Hi,
I just wrote this note to some of my
colleagues about an article being passed
around from the Center for Creative
Leadership, about how leadership is changing
and how there are no models that exist that
develop leaders for the future using
dimensional: vertical, horizontal, oblique,
and space-time dimensions.
Here’s a direct quote from the white paper,
Future Trends in Leadership Development, which
has a list of references and people attributed
during the author’s study at Harvard last
year:
"Much greater focus on innovation in
leadership development methods. There
are no simple, existing models or
programs, which will be sufficient to
develop the levels of collective
leadership required to meet an
increasingly complex future. Instead,
an era of rapid innovation will be
needed in which organizations
experiment with new approaches that
combine diverse ideas in new ways and
share these with others. Technology
and the web will both provide the
infrastructure and drive the change.
Organizations that embrace the changes
will do better than those who resist
it."
I think the author is probably right
based on his own knowledge of what is going
on, but limited in his view of what might be
out there. In my world of leadership (I formed
Leadership University in 1996), there are
numerous models that exist that promote
dimensional leadership development.
For the next year, I’m taking a special group
of people through an R&D experience which will
guide you through MY world of research and
design for leaders…the leaders for the next
normal…the a.b.normal…arriving at your
doorstep soon.
Read what I wrote to them in response to
where Leadership @F-L-O-W is going to take
us…
|
…well, they (Petrie, et al) are dimensionalizing leadership
through more than horizontal KSAs, i.e. competency models, and
to me, they have now finally gotten to verticalization.
Competencies will remain as you infer, but the leadership model
is becoming more dimensional in terms of verticality.
Source: Future Trends in
Leadership, a white paper by Nick Petrie, Center for
Creative Leadership
So we have had horizontal leadership development, and
vertical development governed by role "size"…
So what and
how, are already in the mix, as I see it, but from the
wrong paradigm, a limited context…
And now we are, by adding vertical as a separate dimension,
the 3rd dimension, which is trajectory, or oblique, and
next we will add space-time.
I was waiting for awhile to respond to
Herb’s request, so I’ll start that response now…
The LEADER of the future will have to become familiar with
space-time relationships; and simply, they have to add in
the social component of affect and effect with their
leadership, a dimension of complexity…which says, when
you flush a toilet it goes somewhere…and it’s not just
ecological either, but space-time related as in what is
going to happen to the way we work, if we work and what
does that mean to me and how I design the work etc.
If I tell you, the leader of the future is going to
orchestrate a company @F-L-O-W, where happiness, success,
and fit are interrelated to lower their costs of operation
by 30% yielding a sustainable competitive advantage, they
are going to need to understand a whole lot more than
dimensionality…?
Yet, those kinds of advantages are counter-intuitive,
although some exist now for some reasons, but usually
through oblique design, not direct design….
Imagine going into your team and saying we are going to go
through a reorganization and we are going to lower all the
salaries and benefits by 1/3, in exchange we are going to
redesign the work such that people are happier. We are
going to be more successful as a result, and we can
compete…sustainably.
What would the leader do…what competencies are required,
what mental models are available to make something like
that work with scale…?
Now, we know we have that kind of leadership to some
extent in entrepreneurship, but they don’t have a pure
sustainable designed competitive advantage…that can
scale.
This is the transition stage @F-L-O-W that I have
discussed. It still assumes that you ‘must’ work @BS, as
the need for a sustainable competitive advantage will NOT
go away, either for investors, or the people in orgs
allocating capital…until the new paradigm of aliveness
without an emphasis on growth is able to emerge.
Capitalism says (in some ways) that resource allocation
goes to the most efficient system…
Yet, WHAT is the definition of efficient…?
That is where we are going… to
dimensionally identify where efficient really is, in
space-time…IMHO
To read about my R&D Offer, click here.
|
