The Seven Transformations of Leadership

In a landmark 2005 article David Rooke and Bill Torbert outlined leadership stages as defined by the Leadership Development Framework. The framework is a list of the seven action logics and their characteristics. The action logics correspond to the Interkannections system in the following manner:

(X) Opportunist: Wins any way possible. Self-oriented; manipulative; “might makes right.”

(G) Diplomat: Avoids conflict. Wants to belong; obeys group norms; doesn’t rock the boat.

(I)  Expert: Rules by logic and expertise. Uses hard data and force of opinion to gain consensus and buy-in.

(T) Achiever: Meets strategic goals. Promotes teamwork; juggles managerial duties and responds creatively to market demands to achieve goals.

(H) Individualist: Operates in unconventional ways. Ignores rules he/she regards as irrelevant. Recognizes value and is inclusive of multiple perspectives.

(A) Strategist: Generates organizational and personal change. Highly collaborative; weaves visions with pragmatic, timely initiatives; challenges existing assumptions.

(U) Alchemist: Generates social transformations (e.g., Nelson Mandela). Reinvent themselves, organizations and communities in historically significant ways.

These are stages of development world leaders and the guy and gal down the street pass through. For a great description of these stages in action in a business context I strongly suggest you download The Seven Transformations of Leadership from the Harvard Business Review website.

Check back for more on leadership stages soon!

Tags: capacity evolution, I-shaped people, leadership, leadership stages, leadership transformation, t-shaped people

Primary Colors

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could it be that the candidates for the democratic party nomination in the US presidential election are showing signs of their leadership capacity? Recently Hillary was described as “hands on” and incapable of or very uncomfortable delegating. Obama, on the other hand, was described as more “hands off” and trusting of his people to do delegated assignments. 

These descriptions potentially show Hillary as an “I-shaped” or Expert leader. Though a strong performer, I-shaped people sometimes have trouble allowing others to do the work they believe they could do better themselves. They’re the experts. Obama on the other hand is being mades out as at least a “T-shaped” or Acheiver leader. People at this stage and beyond express their capacity to see and appreciate the talents and relative value all stakeholders bring to the table. It’s still too early to tell and, actually, assessing leadership capacity takes quite a bit more data than what I’ve posted above. It may be that we are looking at style instead:

As James O’Toole at Business Week writes: 

On one level, these visions seem to reflect a Carteresque tendency to micromanage (Clinton) and a Reaganesque organizational nonchalance (Obama). But each candidate is actually putting forth a well-reasoned philosophy of leadership, and their distinct approaches have implications for their respective abilities to deliver on the changes the majority of the nation seems to desire. From the vantage point of a business school professor, what is particularly striking is that the two candidates clearly articulate competing theories of leadership that have been the focus of much scholarly research over the last several decades; what I’ll refer to as the “managerial” and “transformational” approaches.

Leadership capacity or leadership style? Hard to say. Though, as we look toward the future, what type of leader sounds most appropriate to you? 

More on leadership capacity coming soon!

Tags: capacity, leadership, t-shaped people