Rowitz On Leadership

On March 26, 2009, I had the opportunity to attend the Illinois Meta-Leadership Summit for Preparedness in Chicago under the auspices of the CDC Foundation. The Summit not only increases the opportunity for networking across government, the not for profit sector , and business, it offers participants a greater understanding of how Meta-Leaders can make a difference in a time of crisis. Over the past several years, Marcus, Dorn, Henderson, and Ashkenazi have developed and refined a theory of leadership which recognizes the necessity of leaders working with partners in crisis situations. The authors(“Meta-leadership: Expanding the Scope and Scale of Public Health,” Leadership in Public Health,8,1-2,PP.31-37) have developed a five dimension model of Meta-Leadership.. Meta-Leaders are individuals who understand the need to work not only in organizations, but also across organizations if the work of public health is to be done more effectively and efficiently. Meta-Leadership creates a new language for organizing leadership work, creates strategies for improving and recognizing the importance of collaboration, and promotes a purpose for government to work with partners from other public and private sectors. The five dimensions include the person of the meta-leader, situational awareness(the context of work), leading your organizational silo, leading up in the organization, and leading across agencies and organizations. All five dimensions lead to increased connectivity in the public health system. The model was developed to improve connectivity within and across agencies in a time of crisis( Also see Rowitz, 2009, chapter 3).

Over time, theories and practice related to a leadership perspective evolve. As a model fans out from its original development site, questions arise and further refinements of the paradigm occur. This article will raise some questions for a second generation of thinking and practice for Meta-Leadership. The important issue in Meta-Leadership relates to whether connectivity really occurs and whether the results of the collaboration are effective or not. This means that data are needed to determine if the model works or not. First, it is important to see how the model fits other approaches to leadership and networks. When we work across organizations, networks are created. Using social network analysis will help determine how leaders work together in terms of information processing, the resolution of differences, the personality of the participants relative to being energizers or deenergizers, and so on (See April 2009 Book Club Selection on the books by Rob Cross). Network analysis will help to determine who the Meta-Leaders really are in the network. Second, networks comprise people interested in the issue or problem to be addressed. This demonstrates that leaders will be involved in several networks depending on the issue to be handled. Crisis network membership will differ from non-crisis public health networks. Networks will also be involved in better understanding how a silo functions within an organization. The end result of network analysis is an ability to determine how effective the silo work is as well as how effective the multi-organization collaboration is working.

An important dimension of sectoral collaboration relates to the difference in cultures between the different sectors. It may be necessary to conduct a cultural assessment to determine what factors may impact successful collaboration activities. Cultural assessment paired with the network activities discussed above will give insights into the effectiveness of Meta-leadership activities. In fact, cultural assessments will provide the Meta-leader with information to guide leadership within the silo, leading up, and leading across agencies. It would be worthwhile to explore the whole issue of connectivity and better define its dimensions. This will allow the Meta-leader to integrate several different measures of connectivity.

We need to better define the Meta-Leader. Although emotional intelligence is a critical factor, there are probably other leadership issues that define this type of leadership. The issue of talents and strengths need to be considered. The thinking preferences of a Meta-leader and how he or she works needs consideration. It may not be enough to define or measure how much of a Meta-Leader an individual is, but rather to define the personal qualities of a Meta-leader from a number of different dimensions. Meta-Leadership 2.0 would find ways to better define the Meta-Leader. Leading up is complex and may very well be affected by the leadership qualities of the boss. Measures exist that explore the boss-direct report relationship. Process measures as well as a number of other performance measurement techniques may prove useful here. Differences in the way leaders interact may also be important to determine. These factors will affect all five dimensions of the model.

Connectivity is continuing to be impacted by the Internet. Relationship are being developed and networks created by sites such as Facebook, Linked In, Second Life, webinars and teleconferences, simulations, blogs, and many other sites. Meta-Leaders will use these and other tools to enhance their Meta-Leadership abilities.

A systems thinking perspective is critical for the Meta-Leader. He or she must view the big picture and develop strategies of systems improvement and systems change. A systems change process will have to monitor the concerns of sustainability, improvement, and the possibility of negative change. Feedback is critical in this process. Systems thinking tools will also aid the Meta-leader in this. Marcus and his colleagues are examining this issue now as important to their overall model because it specially addresses the macro-context or community and the role of the various organizational components in that context. Mission and vision also play a role in guiding the change process. I would add programmatic goals and leadership applications and tools to the mix. Finally, the impacts of change or a crisis on the ways that the system or community changes, improves, or deteriorates will also be critical. Meta-Leadership 2.0 will have to find the interface between the five dimensions of the model and overall systems change.