The uncertainty of running my own business has been amplified by this new global crisis; a wicked problem in which leadership is required, rather than management when faced with a tame problem or when the problem is critical and commanders are needed. The time is now to rely on myself and my self-leadership. To my surprise, I am facing this new crisis with a lot of positivism. I was not aware of how much had I developed my self-leadership. And much of it can be attributed to the last seventeen months in which I participated in the Coaching and Consulting for Change Master’s Program. Reflecting on my learning journey, the topic of this essay, I have synthesised my personality, experiences, values and attitudes into my value system for self-leadership.
Is it possible to change the mindset of a large organisation, such as a multinational? The question is, whether it is possible to scale the principles of Action Science to a larger group, such as an organisation, to change its mindset and thereby improving the actions for the intended outcomes. To understand the possibility, I will reflect on the impact of group dynamics and circumstantial influences on the application of Action Science to a larger group. These dynamics and influences – such as trust, motivation, cultural differences, distances between entities, and constant change – impact group behaviour and therefore the success rate of a collective learning intervention to achieve a mindset change, on individual level and various size levels of an organisation. My reflection.
Corporate Social Responsibility is more on the agenda than ever. The introduction of the Triple Bottom Line (1994) and the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals have pushed companies to take Corporate Social Responsibility to the next level. But are companies really committed to change their business models and 'live' Corporate Social Responsibility? Is it possible to make radical changes to their business models or are there arguments not to do it? Or is it more of a gimmick? In other words: Is Corporate Social Responsibility used by companies as a defence against making radical changes to their business?
Have you have ever told your team to get on with it and deliver what was agreed? I am pretty sure you have. It is completely normal. And it happens over and over again. Unfortunately, your team will come up with excuses and adopt a defensive approach, to explain to you why they did not perform. How can you evolve from managing to coaching, when your team member does not have the right mindset, but does have the competencies to do the task?
Managers do what needs to be done within the boundaries set by the organization. Leaders extend the boundaries of the organization. Extending the boundaries means that leaders need to make people feel comfortable and able to take that step. As a result of this demand for influencing others and the increased responsibility of the position, leaders experience a form of stress called power stress. In addition, to be effective as a leader requires the regular exercise of self-control: placing the good of the organisation above personal impulses and needs. This is stressful too.
Especially in sports the adagium Never Change a Winning Team is what coaches live by. If it ain’t broke, why fix it? is probably what you have heard at work. But does it make sense to leave things as they are when you are successful? Is your magic formula forever creating top-results? What happens if your successful product becomes obsolete and you have little room to change course, because all your processes have been set up for that one product? Let’s have a look at 3 examples showing the importance of changing a winning team.
Have you ever wondered what is going on when your successful pilot project does not receive implementation approval? Or why your performance does not land that promotion? Decoding power plays and political dynamics provides us with a working tool with which we can analyze organizational politics and orient our action in a politicized way.