chapter TWELVE

Building a Leadership Model

“No rest for the weary,” Duncan liked to say to leaders like Ralph who have done the equivalent of the personal model work described in Chapter Eleven and are ready for the next big phase: developing a leadership model. ¹

First I present the rough overview Duncan provided for Ralph for this phase, followed by a description of how he and Ralph proceeded with the work.

AN OVERVIEW

Models underlie how we think, what we see, and how we act on what we see when we interact with the world. They are, in the broadest sense, our picture of the world and our map of how we intend to go about working in that world. As master modeler, master architect Frank Lloyd Wright once said, “The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in the thing makes it happen.”² Wright’s distinct buildings have different functions and exist in different environments, and yet are all easily recognizable manifestations of Wright’s architectural model. In it, he captured the essence of what he believed to be true about good architecture and how that could be expressed through the buildings themselves.

Models arise intuitively, often outside our day-to-day conscious awareness. Spurred by the need to grasp the social world, we start building our social models of that world at a very early age. The process becomes second nature and almost entirely automatic as our models take in a constant stream of new information, incorporating it into our maps of the social world and telling us how to respond. These models are expressions of each person’s unique identity.

Anyone can deliberately build a model, but few people do much of it. Instead, they remain dependent on their unconsciously developed models, missing opportunities to increase the reliability, efficiency, and effectiveness of those models in guiding their lives. Conscious model building is a disciplined process and encompasses the discovery of what it is we think we do, how we actually do what we say we do, why we do what we do, who we are when we are taking these actions, and what we hope to achieve with the actions we take. In building a model, we can systematically examine our implicit models in order to choose which of their aspects to keep, which to reshape, and which to discard altogether in the face of a demanding future. The process lets us become deliberate about how we, in this case, choose to lead.

Being aware of and being able to articulate one’s own models inevitably increase their strength and influence. This awareness and ability also provide the recognition that everyone operates from models, making us more open and interested in learning about the models and logics of others. It is essential to be able to recognize one’s own and others’ models because of an implicit paradox, which is that every model brings both clarity and distortion to one’s perceptions of the world: clarity in that we would be unable to make any sense of the world (circumstances, facts, data, problems, opportunities, people) without some sort of model or template; distortion in that every model reduces the complexity of what we can see. One of the greatest benefits of consciously examining our models is the realization that “truth” is in some ways a construct of our model. This awareness opens us up to the possibilities of others’ model-defined truth.

Social Models and Cross-Model Conversation

The ideas here should sound familiar from Chapter One, in which I introduced the concepts of cross-model conversation and model clash. One person’s model varies inevitably from that of someone else, and some degree of tension is always present in social interaction stretching between our “truth” and the “truth” as the “other’s” model defines it. Potentially, these tensions (and even outright model clashes) provide important developmental opportunities: the interplay between your model and those of others leads to an increase of the reliability, efficiency, and effectiveness of your own. Too often, however, in the course of a clash, we interpret the pushback from others as mere “noise” and continue on without acknowledging or learning from it.

The Use of Cross-Model Conversation

Any time people express their differences, they do so through the lens of their models. A closed parent will have a different view from a random parent about whether a child of ten can set his own bedtime hour and about how to handle a seventeen-year-old’s experiments with alcohol. At home and at work, our profiles, in all their component parts, lead to such clashes. In a sense, these are all cross model-conversations.

Cross-model conversation is a very specific process for dialogue, grounded in the idea that the difference between the ways two people view the world is not a problem if they have a way to constructively explore these differences. Cross-model conversation is a two-way reflective conversation dominated by sincere inquiry into how the other views the world. It aims at deepening the discourse by offering the other an opportunity to substantiate or supplement his or her model and by doing the same with one’s own. Two principles underlie the process:

• Difference is a key source of learning about ourselves and our models.
• It is pointless to assert that one model is “better” than another. Every model has its limits, which we must face in order to be able to grow. The only “bad” model is one that does not recognize its own limits, wrongly assumes it is complete, and presumes itself better than other models.

When you have become adept at the cross-model conversation process, you will be able to more effectively capitalize on the value of the diverse models around you—ready to compare and improve your own.

MODEL BUILDING AND THE MODEL OF MODELS

Model building is the discipline of reflecting on and systematically enhancing our deeply embedded views of the world, of ourselves, and of our work. It begins with standing outside ourselves to observe our interactions in the world, noticing how our behaviors come together with the behaviors of others to produce both good and bad results, then incorporating those reflections back into our underlying belief systems.

In Figure 12.1, note the term displayed model. In exploring our models, we typically start with our observable practices and behaviors, the most tangible and accessible aspect of our implicit models. Our practices are what we actually say and do in response to the world. Too often we try to change these practices at the surface level, trying to just “do something different.” This approach ignores the fact that practices are merely expressions of an underlying belief system. In order to change what we do, as is often the goal of model building, we must have a greater sense of where our behaviors originate and why our model instructs us to use the practices we follow. Without knowledge of the what and why of our model, we cannot change the how.

Figure 12.1 The Process of Model Building

Steps in the Process of Model Building

Model building on the ground is dynamic and interactive, but it also relies on reflection, from which continuous change and growth take place. To simplify a complex but altogether manageable process, I will describe it in steps:

Constraint Defined

Constraint is the creative tension that is generated when proponents of two or more different theories, methods, approaches, or models engage in conversation or other face-to-face transactions. It has been proposed in these pages as the core principle behind the practice of cross-model conversation. It is, as noted in the previous section, just as critical to the process of model building. Indeed, model building can be seen as an ongoing cross-model conversation between a practitioner and her clients, session by session, throughout her career.

In the room, constraint—challenge or push-back from one or more of the sources cited in the previous list—can have either disappointing or exciting new results. Postsession reflection out of the room, the appropriate response to constraint, should implicitly be seen as ever present in the discussion of the model of models that follows.

Model building may sound dauntingly abstract. How do we know which of our countless beliefs, memories, and so on are influencing our behaviors at any given time? To think about what to look for as you unearth and organize your model, it is useful to have an overarching set of theories (or requirements) that I call a meta-model. This is not hard to grasp. The meta-model (or “model of models”) is a framework that defines the aspects of a fully formed and robust model. Within it we can organize and interrelate the pieces of our models. Any social meta-model needs to propose three kinds of theories: theories of the thing, of change, and of practice. ³

A Theory of the Thing

A theory of the thing names and describes the entity on which your model focuses:

• What is it? For example, this book presents a systems-oriented theory and examines the skill of leadership.
• What are the underpinnings of that skill? This book singles out communicative skill, beginning with communication in face-to-face relations.
• What assumptions does the thing (leadership here) depend on? One assumption in this book is that leadership often entails leading high-performing teams.
• What are the component parts from which the thing (leadership) is built? Or how is it supposed to work? Charisma? Knowledge of the behavioral profile?
• Can a set of principles define the thing (leadership)? Or can a set of linked concepts present a coherent picture of the whole?

Approach these questions through specific ones like these:

• What is “high team performance”?
• How would you define leadership to someone who has never heard of it?
• What (moral) values must a leader possess?
• How do you identify good leadership in others? How do you know it when you see it?
• What specific characteristics, actions, and beliefs define a leader?
• How does leadership fit into the landscape of your personal model of how the world works?
• What kinds of leaders do you admire and why?
• What experiences have shaped your definition of leadership?

A Theory of Change

The theory of change says how to bring about change for that thing on which your model focuses. It describes the nature of change and how change happens within or for the entity:

• What are the prerequisites of change (in our case, the changing of a person to become a better leader)?
• How does change happen? What brings it about?
• Is there a consistent process that leads to change?
• How does context—time, place, and person—affect change?
• Does change occur the same way in an intimate human system versus a larger, more impersonal one? Specifically, if someone wanted to change some entity, how would that person bring change about?
• How can change be sustained?

For the thing called leadership, you may need to consider these questions:

• Specifically how do leaders bring about the changes they desire in themselves and in others?
• If leadership’s goal is better team performance, what is the baseline, and what is the standard (in this book “communicative competency”) at the other end?
• What is it that brings about change in a leader?
• Through what stages does a leader evolve?
• What contextual factors affect an effort to change a leader?
• How can a leader sustain newly developed characteristics?

A Theory of Practice

A theory of practice suggests what actions should occur based on your understanding of the thing and how it changes:

• What actions must be taken in order for the thing (leadership) to change?
• What is the goal of our practices?
• What tools, techniques, and methods can be used?
• What are the practices acting on? For example, Duncan’s practice “acted on” Ralph’s profile and his tacit model.
• Must practices follow a certain sequence? In principle, yes; Duncan saw ten “critical junctures” Ralph needed to work through to reach functional self-awareness (Chapter Eleven), and there was some order to the ten. At the same time, those ten practices did tend to advance in a spiral produced under reality’s circular influence.
• Is the theory of practice consistent with the theories of the thing and of change?

• What are your leadership goals?
• What characteristic actions or practices do you want others to associate with your leadership?
• What specific tools, techniques, and methods do you use as part of your leadership?
• What new behaviors are you capable of incorporating into your leadership? How do you want these behaviors to evolve throughout your leader­ship life?

The theory of practice of leadership unites your theory of leadership (“effective leaders tend to do X or Y”) with your own behavior as a leader.

When we have done the work of articulating our current model’s theories of the thing, of change, and of practice, we can then critically examine each to determine how they are meeting our needs. A key task of model building is choosing which aspects of our current models we will keep, which we will reshape, and which we will discard altogether. Because our models to date have mostly formed unconsciously, they may contain outdated beliefs and unproductive practices, and may even lack a theory of change. No model is ever perfect or complete. Any model can be improved through a conscious model-building effort.

Three Stages of Building

As we progress from discovering our implicit models to actively enhancing them, we tend to seek out other models from which to learn. This proactive exploration represents the first of the three stages of model building, visualized in Figure 12.2. I call the stages imitation, constraint, and autonomy.

Figure 12.2 Three Stages of Model Building

In stage one, imitation, we read about other models, seek out mentors, or enter a program where we are being coached by someone whose model we want to explore. We try to temporarily surrender our own model in order to more fully understand the model of the other. Often clumsily, we try to imitate that other’s model to see how it fits, complements, and contradicts the one we currently have.

In stage two, constraint, we begin to test the limits of the other’s model and restore possession of our own. This is done by productively “constraining” the model of the other: exploring ways in which it is incomplete or breaks down in some circumstances. All models, when put to the test, will occasionally fail. The best models are simply those that recognize their limitations and continue to evolve.

In the stage of constraint, model building becomes two-way. The constraint we offer to the other’s imitated model, if reflected on and incorporated, can expand both the other’s model and the one we are building as we say yes to that but not to this. The process is, in effect, a special form of cross-model conversation, a process essential in this phase of building one’s own model. As will be discussed in the companion workbook to Reading the Room, Making Change Happen, cross-model conversation can proceed when your model is constrained, let’s say, by another leader’s model.

In the third and final stage, autonomy, we evolve our own practice model (and, for the well advised, the theories of the thing and of change that drive it) into a more developed and mature version of its former self by adopting those aspects of the imitated model that are most critical to us and rejecting the rest. At this point we have moved from wholesale “borrowing” to a more independent focus on our own model, developed enough for others to imitate.

Model building is really a lifelong pursuit. When we cannot find, deeper within our model, an answer to a legitimate constraint, the cycle can begin again.

Articulating our models signals that we are ready to begin enhancing them. For a model to be imitated or constrained by others, we first have to find a way to share it with them. Without a statement of our models, other people are left to simply interpret and judge our behaviors. These interpretations are filtered through their own models; therefore, they are more a statement about their models than ours. If we want others to see and understand our model, we should be able to say, for example, “In my model, leadership is … ” Once we are truly clear about the model, we will find clarity about how to express it.

Model building is not easy. Organizations wanting to develop their high-potentials into future leaders will have to decide whether the investment seems worth it. It is no secret that I am trying to make a case for it as a wise investment that will pay off. Business schools, the dominant training field for business leaders, also must decide whether what they do to prepare leaders could be significantly enhanced by incorporating into their programs something of what is being offered here.

Greenspan: A Good Model That Failed

Alan Greenspan is one leader who did the hard work of building a model on the ground—and did it well until circumstances demanded an appropriate response to legitimate constraint. Ralph and all model builders will encounter this same barrier as they build on the ground.

I reiterate, Greenspan was exceptionally conscientious in how he chose his theoretical sources and built his model step-by-step, according to the meta-model. His theory of the thing (the financial market) was clear, as was his theory of change about how that market evolves, if left alone, on a steady gradually rising slope; and in his theory of practice, he was attentive in his use of empirical methods—data gathering and analysis—as a basis for decision making.

Starting by imitation, he drew initially from the models of established economists like Milton Friedman. Later, like many in his youthful generation, he also came under the influence of the novelist and social thinker Ayn Rand, adopting and subsequently for many years holding fast to one of her major assumptions: faith in the individual’s wisdom to do the right thing in both the rational and moral sense. But the obvious constraining question neither Rand nor Greenspan apparently posed or answered: “Why, then, do individuals act irrationally and immorally?” In the end, his and his model’s downfall was prepared by his refusal to give proper due to constraints.

In Chapter Ten, I discussed the moral necessity of explicit constraints and of an openness to consider new constraints as they become apparent. Every model when watched closely over time develops contradictions and qualifications. Greenspan had sensed the key constraint earlier when he had questioned Rand on a different but similar fundamental issue: “Would an individual who saw a need for government voluntarily pay taxes?”

“They would,” she had argued with persuasive power. At that moment, he writes, he bought into her model, then carried her philosophical banner until the model failed with near disastrous consequences. Only years later did he acknowledge the “flaw” in his model, long after Brooksley Born, the government regulator, had confronted him and his belief that the market, left on its own, would regulate against fraud. Continue the story from there to the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent 2010 congressional hearing in which legislators examined the role of federal regulators in 2008. Pressed as to whether his fundamental economic policy was “wrong,” Greenspan said, “Yes. I found a flaw.”

Congressman: “You found a flaw in the reality.”

Greenspan: “Flaw in the model that I perceived as the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.”

What he doesn’t say is that his flaw was not only in how he mishandled Born’s legitimate constraints on his model and its core assumptions but also in his longtime refusal to engage in an effective cross-model conversation.

As I said earlier, put to the test, all models will occasionally fail. The best models are simply those that recognize their limitations as revealed by legitimate constraints, and continue to endlessly evolve.

FINDING RALPH “ON THE GROUND”

Before we begin this model-building journey “on the ground” with Ralph, let’s look at how he reacted to Duncan’s introduction:

RALPH: That was a lot to digest. How in hell does anyone learn it all?

DUNCAN: You learn as you go along in your practice. It seems overwhelming, but you have a personal handle on the language system of structural dynamics, and you are motivated to think theory in concert with practice, unlike most executives.

RALPH: Right. “Too damn busy.”

DUNCAN: It may surprise you that many coaches are much the same. They’ve studied under someone else, and therefore they already “have a theory,” even though in fact they have no model that truly fits them. Executives, coaches: for different reasons, neither tear themselves away from whatever their practices are. Nor do they need to.

RALPH: Hold on. You’re saying they’re fine as they are? Then why am I jumping through all these—

DUNCAN: Hoops? Yes, in the short run their models suffice, but not in the long. People are ritualists; they do the same things over and over, repeating the same mistakes, trying harder with solutions that do not work. When you live in a hurricane zone, you try to build your house to stand up to hurricanes. You don’t consider that it might be better, long term, to pick up and build somewhere else. Leaders and coaches see themselves living in hurricane zones, in constant threat of the unexpected—“If I could just make these windows thicker!” Once they build well enough to survive in high stakes, once they build that model, they have no inclination to give it up for something that might be better.

RALPH: But the short run is real; my time right now is real and objective. And limited: twenty-four hours in a day. How do you convince “busy people,” as Sonia describes me and others like me, to think otherwise and find time to ever look much ahead?

DUNCAN: First, when a model in process passes a certain threshold, it begins to save time. You make fewer mistakes, you spend less time making amends and picking up the debris the wind blew in, you lose less talent to avoidable personal storms, and you act sooner to open the exit door to those who do not belong. The net time gain in the long term far exceeds the time, in the short term, that you put into passing the threshold.

Second, when you get around to designing a life worth living, you may revise your thinking about measured time. Measured time is the only kind of time busy people know. They live by the clock and calendar. When you and Sonia design a life worth living, you will discover that there are other kinds of time.

From here we follow Ralph well into the three stages of building his model: imitation, constraint, and autonomy. Keep the Greenspan story in mind as you notice Ralph’s attention to the moral dimension and his honoring of constraints. Of course, life at ClearFacts did not stop while Ralph took up his model.

ART’S DEPARTURE AND A NEW APPROACH TO HIRING FOR THE TEAM

In the continuing aftermath of the Asia office crisis, marketing director Art Saunders resigned in spite of generous offers from Ralph aimed at getting him to stay. His departure and Howard’s firing left two seats vacant on the leadership team. In addition, a decision had been reached to add two additional members to the team, for a total of eight.

When Art’s moment had come to decide whether to stay or to leave the firm, Duncan had been commissioned to offer him a package (no travel, no long days into night except by necessity, paid leave when his next child was born, and so forth). Art’s refusal of the offer led to a meeting between Art and Ralph to finalize his departure.

ART: Just so you know, Duncan did a great job in presenting your kind offer to help me stay. It touched me deeply how well he understood my dilemma. Even Jane, when I told her, was impressed with the new terms.

RALPH: They still stand. They represent our regard for your creative genius. But more, Art, they represent the affection I and others have for you as a human being.

ART: (Silently allows a tear)

RALPH: (Graciously extends the silence, merely nodding, mumbling something like, “good man”; then, to lighten the mood) Just don’t let Jane talk to Sonia, or I may be following you out the door. She doesn’t like the ugly side of this warlike world any more than Jane.

ART: Again, just so you know. Duncan’s the culprit, not Jane. She has wanted me out of the business world from the day I started. The moment I really decided to leave was when Duncan helped me see that the decision to stay or leave was mine, not hers.

RALPH: And how did Duncan help you come to that moment?

ART: By helping me end my fight with my father. I discovered I was here, not because of him, but because I did not have the stuff to take him to the mat. In that moment of insight, I could stay or leave. I chose to leave.

RALPH Whew! A lot to think about. I see you’re giving me the green light to get on with the business of managing the transition. We’ll need your help in choosing your replacement.

One of the issues that Art’s departure raises for CEOs and organizations is what to do with people who, for the sake of making a living, become performance leaders, when their natural, profile-based inclinations are different from what a career of “performing” requires of them. Often they stay on and become more miserable. (To this problem, structural dynamics has proposed a radical but viable solution called Five Leadership Pathways. Briefly, it proposes that at a key juncture in a long career, leaders be afforded the opportunity to remain vibrant in their organizations by choosing from among five different leadership pathways: the performance leader, the vision leader, the citizen leader, the wisdom leader, and the exit leader. Ralph took great interest in this model.⁴)

Turning to the problem of rebuilding the team, Ralph worked in concert with his leadership team to round out the eight positions. Duncan assisted him with some guidelines like the ones listed here. Notice that this list introduces an entirely new way of choosing high-level people, including ensuring balance based on a distribution of behavioral profiles. Art’s and Howard’s positions were filled from within; so was the first new position, by a high-performing leader with many years’ service; an external search filled the remaining new position.

• Hire for skill set, but even more important, choose people whose profiles match the job and fit in with the team’s individual and group profile.
• Choose for a diversity of profiles to balance openness, getting business done, and creativity.
• Make a determined effort to identify the recruit’s dark-side behavior, inquiring into how he or she behaves or misbehaves in high-stakes situations.
• Create an interview format that reveals what the candidate does in the room rather than what she and others say she has done elsewhere. For fairness in this game, the interviewer should, before ending, explain the intention and what was found; not incidentally, this discussion can elicit even more valuable information.
• The team should be aware of each interviewer’s behavioral profile and how it might distort or bias the findings of candidate interviews. (We saw this bias when Ralph hired Ron.)

Within weeks, the team was reconstructed, and Duncan began working with it toward a level of communicative competency required for the achievement of collective intelligence—a level of team performance measurably superior to the sum of individual performances. In this effort he used his own adaptation of a process or model called Accelerating Team Performance (ATP), which I’ll describe in detail in this chapter. As you will see, Ralph would decide to imitate this ATP model in the course of building his own leadership model.

Duncan also began individual coaching with Martha and Ron. Martha had already indicated that she saw herself both as participant and apprentice trainer, and, once having earned the right, she was bent on developing an individual coaching model and on using the ATP process with her own team and elsewhere in the company where specific teams made critical decisions. Ron also moved forward with determination, though less eagerly than Martha because he had yet to deal with his childhood theme of “being cautious about whom you trust.”

Duncan also began to coach Ian, but only after much soul searching on Ian’s part, two intense private talks between them, and an agreement that Ian could opt out of the coaching after a certain number of sessions. (He would later decide to continue, but with reservations about personal disclosures. Ian would also confirm Duncan’s hunch that disclosure would be an act of disloyalty to his father, who may have physically abused his mother.)

The team had thrown a send-off party for Art to celebrate his future. At moments tearful, the event had triggered some deep soul searching in Ron and Martha about what it meant to be on the firing line for “the most vigorously precious period in one’s life.” Ralph, too, had thoughts on the subject, particularly as he and Sonia had begun “designing a life worth living,” as you will read in Chapter Thirteen. Recognizing Ron’s and Martha’s personal struggles, Ralph was considering how to design a workplace worth living in for loyal and talented people who work so hard and long that their once-green and energetic spirits dissolve or rust in tedium or exhaustion. For the time being, he decided to trust Duncan’s claim that a leader who commits to the never-ending process of building his model will neither get bored nor burn out, and that designing a life worth living would keep work life and personal life in balance.

RALPH BUILDS HIS LEADERSHIP MODEL

Recall the three phases of building a model: imitation, constraint, and autonomy. The following describes Ralph’s work mainly in the first two phases.

Ralph’s Imitation Phase of Model Building

Beginning by imitation means trying out someone else’s basic model on a problem of one’s own—in other words, learning by doing. Ralph chose to start by imitating an existing model: Duncan’s version of the one called ATP. Learning by doing is implicit in that model.

Learning by Doing 

Duncan has recommended learning by doing to other clients who have come to him for coaching, be they freelance consultants who seek training in how to consult better or forward-thinking executives who want to lead better. When the client arrives, as most of them do, with a problem that has stumped his or her present resources, the best learning will come from actually working on the problem, partly because progress in solving the problem will be a good measure of whether the learning is valuable and effective.

Here are examples of two other clients that Duncan shared with Ralph to illustrate the range of clients seeking help with their models. Initially, he said, their circumstances might look quite different from Ralph’s, but the basic techniques Duncan used were not.

The first client was a physician who came to Duncan for executive coaching. “Dr. J. is a department head in a hospital with a record of high numbers of ‘preventable mistakes’ and unnecessary fatalities.” He was in transition to a new job in another state, where he would lead a key decision-making team.

“Most doctors are arrogant,” Dr. J. told Duncan. “They have the same mentality as those guys on Wall Street who cause us to lose money. Arrogant doctors lead to loss of life. They intimidate subordinates and don’t listen. And they make decisions in their own, not in patients’, interests.”

Dr. J. had taken the Behavioral Propensities Profile (BPP)and was arranging for his new team members to do the same. In current practice, interns learn in part from simulations of live medical procedures. The stakes are high because their superiors are present. The stakes are further raised by the sudden introduction of an emergency in which the simulated patient’s life is endangered. These routinely videotaped situations are perfect for analysis of behavior change under pressure. In addition, Dr. J.’s team of high-level decision makers would, like Ralph’s, participate in the Accelerated Team Performance program. The hypothesis was that if this team could achieve communicative competency, they would positively influence that part of the hospital’s interactional culture that tended to put patient safety at risk.

When he came to Duncan, Dr. J. was already under the pressure of fast-moving events. For Duncan’s second coaching client, Lisa, an independent consultant, the urgency was even greater: she was already in a firestorm. When she began with Duncan, she had just been hired to help a CEO and the CEO’s poorly functioning team; and in one-on-one interviews with team members, Lisa had learned that the CEO was regarded by the team as a “tyrant,” largely unaware of how her “controlling,” “dismissive,” and “humiliating” behavior was demoralizing the team and undercutting its performance. She had had the CEO take the BPP and met with her to discuss the results and how these would likely impact team members with different profiles. The CEO had then asked Lisa to facili­tate a team meeting, the outcome of which, the CEO implied, would affect the prospect of Lisa’s being hired as executive coach and continuing as team facilitator.

RALPH: So this doctor and the consultant both faced challenges to whatever model they had been using up to that point.

DUNCAN: Right. Which is your situation, too. Both also presented a challenge to me as the one who was just about to start helping them build their models.

RALPH: But, unlike me, both were already seriously under the gun, so they needed the speeded-up version of what the two of us have been doing.

DUNCAN: Ralph, you had problems, too, when we first started working together. The dynamite was there; only, Howard hadn’t yet lit the fuse.

RALPH: So you were asking them to sit back and ponder models when the fuses were already burning?

DUNCAN: Well … All right, it’s fair to ask whether they and I could possibly do justice to the complex, demanding task of model building while simultaneously facing immediate problems on the scale of theirs. But I say unequivocally yes: simultaneously learning while doing makes the doing go better.

RALPH: Too bad, then; we’ve already dealt with Howard (laughs). But now that you mention ongoing problems, I have one with my R&D group.

DUNCAN: Okay. Out with it.

RALPH: And I must confess I’m worried, even nervous, and I’m admitting that to you though it’s something I’ve not said many times in my life, except to Sonia. And not just nervous from the thought of my being under your microscope. I’ve recently discovered that two of my best R&D guys are in a serious fight. Najjar favors our decision to invest more in Asia than here in the States. Beresford insists on making the case for U.S. investments, and—

DUNCAN: (Gently interrupting) Okay, that’s “content,” so set all that aside for now. What is going on structurally?

RALPH: Well, Beresford is a bit of a p—k: arrogant until challenged, then a bully.

DUNCAN: Now you’re into structure, kind of, but you’re coating it in moralistic language. A bias against this guy Beresford?

RALPH: Okay, I’ll wash my mouth with soap. Beresford seems to be one of those movers in power who moves, moves, moves, effectively silencing opposers and leaving no space for other movers.

DUNCAN: That’s better. Your next task is to diagnose what happens in the room, what structures are created around Beresford’s profile, and so forth. What matters for the moment is that we’ve reached the main point of our work together: building your model from watching yourself lead your R&D team.

Ralph’s Meta-Models 

In this early, imitation phase, in the midst of all that Ralph was doing, he needed also to be thinking, “What is the theory of the thing and of change that instructs one’s theory of practice, and the particular practice—in this case, a team model that asks its members to monitor their moral integrity?” At the same time, Duncan recommended that he focus on the practice aspect of the model and its theory. Structural dynamics recommends that the other two components remain on a shelf, in view, but off to the side while the task of imitating a practice model gathers momentum. Still unable to restrain himself in matters of new learning, Ralph would charge ahead and Duncan would need to rein him in. Let’s take a look at where Ralph’s unstoppable curiosity led him.

Recall that the theory of the thing describes the entity on which a model focuses—in this case effective leadership. In true random fashion, Ralph surprised Duncan with some of the sources he chose for his theory of the thing. Happening upon an article in the New York Times (September 23, 2010), Ralph fixated on the work of Dr. Giulio Tononi:

DUNCAN: The New York Times? Just like a random.

RALPH: It’s a new theory of consciousness, what Tononi calls an Integrated Information Theory. It is based on the study of brain networks and how when parts of the networks are wired together, they have a big effect on what he calls phi.

DUNCAN: Interesting stuff, but … 

RALPH: … but what does it have to do with teams? I don’t know. I don’t pretend to understand this thing called phi. But he does go on to say that his theory applies to human networks like teams.

DUNCAN: A big leap, that, and a bit loopy, but interesting.

RALPH: (Ignoring “loopy”) Yes, a big leap. But what are leadership teams but a network of specialists who talk with each other with the purpose of maintaining a firm’s moral purpose? This in turn depends on their maintaining a consciousness of moral integrity that is relentlessly vigilant.

DUNCAN: I think I see where you are taking this.

RALPH: Without conscious vigilance, the “not knowing” phenomenon you speak of in your model is given moral license.

DUNCAN: I confess, the leap you are taking is not as large as I thought.

RALPH: And I might add that the collective intelligence your model sees as the desired effect of communicative competency is analogous to Tononi’s phi.

Recall that a theory of change says how to bring about change for the thing the model is about—in other words, how leadership changes or, better, how it evolves. Ralph knew that Duncan was demonstrating how his consulting practice made change happen, but Duncan had revealed little about the theory of change behind it. So Ralph asked Duncan about it.

DUNCAN: I think it is too soon to get into this. Had you asked, I also would have discouraged you from leaping so soon into the theory of the thing.

RALPH: You’ve been working on this habit of mine from day one. I’ve obliged where I thought you were right … 

DUNCAN: … and resisted when you thought I was wrong. Look, I admire your curiosity, and sense that you will not let up in this matter, so here is a clue. Go back and bone up on Charles Darwin. His theory of evolution is, to my mind, a breakthrough theory of change.

RALPH: And what does structural dynamics have to say about change?

DUNCAN: Since you ask, I’ll send you a paper by Kantor.⁵ You won’t initially recognize the connection to Darwin in it, but there is one. What you will recognize is Kantor’s design for bringing about change in couple systems over three stages, just like with ATP. Now, can we get on with it? You are well along in your imitation phase.

Ralph’s Main Source for Imitation: Duncan’s Version of Accelerating Team Performance (ATP) 

Structural dynamics alleges that a good model can be described in three stages, each with its own goals and steps that a consultant or leader can follow to achieve them. I briefly describe ATP here because it is the model Ralph was imitating to a large extent, but also, of course, because it is a model that coaches other than Duncan might explore and eventually, in some form, pass on to a leader. Please note that the ATP process is not as linear as the following simplification might suggest. There are always loops and overlaps.

Stage 1 of ATP is laying foundations. It can be broken down into ten steps for the team:

Stage 2 of ATP is deepening skills in high stakes. This is done by cycling through the following three steps, three times on average, more if necessary:

When consultant and team conclude that the program is approaching completion (that is, when the team is demonstrating communicative competency and collective intelligence that is backed by structural dynamics metrics data, and also is reaching desired results as specified in stage 1), more and more responsibility for managing the change process starts to shift to the team. This occurs in two ways. The team is reminded at the start of each session that all members must take responsibility for reading the room and entering it; and members begin rotating as primary mover: the person responsible for stepping in with the “right” speech act when others fail to do so.

Stage 3 is transferring capacities from “us” to “them” and ending. Its three “steps” are all of a piece:

At this point, the team should know its strengths and limitations and be able to estimate its vulnerability to future perilous, high-stakes events. In session they will anticipate what scenarios could happen in the future and design strategies for responding. A credible final test of the program’s ability to transfer capacity from “us” to “them” is Do team members have the confidence to run the program on their own, with their own teams? If the answer is yes, the team is ready to cele­brate a new beginning.

Ralph’s Constraint Phase of Model Building

There is no clear-cut boundary between imitating and constraining a model because all imitators will constrain the model they are imitating, even when they think they are following it faithfully; the individuality of their profiles will see to that. Also, a consultant’s clients or a leader’s team members will push back. Then, too, external forces will have an effect. As I’ve maintained here, all this is to the good if the model builder knows what to do next. We’ve been charting that course already somewhat, but still on the surface. Here, I will first discuss the constraint theme in Ralph’s model building while he is still basically imitating. Then I will go on to later matters of constraint.

How a Leader’s Profile Constrains 

The ATP model is not biased toward any one behavioral profile; for example, it expects a mover in closed power to take it in a rather different direction from, say, a mover in open affect, and so on with other profiles. So Ralph, a mover in random meaning, would constrain it in line with his own profile.

We would therefore not expect Ralph to strictly follow the model’s linear look as literally as other leaders might attempt to do. Ralph’s innovative inclinations would most assuredly give a new fresh look to the practice. He might drop an infatuation with brain researchers like Tononi, or it might take root; but if dropped, other “loopy” ideas (Duncan’s word) would take its place. Duncan might want to warn Ralph not to let his curiosity so distract him that he failed to firm up a theory of the thing that effectively instructed his practice as leader, as CEO, and as a team leader.

That Ralph is no prisoner of rigid form, routine, or sequence can be good or bad, depending on the task. In Ralph’s R&D team situation, ATP is less time bound than it would be for a consultant with a similar profile who is contracted to effect measurable change by some specific deadline. But in general, randoms like Ralph—who often do not wear a watch and, as Martha would say, “don’t know how to tell time”—will surely constrain the ATP model in line with that preference. In contrast, if Ian chose to deploy the model, he would certainly bend it more toward a routine sequence and stricter limits in time.

How the Systems of Clients or Team Also Constrain the Leader and His or Her Model 

In model building, one is well advised not only to know thy self, but to know the system you are “treating,” the people in it, and you as a special member in it with responsibility for managing your place. As part of the random aspects of the overall system Ralph tended to promote, Ralph would tend to have looser boundaries than someone in a more closed system and frame of mind. He, but not Ian, might invite team members home for dinner or out for a drink. He might also give special attention to a team member like Martha, Ron, or Art. Team members who are more different (like Ian or Howard) and the system elements they bring could also push his buttons in ways that ultimately cause him to constrain his model. Knowing the client team’s dominant model (ClearFacts is open) and the profiles of individual members (Ian and Howard are closed; Martha is an open who tends to oppose those in closed power; and so forth) informs team leaders about predictable internal conflicts and visible or invisible sources of constraint on the model. If the leader knows how his or her own profile may lead to biased perceptions and unconscious side-taking, all the better. As it turned out, Ralph’s new and largely handpicked team of eight was loaded toward open and random types, though one closed legacy (Ian) remains—again, not a bad thing, except that in this instance he is locked in conflict with another member (Martha). Our broader conceptual point is that the system you are leading will constrain you and your model.

Moral Integrity as Ralph’s Main Constraint on the Model He Is Imitating 

In its current stage of evolution, structural dynamics does focus on moral behavior and decision making, but it leaves to Ralph the work of showing first steps in how that can be built into a practice model. Let’s fast-forward to a later conversation with Duncan:

RALPH: I did as you suggested and read Gardner, Goleman, and some others, but I found Coles, Kilburg, and Toffler particularly relevant to my bringing to leadership the importance of moral integrity.

DUNCAN: Who was most relevant?

RALPH: Hard to say. Each was relevant in a different way. Coles’s Lives of Moral Leadership brings social issues to life. It turns up the ground with examples of well-known moral leaders.⁶ Kilburg’s Executive Wisdom … well, he’s a clean-cut, professional, objective psychologist, who definitely takes off his gloves.⁷ You can feel his passion on the subject of leadership and failed moral behavior. I liked that. Toffler’s Tough Choices was really practical, and her Final Accounting came close to home. She wrote as an “insider” at Arthur Andersen.

DUNCAN: Yes. I recommended Toffler because she describes firsthand how some “bad” guys can disassemble a “good” firm’s narrative purpose. A subject that interests you. But how are you planning to use all this in your model building?

RALPH: I’m still sorting that out. By the way, I’ve decided to rename my model Monitoring Moral Integrity—for now, anyway.

DUNCAN: That puts you in phase three, autonomy. Let’s first look over the ATP model again, and how you and the model you bring to the group will be subject to constraint.

RALPH: OK, OK, I feel your reins. But that won’t stop me from reading ahead. Not even Sonia succeeds in doing that.

DUNCAN: So! You are a very stuck mover in meaning. So be it. A good thing til it isn’t. And when I think it isn’t, I will not stop pulling back on the reins, not until you fire me or I quit.

Ralph is fully aware that moral crises come and go, that the public has a short memory, and that among leaders moral sensitivity quickly fades from consciousness under the demands of current realities. As Ralph was struggling with how to keep moral sensitivity alive, Duncan passed on to him an unpublished paper focused on what the author calls the audience effect. ⁸

The notion of audience effect feeds off the simple observation that you are more likely to act “good” when others are present, and that admitting your “bad” actions in a safe environment has an even stronger effect of maintaining a true moral course of action. Parents are more likely to avoid fighting when their children are around. Empowered regulatory agencies are intended to keep a lid on the moral infringement Wall Street exercises in the name of market freedom. The ancient Greek philosophers required their students to record daily breaches in their moral behavior, reflect on these, and then share their reflections with other students. In all these instances, audience, by which is meant “those who bear witness,” is key; this sharing empowers the witness, the opposite of silencing the witness (discussed in Chapter Ten).

So, as one of his constraints to the ATP model, Ralph would provide contexts for his leaders to speak openly about past and possible future moral lapses and to be audience for each other.

Ralph’s Autonomy Phase of Model Building

As Duncan suggested earlier, Ralph was pushing on into autonomy even before he’d really completed as much work on constraints as Duncan would have preferred. Inevitably, Ralph, with his keen interest in leaders and moral integrity, will put a special stamp on ATP, perhaps even taking it in a direction that no longer looks like the original. And that will be a good thing indeed, as Ralph is a leader who has both moral and intellectual integrity, as we have seen, and will take few shortcuts along his journey toward building a model of his own making, one suited to his profile, one reflecting his narrative and moral purpose.

Imagine now that Ralph has led his R&D team through ATP’s three stages and feels satisfied with the team’s progress toward greater collective intelligence. Imagine also that Duncan agrees!

From here, Ralph wants to progress further toward his own leadership model, Monitoring Moral Integrity, and at the same time to “get on with” his model for living. Duncan agrees that that is a good way to go, but once again tries to rein Ralph in:

RALPH: Let’s get shakin’!

DUNCAN: Still a man in a hurry to learn (Ralph laughs.) Designing a life is no cakewalk. Many assumptions you’ve never questioned will come up for scrutiny.

RALPH: You sound like Sonia. She’s chafing at the bit to get on with our models for living, but seems more serious about it than I am.

DUNCAN: About things like this you are more naïve than she. Besides, you’re not listening. Some of those assumptions will break down.

RALPH: Again you sound like Sonia. How long will the model-for-living part take?

DUNCAN: That’s a question only time will answer, but try this on for now: you never will be done, and that is the excitement and the power of model building. You’ve heard me say this often: its goal is not to know it all, nor ever to achieve complete mastery; its goal is to always pursue greater mastery. When we think we know it all, we feast on praise and then begin imitating ourselves. A better way is not ever to let up on welcoming constraint on your model; welcoming challenges from others that may reveal the model’s flaws in the real world of practice; keeping an open mind to what you don’t know, to the model’s failures, and to what others may know better; and then knowing what to do with this new information. You will never get bored and never stop learning, and your model will never stop growing.

RALPH: Touché. And wish me luck.

THE ESSENTIAL MESSAGE FOR LEADERS

Donald A. Schön taught all of us—leaders and their coaches, consultants of all breeds—that we do have models that strongly influence how we do our jobs, even when these remain tacit.⁹ Many others, most significantly Chris Argyris and colleagues, have taken this idea further,¹⁰ and I have taken it further here. You may not subscribe to the model-building precepts of structural dynamics, but I urge you to do so in these important respects. First, know that you have a model; knowing what it is will help you coach or lead better. Second, leaders who have coaches should find out what their coach’s model is. Third, whether you are building a model of coaching or of leading, master the concept of constraint and use it to address the following questions:

Notes

1. The term leadership model building was suggested by Alan Daignault, then at Sprint, in the first course on model building conducted in 1999–2000 under the auspices of the Kantor Family Institute. The course was co-led with B. C. Huselton. I thank Alan for the idea, which has stuck.

2. Peale, N. V. My Favorite Quotations. New York: HarperOne, 1990.

3. I created the concept of the meta-model—the model of models—at the Kantor Family Institute sometime during its fifteen-year history, which ended in 1995. It was first introduced to organizational consulting in a seminar offered to consultants in 1990, co-led with Diana Smith.

4. For a more complete description, see my paper “Five Leadership Pathways,” available through the Kantor Institute (www.kantorinstitute.com).

5. Kantor, D. “Couples Therapy, Crisis Induction, and Change.” In A. Gunnan (ed.), Casebook of Marital Therapy. New York: Guilford Press, 1985.

6. In this book, Coles looks at what moral leadership is and the varieties in which it comes. Using Robert Kennedy and Dorothy Day as prime exemplars, it reveals the ways in which a range of individuals can bring us all up morally and can become part of a nation’s moral fiber. Coles, R. Lives of Moral Leadership. New York: Random House, 2001.

7. Kilburg, R. Executive Wisdom: Coaching and the Emergence of Virtuous Leaders. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2006. Kilburg insists that the wise leader wears moral awareness on his sleeve (pp. 141–143), gives vivid examples of a business entity that steered off course (p. 212), and poses eight provocative questions that will help leaders develop moral awareness (pp. 221–222). Ralph liked these ideas but thought he could improve on them by translating Sharma’s audience concept (see note 8) into ongoing action.

8. Sharma, D. “The Importance of Audience Effect to Family/Human Communication and Development” (n.d.). www.psychoscience.net/importance_of_audience_effect.htm. Drawing on a literature review of audience effect and social facilitation, Sharma’s paper refers to Chris VerWys’s “Mere Presence of Others,” noting how the presence of others affects how human beings and animals behave. Ralph makes the connection between this literature and bystanding, opining that consciously drawing on the bystander’s “presence” would help individuals sustain moral behavior.

9. Schön, D. A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

10. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and Smith, D. M. Action Science: Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.