• Home
• About
• Publications
• Workshops
• Coaching
• Corporate Learning
• Leadership Mastery
• Action Teams
• National Defense
• Contact
• Blog

Leadership Mastery™

An Action-Learning Approach to Leading Change

Advanced Level Course & Seminar Offerings

• Organization Systems and Change
• Strategy Deployment in the Knowledge-Based Organization
• Models of Conflict
• Systems Thinking
• Organizational Epistemology

"Achievements are measured not in the finality of answers but in the fertility of questions."

           --Daniel Boorstin

"I want to beg you, as much as I can, to be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves like locked rooms and like books that are written in a very foreign tongue. Do not seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer."

           --Ranier Maria Rilke

WHAT IS THE LEADERSHIP MASTERY PROGRAM™?

Leadership Mastery™ is a process of facilitated learning, reflection and co-mentoring, an extended action-learning seminar, taking place online and face-to-face over a period of time. Our role is to provide an understanding of organizational theory, leadership, and change, and to facilitate an exchange of responses within a format that allows everyone a voice and encourages attention to a variety of perspectives.

We introduce enough theoretical content to help the participants re-explore and reframe their own experience. With a fresh understanding of their work environment, a renewed sense of shared purpose and an enhanced respect for each other's knowledge and skill, the participants develop innovative action plans appropriate to the needs of the organization.

We have found that the discipline and freedom of online discussion combined with face-to-face dialogue accelerates the process of adult development and gives rise to a liberating sense of personal mastery—the ability of participants to stand outside their current situation and view themselves in the broader context.

The Leadership Mastery™ program has a major impact in developing cohesive, effective teams, in disseminating a culture of problem solving and innovation, and in building a work environment that attracts and retains top talent.

All Leadership Mastery™ courses are taught using a unique blend of theory and practical application. The courses are facilitated using a combination of online dialogue, on location workshops, and personal coaching. While these courses offer a solid foundation of theoretical knowledge and research, they are designed in all cases to promote various levels of individual and organizational development. Each course contains a strong action-learning component, which requires the participant to connect the dots between theory and practice; strategy and action.

 Organization Systems and Change

This course examines organizational structure, design, and change from three interrelated dimensions: the individual, organization and society. We focus on these systems in terms of both the deep structures and assumptions underlying thought and action, as well as their practical implications for organizational design and behavior. The self-reinforcing relationship between deep structure and organizational behavior means that the root causes of organizational dysfunction often tend to be transparent and, as such, highly resistant to change.

Gaining a better understanding of the relationship between the deep structures of culture and their implications for organizational design and behavior should help you to become more effective as an organizational practitioner in several important respects. First, culture tends to be a stabilizing force, both in terms of our own internal cognitive functioning and in terms of the smooth functioning of our organizations and society. Stated simply, the more we can “take for granted” concerning the nature of reality, our environment and relationships, the easier it is to coordinate our actions and focus on important problems to be solved. In this sense, culture is a liberating force.

In times of rapid and discontinuous change, however, the same structures of culture that were once a stabilizing force may have an opposite effect. When the deep structures of culture are disrupted, our first inclination is to attempt to resolve the situation by treating the surface symptoms arising as a result of deeper structural change. Sometimes, the introduction of new technologies can have such an effect on the deep structures of culture and society. Galileo’s refracting telescope and Gutenberg’s printing press were examples of such technologies, as was Savery and Newcomen’s steam engine that, improved by James Watt and Mathew Boulton, gave birth to the industrial revolution. A less well-known example occurred following World War II. At this time, a major initiative was undertaken to convert military shipyards to the production of massive ocean liners capable of transporting thousands of people across the Atlantic. A great idea, until someone else converted Air Force bombers into passenger planes.

Similarly, recent computer-based advances in the collection, processing and distribution of data have given rise to the knowledge economy, and once again the fabric of organizational structure and design are being transformed. As organizational scholar/practitioners working in a time of unprecedented technological and social transformation, it is likewise incumbent upon us to ensure that our organizations are not attempting to compete in the knowledge economy by fine-tuning organizational principles inherited from an earlier era.

Back to Top


 Strategy Deployment in the Knowledge-Based Organization

New Structures, New Imperatives
Organizational structures are becoming unrecognizable. New organizational systems are evolving to respond to the challenges of a world economy that demands entirely new and different solutions. “As we enter the twenty-first century we find bureaucracies and other modes of mechanistic organization coming under increasing attack due to their rigidities and other inherently dysfunctional attributes. In today’s world, organizations must behave more like fluid and organic social networks than rigid, de-humanized machines.”

As we shift into what Peter Drucker has described as the new “knowledge economy” where human intelligence, creativity and insight become the key resource of organizations, we can expect the ideas and principles involved in creating brain-like organizations to become more of a reality in modern organizations. With this movement to novel organizational forms comes a need for new innovation and organizational change strategies that are more closely aligned with this new reality.

Organic, Emergent and Distributed Organizations
Organizations are becoming more and more decentralized and virtual. The traditional “bricks and mortar” of the hierarchical enterprise are being replaced by structures which thrive in no one place or time. According to Dee Hock, founder and CEO emeritus of VISA International in his book “The Birth of the Chaordic Age”, the principles that govern the emerging organization are “Chaordic,” a fluid, non-hierarchical blending of chaos and order.

As Hock writes, Chaordic principles fundamentally call into question the very hallmarks of 20th century management principles such as: “...ownership, finite supply, obsolescence, loss by conveyance, containment, scarcity, separability, quantifiable measurement, statistical economics, mathematical monetarism, hierarchical structuralism, and command-and-control management (p. 201). Should you harbor any lingering doubts that the principles upon which VISA was founded can be effective in today’s economy, consider the following: Indeed, contrary to the rigid structure we find in the typical org chart, the true composition of most organizations is emergent, organic and fluid. People and indeed entire organizations are constantly cycling in and out of their “host” based on the needs of the moment and the project at hand. Further, there is a blurring of distinction between those that work within and outside of the formal organizational boundaries. Strategic intent (rather than planning) is increasingly projected through a combination of internal and external enterprises. Yesterday’s organizations and their command and control mentality are giving way to a more organic and fluid approach to the business of business.

New Leadership Strategies
These new organizations have complex structures requiring the alignment of leadership competencies to the new reality. As organizations become more virtual and diffused, leadership must become an essential characteristic of the many, rather than concentrated in the few at the top of an old model of hierarchy. It is simply not any longer possible to command and control our present day enterprises of vastly increased speed, complexity and competition. Hierarchy itself may continue to exist; yet may become unrecognizable, as it is required to constantly reinvent itself to become relevant to these new emerging forms of organization.

The New Realities of Leadership

• One person or a limited group of “leaders” at the top of the traditional hierarchy can no longer hope to command and control their business.
• Leadership will be vested in the many rather than the few.
• The diffused nature of leadership will by its very nature be more fluid and flexible, as organizations struggle to respond to profound and constant change.
• New forms of organization will evolve and new forms of leadership and governance must emerge as a result.
• Leaders will engage their organizations in the dance of change rather than attempting to maintain the illusion of control.
• Leaders will actively seek to develop their organization’s capacities to assume as much responsibility as possible, as far out in their structures as possible.
• With less top-down leadership likely, the focus of leaders will be on creating commitment rather than compliance. Thus, the leader’s locus of attention will be the marriage of culture and technology, blending them to become the new glue of the networked enterprise of tomorrow.

A Call for Personal Mastery
In order to respond effectively to the new realities of organizational life, we must first become aware of and then learn to transform our own mental models. Referred to as “the fourth order of consciousness” by developmental psychologist Robert Kegan, personal mastery indicates an ability to stand, as it were, outside of our current situation and mental models to view our current situation from the outside in. This developmental perspective allows us to obtain a level of distance from our current challenges and to view them from the broader context of interdependent relationships, political forces, environmental and market changes, etc., and to choose the most suitable approach for moving our organization and project forward.

As we approach new and continually shifting organizational realities, we must learn to consciously adjust our own mental models, management methods and leadership styles accordingly. Rather than searching for the illusive “Holy Grail of Management” or a magic bullet that is capable of resolving the complex and multi-facetted dilemmas we face in our organizations, we must instead recognize that every situation is unique and that novel circumstances call for new and innovative strategies. Thus we must develop the mindset of innovation, continually challenging our own assumptions, beliefs and behaviors, while learning to inspire others to do the same.

Given the velocity and complexity of global change, an organization’s ability to shift easily from the dominance of one strategy set to another as necessary will determine its future success. This ability to shift, to be fluid and flexible is tantamount to having a degree of personal and organizational mastery.

Shifting Global Realities
As leaders of change in a modern organization, we can no longer concern ourselves merely with what occurs within the so-called boundaries of our company. Rather, we must also be aware of the larger context of the emerging global economy. Peter Drucker (1999) urges us to be aware of the “new certainties” associated with this emerging global reality as follows:

• The Collapsing Birthrate in Industrialized Countries Leading to Knowledge Worker Shortages
• Disparities in the Distribution of Disposable Income
• Recognition of the New Growth Industries
• New Definitions of Knowledge Worker Productivity
• Accelerating Global Competitiveness
• The Growing Incongruence Between Economic Reality and Political Reality (i.e., increasing economic globalization and accelerating political fragmentation).

The complex and shifting variables that we have briefly outlined in this introduction are rarely discussed let alone well understood. In truth, the principles of non-linear, systemic change processes have barely begun to seep into the fault lines emerging in traditional management practices. Our basic assumptions about management and leadership that indeed may have served us well in the past must now change if we are to be effective leaders of change in today’s complex, knowledge-intensive organization.

Back to Top


 Models of Conflict

This course will provide the opportunity to explore the interrelationship between personal and organizational conflict through both theoretical and practical perspectives. Many believe that conflict is a necessary part of personal and organizational life, critical to learning and growth. Rather than a process to be avoided, conflict in this view may be a necessary element of a productive approach to everyday problems.

Others believe that conflict arises through the clash of basic assumptions, or hidden agendas of which we are only partially aware. Often, organizational functions and divisions appear to develop a logic of their own, which over time may run out of sync or even counter to changing organizational priorities. This in turn leads to interpersonal conflict as loyalties become divided between functional groups, and between these groups and competing organizational priorities.

In this course, we will focus on conflict as a dynamic and interactive process, one made more complex by increasing numbers of participants, shifting organizational priorities, response to external competitive threats, and competition over scarce resources.

We will examine practical conflict resolution strategies that can be used both interpersonally and strategically. Leaders will gain skills that will help guide their organizations through the continuous process of change, adaptation, and growth in their pursuit of personal and strategic objectives.

Back to Top


 Systems Thinking

Introduction
This course will provide participants with a theoretical and practical introduction to a field that has emerged in recent decades from the natural sciences, and has recently begun to penetrate the management and social sciences. Systems thinking, and in particular complexity theory, has begun in recent years to challenge the mechanistic paradigm based on hierarchy, control, reductionism, and predictability with one of complex adaptive systems that co-evolve with their environment and self-organize as they are pushed far from equilibrium. Emerging from recent advances in our understanding of the biological sciences, current debates in the field of complexity theory revolve around the unique distinctions among biological organisms and human social systems. Themes we will cover in this course include:

• The historical evolution of systems thinking and complexity science
• How the process of biological evolution differs from human learning, cognition, and communicative action
• Implications of complexity theory for individual development, organizational change, and leadership
• Implications of complexity theory for economic and environmental sustainability

Objectives
Students will gain a deeper understanding of the principles of systems thinking and complexity theory, and will explore how to apply this new understanding to personal development, leadership, organizational change, and the sustainable evolution of human society.

Back to Top


 Organizational Epistemology:
The Nature and Evolution of Corporate Knowledge

Introduction
What is the nature of knowledge and why is this question relevant for personal development and contemporary professional practice? Is knowledge a product of individual consciousness, or to what extent is it social in nature? Is knowledge similar to a tangible asset that can be stored in a vault, retrieved and disseminated at will? Are students merely the passive recipients of the “assets” they receive in exchange for tuition, or are they also actively involved in the generation of knowledge? What role do cultural and linguistic biases play in shaping and constraining knowledge? Did the medieval church hold similar assumptions as the traditional university concerning the advancement and dissemination of truth? Is the rapid evolution of modern network technologies compelling a social transformation similar to that accompanying Gutenberg’s printing press, or are these technologies merely tools for storing and disseminating knowledge more efficiently?

Questions We Will Explore

• What assumptions concerning the nature of knowledge operate behind the scenes of contemporary so-called “knowledge management” strategies?
• If we exchange the metaphor of the gothic university library for the modern electronic database in the corporate IT department, have our assumptions concerning the nature of knowledge changed, or have our means of preservation and dissemination merely taken on new form and efficiency?
• Is there any meaningful relationship between the often-guarded domain and cryptic language of the modern IT department and the Latin-speaking clergy of the medieval period?
• To what extent do Taylorist and Fordist assumptions concerning the role of management in the control of worker knowledge continue to pervade the fabric of modern corporate culture?
• What are the historical roots of these assumptions and to what extent do they constrain the evolution and transformation of organizational life?
• How can the study of epistemology aid in recognizing and removing these constraints?

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental presuppositions, assumptions and structure of knowledge. It examines problems relating to sense perception, the relation of the knower to the objects of perception, the criteria for determining the validity of various forms of knowledge, and the justification of inferences. The study of epistemology is transdisciplinary in that the forms of knowledge that are fundamental to all disciplines e.g., psychological, sociological, economic, religious/spiritual, cultural, aesthetic, scientific, fall under its domain.

Why Study Epistemology?
We are all familiar with the various disciplines of study (such as those mentioned above) that serve as the basis of traditional academic curricula and major societal institutions. Most, if not all, traditional academic disciplines together with their fundamental presuppositions, assumptions, languages, cultures and methodologies have their roots in philosophy. In modern times, however, these disciplines have developed a “life of their own,” study in such “silos of knowledge” being tantamount in many important respects to a process of socialization. What is most often absent from this approach is a critical analysis of the fundamental assumptions, presuppositions and systems of inference that underlie such disciplines. Rather than being critically examined, these foundational components of traditional academic disciplines and major societal institutions remain transparent and as such are highly resistant to change.

The modern period has its roots perhaps most notably in the 14th – 16th century Renaissance which gave birth to a renewed interest in classical antiquity, scientific exploration and voyages of discovery. During the 16th-17th century, thinkers such as Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Isaac Newton, and John Locke pioneered a movement to comprehend the natural world based on rational understanding and empirical inquiry—two orientations to knowledge that, incidentally, are yet to be reconciled in modern times. This contradiction notwithstanding, the 18th century Enlightenment and early modern period (through the end of the 19th century) marks a time in history wherein scientific methods are applied to nearly every sphere of human concern thereby giving rise to the modern social sciences.

Post-Positivist and Post-Modern Thought
The modern period was based on the twin belief that an underlying reality existed, the aim of science (and social science) being the representation of the fundamental principles of this reality, and the social utopias that would result with the application of these principles to every sphere of human concern. The period known as post-modernism arose as the fundamental assumptions underlying this optimistic view of scientific discovery came under the light of conscious scrutiny. This scrutiny arose from multiple quarters, perhaps most notably beginning with postwar decolonization and accelerating with the spread of global commerce and culture in the 1970s giving rise to voices hitherto excluded from Western social scientific discourse. The birth of “alternative” social movements including the hippie generation, feminism, the gay and lesbian movements, and a widespread recognition of the shadow side of unbridled scientific rationalism that had given rise to a mounting ecological crisis, a nuclear arms race, two World Wars and numerous regional conflicts costing over 100 million human lives also contributed to a widespread pessimism regarding the promise of modern scientific thought.

Important discoveries in physics also raised fundamental questions concerning the positivist view of reality and the applicability of Newtonian and Cartesian laws of nature in the subatomic and cosmological realms. Of critical importance, has been the work of such seminal thinkers in quantum physics as Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, which has placed the role of the observer at center stage in the scientific endeavor. Their work has demonstrated that we can no longer place unquestioning faith in the reality encountered by the skilled scientific observer and carefully controlled scientific experiments. Rather, Bohr and Heisenberg demonstrated that the methods of the scientist, rather than encountering and reporting on an objective reality, play a central role in creating the reality they encounter through the orientation of the observer to the objects of perception.

The critiques of philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn, Stephen Toulmin, and Paul Feyerabend have also variously demonstrated that science owes as much to shared frameworks of understanding (or paradigms) as to logic and empirical evidence. Karl Popper’s falsification principle (a theory can never be proven true, only false) and his emphasis on open debate has also demonstrated the provisional nature of all knowledge.

While post-modern thought has steadily eroded our unquestioned confidence in scientific rationality and objective empirical inquiry, post-modern critiques risk falling into complete relativism as all perspectives of knowledge are regarded as equally valid. Perhaps the greatest post-modern thinker continuing the pursuit of valid knowledge is the German sociologist Jurgen Habermas. Habermas was unwilling to discard rationality and the Enlightenment pursuit of valid truth altogether, and warned of the dire consequences that often follow such abandonment, which include not only relativism, but also the rise of irrational belief systems including dogmatism and even fascism. Rather, Habermas developed an epistemology that grounded truth in communicative rationality as a necessary complement to the instrumental (means-ends) form of rationality that has dominated modern scientific and social thought. Habermas’ concept of the ideal speech situation is based on the development of free and unconstrained discourse among a community of participants—the aim (if not the ideal) of scientific practice.

Epistemology, Sociocultural Systems and Human Development
While the present discussion has largely been based on broad themes of social discourse, this discussion is equally relevant to individual and organizational life. At the organizational level, factors that constrain discourse: power, authority, influence, irrational thought and outdated belief systems, dogmatism, etc. pervade organizational life and constrain the possibility for alternative strategies and courses of action. The way in which problems are initially framed, often by those wielding the greatest levers of power and control in organizations, can and often is the most effective means of constraining possible courses of action prior to any decisions being made.

At the individual level, the onset of mid-life, major life crises, and even significant accomplishments can often leave us feeling rudderless, as if the major social currents and desires that have guided our life are somehow inadequate or are no longer valid. Karl Jung referred to the psychological and spiritual journey represented by the systematic re-evaluation of the major guiding principles of our life as tantamount to a second birth. Recognizing that the belief patterns inherited in early life are predominantly social in nature, the eminent physicist David Bohm devoted the latter portion of his life to creating live “dialogue” encounters among participants from nearly every walk of life. Bohm’s aim, akin to Habermas’ ideal speech situation, was to facilitate the open and unconstrained evaluation of the basic assumptions and presuppositions that form the otherwise transparent currents that invisibly guide both our inner and outer lives. Such systematic re-evaluation lies at the heart of this course in epistemology.

Back to Top