Maya

What brings a tear to my eye, literally, is going back to companies we studied in the mid to late 90s that were stage 4-5. Today, several have fallen to the entrenched mediocrity of stage 2. The causal factor, as far as we can tell, is that the politics of stage 3 displaced the connection to a noble cause, and then the companies began adding bureaucracy. Although well intentioned, these additions told people they weren’t trusted, and the culture began muttering “our lives suck.”

Let’s step back. Ken Wilber (and before him, Don Beck) describes research in four quadrants: inner-hidden, inner-observable, collective-hidden, and collective-observable. Collins focuses on inner-observable (his levels of leadership) and collective-observable (systems). Maslow focuses on inner-hidden (the hierarchy of needs). We focus on inner-hidden (culture), using the language people use, and how they naturally organize, as evidence for what is unseen.

According to Wilber (and others in the integral movement), progress happens as a spiral through all four quadrants. Self-actualized leaders (Maslow) tend to behave as Level V individuals (Collins), producing systems (Collins, and many others, such as Larry Greiner’s organizational evolution work) that focus on results, and create cultures in that say “life is great” (Tribal Leadership).

One quadrant can lead the way—and one using only Collins will focus on systems and observable leadership. The other quadrants will then become limitations on how far success can go.

Until this study, we didn’t have a solid, stage development model for how groups of people work together.

Without an understanding of all four quadrants, our ability to really make change is limited. That’s why we believe Tribal Leadership is so important.

I discovered this while interviewing 80 highly successful people for my upcoming book filled with success stories.

I saw it over and over and over. A good leader simply sets a tone where virtually everyone in the company believes that life is great. From that point on, everyone thrives.

If a leader can make the workplace “fun”, then it ceases to be work and it becomes play . . . Even adults love to play.

MrPositioning
Stanley F. Bronstein
Attorney, CPA, Author and Professional Motivational Speaker

First, if the companies were led by authoritarian people, would they be able to maintain that level of success? Yes, for a while, but only in pockets. Imagine a Stage 3 manager–managing with dyadic relationships, thinking knowledge is power (rather than relationships are power), using information and misinformation to maintain control. Within that structure, it is possible for “bubbles” to form of Stage 4, often with one or two key people keeping the disruptive influences away. Keep in mind, this is the case in MOST corporations in our study. A great question we asked in the research was “what culture stage best expresses the actions of senior leaders (intentionally vague).” Depending on the industry, 30-90% said Stage 3.

Can Stage 4’s success be attributed to a visionary leader? In part. A Stage 4 leader doesn’t “cast a vision” and get others to “buy in.” Rather, he or she builds the tribe to Stage 4, and then the tribe recognizes that person as the leader. Think George Washington. He wasn’t the smartest person, or the most articulate. But he acted as a conduit so that the tribes–Virginia landowners, militia officers, fellow representatives in the Continental Congress–formed a common purpose around shared values. At that time, people recognized him as the leader.

What percentage of Fortune 500 companies were led by CEOs who were there from the inception. Very few. Some time, let’s get on rant about “professional management.” Usually not worth much, except for the $100 million they get paid.

Thank you. Insightful questions are the greatest gift.

But of course, you could be on to something as well. Thanks for sharing.

http://effortless-wealth.blogspot.com

If those “successful” Fortune 500 companies were led by highly individualistic or even authoritarian leaders, do you believe the companies would be successful or be able to maintain that success?

Do you not believe that a “Stage 4″ company’s success is at least partly attributable to a visionary leader?

What percentage of those Fortune 500 companies were led by CEO’s who were there from the inception of the company?

I highly agree that the employees ultimately create the success of a business but a truly great or truly poor leader can make or break it as well…

I know a brief blog post is not sufficient to get your larger point across. Perhaps I should read your book to answer my questions!

Thanks for insight and thoughts…