{"id":2046,"date":"2022-01-31T20:56:35","date_gmt":"2022-02-01T02:56:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lindenleadership.com\/?p=2046"},"modified":"2022-02-22T10:51:03","modified_gmt":"2022-02-22T16:51:03","slug":"building-a-leadership-culture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lindenleadership.com\/building-a-leadership-culture\/","title":{"rendered":"Building a Leadership Culture"},"content":{"rendered":"
In a leadership culture the practices of innovation, visioning, execution, and reflection arise everywhere in the organization, and everyone\u2019s behavior is characterized by high degrees of honesty, trust and accountability. The Four Fields of Leadership and the Cycle of Leadership provide a framework for intentionally building and maintaining a leadership culture.<\/h5>\n

Watching organizations wrestle with seemingly intractable leadership problems led us to a careful examination, and ultimately a profound redefinition, of leadership. In our work we repeatedly observed certain patterns in organizations where leadership went well and other patterns in organizations where it didn\u2019t. In organizations where leadership went well, communication channels were open between leaders and followers. People felt it was safe, even welcome, to share their thoughts and opinions, both positive and negative, with their leaders. If a leader made a request that was not clear, people would ask for clarity before taking action. Such a request was welcome. If trust began to break down between any two people the skills were in place to address the problem quickly and trust was restored. The mood in such organizations was generally optimistic; the culture was permeated with the belief that collectively they could solve any problem.<\/p>\n

In organizations where leadership didn\u2019t go well, traditional approaches to leadership, which focused on fixing the leader, frequently failed to address the problem. In these organizations we observed that the communication lines between leaders and followers were often weak and characterized by mistrust. People were afraid to challenge their leaders, and the requests leaders made of their people often had the quality of demands. If the demands were not clear, the people receiving the demands did not feel it was safe to ask for clarity\u2014and indeed, it usually wasn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

Rumor mills were rampant in these organizations, and people spent considerable time talking with one another about what was wrong with the leaders. Trust throughout the organization was low and resentment and cynicism were common. The leaders were either oblivious that any of this was going on or they chose to ignore or deny it. When we observed organizations that went from ineffective to effective leadership, or vice versa, we could observe the corresponding shift in culture.<\/p>\n

Over time and across diverse organizations the patterns described above became clear, and we saw that a new definition of leadership was needed. We began to consider leadership differently, as an attribute of a culture rather than an individual, and asked questions that probed leadership effectiveness from that perspective.<\/p>\n

Consider the following example which is based on real world experiences. In one company the CEO declares that the company will grow through acquisition of a competitor. The leader has not yet determined the specific competitor that will be acquired, but has some ideas. They want the acquisition completed in twelve months. The people in this company respond quickly, engaging the leader in conversations to clarify her or his intentions and concerns, helping to identify and evaluate candidates for acquisition, move through the negotiations, and close the deal within twelve months. In another company of similar size and makeup the CEO makes the same declaration. Again they have not identified the specific competitor to acquire, but they have some ideas, and they would like the acquisition to be completed in twelve months. In this company the response is quite different. People do not engage the leader directly, but they talk in the hallways and private meetings about all the problems with this idea. They do not take accountability for the declaration, they fail to take effective action, and a year later no acquisition has occurred.<\/p>\n

In looking at these companies, one would be inclined to say that in the first company there was excellent leadership and in the second there was poor leadership. We would agree. What is interesting is where the difference lies\u2014not in the words or actions of the leader, but in the dynamics of the organization\u2019s response. It was repeated experiences like these, in which the breakdown was clearly not just in the person who held the role of leader but rather in the broader dynamics of the organization, that led us to rethink the meaning of leadership.<\/p>\n

Defining leadership as an attribute of an organization\u2019s culture broadens the scope of where one looks to improve leadership. Rather than focusing exclusively on the personal traits of individual leaders we also studied the ways relationships, behavior patterns, and communication practices throughout the organization impacted the quality of leadership and organizational performance. We found that organizations that exhibited effective leadership and sustainable high performance had cultures in which people\u2019s behavior reflected a high degree of integrity and accountability, interpersonal relationships were maintained with high standards of honesty and trust, and communication flowed freely and effectively, ensuring that everyone had the information they needed at all times.<\/p>\n

As we worked with our clients to establish leadership cultures we defined the Four Fields of Leadership:<\/p>\n