|
Leaderly Learning: Joseph F. Albert, Ph.D. Gonzaga University Introduction: The Contemporary Organizational Environment |
|||
|
Blending an emphasis on humanizing organizational structures, more effective learning cycles and improving collaborative efforts within and outside the organization, Petzinger identifies the sources of innovation and corporate wealth as those entrepreneurs within the companies themselves. "Pioneers" are those employees, especially attuned to the needs and wants of customers, and less concerned with "selling" a product (p. 51). These pioneers develop "…a seamless cycle in which the customer and producer become inseparable" (p. 85). Demonstrating the importance of maintaining a creative direction, Pascale (1990) argues that many organizations experience failure as a result of previous success. Of the corporations in the Fortune 500 rankings five years ago, 143 are missing today. (By comparison, in the twenty-five years, 1955-1980, only 238 companies dropped out.) While it is by no means true that all of these companies foundered for the same reason, the foible common to most was that they took a good thing too far (p. 11). Pascale suggests that the problem with success is its tendency to breed a mindset or paradigm that results in missed opportunities. Success can cause an organization to train managers to focus more on stability than on adaptability. The paradox that exists for organizations is to acknowledge that the secrets to their current success may not offer a prescription for survival in the future. The need, Pascale suggests, is to make best use of the human resources available in the organizations, to generate new approaches and new paradigms. "The essential activity for keeping our paradigm current is persistent questioning. I will use the term inquiry. Inquiry is the engine of vitality and self-renewal...the ultimate, and largely ignored task of management is one of creating and breaking paradigms" (p. 14). Needing to exist at the core of this spirit is a low-fear, high-trust work environment where emerging and potential "pioneers" feel more willing to invest their minds, hearts and energies into the enterprise (Ryan & Oestreich, 1991). The organization in contemporary society needs employees who are willing to risk questioning current assumptions and propose new approaches and new ways of thinking. "People who make waves and spark contention are regarded as assets, not liabilities" (Pascale, p. 31). Overview Leading in an organizational environment where the expectation of employees is to continually challenge existing paradigms and assumptions is not for those individuals with a fragile or false sense of self. Managing others in turbulent environments, what Vail (1989) describes metaphorically as this "permanent white water of modern organizations," is not for those who depend on others to supply worth, value, identity and esteem for them. Permanent white water creates "…an environment of continual newness" (p. xiv), and, continual learning—about oneself, about others, about the environment, about technology, about systems, about …---is a requirement of the new environment. The intent of this paper is to explore the notion of learning for leaders. Since most innovation does not emanate from the top in organizations (Senge, 1999), leaderly learning involves an openness to new ideas and an ability to nurture a climate in which innovation and creativity can flourish. Creating a low-fear, high-trust workplace is the environment where employees are more committed to their work, more enthusiastic about what they do, and willing to risk creative expression of their real selves (Ryan & Oestreich, 1991). The contention in this discussion is that an individual in a leadership role who is oriented towards protecting and defending his/her psychological self against anxiety, uncomfortable emotional reactions, rejection or criticism, is unlikely to function effectively in an organizational environment that needs to be innovative to survive. An effective learning leader operates from a healthy real self and does not depend on others to provide primary esteem supplies (Kilmann & Kilmann, 1994). The learning leader’s basic orientation is one of openness, growth (Rogers, 1961). I will argue that an understanding of a leader’s ability, or inability, to effectively manage the ongoing experiential learning process is enhanced through an understanding of Masterson’s (1985, 1988) notion of the real self (and its capacities) and the false self (and its defense patterns). Finally, I will offer two examples of approaches to leadership development utilizing the work of Masterson (1985, 1988) and Short (1991, 1998). This paper will:
Organizational Learning Clearly, organizations must remain or become adaptive and innovative to react to changing market demands. To thrive, rather than simply to survive, organizations today must be continually learning about the world they operate in and be somewhat prophetic about the world they are entering. In the past twenty-five years a popular term used to describe an organization that is able to adapt, remain innovative, learn from its mistakes, and continually assess and improve performance is a "learning organization" (Argyris, 1996; Garvin, 1993; Senge, 1990; Tannenbaum, 1997; Tjosvold, 1995). Despite the popularity of this notion, a clear definition of organizational learning has remained elusive (Garvin, 1993). Efforts at describing and defining a learning organization include the following:
For the purposes of this paper Garvin’s (1993) definition, which attempts to synthesize the range of attempts at defining this concept, will be utilized: "A learning organization is an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights" p. 80). Other recent attempts at investigating the notion of a learning organization have offered characteristics or features common to those companies that fit the description provided by Garvin. Watkins and Marsick (1993) offer the following list of attributes and practices they discovered within companies that emphasized learning:
The Role of Leadership in a Learning Organization Consistent in all approaches that attempt to describe the learning capacity of organizations is the commitment and support of the leadership of the organization to becoming a learning culture. Without the support of the leadership, efforts aimed at building a learning culture are destined for failure. When all is said and done, learning organizations will remain a ‘good idea’, an intriguing but distant vision until people take a stand for building such organizations. Taking this stand is the first leadership act, the start of inspiring (literally to "breath life into") the vision of learning organizations (Senge, 1990, p. 340). Despite the large body of literature on organizational learning and the importance of top level support for this culture to develop, less literature is available on the subject of "leaderly learning" (Vail, 1996, p. 127). Vail states, "…managerial leadership is not learned: managerial leadership is learning. Permanent white water has made learning the preeminent requirement of all managerial leadership, beyond all other characteristics and requisite competencies" (p. 126). Vail provides what he calls seven "modes" or types of learning that a leader must practice to survive (p. 44-46). He also states, "More than just a skill, learning as a way of being is a whole posture toward experience, a way of framing or interpreting all experience as a learning opportunity or learning process" (p. 51). It is this posture towards daily learning opportunities that is the focus in this paper. Though Vail provides a helpful list of learning modes to practice, an absence of a learning orientation within the leader will impede or even prohibit any learning from taking place. If a leader does not value the voices of the "pioneers" that Petzinger identifies, or of those employees who continually challenge existing paradigms, as Pascale suggests, then the organization will fail to develop it’s learning capacity. If a leader does not have a basic posture towards learning, then the attributes and practices of learning organizations provided by Watkins and Marsick will not have the opportunity or support to develop. Employees must experience an invitation to risk new ideas, not an attitude of self-protection and threat from the manager. In a sense leaders must know how to learn and be open to the opportunities to do so. Learning from Experience Yukl (1998) states,
McCall, Lombardo and Morrison (1988) conducted a study of 191 successful executives in an attempt to learn what developmental experiences best prepared them for leadership positions. Their inquiry yielded descriptions of 616 events and 1,547 lessons. The executives described experiences related to tough job assignments, bosses, and hardships (p. 6). Though successful and unsuccessful managers had many of the same experiences, the "right stuff" of the successful executives in the study seemed to be an ability to "make the most of your experience" (p. 122). The outcome of this willingness to learn from experiences was a clear sense of self. The authors go on to suggest,
Kolb (1984) has proposed a problem-solving oriented model that describes the experiential learning process. Integrating the work of Dewey, Lewin and Piaget, Kolb’s work has become the key theoretical model to describe the nature and process of experiential learning. The cycle has frequently been used to help managers understand the notion of learning from job related experiences (Vince, 1998). This cyclical model, presented in Figure 1, consists of four phases:
"At the heart of the approach is the idea that the individual can manage his or her own learning through reflecting on experience and thereby be in control of self-development" (Vince, p. 2). To effectively manage the cycle an individual must possess different kinds of abilities. Kolb asserts that effective, self-directed experiential learners must, "…be able to involve themselves fully, openly, and without bias in new experiences…be able to reflect on and observe their experiences from many perspectives…and create concepts that integrate their observations into logically sound theories" (p. 30). Kolb’s acknowledges that his model "…is characteristic of the fully functioning executive in optimal circumstances" (Kolb, in Srivasta, et. al. 1983, p. 112). And as Vince (1998) points out, "…it seems to me that there are other aspects to experiential learning that remain unexpressed in the current model" (p. 3). Kolb’s cycle suggests that individuals, being a "learning species" (p. 1), actively seek experiential opportunities to decrease the gap between expectation and experience (p. 28). However, as Kolb points out, learning experiences are by their very nature tension- and conflict-filled processes (p.30). "Since individuals tend to act in accord with their self system, threats to the self system will cause a person’s activities to become more and more inappropriate and rigid leading to further failure and insecurity…" (Kolb & Boyatzis, 1979, p. 529). Behaviors emerge then that may appear less than rational or reflective of an effective experiential learner (Diamond, 1984, 1986; Schein, 1985). McCall and Lombardo (1989) point out that many executives and managers do not always perform at the level of effective experiential learners. In fact, derailment among promising executives is common. "Perhaps 30-50% of high-potential managers and executives derail" (p. 54). The primary cause of derailment among the group of 400 executives that were involved in the study was ineffectively managing the experiential learning cycle.
To address the causes of derailment among executives and managers involves understanding the failure of effectively managing the anxiety and tension created by the experiential learning process. In assessing the reasons managers have difficulty in dealing with the experiential learning cycle and being open to the insights that may follow, Diamond (1986) has suggested that an understanding of the psychological resistances to change, informed by a psychoanalytic framework, are of significant benefit to the interventionist working in an organization (p. 546). An integrated psychoanalytic approach might provide ways of understanding the level of impairment or development of the learning capacity as well as methods for improving it among those in a leadership role. The Study of the Psychology of Leadership and Notions of the Self In a sense, efforts at understanding the nature of effective leadership have been analogous to peeling away layers of an onion. Each layer exposing yet another layer worthy of research, while drawing the researcher closer to the interior. Early approaches to the study of leadership concentrated on external factors such as observable behaviors, practices and skills (Yukl, 1994). In the last ten to twelve years, however, a greater focus in leadership research has been on the inner world or the psychological makeup of the leader and the dynamics of the organization in which they work (Allcorn, 1988; Kernberg, 1979; Kets de Vries, 1989, 1885, 1993; Kofodimos, 1990; Maddi & Kobasa, 1984; and, McCall & Lombardo, 1983). As Allcorn & Diamond (1997) point out "One of the reasons (perhaps the primary reason) why effectively managing people remains elusive is the tangle of conscious and unconscious psychological motivations each employee brings to the workplace"(p. xvi). Included in this recent investigation is the management of intimate relationships, anxiety and stress (Kofodimos, 1990). In addition, Kets de Vries (1993) addresses the need for leaders to possess a "steady sense of self" or stable identity (p. 178), a healthy capacity for reality testing (p. 179), an ability to manage anxiety in a healthy way during periods of stress (p. 179), and, an understanding of the types of psychological defenses used when there is a perceived threat upon their sense of self (p. 178). Returning to the onion analogy, or the "peeling process," the search for the causes of effective leadership and approaches to leadership development have shifted the focus from external features of leadership: practices, skills and behaviors of leaders (Yukl, 1998), to traits and characteristics of effective leaders (Bass & Stodgill, 1991, Kirkpatrick & Locke, and Yukl, 1998) and now to the internal psychological makeup of the leader (Allcorn & Diamond, 1997; Kets de Vries, 1993; Killman & Killman, 1994). From the framework of ego and self-psychology (Greenberg & Mitchell, 1983; Hughes, 1989; & Mitchell & Black, 1995) it seems that the onion analogy becomes inadequate or even misleading. A better analogy might be the avocado: A vegetable that contains a heart or core. This core or self would seem to need to be at the heart of the search for a better understanding the leader. As Killman & Killman (1994) suggest:
Beginning to understand the nature of the self, or what is at the core of the leader, offers a better understanding of what drives, motivates, controls and supports the person in the leadership role. Concepts of the self have been proposed for many years. Psychoanalytic approaches such as those developed by Freud and Jung have caused reference to the basic components of the ego and the self to enter popular discussion (Mitchell & Black, 1995). Self-esteem, self-regard, self-love and so forth are commonplace expressions now even in leadership and management literature (p. xiii, Kilmann, Kilmann & Assoc., 1994). Subsequent to Freud and Jung, a number of schools of thought and approaches to psychoanalytic treatment have evolved that attempt to provide a development of early theorists' understanding of the self. Object relations, self-psychology, and ego psychology all provide related approaches to understanding the self, its nature and development. Masterson (1981, 1985, 1988, & 1993) has developed an approach that synthesizes the work of a number of theorists and integrates them into his own theoretical model. Though his work has been directed at psychotherapists, his understanding of the self and its capacities seems to provide a very useful framework for understanding leadership and possibilities for leadership development. The Real Self Masterson (1985; 1988) provides a particularly clear and useful discussion on the notion of the real and false selves, integrating the work of a number of theorists, such as Fairbairn, Kohut, Mahler, and Winnicott. Masterson (1988) describes the real self as "the sum of the intrapsychic images of the self and of significant others, as well as the feelings associated with those images, along with the capacities for action in the environment guided by those images" (p. 23). He suggests that a healthy or real self if optimally nurtured from infancy will reveal certain characteristics or capacities (p. 23). Among them are: the capacity to experience a wide range of feelings deeply with liveliness, joy, vigor, excitement and spontaneity; the capacity for self-activation and assertion; the capacity to acknowledge our own self-esteem; the capacity to soothe painful feelings; the capacity to make and stick to commitments; the capacity to be alone without feeling abandoned; and, the capacity to experience a consistent "I" throughout our lives (p. 21-49). At the foundation of this healthy self is a clear sense of self as distinct or differentiated from others. Winnicott (1965) calls "the capacity to be alone" while in the presence of others, to be one of the most important signs of maturity in emotional development (p. 29). "Maturity and the capacity to be alone implies that the individual has had the chance through good-enough mothering to build up a belief in a benign environment. This belief is built up through a repetition of satisfactory instinctual gratification" (p. 32). Having the experience of a supportive or facilitating environment, the child’s real self is nurtured and supported and subsequently becomes the source for the child of his/her wants and wishes, feelings, creative expressions and reservoir from which he/she can draw from when the real self is under attack (Masterson, 1988, p. 43). This internal locus does not result in isolation from the world but allows the individual to interact with the world in a way that supports expression of the real self’s unique and individuative wishes. Such qualities as self-activation and assertion, an appropriate sense of entitlement, maintenance of self-esteem and an ability to attain goals are characteristic expressions of the real self in operation (Masterson, 1985, p. 27). From the framework of effective leadership practice, Bass (1990), Bennis (1994) and others have described the challenges inherent in the leadership role. Viewing these traits and behaviors from the perspective of some of Masterson’s expressions of the real self, it is clear that healthy development of each capacity is required.
The False Self Unfortunately people are not raised in optimal environments. Masterson (1988) credits that lack of healthy or real-self development to nature, nurture and fate (p. 51). While nature and fate provide less opportunity for manipulation to insure healthy growth, the ideal nurturing environment for the real self to develop has been a focus of research by a great many theorists (Bowlby, 1969; Mahler, 1975). Masterson describes an ideal nurturing environment as one that is,
Mis-attunement of the child’s needs by the mother, the experience of "not good-enough mothering" (Winnicott 1965, p. 145), may result in a child learning that attempts at self-assertion and self-expression will be met with punishment or withdraw of affection. The child may also learn that only in achievement or success is he accepted or feels loved. Finally, the child may learn to experience relationships as unrewarding and dangerous at the emotional level and thus learns to avoid intimate contact with others. Returning to Winnicott’s notion of the capacity to be alone, individuals who experience life as dangerous are not oriented towards their real selves, but instead live "... a false life built on reactions to external stimuli" (Winnicott, 1965, p. 34). Thus, in contrast to the individual guided by a healthy or real self, one who is internally led, those protected by a false-self focus not on their own wishes and personal expressions, but instead focus on the other or the object as a source of possible threat or reward.
As a means of protecting one's self, defenses are erected, patterns of avoiding pain are established and unhealthy means of gaining a strong sense of self are adopted. These coping strategies, Masterson and others theorize, are behind the broken relationships and emotional problems people experience. This process of protection of the real self if sustained consistently over a period of time can become a substitute for living authentically or giving expression to the real self. This "imposter" front that is constructed is what Masterson (1988) terms a "false self" (p. 16). A person dominated by a false self is,
Those individuals dominated by a false self, experience difficulty in maintaining healthy relationships, both personal and professional. This would suggest significant problems in a work setting. "On the job, the false self assures the person that he can avoid the conflicts and anxiety that would come from honest self-assertion with authority figures and peers, competition and discipline by not working up to his full capacity or ability" (p. 18). For a manager working in an environment that must foster innovation, creativity and new ideas this would seem to be particularly difficult. "These employees must gain control and they must not have their motives and actions questioned" (Allcorn & Diamond, 1997). Masterson (1981, 1985, 1988, 1993) suggests that, depending on the level of injury to the self and the developmental stage during which it happened, people develop patterns of defenses which he describes in three categories of personality disorders: borderline, narcissist, and, schizoid. Principal differences among the three categories involve the ways in which the self relates to the other or the object. "In the borderline personality the self clings to or distances from the object. In the narcissistic disorder the self c-opts the object…In the schzoid disorders the self relates to the objects by distancing" (Masterson, 1989, p. 7) It must be acknowledged that there are numerous variations of the psychic structures mentioned by Masterson and subsequently a variety of defensive patterns that may emerge that do not fit cleanly into one pattern or another. Manfield (1992) points out that in his experience, "…most patients seem to fit well into one of the three categories, but some patients do not. The aberrant ones seem to straddle two categories without fitting into either, or they may alternate between two categories" (p. xxiv). However, the role of psychological defenses in understanding leadership dynamics has been well documented (Allcorn & Diamond, 1997). Manfield provides a framework for understanding psychological defensiveness based on the three personality disorder categories developed by Masterson. Manfield describes them as: clinging defenses, narcissistic defenses and distancing defenses. Clinging defenses include such patterns as: excessive clinging, compliance, projection. Narcissistic defenses include: grandiosity, devaluation and self-sufficiency. Distancing defenses include: avoidance, denial, intellectualization and withdraw. Allcorn and Diamond (1997) point out the effects of heightened workplace anxiety as the increased use of psychological defenses by workers (p. 2). In many cases use of self-protective defenses are the norm. Most theorists would agree that most people use defenses to a greater or lesser degree. The critical factor being the level of debilitation that occurs as a result of the defensive pattern. For leaders, excessive use of psychological defenses can be a primary cause of derailment. For an individual in a leadership role an inability to live authentically and maintain healthy relationships can be catastrophic. Equally dangerous is being in a managerial position and finding it impossible to seek direction from within. These individuals are often operating on the whims and wishes of others instead of a deep and clear sense of vision, values and purpose. Masterson suggests that the process of psychotherapy can be of great assistance for those who suffer from personality disorders (p. xi). However, he also writes for those who seek greater understanding and growth of their real selves. Understanding and Defining Leaderly Learning To return to Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, a learning leader must effectively manage his/her ongoing learning process. Faced with feedback or information from concrete experiences, the leader must process the information in an open or learning-oriented fashion. Frequently the feedback or information received will identify a "gap" between the intended effects of a particular course of action and the actual effects of that action. Argyris and Schon (1996) describe this as a "mismatch" between expected and actual results of action (p. 16). This gap or mismatch, is viewed by a learning oriented leader, as a cause for reflective observation (Kolb, p. 112) and, "…leads them to modify their images of organization or their understandings of organizational phenomena and to restructure their activities so as to bring outcomes and expectations into line, thereby changing organizational theory in use" (Argyris & Schon, 1996, p. 16). Rogers (1961) has suggested that an "openness to experience", an ability to tolerate ambiguity and receive information that is contrary to previous experience or expectations, as a characteristic of the healthy or fully functioning person (p. 115). Similarly, Masterson (1985) describes one capacity of the real self as being creativity,
Masterson suggests that spontaneity, flexibility and originality in dealing with one’s environmental relationships are hallmarks of the real self. Integrating the work of Masterson, Winnicott, Rogers and others, a description of the learning capacity for leaders involves:
Learning Orientations and Spectrum of Functioning "…the self emerges from infancy with two contradictory behavioural tendencies: the tendency toward learning and change and the tendency to protect one’s self against the risk of change as a result of learning" (Diamond, 1986, p. 544). This description of two orientations towards interaction with one’s environment, also provides a way of structuring two basic tendencies of leaders in managing the learning process. One approach suggests that the leader views feedback from others, information gained, results of actions, and successes and failures as opportunities to learn more accurately the effects of his or her behavior or leadership. This feedback is perceived as an opportunity to close the "gap" between the intention of a course of action and its actual effects. This style can be characterized as a learning orientation. A learning orientation reflects the kinds of traits that Kolb suggests good experiential learners possess: openness, without bias, able to reflect on experiences from many perspectives and integrate various perspectives into an integrated course of action. Conversely, a leader who views any feedback or consequences of his or her leadership that is different than what he/she intended, or is critical in nature, as something to be devalued, attacked, dismissed, or accepted as truth without investigation might be described as a protection oriented leader. An individual with a protection orientation or defensive style, seems to exhibit the kind of deficiencies that Kolb (1979) suggest s are indicative of managers with significant learning weaknesses: inability to recognize problems/opportunities; unable to learn from mistakes; unable to practically apply learnings; and, not directed towards goals (p. 39). These two basic learning orientations are presented on this continuum: Learning Oriented Protection Oriented As McCall and Lombardo’s (1983) research suggests, managers who fall to the left side of the continuum have a much better chance of succeeding than those who are more protection oriented. From Masterson’s (1988) approach, an individual who is learning oriented would characterize a manager with a healthy real self. This type leader is actively engaged with life.
Conversely, Masterson presents the false self which does not reflect healthy adjustments to life’s challenges. The false self through the use of "defense, distortions and deceptions" (Klein, 1989, p. 34) , promises protection against injury that may result from intimacy and real relationships (Masterson, 1988, p. 18). The result of allowing a false self to control one’s life is "…a severe lack of self-esteem" (p. 18). "They blame life rather than their own problems and withdraw into a shell where they can avoid the real problems, remain passive in the face of challenges, and deny the real mess they have made of their lives. Being dominated by a false self means settling for a rigid manner of dealing with problems and challenges" (p. 18). It must be noted here that the learning orientation continuum provides a range of possible postures towards learning for leaders. I present this type of approach, rather than categories of disorders or specific psychological typing to recognize that leaders will find themselves at different points on the continuum at different times and in different situations. The emphasis is on recognizing areas where growth towards a fully developed learning capacity is needed. Though describing the continuum has value and offers clarity to the learning orientation of a leader, the possibility of development and change is only contained in an understanding of one’s place and causes of one’s location on the continuum. And as Diamond (1986) warns, we must understand the psychological causes of resistance to change and learning to have any intervention be effective (p. 546). Defensive Orientation Patterns The defensive systems share one characteristic in common: the avoidance of self-knowledge, which leads to the recognition that change is needed. This outcome, it may be noted, is not consistent with those who advocate a more rational approach to learning in the workplace ((Argyris & Schon, 1978) Allcorn, 1994) Argyris and Schon (1964), Kilmann, Kilmann, Assoc. (1994), and others point out that self-esteem is the basis for people’s ability to communicate information and receive feedback with a minimum of distortion. However, "Employees with feelings of low self-worth control their anxiety by employing psychological defenses and changing themselves to control others" (Allcorn, 1994, p. 157). Conversely the healthy or real self is, "…primarily directed toward reality" (Masterson, 1985, p. 30). The real self allows for the continual adaptation to environmental circumstances, while allowing for creative expression of one’s individuative wishes and maintenance of self-esteem. The presence and dominance of a real self in a leader would suggest a learning orientation. Allcorn and Diamond (1997) cite typical defenses many people utilize in managing work relationships. These include: repression, regression, splitting, projection, introjection, compromise and reaction formation (p. 5-11).
As Masterson and others point out, defensive patterns emerge when there is a perceived threat to the self. In most cases the threats emerge during encounters with others. Fantasy can help manage self- representation during times of isolation, but it is when an individual must manage interactions and relationships with others that defensive patterns can be best observed. Being in a leadership role involves effective relationship management and managing one’s own defensive patterns. An inability to be able to observe one’s defensive posture in work relationships can result in a morre defensive and less learning oriented work climate. To nurture a learning culture within an organization, managers must be the role models for the learning orientation that is desired (Schein, 1985). Failure to do so will result in a gap between the intent and the outcome that was mentioned earlier. Seeking out feedback, a learning orientation characteristic, will likely involve getting feedback that is critical of the manager’s performance. A learning leader will run the feedback through the learning cycle that was described earlier with the intent of improving the effectiveness of his/her performance. With the high rate of managerial derailment and the increasing turbulent environment that organizations are facing, effective management of the learning cycle is a critical leadership skill and many managers seem to be limited in this regard. Clearly "Learning how to learn" (Yukl, 1998) becomes a critical leadership ability. A method that provides a starting point for self-directed learners, integrates a focus on the self, with acknowledgement of defensive strategies, and incorporates daily opportunities to become a more effective learning leader is needed. Developing the Learning Capacity—A Self-directed Approach In the United States leadership development is a multi-billion dollar business (Fullmer & Vicere, 1996). Daudelen (199 ) suggests, maybe the best classroom for the leader can be the organization itself, "Recent studies have shown that the day-to-day experiences of managers as they confront challenges and problems on the job are rich sources of learning—perhaps more appropriate ‘classrooms’ than the traditional venues..." (p. 36). McCall and Lombardo (1983) point out the importance of managers developing into effective leaders by "making the most of job assignments" and taking the initiative to learn from every experience (p. 73). Dechant (1994) goes so far as to suggest that due to the turbulent world of contemporary organizational life, a manager must become the "… chief architect of his or her development" (p. 1). This approach where individuals take the primary initiative for their own growth is called self-directed learning (Merriman & Caffarella, 1991, p. 208). Lombardo and Eichinger (1989) suggest a variety of self-directed approaches to improving the learning capacity for leaders. They suggest that "Heightened awareness, trying different learning tactics, and removing blocks to effective learning are all necessary for growth." (p. 41).
Cohen (1993) presents a description of a learning oriented training program, developed and conducted by Short (1990, 1991, 1998), that was presented to managers at AT&T. The program was designed to help managers (1) discover the impact of their behavior on associates; (2) learn from the experience, and (3) become self-correcting in personal and organizational interactions (Watkins & Marsick, p. 62). Through the training the managers learned
Short (1990, 1991, 1998) has developed a self-directed approach to learning and development that focuses on the relationship of the leader with his/her subordinates as the "classroom."
Though technical knowledge of a given profession or industry is certainly a critical factor in a successful executive profile, the ability to maintain healthy relationships is considered the key to success (McCall & Lombardo 1983; McCall & Lombardo, 1988; McCauley & Ruderman, 1988). In a study that sought to expose the causes of derailment among executives the number one fatal flaw discovered was "insensitivity to others, " experienced as an abrasive, intimidating, bullying style (McCall & Lombardo, 1983, p. 28). Short’s approach, based on the work of Friedman (1985) on self-differentiation, Senge (1990) on systems theory and organizational learning, Argyris & Schon (1978) on organizational learning, and others, provides practice exercises and discussion that are oriented towards building a learning culture of individuals expressing their real selves in differentiated interactions (p. 35). True learning occurs when we truly understand what the other person is communicating. Often, Short asserts, interactions are based on assumptions about the other person’s motives, needs, and reality (p. 7), what Senge (1990) calls "mental models" (p. 8). The only way to avoid mis-interpretations in communication is to practice what Senge calls "reciprocal inquiry." This involves making one’s thinking, reasoning and assumptions explicit and open to public examination (p. 199). Short suggests that learning can be focused on three levels within the organization: Systems Inquiry, Mutual Inquiry & Self-Inquiry. The goal is to view one’s self in the context of each level. The hope is that the role of the self at each level will be undifferentiated and authentic in its expression. A particularly helpful model that Short has developed is a portrayal of a common pattern among most individuals especially those who possess a personality disorder. Masterson (1988) and Winnicott (1965) point out that because of environmental issues that occurred during early childhood, an individual has not experienced support for expression and growth of his or her real self. Basically, a person dominated by a false self, "believes the problems lie somewhere ‘out there,’ surrounding them but beyond them, rooted in external circumstances. They also believe that the solutions to their problems are ‘out there’ too—the right man, the perfect woman, a more appreciative boss, a more interesting job, the right diet" (p. 7). Short provides a way of approaching problems which challenge the individual to shift the focus of the cause of problems from "out there" or what he calls "outside-in," to the internal world of the individual or "inside–out" (p. 22). The real self allows for expression of individuative wishes and the ability to activate oneself in support of those wishes (Masterson, 1985, 1988). In the process of therapy, "…each patient struggles to learn to identify his real individuative wishes and articulate them in the reality of his life; to identify what activities and relationships are unique to his self, reflect mastery and coping, and build self-esteem so as to begin again his search for a real self" (1985, p. 60). Short ‘s approach involves having the reader, or learner, developing their self-observing capacity (Masterson, 1988, p. 25) by focusing on three questions during interactions with others where an emotional charge is present: Feelings ("I feel…"), thoughts ("I think…") and desires ("I want…"). This very basic beginning exercise allows the participant to become more aware of their internal experience during interactions with others. This increased self-awareness, or learning, allows for a greater clarity of one’s internal experience and access to the real self. This simple process also supports awareness of the utilization of psychological defenses at work. Attempts at accessing the real self and reality will often give rise to commonly used defenses (Masterson, 1988). The surfacing of these defenses can be very helpful to a leader wishing to improve the learning capacity. The next step involves asking the same question about the other person. Being able to identify what the other person is feeling, thinking and wanting during an interaction with another person, creates an increased awareness of the other’s experience of the participant. Frequently a manager’s lack of awareness of how others experience him/her leads to the "gap" or "mismatch" between one’s intention and the actual outcome of one’s leadership activity. An increased ability to "sit" with the anxiety of accurately hearing another person’s feedback that is provided will certainly be helpful in developing trust with others and the learning capacity of the leader. Short’s approach provides a practical method for self-directed learners to improve self-awareness, awareness of others and the learning capacity. Supporting development and expression of the real self , Shorts approach has been presented in a workshop format with positive results (Watkins & Marsick). Developing the Learning capacity—A Classroom Approach Though the emphasis in this discussion has been on self-directed approaches to developing the learning capacity in leaders. This final section offers a brief summary of a graduate course, "The Psychology of Leadership" that uses Masterson’s capacities of the real self as an organizing framework and begins with a series of lessons using the work of Short. The course is an elective course in a master’s program in organizational leadership. The class was created and designed by the author and is offered in the structure of one night a week, three hours per night, and a total of thirteen sessions. The first two sessions are focused on approaches to personality development with a special emphasis on attachment theory (Bowlby, 1966). The third session provides an introduction to the Masterson approach to the real and false selves. This session concludes with a presentation and brief overview of the capacities of the real self (Masterson, 1988, p. 38-50). Session four begins with a presentation of an adapted version of Masterson’s capacities that include an integration of capacities uniquely required for leaders. The remainder of session four and session five focus on the first capacity: The capacity to learn from your interpersonal environment. This topic is based exclusively on Short’s work (1998). Students experience through, exercises, lecture, film analysis and role play, an understanding of leaderly learning and a greater awareness of their own development. Sessions six through ten provide coverage of the remaining eleven leadership capacities. Session eleven is devoted to methods of developing a high-trust, low-fear workplace (Ryan & Oestreich, 1991) where the real self can flourish. This session is an integrative exercise at exploring methods of sculpting a workplace where expressions of the capacities of the real self are supported. The final session involves student presentations on work-life applications of the course material and course evaluation. The course has been offered for five years. Student reaction has been overwhelmingly positive and enthusiastic. Summary The intent of this paper was to offer a discussion of the notion of leaderly learning, informed by the work of Kolb, Masterson, Winnicott and others. Masterson’s notion of the real self and the false self provides insight into understanding the development or impairment of this capacity. Two examples of attempts at developing the learning capacity have been provided. The hope is that further discussion will be encouraged about the use of this framework for improving organizational learning leadership. Bibliography ("Leaderly Learning") Allcorn, S. (1994). Ego psychology in organizations. In Kilmann, R. H., Kilmann, I. & Assoc., Managing ego energy: The transformation of personal meaning into organizational success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Allcorn, S. & Diamond, M. A. (1997). Managing people during stressful times: The psychologically defensive workplace. Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books. Argyris, C. & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: theory, method and practice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Bass, B. (1990). Bass & stodgill’s handbook of leadership. (3rd edition). New York: The Free Press. Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, MA.: Adddison-Wesley. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books. Diamond, M. A. (1984). Bureaucracy as externalized self-system. Administration and Society. 16, (2): 195—214. Diamond, M. A. (1986). Resistance to change: A psychoanalytic critique of Argyris and Schon’s contributions to organization theory and intervention. Journal of Management Studies, 23:5, September. pp. 543-562. Fiol, C. M. & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational Learning. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 10, No. 4, 803-813. Garvin,. D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 78-91. Greenberg, J. R. & Mitchell, A. A. (1983). Object relations in psychoanalytic theory. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press. Hughes, J. M. (1989). Reshaping the psychoanalytic domain. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press. Kernberg, O. F. (1979). Regression in organizational leadership. Psychiatry. 42. P. 24-39. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1989). Prisoners of Leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kilmann, R. H. , Kilmann, I. & Assoc. (1994). Managing ego energy: The transformation of personal meaning to organizational success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive. 5, 2. 48-60. Kofodimos, J. R. (19 ). Why executives lose their balance. Organizational Dynamics. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of self. New York: International Universities Press. Kolb, D. A. Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1979). Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kolb, d. A. & Boyatzis, R. E. (1979). Goal setting and self-directed behavior change. In Kolb, d. A., Rubin, I. M. & McIntyre, J. M. Organizational psychology: A book of readings. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kolb, D. A. (1983). Problem management: Learning from experience. In Srivasta, S. and Assoc. , The executive mind. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Mahler, M. Pine, F. & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant. New York: Basic Books. Manfield, P. (1992). Split self/split object: Understanding and treating borderline, narcissistic, and schizoid disorders. Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc. Masterson, J. F. (1981). Narcissistic and borderline disorders: An integrated developmental approach. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Masterson, J. F. (1985). The real self: A developmental self and object relations approach. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Masterson, J. F. (1988). The search for the real self: Unmasking the personality disorders of our age. New York: The Free Press. Masterson, J. F. & Klein, R. (1989). (Eds.) Psychotherapy of the disorders of the self: The Masterson approach. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Masterson, J. F. (1993). The emerging self: A developmental, self, and object relations approach to the treatment of the closet narcissistic disorder of the self. New York: Brunner/Mazel. McCall, M.W., Lombardo, M. M. & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. Mitchell, S. A. & Black, M. J. (1995). Freud and beyond: A history of modern psychoanalytic thought. New York: Basic Books. Pascale, R. T. (1990). Managing on the edge: How the smartest companies use conflict to stay ahead. New York: Simon & Schuster. Petzinger, T. (1999). The new pioneers: The men and women who are transforming the workplace and the marketplace. New York: Simon & Schuster. Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ryan, K. D. & Oestreich, D.K. (1991). Driving fear out of the workplace: How to overcome the invisible barriers to quality, productivity, and innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Senge P. (1999). Learning for a change. Fast Company, May. Short, R. (1991). A special kind of leadership: The key to learning organizations. Seattle, Wa.: The Leadership Group. Short, R. (1998). Learning in relationship: Foundation for personal and professional success. Seattle: Learning in Action Technologies. Tannenbaum, S. I. (1997). Enhancing continuous learning: Diagnostic findings from multiple companies. Human Resource Management, Winter, Vol. 36, No. 4, Pp. 437-452. Vail, P. (1989). Managing as a performing art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vail, P. (1996). Learning as a way of being: Strategies for survival in a world of permanent white water. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vince, R. (1998). Behind and beyond kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education. June, Vol. 22, Issue 3, P. 304-320. Watkins, K. E. & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational process and the facilitating environment. New York: International Universities Press. Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Fourth edition. Upper Saddle River, new Jersey: Prentice Hall.
|
|||
 |
|||