Large-scale leadership challenges are those deep-rooted, systemic issues permeating an organization's culture. They tend to be the challenges many leaders shy away from, as they seem daunting. For example, an organization that has run based on fear for years may be looking to change its culture with new leadership; however, making such a change will certainly not be a "quick fix". Using authority alone will usually not be enough to make this kind of systemic change.
This kind of challenge requires leadership.
Leadership is about mobilizing others to make progress on complex and entrenched challenges (credit KLC). Anyone can do this, regardless of their role or position of authority; from the individual contributor who just started last year to the CEO, and everyone in between. If you happen to be in a position of authority, you may be expected to "fix" the problem using said authority. That authority is not an act of leadership, however.
Using the updated definition provided previously, your position of authority is merely a small part of how you can act as a leader. Your access to people from your position may be leveraged to help mobilize people to take action. Additionally, your position of authority allows you to implement decisions within your allotted power to help make changes that have been agreed upon by the people you serve under, over, and laterally. The simple fact is that the leadership action takes up the most time, effort, and energy to get the ball rolling on the changes you are looking to implement.
So what does it take to tackle large-scale leadership challenges?
Let's use the example posed earlier:
You were recently hired to The Company to implement changes to the work culture. Productivity is down, innovation is scarce, and competition in the marketplace is taking the biggest accounts away from The Company. Previous leadership was hired to "fix the problem", but was unsuccessful in doing so. The previous leadership identified the problem within The Company as having a culture of fear surrounding the relationship between middle management and their employees. Previous leadership tried to "fix the problem" via authority and top-down initiatives, but none of them stuck. That is why you were hired.
You assessed the problem with the previous leadership's approach and realized that the use of authority did not work due to a lack of trust in leadership from middle management and the individual contributor employees. The lack of trust has been entrenched in the working culture of the organization for years, which leads to mistrust in the initiatives that upper management has tried to implement. Therefore, your concern within The Company is the systemic issue of mistrust of management that still exists today.
Once you have identified the large-scale issue that concerns you the most, the next step is to visualize what your aspirations for the organization are. In other words, if you had a magic wand and could make that leadership challenge resolve itself - what would your vision for the organization look like?
This visualization exercise works because it takes away the overwhelming part of the process (planning, thinking, etc.), and jumps straight to the solution. It is very easy to get stuck on the specifics of a challenge without seeing the bigger picture. Using the visualization exercise for your organizational aspirations offers a big-picture frame of reference without the clutter of details that may block it. That old adage "you can't see the forest through the trees" makes perfect sense here!
Let's check in on our Leader's approach to the problem using the visualization exercise:
You sit down at your desk and begin the visualization process. You know the challenge of mistrust of management is permeating The Organization, but how to get there is still not clear. You ask yourself, "What would an organization that is collaborative, trusting, and innovative look like?" Your aspirations for the organization begin to form; you want to see The Company repair the relationship between management and employees. You also want to see that relationship turn into a trusting one where input from employees and management feels safe to do so. You want to see a metaphorical brainstorming table filled with all levels of employees contributing ideas for innovative solutions on behalf of their clients.
Now that you have identified your aspirations for what your organization would look like, the final step is this; What is the gap between your concerns and aspirations for your organization? What this means is you are identifying "the work" that needs to be done to get there. That "work" is what we are talking about when we discuss leadership.
If we accept the previous definition of leadership, then we know the next step within "the gap" is to start identifying people within the organization to start mobilizing for action. Identifying who needs to the involved in the process of change means leaders begin including voices across the spectrum within an organization to get input into what the solution looks like and how to get there. Remember, you cannot do this work alone; you need to get others involved to do the work with you.
Let's finish up with the example of the Leader's journey to resolve the large-scale leadership challenge:
"You begin identifying the key people that need to be brought to the discussion table regarding your vision for The Company. You invite the rest of upper management, 3 key people from middle management, and 2 individual contributor employees.
2 of the 3 key people in middle management are a mix of the most vocal about making changes but have not been successful thus far. The remaining 1 middle management is known as the most influential voice to the individual contributor employees, but hardly ever speaks up at meetings.
The 2 individual contributor employees are the most vocal about change from the ground floor but have never been invited to speak at the discussion table. They have aspirations for change but are cautious about trusting management due to past promises that were not kept.
Before you have the round-table discussion with all invited parties, you invite each of these individuals to lunch throughout the next couple of weeks to have a discussion about the concerns for The Company and the aspirations for growth. You start the conversation asking the same questions you asked yourself; what are their concerns, what are their aspirations, and what is the gap between those two points?
While every "faction" has different specific concerns and aspirations, the general consensus still remains the same; the culture of The Company needs to change for each faction to be happy.
You finally attend the round-table discussion with all key parties, and address the fact that different parties are at the table for a common purpose - creating a better company culture. You let others in the room talk, while you guide the conversation with powerful questions that engage everyone in thoughtful dialogue. When things get heated, you cool down the temperature in the room by reminding everyone of the common purpose again and highlighting the progress made.
In the end, all parties come to a consensus on how they can bring about the agreed-upon changes to their teams and peers. Everyone walked away feeling hopeful for the future, knowing the following changes would occur; (1) more transparency between management and employees; (2) more voices would be heard besides upper and middle management in monthly committee meetings that would resemble a town hall discussion forum; (3) trust from here on out will be given up front vs earned over time. Most important, however, is that all parties in the room agreed to do the work within their respective "factions" to bring people on board.
Conclusion
It is very easy to shoulder the responsibility of making large-scale changes within your organization as a leader. Societal and business expectations have put this pressure on leaders for decades (maybe even centuries), along with the self-imposed responsibility we as human beings tend to put on ourselves. Modern leadership is about the power of the many, not the few, to do the work. All parties share the responsibility to diagnose the situation, test out ideas, and make the necessary interventions.
So in short, the "Gap" is the leadership work that needs to be done between your organization's concerns and intended aspirations. The gap requires you as a leader to take action to motivate others, which requires you to think about who needs to do the work. Identifying as many parties as possible that have a stake in the issue at hand will make the biggest difference in the large-scale challenges you may be facing in your organization.
Comments