Rowitz On Leadership

I have a fantasy of going to a public health conference and seeing every attendee wearing multiple badges . Each badge represents another organization or group to which the individual belongs. We human beings are complex and we love to join and belong to many different groups and organizations. With the advances in Internet access, the number of badges we have has grown exponentially. Each badge represents a silo. In SILOS, POLITICS AND TURF WARS, Lencioni(2006) describes silos as ideologically based places that create walls between us and them. Thus, barriers are created that make us work against those that represent other groups within our organization or barriers to groups and organizations external to a specified silo. Each of us also create barriers between the groups and organization to which we give our allegiances. We compartmentalize ourselves and create disconnects for ourselves. For example, we often create silos for our church, synagogue, or mosque and our workplace. As leaders, we need to create balance in our lives and also find ways to work across our personal silos as well as our groups and organizational silos(see Meta-Leadership 2.0 article for April 2009).

Each silo has a paradigm that defines the values and dimensions of the silo. In FUTURE EDGE( renamed PARADIGMS in the paperback edition), Barker (1992) defines the paradigm as a model with a given set of rules, regulations, and protocols that create the boundaries for our actions and a set of behaviors that guide our personal actions. The paradigm boundaries can expand or contract depending upon the ability of the model to maintain its integrity. Change puts pressure on the paradigm. If the changes no longer fit the model, then the paradigm needs to be revised or changed. Leaders test the boundaries of paradigms and become paradigm shifters or paradigm busters.

Silos have governing paradigms that guide the activities of members of the silo. Leaders within the silo or in another silo within the organization, or in other organizations outside the silo test the paradigms that define that silo. Change can come from many different sources that daily test the paradigms of our lives. Since silos can limit our ability to grow and create change, models are needed to help us address the impact of these silo identities on action. Lencioni presents one four component model for preventing the negative effects of these silos and paradigms within a perspective of shared leadership on a team. First, goal alignment becomes possible with a single and time-limited thematic goal. Second, a series of defining objectives are determined. Third a set of up to a half dozen standard operating procedures and objectives are defined. Measurements of success are then set up by the leadership team. As the goals are reached, the process begins again. If these steps are followed systematically, then silos become difficult to form and sustain. Paradigms are ever changing and are useful for guiding action, but they become ossified when they get tied to silos.

At the personal level, silos and paradigms need to be integrated into a comprehensive whole that helps guide the individual in all his or her life activities. This attempt to blend our paradigms creates a more unified approach to living our lives and to remove the walls between our personal silos.  Whereas the metaleader recognizes the reality of silos and the need to work across these silos, the synergistic leader recognizes that silos and their governing paradigms create barriers to change that must be overcome if new approaches to collaboration and connectivity  are to bring new comprehensive approaches that go beyond the existing paradigms at the organizational and systems levels.  Change is a constant in our personal and organizational lives.   The synergistic leader is oriented to change and constantly modifies our paradigms as new information enters our world.  This leader also finds that the value of connection always delivers more than the initial inputs to the relationship.

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.

     At a policy level, Americans talk about the need to protect the separation of church and state. However, this policy position does not mean that faith leaders do not have an important role in public health practice. Public health leaders and leaders in the not for profit sector often work closely together to address health promotion and disease prevention activities in communities across the United States. In fact both the faith community and the public health practice community believe strongly in social justice and the need to promote health equity for all our people. In this month’s article, I want to explore how the faith community helps us to better understand our agenda to protect the health of the public. Hopefully, we can also begin a dialogue on how the faith-based leaders can better collaborate with public health leaders.

There are four dimensions of faith-based leadership that are the foundation of the work of these leaders in the community. The four dimensions are love for all our fellow residents on this planet, belief that there is a higher power guiding our actions, support for the institution of the family as the critical organization for our future, and the strong belief in community in that we do better together than alone. In his book BOWLING ALONE, Putnam talks about social capital and how we build community infrastructure when we work together. The leadership writer Peter Block( COMMUNITY: THE STRUCTURE OF BELONGING,2008) pointed out that we can create a better future by working with all our community leaders. He mentioned at least six ways to create this better future. We do this by shifting from a retribution approach to resolving our differences ( a community equity approach), concentrating on possibilities rather than problems( a challenge model), concentration on ways to give back to our communities rather than promulgating fear and blame ( a social entrepreneurship model), moving from a reliance on old rules, regulations, and protocols rather than our creative ability to make change that build our social fabric in a more positive way( a model for creative tension and synergy), strengthening our associations ( a social capital model), and finally moving from leaders making our decisions to real citizen response ability ( a shared leadership approach). Our real secret to success is to create change through positive and crucial conversations. Communication is the tool to our successes.

In a very interesting book Mitroff and Denton(A SPIRITUAL AUDIT OF CORPORATE AMERICA,1999), defined spirituality a a blending our minds and emotions to discover the real meaning of life. They stated that people want their lives to be integrated rather than fragmented. Religion is different than spirituality. People do not want to be criticized for looking for meaning in their lives. It is spirituality that helps us to relate to others and to respect our differences. I would use the concept of ethical leadership to exemplify leaders who perceive and conceptualize the orld around them in a framework that supports public values and strong empathy for others. The components of ethical leadership involve the practice of leadership with organizational and community purposes in mind, the use of knowledge and the management of that knowledge to inquire and judge and act in a prudent manner, the power to make decisions in accordance with personal and organizational and community values, and inspiring trust in our organization and community. Ethical leaders work with others through inspiration, facilitation, persuasion, and gentle manipulation.

Leadership in the public sector supports laws and the values of the communities that leaders serve. Public health and faith leaders are the stewards of their communities and are thus held to high ethical standards. The real purpose of collaboration is to create a shared vision based on trust, spiritual and secular beliefs and values, and the creation of community strategies that go beyond thee agendas of any particular group member. For example in an emergency situation, it is important for public health and faith leaders to work collaboratively in the humanitarian response to the crisis. This is done through the coordination of planning activities with emergency response partners, helping people to cope with disaster, finding meaning and understanding of the crisis event, helping in the mental health response, restoring hope, showing care, giving support, and helping to reestablish community identity. Thus, through a leap of faith, we can address all our concerns and create a better world for ourselves and others.

    One of the purposes of this blog column is to extend ideas beyond their original formulation. In Chapter 3 of Rowitz, 2009, I presented the Management and Leadership Continuum(Figure 3-4). On the left part of the continuum(the first half) was the management activities of the leaders. These activities included the traditional management activities of planning, organizing, leading within organizations and controlling. These activities are described in detail in the classic textbook by Stephen Robbins and Mary Coulter(MANAGEMENT, 8^TH Edition, Prentice-Hall, 2005). The center of the continuum addresses the major issue of building and maintaining relationships both inside and outside the organization. This part of the continuum was labeled Transactional Leadership. Reciprocity is a key component in transactional leadership. The right side of the continuum was all about change in the form of policy, new models of understanding the application of systems perspectives to the change process, and maintaining ethical standards. Transformational leadership is a series of complex issues that are required of systems change.  Two other forms of leadership practice need to be added to the continuum.  Managerial leadership blends the skills of management with the transactional skills of people development.  Strategic leadership blends the needs of making transformational change work strategically and also in practice(transactional leadership and transformational leadership) .

THE LEADERSHIP CHANGE TRIANGLE

Change

       MANAGEMENT             TRANSACTIONAL         TRANSFORMATIONAL

                                              LEADERSHIP                LEADERSHIP

                     MANAGERIAL                           STRATEGIC

                     LEADERSHIP                            LEADERSHIP

     Change occurs at all parts of the continuum. The table above begins the discussion of understanding change at the managerial level where organizations change in ways that increase organizational effectiveness and efficiency . Change at the transactional level involves improvements in relationship-building as well as the impact of new relationships on strengthening external stakeholder involvement in public health. It is in the combination of strengths associated with managment tasks and building relationships at the transactional level that managerial leadership occurs.  Relationships expand to include more community-based partners to ensure that all residents of a community have health access. It is at the transformational level that systems change, social justice issues, social determinants of health and health inequities are addressed. New policies get formulated and health impacts are addressed in order to monitor the effects of these systemic changes.  At the transactional leadership level, actions plans to implement transformational change occurs.  It is through managerial leadership that action plans are made concrete and lead to change within organizations. 

    Leadership is all about change and increasing the sense of urgency for change to occur( See John P. Kotter, A SENSE OF URGENCY, Harvard Business Press, 2008).

This column is an excerpt from Webinar Presentation by Dr. Rowitz for the California-Hawaii Public Health Leadership Institute on February 26, 2009

    In conversations with many public health managers and leaders over the years, I have often been asked about the availability of tools to help them become more effective administrators and collaborators. Administrators often come to workshops and seminars looking for tools, exercises, books and articles, drills and tabletop simulations to add to their toolkit of resources to use in their agencies or with external stakeholders. This article will begin an exploration of tools for public health leaders and managers. This article will be supplemented with a series of tools and exercises that will be posted in a new column in this blog. The Book Club has already been initiated. This club will add a new book each month for leaders to expand their personal knowledge base. The tools page will add new tools and exercises that will add to those discussed in my two books on public health leadership.

    Tools are resources that help leaders carry out the work of public health or other health related endeavors. These tools can be used in multiple ways. For example, a tool can enhance the linear activities of an agency that use tools that follow a number of steps to carry out a such things as a planning process or a specific conflict resolution or negotiation process. For those who feel more comfortable with a systems oriented approach, the tools will need to be modified to address these big picture activities. The tools of a leader might include resources of the following types:

1. Core Functions and Essential Public Health Services
2. Community Assessment Tools
3. Assurance and Program Evaluation Tools
4. Program Development Tools
5. Performance Management Tools
6. National Performance Standards
7. Collaboration Tools
8. Policy and Law Tools
9. Nominal Group Process
10. Idea Mapping Tools
11. Strategic Planning and Action Tools
12. CQI Tools
13. Community Building Tools
14. Creativity and Idea Generation Tools Large Group Process Tools
15. Storytelling Tools and Exercises

I hope that you will comment on specific tools which you find useful. New tools and exercises will be added to the tool page in the future.

    Many of us have attended numerous presentations by national leaders in our respective fields at conventions, conferences, luncheons, and other professional venues. As I was preparing to give a presentation last summer at a state public health association meeting, I noticed a pattern in the way that speakers gave their talks to a large professional audience. In order to gain an understanding of their presentation styles, I saw a number of interesting characteristics of speaker presentation styles. This article will show you and perhaps create a template for giving a formal group presentation. Perhaps a touch or two of humor will allow us the opportunity to have some fun with ourselves. Here are the ten rules to follow in your formal presentations:

    Rule 1: Stand behind the podium so that you look professional and clearly an expert- The podium also gives the professional organization the chance to advertise themselves on the front of the podium. Speakers tend to hold on to the sides of the podium to protect themselves from falling off the dais. The microphone is attached to the podium so that you cannot walk around the dais.

    Rule 2: Follow the dress code for speakers even if the clothes make you feel uncomfortable- Men need to wear jackets and conservative ties. Women do have some clothing options. A Hilary Clinton pantsuit would be appropriate or an unpatterned dress with a jacket would also work. Shorts and blue jeans are out for both men and women.

    Rule 3: Do not look at the audience when you read your paper, but if you do glance outward make it a quick look- Our presentations tend to be more and more complex these days. Thus, many speakers write out their presentations in order to keep in the time frame for their presentation and not to forget any critical content. However, audience members have told me that they forget many of the details of these presentations as soon as they leave the auditorium or large meeting room.

    Rule 4: Put lots of numbers in your slide presentation so that nobody beyond the first three rows can see-
It seems that slides are getting more complex than they used to be. Many speakers also go through the slides with a commentary that does not relate to the slide presentation. Stories and anecdotes work better.

    Rule 5: Tell jokes and stories with no relevance to your talk- Somebody has told the speakers that humor adds to the presentation and helps the audience to keep alert during the presentation. Humor is clearly good if the speaker shows the relationship between the joke or story to the content of the talk.

    Rule 6: Talk about the theme of the meeting in as confusing a manner as possible- The organizers of the meeting want the meeting theme to be part of the plenary presentations. However many presenters have canned speeches that they give at numerous meetings and often struggle to address the theme in their talks. Thus, the theme portion of the talk often seems unrelated to the talk being presented.

    Rule 7: Do not involve the audience in the presentation- Plenary talks are talking head experiences. We do not want audience interrupting the flow of the presentation. We clearly do not want the audience involved in the presentation through exercises and dialogue. In order to show the dominance of the speaker in the process, it is important to always run over in time.

    Rule 8: Leave quickly after your presentation or do noit leave time for questions that you may not be able to answer- It also seems that many speakers have canned answers to potential questions that they think may be asked. Even when a question is asked that does not fit their planned answers, they give the answer anyway.

    Rule 9: Arrange the room auditorium or classroom style so that the audience members can’t see each other sleep- It is important for the speaker to give the impression that everyone in the room loves every word that the speaker gives. Seeing people sleep does not help the speaker to give this image of great expertise and great interest in the talk by the audience.

    Rule 10:Mumble and speak in a monotone- Since much of the talk is confusing, mumbling helps to confuse the audience. Giving the audience a talk in a monotone style seems to not interfere with the sleep patterns of your audience.

    The real challenge for the speaker who wants to involve the audience in the great potential for learning is to break as many of the above rules as possible. I challenge you do try to change the way we have given talks in the past and engage our audiences.

Adapted by Dr. Louis Rowitz from a presentation on leadership in public health at both the 2008 Annual Meetings of the Wisconsin Public Health Association and the Arizona Public Health Association.