The paradoxes of leadership

Last Friday afternoon I was driving from Sydney to Canberra to visit my mother. I've always found road trips to be great opportunities for thinking and reflection, and on this particular trip I was doing some thinking about a presentation to a client organisation for this week. As I sifted through different ways to present some information, my mind kept pulling me back to the inherent contradictions and paradoxical nature of what it is to be a leader. Consider something like - To lead, one must first follow. I know, I know ... it's almost like haiku poetry!

It's almost a cliche or a truism when we say that we live and work in a world of complexity, ambiguity, contradiction and paradox. But even if it is a cliche, that makes it no less valid.

And here are some of the leadership paradoxes that I scribbled down in my notebook while taking a coffee break ...

Loose & Tight, Work & Play, Lead & Follow, Captain & Coach, Create & Conform, Clarity & Ambiguity, Competence & Commitment, Responsibility & Accountability, Centralised & Devolved, Structured & Unstructured, Innovate & Conform, Rational & Instinctive, Direct & Allow, Inspire & Coax, Teach & Learn, Results & Team, Individual & Team, Change & Consolidate, Conventional & Revolutionary, Doubt & Possibility, Experience & Naivety, Intellect & Emotion, Active & Passive, Like & Respect, Unity & Diversity, Clear & Fuzzy, External & Internal, Culture & Structure, Revolution & Evolution, Rigid & Flexible, Cause & Profit, Shareholder & Stakeholder, Objective & Subjective, Reflection & Action, Certainty & Doubt, Loyalty & Dissent, Honesty & Sensitivity, Passion & Professionalism, Long term & Short term, Decisive & Patient, Risk & Reward, Plan & Evolve, Conservative & Adventurous, Diversity & Homogeneity, Confidence & Humility, Competitive & Supportive, Classical & Rock and Roll, Thinking & Feeling, Me & Us, Now & Later, Egoism & Altruism, Responsibility & Entitlement, Private & Public.

Phew ...

I know that's a long list. But if you have just skimmed over it, go back and read through it again slowly.

Because one of the things that I have learned in more than 20 years of leadership experience, is that a critical job of leaders, at all levels, is being able to balance the seemingly dichotomous nature of paradoxes like those in my list.

But the complication is that you are rarely just reconciling one at a time. The very real complexity is that you must be able to comprehend and synthesise a range of these paradoxes for every task that you undertake, with every team in which you lead or work, and ... just to add some further challenge ... you need to be constantly adjusting your response to these paradoxes over time - because nothing stands still.

So what? How can we do this as leaders?

Daniel Goleman provides us with one useful model in his summary of six leadership styles. (If you haven't read his book written with Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee entitled Primal Leadership: Learning to lead with Emotional Intelligence, you should.)

Goleman's six styles - Visonary, Coaching, Affiliative, Democratic, Pacesetting and Commanding leadership - suggest a range of approaches that can be taken, depending on the time, the task and the team. Leaders need to be able to utilise the appropriate style for the situation and their team. But more than that, they need to be able to comprehend one final paradox.

So what is the final leadership paradox?

Not only do leaders need to adapt their style, but a truly effective leader must also be able to recognise when the time comes for them to relinquish the leadership role and hand the reigns over to someone else. It's our haiku again - Leaders must also be followers.

Making Changes

As a consultant, performance coach and trainer, I am frequently asked if what I am doing with an organisation, an individual or a team will result in any real change. The answer is ... it depends!

And this is not just a flippant response.

Obviously organisations and individuals want the reassurance that the service they are paying for will result in a positive - and preferably measurable - outcome. That's great. I want the same thing too. There's nothing more frustrating for most of us than to feel as if nothing has changed when we complete a project.

So why does the answer depend, and what does it depend on?

Well let's remind ourselves that organisations and teams are comprised of people. Yep, I know this sounds obvious, but a lot of change management talk seems to ignore this inescapable fact.

So applying a people lense to change means that we can look at it from the perspective of some of the recent neurological research that has been conducted over the past 20 years or so. Now clearly I am no great expert in this field, but there has been plenty written about it over recent years. Indeed a lot of Daniel Goleman's work (our Emotional Intelligence guru) is based on the neurological research conducted by Joseph LeDoux.

Now we all know that making changes in our own lives is tough, and making changes in organisations can be even tougher. Some of you might even remember that piece of popular advice that it takes three weeks to break an old habit and three weeks to build a new one?

But what the neurological research has done, is provide us with a scientific basis for understanding why making change is so difficult.

Apparently our brains are constructed to quickly detect changes in our environment and unusual or different occurrences. The orbital cortex (sort of behind our eyes) generates these signals in our brain, and the orbital cortex is closely linked with the brain's fear circuitry - the amygdala.

These two sections of the brain (the amygdala and the orbital cortex) compete with the prefrontal cortex of our brain for attention (processing time and speed).

So what? Well it's the prefrontal cortex where our higher and more conscious cognitive processes occur.

When we are learning something new, we need our prefrontal cortex to be working hard.

Think about learning a new language, learning to drive, concentrating on developing your listening skills or whatever.

We need to consciously make the effort to master, think about and practise these skills. It's tiring too. Why?

Again the research has shown that using the prefrontal cortex uses more energy than using the part of the brain where our learned skills reside and can be enacted unconsciously (the basal ganglia).

So, what does this neurological research tell us about making changes?

It's going to take a conscious effort.
It's going to take more energy.
It's going to take some time before we can use the skills unsconsciously.
We will encounter some resistance within ourselves.

So, how do we begin to address these challenges?

The first point to note is that an individual, organisation or team will have to want to change. The coach, consultant or trainer cannot make the conscious effort or conduct all the practice that mastering the change will require. What we can do is provide the background knowledge, some scenarios for practice, and we can provide encouragement and positive feedback.

But probably the most important point to note is that an individual, organisation or team will need to arrive at their own solution. In other words, it has to be their plan. If they do that, then that desire to change is their own.