Читать книгу CONFESSIONS OF A CORPORATE SHAMAN - Harrison Snow - Страница 11

Machiavelli famously said in the sixteenth century, “There is nothing more difficult . . . more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain . . . than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” Five hundred years later it has not gotten any easier. The metaphor of turning around an aircraft carrier gives the impression that the leader just turns the wheel and results gradually follow.

Complex systems, however, have complex dynamics that are loaded with unanticipated contradictions and unintended consequences. A ruthless leader might gain compliance—at least in the short term—but gaining the commitment and collaboration that fosters sustainable, long-term change demands a softer set of skills.

Gandhi’s admonishment to “be the change you want to see in the world” is an essential step that too many leaders neglect with unhappy results. The case study of the Washington, DC, Metro system in chapter 13 (“Wicked Problems”) is an example of a long-term attempt to change the culture of a large organization. The soul of the organization may need healing, but until the leadership confronts their own need for inner change, the changes they seek will be stalled. The consciousness of the leader or leadership team affects the collective consciousness of the group. If the leader changes his or her own consciousness, the collective consciousness will change as well. This can work the other way around, too, given their shared connection, but the role of leadership is to take the lead.

This maxim seems simple, obvious, and self-evident. The sticking point is the level of self-awareness and efficacy required. Leaders who are observant and reflective, who seek feedback and address their disowned or never-owned dysfunctions, will have more capacity to change themselves (never an easy task) and then go on to change their organizations. Those who don’t have the necessary clarity may use self-deception as a way to defend against overwhelming complexity. If they manage to avoid the temptation to blame others they are still susceptible to the classic dilemma known as the “Abilene Paradox.” Leaders and team members can have the best of intentions, yet go along with something they know is suboptimal because they fall prey to the pressures of group think. The outcome of this thinking runs the risk of being a disaster that serves no one.¹

Another version of this paradox is the learned helplessness that manifests as, “We can’t do XYZ because ‘they’ won’t let us.” Externalizing your shortcomings lets you off the hook, but it also means abdicating the role of change agent for that of the helpless victim. Looking within is not easy. The blockages to change are often covered by the shadows of the subconscious. There are parts of yourself that are invisible or unknown by you and others. Lateral thinking can’t see into those shadows. It takes a multilateral tool like an organizational constellation to bring an invisible dynamic to light so it can be attended to and resolved. Freeing up the energy trapped in a psychological blind spot radically scales up a leader’s or even a group’s capacity to manage change, especially if the work environment is hyper-complex and opaque. Any enhancement of self-awareness expands one’s cognitive bandwidth so there is more capacity to process information and turn it into usable knowledge.