FINAL WORD

work with many clients who feel the need to change their culture , and the first problem here is that most fail to define what ‘ it ’ actually is , nor do they understand the implications of culture change in a couple of key respects . First off , thingification is endemic in organisations , and ‘ management speak ’ is dripping with abstractions and nominalisations ( verbs solidified into abstract nouns ) e . g .: organisation , management and leadership . All abstractions . We try and ‘ land the change ’, ‘ drive change ’ etc ., as if it were an object we can shove around .

Then there is culture , and the whole construct of ‘ culture change ’ is a fallacy as it assumes culture is both homogeneous and a thing . It isn ’ t . “ Culture is the way we do things around here ,” suggested Kennedy & Deal ( 1982 ). More specifically , it is the sum of our current behaviours , which are inherently malleable and changeable . So in effect , culture is not a thing , it is rather a pattern , and changing culture is , suggests Glenda Eoyang , an ‘ accumulation of thousands of tiny tweaks , not one massive push ’.

So , if you want to change culture , you need to change the conversation , and whilst your interventions may be well-aimed , there is never a guarantee as to how they will come out . That is in no small part why the idea of ‘ destroying ’ culture is inherently absurd : it can only evolve . Now , can leaders have a positive impact to dampen patterns of blaming behaviour ? Absolutely . Is authentic leadership the answer ? Ummm …

The problem with authentic leadership

A dictionary will typically tell you that authenticity is something or someone who has the quality of being real or true . Organisations adopt slogans like ‘ bring your whole self to work ’, and leaders are encouraged to be ‘ authentic ’. The idea is that we can , apparently , be ourselves fully and that is a ‘ good thing ’. Really ? Truly ? You want the version of me that is hungover ? Or that has had a terrible night ’ s sleep and is feeling grumpy ? You want me to bring my full range of personal values which , whilst they may not prevent me being effective in my role , may equally clash with others ? You want me bring both the light and shadow of my personality and the bits of me that are still a work in progress ?

Clearly the answer to all these is no . So , what exactly is the level of authenticity that is useful ? My view is that what matters is a combination of :

• Awareness – of myself , my self-narrative , my learning edges , my strengths and my shadow ; of others ; of my impact on others

• Critical reflection – the capacity to notice what is going on in and around me and a willingness to make sense of it

• Reflexivity – the ability to notice your own beliefs , judgments and practices and what influences these , plus the willingness to experiment based on these

• Realness – and yes , if you like , realness , if what you mean here is an acceptance that culture work is inherently messy and there are no guaranteed answers or silver bullets

The question then arises : what does it require to become a leader who can do and be all these things ?

The ‘ work proper ’

The term ‘ work proper ’ was coined by the late Brendan Reddy and Chuck Phillips of NTL in their Group Process Consultation ( GPC ) model . In Brendan Reddy ’ s book Intervention Skills ( 1994 ), work proper is what happens after you have done the contracting : it is the stuff that has to be wrestled with if there is to be progress , movement , change etc . Absent that , all you get is better sameness .

The implication for leaders is that they need to move beyond the performative learning that is typical of much leadership development these days , where learners show up to consume the knowledge and expertise of consultants and trainers offering their prescriptions for what ‘ good ’ or ‘ great ’ leadership looks , sounds and feels like . The problem is that ‘ learning in the world of leadership is about the application of judgement , knowledge and skills in real situations ’, suggested Richard Hale , who specialises in action research and practice-based leadership development . Crucially , in conversation with me he noted that : “ Being a successful leader involves working with particular situations with your unique personality , where a degree of judgement is required … The results of doing leadership are not always predictable . All of the above points may sit uncomfortably if you are looking for a formula for becoming a better leader .”

YOU WANT ME TO BRING MY FULL RANGE OF PERSONAL VALUES WHICH , WHILST THEY MAY NOT PREVENT ME BEING EFFECTIVE IN MY ROLE , MAY EQUALLY CLASH WITH OTHERS ?

Steve Hearsum , Founder of Edge + Stretch and author

www . intelligentcxo . com

75