I recently talked to a member of a search committee who was disappointed that the person that was hired a year ago to lead a non-profit had not done enough to change the culture.  He was considering demoting the person and starting another search.

 I think his response is typical of our cultural expectations (the US is the most individualistic off all cultures).  We are too quick to praise or blame the individual and too slow to look to the group and the underlying system.

 Cultural change is a collective, not an individual responsibility.  The top person plays an important role but will fail unless the cultural change takes root within the system.

 In terms of Kotter’s model, the most important leadership role seems to be creating a sense of urgency and stimulating the development of a strong coalition of key influencers and missionaries for the new culture. 

 The next most important leadership activity involves removing obstacles.  Policies and structure are relatively easy compared to dealing with people who are sabotaging and blocking the cultural change.  It is ironic that organizations needing to change their culture to accommodate the post-layoff new psychological contract sometimes have to resort to firing people to facilitate the change.  In my experience, the most effective leaders have little patience with cultural saboteurs or blockers.

I have a background in organization development and, when helping organizations respond to the negative effect of downsizing, I use an OD approach.  Recently, a person posted a question on a Linked In site asking advice as to whether to spend the time and money to pursue an masters degree in OD and wondering how that would help with job prospects and compensation.  I believe that OD is a unique field and too many people get into it for the wrong reasons so I’m posting my response to that Linked In question.

 OD is, in its essence, a value based field based on participation, openness, trust, and a humanistic perspective.  Applying this value orientation to today’s business world requires grounding in both process skills and faith that teamwork, participation, and diversity will result in long-term sustainable business outcomes.

 There is a basic difference between an MBA degree and masters in OD.  Unfortunately, some universities have tried to meld the two and it has resulted in watering down both degrees. 

 I would advise that you go into an OD masters program only if you want to hitch your wagon to the faith based perspective in the value of an OD orientation.  If not, get an MBA.  For sure, I would not go to the expense and trouble of pursuing masters in OD in order to enhance your employment prospects.  You will do better in that regard with an MBA or masters in instructional technology. 

 I’m not trying to be pessimistic – just realistic.  I have an MSOD from Pepperdine and a doctorate in OB and OD from George Washington and have taught graduate programs in both OD and at the MBA level.

 I have also made a living as an OD practitioner for many, many years and love the field.  If you truly want to facilitate long term change and are willing to pay the price in terms of personal growth and resisting the demand from clients for short term results and quick fixes at the price of long term sustainability, then by all means go into OD.  I’m just cautioning you that to spend the money and the time to get an OD degree with the purpose of making more money or getting better job offers will not only disappoint you but also will make you angry.  Not that you can’t make a very good living as an OD practitioner.  There are many that have.  There, however, are some who have not.  There are a lot more who call themselves OD consultants but are really doing other types of consulting.

 Again, OD is a wonderful field, albeit one that is taking some hits in today’s task oriented, short term, economy where managers are biased against “touchy-feely” OD stuff.  However, “touchy-feely” is the currency of the OD realm and if you want to learn how to apply it to organizations by all means go for it.

The BP oil leak mess provides a relevant metaphor for leading organizations through troubled times.  The message is simple: blaming is not leadership – it is an escape from true leadership.

The US government, in response to political pressure, is blaming BP and spending more time grandstanding than trying to help get to the root of the problem.  BP is blaming its vendors and other oil companies are now blaming BP.  The state government is blaming the federal government and local municipalities are blaming the state.  Democrats are blaming Republicans and vice versa. 

In the meantime, the oil continues to gush and gush and too few people are focused on the root cause – first finding a way to stop the bleeding, and then to solve the underlying systems issue of minimizing the dangers of deep sea drilling.

True leadership involves ignoring the escape into blaming and having the courage to help people focus on the basic root cause. 

In an era of layoffs, cutbacks, and economic downturn, blaming corporate “greed,” lack of government regulation, or the concept of free-market capitalism does not deal with the basic, root cause issue.  That issue is the need to embrace the fact that we live in an interdependent global economic environment and that the paradigm in regard to long term, stable, employment security has irrevocably changed.

The lesson that came out of the total quality movement is operant: blame the system, not the individual.  True leaders do that.

I recently did a healing the wounds session for an organization that had experienced a major downsizing. Layoffs involved about 20 percent of the workforce and most employees were suffering from the effects of layoff survivor sickness.

 One of the top managers was adamant that employees should be grateful they had kept their jobs and that they needed to “stop whining and bitching, suck it up, and get on with it.”   His colleagues violently disagreed with him and a good discussion ensued.  Since this reaction is not uncommon, it is important that change agents wanting to heal the wounds of layoffs have an answer. Here are the top three reasons why “sucking it up” is not a good strategy.

1.  Most layoff survivors have a toxic brew of productivity limiting emotions: a combination of fear, anxiety, anger, and depression. These are the symptoms of layoff survivor sickness.  Keeping these debilitating emotions inside will only result in worse symptoms. Some mental health professionals, for example, think that anger turned inward results in depression.
2. The healthiest way to get rid of layoff survivor symptoms is to externalize them; get them out.  The way to do this is healthy venting.  This involves verbalizing them, either to an individual or in a group setting.  This often requires some training for managers facilitating layoff survivor venting, or the use of a professional facilitator.
3. Repressed layoff survivor feelings result in a turning inward and a focus on self at the very time when organizations need them to be externally focused.  Organizations wanting to heal the wounds and rebound from the trauma of layoffs need to have employees who are focused externally on the customer.  Angry, anxious, self-absorbed, employees are not able to be innovative, creative, and customer focused.  

I learned this deceptively simple phrase from the late Pat Williams, founder of the Pepperdine MSOD program and, over the years, have increasingly come to appreciate it’s relevance when coaching clients going through change and transition triggered by downsizing.  When a client is caught up in a crisis of purpose, competence, and self-esteem; facts, figures, models, 360 degree feedback reports, and flow charts don’t help – in fact they get in the way.  The currency of the realm is feelings and emotions, not facts and figures.  Logical analysis and rational planning may help the coach feel competent, but they will only make the coachee feel worse.  Anyone who has had an argument with a significant other and attempted to defuse their emotional issues by logical analysis to prove that they “shouldn’t feel that way” will understand that you don’t solve a “heart” problem (emotions and feelings) by a “head” (data and logic) process.  In a coaching relationship, the more a client’s “heart” issues are responded to by the coach’s “head” solutions, the wider the empathy gap. What is necessary before helping the client move forward are the basic skills of empathetic listening, reflecting feelings and emotions, and the ability to form an authentic, non-judgmental, helping relationship.  We can often be of more service to our clients by simply giving them empathy rather than our “scientific” tools.