Leadership and action logic

David Rooke and William Torbert wrote an article about the “Seven Transformations” of leadership.  Lots of people seem to like their ideas (e.g. another blog I read on this). It was originally published in the Harvard Business Review back in 2005.

Their basic premise was that the effectiveness of a leader depends on their “action logic” – how they interpret their surroundings and react when their power or safety is challenged.  They identified 7 stages in leadership development, each more effective than the next.

Their research and model is impressive.  However, I am always suspicious of models that show any sort of linear progression, and neatly divide things into stages.  I’m also suspicious of something based on top executives at big international Western businesses.  For someone like me working in the not for profit sector, it has to really ring true for me to feel it is relevant.

In the article the three middle categories, to which the majority of managers belong, were the most recognisable for me.  I could see how I went through the transformations myself.  I’ve given them below:

Expert	Rules by logic and expertise. Seeks rational efficiency.	Good as an individual contributor.
Achiever	Meets strategic goals. Effectively achieves   goals through teams; juggles managerial duties and   market demands.	Well suited to managerial roles; action and goal oriented.
Individualist	Interweaves competing personal and company action logics. Creates unique structures to resolve gaps   between strategy and performance.	Effective in venture and consulting roles.

I remember when I started to study an MBA that my learning was characterised by the idea that there was a right way to do things, the “expert” action logic. Its something I see often in organisations, who want solutions to problems, and want them fast.

The “achiever” makes me think of an organisation I worked for (and many I know) where the focus was on multiple targets, achieving goals, taking lots of action – and seldom ever reflecting.

As for being an individualist – I remember the step a couple of years back to asking the question, “why these targets?”.  “What is the assumption behind this?”  “Can we think differently?”.

The reason for my suspicion of the model is that, like most  linear models, a lot of it actually happens all at once and not in stages.  The action we take depends on how we are thinking at a particular moment.  One day I might reflect, think a lot, take into account lots of factors and people’s different realities.  Another time I might look for a solution without reflecting, or be pressured enough to go for a target whether I think its worthwhile or not.

To Rooke and Torbert’s credit, they recognise this, speaking about the “dominant” action logic for a leader and do not treat it as clear cut.  I suspect the simplicity of the model will help many people make sense of leadership development, but be a trap for “experts”.