Adaptive and Psychodynamic Approach
ntarahc
Leadership_Theory_----__Pg_247--255_.pdf
remained largely unexplored” (p. 397). Avolio and Walumbwa (2014) go a step further by urging caution regarding the rapidity with which authentic leadership has been adopted, suggesting that the integration of what are still nascent and unvalidated ideas into training and development programs is risky. More than almost any other theory, scholars of authentic leadership seem to blur the boundaries of statements based on evidence versus mere conjecture. In sum, authentic leadership presents a novel approach that attempts to extend the work of transformational leadership theories, but its novelty also serves as one of its greatest weaknesses. Table 9.3 provides additional strengths and weaknesses.
TABLE 9.3 Strengths and weaknesses of authentic leadership
Strengths Weaknesses
Extends the understanding of prosocial leadership theories by identifying authentic leadership as a root construct
Positions ethical and moral values as drivers of leadership
Incorporates the concept of psychological capital as a foundation with attention toward hope, optimism, and resilience
Leadercentric in design and treatment of followers
Lack of conceptual clarity contributing to multiple interpretations of the theory, its core concepts, and measurement
Remains largely conceptual with limited empirical testing, some of which is identified as problematic
Making Connections
How might authentic leadership reflect dominant norms associated with social location? To what extent might exhibiting authenticity be dangerous based on power dynamics?
What stands out as useful about authentic leadership? What do you think needs to be addressed in the deconstruction and reconstruction processes?
ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP Adaptive leadership is included in the vanguard cluster given the degree to which it disrupts common sense understandings about leaders and leadership. Initially introduced by Heifetz (1994), and advanced over the years in collaboration with other scholars (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002), the purpose of adaptive leadership is to provide a pragmatic approach. However, pragmatism in Heifetz's world is clearly a relative term; his concepts are complex and disrupt many of the commonly held assumptions about what leadership is, its central purpose, and how it functions.
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:26:38.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
Overview Heifetz et al. (2009) defined adaptive leadership as “the practice of mobilizing people to tackle tough challenges and thrive” (p. 14). At the heart of this is getting groups to engage in adaptive work, which involves deep learning that alters the assumptions and values that drive individual and collective behaviors. Hmmm … doesn't this sound a bit like engaging with critical perspectives?
Heifetz (1994) also argued that leadership is anything but values neutral, with adaptive work attempting to reconcile gaps between the espoused and actualized values driving collective action. For example, adaptive work might mean asking the governance board of a company to engage with growing stockholder concerns that their mission explicitly values diversity and their customer base is twothirds people of color but the racial composition of the board is almost entirely White. This represents a clear gap between the values that the organization espouses and the reality of how it operates.
It should be no surprise that engaging in adaptive work is not at the top of most people's bucket lists. It isn't particularly fun. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) remind us that “adaptive change stimulates resistance because … it asks [people] to take a loss, experience uncertainty, and even express disloyalty to people and cultures” (p. 30). Thus, leadership becomes about discerning the types of loss that people associate with a particular adaptive challenge and creating a context in which this loss can be examined more closely. For example, what perceptions of loss might cause members of the governance board in the previous example to resist exploring the gap between valuing diversity and having a racially homogenous board? For some, it might be an issue of loyalty and not wanting to see committed board members leave to make space for new members. For others, resistance might be associated with loss of status, social capital, or wealth tied to membership. Still others may resist because concern for diversity is so deeply tied to their sense of identity that even acknowledging that the values gap exists would be equated with failure. It may be easier to ignore the issue than admit to one's complicity in contributing to it.
Despite the complexity of and potential resistance to adaptive work, Heifetz (1994) suggested it defines the very emergence of leadership. Successfully engaging in adaptive leadership requires an understanding of three key features.
Authority Considerations Heifetz (1994, 2010) stressed the importance of clearly defining and disentangling authority from leadership, recognizing that just because individuals have authority does not mean they practice leadership. Furthermore, adaptive leadership distinguishes between formal and informal authority, each of which leverages power in different ways. Formal authority taps into power via legitimacy and the right to direct others because of a positional role, whereas informal authority reflects the ability to direct others using power acquired via trust relationships and perceived expertise. The two are not mutually exclusive. In other words, a formal authority may or may not also hold informal authority.
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:26:38.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
Both formal and informal authority reflect a social contract in which power is given by constituents to a leader as a form of exchange whereby the leader agrees to deliver something in return (Heifetz, 1994, 2010). This could be representation for a constituency by a politician; efficiency, equitable supervision, and productivity by a business leader; or advocacy, safety, and gains in public awareness by an activist. With formal authority the exchanges and scope of power are well defined, whereas informal authority often relies on implicitly understood exchanges and less defined power parameters. Because authority relationships are predicated on an exchange, leaders must become experts in attending to power dynamics and knowing how and when to use the power they possess or risk it being taken back by constituents.
This recognition of authority dynamics is essential to adaptive leadership. The leadership studies literature disproportionately focuses on those with formal authority, which “leave[s] no room for leadership that challenges the legitimacy of authority or the system of authorization itself” (Heifetz, 1994, p. 21). In other words, adaptive leadership directs attention toward and affords credibility to efforts by informal authorities or those with no authority to challenge the status quo and question how, why, and who is given formal authority in the first place. This is an acknowledgment few leadership theories make.
Technical and Adaptive Problem Solving Central to adaptive leadership is distinguishing between technical and adaptive challenges, with the former reflecting the work of management and the latter leadership. Technical problems can be easily resolved through authoritative responses. This does not mean that the central actor has to be the authority but that the authority can draw on existing knowledge, skills, and organizational structures to resolve the issue. Technical problems can still be incredibly complicated and important, but the expertise of the authority serves as an asset for clear definition of the problem and implementation of a solution. Adaptive challenges, on the other hand, necessitate learning as both the problem itself and the resolution are unclear. Adaptive challenges require “going beyond any authoritative expertise to mobilize discovery, shredding certain entrenched ways, tolerating losses, and generating the new capacity to thrive” (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 19).
Heifetz (1994, 2010) does not define problems as exclusively technical or exclusively adaptive, acknowledging that complex issues typically include components of both. In these situations, “the problem is definable but no clearcut solution is available” (Heifetz, 1994, p. 74). The context in which a group operates and the composition of a team also influence whether a problem is technical, adaptive, or both (Heifetz, 1994). What presents as a technical issue for one group or in a particular context may actually be adaptive for another group or in a different context. Table 9.4 describes types of situations and their problem classifications.
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:26:38.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
TABLE 9.4 Adaptive leadership problem classification considerations Adapted from: Heifetz (2010) Copyright © 2010 by Sage Publications, Inc.
Problem Definition
Solution and Implementation
Locus of Responsibility for the Work
Type of Situation
Type I
Clear Clear Authorities Technical
Type II
Clear Requires learning Authorities and stakeholders Technical and adaptive
Type III
Requires learning
Requires learning Stakeholders and authorities Adaptive
Heifetz et al. (2009) identified four common adaptive challenge archetypes. These are by no means exhaustive but aid in identifying patterns associated with adaptive work. Note that these four archetypes often overlap, presenting a complex constellation of adaptive challenges.
A Gap Between Espoused Values and Actual Behaviors
Adaptive work often means narrowing the gap between espoused and actualized values. Complicating this process is the fact that it requires collective learning while most organizations operate on individual performance and reward structures. Thus, addressing this archetype involves both adaptive learning associated with the gap issue itself and how organizations mobilize members to address the issue.
Competing Commitments
Working to address complex issues often requires negotiating between conflicting values. For example, educational systems increasingly find themselves under pressure to expand enrollments to meet budgetary needs, which may be perceived as competing with the ability to retain highquality educational experiences. Heifetz et al. (2009) asserted that when competing commitments occur, “people in authority can resolve the situation perhaps only by making decisions that generate losses for some groups and gains for others” (p. 81). They argue that focusing on winwin solutions is ideal, but is often naïve or unrealistic, frequently resulting in resolutions that fall far short of addressing the adaptive challenge. Ultimately, competing commitments necessitate determining what potential losses are perceived, how they differ for different groups, and how the group can engage in the learning needed to come to a decision about their commitments.
Speaking the Unspeakable
There are often two narratives occurring simultaneously in groups: the public discourse, typically shaped by organizational or interpersonal politics, and what individuals really think but do not share. When the former dictates group processes, adaptive challenges arise and are more difficult to navigate. The ability for individuals to share thoughts that may seem heretical is essential to adaptive work. Sometimes this archetype arises because authorities create contexts in which it is difficult or threatening to challenge the status quo
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:26:38.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
because of power dynamics. Other times, it arises because members of a group simply do not want to publicly acknowledge a reality.
Work Avoidance
This archetype reflects the conscious or unconscious ways in which individuals and groups avoid having to engage in adaptive work. It includes diverting attention away from the real issue and/or displacing responsibility for resolving it. Diverting attention is typically a benign response involving oversimplification of the issue, distracting with more pressing concerns, using humor to change the focus, or denying the problem even exists. Displacing responsibility, on the other hand, may be more malicious and involves marginalizing those who voice the issue, defaulting blame to authorities alone, scapegoating, or ensuring any progress is derailed (e.g., death by committee, delegation to those lacking authority or competence to move the issue forward). When the archetype of work avoidance emerges, it is a cue that resistance to the adaptive challenge is high.
Holding Environments The final feature of adaptive leadership is the need to create a holding environment. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) defined this as “a space formed by a network of relationships within which people can tackle tough, sometimes divisive questions without flying apart” (p. 102). Thus, the holding environment must be designed in a way that allows individuals to experience the disequilibrium and discomfort associated with adaptive learning but that regulates the amount of stress and pressure so it does not overwhelm or shut down the process. Trust and group cohesion are often the mitigating factors of how much stress a holding environment can tolerate. Technical tasks induce little disequilibrium. Conversely, “the exposure and orchestration of conflict—internal contradictions—within individuals and constituencies provide the leverage for mobilizing people to learn in new ways” (Heifetz, 1994, p. 22).
Applying the Concept Technical problems are handled through efficient and effective management given they can be resolved based on existing resources. Adaptive challenges, however, require a different approach. Heifetz and colleagues (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz et al., 2009; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002) suggested adaptive leadership involves an iterative process of observing and interpreting group dynamics and then designing interventions that stimulate adaptive learning. This work has evolved over time, resulting in six strategic principles that are premised on the leader possessing either formal or informal authority.
Get On the Balcony The process of “getting on the balcony” is a metaphor for purposefully stepping outside of a situation to obtain a greater perspective of what really is happening and more accurately diagnose the problem. The goal is not to become a detached observer but to fluidly shift between being immersed in the action of the group and stepping outside it for perspective. This includes examining oneself using critical perspectives.
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:26:38.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
Getting on the balcony involves carefully differentiating between technical and adaptive dimensions of challenges, taking the time to see how context and composition affect the emergence of each. This requires a complex understanding of the varying perspectives held by those involved. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) remind us that this goes beyond taking what people say at face value but interpreting the meaning behind what is shared.
Similarly, attending to the cues provided by authorities at all levels within a system is an important part of getting on the balcony. Their words and actions provide implicit indicators regarding how long and to what extent the disequilibrium necessary for adaptive learning will be tolerated. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) cautioned that “authority figures sit at the nodes of a social system and are sensitive to any disturbances. They not only act as indicators of social stability, but will act to restore equilibrium if change efforts go too far” (p. 68). Realistically assessing, accurately interpreting, and strategically responding to cues from both constituents and multiple authorities within a system is imperative. This not only determines how to meet people where they are to initiate the intervention, but also allows for modulation so that the level of disequilibrium can be recalibrated as necessary to stay engaged in the adaptive learning process.
Identify the Adaptive Challenge Getting on the balcony provides the raw data from which to accurately identify adaptive challenges. Adaptive work may be driven by one of the four archetypes presented earlier or a unique issue that presents itself. Regardless, the goal is to determine the competing values or gap between espoused and actualized values that shape the challenge, along with the technical problems wrapped up in it.
Identifying the adaptive challenge also involves using observations and interpretations to craft a deep understanding of the types of loss that individuals may be negotiating, anticipating the types of resistance that might emerge, and situating the adaptive challenge in the broader system in which it is nested. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) argued that “the single most common source of leadership failure … is that people, especially those in positions of authority, treat adaptive challenges like technical problems” (p. 14). This misdiagnosis contributes to the subsequent mistreatment and avoidance of necessary adaptive work. We end up retrofitting solutions to problems that are not fully understood.
Manage Disequilibrium in the Holding Environment The central task of adaptive leadership is to manage the holding environment. This involves orchestrating conflict so that the level of disequilibrium rises. Without an increase in disequilibrium, the adaptive challenge may be misdiagnosed and mistreated as a technical issue or individuals may fall into patterns of work avoidance.
Heifetz and Linsky (2002) suggested asking tough questions related to values, increasing responsibility beyond comfort zones, and surfacing conflicts as viable ways to increase disequilibrium. At the same time, the amount of disequilibrium must be regulated so that tension does not become counterproductive and stress does not cause individuals or the
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:26:38.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
holding environment to collapse. Techniques for decreasing disequilibrium include temporarily focusing on solvable technical problems bundled in the larger adaptive challenge; providing clear structure, expectations, and guidelines for the process; and decreasing the depth and rate at which norms and assumptions are challenged.
Focus Attention on Ripening Issues Determining the ripeness of an issue involves assessing the level of urgency that exists within a system to address the adaptive challenge. Much of this data comes from getting on the balcony and continuously revisiting the degree of disequilibrium in the holding environment. Heifetz et al. (2009) suggested that “an issue is ripe when … it has become generalized across the system. If only a subgroup or faction cares passionately, but most other groups in the system have other priorities on their mind, then the issue is not yet ripe” (p. 126). Now, this does not mean that one has to wait for an adaptive challenge to ripen to address it. If that were the case, we would rarely address the most pressing issues facing our organizations and society because urgency often develops within factions that are most affected and may not be recognized or understood by those from the dominant group. The level and pervasiveness of urgency serves as an indicator of how to strategically approach the issue.
Proactively “ripening” an issue begins with understanding how the adaptive challenge is situated. Are other more compelling issues taking center stage? Is the timing appropriate to raise the issue, or is an external impetus such as a crisis needed to elevate its perceived importance? To what extent are individuals in the broader environment directly affected by the issue?
Heifetz and Linsky (2002) remind us that “if people do not feel the pinch of reality, they are unlikely to feel the need to change” (p. 149). Finding ways to attach impact associated with the adaptive challenge to multiple factions or the broader system helps to address this. Additionally, the amount of learning that needs to occur around the issue and the degree of attention afforded to it by authorities are both proportional to the readiness of the group to tackle it. This makes directing attention to the adaptive challenge essential, along with decreasing the degree to which the broader group engages in work avoidance behaviors such as denial or scapegoating.
Give the Work Back Focusing attention on adaptive challenges and raising the degree of disequilibrium run counter to the normative expectations people hold for authorities. The expectation is for authorities to provide direction and structure alleviating disequilibrium, not increasing it or redirecting responsibility back to the group. This, however, is exactly what adaptive leadership requires. Heifetz et al. (2009) suggested that “one of the most difficult aspects of orchestrating conflict is resisting the temptation to take the conflictual elements of the adaptive work off of other peoples' shoulders and putting it on your own” (p. 162) and that the pressure to do so is often both internal and external.
Giving work back to a group at a level they can handle typically involves two considerations. Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:26:38.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
First, authorities need to be conscientious in determining what to do when asked to resolve technical concerns. Are they truly technical or really unacknowledged adaptive conflicts? When the latter is the case, the work of resolving the challenge needs to be given back to the constituents to address. “Whenever a senior authority in an organization resolves a hot issue, that person's position becomes the story. Winners and losers are created simply by virtue of authority, and no learning takes place” (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002, p. 125). This can actually increase tension between factions, making the adaptive challenge more difficult to address given that “issues have to be internalized, owned, and ultimately resolved by the relevant parties to achieve enduring progress” (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002, p. 127). This leads to the second consideration. Authorities need to clearly understand who to give the responsibility back to and how much responsibility can be handled without overwhelming the learning process. The “who” could be the organization or system as a whole but more often involves a particular faction or getting multiple factions to collectively engage in adaptive work.
Protect Voices Without Authority Because of the social exchange contract that defines authority, those who possess it have limited degrees of freedom in which they can act. This creates boundaries around how far they can push, the amount of disequilibrium they can orchestrate, and the extent to which they can explicitly name values conflicts without exacerbating tension between factions. Here is where those who do not hold authority have more leeway. However, they also engage in this work with greater risk. Heifetz et al. (2009) remind us that “in many organizations, dissenters get marginalized, silenced, or even fired, which deprives the organization of their valuable, if unpopular, service” (p. 145).
Thus, a final consideration of adaptive leadership is how those with authority can shield those without it from unfair retribution when they surface adaptive challenges. The most effective technique for doing this involves sharing social capital. Constituents take cues from authorities about how to interpret and react when dissent occurs making one's response crucial. Heifetz et al. (2009) affirmed that “it is vital to demonstrate openness to seemingly subversive or revolutionary ideas” (p. 145). Consider the ways in which authority can do more than just acknowledge these voices but validate the importance of what is shared, the value of engaging in this type of risk taking, and create space to explore the ideas more deeply.
A final note should be made about translating adaptive leadership to practice. Many of its considerations are premised on an individual possessing authority. However, Heifetz (1994, 2010) shared his concern that the clear absence of leadership among many of those with authority makes it all the more crucial that all people engage in the adaptive work necessary to transform our groups, organizations, and society. He is also realistic that there is greater vulnerability for those without authority and that while the above strategic considerations still apply, the way in which they are enacted must be modulated. Greater attention needs to be paid to power dynamics in their implementation as well as ensuring that the focus is not just on altering the perspectives of those with authority but peers as well.
How Research Evolves the Concept Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:26:38.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
Despite the dispersion of adaptive leadership into a variety of fields and its presence in the literature for over 20 years, almost no research exists on the concept. A number of scholars have integrated adaptive leadership into tangential work, examining how leadership is learned and approaches to individual and organizational change (Daloz Parks, 2005; Kegan & Lahey, 2009). However, there is virtually no empirical research on adaptive leadership in academic journals. This positions it as a powerful conceptual framework for leadership, but one that remains empirically untested.
What about adaptive leadership has prevented researchers from infusing it into their research? Is it simply to challenging to measure? I can't help but wonder if the theory calls into question too many of the dominant assumptions about how leadership plays out in organizational and group environments to be attractive to researchers.
WrapUp Adaptive leadership pushes leadership thinking and practice in ways that have not yet been fully realized. It troubles authority, engages in dialectical thinking around management and leadership, and centers learning as key. It does not use the language of critical perspectives, but their values are nonetheless present. It abandons emphases on specific leader characteristics or sets of functional behaviors to identify processes that contribute to the resolution of adaptive challenges. Table 9.5 offers additional strengths and weaknesses.
TABLE 9.5 Strengths and weaknesses of adaptive leadership
Strengths Weaknesses
Explicitly infuses consideration of power, along with dynamics of engaging in the approach with or without authority
Offers a clear definition of leadership and differentiation from management
Stresses the importance of learning, outlining key elements of how to create a holding environment that catalyzes leadership
No empirical work exists to validate the framework or provide insights into its application to practice
Requires individuals to engage deeply with values and tensions that may be difficult or painful to acknowledge
Does not address how disequilibrium may create differential levels of risk based on social location
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:26:38.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
