Assignment paper - Week 3 - 7010

Reference

Gamble, T. K., & Gamble, M. (2013). Leading with communication: A practical approach to leadership communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

· Chapter 5, "Perceiving Like a Leader: Paradigm Power," pages 87–102.

PERCEIVING LIKE A LEADER

Paradigm Power

What is the relationship between perception and leadership? Why is it that some leaders are able to look at a problem, deconstruct it, conceive its possible solutions, and then implement the best solution, while others cannot?

Consider this: the Chinese character for crisis is the same as the Chinese character for opportunity. It's a question of perception. It may well be that one leader's crisis is another leader's opportunity.

As we will see, the leader's ability to perceive—to select, organize, and interpret experience—influences the leader's understanding of situations, followers, and themselves. What the leader perceives and how the leader thinks about what she or he perceives shape his or her understanding of people and events. How a leader interprets experience offers clues to the leader's ideology and the effectiveness of the paradigm the leader employs. For example, when Cathie Black, a journalist and magazine executive but a noneducator, was named as the next chancellor of New York City's public schools, Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, founder of the Chief Executive Leadership Institute at Yale University's School of Management, noted that while it was obvious she was not an educator, she had been inspirational, making a difference in the way editors looked at front pages. According to Sonnenfeld, Black had said, “We're going to have women on the front page, not just in the style section, and we're going to have African Americans on our front, not ghettoized in the sports pages,” effectively opening the door to a paradigm shift. 1 Unfortunately, Cathie Black did not last more than a scant three months in the role of chancellor. Forced out, her position was ceded to someone who had worked in the New York City school system for years, Dennis Walcott, an educator hailed for being all that Cathie Black wasn't. According to leadership expert Warren Bennis, it appears that a leader has to be good at both shifting and encouraging perspective shifting because shifting stances, whether by the leader or followers, can change everything. 2

By exploring the I behind the leader's eyes, we will come to better understand how the leader's powers of perception influence what the leader thinks is or is not possible. The I behind the leader's eyes also influences the frames of reference, perspectives, or paradigms that the leader uses and the extent to which the leader is successful at creating a shared reality, something Cathie Black was not able to do. 3

THE LEADER'S I

Perception provides each of us with a uniquely personal view of the world. Why is this?

Information theorists tell us that our eyes can process about 5 million bits of data per second, but they also tell us that our brains are capable of handling only some 500 bits per second, compelling every one of us to distinguish those stimuli we will attend to or experience from those we will ignore. Leaders are particularly active participants in perceiving, selecting, organizing, and evaluating the multitude of stimuli that are out there competing for attention. And, like every one of us, leaders also practice selective perception, shifting their spotlight of attention from one stimulus to another until one catches their interest and they focus on it. Leaders who have been trained not to make snap judgments regarding what is or could become important have the perceptual advantage because they do not purposefully avoid some stimuli while exposing themselves readily to others. Instead, they take the time they need to learn more about situations and people before filling in any perceptual gaps or drawing any conclusions.

Stages and Frames of Perception

Leaders deconstruct the perceptual process into four stages:

    (1) The selecting stage, during which they choose to attend to some stimuli from all those stimuli they are exposed to

    (2) The organizing stage, during which they give order to the selected stimuli

    (3) The interpreting/evaluating stage, during which they give meaning and draw conclusions about the selected stimuli based on their life experiences

    (4) The responding stage, during which they think, say, and/or do something reflective of their perception

Effective leaders develop the ability to change the frames of reference they habitually employ. For example, the renowned composer Gustav Mahler required the members of his symphony orchestra to sit out in the audience periodically to experience how things looked and sounded from the audience's perspective. Changing perspectives changes people. As a result of revisiting and revising their views of the world, their thoughts about people, and even how they conceive of leadership, leaders may, in time, switch paradigms—the means they use to understand and explain reality—breaking with an ineffective or timeworn way of perceiving things.

When you change perspectives, you change yourself.

While using the wrong paradigm can impede a leader's progress, making the right paradigm shift, one that enables the leader to see a situation in a fresh perspective or totally new light, can open endless possibilities. 4

Evolving Organizational Paradigms

Leadership expert Stephen Covey identifies four different organizational paradigms: (1) the scientific/authoritarian paradigm, (2) the human relations paradigm, (3) the human resource paradigm, and (4) the principle-centered leadership paradigm. Covey explores how each paradigm affects the leader's perception of people and their role.

A leader who employs the scientific/authoritarian paradigm sees people as economic beings (what Covey calls stomachs) and believes his or her role is to motivate them using the “carrot and the stick” technique, effectively manipulating the reward package provided to them.

In contrast, a leader who adopts a human relations paradigm recognizes that people have both economic needs and social needs; in other words, they have hearts in addition to stomachs. They want to be well treated and to feel that they belong. While such a leader still believes he or she is in charge, the leader also tries to develop a harmonious team.

On the other hand, the leader who uses the human resource paradigm perceives that people have minds in addition to having hearts and stomachs; that they are psychological beings, not merely economic or social beings. Thus, such a leader seeks to recognize and make better use of the talent, creativity, and resourcefulness of people.

It is, however, the last paradigm that Covey values most because he believes that only a principle-centered leader works with the whole person by paying attention to the spiritual needs of people—empowering them with a sense that they are doing something that matters—in addition to meeting their economic, social, and psychological needs.

Covey explains each of the perceptual shifts this way:

The scientific management (stomach) paradigm says, “Pay me well.” The human relations (heart) paradigm says, “Treat me well.” The human resource (mind) paradigm suggests, “Use me well.” The principle-centered leadership (whole person) paradigm says, “Let's talk about vision and mission, roles, and goals. I want to make a meaningful contribution.”5

Of course, the accuracy and reliability of a leader's perception is equally affected by his or her ability to use a presented opportunity to construct a meaningful frame or mental picture that others will connect with and respond to; it is similarly dependent on a leader's ability to overcome potential perceptual barriers.

PERCEPTUAL REALITIES

To lead effectively, the leader should not assume too much regarding how others see the organization. Leaving things implicit or unspoken also leaves them vulnerable to misinterpretation.

Answer the Big Questions

Instead of leaving followers floundering, leaders need to be able to provide ready answers to the big questions followers—internal and external stakeholders—want answers to on demand. Among the questions leaders need to answer are the following: Why are we here? (the mission question), Where are we headed? (the vision question), What do we stand for? (the values question), and Who are we really? (the collectiveidentity question). The answers leaders give in response to these questions provide clues to the mental models, those pictures we hold in our heads of people, events, ourselves, and how the world works, that similarly construct the leader's frame, setting up the persuasive opportunities he or she will use while governing the organization and shaping the leadership context.6

By becoming more aware of their mental models, and communicating them to others, leaders also enhance their ability to reframe and adapt their messages when needed. The more awareness leaders develop, and the more they mentally rehearse, the better able they are to provide an effective frame. As Arkadi Kuhlmann, chairman and president of ING Direct USA, says, “You have to understand that everything's being interpreted, and you have to keep thinking in two and three dimensions. People are going to follow you if they have confidence in you. And the No. 1 job of a CEO is to eliminate doubt. My only job, really, is to eliminate doubt in every situation.”7

The Leadership Perspective Model

The leadership perspective model proposed by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner offers clues to issues about which leader and follower are likely to agree or disagree.8 Once the leader has an understanding regarding what the points of potential disagreement might be, she or he can prepare to address them.

Kouzes and Posner's model (see Figure 5.1) contains four quadrants: issues of high importance to the leader but of low importance to employees (Quadrant A); issues of high importance to the leader and high importance to employees (Quadrant B); issues of low importance to the leader and low importance to employees (Quadrant C); and issues of low importance to the leader but of high importance to employees (Quadrant D).

The Optimism Advantage

In addition to exhibiting confidence ( self-efficacy —the belief that you have the abilities needed to complete a task or realize a goal), practicing balanced processing (soliciting and considering viewpoints from those with whom you disagree), and valuing relational transparency (communicating openly and honestly), leaders also give themselves a perceptual advantage if they display optimism (demonstrating positive expectations for the future).

Optimism and self-efficacy go hand in hand. Optimistic leaders remain open to perceiving possibilities, believing in their capabilities and what they can achieve. When optimists suffer a defeat they view it as a temporary setback brought about by circumstances, bad luck, or others; they do not view it as a personal failure. Optimists have resilience; they bounce back again and again. Believing in yourself makes it possible for you to accomplish more. In contrast to optimists, pessimists do not believe they can control their destiny. Pessimists think they can't, while optimists think they can.

Psychologist Martin Seligman tells this story: “We tested the swim team at the University of California at Berkely to find out which swimmers were optimists and which were pessimists. To test the effects of attitude, we had the coach “defeat” each one: After a swimmer finished a heat, the coach told him his time—but it wasn't his real time. The coach had falsified it, making it significantly slower. The optimists responded by swimming their next heat faster; the pessimists went slower on their next heat.”9 Having an optimistic outlook gives leaders added strength, making them more resourceful and setting them back on a path to success.10

We also see this outlook in the behavior of NFL quarterback Tim Tebow. According to observers, Tebow's optimism is what fires up his teammates. Tebow tells his teammates, “Believe in me” and does so with such persuasive charisma that his teammates renew their belief in themselves—and actually perform better.11 A leader's optimism can change how others perceive a situation, making a difference.

PERCEPTUAL BARRIERS

While it is important to understand the perceptual perspectives that leaders and followers rely on when interacting about issues of high and low concern to them, it is also important to understand the different paradigms they use when interpreting reality. While we have a variety of paradigms at our disposal, some of the paradigms we adopt can impede decision making by contributing to our perceiving an issue, situation, or people unfairly, inaccurately, or even pessimistically.

The “My Past Holds the Answer” Paradigm

Relying on past learning or experiences to perceive present situations and people may complicate things. Both learning and experience can create expectations, perceptual sets or the readiness to perceive in predetermined ways, influencing the leader's perception of both situations and people. Basing perception only on what was learned or experienced previously can blind a leader to viable alternative interpretations. The reality is that learned perceptions can create biases and blind spots. It is up to the leader not to be controlled by unconscious learning but to gain control of learning by reflecting instead on what it is she or he wants to do. Leaders need to work to escape from limited ways of seeing. As Geoff Vuleta, CEO of Fahrenheit 212, an innovation and consulting firm, notes, “There have been times… where I realized I needed to reinvent myself.”13

The “What I See First Is What I Go With” Paradigm

Should assessments made during the first few minutes influence the leader's judgment? If a leader bases perceptions on an initial assessment, the danger is that the leader will freeze that initial judgment and even if it is wrong, work to make all perceptions conform to it, effectively operating with a closed mind. The effective leader works against making such snap perceptual conclusions.

The “It's Just Like______,” or “You're Just Like ______” Paradigm

If the leader is prone to stereotyping situations and people, carrying with him or her existing impressions or fixed mental images of what to expect, he or she is likely to use broad generalizations to process experience, effectively disregarding information that does not conform to commonly held beliefs. Encouraging pigeonholing by emphasizing similarities is not an effective perceptual practice. Instead of categorizing situations and people, the more effective leader takes the time to distinguish persons and situations from others by noting as many differences as possible. For example, Fahrenheit 212 CEO Geoff Vuleta asks job candidates to reinvent themselves as a beverage. Each candidate presents himself or herself as if in a bottle, explaining his or her personally defining characteristics and traits, bringing his or her individual drink alive for the organization's leader, and pitching why he or she would buy it.14

The “I Know It All” Paradigm

No one knows everything there is to know about anything—including leaders. According to Science and Sanity author Alfred Korzybski, allness refers to the erroneously held belief that any one person can possibly know all there is to know.15 Wise leaders, therefore, end every assessment they make with the words et cetera (“and others”), as a reminder of that fact.

The “Blindering” Paradigm

A leader can blind himself or herself to a problem's solution by defining the problem in a way that imposes restrictions on solutions that do not really exist. Just as blinders placed on a horse limit the number of visual stimuli the horse receives, leaders may don figurative blinders that hinder their ability to look at a problem and come up with a viable solution. Unconsciously adding one or more restrictions that limit perception of the problem impedes discovering a solution and taking appropriate action. We can illustrate blindering's impact with the following exercise: attempt to draw four straight lines that will connect each of the nine dots in Figure 5.2. Do this without lifting your pencil or pen from the page or retracing a line.

Most people find this exercise challenging. Why? Because while the problem imposes only one restriction—that you connect the dots with four straight lines without lifting your pencil or pen from the page or backtracking over a line—most of us add another restriction as well. After looking at the dots, we assume

The “Fact/Inference Confusion” Paradigm

Like the rest of us, a leader makes numerous inferences every day. The validity or high probability of the inferences the leader makes guides decision making and determines his or her leadership effectiveness. Sometimes, a leader treats as fact that which he or she did not actually observe but which he or she wishes were true. Other times, a leader fails to distinguish between a fact and an inference, treating the inference he or she makes as if it were, in fact, a fact.16 Facts are not always easy to come by, but it is most important to be able to distinguish between them and inferences. The failure to do so can be dangerous and can cause the leader to jump to a conclusion that contributes to making the wrong decision, taking an inappropriate action, or, at the very least, demonstrating poor judgment.

PERCEIVING LIKE A LEADER

A major part of leading is making good decisions. Effective leaders automatically weigh and balance evidence and feelings, relying on both analytical (left brain) and intuitive (right brain) thinking in their search to find ways to join reason and emotion. Insightful leaders know when to rely on analytics and when to rely on their gut. They trust their judgment and use their experience—instinctually perceiving whether to forge ahead or take cover because they see possibilities and opportunities where others do not.

The French word for insight translates as penetration. By penetrating insightfully, that is, perceiving a situation more fully and more clearly, a leader enhances his or her leadership effectiveness. Perception may or may not be reality. While we may know the figures, such as sales volume or market share, we may delude ourselves when it comes to how “on board” people are, how willing they are to embrace an idea, how committed they are to our vision, or how willing they are to go above and beyond. Others may see things differently than we do.

Here are four steps you can take to sharpen your perceptual skills:

1. Get to really know your followers. Understand their perceptions of the organization and you. Watch out for preconceptions on your part or theirs. Listen to opposing viewpoints. Make it your business to uncover hidden problems. Remember, to ensure that the leader and followers do not work at cross purposes, they need to share congruent, not disparate, perceptions.

2. Make hunting for ideas a habit. By staying up with the research in your field you accumulate the raw material needed to see a problem's parts or develop new associations of thought. Regularly linking two ideas not previously linked to each other enhances your powers of perception.

3. Give yourself permission to think in novel ways—make curiosity and taking mental risks their own reward. Your organization may have a competitive advantage at a point in time, but what is crucial is whether you will have the evolutionary advantage needed over time.18

4. Put aside your own concerns long enough to take an active interest in understanding others and their concerns. Take time to learn from others’ perspectives.

Effective leaders don't let their perceptions box them in or out. Their ability to exercise flexibility instead of perceiving in but one dimension frees leaders to think more creatively. Shifting, and getting others to shift, to a different perspective can make all the difference.