I recently published a post showing how the process of change requires new learning. The post is an analysis of a study by Chris Argyris on the difficulty that highly technical and objective leaders have in learning new ways of being. Leaders who operate predominantly through a technical approach tend to use their expertise to offer summative conclusions, a “final word,” so to speak.
However, leaders and organizations also go through adaptive challenges where summative conclusions can often fail to offer a way forward. Adaptive challenges require new learning, new navigation maps. But often, leaders who act in objective and summative ways apply outdated maps to territories not yet explored. On such occasions, conclusions must be formative, allowing space for new ways of thinking and acting.
Perhaps the greatest challenge for leaders going through adaptive challenges is knowing when, how, and to what end they should use their positions of authority. Ronald Heifetz, the leadership scholar in the United States, has written prolifically on how to “mobilize adaptive work” (Mobilizing Adaptive Work). In his articles, he explores how the leader must interpret certain cues from those he leads that will help him guide the group and mobilize change.
Adaptive challenges bring leaders and subordinates to common ground in learning and discovery. Heifetz emphasizes that at such moments the leader’s authority must be a resource, for it provides the tools and strength to hold a group together through the distressing process of adaptive work. Authority is restrictive because it is contingent on meeting the expectations of constituents. In this way, in adaptive challenges, authority is used not to give orders, but to build a space of learning and discovery for navigating situations where outdated maps no longer serve. Leadership is not only casting a vision or providing a narrative that others must follow. More than that, the leader’s way of operating must move from the kind of authority that has all the answers toward a new kind that builds a space where difficult questions can be raised and reflected on.
Heifetz’s perspective is insightful because adaptive challenges often disturb and reorganize the organizational dynamics between a leader and his subordinates. With this in mind, people in positions of authority must be able to distinguish between technical and adaptive situations, so as to respond accordingly. This implies that leaders must develop the ability for self-reflection even in the midst of great challenges. The leader becomes a facilitator of new discoveries and uses his authority to hold the group together in the process of becoming aware. He or she then develops an epistemology of problematization, able to reflect on whether progress on a given challenge will require a change of values, attitudes, habits, and behavior.
The appropriate use of authority amid adaptive challenges is something I very much need to learn. In my few years of ministry I have tried to model a type of Christian leadership that moves away from highly hierarchical structures. I have done this in the following way. Even as an ordained minister, I have never required people to call me by the title of “pastor” or “minister.” I prefer that congregants and colleagues call me by my first name. I have also abolished the use of the “pulpit on a platform” and generally preach using a simple stand at the same level as the congregation. I encourage lay leaders to teach and preach in the church and discourage the use of very formal dress.
These changes have brought great benefits to our internal culture, but they have also produced a new set of questions. The first is the simple question of who, ultimately, is in charge. I have discovered that the attempt to “lead from below” often confuses the congregation about who is really qualified to perform a given task. Second is the question of using authority to offer answers when technical challenges arise. “Horizontal dynamics” can often blur the line between the “disciples” and the discipler, the pupil and the mentor.
Heifetz’s perspective helps me understand that formal authority has its uses and should not be neglected in the ecclesial environment, even though many pastors and leaders use and abuse their positions. Formal authority has its uses in producing a transformative learning environment. The leader then serves as a glue to hold the group together, communicating security and confidence while orchestrating change. The effective leader is the one who fully embraces his position, working as a facilitator and mediator of the necessary discussions, even when they may seem difficult. In such cases, formal authority should not be avoided, but embraced in a way that reinforces the group dynamics needed for deep adaptive transformation, producing a safe learning environment.
