Pathways and Crossroads to Institutional Leadership...tor in WMX, among many other companies) and...

Pathways and Crossroads to Institutional Leadership

Arthur M. Freedman QUANTUM Associates

When upwardly mobile persons are promotedfrom lower, individual contributor roles to higher,managerial roles, they are confronted by the chal-lenge of negotiating a series ofl35-degree "cross-roads" or shifts in their careers. Those who makethe complete journey must traverse five pathwaysand four crossroads. These critical career cross-roads consist of discontinuous and unprecedentedchanges in the role responsibilities and account-abilities to which managers in transition mustrespond. At each crossroads, people are con-fronted by a triple challenge: letting go of anach-ronistic responsibilities and competencies, pre-serving those that continue to be useful, and add-ing new, discontinuous responsibilities and con-sequences. Managers in transition can cope withthese demands by making adaptive changes intheir preferred activities, behavior patterns, andstyle. A detailed examination of the unprecedenteddiscontinuities that ambitious, upwardly mobilemanagers must bridge is presented. The adapta-tion process that is required at each career cross-roads is described, followed by a detailed set ofrecommended shifts in behavior patterns for thefuture executive at each crossroads.

When I first contemplated the challengeof making a symposium presentation on di-agnosis, leadership, and organizationalchange in honor of my friend and colleague,Harry Levinson, I imagined I would have tofocus on just one of the three topics. After awhile I realized that I had been playingaround with a cluster of pertinent butnonsystematic observations about leadershipand organizational change collected from 35years of organizational consultations. Thechallenge of preparing this presentation wassufficient motivation for me to search myarchives and to retrieve and organize the ran-dom information in some degree of systemicorderliness. I surprised myself. I seemed tohave touched on all three topics called for inthe symposium.

In 1980, Levinson identified 20 distinc-tive, normative criteria to describe charac-teristics of effective institutional leaders. Hethought these would predict whether candi-dates would perform effectively and derivegratification from the role of CEO. To me,these criteria still have considerable face va-lidity and seem relevant 18 years later.

A critical first question is this: How doambitious, upwardly mobile managers ac-quire, assimilate, and develop proficiency inapplying such competencies, traits, andqualities to perform their responsibilities?They must have acquired some competen-cies and so forth before and others subse-quent to joining their current organizations.

This article is based on an invited presentationto honor Harry Levinson on the occasion of his75th birthday at the 1997 annual meeting of theAmerican Psychological Association (Division ofConsulting Psychology), cosponsored by the In-ternational Society of the Psychoanalytic Studyof Organizations.

Arthur M. Frccdman is the CEO of QUANTUMAssociates (North America) and is associatedwith Effectiveness Consultants International(Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Zim-babwe). Both consulting firms specialize in plan-ning and facilitating complex transformationalsystems change, executive coaching, managementtraining and development, and organizational con-tinuity. Freedman is an adjunct professor atAmerican University. He is a fellow in the Ameri-can Psychological Association (Division 13, Con-sulting Psychology). He received the 1994 PerryR. Rohrer Award for excellence in InternationalConsulting from Division 13 of the American Psy-chological Association. He is the 1998 presidentof the Society of Psychologists in Management.

Correspondence concerning this articleshould be addressed to Arthur M. Frccdman,QUANTUMAssociates, Suite 24C, 1000 LakeShore Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60611.

Copyright 1998 by the Educational Publishing Foundation and the Division of Consulting Psychology. 1061 -4087/98/S3.00Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 50, No. 3,131-151

131

Where and how did they develop these com-petencies, traits, and qualities? Arguably, theirearly socialization was a dominant influence.

As we all know, leadership competencies,traits, and qualities are not elements of thecore curricula of most business schools ortechnical specialty educational programs.Such institutions tend to focus on the deliv-ery of technical specialty services, not theleadership or management of the organiza-tional system through which services aredelivered. From my perspective, the closestthat most educational institutions have comeis the recent introduction of gratuitouscourses in organizational behavior or profes-sional ethics.

If we are to believe the media, with veryfew exceptions private, nonprofit, and pub-lic sector organizations typically ignore theevident demands for preparing upwardlymobile persons to assume roles as leadersand managers within their enterprises. Theysubstitute such short-sighted, single-dimen-sion mechanisms as vision, mission, or valuestatements that invite employees to believethat they should do whatever they can do to"enhance the value of stockholders' invest-ments"- -and, thereby, their own value totheir organization.

One consequence of this expedient strat-egy is the widespread belief in the notionthat it is necessary and sufficient to letnewly promoted persons either "sink orswim" in their new roles. Another conse-quence is the emergence of casino ethics—that is, win as much as you can, using anymeans necessary.

This seems to paint a rather bleak picture.Yet, there are some dramatic exceptions.Most recently, people like George Soros (bil-lionaire philanthropist and provocative inves-tor in WMX, among many other companies)and Aaron M. Feuerstein (the "savior" ofMaiden Mills) have received considerablemedia exposure as exemplars of some of thepositive and ethical leadership traits andqualities. Their experiences suggest thatpeople do not have to choose between ethics

and expediency or between competence andpolitics. Rather, they demonstrate that ap-parent dilemmas such as these are not, bydefinition, mutually exclusive. These peoplehave demonstrated that such polarities canbe integrated; they are not necessarily either-or choices. Perhaps an additional trait ofeffective CEOs could be the conceptual andbehavioral skills and the inclination to con-vert mutually exclusive choice points intobalancing ethics with expediency and com-petence with politics as essential manage-ment qualities (Johnson, 1992).

A second question is this: What condi-tions must organizations create to enablepeople to traverse the five pathways and fourcrossroads leading from individual contribu-tor to institutional leader roles?

My intention is to present a model thatenables consulting psychologists, leaders,and upwardly mobile individuals to (a) di-agnose or assess the sociotechnical elementsof their organizations to determine whatmight be modified to minimize potentialobstacles so high-potential individuals canknow how to adequately prepare to assumeincreasingly responsible leadership roles, (b)educate and prepare candidates for higherlevel organizational roles and positions, (c)develop realistic career goals and plans forambitious, upwardly mobile individuals, (d)enhance their organizations' corporate con-tinuity-evolution and leadership successionplans, (e) develop effective systems for train-ing and developing leadership candidates,and (f) provide necessary and sufficient sup-port (e.g., coaching and mentoring).

The Manager in Transition

Ambitious, upwardly mobile persons whoaspire to higher managerial positions arelikely to choose a career plan leading to se-nior management, if offered, if their organi-zations' recognition and rewards systemsprovide an adequate inducement to shift fromlower level into higher level organizationalroles (and do not equally reward senior ex-

132 Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and ResearchSummer 1998

pert individual contributors). However, un-less their organizations educate and preparethem, managers in transition may assume thattraversing a promotional crossroads will bean easy transition rather than a dramatic,challenging transformation.

On the contrary, the nature of the demandsmade on persons subsequent to promotionto radically different higher level roles are,typically, significantly unprecedented anddiscontinuous relative to the career transi-tions during their previous pathway experi-ences. Crossroads transformations containhidden threats to their sense of coherence andwell-being—this will be weakened by anyloss of strength or reliability of their attach-ments to the anchor that is their public role(Freedman, 1995a). As the ancient Chinesewarning says, "Be careful what you wish for.You may get it."

Typically, when inexperienced people archired into their first jobs, they have to climba learning curve to adapt to the particulardemands of their employing organization.They have to learn where, when, and how toapply what they may have learned in a class-room or laboratory to the work they must doon "the shop floor." This process is usuallyrepeated until they have mastered all of thetasks, activities, and functions that constitutetheir job responsibilities. Then, when theyhave achieved requisite proficiency, they maybe shifted to a new position where they mustacquire proficiency in applying whateveradditional, related set of skills may be re-quired to perform their expanded portfolioof responsibilities. Or, they may be rede-ployed into a new context in which they mustlearn how to apply their existing skill sets toperform different responsibilities. In thisprocess, individual contributors may capital-ize on opportunities to enhance their capac-ity to add value both for their organizationand for themselves.

Implicit threats that are triggered by thepromotion usually become evident as newsupervisors or managers realize that the de-mands made of them at higher organizational

levels differ in type and quality from the de-mands that were made of them when theyhad lower level positions. To be consideredpromotable, individual contributors had todemonstrate outstanding competence in per-forming their technical specialist responsi-bilities. Therefore, it is only reasonable formanagers in transition to assume that to besuccessful in the new role they probablyshould do more of what they used to do. Thisis often reinforced by a job addiction factor(discussed below). However, such reason-able expectations may not be realistic (Freed-man, 1995b).

New supervisors and managers may re-quire at least 6 months posttransition expe-rience to display reasonable proficiency (rep-licating their developmental experiences asindividual contributors). Most organizationsdo not recognize the significance of thisposttransition period, nor do they dedicateappropriate resources to adequately prepareor support managers in transition.

Essentially, in most organizations, man-agers in transition are on their own. Duringthis posttransition period, they may realizetheir existing competencies are inadequatein coping with unexpected, unprecedentedleadership and managerial responsibilities.They may sense they need assistance to rec-ognize these transitional challenges and toadapt and cope effectively with the legitimatedemands of their new roles. However, theyare often reluctant to act on that realization—usually because of some fear that to ask forassistance may be construed as an admissionof some previously unrecognized weakness(i.e., some personal defect, deficiency, orinadequacy).

New managers gradually discover thataccess to appropriate opportunities to per-form their familiar, reassuring, well-prac-ticed, public, technical specialist roles havebeen drastically reduced or entirely lost. Newmanagers may feel lost, adrift, alone. Themanagerial tasks, activities, and functions forwhich they are now responsible are thosewith which they are both unfamiliar and un-

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and ResearchSummer 1998

133

skilled. Their dawning awareness of this dis-continuity often triggers a sense of intensediscomfort and insecurity. People often feellike frauds, as if they have deceived them-selves, those who selected them for this po-sition, and those who now depend on theirperformance. It threatens their critical senseof self-confidence and self-esteem.

To recreate an illusion of strength and tosatisfy their addictive cravings, new manag-ers frequently revert to performing those fa-miliar technical specialty responsibilities—those which used to result in recognition,approval, and appreciation. But these arenow their subordinates' responsibilities; topersist in performing such tasks, activities,and functions simply is not responsive to—nor does it satisfy—the legitimate demandsof the higher level managerial roles.

Managers in transition must somehowrecognize they have arrived at a major ca-reer crossroads that requires a 135-degreeshift. They must recognize and specify thenew, unprecedented, mostly discontinuousbut legitimate and demanding requirementsof their new career pathway. They must rec-ognize that some of their existing pro-ficiencies will be required on their new path-way after they have traversed their nextcrossroads, but that the relevance of manyother proficiencies will be lost. And theymust identify and acquire proficiency in ap-plying many new, vastly different competen-cies and attributes to perform their new re-sponsibilities and to cope with and satisfythe demanding requirements of their newroles. Thus, they must compare and differ-entiate between these novel transitional de-mands with those that belong to their priorexperience.

The first 135-degree shift at the individualcontributorto first-line supervisor crossroadsusually illuminates a number of unexpected,previously ignored or hidden discontinuities.Sudden awareness can be quite confusing anddisorienting. Managers in transition must,somehow, learn to recognize and managethese and other apparent paradoxes they will

have to manage as long as they continue tofollow the pathways and crossroads leadingtoward institutional leadership. This attributemay be referred to as maze-brightness.

Of course, fewer errors would be made—and there would be fewer unnecessary casu-alties—if organizations seriously studied theway in which their managers in transitiontypically respond to their career progressionprocess. Such studies have implied both anorganizational diagnosis (Lcvinson, 1972)and self-assessments by managers in transi-tion (Hollander, 1991;Levinson, 1992) thatwould enable them to determine what kindsof support their ambitious, upwardly mobilepeople require before, during, and after each135-dcgree career shift.

The Five Pathwaysand Four Crossroads

In complex, multitiered organizations,each level is unique. Each can be character-ized by the distinctive demands it makes onpeople who operate at that organizationallevel. Typically, as they climb their orga-nizational hierarchies, many ambitious,upwardly mobile people discover an un-expected and shocking phenomenon: Be-haviors, activities, and styles that wereeffective, highly valued, and appreciatedat lower levels are often inadequate or dys-functional at the next higher level. Thereverse is also true: Valued activities athigher levels may not be recognized, under-stood, or appreciated by those at lower lev-els. Unfortunately, many who participate inhuman resource developmental planning andpromotion decisions—executives, managers,supervisors, and human resources manage-ment specialists—often fail to recognize andapply this significant distinction.

To place the concept of leadership into ameaningful context for this discussion, weneed a functional operational definition. Irather appreciate one developed by Hogan,Curphy, and Hogan (1994, p. 394): "Lead-ership involves persuading [not dominating]


other people to set aside for a period of timetheir individual concerns and. . .willinglyadopt, for a period of time, the goals of thegroup as their own."

The Significance of the Issue:Flawed, Inept Management

Although there is no conclusive, reliable,comprehensive research to date, Hogan ct al.(1994) estimated that between 50% and 75%of all levels and types of North Americanmanagers arc so incompetent that their mana-gerial careers are in danger of being disruptedby their senior management in response tounacceptable performance by and complaintsfrom disappointed, frustrated, and vindictivesubordinates.

Paradoxically, much of the responsibilityfor placing unprepared and inept people inmanagerial positions lies with senior man-agement. Those who make such decisionsmay uncritically accept prevailing culturalassumptions that it is up to the newly pro-moted supervisor or manager to move "upor out" or "sink or swim." Such assump-tions serve to rationalize senior man-agement's avoidance of recognizing thateach managerial level is distinctive; eachhas its own unique demands for managerswho, to respond effectively to those de-mands, must be proficient in applying cer-tain relevant and requisite competencies.These rationalizations also enable seniormanagement to trivialize or ignore the useof reliable standardized and validated screen-ing and selection processes—for example,multirater appraisals (360-degree assess-ments), assessment centers (simulations androle plays), and psychological interviews andtests (cognitive ability and personality)—todetermine if promotional candidates havemastered the requisite competencies.

Figure 1 illustrates a hypothetical path-way from individual contributor to institu-tional leadership through four basic careercrossroads or shifts (based on Mahler &Wrightnour, 1973).

To negotiate any of the four role transi-tions effectively, newly promoted incumbentsmust make self-conscious decisions to let goof some of their habitual or preferred lowerlevel perspectives and many of their famil-iar responsibilities and work methods. Let-ting go of outmoded work habits frees themup so they can recognize the demands of theirnew responsibilities to which they mustadapt. This enables promoted persons toadapt to the unusual demands of their higherlevel roles. This process is repeated each timea person is confronted by the challenge ofnegotiating the next higher 135-degree shiftthey must make at each career crossroads.

Preferably before or at least very soonafter each crossroads shift, those who aremost successful in negotiating discontinuouscareer crossroads seem to make themselvesaware of and acquire proficiency in the com-petencies and attributes they need to adaptto the unprecedented demands of their newroles. Upwardly mobile people are on ajour-ney that repeatedly requires them to aban-don familiar conditions of work and, coura-geously, enternew, unfamiliarterritory. Theymust be alert, astute, and careful. To thenaive, the new work and its demands maylook deceptively familiar, particularly as newmanagers may feel insecure and understand-ably motivated to deny any differences. But,perceived or not, the differences and theadaptive challenge exist. Those who arc notattentive or who fail to enhance their adap-tive capacities are vulnerable.

The general principle (see Figure 2;Freedman, 1992, 1995a; Harrison, 1972) isthat at each career crossroads, upwardly mo-bile managers must

1. Let go: They must stop or do less oftheir anachronistic but familiar and comfort-able tasks, activities, and functions. Theymust let go of those competencies and at-tributes that enabled them to effectively per-form no-longer-relevant responsibilities.Their existing competencies may have beenuseful in their previous positions when per-forming familiar responsibilities. People felt

Consulting Psychology Journal; Pructice and ResearchSummer 1998

135

Institutional Leader

Executive Manager of Several "Businesses"

Manager of a Single "Business"

_r

Supervising Manager

EntryIndividual Contributor

Figure 1. The five primary pathways and four basic career crossroads. Within each of the fivepathways, the vertical risers imply rotation among related positions or progression along anycareer pathway, Time factor: Upwardly mobile managers in transition should not remain on thesame pathway for more than 3 or 4 years. Beyond that, people become too "addicted" to usingfamiliar routines that may have been successful at lower levels as they try to adapt and respond tothe new demands presented by crossing their next career crossroads.

confident in themselves and in their com-petencies; they felt comfortable when usingthese reliable competencies in that familiarcontext. They easily addicted themselves tothose familiar responsibilities and their useof their familiar competencies. To let go ofthese reliable old friends—even when donewith respect and appreciation—is easy toprescribe but difficult and threatening to do.As in dealing with drug addiction, peopleneed firm encouragement and support tofully experience (rather than deny) their ownwithdrawal process and to grieve and mournthe loss of their emotional attachment tothese familiar, comforting competencies andresponsibilities.

2. Preserve: People must continue to per-form certain familiar tasks, activities, andfunctions that have been, still are, and prob-ably will continue to be practical and useful.A major difficulty is that they have to distin-

guish between those responsibilities theymust let go of and those which they mustretain and preserve. Few people can makethis distinction easily and accurately. Errorsin judgment are inevitable.

3. Add on: People must start or do moreof new, unprecedented, and discontinuous re-sponsibilities with which they are unfamil-iar and not proficient. Managers in transi-tion must adopt the role of learners. Thiscan be quite uncomfortable, unless they havedeveloped the habit of constantly seekingself-enhancing personal andprofessional de-velopment experiences already. Many newlypromoted managers find the prospect of ac-quiring proficiency in the application of newinformation, concepts, methods, technolo-gies, skills, attitudes, and perspectives to beunreasonable or unnecessary. Often, theseexpressed rationalizations arc a facade in-tended to contain their anxiety—which is


Quality and Natureof the CHANGES

Let Go (withRespect andAppreciation)

Add On(Increase and

EnhanceCompetencies)

Succeeding_ Developmental

PhasePreceding Developmental Phase

Figure 2. Transformational change (Freedman, 1992).

often quite intense. Beneath their brittle bra-vado, most managers in transition harbor fun-damental doubts about their own capacity tolearn and to adapt.

As they rise within large, complex orga-nizations (which they thought they thor-oughly understood), people inevitably dis-cover, as they traverse each of the four careercrossroads, that they are moving into quitedifferent, very unfamiliar worlds—unlessthey construct a convenient world of fantasy.Like Dorothy, they might well say, "Toto.. .1don't think we're in Kansas any more."

A Practical Frame of Reference toCareer Crossroads Shifts

Managers in transition may be confusedif they have not accumulated sufficient ex-perience to know they must acquire essen-tial information from relevant sources andaccurately judge which role responsibilitiesthey should preserve (continue) and whichthey should let go (stop or do less) or add on(start or do more). A practical frame of ref-erence can serve as a set of guiding prin-ciples. Four critical career crossroads are de-scribed, and the many critical responsibilitiesand behaviors of which upwardly mobilemanagers must let go, add on, and preserve

to round out their coping skills repertoriesare identified. Critical prerequisite compe-tencies and attributes the upwardly mobilemanager will need for maneuvering througheach career crossroads are also presented.

From individual Contributor toFunctional Manager

Individual contributors. Most organiza-tions recruit their workforce from their localor national community's labor pool—for ex-ample, from public and trade schools, fromcompetitors or local companies whose employ-ees have requisite skills, or from universitysettings. Many professionals come with oneor a mix of technical and business degrees.Their first assignments arc generally one or aseries of individual contributor roles—for ex-ample, salesman, assembly line or warehouseworker, engineer, accountant, salesperson, oremergency room physician. When individu-als are thought to be ready and the companyneeds them, they are promoted into supervi-sory positions to lead or direct the activities ofa small group of workers whose members gen-erally do the same kind of work as the newsupervisors had been doing.

The first of the four 135-degrcc careershifts (see Figure 3) is the most frequent and


137

Entry

Supervising Managerk

Individual Contributor

Figure 3. The first crossroads.

the most fundamental. It occurs when indi-vidual contributors who are considered to behigh performers are promoted into first-linesupervisory positions. These persons areoften selected in preference over their formerpeers. That is, "first-line supervisors areoften chosen from the workforce on the ba-sis of their technical talent rather than theirleadership skills" (Hoganetal., 1994, p. 495;Freedman, 1995b). It does not seem to mat-ter if this event occurs as a result of personsbeing promoted out of single-disciplinegroups where each worker has a similar back-ground and training and is responsible forperforming some part of a whole piece ofwork—for example, assembly work—or ifpersons are promoted out of multidis-ciplinary teams where workers may have dif-ferent backgrounds and training but worktogether cooperatively, integrating theircomplementary capabilities to perform awhole, complex piece of work—for example,an emergency room operating team.

Such a shift is deceptive. It is not, how-ever, as dramatic as those crossroads that lieahead of future leaders. The new first-linesupervisors are often expected to be work-ing supervisors who are expected to spend40% and 60% of their available time per-forming familiar technical specialty work.Many of these first-line supervisors will betransferred and/or progress within their de-partmental roles until they reach and negoti-ate their second career crossroads. However,their technical knowledge and skills gradu-ally become obsolete or irrelevant—unless

they neglect their managerial responsibilities(in which case, their organization will haveoverpaid individual contributors who fail toperform the responsibilities of the role intowhich they were promoted); the supervisors'sense of identity will shift away from view-ing themselves as technical specialists orexperts to that of being managers of techni-cal specialists. Subsequent to this metamor-phosis, most managers spend less and lesstime on individual work and correspondinglymore time as managers.

Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, like manytechnical experts-turned-entrepreneurs, mayhave negotiated this first career shift in start-ing Apple Corporation. The difficulties lead-ing to their early exits from that companymay have been a consequence of their lackof preparation to deal with the complexitiesof rapid growth from a couple of computergeeks working on a dramatic technologicalinnovation in a garage to the leadership of alarge, maturing organization. They may havegotten sufficient relevant leadership devel-opment experiences had they stayed withtheir original companies long enough tonegotiate the omitted three 135-dcgree ca-reer shifts. Of course, had they done that,they may not have created Apple. (Justspeculating.)

Initially, new supervisory-level managersfeel proud and good about themselves andabout the approval and recognition they havereceived for their performance as individualcontributors. This sets up a paradoxical situ-ation: They are promoted because of their


accomplishments as individual contributorsinto a supervisory role in which their tech-nical skills should become increasingly ir-relevant. Perhaps as a consequence, this firstcareer shift is the one during which the great-est number of promotional errors occur. Themajority of these errors are those of omis-sion—that is, the implicit demands of thefirst-line supervisor role and the promotionalcandidates' capabilities to recognize and sat-isfy those demands are typically omittedfrom explicit consideration. The result is thatthe organization loses high-quality individualcontributors and gain supervisors with un-known managerial capabilities.

The characteristics of high-quality (pro-motable) individual contributors (Freedman,1995a) are as follows: (a) good at details;(b) works well without supervision; (c) im-provises when plans turn out to be incom-plete and when equipment break down; (d)recognizes and corrects own mistakesquickly; (e) makes quick, insightful deci-sions; (f) accepts responsibility for mistakesand is impatient with self for making them;(g) pushes personal problems aside; (h) con-centrates very hard onjob tasks; and (i) workstoward own perfection.

Implicitly, promotable workers pay littleattention to coworkers—unless they are partof a centralized and tightly coupled valuechain (e.g., production line) in which theirsuccess is dependent on the reliability of thework results produced by their up-streamsuppliers. Instead, they focus on their ownwork. These individual contributors requirelittle, if any, active supervision. Their su-pervisors notice them because they do notmake great demands. Relatively few ordi-nary individual contributors develop thisdegree of proficiency. This may indicate thatan organization's selection and orientationprocesses, the individuals' superior capac-ity to learn, their ambition, their engagingstyle, plus the substance of the supervisionthey received was, for them, at least, effec-tive. The obvious questions of how manycapable individuals fail to achieve these char-

acteristics—and why—still lacks definitiveanswers.

Discontinuous responsibilities and requi-site behaviors.} The first-line supervisory roleis not a straight-line extrapolation of the indi-vidual contributor's job. Rather, the promo-tion constitutes something like a 135-degreeturn—my term for indicating that newly pro-moted persons shift upward and move off—often unexpectedly, unplanned, and unpre-pared—in unprecedented directions intounfamiliar territory. There are few aspects ofthe individual contributor role that can be car-ried forward and applied to the first-line su-pervisory role. That is, these two roles—likethose that follow—are mostly discontinuous.Instead of directly managing work-related ac-tion entirely by oneself, supervisors (andhigher level managers) must learn to manageaction indirectly by managing people so theytake appropriate action, to manage informa-tion to influence people to take necessary ac-tion, or both (Mintzberg, 1994). To adapt andto function appropriately, new supervisorsmust stop performing or do less (i.e., let goof) some tasks, activities, and functions (re-sponsibilities). They must start or do more(add on) other responsibilities. And, they mustcontinue to do (preserve) still other responsi-bilities. Needless to say, a review of the sampleof let go, add on, and preserve responsibilities(see Table 1) can be a shocking revelation.

The responsibilities that newly promotedsupervisors must let go, preserve, and add

!I derived these lists of discontinuous respon-sibilities, requisite behaviors, and prerequisitecompetencies and attributes primarily from self-awarcness exercises I conducted with graduatedegree and certificate students of organizationdevelopment in the United States and Sweden andwith participants in Management Work Confer-ences and Senior Executive Conferences spon-sored by the NTL Institute over the past 5 years.I supplemented—and in some instances substi-tuted—my empirical data with formal research-based conceptual material drawn from suchsources as Argyris (1990), Hogan et al. (1994),and Levinson (1980, 1994).


139

8

0> "w

13 I


on in their new roles have been outlinedabove. To actually do these things, ambi-tious, upwardly mobile individuals must ac-quire adequate proficiency in applying a newor latent set of relevant prerequisite compe-tencies. When people feel confident in us-ing only a familiar, narrow, limited set ofskills—skills that have, in fact, served themwell when they functioned as individual con-tributors and enabled them to achieve suc-cess and recognition in that now-outmodedindividual contributor role—they will con-tinue to use those skills whether or not theyare relevant to the discontinuous demandsof the unprecedented, discontinuous first-linesupervisor role they are now expected to per-form. By mastering a new set of skills thatare relevant and offer the realistic probabil-ity they will enable new supervisors to copewith their new role's demands, they are morelikely to refrain from using—and they willlet go of—their no-longer-appropriate behav-iors. Further, once they feel confident andcomfortable in applying these new compe-tencies, they will be far more likely to en-gage (not avoid) their new responsibilitiesand gain sufficient proficiency in applyingthe requisite add-on behaviors.

Prerequisite competencies and attributes.• Awareness that they arc traversing a

135-degree career shift that will makeunprecedented, discontinuous de-mands on them—demands to whichnew supervisors must respond

• Ability and courage to let go of anach-ronistic but familiar responsibilitiesand competencies and to quickly addon new competencies—as well as thegoodjudgment to distinguish betweenthose responsibilities and behaviors tolet go and those to preserve

• Supervisory knowledge, practices, andskills—including relevant human re-source policies, procedures, rules, regu-lations, and practices

• Authority—has the feeling that he or shebelongs in boss's role (Lcvinson, 1980)

• Sensitivity—able to perceive and re-

spond to subtleties of others' feelings(Levinson, 1980)

• Involvement—sees oneself as a par-ticipating member of an organization(Levinson, 1980)

• Maturity—has good relationshipswith authority figures (Lcvinson,1980)

• Interdependence—accepts appropri-ate dependency needs of others as wellas of him- or herself (Levinson, 1980)

• Stamina—has physical as well as men-tal energy (Levinson, 1980)

• Adaptability—manages stress well(Levinson, 1980)

• Sense of humor—doesn't take self tooseriously (Levinson, 1980)

• Team-building and team developmentskills

• Participatory management theory andmethods or procedures for team-basedproblem-solving, decision-making,andplanning of corrective and preven-tive actions

• Conceives of self as a manager-leader(not just as an individual contributor)

• Communication skills (verbal expres-sion, active listening, literacy, andnumeracy)

• Conflict management and utilizationskills

• Orientation to business (profit andloss, accountabilities, economic value-added orientation)

• Diplomacy—after learning about theprevailing political factions operatingat one's level within the organization(and at least one level above and onelevel below) and their respective po-sitions on their high-priority issues,adopting a nonoffensive attitude to-ward all significant parties that pro-jects your understanding and appre-ciation of the legitimacy of eachperspective, without necessarily mak-ing a personal commitment

• Reliability (trustworthiness)—actingon what you say; walking your talk;


141

demonstrating dependability* Systems perspective: (a) viewing one's

own unit as having to contribute to andbeing dependent on the larger organi-zation and (b) viewing other organi-zational units as elements of an inter-dependent network where some aresuppliers of essential inputs to one'sown unit and others are users or cus-tomers of one's unit's outputs

From Supervisor to Managing aSingle "Business"

First-line supervisors encounter their sec-ond basic career crossroads when they shiftinto roles in which they manage a "family"of specialized but interdependent units thatare parts of—and contribute to—the samesupply chain. This is a dramatically sharp135-degree turn for most managers in tran-sition to negotiate (see Figure 4).

Managers of a business within a largerorganization are persons who manage sev-eral different but interdependent subunits—these may be single-discipline functionaldepartments (e.g., customer service call cen-ters, warehouses) or multidisciplinary teams(e.g., new product development, marketing).In a small company, like many family firms,this promotional shift could take a person allthe way to the CEO position. In a large, com-plex organization, the "business" may bestructured in a variety of ways—by function,business unit, region, or product. Suchmiddle managers might be called regionalmanager, group or product group manager,

or plant manager. The role may carry avice- president title. New single-businessmanagers quickly discover they are in less-than-total control of their own businesses.They gradually realize their success dependson satisfying their downstream customers byeliciting the cooperation and effectivenessof their "subordinate" departments—andthat of their upstream suppliers. Few newsingle-business managers assume their po-sitions with an adequate and comprehensiveappreciation of the operations and interfacetransactions among all their subordinate de-partments and between their business unitand its suppliers and customers.

This is the level above which very fewambitious managers rise. New single-busi-ness managers are very vulnerable. Thereis a tremendous discontinuity between thereasons they are promoted and the respon-sibilities they must perform to be success-ful in this new role. Hogan et al. (1994, p.495) speculated that these "middle man-agers. , .are often chosen from the ranks offirst-line supervisors on the basis oflikeability and perceived ability to work withsenior management."

Discontinuous responsibilities and req-uisite behaviors. Those persons whoachieve and function effectively in theirnew, single-business middle manager roleshave to make the following 135-degree shiftsin their behavior patterns and activities (seeTable 2).

Prerequisite competencies and attributes.• Tolerance for ambiguity—can tolerate

and cope with ambiguity, confusion,

Manager of aSingle "Business"

Supervising Manager

Figure 4. The second crossroads.


CM ~4> CO

3 £

Q CQ

JS'

ft.H

s.8

Consulting Psychology Journal: Prnctice and ResearchSummer 1998

143

and uncertainty until things becomeclear (Levinson, 1980)Judgment—knows when to act (Le-vinson, 1980)Activity—takes a vigorous orienta-tion to identifying and seeking waysto satisfy the needs of the organiza-tion (Levinson, 1980)Achievement—oriented toward or-ganization's successes rather than per-sonal aggrandizement (Levinson, 1980)Articulateness—makes a good impres-sion (Levinson, 1980)Vision—is clear about progression ofhis or her own life and career, as wellas where the organization should go(Levinson, 1980)Perseverence- -able to stick to a taskand see it through regardless of the dif-ficulties encountered (Levinson, 1980)Personal organization—has goodsense of time and how to use time ef-ficiently (Levinson, 1980)Integrity—has a well-established valuesystem that has been tested in variousways in the past (Levinson, 1980)Utilizing and managing legitimate butconflicting simultaneous demands(from subordinates, bosses, peers, sup-pliers and users)Awareness of and appreciation forother departments' work functions thatare interdependent with your businessFundamental, strategic—often quanti-tative—business management skills(various disciplines like marketing,production, information systems, hu-man resource management, account-

ing, strategic planning, corporate mod-eling, etc.)

• Diplomacy—after learning about theprevailing political factions operatingat one's current level within the orga-nization (and at least one level aboveand one level below) and their respec-tive positions on their high priority is-sues, adopting a nonoffensive attitudetoward all significant parties thatprojects your understanding and appre-ciation of the legitimacy of each per-spective, without necessarily makinga personal commitment

• Reliability (trustworthiness)—actingon what you say; walking your talk;demonstrating dependability.

• Psychological mindedness: recognizesand applies psychological factors inviewing, understanding, and acting onorganizational issues (Hogan et al.,1994). Understanding corporate orga-nizations as complex social-technical,open, political systems

From Managing One "Business" toManaging Several "Businesses"

The third career crossroads is the 135-degree shift from managing a single busi-ness to the executive management of sev-eral related (interdependent) businesses (seeFigure 5). In medium-sized companies, thismay be the CEO position. The amorphouscriteria that too many large, complex orga-nizations apply in deciding which single-business middle managers are to be pro-moted to executive manager positions are

Executive Manager ofSeveral "Businesses"

Manager of aSingle "Business"

Figure 5. The third crossroads.


the following: adapt well to their seniors, fitthe prevailing corporate culture, and are ac-ceptable, for whatever reasons, to the keydecision-makers (Hogan ct al., 1994).

If no internal candidates satisfy these cri-teria, the executive position may be filled bysearching outside for someone who, theoreti-cally, can step into the vacancy and "hit theground running." Curiously, organizationsseem to rely on nominations of candidatesby search firms (which are motivated by theircommission structure to induce their clientsto accept one of their nominees—quickly),background checks and references from thecandidates' previous employers (which, be-cause of litigation anxiety, are rarely candidor explicit about candidates' foibles, softspots, or developmental needs), and screen-ing/selection interviews (in which decisionmakers are rarely skilled; see DeVries, 1992).Alternatively, and particularly if the organi-zation has a strong "promote-from-within"philosophy—and as long as there are no cur-rent, major organizational crises—the "bestavailable" existing middle managers withinthe organization will be selected. Far toooften, this candidate will not be good enough.

The demands of the role of senior execu-tive responsible for leading a team of single-business middle managers arc qualitativelyand substantively different than those forlower level positions. The 135-degree shiftto this senior or executive vice-president roleis much more complex than appearances maysuggest. A straight-line extrapolation basedon effective single-business middle managerbehavior patterns may be tempting, but it isnot realistic. A global shift in self-concept,attitude, and perspective is essential. Seniorvice-presidents and executive vice-presidentsmust redirect their attention from a mostlyinternal to a primarily external perspective(e.g., to interactions with unfamiliar stake-holder groups). The challenging problemsand opportunities the senior and executivevice-presidents must face are far more com-plex than those faced by single-businessmanagers. They must actively manage a va-

riety of dilemmas or dual perspectives thathave always been in the background at lowerlevels and now emerge to the foreground(e.g., local plus global events, short- pluslong-term time perspectives, parts plus thewhole of the larger organizational system;Collins &Porras, 1995; Johnson, 1992). Thepressure is more intense and cannot be ig-nored as easily and it comes from moresources than the senior and executive vice-presidents can influence. The issues to beanalyzed and decided on are more conse-quential. The uncertainties and the risks aregreater. The anxiety levels are higher.

Yet, criteria for promotion to this execu-tive level are rarely comprehensive, nor doorganizations always recognize or satisfy theneed to fully prepare candidates to assumethis role. As a result, as Peter Druckerpointed out almost 30 years ago, two thirdsof those who have been elevated to execu-tive management positions do not knowwhat it is to adopt an entrepreneurial ap-proach. Nor do they understand how to makestrategic policy decisions. Instead, they con-tinue to perform the operational and fire-fighting responsibilities of middle manag-ers. 1 know of nothing that suggests that thisratio has changed over the intervening years.

Discontinuous responsibilities and requi-site behaviors. Those few individuals whoreach this organizational level and performeffectively and appropriately in this uniqueenvironment have to make the adaptive shiftsin their behavior patterns and activities (seeTable 3).

Prerequisite competencies and attributes.• Nonlinear, intuitive thinking• Management of parallel activities• Coping with multidisciplinary, mul-

tiorganizational complexities• Deriving satisfaction from the successes

of your subordinate managers, yourpeers, and your company

• "Maze brightness"—the intuitive under-standing of what is organizationally pos-sible, how to maneuver through organi-zational obstacles, and the capacity to


145

a>

OenImp

eo .2

T3i £

w —

S3 •=5 «

'"3 S1

2 §03 :Swc§£ o "

2 u

^ .2a'3

S g

* i

cg O

j j >•

i11 § I


I Institutional Leader I

Executive Manager ofSeveral "Businesses"

Figure 6. The fourth crossroads.

intuit nonobvious (innovative) strate-gies and/or methods to achieve one'spersonal or subsystem's objectiveswhile avoiding organizational ob-stacles and impediments, without cre-ating disadvantages for other manag-ers or for the larger organization

• Diplomacy—after learning about theprevailing political factions operatingat one's current level within the orga-nization (and at least one level aboveand one level below) and their respec-tive positions on their high priority is-sues, adopting a nonoffensive attitudetoward all significant parties thatprojects your understanding and appre-ciation of the legitimacy of each per-spective, without necessarily makinga personal commitment

• Reliability (trustworthiness)—dietingon what you say; walking your talk;demonstrating dependability

From Managing Several"Businesses" to InstitutionalLeadership

The fourth career crossroads is the mostvisible and dramatic 135-degree shift (seeFigure 6). Very few people are selected forinstitutional leader roles (i.e., the CEO and/or chairman position in large, complex or-ganizations). When this rare, singularly mo-mentous event occurs, it is extremely signifi-cant for the leader's former peers, the boardof directors, the company's external stake-holders (like customers, suppliers, competi-tors, regulatory agencies, the financial com-munity, investors, and employees), and the

company's future prospects. A new institu-tional leader usually signals fundamental,systemwide changes that will affect all partsand all levels of an organization. The selec-tion process is often far more political thanare lower level promotions. Other than that,the selection criteria are quite similar to—and as soft as—those described (above) forpromotion to executive manager roles. (Forexample, I got to know John Walter, formerchairman and CEO of R. R. Donnelley &Sons, during a long-term consultation a fewyears ago. I would have loved to have beena fly on the wall in the board room to ob-serve their decision-making process as hewas being selected to be the new presidentof AT&T—and 9 months later when theydecided to let him go.)

Increasingly, NorthAmerican companiesseem to be selecting their new institutionalleaders by recruiting and selecting from ashort list of external candidates—providedby executive recruiting firms—rather thanby promoting from their pool of existing ex-ecutive managers. In many instances, thismay be realistic. It is also an acknowledg-ment of the inadequacy of most contempo-rary organizational efforts to ensure corpo-rate continuity and executive successionthrough appropriate and effective planningand development.

Perhaps the most critical and most com-mon error made by boards of directors at thiscrossroads is assuming that new CEOsshould have very little to learn. It can beself-defeating if the involved parties assumethat new institutional leaders need only con-tinue to operate as they did as executive man-agers of a portfolio of several businesses or


147

as the CEO of a medium-si zed company—simply adding a few new specialized busi-nesses.

Unless the new institutional leader hasalready demonstrated competence and effec-tiveness as an institutional leader of someother organization, a revolutionary changein self-concept and sense of identity is re-quired. Institutional leaders must cope withthe natural anxiety that comes from realiz-ing that their ultimate value may be basedon the quality of only a handful of extraor-dinarily consequential decisions that theymust make in any given year. The stakes areenormous and are matched by the pressurewith which CEOs must learn to live. Payingattention to their varied experiences as theypass along their previous pathways and asthey traverse their previous crossroads canprepare new CEOs to effectively learn howto learn.

An increasing number of innovative ex-perts in some technical specialty have cho-sen not to move up the corporate hierarchy.Undoubtedly, some are unwilling to sacri-fice their family and personal lives. Othersmay lack an essential attribute, patience. Or,they may have assessed the opportunitiesavailable to advance rapidly and to achievesenior executive positions as very limited andtoo competitive for their preferences. Per-haps they are unwilling to give up the grati-fication they derive from hands-on practicein their area of specialization. It may also bethat they have become disheartened withtheir organization's unwillingness to developa new business—perhaps with them as thebusiness manager—based on their innova-tions. Many wunderkind have resigned andnegotiated to take their patents with them tostart up their own technology-based newventures. These courageous innovators areleaping from the first or second to the fourthcareer crossroads, omitting quite a bit of es-sential developmental experience. Theirs isa truly revolutionary challenge. These inno-vative, entrepreneurial institutional leadersmay be successful during the start-up of their

new enterprises but are likely to be ineffec-tive in leading them once they are establishedand have achieved some degree of stability.Such unique individuals may have to eitherfill in the gaps in their preparation to fulfillthe role of effective institutional leaders, orthey may have to let go of their creation andmove on to start up another in a series ofinnovative enterprises.

Discontinuous responsibilities and requi-site behaviors. Successful institutionalleaders have generally made the adaptivechanges in their behavior patterns (seeTable4).

Prerequisite competencies and attributes.• Social responsibility—appreciates

need to assume leadership with respectto that responsibility (Levinson, 1980)

• Subordinate one's own self-interest tothe welfare of the corporate enterpriseand its future

• Intense interest and curiosity abouthow to anticipate the future of the or-ganization and the relevant aspects ofits external environment

• Dedication to corporate effectiveness• Surgency—desire to advance, domi-

nance, assertiveness, energy /activitylevel, verbal fluency, sociability, socialparticipation, decisiveness, self-esteem(Hogan etal., 1994)

• Emotional stability—stress resistance,tolerance of uncertainty/ambiguity,adjustment, emotional balance, inde-pendence, self-confidence (Hogan etal., 1994)

• Conscientiousness—inner work stan-dards, responsibility, achievement, ini-tiative, personal integrity, ethical con-duct (Hogan ct al., 1994)

• Agrccablcness—nurturance, friendli-ness, social nearness, support (Hoganetal., 1994)

• Intellectual capacity—broad range ofactive interests, conceptual capacity tocomprehend and use increasingly com-plex levels of vital information, rec-ognizes needs for change (Hogan et al.,



149

1994). This includes practical intelli-gence and capacity to abstract—toconceptualize, to organize, and to in-tegrate different data into a coherentframe of reference (Levinson, 1980)

• Charisma—creates compelling vi-sions, recruits people who share thevision, builds teams that support thevision (Hogan et al., 1994)

• Diplomacy—after learning about theprevailing political factions operatingat one's current level within the orga-nization (and at least one level aboveand one level below) and their respec-tive positions on their high-priority is-sues, adopting a nonoffensive attitudetoward all significant parties thatprojects understanding and apprecia-tion of the legitimacy of each perspec-tive, without necessarily making a per-sonal commitment

• Reliability (trustworthiness)—actingon what you say; walking your talk;demonstrating dependability

The Significance of Performanceof Public Roles

No matter what career pathway they aretravelling, no matter how many of the fourcareer crossroads they have traversed, mostpeople derive a sense of pride and confidencewhen they perform in their work roles withcompetence, comfort, certainty, and profi-ciency. They earned this pride and self-es-teem by achieving tangible, high-quality ac-complishments (usually measured bydelivering expected results at or below bud-get and within schedule). Their pride andself-esteem is enhanced when their achieve-ments are recognized as desirable and use-ful by their stakeholders—coworkers, sub-ordinates, bosses, customers, suppliers, andothers who arc affected by their work andits results. Public (observable) performanceof the tasks, activities, and functions that re-sulted in these accomplishments is one ofeight basic anchors for a sense of well-being

and coherence. For most people, such op-portunities for public performances are in-tegral components of their sense of iden-tity—who they think they are as persons(Freedman, 1995a).

The Three Cs: Competence,Confidence, and Comfort

It is natural for people to seek repeatedopportunities to display such valued publicperformances. They are familiar and com-fortable in the role. Through their well-re-ceivedpublic performances, people reassurethemselves of their worth or value. Further-more, people know they perform these well-practiced role responsibilities in a highly pro-ficient manner—that is, they know they arecompetent. Thus, they feel most confidentin themselves and in the methods and prac-tices they apply when performing suchroutines.

Behavioral Addiction

Unfortunately, many people like thesegood feelings so much that they addict them-selves to whatever results in feeling good.As with addiction to drugs, alcohol, and to-bacco, it is very difficult to let go and expe-rience the pain of withdrawal. This is theprimary basis of the hidden threat of exces-sive (limited) competence.

Leaders who arc unaware of their behav-ioral addictions—that is, leaders who lacksclf-rcflcctivc awareness—arc most likely toact in ways that arc sclf-dcfcating. They"shoot themselves in the foot" and often dis-place blame onto others for interfering withtheir ability to "run the race." When theyare confronted with unfamiliar challenges,they arc likely to intensify their habitual waysof coping with their historical but no longerrelevant issues. ("I don't know how to dothis, so I'll do more of what I do know.") Newcircumstances, conditions, events, and situ-ations become threats to such people. Overtime and without modification, anachronis-


tic coping patterns are likely to become theaddicted person's primary and flawed meansof coping with anything new—and defend-ing themselves against the threats to theirself-esteem that radical, discontinuouschange so frequently provokes.

In Conclusion

It serves little purpose, when we observean underperforming or dysfunctional leaderor manager, to castigate that individual.More realistically, we must keep in mind theconcept of organizational collusion. Withnecessary and sufficient preparation of in-dividuals plus organizational support andeffective performance management, wemight identify and do something aboutnonfunctioning managers and leaders.However, such ideal organizational con-ditions rarely obtain. Frequently, the dys-functional manager or leader is merely aproduct of prevailing organizational con-ditions. Therefore, rather than blaming thevictim, it seems more functional to exam-ine the organization and its systems todetermine how to ensure that individuals'behavior will match and contribute to therealization of the organization's vision,mission, goals, strategics, and philosophyor values.

Organizational conditions can eitherexacerbate or ameliorate flawed individualbehavior. It can be enlightening to com-pare those organizational assumptions andpractices that seem to be either positivelyor inversely associated with effective lead-ership. The results can be practical dif-ferential diagnostic criteria that could en-able managers and their consultants toidentify areas for supportive, corrective,or preventive intervention.

References

Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizationaldefenses: Facilitating organizational learn-ing. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Collins, J. C , & Porras, J. (1995). Built to last.

New York: HarperBusiness.DeVries, D. L. (1992). Executive selection: Ad-

vances but no progress. Issues & Observa-tions, 12, 1-5.

Drucker,P. (1970). Technology, management andsociety. Boston: Harvard University, Gradu-ate School of Business Administration.

Freedman, A. M. (1992). Transformational per-sonal change: Let go, preserve, add on. Pre-sented at Management Work Conferences andSenior Executives Challenge Laboratories(developmental workshops), NTL Institute,Alexandria, VA.

Freedman, A. M. (1995a). Why managers don'tmanage. In R. A. Ritvo, A. H. Litwin, & L.Butler (Eds.), Managing in the age of change.Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publish-ers.

Freedman, A. M. (1995b). Stress managementtraining. In W. M. Tracey (Ed.), Human re-sources management anddevelopment hand-book(pp, 1063-1077). New York: AmericanManagement Associations.

Harrison, R. (1972). Role negotiations: A tough-minded approach to team development. In W,W Burke & H. A. Hornstein (Eds.), The so-cial technology of organization development(pp. 84-96). La Jolla, CA: University Asso-ciates.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. 1, & Hogan, J. (1994).What we know about leadership effectivenessand personality. American Psychologist, 49,493-504.

Hollander, D. (1991). The doom loop system: Astep-by-step guide to career mastery. NewYork: Viking.

Johnson, B. (1992). Polarity management: Iden-tifying and managing unsolvable problems.Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Levinson, H. (with A. G. Spohn & J. Molinari).(1972). Organizational diagnosis. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Levinson, H. (1980, July-August). Criteria forchoosing chief executive s. Harvard BusinessReview, 58, 113-120.

Levinson, H. (1992). Career mastery, San Fran-cisco: Berrett-Kochlcr.

Levinson, H. (1994). Why the behemoths fell:Psychological roots of corporate failure.American Psychologist, 49, 428-436.

Mahler, W. E, & Wrightnour, W. F. (1973). Ex-ecutive continuity: How to build and retainan effective management team. Homewood,IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Mintzberg, H. (1994, Fall). Rounding out theleadmanager's job. Sloan Management Re-view, 36, 11-20.


151

Pathways and Crossroads to Institutional Leadership...tor in WMX, among many other companies) and...

Documents

Transcript of Pathways and Crossroads to Institutional Leadership...tor in WMX, among many other companies) and...