LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE: THE ILLUSION
Laszlo Kövari
Experience maybe considered from a quantitative or a qualitative point of view.
From a quantitative point of view experience concerns units of quantity, like days, weeks, months, years, or purely numbers in reference to number of occasions. Quantitative factors always refer to horizontal organization in general, or to the horizontal unfolding of individual potentialities in particular, in analogy with individuation and specialization.
From the qualitative point of view experience refers to states of awareness along a vertical axis.
In its original sense leadership is a vertical, qualitative, integrating factor, above –preceding-any and all kinds of specialization.
So called “management” is “horizontal leadership”, which is an artificial and unfortunate expression. Management is leadership only inasmuch as it contains a certain degree of integration. This type of integration however is still horizontal, not vertical. Yet, since it is integration, it is the only qualitative factor in the predominantly quantitative field of horizontal organization.
Integration is what connects management to leadership; in practical terms integration is what enables managers to perceive the superiority of the views of leaders. A certain degree of “integrating quality” is present even among specialists, which enables them to perceive the superiority of the views of integrating specialists. Today, we may come across with people who lack any trace of integration, often in roles of management and leadership. These people are impossible to follow. Their mere presence is destructive in that it is the catalyst of absolute disintegration, denying the existence of superiority. Their style elements reflect irrationality.
Leadership is purely concerned with vertical integration of various levels of horizontal organizations.
Views are world views. The four actors of organization are differentiated by their world views, and the thinking that stems from these views. It is not possible for a specialist to become an integrator. The main integrator, specialized integrators, integrating specialists and specialists are born that way. Specialized integrators, integrating specialists and specialists may transcend their current state and ascend one level on the true hierarchy. Not more and not without the presence of a main integrator, the essential leader, and certainly not due to some training initiative.
Based on the above it’s easy to see that leadership (not management) experience is an illusion. One can’t use a quantitative term to describe or grasp a qualitative factor.
Leadership is concerned with principle(s), principle based concept(s), corresponding values and exerts a force of integration for all the other actors in the organization. Thus it is quite possible that somebody who’s never set foot in a corporate environment (or any other form of organization) walks in and occupies the role of the main integrator.
Naturally, the chances for somebody to fully actualize potentialities of vertical integration in a fundamentally “horizontal environment” that is dominant everywhere today, is next to impossible, since everybody today is exposed to artificial organizations only, which are based almost exclusively on illusions, the illusion of quantitative leadership being one of those.
What can be done today is the systemic elimination of illusions. Training should provide quantitative values to specialists, management should be developed by leaders, and leaders should be developed outside the corporate environment.
For these to happen the leadership of the organization must be established from outside the organization.
Sounds impossible? It almost is.
Perspective on Executive Coaching
Perspective on Executive Coaching
By Laszlo Kövari
There is a vast body of literature available on executive coaching. The industry is maturing, there are certification programs, associations and a growing number of practitioners offering very distinct niches. They discovered analogies between coaching and consulting, coaching and therapy, sports coaching and business, introducing the corporate athlete, the high performing executive. Coaching services are offered on all levels of the organization separately, or as part of overall leadership development and training initiatives. Deliverables vary according to specialization:
- improving performance by changing behaviour or by providing expertise including how to manage time, how to set goals, how to get things done, motivate and inspire employees, even on how to think and how to “manage energy”
- providing support and perspective in the course of difficult projects
- improving emotional intelligence
- problem employee intervention
- organizational transformation
- and many more.
Coaches who provide the services are typically accomplished leaders themselves in various disciplines of business, sports and academia.
It seems there is no demand that can’t be matched; one might think that executives must be satisfied with the service they are getting. In fact, when typed “executive coaching fails” in Google, only four results come up (October, 2004) and all of them are based on one single article by Steven Berglas in the Harvard Business Review, which only looked at the downfalls of executive coaching in relation to underperforming executives.
This either means that this is the one industry that achieved perfect customer satisfaction, or that unsatisfied executives are silent.
The purpose of this article is to draw attention to three interrelated factors that are outside the boundaries of the reality of both executives and coaches.
The three interrelated factors are:
- principles and power
- vertical hierarchy
- essential leadership
People often mistake principles with values. By its original definition principle means both truth and beginning and a secondary meaning is catalyst of manifestation or realization. The reason for the confusion is relativism and strictly rational thinking, which –among other things- assumes that things may start anywhere. In reality however what people think is a beginning, is in fact a continuation, which can only be seen and understood from the right vantage point, which is on the level of invisible causes “above” visible consequences. They are above, because cause is primary and results are secondary.
In business, principles are replaced with money, which means that their foundation is relative and temporary and “organization” happens according to relative circumstances, where what is “right” and “wrong” is determined strictly by the interest of stakeholders. The balancing act between “values” and money (stakeholder interest) is senseless and hopeless. Maybe this is the reason why references to principles in mission statements are so rare. The most common words in mission statements are customers, quality, leader, communities, best, excellence (Guy Kawasaki: The art of the start), all terms that are subordinated to performance and execution.
Who are the people who perform or execute? How are they “organized”? This is where vertical hierarchy comes in. To understand vertical hierarchy, the direction of organization must be clarified. A simple way to illustrate the organization is by skills and functions the evolution of which is horizontal, and by principles, the realization of which is vertical.
Since principles represent the beginning/truth as well as the cause of organization, “formation” starts with them, meaning that people organize around principles, and thus the realization of principles happens from top to bottom. Looking at the organization of functions and corresponding roles, there are 4 main categories:
- Main Integrator,
- Specialized Integrators,
- Integrating Specialists,
- Specialists.
Closest to the principles is the Main Integrator, who “represents” the principles as well as unity and who is ideally also the catalyst of the organization.
The Main Integrator is above all functions. The person on this level is the essential leader, who doesn’t need an organization for self realization. In a business setting this person should occupy the highest leadership post. In addition to principles, the Absolute Integrator is concerned with concept, strategy causes, standing in a contextual vantage point and naturally his mental model is supra rational.
Next in the hierarchy is the Specialized Integrator. In reality this is the function that should be called executive, since this post represents the highest level of actual execution. The best analogy is clearly the CEO or (with some compromise) vice presidents. They are specialized since their “territory” is well defined but within that territory they represent –although indirectly, relying on the Main Integrator- principles and they also act as integrators, ensuring principles are properly represented on lower levels of the organization and that principles are manifest in functions.
The Specialized Integrators’ evolution is vertical, which means that for them skills are “levers of transcendence”, they only use them temporarily, as a means of getting closer to principles. As their ability to internalize principles grows their mental model shifts away from rational to supra rational.
Before continuing the descent down the hierarchy, it must be noted that by definition executive coaching (where executive describes the highest level of executive positions) can be applied only to Specialized Integrators and it should be evaluated on the base of how it contributes to the vertical evolution of these players.
A brief definition of evolution in this context is the realization of principles and the organizational concept (the whole) through the actualization of potentials. There is however no room to elaborate on the question of evolution in this article.
Next down the hierarchy are Integrating Specialists where the player’s evolution is horizontal, which means that it is skill based and functional and it is concerned more with specialization and much less with integration.. In the corporate world Integrating Specialists should fill the roles of facilitators. Their mind set is practical and rational. They have almost completely realized their potentials, which are defined by skills and aptitudes on the “skills plane” so to speak. Their high level expertise provides an integrating force towards specialists. They are capable of listening and are driven by consensus, finding win/win scenarios. Thus Integrating Specialists are substantial leaders, which is a different word for managers.
Specialists are rational thinkers, as well who operate on the horizontal plane, concerned with realizing potentials by strengthening their skills. They face the most challenges “understanding” principles. Since their attention is on the “result grid” without understanding causes, they tend to be opportunistic with quite a material value system.
It is not difficult to see that this hierarchy is almost completely opposite to how corporations are organized today.
Almost all posts are occupied by specialists and facilitators. The same can be observed in the strategic environment. Overall there’s more specialization than integration, which typically results in disintegration, fragmentation and the proliferation of “fields”. Since there is no “absolute point (of reference)” and everything is relative, the style of operation is manipulation.
We can observe this proliferation in the specialization of executive coaches, as they are trying to carve out various niches, and similarly to the consulting field, they “devise” various processes that they quickly patent and licence, taking an opportunistic approach to offer “unique values” to their fellow specialists.
This is the key to why most executives in such circumstances are neither happy nor dissatisfied. Both the coach and the executive operate on the same horizontal plane, i.e. in the same reality, so neither of them realizes that the often quoted 3rd party perspective is nothing more than a different angle on the same plane as opposed to a higher perspective, which it should be.
Essential leaders would not find any value in current executive coaching practices and deliverables, since they can achieve self observation, self correction without direct support, and skills are not necessary for their self realization. Also, their perspective is the highest, which means that when they end up performing any kind of intervention, they “know more” than the experts in that their knowledge is direct and essential as opposed to the knowledge of experts, which is reflective and substantial. For an essential leader the modus operandi is radiation (direct impact), for the “horizontal coach” and all horizontal players, it is reflection (manipulation).
How about coaches, who are Main Integrators? It follows from the previous points that they would not be able to provide “useful value” to the majority of current players (Specialists and Integrating Specialists), since specialists are the farthest away from principles, and they can’t understand them, let alone internalize them. They would only be able to coach Specialized Integrators at best, but only outside the corporate setting, which means that the Specialized Integrator would be literally “lifted” above the corporation to a higher vantage point where no “corporate components” and no manipulation are present and most importantly no money would “change hands”.
A Main Integrator can only operate effectively in a position of power, since he represents true and absolute power. Positions that are not based on principles only represent pseudo – power, which is always relative and this again explains why people with pseudo power need to constantly modify their thinking, behaviour, value system and leadership style. Their feeble rationalization for this is that “change is reality”.
The real danger of “horizontal executive coaching” is that it further strengthens patterns of fragmentation, which contributes to the deterioration of thinking, turning CEOs and other executives into superficial corporate fashionistas, who increasingly work on themselves as “ products”, turning to fashion consultants, “personal branding” consultants and executive coaches in a never ending pursuit of (in lack of any foundation) change itself.
Sand Castles: Crumbling Organizations
Sand Castles
Crumbling organizations
By Laszlo Kövari
Strategic initiatives when not aligned to principles are reactive even when they consider future scenarios. Without the proper foundations the vast body of literature on organization design, change management, strategy formulation and implementation, leadership, management, governance and ethics are without merit. In fact all unfounded initiatives contribute to the out-of-control specialization and the fragmentation of knowledge and they cause more (irreversible) harm than good.
The forgotten fundamentals are principles. The concept of organization makes a good “meta case” for principles.
1. Principle based organization
· People organize around principles.
· Organization starts from the top. The top of the hierarchy is the essential leader with direct knowledge of principles. The essential leader is the main integrator and catalyst, who “contains” unity. His style is above functions and practical considerations.
· The ultimate purpose of a system is self realization.
· The organizational purpose is to enable the manifestation of organizing principles.
· The principles are supra individual and supra-rational and as such cannot be understood with fact based analysis and rational processes.
· The direction of organization follows vertical differentiation and horizontal, as well as vertical integration.
Vertical integration is leadership, horizontal integration is management. The evolution of people on the horizontal plane is skill based and talent oriented.
Horizontal integration is concerned with quality within the function, which means improving processes and talents as well as the efficiency of their deployment.
Vertical integration is concerned about hierarchy and principles.
Vertical differentiation maintains the hierarchy of roles, according to organizing principles.
2. The actors of the ideal system
The main leader is beyond function. Ideally the concept of the company originates from him. Absolute leadership is essential, absolute management is substantial. The absolute leader/leadership doesn’t need an organization (to self realize) therefore it is never corrupt. The organization however doesn’t exist without at least some degree of essential leadership. The leader represents the concept and the principles that are the cause and the to-be-realized purpose of the organization. Being subordinated only to the principles, he attracts specialized integrators. Specialized integrators are sensitive to principles but since their principle knowledge is reflective and not direct, they depend on higher leadership. Specialized integrators attract specialists, who are also integrators (integrating specialists). Integrating specialists are typically referred to as facilitators. Facilitators attract specialists.
The principles are directly represented by the leader, who is also the absolute integrator and catalyst, indirectly understood and internalized by the specialized integrators, and they are enforced on the integrating specialists and specialists, whose priorities and thinking is practical and rational in nature.
The base of the modus operandi is attraction. Any deviation results in manipulation.
3. Deviations and Illusions
In reality this structure is never in place. Deviation from this structure causes displacement, which is the rootcause of most well known unresolved negative and destructive phenomena. On the lowest level specialists should perform specific functions only. They are most often distracted by “everybody is a leader” scenarios. Their leadership is horizontal, i.e. skill based only. Any attempt of distraction results in cynicism and sabotage. The contract worker phenomenon is the result of the drive of specialists to avoid distractions.
In the current illusory system it is possible for a specialist to reach the top, but in the current system the top doesn’t represent true power. True power is incorruptible, direct and absolute, while pseudo power is relative, manipulative and by default always corrupt.
CEOs who are born specialists can’t represent supra rational organizing principles because the boundary of their mental process is facts, so their primary thinking style is rational. The pseudo principle they are subordinated to is money (profit, return, etc.), which, similarly to real principles, they can never control.
Money occupying the position of principles, the flawed association of power with control and the lack of control over money defines their style, the end result of which is visible and pervasive corruption.
CEOs who are specialized integrators fare much better although in lack of superior support, with direct representation of principles they are confused on issues of leadership, strategy, knowledge and evolution. The “third party” consultants they bring in to help them are typically specialists themselves, or specialized integrators at best, just like the CEO, and to sustain their credibility, they work towards sustaining the illusory system everyone operates in. In short they can only provide data (fragmentation) but can’t provide perspective (integration).
Non corporate leaders (i.e. academia and non-profit, politics, religion) who are above and beyond functions cannot be found anywhere either, simply because the defense mechanism of the environment rejects them before they could reach the post.
Under such illusory conditions a number of initiatives, even the ones that are considered to be best practices may prove to be useful in the short term only.
Examples of this are:
- Strategic planning and other strategy formulation exercises. Leadership is tied to existing, often hopeless systems, which they can’t transcend. They focus on maintenance until the crisis reaches a point when leadership together with the system must be replaced.
- Knowledge management initiatives. They create further fragmentation, and senseless analysis.
- Change management initiatives. Fundamentally reactive. They assume control where there isn’t. Further increase displacement.
- Leadership development initiatives can’t provide true results; they can however provide results that temporarily satisfy the illusory system, which means they are either ineffective or damaging. The identified “ideal” is always illusory and artificial. They don’t contain vertical components and they are often directly responsible for the disintegration of hierarchies.
The best practices in all these initiatives are based on flawed logic and they lack true fundamentals and principles (vertical axis). Therefore the majority of initiatives prove to be self serving and senseless in the long run. A more detailed elaboration of the above-mentioned functional areas requires separate studies within the organizational context provided here.
4. What is the solution?
From this chain of thought it follows nicely that there is no solution in the context of the current system.
Possible scenarios for improvements are drastic. A few examples:
- If the current CEO is a highly developed specialized integrator, he/she maybe developed into a near absolute (main) integrator, rising above functions. This however cannot be done by current leadership development initiatives. If the chairman, who is not the CEO, is suitable, he/she should be developed into an absolute integrator. Experienced and mature leaders in a certain age group maybe receptive to and ready to internalize and represent principles, and they may have learned to “function above functions”.
- Develop an understanding of the role of money as a resource and not as a principle or organizational building block. Once this understanding is achieved, appropriate alignments must be made.
- Replacing pseudo hierarchy with a real one, introducing true vertical differentiation and integration based on principles. This maybe supported and/or accompanied by an overall-placement initiative, whereas displaced people are placed in the proper positions within the hierarchy.