Rowitz On Leadership

Over the last couple of years, I have discussed the meta-leadership conceptual framework developed by Leonard Marcus, Barry Dorn, Joe Henderson and Isaac Ashkenazi. The model was developed to account for the special skills needed by leaders in an emergency preparedness and response environment. In addition, there have been a number of state meta-leadership summits sponsored by the CDC Foundation to bring together leaders from business, government, and the not for profit sectors to explore ways for leaders from these sectors to work together on preparedness issues. During the NACCHO Preparedness Summit in Atlanta in February 2011, a panel discussion was presented to discuss the results of a number of these summits around the United States. I was one of the panel presenters. I will use this posting to review some of my views about the next generation of meta-leadership thought and practice.

In my blog posting, “Meta-Leadership 2.0”, I discussed the issue of connectivity and whether leadership activities across organizations is always effective or not. The issue of research to back up the model needs to be done. The evolving impact of social networks and how they affect relationships is also an important issue. Cross-cultural issues also need exploration. It is important to explore how the meta-leadership model dovetails other leadership models. Personal leadership development activities also impact effectiveness of the meta-leadership partnerships For example, emotional intelligence concerns need to be addressed. The April 2009 posting also raised the issue of how the meta-leadership model moves from a relationship-based model to one that addresses the importance of change and systems transformation. Working on the dance floor is sure different than working on the first or second balcony.

In “Silos and Paradigms(May 2009),” I raised the important issue of how our silos guide our actions. Each silo has a governing paradigm and value system to guide the meta-leadership activities of leading up and leading down. The important concern is whether the silos allow us or prevent us from working across the silos of our organization or across organizations. I coined the term synergistic leadership in the posting to define the meta-leaders who move beyond relationship building to systems change and transformation. In “Resilience(August 2009),” The point was made that leaders in emergency situations need to be resilient and able to adapt to change. This is especially true for meta-leaders in system transformation situations.

In “Meta-Leadership 2.1-The Synergistic Leader(December 2009)”, I pointed out that most meta-leadership activities address short term fixes rather that long-term systems change. Relationships change depending on the activities that the relationship is built upon. Leaders for transformational change may not be the same participants in a short-term emergency situation. In addition, the long term utility of the meta-leadership model is its adaptability to other than emergency situations. This posting also addressed the issue of the life-span of the connectivity situation and that it will vary depending on the reasons why the connections exist. Finally, it is synergism that leads to value-added results. Synergism is a requirement of systems and complexity transformation.

Collaboration must be real( See “Collaboration Is More Than Just A Word”-August 2010). It must be based on the realization that leaders do not leave their agendas behind when they collaborate and negotiate. We use each other’s agenda to come up with realistic solutions to problems and policies that reflect our agendas and values. Collaboration allows us to turn ideas into actions. My two February 2011 book selections add to the important dimensions of meta-leadership from a problem solving and policy development perspective First, Godin talked about the importance of leaders being linchpins within their organizations. Meta-leaders also need to be linchpins in that they need to move their partners to new levels and non-traditional approaches to the transformation of programs and policies.

Second and most important, meta-leaders need to become boundary-spanning leaders(Ernst and Chrobot-Mason). This conceptual model moves us beyond the meta-leader him/herself. It defines the six practices buffering, reflecting, connecting, mobilizing , weaving, and transforming within and between organizations. Leaders need to learn how to span boundaries vertically, horizontally, across stakeholder agendas, demographically, and geographically. Effective leaders need to cross boundaries while respecting the need for theses boundaries or silos to remain. In addition, horizontal collaboration is collaborations with fairly equal partners. Vertical collaboration occurs when partners are not so equal.

Thus meta-leadership defines an important model for viewing how leaders act and what are the factors that affect their ability to lead. However, the model is not complete. It needs to not only be about the building of relationships, it must also be about differentiation between short and long term problem-solving and decision-making. Meta-leaders must also develop boundary solving practices and learn how to use these skills to manage boundaries, find common ground, and discover new frontiers(nexus effect) and synergistic interpretations at the systems and complexity levels of transformation.