by salman

5. Shared Leadership Meets Action Research Craig L. Pearce

6. What is Shared Leadership? “ We define shared leadership as a dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both. The key distinction between shared leadership and traditional models of leadership is that the influence process involves more than just downward influence on subordinates by an appointed or elected leader.” Pearce, C.L. & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared Leadership. Sage Publications.

7. Vertical Influence Vertical & Lateral Influence Directive Transactional Transformational Empowering Lateral Influence Directive Leadership (controlling & directing) Social Exchange/ Transactional leadership (motivating) Transformational Leadership (inspiring) Empowering (enabling) Amount of Vertical Leadership Vertical Influence

13. Using Questions to Develop Shared Leadership Michael J. Marquardt World Institute for Action Learning George Washington University

19. Developing Shared Leadership Practices Through Action Learning Projects Cindy McCauley and Patricia O’Connor Academy of Management August, 2007

25. Action Learning and Organization Development & Change Academy of Management August 7, 2007 Philadelphia Arthur M. Freedman, Ph.D. >>> World Institute for Action Learning <<< >>> Freedman, Leonard, & Marquardt <<< >>> NTL Institute <<<

26. Action Learning (AL) can stand alone as a powerful intervention that can satisfy multiple organizational needs. Synergy can be achieved by integrating AL with Leadership Development (LD) and Organization Development & Change (OD&C) programs. My focus today is on the integration of AL with OD&C

29. Both OD&C and AL are most appropriate when client organizations must develop executives while also dealing, creatively and effectively, with critical, unprecedented, discontinuous issues where there are ambiguous goals and uncertain pathways for creating “solutions” in real time

30. Richard Beckhard & Reuben T. Harris (1987), As interpreted by Arthur M. Freedman FUTURE STATE TRANSITION STATE MACRO- PLANS WHY CHANGE? CURRENT STATE ONE VERSION OF THE ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT & CHANGE PROCESS

31. FUTURE STATE MACRO- PLANS WHY CHANGE? CURRENT STATE A C B D Create one Action Learning Team for each high priority issue

32. B Future State Current State Review & Approve Execute Implementation Plans TRANSITION STATE Project Integration or Coordination Team Micro Plans The Basic Change Process is Scalable – from Incremental and Local to Transformational and Systemic

33. Context & Purpose MICRO PLANS COMPLETE DESIRED STATE ACHIEVED (Completed Execution of Micro-Plans) ASSUMPTIONS: >> Implementation plans will be executed within budget & on time >> Every contingency has been anticipated & built into the plan >> Everyone will cooperate >> Everything will work as planned >> Command/control project management is effective and appropriate “ REASONABLE” EXECUTION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

35. PREDICTABLE SURPRISES Realistic Execution Based on Lewin (1948) Context & Purpose Diagnose Act Evaluate Plan Plan Evaluate Act Diagnose Diagnose Plan Act CURRENT STATE (Goals & Plans Complete) “ Reasonable,” Idealized Execution of Implementation Plans DESIRED STATE (Complete Execution) The Action Research Method Applied to Implementation Phase

36. Predictable Surprises They know they will occur but we cannot predict what they will be When they do occur: >> Convene a Special Action Learning Team (SALT) composed of one member of each AL team and one AL Team Coach >> Set time limit for SALT recommendations >> Original AL Teams continue while maintaining open boundary to interactions with the SALT

38. A B C D SALT 1 2 5 3 6 4 SALT members inform, gather information, and coordinate activities with AL teams (A-D) and relevant stakeholders (1-6) BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT

39. Unexpected Events Realistic Execution Based on Lewin (1948) Context & Purpose Diagnose Act Evaluate Plan Plan Evaluate Evaluate Act Evaluate Plan Evaluate Diagnose Diagnose Act Act Diagnose Plan Evaluate Diagnose Plan Act CURRENT STATE (Goals & Plans Complete) “ Reasonable,” Idealized Execution of Implementation Plans DESIRED STATE (Complete Execution) The Action Research Method Applied to Implementation Phase

41. Building Rigor Into Developing Shared Leadership: Design Features for Action Learning Approaches Jay Conger and Susan Murphy Kravis Leadership Institute Claremont McKenna College Academy of Management Meetings August 7, 2007