Recognizing this challenge, we began to streamline our product definition, design, and development processes. Our group vice president, Bill Johnson, instituted a formal process to review key projects and programs. While solving project issues did result in improved quality and quicker time-to-market, the data gathered in this phase gave us an indication that we were facing much deeper issues. We began to see that our problems were linked to long-term dynamics such as changing customer demands and the increasing complexity of our business environment, which would require a different approach than we had used in the past.

This was the start of a long journey for our group. Our path took many turns as we met new challenges and discovered new resources along the way, uncovering deeper and deeper levels of obstacles to our business success. The process involved people with varied roles who were willing to work together to try new approaches, learn from their mistakes, and try again. Our story will hopefully offer some guidelines for others in the middle of a similar discovery process (see “The Journey: Going Deeper into Causes”).

A Systems Approach

The first phase of our journey was to address the immediate issues of customer satisfaction and quality. Customers were moving away from Digital proprietary computing environments, and were more often demanding multi-vendor “system solutions” — families of products that worked together to solve their business problems. As one key customer said, “We want to choose the best solutions regardless of who makes it. And we want everything to work together just as if it came from a single vendor.”

To meet this need, we began experimenting with a systems approach to product design and delivery, which meant paying as much attention to the relationship between products as to the products themselves. This approach caused us to focus in a more disciplined and structured manner on actual market and customer requirements, forcing us to surface our assumptions about trends in the marketplace, the industry, the technologies, the customer, and the competitive environments.

For example, we evolved a simple but powerful process called “Customer-Based Requirements Dialogue.” Rather than beginning with the question, “What product should we build?” we began by exploring our marketplace and customer environment assumptions. Only after we had acknowledged and explicitly surfaced our assumptions did we begin talking about the market requirements: the problems we were trying to solve and the opportunities we were addressing. Finally, we defined the specifications for the system and the features for each component product. We found this new process difficult because we were more used to prescribing solutions than describing the marketplace and customer environment in which the products would be used. Although these descriptions were about future states, which meant that most of them were educated guesses, this process proved to be more effective and efficient than our traditional methods.

Our systems approach also required us to work more actively across functional and hierarchical boundaries within the networks group, because it became increasingly clear that the answers we needed were located throughout the organization, not just at the top or in one area. We began to consciously open up our decision-making processes to include diagonal slices of the organization. We also made necessary job changes to meet the needs of our new approach, creating new roles such as systems technical leadership, systems business management, and systems project leadership. These changes addressed the need to manage the relationships between products, people, projects, and processes.

Focusing on the system also forced us to reevaluate our relationships with other companies. We acknowledged that if we were moving toward open solutions in response to the customer’s changing demands, then cross-company collaboration was required. An early result was that long-time competitor Apollo Computer (now Hewlett-Packard) became a new partner in the design and development of products.

From Systems Engineering to Systems Thinking

As we continued with our fledgling attempts at a “systems” approach to solving customer problems, we discovered two important books that helped bring clarity and structure to our efforts. The first was Peter Checkland’s Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, which clearly articulated our uphill struggle as we moved from “component thinking” to “systems thinking.”

Checkland writes, “Rene Descartes taught Western civilization that the thing to do with complexity was to break it up into component parts and tackle them separately…. Systems thinking, however, starts from noticing the unquestioned Cartesian assumption.., that a component part is the same when separated out as it is when part of a whole…. The Cartesian legacy provides us with an unnoticed frame-work — a set of intellectual pigeon-holes — into which we place the new knowledge we acquire. Systems thinking does not drop into its pigeon-hole, it changes the shape and structure of the whole framework of pigeon-holes. This questioning of previously unnoticed assumptions can be painful, and many people resist it energetically.”

With this new understanding, we renamed what we had been calling “Systems Engineering” and began calling it “Systems Thinking.” This new term reflected our recognition that we had to apply a systems thinking approach to all aspects of the way we did business, not just engineering. As a result, we developed a brief, 20-question guideline for people to use to begin applying systems thinking to any problem or situation they were facing. We also developed a systems thinking work-shop to meet requests for this type of work in other parts of the company. One such seminar was delivered regularly at a management development program, which reached hundreds of middle managers and technical leaders worldwide.

Then, in late 1990, we discovered Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. This wonderful book made sense out of the experiences of the preceding three years, and gave us a clear set of constructs, language, and guidelines to bolster our efforts. Now we knew we were not in this alone — there was plenty of help and knowledge available that was based on a vast body of research and practice.

Servant Leadership and Decision Making

As we improved our ability to deliver at the product level, it became clearer that we needed to gain clarity at the larger “umbrella” level of shared vision. In order to do this, we needed to explore our individual “mental models”— our internal assumptions and beliefs about the way the world works — and come to some shared understanding of the larger issues we were facing. Therefore, in the early spring of 1991, we began looking for ways to surface, examine, and systematically break through our mental models of the marketplace and industry trends.

We began with a process called “FutureMapping,” a scenario planning methodology brought to us by North-east Consulting Resources Inc. of Boston. Through this process, we developed scenarios that described industry, competitive, and product trends from the present through 1997. Over the course of the next 15 months, we held one-day working sessions that engaged over 350 key people across the group in a modified version of this process. The key benefit was that we were forced to explicitly describe our industry, market, competitive, and customer “systems,” and to identify and monitor those five or six critical assumptions that represented “forks in the road”—decision points where we had to make tough choices.

As we did this work, it became clearer that the most difficult points for us in all of these new systems processes were the points of decision making. Working with teams that crossed functions, groups, hierarchies, and companies, it was often difficult to establish clear leadership roles and points of decision-making accountability. In addition, every manager, engineer, project leader, and technical leader had to balance the need for rapid execution and delivery against the desire to stay open to new information. It was all too easy to flip to one extreme or the other — to go for consensus and remain in dialogue forever, or to make quick decisions in an authoritarian manner. Our core challenge was (and still is) to manage this balance, and learn how to live productively within this dilemma.

To address the challenge of making decisions among diverse groups of people, we embarked upon some experiments with new leadership styles. With help from Robert Greenleaf’s book, Servant Leadership, we began moving toward developing “servant leaders”— or as Peter Senge puts it, leaders whose job is not so much to have the answer, but to instill confidence in those around them so that together they will come up with the answer at the time it is needed. We received some very positive feedback from this work — leaders told us they now found it easier to make decisions and that product development moved forward more quickly. But we also learned that the decisions were only as good as the information that was placed “on the table.”

Facing Undiscussables

It seemed that the next challenge we faced was how to bring more data to the table — including those issues that people did not feel comfortable raising. So, we embarked on a series of carefully designed and facilitated dialogues between senior management and several hundred engineers, technical writers, project leaders, and supervisors to discuss the obstacles we faced in quality and time-to-market. These meetings began to surface some of the difficult issues people found hard to raise because they felt “unsafe.” Harvard Professor Chris Argyris calls these unsurfaced issues the “undiscussables” that prevent real learning in organizations. Using the framework presented in his book Overcoming Organizational Defenses, we began to acknowledge the presence of “undiscussables,” but were left with the dilemma of how to raise and resolve them productively.

Change and Upheaval

At the same time that we were facing the challenge of how to deal effectively with “undiscussables,” a major change took place in the company as a whole. In October of 1992, Digital founder and CEO Ken Olsen was succeeded by Robert Palmer. This transition heralded two years of massive downsizing and almost continuous restructuring within the company. At that point, Digital as a whole was losing approximately $3 million per day, and had absorbed more than $3 billion in losses over the previous three years.

The immediate impact on NaC was that it merged with other networking entities under a new vice president, and continued to be reorganized and reshaped into many forms. As a result, people felt very insecure, morale plummeted, and attrition rose. It was simply not the time to begin the difficult and soul-searching work of connecting at the level of integrity, honesty, and respect espoused by Chris Argyris. Although we knew how important this work was for our long-term success, we just couldn’t begin it, given the constant instability and growing state of anxiety within the group. It was challenging enough just to continue to design, develop, and deliver products and systems. So what next? As with many of the breakthroughs we had in the past, the answer was close at hand.

Bringing in the “People”

Aspect In June of 1992, I presented at a conference on organizational learning, where 1 met Sandra Seagal and David Home. Their work, Human Dynamics, offers a framework for understanding differences in the way we learn, communicate, relate, and develop as human beings. With support and funding from John Adams, now vice president and technical director of Networks Integration Software, I attended a five-day training course in Human Dynamics and became convinced that this was the missing piece that could move our work forward. Human Dynamics offered a systemic approach to the complexities and wonders of human functioning that was clear, logical, and structured, yet broad and flexible enough to encompass the infinite nuances that make us each unique human beings (for more on the Human Dynamics methodology, see “Human Dynamics: A Foundation for the Learning Organization,” May 1994).

Back in the Networks Group, we saw Human Dynamics as the technology that would enable us to rebuild the trust, safety, and empowerment we knew was desperately needed. Over the next two years, almost 500 people across the company received training in Human Dynamics. Much of this was accomplished under the auspices of the Engineering Excellence Program led by Corporate Consulting Engineer Peter Conklin. Human Dynamics was seen as a foundational technology that would enhance our ability to make the changes needed in our engineering processes. We also began to dovetail Human Dynamics with Human Systems Change, a technology from Options Consulting, Inc. (Reading, MA) that was helping us create a systemic language for the human/cultural side of change so that we could name and over-come perceived resistance.

As with the efforts of the preceding seven years, we have had some good results from our application of Human Dynamics. While it is difficult to measure them quantitatively, there are many anecdotal accounts of improved efficiency and effectiveness in interpersonal communication and team productivity. As with many new technologies, our challenge now is making this practice part of our everyday way of doing business.

Valuing the Relationships

Despite the difficulties in Digital as a whole over the seven years of this story, our portfolio of networking products has continued to be profitable. While we cannot prove a direct connection between our ongoing efforts and our continued profitability, it is clear that it was a contributing factor.

As a networking group, we have learned that relationships are equally important as products — after all, connectivity is the essence of our business. In fact, we are beginning to believe that a root cause of many of our business problems lies in the breakdown of personal relationships. Although our first inclination in business is to blame profitability problems on poorly executed strategy or a lack of management skills, we believe that the cause may well be the absence, avoidance, or breakdown of authentic connection and communication between human beings.

Peter Block puts it very well in his 1994 book Stewardship: “Money is a symptom, money is never the real issue…. An economic crisis for any organization means it is failing in its market-place. In some fundamental way it is unable to serve its customers. And if it is unable to serve its customers, it means it has failed to serve its own internal people.” We have learned that serving the most basic needs of our people — to connect, communicate, and grow in a supportive environment — does indeed produce a profitable business.

Our seven-year journey has brought us far in our ability to learn and work together in more effective ways. In some sense, we have worked “back to front.” If we were to start over again, we would without a doubt begin with the fundamental technology of Human Dynamics and proceed from there. We would then know that we were building on the most solid foundation there is—people who are aware of themselves as fully empowered human systems, learning and growing, and consciously nurturing themselves and each other in order to produce the results they most desire.

Chris Strutt holds the title of Consulting Engineer. Systems Thinking Methods, In the Network Integration Software Segment of Digital Equipment Corporation.

In a future Issue, Chris Strutt will discuss In more detail the application of Human Dynamics technology at Digital. Editorial support for this article was pro-vided by Kellie T. Wardman.

The post A Journey Through Organizational Change appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Southwest Airlines—which has practiced servant-leadership for 33 years — is one company that has managed to thrive in the face of adversity. In 2001, the company was the only major airline to make a profit. It regularly ranks in the top 10 of the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America.” In a company that is 85 percent unionized, Southwest has been able to develop high loyalty among its people because it instilled the “soft stuff into its organizational processes from its inception.

Preparing for Bad Times

Chairman Herb Kelleher’s motto for both Southwest employees and the airline as a whole is “Manage in good times to prepare for bad times.” To succeed in today’s marketplace, the company cross-trains employees and increases their skill base so that individuals at all levels can take personal responsibility for keeping the company marketable, maintaining high-trust relationships, and identifying effective options for dealing with transitions. In addition, Kelleher and other leaders inspire loyalty by communicating openly and truthfully with their staff, respecting the lifework balance, and fostering continuous learning. Southwest employees know that their voices matter and that they can implement new programs, make decisions, and help customers in times of need. A guiding principle is: If you use your best judgment to do what is right, your leaders will stand behind you.

Southwest Airlines — which has practiced servant-leadership for 33 years — is one company that has managed to thrive in the face of adversity.

Over the years, Southwest management has gone to extreme lengths to avoid layoffs. During the Gulf War, when fuel prices rose so much that the company lost money every time an airplane took off, Kelleher promised to do everything in his power not to address the challenge by laying people off. He, top leaders, and many employees took voluntary pay cuts to keep the company profitable. More recently, following September 11, Southwest was the only airline that did not lay off any workers or reduce its flight schedule.

One reason why the airline doesn’t lay people off has to do with its hiring practice: It looks for attitude before experience, technical expertise, talent, or intelligence. “We can train people to load a plane, take reservations, or serve passengers,” says Kelli Miller, Southwest Airlines marketing manager for Utah. “What we can’t train is good attitude or ‘heart-based’ decision-making.” The company also consistently provides coaching and growth opportunities for people and weeds out non-performers within the first six-month probationary period.

Company managers profoundly understand the negative impact that layoffs can have on employee morale, trust, productivity, corporate memory, and, eventually, bottom-line results. Because they understand that long-term profitability comes from capitalizing on employees’ wisdom and capability, Southwest sees massive layoffs as merely “quick fixes” that often fail in the long run (see “Layoffs That Fail”).

The “Warrior Spirit”

Because of the company’s commitment to its workforce, Southwest employees perform at heroic levels on a daily basis and volunteer to make huge personal sacrifices on behalf of the company in hard times. Says Miller, “This last year has been Southwest’s biggest trial. But preparation for 9-11 didn’t start the day the terrorists struck. It began 30 years ago when the Southwest ‘Warrior Spirit’ was born — the will among leaders and employees alike to fight, to do whatever it takes to make the airline successful.”

Examples of heroic service abound. For instance, in the airline’s early days, when Southwest’s bank repossessed one of its four planes, forcing it to cancel a fourth of its flights, employees got creative. “We figured that if we could turn our planes in 10 to 15 minutes rather than 45, we could still keep the same number of flights even with one less plane,” explains Miller. “This significantly more efficient turn-time set a record in the airline industry. Since then, employees acting as partners to solve difficult business challenges and achieve unheard of levels of productivity has become our tradition and trademark.”

Following September 11, the company’s top three leaders volunteered to work without pay through the end of the year. Immediately, employees sought to help Southwest recoup lost revenue and pledged $1.3 million in payroll deductions. As an article in The Wall Street Journal describes, “Southwest has managed to remain profitable while all others have suffered huge losses. Why? Because of low cost and a productive work force. At no time have those advantages been more striking than right now. And the really interesting thing is that Southwest employees appear to have understood that.”

Donna Conover, executive vice president of customer service, points out that the company has high expectations for each employee. “Just doing your job well does not make you a good employee. The attitude and spirit toward others complete the needs the company has of that employee. As leaders, if we allow lack of teamwork or low productivity, we are being unfair to the rest of the team.” Time and again, Southwest employees have more than held up their end of this new employee-employer contract.

A Shining Example

Through the deep mutual trust and sense of ownership that characterize their cultures, Southwest and other companies that embrace servant-leadership have achieved remarkable results that put them at the head of their industries. These achievements don’t happen by accident or through guesswork — they are the result of leaders who commit to serving their employees and, in turn, providing their customers with the best products and service in the marketplace. This is a formula for success in even the most challenging economic climate.

To return to our opening question, “Does the soft stuff really work when challenges are tough and complex and the future of a company is on the line?” What we have repeatedly learned from clients who have practiced servant-leadership over several decades is that the strength of organizations comes from their people. You can’t micromanage people one day and expect them to think and act like owners the next. It takes a long time to grow business savvy at every level of a company. If you don’t begin early to invest in developing people, building mutual trust and respect, and engaging meaningful collaboration at all levels, you will not be able to leverage your employees’ potential when a major crisis hits. Servant-leadership offers a way for leaders to bring out the best in others by offering the best of themselves.

Ann McGee-Cooper, Ed. D., is coauthor of The Essentials of Servant-Leadership: Principles in Practice (Pegasus Communications, 2001) and founder of a team of futurists focusing on servant-leadership, creative solutions, and the politics of change. She has served on the Culture Committee of Southwest Airlines for the past dozen years.

Gary Looper is a Partner at Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates; Team Leader of the 10-organization Servant-Leadership Learning Community; and coauthor of The Essentials of Servant-Leadership.

The post Southwest Airlines: Does the “Soft Stuff” Work with Tough Problems? appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Organization must pay attention these transitions, because of the radical reduction in the numbers of workers currently available for jobs and the movement into our working ranks of a new generation of employees with totally different values and expectations. If companies want to attract and keep top talent, the old ways of recruiting, rewarding, and leading won’t get us there. A different kind of leadership is required for the future.

Traditional Leadership Models

What are the roots of the leadership models that brought us to this point in organizational development? During the Industrial Revolution, hierarchies were the norm. At that time, businesses depended on the completion of many repetitive tasks in the most efficient way possible. To that end, factories, railroads, mines, and other companies followed a top-down view of leadership, in which those at the top gathered the information, made the decisions, and controlled the power. Those at the bottom—the “hired hands”—were rewarded for conformity and unquestioning obedience. In addition, business moved much more slowly than it does today.

Our approach to preparing new leaders over the last 50 years has sprung from these roots. Leadership training in MBA courses has been based on the case-study method, through which learners study patterns of how others solved their business problems. The assumption has been that if you learn enough about the successful case studies, you will be prepared as a leader—you will be able to go forth, match your new challenges to the case studies of the past, and superimpose a similar solution on the problems of today.

Yet change is accelerating, and we are now in a time when many companies view a traditional education as more of a negative than a positive. They even consider an MBA a detriment, because graduates must unlearn their reliance on the past in order to see new, more complex patterns emerging. Some observers have said that this shift has turned the pyramid of power on its head.

The Beginnings of Servant-Leadership

Servant-leadership is one model that can help turn traditional notions of leadership and organizational structure upside-down. Robert K. Greenleaf came up with the term “servant-leadership” after reading The Journey to the East by Hermann Hesse (reissued by The Robert K. Greenleaf Center, 1991). In this story, Leo, a cheerful, nurturing servant, supports a group of travelers on a long and difficult journey. His sustaining spirit helps keep the group’s purpose clear and morale high until, one day, Leo disappears. Soon after, the travelers disperse. Years later, the storyteller comes upon a spiritual order and discovers that Leo is actually the group’s highly respected titular head. Yet by serving the travelers rather than trying to lead them, he had helped ensure their survival and bolstered their sense of shared commitment. This story gave Greenleaf insight into a new way to perceive leadership.

Greenleaf was reading this book because he was helping university leaders deal with the student unrest of the 1970s, a challenge unlike any they had faced before. In the spirit of trying to understand the roots of the conflict, Greenleaf put himself in the students’ shoes and began to study what interested them. It was from this reflection that the term “servant-leadership” first came to him. To Greenleaf, the phrase represented a transformation in the meaning of leadership.

Servant-leadership stands in sharp contrast to the typical American definition of the leader as a stand-alone hero, usually white and male. As a result of this false picture of what defines a leader, we celebrate and reward the wrong things. In movies, for example, we all love to see the “good guys” take on the “bad guys” and win. The blockbuster “Lethal Weapon” movies are a take-off on this myth and represent a metaphor for many of our organizations. Our movie “heroes” (or leaders) act quickly and decisively, blowing up buildings and wrecking cars and planes in highdrama chases.

Although they always win (annihilating or capturing the bad guys), they leave behind a trail of blood and destruction.

This appetite for high-drama can fool us into believing that we can depend on one or two “super people” to solve our organizational crises. Even in impressive corporate turnarounds, we tend to look for the hero who single-handedly “saved the day.” We long for a “savior” to fix the messes that we all have had a part in creating. But this myth causes us to lose sight of all those in the background who provided valuable support to the single hero.

Seeing the leader as servant, however, puts the emphasis on very different qualities (see “A New Kind of Leadership” on p. 3). Servant-leadership is not about a personal quest for power, prestige, or material rewards. Instead, from this perspective, leadership begins with a true motivation to serve others. Rather than controlling or wielding power, the servant-leader works to build a solid foundation of shared goals by (1) listening deeply to understand the needs and concerns of others; (2) working thoughtfully to help build a creative consensus; and (3) honoring the paradox of polarized parties and working to create “third right answers” that rise above the compromise of “we/they” negotiations. The focus of servant-leadership is on sharing information, building a common vision, self-management, high levels of interdependence, learning from mistakes, encouraging creative input from every team member, and questioning present assumptions and mental models.

How Servant-Leadership Serves Organizations

Servant-leadership is a powerful methodology for organizational learning because it offers new ways to capitalize on the knowledge and wisdom of all employees, not just those “at the top.” Through this different form of leadership, big-picture information and business strategies are shared broadly throughout the company. By understanding basic assumptions and background information on issues or decisions, everyone can add something of value to the discussion because everyone possesses the basic tools needed to make meaningful contributions. Such tools and information are traditionally reserved for upper management, but sharing them brings deeper meaning to each job and empowers each person to participate more in effective decision-making and creative problem-solving. Individuals thus grow from being mere hired hands into having fully engaged minds and hearts.

Our movie “heroes” (or leaders) act quickly and decisively, blowing up buildings and wrecking cars and planes in high-drama chases. Although they always win (annihilating or capturing the bad guys), they leave behind a trail of blood and destruction.

This approach constitutes true empowerment, which significantly increases job satisfaction and engages far more brain power from each employee. It also eliminates the “that’s not my job” syndrome, as each person, seeing the impact he or she has on the whole, becomes eager to do whatever it takes to achieve the collective vision. Servant-leadership therefore challenges some basic terms in our management vocabulary; expressions such as “subordinates,” “my people,” “staff (versus “line”), “overhead” (referring to people), “direct reports,” “manpower” all become less accurate or useful. Even phrases such as “driving decision-making down into the ranks” betray a deep misunderstanding of the concept of empowerment. Do we believe that those below are resistant to change or less intelligent than others? Why must we drive or push decisions down? Something vital is missing from this way of thinking—deep respect and mentoring, a desire to lift others to their fullest potential, and the humility to understand that the work of one person can rarely match that of an aligned team.

Phil Jackson, former coach of the world champion Chicago Bulls basketball team, described this notion well in his book Sacred Hoops (Hyperion, 1995). He wrote, “Good teams become great ones when the members trust each other enough to surrender the ‘me’ for the ‘we.’As [retired professional basketball player] Bill Cartwright puts it: ‘A great basketball team will have trust. I’ve seen teams in this league where the players won’t pass to a guy because they don’t think he is going to catch the ball. But a great basketball team will throw the ball to everyone. If a guy drops it or bobbles it out of bounds, the next time they’ll throw it to him again. And because of their confidence in him, he will have confidence. That’s how you grow.’” Phil Jackson drew much of the inspiration for his style of coaching—which is clearly servant-leadership—from Zen, Christianity, and the Native American tradition. He created a sacred space for the team to gather, bond, process, and learn from mistakes.

A servant-leader is also keenly aware of a much wider circle of stakeholders than just those internal to the organization. Ray Anderson, chairman and CEO of Interface, one of the largest international commercial carpet wholesalers, has challenged his company to join him in leading what he calls the “second Industrial Revolution.” He defines this new paradigm as one that finds sustainable ways to do business that respect the finiteness of natural resources. His vision, supported by his valued employees, is to never again sell a square yard of carpet. Instead, they seek to lease carpeting and then find ways to achieve 100-percent recycling.

A NEW KIND OF LEADERSHIP

A servant-leader thus does not duck behind the letter of the law but asks, “What is the right thing for us to do to best serve all stakeholders?” He or she defines profit beyond financial gain to include meaningful work, environmental responsibility, and quality of life for all involved. To quote Robert Greenleaf, “The best test, and difficult to administer, is: do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will each benefit, or at least not be further deprived?”

Supervisors often believe that they don’t have time to make a longterm investment in people (see “Addiction to Fire-fighting”). When an individual’s primary focus is on doing everything faster, she becomes addicted to the constant rush of adrenaline. To feed this craving, the person neglects proactive tasks such as coaching, mentoring, planning ahead, and quiet reflection to learn from mistakes. Instead, the brain sees only more problems—reasons to stay reactive and highly charged. Servant-leaders spend far less time in crisis management or fire fighting than do traditional managers. Instead, they use crises as opportunities to coach others and collectively learn from mistakes.

ADDICTION OF FIRE-FIGHTING

As the number of organizational “fires” increases, leaders spend more and more time “fire-fighting,” which, in the short-term, reduces the number of crises (B1). However, the fundamental solution is to build decision-making skills in others (B2). By focusing on crisis management rather than on staff development, supervisors increase the company’s dependence on their own expertise and actually erode the level of competency throughout the organization (R3).

The Power of Internal Motivation and Paradox

So what does it take to become a servant-leader? The most important quality is a deep, internal drive to contribute to a collective result or vision. Very often a servant-leader purposely refuses to accept the perks of the position and takes a relatively low salary because another shared goal may have more value. For example, Southwest Airlines chairman Herb Kelleher has long been referred to as the most underpaid CEO in the industry. Herb was the first to work without pay when SWA faced a serious financial threat. In asking the pilot’s union to agree to freeze their wages for five years, he showed his commitment by freezing his own wages as well.

Big salaries and attractive perks are clearly not the main motivators for Southwest’s leadership team; the company’s top leaders are paid well below the industry average. Rather, they stay because they are making history together. Their vision is a noble one—to provide meaningful careers to their employees and the freedom to fly to many Americans who otherwise could not afford the convenience of air travel. SWA’s leaders love to take on major competitors and win. Beyond that, each finds fulfillment in developing talent all around him or her. Servant-leadership has become a core way of being within Southwest Airlines.

A second quality of servant-leaders is an awareness of paradox. Paradox involves two aspects: the understanding that there is usually another side to every story, and the fact that most situations contain an opposite and balancing truth (see “The Structure of Paradox: Managing Interdependent Opposites,” by Philip Ramsey, The Systems ThinkerV8N9). Here are some of the paradoxes that servant-leadership illuminates:

• We can lead more effectively by serving others.
• We can arrive at better answers by learning to ask deeper questions and by involving more people in the process.
• We can build strength and unity by valuing differences.
• We can improve quality by making mistakes, as long as we also create a safe environment in which we can learn from experience.
• Fewer words (such as a brief story or metaphor) can provide greater understanding than a long speech. A servant-leader knows to delve into what is not being said or what is being overlooked, especially when solutions come too quickly or with too easy a consensus.

A Time for Transformation

We are moving away from a time when a strong hierarchy worked for our organizations. In the past, we gauged results in a far more limited way than we do today—financial and other material gain, power, and prestige were viewed as true measures of success. Other, more complex measures, such as the impact of our businesses on society, families, and the environment, have not been part of our accounting systems. Yet now, as we move into the Information Age and a new millennium, we’ve come to recognize the limitations of the traditional “bottom line.”

In the past, we gauged results in a far more limited way than we do today . . .Yet now, as we move into the Information Age and a new millennium, we’ve come to recognize the limitations of the traditional “bottom line.”

A servant-leadership approach can help us overcome these limitations and accomplish a true and lasting transformation within our organizations (see “Practicing Servant-Leadership”). To be sure, as we envision the many peaks and valleys before us in undertaking this journey, we sometimes may feel that we are alone. But we are not alone—many others are headed in the same direction. For instance, in Fortune magazine’s recent listing of the 100 best companies to work for in America, three of the top four follow the principles of servant-leadership: Synovus Financial (number 1), TDIndustries (number 2), and Southwest Airlines (number 4). In addition to providing a nurturing and inspiring work environment, each of these businesses is recognized as a leader in its industry.

On a personal level, as many of us begin to come to terms with our own mortality, our desire to leave a legacy grows. “What can I contribute that will continue long after I am gone?” Some yearn to have their names emblazoned on a building or some other form of ego recognition. Servant-leaders find fulfillment in the deeper joy of lifting others to new levels of possibility, an outcome that goes far beyond what one person could accomplish alone. The magical synergy that results when egos are put aside, vision is shared, and a true learning organization takes root is something that brings incredible joy, satisfaction, and results to the participants and their organizations. For, as Margaret Mead put it, “Never doubt the power of a small group of committed individuals to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” The true heroes of the new millennium will be servant-leaders, quietly working out of the spotlight to transform our world.

Ann McGee-Cooper, Ed. D., is founder of Ann McGeeCooper & Associates, a team of futurists who specialize in creative solutions and the politics of change. For the past 25 years, she and her team have worked to develop servant-leaders. Duane Trammell, M. Ed., is managing partner of Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates and co-author of the group’s servant-leadership curriculum.

Editorial support for this article was provided by Kellie Warman O’Reilly and Janice Molloy.

The post From Hero as Leader to Servant as Leader appeared first on The Systems Thinker.