, is to quash this, not necessarily to enable it if they do support it.
I think we are running into a languaging problem here – part of the limitations of short snippets here rather than an in-depth face-to-face conversation to understand each other more deeply.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Ravi, if you’ll refrain from calling the boss ‘leader’ I’ll stop arguing:)
IMO, the ONLY time “boss” is synonymous with “leader” is when you’re talking OWNER and few CEOs own their companies.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I can live with calling them ‘boss’. I could take the conversation another direction with your second paragraph, but I’ll leave it for now. :)
November 9th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Agreed then, boss it is:) And when you have time and inclination I’d love to hear your thoughts on the second paragraph.