The Trustee Educators were to practice working on two levels –– the dance floor, where the action takes place, and the balcony, where they could observe the experience from a wider angle, moving from self scrutiny to analysis of the group, from individual dynamics to larger patterns. The second ground rule was to be open to possible embarrassment. Trustee Educators were invited to help create a space where they would be “willing to be embarrassed” for the sake of learning. The invitation was one, which called Trustee Educators to assume responsibility for their own learning, to develop the capacity to live in the mystery of good teaching, and to build a higher tolerance for anxiety and ambiguity. “Pride often hinders learning,” explained Ron. “People want to show what they know, not what they don't know.” Real learning involves risk.
Adaptive vs. Technical Problems
Ron noted the importance of differentiating between adaptive problems and technical problems in determining whether authority or leadership is required. Some problems can be resolved with a “quick fix.” For example, when you take your car to a mechanic for repair, you are giving him authority to resolve the problem. This type of problem is basically noncomplex, and does not require deep intellectual stimulation and analysis. Other problems, such as drug abuse and racism, are complex in nature and require a change in the hearts and minds of the people with the problem. One exercising leadership or an authority figure involved in tackling such adaptive issues can stimulate, provoke, or inspire changes within an individual, however, the change must be made within those with the problem and not with the person who brings attention to the issue. In addressing adaptive problems, some level of distress is inevitable. Adaptive change usually involves loss. People have a tendency to become comfortable in their habits, attitudes, and beliefs. All too frequently we apply technical solutions to adaptive problems and wonder why major social problems persist. When they are required to “lose” those closely held values, they are inclined to grieve, struggle, and avoid the hard work required to adjust. But if the adaptive change is to take place, they must endure the examination of their beliefs and open themselves to the reforming of those beliefs. An authority figure can assist the group through this adaptive process by making the most of the resources or tools available. Ron described these resources as follows:
Differences Between Leadership and Authority
Ron views leadership as being different from authority. Leadership is not a set of personal characteristics or an individual's role; it is the ability to meet an adaptive challenge, the gap between values and reality. It focuses work on resolving internal conflicts and contradictions. It involves intricate diagnostic work in which values are clarified. Leadership is not value-neutral; it is value-laden. Leadership is about getting people to tackle hard problems and to not engage in work avoidance. Not only does leadership identify the adaptive challenge, it regulates the degree of disequilibrium, gives the work back to relevant publics, mobilizes them to do adaptive work, and instills a discipline of attending to the gap between values and reality. It is this level of depth of work where work avoidance occurs and groups engage in distractive behaviors. While individuals exercising leadership generate disequilibrium in order to get the group to do adaptive work, an authority figure focuses on monitoring the distress of the group and restoring equilibrium. Authority is power conferred by others in an exchange for a service. It provides five social functions: direction, protection, orientation, control of conflict, and maintenance of norms. The person in authority defines where the group is headed, what outcomes are expected, and establishes clear boundaries, roles, and relationships in the performance of tasks. In performing these functions, they must ensure a safe, predictable environment where anxiety is kept to a minimum and the rules are enforced. Authority requires a holding environment, the management of basic boundaries, and acute sensitivity to the group's needs. “The person in authority is most sensitive to levels of distress in the system,” says Ron. Many of the characteristics attributed to authority are ones some of us use in describing leadership. The distinguishing difference is that leadership creates dissonance in order for adaptive work to occur whereas authority, because of its definition and function, operates to constrain this level and depth of work.
Constraints of Authority
Ron believes that in order to fully understand leadership and trusteeship we must know the constraints of authority. We project too much authority on people and then destroy them because of our ambivalence about it. In times of stress, there is a great deal of pressure for the person in authority to act –– to do something to solve the problem! Those who have conferred authority to another press for quick fix answers to adaptive problems. The person in authority comes up with “the answer,” which temporarily lowers anxiety and restores equilibrium.
The problem is that there was no attempt made to clearly define the problem before a solution was given and the process reinforces the avoidance of adaptive work. According to Ron, it is difficult for people in authority to exercise leadership because those who have conferred the authority want protection from pain; they want to be buffered from distress. The response is appropriate for technical problems but destructive in dealing with issues needing adaptive work. In such instances, we need leadership but we ask for authority.
Leadership that deals with adaptive challenges must have the capacity to manage sustained periods of anxiety, and needs to also be capable of assessing a group's capacity to deal with protracted levels of distress. There are several key factors that help a group to do adaptive work: internal cohesion, trust, clear boundaries, and external structures of authority. A group must have a sufficient sense of connection so that external forces don't pull it apart.
This is one of the most challenging issues a board faces because members represent many different publics, and in so doing they bring together larger societal conflicts. They experience the pull toward other constituencies. Ron believes that if we could work out the conflicts that members represent on boards, we would be able to help them work out similar conflicts in the larger community. He believes it is unwise to perceive board members as only individuals in need of change; it is necessary to also see them as representatives of multiple constituencies. “We must teach people how to take what they've learned on boards out into the larger community.” The adaptive challenge often comes in the form of questions, and that is true in this instance. How do we help people engage in strategies that enable and empower them to educate their constituencies? Which publics have to change in order for change and progress to occur? Who has to learn something? In experiencing this rich laboratory of learning, Trustee Educators discovered that many people don't understand that the locus of power resides within them and that it is in the conferring of this power that they authorize another individual. Authority is a projection of one's own power. Ron noted, “You can't give power (empower) if there is no power to begin with.” The process of authorization is one of gaining power. The person who has position must also earn informal authority (where the power to accomplish objectives usually resides) and formal authority. This is most possible when the individual has dealt with their own beliefs, attitudes, and experiences regarding power and authority. This highly intense educational experience deepened the way Trustee Educators perceive and practice Trustee Education, and how they work with other groups. The opportunity to be introduced to a new way of looking at leadership and authority has important implications for pedagogy and for the formation of leaders. Practicing the skill of moving back and forth from the balcony to the dance floor was intellectually stimulating, psychologically challenging, and in some instances exhausting. For most, it certainly generated the anxiety and energy to continue the analysis and self-scrutiny necessary for the formation and exercise of education.
Author: Katherine Tyler ScottFrom Leading Ideas, newsletter of Trustee Leadership Development (TLD). Used with permission of TLD.
Katherine Tyler Scott is a Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Ki ThoughtBridge and author of several publications on governance leadership.