shared leadership skills

Using Action Learning to Develop Shared Leadership Skills

• Skipton Leonard – Co-Chair

• Michael Marquardt • Cynthia McCauley &

Patricia O’Connor

• Craig Pearce – Co-chair, Discussant

• Arthur Freedman • Jay Conger & Susan

Elaine Murphy

2007 WIAL. All rights reserved

Leadership in Flux

• 35-40% of leaders fail in the 1st 18 months of promotion or appointment

• Rate of failure is increasing – turnover rate for CEO’s doubled from 1999-2004

• 1996-2006 – CEO turnover for performance increased 318%

• 1996-2006 – CEO tenure decreased from 9.5 to 7.8 years


Leadership Challenges

• Rate of technology change – disruptive technologies

• flattening of hierarchies – made possible by improvements in technology

• More fluid and complex lines of authority and organizational structure – erosion of positional authority

• Globalization

• Threats to environment and security


• Vertical/Hierarchical (top-down) leadership - Traditional leadership models have focused on leaderfollower influence

• In contemporary organizational situations– Emphasis on personal knowledge and skill– Team structures– Focus increasingly upon mutual or shared influence between

Formal leaders and team members Team members

• Lateral/Shared Leadership – Mutual influence among team members is becoming much prominent in contemporary organizations

Changes in Leader/Follower Relationships

Shared Leadership Meets Action Research

Craig L. Pearce

What is Shared Leadership?“We define shared leadership as a dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both. The key distinction between shared leadership and traditional models of leadership is that the influence process involves more than just downward influence on subordinates by an appointed or elected leader.”

Pearce, C.L. & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared Leadership. Sage Publications.

Vertical Influence

Dire

ctiv

e

Tra

nsactio

nal

Tra

nsfo

rma

tion

al

Em

pow

erin

g

Lateral Influence

Vertical & Lateral Influence

Directive Leadership (controlling & directing)

Social Exchange/ Transactional leadership

(motivating)

Transformational Leadership (inspiring)

Empowering (enabling)

Amount of Vertical Leadership

Ve

rtic

al

Influ

ence

Our Initial Research Evidence

• Pearce (1997) Shared leadership an important predictor of change management team effectiveness. Dissertation-University of Maryland.

• Pearce & Sims (2002) Shared leadership a better predictor of change management team effectiveness than vertical leadership. Group Dynamics.

• Pearce, Yoo & Alavi (2004) Shared leadership a better predictor of virtual team outcomes than vertical leadership. Non-profit Leadership.

• Ensley, Hmieleski & Pearce (2006) Controlling for CEO leadership, shared leadership among top management team an important predictor of firm performance. Leadership Quarterly.

Action Research and Shared Leadership

• How do we develop shared leadership?• What are the fine-grained dynamics of

shared leadership?• How can shared leadership facilitate

action learning?• What are the limits and liabilities of

both shared leadership and action learning?


Shared/Collaborative Leadership

Collective Leadership

(Raelin, 2006)

It is not a leap of faith to view leadership as something that an entire community does together. In such a setting, everyone is challenged to learn; no one needs to stand by in a dependent capacity. Accordingly, organizational members willingly seek feedback, openly discuss errors, experiment optimistically with new behaviors, reflect mutually on their operating assumptions, and demonstrably support one another.


Shared Leadership Skills

• When to lead and when to follow, • When to be directive and when to encourage

collaboration and consensus, • How to use intrinsic and well as extrinsic motivators to

keep people engaged, • How to engage people’s idealism and desire for

personal development and growth to develop inspiring visions and passion,

• How to empower subordinates and use and develop their ability to self-manage and self-lead, and

• How to develop a mind-set for learning throughout the organization.


Leadership Development Strategies

• Individual Development Plan (IDP)• 360-degree feedback + IDP• Traditional Leadership Programs –

(Instructor provides knowledge)• Experiential Leadership Programs –

(instructor facilitates knowledge transfer from training curriculum)

• Coaching/Mentoring• Action Learning – Working on a real

problem with a coach that requires shared leadership

Using Questions to Develop Shared Leadership

Michael J. MarquardtWorld Institute for Action

LearningGeorge Washington University


Components of an Action Learning Program

Project, challenge, task, or problem

Group of 4-8 people with diverse perspectives

Reflective questioning and listening

Developing Strategies and taking action

Commitment to learning Action Learning coach


Elements of action learning that build shared leadership1. Complex, urgent problem/challenges

that require multiple perspectives and shared ideas

2. Group size that enables all to participate and to learn

3. Focus on questions and reflective inquiry that emphasizes listening and building on others’ ideas

4. Development of systemic, holistic action steps and strategies


Development of Shared Leadership Competencies via the Learning Coach• At commencement of each session, each group

member’s leadership skill is identified and listed• Coach informs the group that each competency

will be reflected upon during and after the session

• Commitment to help each other develop leadership competencies

• Competencies are built when the following elements are in place:– Important to the person– Opportunity to practice– Immediate, extensive and positive feedback– Ability to reflect and determine for self


Questions from the Coach for Developing Leadership Competencies• Questions during Session

– What listed leadership competencies have been demonstrated thus far?

– What is the impact of that on the progress of the group?– Have any opportunities been missed?

• Questions after session– Directed to the individual

• How do you think you did on your competency (OK/not OK)?• What could you have improved?

– Directed to others • How did this person do in his/her competency?• What did he/she do well?• Impact of what he/she did?

– Directed to entire group• What have we learned about this competency?• How can we apply to our work environment?


How questions from members and coach builds shared leadership

• Group problem-solving– Everyone is engaged in solving the problem– Different perspectives are valued– All are expected to assume leadership and to

share as appropriate

• Group cohesiveness– Questions build cohesiveness, trust, caring, and

respect for the other person– Questions enable the other person to be able to

help and to be seen as valuable

Developing Shared Leadership Practices Through Action Learning Projects

Cindy McCauley and Patricia O’Connor

Academy of Management

August, 2007

Leadership Beliefs and Practices

• Beliefs– Creating direction, alignment, and commitment (i.e.,

leadership) for dealing with complex organizational problems requires senior managers with diverse expertise and perspectives collaborating as peers.

– New leadership practices are needed for effective leadership in a peer context.

• New Leadership Practices– Working as a leadership team without a formal leader.– Working with multiple stakeholders as partners.– Shared sense-making of complex issues.– Collective learning through experimentation.

Center for Creative Leadership

Action Learning Leadership Projects (ALLP)

• Teams of senior managers.• Given broad strategic issues within which teams

shaped a more focused project.• No experts on the team (including sponsors).• Encouraged to take action.• Encouraged to experiment with more

collaborative/shared leadership practices.


What capabilities do ALLP teams develop to support shared leadership practices?

• Engaging across boundaries (e.g., dialogue skills, discovering underlying assumptions, valuing differences).

• Understanding the organization as an interdependent system.

• Leveraging diverse personal networks.• Diagnosing and addressing sensitive

organizational issues.• Effective teamwork.


Can ALLP teams generate direction, alignment, and commitment for solutions that address a complex organizational issue?

• Organization #1: Six months after project completion, nine projects lead to changes or further actions in the organization, six projects had little impact in the organization, and the jury was still out on five projects.

• Some differentiators:– Top-level support for the project

– Linked to an existing strategic initiative

– Team’s ability to navigate the organizational system

– Team’s enthusiasm for the project

– Degree of focus on a specific solution/intervention


Can ALLP teams generate direction, alignment, and commitment for solutions that address a complex organizational issue?

• Organization #2: One year after project completion: Eight of the eleven projects reported that their recommendations were fully or partially implemented.

• Team members’ perceptions of why project deliverables were adopted:– Senior-level support

– Involvement of key players

– Quality of the deliverable

– Innovativeness of the recommendations

– System was ready

– Directly addressed a strategic goal


Action Learning and Action Learning and Organization Organization Development & ChangeDevelopment & ChangeAcademy of ManagementAugust 7, 2007 Philadelphia

Arthur M. Freedman, Ph.D.>>>World Institute for Action Learning<<<>>>Freedman, Leonard, & Marquardt<<<>>>NTL Institute<<<

Action Learning (AL) can stand alone as a powerful intervention that can

satisfy multiple organizational needs.

Synergy can be achieved by integrating AL with Leadership Development (LD) andOrganization Development & Change

(OD&C) programs.

My focus today is on the integration ofAL with OD&C


Organization Development & Change

Organization Development & Change [OD&C] is a system-wide application and transfer of behavioral science

knowledge to the planed development, improvement, and reinforcement of

the strategies, structures, [technologies,] and processes that

lead to organizational effectiveness.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2005). Organization development & change, 8th edition. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.


Action Learning

Action Learning [AL] is a team process that enables members to: (1) effectively and efficiently

deal with critical, urgent organizational issues [problems, opportunities, and dilemmas] with innovative strategies; (2) develop teams that

continuously learn and improve their capacities to perform and adapt; and (3) capture, transfer, and apply valuable, practical knowledge at the

individual, team, intergroup, organizational, and community levels.

Marquardt, M. J. (2004). Optimizing the power of action learning: Solving problems and building leaders in real time. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Both OD&C and AL are most appropriate when client organizations must develop executives while also dealing,

creatively and effectively, with critical, unprecedented, discontinuous issues where there are ambiguous goals and

uncertain pathways for creating “solutions” in real time

Richard Beckhard & Reuben T. Harris (1987), As interpreted by Arthur M. Freedman

FUTURESTATE

TRANSITION STATE

MACRO-PLANS

WHY CHANGE?

CURRENT STATE

ONE VERSION OF THE ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT & CHANGE PROCESS

FUTURESTATE

MACRO-PLANS

WHY CHANGE?

CURRENT STATE

A

C

B

D

Create one Action Learning Team for each

high priority issue

B

FutureState

CurrentState

Review &Approve

ExecuteImplementation

Plans

TRANSITION STATE

Project Integration or Coordination Team

MicroPlans

The Basic Change Process is Scalable – from Incremental and Local to Transformational and Systemic

Context &Purpose

MICRO PLANS MICRO PLANS COMPLETECOMPLETE

DESIRED STATEDESIRED STATEACHIEVED ACHIEVED (Completed (Completed Execution of Execution of Micro-Plans)Micro-Plans)

ASSUMPTIONS:ASSUMPTIONS:>> Implementation plans will be executed >> Implementation plans will be executed

within budget & on time within budget & on time >> Every contingency has been anticipated >> Every contingency has been anticipated

& built into the plan & built into the plan >> Everyone will cooperate >> Everyone will cooperate

>> Everything will work as planned>> Everything will work as planned>> Command/control project management >> Command/control project management

is effective and appropriateis effective and appropriate

““REASONABLE” EXECUTION REASONABLE” EXECUTION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANSPLANS

Realis

tic E

xecutio

n

Realis

tic E

xecutio

n

Based on Lewin (1948)

Re-evaluate Purpose, Plan &

Assumptions

• Diagnose

• Plan• Act

CURRENT STATECURRENT STATE(Goals & Plans (Goals & Plans

Complete)Complete)

““Reasonable,” Idealized Execution of

Reasonable,” Idealized Execution of

DESIRED STATE DESIRED STATE (Complete (Complete Execution)Execution)

The Action Research MethodApplied to Implementation Phase

Evaluate Impact

Diagnose Root Causes

PREDICTABLE SURPRISES often force implementers to modify their plans and goals

Act

PREDICTABLE SURPRISES

Realis

tic E

xecutio

n

Realis

tic E

xecutio

n


Context &Purpose

Diagnose

ActEvaluate

Plan

Plan

Evaluate

Act

Diagnose

DiagnosePlanAct


Complete)Complete)



Implementation Plans




Predictable Surprises

They know they will occur but we cannot

predict what they will be

When they do occur:>> Convene a Special Action Learning Team (SALT) composed of one member of each AL team and one AL Team Coach>> Set time limit for SALT recommendations>> Original AL Teams continue while maintaining open boundary to interactions with the SALT

AN EXAMPLE OF SHARED LEADERSHIP• Particularly in uncertain, ambiguous

conditions and situations, command/control project leaders are unlikely to have sufficient information, capacity, and adequate competencies to recognize emergent predictable surprises and deal with them in a timely, effective manner.

• Organizational change projects are likely to fail when such flawed assumptions prevail.

• An alternative assumption is that people who are closest to the emergence of predictable surprises are often best prepared to deal with them.

• This requires legitimacy for whoever recognizes a need is entitled to take an active leadership role, regardless of their status.

A

B

C

D

SALT

1 2

5

3

6

4

SALT members inform, gather information, and coordinate activities with AL teams (A-D) and relevant stakeholders (1-6)

BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT

UnexpectedEvents

Realis

tic E

xecutio

n

Realis

tic E

xecutio

n


Context &Purpose

Diagnose

ActEvaluate

Plan

PlanEvaluate Evaluate

Act

Evaluate Plan

Evaluate

Diagnose

DiagnoseAct

Act

Diagnose

Plan

Evaluate

Diagnose

PlanAct


Complete)Complete)







Benefits derived from OD&C + AL

• Increase executive bench strength by developing shared leadership competencies

• Identify & deal with real, consequential trans-organizational issues

• Learn how individuals, teams & total systems can quickly grow & develop

• Familiarize high-potential managers with different organizational perspectives (functional & hierarchical)

• Develop consultative, participative (collaborative) problem-solving & decision-making skills

• Learn to build & develop high-performing team• Develop leadership capabilities & practical skills• Gain self-awareness, self-esteem• Influence executive decision-makers• Earn recognition, appreciation, respect (visibility)

Building Rigor Into Developing Shared Leadership: Design Features for Action Learning Approaches

Jay Conger and Susan Murphy Kravis Leadership Institute Claremont McKenna College Academy of Management Meetings August 7, 2007

Is Action Learning the Right Vehicle for Learning Shared Leadership?

The Positives:

Team-based designs/rewards

Strong collective identity

Peers

Complex enterprise issues

Facilitated experiences

High stakes, recognition rewards

Is Action Learning the Right Vehicle for Learning Shared Leadership?

The Dilemmas:

Peers

Project recommendations trump the process

One-time event

Little or no follow-up

Existing organizational architecture and attitudes towards leadership

Critical Design Features:

• Project and sponsor selection– Projects that are multidisciplinary– Sponsors who model a degree of SL

and who are not experts• Participant selection

– No subject experts– Multiple levels instead of peers– Moderate needs for personalized power


• Group process– Explicit norms a la IDEO ‘deep dive’– Highly skilled facilitators who also instruct– Task and demand transitions identified – Multiple reflection windows/daily feedback

and debriefing on team SL process• Content learning (beyond project knowledge)

– Training in shared leadership and influence tactics

– In-company role models sharing their SL experiences


• Deliverables (beyond project recommendations)– Pre- and post-360 assessments of the

participants’ capability at SL– Detailed diagnosis of the SL process by

facilitators and participants along with measurement

• Follow-up– 360 assessment six and twelve months out– Coaching– Requirement to instruct their own staff and

facilitate one shared leadership team

Questions and Discussant

• Craig Pearce

shared leadership skills

Business

critical design

complex organizational

action research

learning shared

shared leadership

action learning

vertical leadership

project completion