“It works in practice, but doesn’t work in theory” David Brooks, Student Tee Shirt, University of Chicago, 1960’s.
I was told research shows leadership skills are mostly learned by doing – and being helped by mentors. This is why most business and public administration programs use the case method – real examples. It is also learned from overcoming adversity. Reflection plays a crucial role. Leadership is learned by doing and reflecting on the experience and incorporating lessons.
John Kotter of the Harvard Business School, wrote a very informative book, What Leaders Really Do. Kotter states,
Leadership is different from management, but not for the reasons most people think. Leadership isn’t mystical and mysterious. It has nothing to do with having “charisma” or other exotic personality traits. It is not the province of a chosen few. Nor is leadership necessarily better than management or a replacement for it. Rather, leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary systems of action. Each has its own function and characteristic activities. Both are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and volatile business environment.
John Kotter
Management is about coping with complexity. Leadership, by contrast, is about change. Heifetz sees management as technical, and leadership as people centered. I believe Forest Supervisors do both, often simultaneously. Problem solving is crucial to good management and can help with aligning people to move towards a change. It builds credibility. There is no hard line between the two. All the successful leaders I knew seemed to be very good problem solvers. However, problem solving, as Heifetz says, is a technical skill, not the dangerous part – leadership.
More than three decades ago, I could not find anyone who understood this outside of the professional ranks of family therapists. My understanding came from therapists I worked with or saw personally.1 When I built up too much work stress, I sought professional help. My spouse made me do it. It changed my life. Why does this not apply to organizations? It does.
I found someone who did understand – a research psychologist, Dennis Perkins. He gave me a copy of his paper entitled, Ghosts at the Table. The paper has been printed in the Harvard Business Review, Family Ghosts in the Executive Suite. Now, the concept is widely accepted. However, to many in the Forest Service, it may seem unrelated and too personal. Yes, it is personal. It is key to understanding oneself. I do not believe it is appropriate to publicly, or as any kind of “team building,” direct people to share their family or personal life. But it is beneficial for each of us, in our own way, to understand it is there, and we need to understand how it effects one’s own behavior.
The logic is straightforward common sense – we learn how to relate in our own family of origin. We learned rules, both spoken and unspoken, played roles, learned how to act, keep secrets, and maintain stability in the family. Everyone in the family system is tied together with invisible strings. When one moves, they all move.
With the Forest Supervisors, we approached the subject by sharing the theory and practice and then letting them talk. We did not direct them to talk about themselves, but of course some did. It was a time for intimacy and understanding. It did happen with many, and more than a few left Grey Towers far different from when they arrived–hopefully stronger inside, which always ends up impacting the outside. Dennis Duncan, our principal discussion leader, knew how to deal with emotional crisis. When we first proposed the program, we intended to include spouses and significant others. I received advice that it would be very high risk. Many spouses might have deeply felt pain and it could come out in a flood.
Perkins says, “In clinical psychology, practitioners of family-systems theory encourage clients to examine patterns that date back to childhood to enable change in themselves. This approach is well established when it comes to personal behaviors and relationships, but until recently it hasn’t been used widely in the business realm.”
In Family Systems, members of the family play defined but unspoken roles – scapegoat, hero, brain, enabler, peace maker and others. As Perkins says, “Your family ghosts are a part of you. But the good news is that they don’t have to define you.”
A personal example illustrates this point. Following a week-long team building session on the Flathead National Forest, I was having dinner with the instructor, Les Frankfurt. Dinner with Les is a gift to the soul. I enjoyed his company and wisdom. I was rattling on and on about issues I was having with my boss. When I slowed to take a breath, Les leaned over and said, “Eddie, he is not your father.” It hit me like a bolt of lightning. A sudden epiphany. He was right and I knew it instantly. I was subconsciously transferring issues I had with my father to my work parent. He went on to suggest I needed to find a way to work constructively with my boss – or the entire Forest would pay a price. Gulp. This I learned is called transference.
Another key concept of Family Systems Theory was developed by Virginia Satir, in her groundbreaking book, People Making. Satir described open vs closed systems. Closed systems are characterized by low self-worth, unspoken rules (find out when violated), statements disguised as questions, triangulation – other focused, NO TALK rule, we vs they. Open systems are about high self-esteem, rules spoken and open to discussion, statements, self-focus, direct. Most importantly open systems can accommodate conflict and truthful interaction between members. We wanted to promote an open system.
After 15 years of discussions, I can say that every Forest Supervisor I knew, knew their job was important, and they were deeply committed to doing the best they could. Their motivation was always high, and it was all internally-generated. But no two lead the same way.
- Dennis Duncan, Alan Gilburg, Les Frankfurt, and others… ↩︎