[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 1
Start With Why How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action
Notes by Frumi Rachel Barr, MBA, Ph.D.
Author: Simon Sinek Publisher: Penguin Group Copyright year: 2009 ISBN: 978-1-59184-280-4 Author’s Bio: Simon Sinek teaches leaders and organizations how to inspire people. From members of Congress to foreign ambassadors, from small businesses to corporations like Microsoft and American Express, from Hollywood to the UN to the Pentagon, those who want to know how to inspire people want to learn about The Golden Circle and the power of WHY. Sinek is quoted frequently by national publications and teaches at the Strategic Communications Program at Columbia University. Author’s big thought: In studying the leaders who‘ve had the greatest influence in the world, Simon Sinek discovered that they all think, act, and communicate in the exact same way—and it‘s the complete opposite of what everyone else does. Sinek calls this powerful idea The Golden Circle, and it provides a framework upon which organizations can be built, movements can be led, and people can be inspired. And it all starts with WHY. Starting with WHY works in big business and small business, in the nonprofit world and in politics. Those who start with WHY never manipulate, they inspire. And people follow them not because they have to; they follow because they want to. Introduction: Why Start with Why?
This book is about a naturally occurring pattern, a way of thinking, acting and communicating that gives some leaders the ability to inspire those around them.
We can all learn this pattern. With a little discipline, any leader or organization can inspire others, both inside and outside their organization, to help advance their ideas and their vision.
The individuals and organizations that naturally embody this pattern are the ones that start with Why.
There are leaders and there are those who lead. With only 6 percent market share in the United States and about 3 percent worldwide, Apple is not a leading manufacturer of home computers, yet the company leads the computer industry and is now a leader in other industries as well.
Martin Luther King‘s experiences were not unique, yet he inspired a nation to change.
The Wright brothers were not the strongest contenders in the race to take the first manned, powered flight, but they led us into a new era of aviation and, in doing so, completely changed the world we live in.
Their goals were not different than anyone else‘s, and their systems and processes were easily replicated. Yet the Wright brothers, Apple and Martin Luther King stand out among their peers.
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 2
They stand apart from the norm and their impact is not easily copied. They are members of a very select group of leaders who do something very, very special. They inspire us.
Great leaders are able to inspire people to act. Those who are able to inspire give people a sense of purpose or belonging that has little to do with any external incentive or benefit to be gained. Those who truly lead are able to create a following of people who act not because they were swayed, but because they were inspired. For those who are inspired, the motivation to act is deeply personal. They are less likely to be swayed by incentives. Those who are inspired are willing to pay a premium or endure inconvenience, even personal suffering. Those who are able to inspire will create a following of people—supporters, voters, customers, workers—who act for the good of the whole not because they have to, but because they want to.
The organizations and leaders with the natural ability to inspire us all have a disproportionate amount of influence in their industries. They have the most loyal customers and the most loyal employees. They tend to be more profitable than others in their industry. They are more innovative, and most importantly, they are able to sustain all these things over the long term. Many of them change industries. Some of them even change the world.
PART I: A WORLD THAT DOESN’T START WITH WHY Chapter 1: Assume You Know
Every instruction we give, every course of action we set, every result we desire, starts with the same thing: a decision. There are those who decide to manipulate and there are those who start from somewhere very different. Though both courses of action may yield similar short term results, it is what we can‘t see that makes long-term success more predictable for only one. The one that understood why.
Chapter 2: Carrots and Sticks
If you ask most businesses why their customers are their customers, most will tell you it‘s because of superior quality, features, price or service. In other words, most companies have no clue why their customers are their customers. This is a fascinating realization. If companies don‘t know why their customers are their customers, odds are good that they don‘t know why their employees are their employees either.
There are only two ways to influence human behavior: you can manipulate it or you can inspire it.
From business to politics, manipulations run rampant in all forms of sales and marketing. Typical manipulations include: dropping the price; running a promotion; using fear, peer pressure or aspirational messages; and promising innovation to influence behavior—be it a purchase, a vote or support.
When companies or organizations do not have a clear sense of why their customers are their customers, they tend to rely on a disproportionate number of manipulations to get what they need. And for good reason. Manipulations work.
For transactions that occur an average of once, carrots and sticks are the best way to elicit the desired behavior. Manipulations are a perfectly valid strategy for driving a transaction, or for any behavior that is only required once or on rare occasions.
In any circumstance in which a person or organization wants more than a single transaction, however, if there is a hope for a loyal, lasting relationship, manipulations do not help.
Knowing you have a loyal customer and employee base not only reduces costs, it provides massive peace of mind. In contrast, relying on manipulations creates massive stress for buyer and seller alike.
The danger of manipulations is that they work. And because manipulations work, they have become the norm, practiced by the vast majority of companies and organizations, regardless of size or industry. With every price drop, promotion, fear-based or aspirational message, and
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 3
novelty we use to achieve our goals, we find our companies, our organizations and our systems getting weaker and weaker.
The reality is, in today‘s world, manipulations are the norm. But there is an alternative. PART 2: AN ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE Chapter 3: The Golden Circle
The Golden Circle concept discussed by the author was inspired by the Golden Ratio—a simple
mathematical relationship that has fascinated mathematicians, biologists, architects, artists, musicians and naturists since the beginning of history.
The Golden Circle provides compelling evidence of how much more we can achieve if we remind ourselves to start everything we do by first asking why.
The Golden Circle is an alternative perspective to existing assumptions about why some leaders and organizations have achieved such a disproportionate degree of influence.
The Golden Circle shows how these leaders were able to inspire action instead of manipulating people to act.
This alternative perspective is not just useful for changing the world; there are practical applications for the ability to inspire, too. It can be used as a guide to vastly improving leadership, corporate culture, hiring, product development, sales, and marketing. It even explains loyalty and how to create enough momentum to turn an idea into a social movement.
It all starts from the inside out. It all starts with Why.
WHAT: Every single company and organization on the planet knows WHAT they do. Everyone is easily able to describe the products or services a company sells or the job function they have within that system.
HOW: Some companies and people know HOW they do WHAT they do. Whether you call them a ―differentiating value proposition,‖ ―proprietary process‖ or ―unique selling proposition,‖ HOWs are often given to explain how something is different or better. Many think these are the differentiating or motivating factors in a decision. WHY: Very few people or companies can clearly articulate WHY they do WHAT they do.
By WHY Sinek means what is your purpose, cause or belief? WHY does your company exist? WHY do you get out of bed every morning? And WHY should anyone care?
An inspired leader, every single one of them, regardless of their size or their industry, thinks acts and communicates from the inside out.
Apple:
Apple‘s success over time is not typical. Their ability to remain one of the most innovative companies year after year, combined with their uncanny ability to attract a cult-like following, makes them a great example to demonstrate many of the principles of The Golden Circle.
A marketing message from Apple, if they were like everyone else, might sound like this: We make great computers. They‘re beautifully designed, simple to use and user-friendly. Wanna buy one?
This is how most companies create their message. First they start with WHAT they do—―Here‘s our new car.‖ Then they tell us how they do it or low they are better.
This time, the example starts with WHY:
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 4
o Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking differently.
o The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user-friendly.
o And we happen to make great computers. o Wanna buy one?
There is something more, something hard to describe and near impossible to copy that gives Apple such a disproportionate level of influence in the market. The example starts to prove that people don‘t buy WHAT you do; they buy WHY you do it.
It‘s worth repeating: people don‘t buy WHAT you do; they buy WHY you do it.
Companies try to sell us WHAT they do, but we buy WHY they do it. This is what Sinek means when he says they communicate from the outside in; they lead with WHAT and HOW.
It‘s not WHAT Apple does that distinguishes them. It‘s WHY they do it. Their products give life to their cause.
Their products, unto themselves, are not the reason Apple is perceived as superior; their products, WHAT Apple makes, serve as the tangible proof of what they believe. It is that clear correlation between WHAT they do and WHY they do it that makes Apple stand out. This is the reason we perceive Apple as being authentic. Everything they do works to demonstrate their WHY, to challenge the status quo. Regardless of the products they make or industry in which they operate, it is always clear that Apple ―thinks different.‖
Apple‘s WHY, to challenge the status quo and to empower the individual, is a pattern in that it repeats in all they say and do. It comes to life in their iPod and even more so in iTunes, a service that challenged the status quo of the music industry‘s distribution model.
Apple did not invent the mp3, nor did they invent the technology that became the iPod, yet they are credited with transforming the music industry with it.
Apple‘s ―1,000 songs in your pocket‖ told us WHY we needed it.
And it is Apple‘s clarity of WHY that gives them such a remarkable ability to innovate, often competing against companies seemingly more qualified than they, and succeed in industries outside their core business.
When an organization defines itself by WHAT it does, that‘s all it will ever be able to do.
Unless Dell, like so many others, can rediscover their founding purpose, cause or belief and start with WHY in all they say and do, all they will ever do is sell computers. They will be stuck in their ―core business.‖
Apple‘s WHY was formed at its founding in the late 1970s and hasn‘t changed to this date. Regardless of the products they make or the industries into which they migrate, their WHY still remains a constant. And Apple‘s intention to challenge accepted thinking has proved prophetic.
Although their competitors all had a clear sense of WHY at some point, over the course of time, all of Apple‘s competitors lost their WHY
Any company faced with the challenge of how to differentiate themselves in their market is basically a commodity, regardless of WHAT they do or HOW they do it.
It is only because Apple‘s WHY is so clear that those who believe what they believe are drawn to them. Those people who share Apple‘s WHY believe that Apple‘s products are objectively better, and any attempt to convince them otherwise is pointless.
A simple claim of better, even with the rational evidence to back it up, can create desire and even motivate a decision to buy, but it doesn‘t create loyalty. It is the cause that is represented by the company, brand, product or person that inspires loyalty.
Knowing your WHY is not the only way to be successful, but it is the only way to maintain a lasting success and have a greater blend of innovation and flexibility. When a WHY goes fuzzy, it becomes much more difficult to maintain the growth, loyalty and inspiration that helped drive the original success.
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 5
Consider the classic business school case of the railroads. If they had defined themselves as being in the mass transportation business, perhaps their behavior would have been different. Perhaps they would have seen opportunities that they otherwise missed. Perhaps they would own all the airlines today.
In all cases, going back to the original purpose, cause or belief will help these industries adapt. Instead of asking, ―WHAT should we do to compete?‖ the questions must be asked, ―WHY did we start doing WHAT we‘re doing in the first place, and WHAT can we do to bring our cause to life considering all the technologies and market opportunities available today?‖
Chapter 4: This Is Not Opinion, This Is Biology
A very basic human need, the need to belong, is not rational, but it is a constant that exists across all people in all cultures. It is a feeling we get when those around us share our values and beliefs. When we feel like we belong, we feel connected and we feel safe. As humans we crave the feeling and we seek it out. No matter where we go, we trust those with whom we are able to perceive common values or beliefs.
We want to be around people and organizations who are like us and share our beliefs.
When a company clearly communicates their WHY, what they believe, and we believe what they believe, then we will sometimes go to extraordinary lengths to include those products or brands in our lives. This is not because they are better, but because they become markers or symbols of the values and beliefs we hold dear. Those products and brands make us feel like we belong and we feel a kinship with others who buy the same things.
The principles of The Golden Circle are much more than a communications hierarchy. Its principles are deeply grounded in the evolution of human behavior. The power of WHY is not opinion, it‘s biology. The levels of The Golden Circle correspond precisely with the three major levels of the brain.
The Neocortex, corresponds with the WHAT level. The Neocortex is responsible for rational and analytical thought and language. The middle two sections comprise the limbic brain. The limbic brain is responsible for all of our feelings, such as trust and loyalty. It is also responsible for all human behavior and all our decision making, but it has no capacity for language.
When we communicate from the outside in, when we communicate WHAT we do first, yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information, like facts and features, but it does not drive behavior. But when we communicate from the inside out, we‘re talking directly to the part of the brain that controls decision-making, and our language part of the brain allows us to rationalize those decisions. The part of the brain that controls our feelings has no capacity for language. It is this disconnection that makes putting our feelings into words so hard.
When a decision feels right, we have a hard time explaining why we did what we did. Again, the part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn‘t control language, so we rationalize.
It‘s not that people don‘t know, it‘s that they have trouble explaining why they do what they do. Decision-making and the ability to explain those decisions exist in different parts of the brain.
Whether you defer to your gut or you‘re imply following your heart, no matter which part of the body you think is driving the decision, the reality is it‘s all in your limbic brain.
Our limbic brain is powerful, powerful enough to drive behavior that sometimes contradicts our rational and analytical understanding of a situation. We often trust our gut even if the decision flies in the face of all the facts and figures.
Our limbic brains are smart and often know the right thing to do. It is our inability to verbalize the reasons that may cause us to doubt ourselves or trust the empirical evidence when our gut tells us not to.
Companies that fail to communicate a sense of WHY force us to make decisions with only empirical evidence. This is why those decisions take more time, feel difficult or leave us
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 6
uncertain. Under these conditions manipulative strategies that exploit our desires, fears, doubts or fantasies work very well.
Decisions started with WHY—the emotional component of the decision- and then the rational components allowed the buyer to verbalize or rationalize the reasons for their decision.
This is what we mean when we talk about winning hearts and minds. The heart represents the limbic, feeling part of the brain, and the mind is the rational, language center.
Absent a WHY, a decision is harder to make. And when in doubt we look to science, to data, to guide decisions. Companies will tell you that the reason they start with WHAT they do or HOW they do it is because that‘s what their customers asked for.
Great leaders and great organizations are good at seeing what most of us can‘t see. They are good at giving us things we would never think of asking for.
Because our biology complicates our ability to verbalize the real reasons why we make the decisions we do, we rationalize based on more tangible factors, like the design or the service or the brand. This is the basis for the false assumption that price or features matter more than they do. Those things matter, they provide us the tangible things we can point to to rationalize our decision-making. But they don‘t set the course and they don‘t inspire behavior.
As an example, the makers of laundry detergent asked consumers what they wanted from detergent, and consumers said whiter whites and brighter brights. What the consumers didn‘t know was that having their clothes smell fresh and clean mattered much more than the nuanced differences between which detergent actually made clothes measurably cleaner.
The power of the limbic brain is astounding. It not only controls our gut decisions, but it can influence us to do things that seem illogical or irrational. It is not logic or facts but our hopes and dreams, our hearts and our guts, that drive us to try new things.
If we were all rational, there would be no small businesses, there would be no exploration, there would be very little innovation and there would be no great leaders to inspire all those things. It is the undying belief in something bigger and better that drives that kind of behavior.
For the people who love to work at Apple, even the employees can‘t put it into words. In their case, their job is one of the WHATs to their WHY. They too are convinced it‘s the quality of the products alone that is behind Apple‘s success. But deep inside, they all love being a part of something bigger than themselves. The most loyal Apple employees, like the most loyal Apple customers, all love a good revolution.
It‘s no accident that the culture at Apple is often described as a cult. It‘s more than just products, it‘s a cause to support. It‘s a matter of faith.
Products with a clear sense of WHY give people a way to tell the outside world who they are and what they believe. Remember, people don‘t buy WHAT you do, they buy WHY you do it. If a company does not have a clear sense of WHY then it is impossible for the outside world to perceive anything more than WHAT the company does. And when that happens, manipulations that rely on pushing price, features, service or quality become the primary currency of differentiation.
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 7
Chapter 5: Clarity, Discipline and Consistency
For The Golden Circle to work, each of the pieces must be in balance and in the right order.
To lead requires those who willingly follow. It requires those who believe n something bigger than a single issue. To inspire starts with the clarity of WHY.
HOWs are your values or principles that guide HOW to bring your cause to life.
Understanding HOW you do things and, more importantly, having the discipline to hold the organization and all its employees accountable to those guiding principles enhances an organization‘s ability to work to its natural strengths. Understanding HOW gives greater ability, for example, to hire people or find partners who will naturally thrive when working with you.
For values or guiding principles to be truly effective they have to be verbs. It‘s not ―integrity,‖ it‘s ―always do the right thing.‖ It‘s not ―innovation,‖ it‘s ―look at the problem from a different angle.‖ Articulating our values as verbs gives us a clear idea … we have a clear idea of how to act in any situation.
Everything you say and everything you do has to prove what you believe. A WHY is just a belief. That‘s all it is. HOWs are the actions you take to realize that belief. And WHATs are the results of those actions—everything you say and do: your products, services, marketing, PR, culture and whom you hire.
If people don‘t buy WHAT you do but WHY you do it, then all these things must be consistent. With consistency people will see and hear, without a shadow of a doubt, what you believe.
After you have clarity of WHY, are disciplined and accountable to your own values and guiding principles, and are consistent in all you say and do, the final step is to keep it all in the right order.
Southwest Airlines: o In the early 1970s, only 15 percent of the traveling population traveled by air. All
Southwest cared about was the other 85 percent. ‗We‘re the champion for the common man.‖ That was WHY they started the airline.
o Their guiding principles and values stemmed directly from their WHY and were more common sense than anything else.
o In the 1970s, air travel was expensive, and if Southwest was going to be the champion for the common man, they had to be cheap, fun and simple. That‘s HOW they did it. That‘s how they were to champion the cause of the common man. ―You are now free to move about the country,‖ they said in their advertising. That‘s much more than a tagline. That‘s a cause. And it‘s a cause looking for followers.
o What Southwest has achieved is the stuff of business folklore. As a result of WHY they do what they do, and because they are highly disciplined in HOW they do it, they are the most profitable airline in history.
o There are many ways to motivate people to do things, but loyalty comes from the ability to inspire people. Only when the WHY is clear and when people believe what you believe can a true loyal relationship develop.
It‘s when that emotional feeling goes deeper than insecurity or uncertainty or dreams that the emotional reaction aligns with how we view ourselves. It is at that point that behavior moves from being motivated to inspired. When we are inspired, the decisions we make have more to do with who we are and less to do with the companies or the products we‘re buying.
When our decisions feel right, we‘re willing to pay a premium or suffer an inconvenience for those products or services. This has nothing to do with price or quality. Price, quality, features and service are important, but they are the cost of entry in business today. It is those visceral limbic feelings that create loyalty.
When WHY, HOW, and WHAT are in balance authenticity is achieved and the buyer feels fulfilled. When they are out of balance, stress or uncertainty exists.
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 8
The Golden Circle provides a way to communicate consistent with how individuals receive information. For this reason an organization must be clear about its purpose, cause or belief and make sure that everything they say and do is consistent with and authentic to that belief.
If the levels of The Golden Circle are in balance, all those who share the organization‘s view of the world will be drawn to it and its products like a moth to a light bulb.
People are people and the biology of decision-making is the same no matter whether it is a personal decision or a business decision.
It is exceedingly difficult to start building a trusting relationship with a potential customer or client by trying to convince them of all the rational features and benefits. Those things are important, but they serve only to give credibility to a sales pitch and allow buyers to rationalize their purchase decision.
The ability to put a WHY into words provides the emotional context for decisions. It offers greater confidence than ―I think it‘s right.‖ It‘s more scalable than ―I feel it‘s right.‖ When you know your WHY, the highest level of confidence you can offer is, ―I know it‘s right.‖ When you know the decision is right, not only does it feel right, but you can also rationalize it and easily put it into words. The decision is fully balanced.
The rational WHATs offer proof for the feeling of VHY. If you can verbalize the feeling that drove the gut decision, if you can clearly state your WHY, you‘ll provide a clear context for those around you to understand why that decision was made. If the decision is consistent with the facts and figures, then those facts and figures serve to reinforce the decision—this is balance. And if the decision flies in the face and figures then it will highlight the other factors that need to be considered. It can turn a controversial decision from a debate into a discussion.
The goal of business should not be to do business with anyone who simply wants what you have. It should be to focus on the people who believe what you believe. When we are selective about doing business only with those who believe in our WHY, trust emerges.
PART 3: LEADERS NEED A FOLLOWING Chapter 6: The Emergence of Trust
Trust does not emerge simply because a seller makes a rational case why the customer should buy a product or service, or because an executive promises change. Trust is not a checklist. Fulfilling all your responsibilities does not create trust. Trust is a feeling, not a rational experience.
We trust some people and companies even when things go wrong, and we don‘t trust others even though everything might have gone exactly as it should have. A completed checklist does not guarantee trust. Trust begins to emerge when we have a sense that another person or organization is driven by things other than their own self-gain.
With trust comes a sense of value—real value, not just value equated with money. Value, by definition, is the transference of trust. You can‘t convince someone you have value, just as you can‘t convince someone to trust you. You have to earn trust by communicating and demonstrating that you share the same values and beliefs.
You have to talk about your WHY and prove it with WHAT you do.
Leading means that others willingly follow you—not because they have to, not because they are paid to, but because they want to. Those who lead are able to do so because those who follow trust that the decisions made at the top have the best interest of the group at heart. In turn, those who trust work hard because they feel like they are working for something bigger than themselves.
We‘ve succeeded as a species because of our ability to form cultures. Cultures are groups of people who come together around a common set of values and beliefs. When we share values and beliefs with others, we form trust.
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 9
It is beneficial to live and work in a place where you will naturally thrive because your values and beliefs align with the values and beliefs of that culture. The goal is not to hire people who simply have a skill set you need, the goal is to hire people who believe what you believe.
When employees belong, they guarantee your success. And they won‘t be working hard and looking for innovative solutions for you, they will be doing it for themselves.
What all great leaders have in common is the ability to find good fits to join their organizations— those who believe what they believe.
Almost every person on the planet is passionate, we are just not all passionate for the same things. Starting with WHY when hiring dramatically increases your ability to attract those who are passionate for what you believe. Simply hiring people with a solid resume or great work ethic does not guarantee success.
Great companies don‘t hire skilled people and motivate them. They hire already motivated people and inspire them. People are either motivated or they are not. Unless you give motivated people something to believe in, something bigger than their job to work toward, they will motivate themselves to find a new job and you‘ll be stuck with whoever‘s left.
Companies with a strong sense of WHY are able to inspire their employees. Those employees are more productive and innovative, and the feeling they bring to work attracts other people eager to work there as well. It‘s not such a stretch to see why the companies that we love to do business with are also the best employers. When people inside the company know WHY they come to work, people outside the company are vastly more likely to understand WHY the company is special. In these organizations, from the management on down, no one sees themselves as any more or any less than anyone else. They all need each other.
Pulling together a team of like minded people and giving them a cause to pursue ensures a greater sense of teamwork and camaraderie.
Average companies give their people something to work on. In contrast, the most innovative organizations give their people something to work toward
The role of a leader is not to come up with all the great ideas. The role of a leader is to create an environment in which great ideas can happen. It is the people inside the company, those on the front lines, who are best qualified to find new ways of doing things.
If the people inside a company are told to come to work and just do their job, that‘s all they will do. If they are constantly reminded WHY the company was founded and told to always look for ways to bring that cause to life while performing their job, however, then they will do more than their job.
Companies with a clear sense of WHY tend to ignore their competition. Whereas those with a fuzzy sense of WHY are obsessed with what others are doing.
The ability of a company to innovate is not just useful for developing new ideas, it is invaluable for navigating struggle. People who come to work with a clear sense of WHY are less prone to giving up after a few failures because they understand the higher cause.
Southwest‘s remarkable ability to solve problems, Apple‘s remarkable knack for innovation and the Wright brothers‘ ability to develop a technology with the team they had were all possible for the same reason: they believed they could and they trusted their people to do it.
If the people aren‘t looking out for the community, then the benefits of a community erode. Many companies have star employees and star salesmen and so on, but few have a culture that produces great people as a rule and not an exception.
Trust is a remarkable thing. Trust allows us to rely on others. We rely on those we trust for advice to help us make decisions. Trust is the bedrock for the advancement of our own lives, our families, our companies, our societies and our species.
Only when individuals can trust the culture or organization will they take personal risks in order to advance that culture or organization as a whole.
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 10
For those within a community, or an organization, they must trust that their leaders provide a net—practical or emotional. With that feeling of support, those in the organization are more likely to put in extra effort that ultimately benefits the group as a whole.
Great organizations become great because the people inside the organization feel protected. The strong sense of culture creates a sense of belonging and acts like a net. People come to work knowing that their bosses, colleagues and the organization as a whole will look out for them. This results in reciprocal behavior. Individual decisions, efforts and behaviors that support, benefit and protect the long-term interest of the organization as a whole.
If those inside the organization are a good fit, the opportunity to ―go the extra mile,‖ to explore, to invent, to innovate, to advance and, more importantly, to do so again and again and again, increases dramatically. Only with mutual trust can an organization become great.
Earning the trust of an organization doesn‘t come from setting out to impress everyone, it comes from setting out to serve those who serve you. It is the invisible trust that gives a leader the following they need to get things done.
If companies do not actively work to keep their Golden Circle in balance—clarity, discipline and consistency—then trust starts to break down. A company, indeed any organization, must work actively to remind everyone WHY the company exists. WHY it was founded in the first place. What it believes. They need to hold everyone in the company accountable to the values and guiding principles. It‘s not enough to just write hem on the wall—that‘s passive. Bonuses and incentives must revolve around them. The company must serve those whom they wish to serve it.
Passion comes from feeling like you are a part of something that you believe in, something bigger than yourself. If people do not trust that a company is organized to advance the WHY, then the passion is diluted. Without managed trust, people will show up to do their jobs and they will worry primarily about themselves. This is the root of office politics—people acting within the system for self-gain often at the expense of others, even the company.
If a company doesn‘t manage trust, then those working for it will not trust the company, and self- interest becomes the overwhelming motivation. This may be good for the short term, but over time the organization will get weaker and weaker.
Personal recommendations go a long way. We trust the judgment of others. It‘s part of the fabric of strong cultures. But we don‘t trust the judgment of just anyone. We are more likely to trust those who share our values and beliefs. When we believe someone has our best interest in mind because it is in their benefit to do so, the whole group benefits. The advancements of societies were based a great deal on the trust between those with a common set of values and beliefs.
The feeling of trust is lodged squarely in the same place as the WHY—the limbic brain—and it‘s often powerful enough to trump empirical research, or at least seed doubt.
Chapter 7: How a Tipping Point Tips
According to the Law of Diffusion, mass-market success can only be achieved after you penetrate between 15 percent to 18 percent of the market. That‘s because the early majority won‘t try something new until someone else has tried it first. This is why we have to drop pricing to reduce the risk tolerance of these practical-minded people until they feel comfortable to buy. That‘s what a manipulation is. They may buy, but they won‘t be loyal.
Don‘t forget, loyalty is when people are willing to suffer some inconvenience or pay a premium to do business with you.
The ability to get the system to tip is the point at which the growth of a business or the spreading of an idea starts to move at an extraordinary pace. It is also at this point that a product gains mass-market acceptance. The point at which an idea becomes a movement. When that happens, the growth is not only exponential, it is automatic.
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 11
The goal of business then should not be to simply sell to anyone who wants what you have—the majority—but rather to find people who believe what you believe, the left side of the bell curve.
They perceive greater value in what you do and will happily pay a premium or suffer some sort of inconvenience to be a part of your cause. They are the ones who, on their own volition, will tell about you. That 15 to 18 percent is not made up of people who are simply willing to buy the product. It is the percentage of people who share your beliefs and want to incorporate your ideas, your products and your services into their own lives as WHATs to their own WHYs. They look to WHAT you do as a tangible element that demonstrates their own purpose, cause or belief to the outside world.
Their ability to easily see WHY they need to incorporate your products into their lives makes this group the most loyal customers. They are also the most loyal shareholders and the most loyal employees. Get enough of the people on the left side of the curve on your side and they encourage the rest to follow.
PART 4: HOW TO RALLY THOSE WHO BELIEVE Chapter 8: Start with WHY, but Know HOW
Energy motivates but charisma inspires. Energy is easy to see. Easy to measure and easy to copy. Charisma is hard to define, near impossible to measure and too elusive to copy.
All great leaders have charisma because all great leaders have clarity of WHY; an undying belief in a purpose or cause bigger than themselves.
Charisma has nothing to do with energy; it comes from a clarity of WHY. It comes from absolute conviction in an ideal bigger than oneself. Energy, in contrast, comes from a good night‘s sleep or lots of caffeine. Energy can excite. But only charisma can inspire. Charisma commands loyalty. Energy does not.
Regardless of WHAT we do in our lives, our WHY—our driving purpose, cause or belief—never changes. If our Golden Circle is in balance, WHAT we do is simply the tangible way we find to breathe life into that cause.
No matter how charismatic or inspiring the leader is, if there are not people in the organization inspired to bring that vision to reality, to build an infrastructure with systems and processes, then at best, inefficiency reigns, and at worst, failure results.
In every case of a great charismatic leader who ever achieved anything of significance, there was always a person or small group lurking in the shadows who knew HOW to take the vision and make it a reality.
WHY-types are the visionaries, the ones with the overactive imaginations. They tend to be optimists who believe that all the things they imagine can actually be accomplished. HOW-types live more in the here and now. They are the realists and have a clearer sense of all things practical.
WHY-types are focused on the things most people can‘t see, like the future. HOW-types are focused on things most people can see and tend to be better at building structures and processes and getting things done. One is not better than the other, they are just different ways people naturally see and experience the world.
Most people in the world are HOW-types. Most people are quite functional in the real world and can do their jobs and do very well. Some HOW-types don‘t need WHY-types to do well. But WHY-guys, for all their vision and imagination, often get the short end of the stick. Without someone inspired by their vision and the knowledge to make it a reality, most WHY-types end up as starving visionaries, people with all the answers but never accomplishing much themselves.
Although so many of them fancy themselves visionaries, in realty most successful entrepreneurs are HOW types.
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 12
A business is a structure—systems and processes that need to be assembled. It is the HOW- types who are more adept at building those processes and systems. But most companies, no matter how well built, do not become billion-dollar businesses or change the course of industries. To reach the billion-dollar status, to alter the course of an industry, requires a very special and rare partnership between one who knows WHY and those who know HOW.
This relationship starts to clarify the difference between a vision statement and a mission statement in an organization. The vision is the public statement of the founder‘s intent, WHY the company exists. It is literally the vision of a future that does not yet exist.
The mission statement is a description of the route, the guiding principles—HOW the company intends to create that future. When both of those things are stated clearly, the WHY-type and the HOW-type are both certain about their roles in the partnership. Both are working together with clarity of purpose and a plan to get here. For it to work, however, it requires more than a set of skills. It requires trust.
It‘s not an accident that these unions of WHY and HOW so often come from families or old friendships. A shared upbringing and life experience increases the probability of a shared set of values and beliefs.
For a message to have real impact, to affect behavior and seed loyalty, it needs more than publicity. It needs to publicize some higher purpose, cause or belief to which those with similar values and beliefs can relate. Only then can the message create any lasting mass-market success. For a stunt to appeal to the left side of the curve of the Law of Diffusion, WHY the stunt is being performed, beyond the desire to generate press, must be clear. Though there may be short-term benefits without clarity, loud is nothing more than excessive volume.
For a WHY to have the power to move people it must not only be clear, it must be amplified to reach enough people to tip the scale.
An organization effectively becomes the vessel through which a person with a clear purpose, cause or belief can speak to the outside world. But for a megaphone to work, clarity must come first. Without a clear message, what will you amplify?
Chapter 9: Know WHY Know HOW. Then WHAT?
Empowering the individual spirit is WHY Apple exists. Apple knows their WHY and so do we. Agree with them or not, we know what they believe because they tell us.
If all the things happening at the WHAT level do not clearly represent WHY the company exists, then the ability to inspire is severely complicated.
When a company is small, it revolves around the personality of the founder. As a company grows, the CEO‘s job is to personify the WHY. To be a symbol of what the company believes. They are the intention and what the company says and does is their voice.
As the organization grows, the leader becomes physically removed, farther and farther away from WHAT the company does and even farther away from the outside market. The leader must ensure that there are people on the team who believe what they believe and know HOW to build it.
The leader sitting at the top of the organization is the inspiration, the symbol of the reason we do what we do. They represent the emotional limbic brain. WHAT the company says and does presents the rational thought and language of the neocortex. Just as it is hard for people to speak their feelings, it is equally hard for an organization to explain its WHY.
Organizations of any size will struggle to clearly communicate their WHY. Translated into business terms this means that trying to communicate your differentiating value proposition is really hard.
Done properly, that‘s what marketing, branding and products and services become; a way for organizations to communicate to the outside world. Communicate clearly and you shall be understood.
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 13
Chapter 10: Communication Is Not About Speaking, It’s About Listening
Great societies understand the importance of symbols as a way of reinforcing their values, of capturing their beliefs. The flag, for example, is a symbol of our nation‘s values and beliefs.
Most companies have logos, but few have been able to convert those logos into meaningful symbols. Because without clarity of WHY, a logo is just a logo.
What a company says and does are the means by which the company speaks.
The reason the author uses Apple so extensively throughout this book is that Apple is so disciplined in HOW they do things and so consistent in WHAT they do that, love them or hate them, we all have a sense of their WHY. We know what they believe.
It‘s not just WHAT or HOW you do things that matters; what matters more is that WHAT and HOW you do things is consistent with your WHY Only then will your practices indeed be best.
There is a simple test you can apply to find out exactly WHAT and HOW is right for you. It‘s a simple metaphor called the Celery Test. If you say you are eating healthy, celery in your supermarket basket shows that you are doing so – not Oreo cookies.
Filtering your decisions through your WHY, everybody can see what you believe.
Simply ensuring that WHAT you do proves what you believe makes it easy for those who believe what you believe to find you. You have successfully communicated your WHY based on WHAT you do.
With a WHY clearly stated in an organization, anyone within the organization can make a decision as clearly and as accurately as the founder. A WHY provides the clear filter for decision-making. Any decisions—hiring, partnerships, strategies and tactics—should all pass the Celery Test.
PART 5: THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE IS SUCCESS Chapter 11: When WHY Goes Fuzzy
Wal-Mart
By the time Sam Walton died, he had taken Wal-Mart from a single store in Bentonville, Arkansas, and turned it into a retail colossus with $44 billion in annual sales with 40 million people shopping in the stores per week.
Walton wasn‘t the first person with big dreams to start a small business. Sam Walton did not invent the low-cost shopping model. Wal-Mart was not the only retail establishment capable of offering low prices either. Walmart did not have a lock on cheap prices and cheap prices are not what made it so beloved and ultimately so successful.
For Sam Walton, there was something else, a deeper purpose, cause or belief that drove him. Wal-Mart was WHAT Walton built to serve his fellow human beings. To serve the community, to serve employees and to serve customers. Service was a higher cause.
The problem was that his cause was not clearly handed down after he died. In the post-Sam era, Wal-Mart slowly started to confuse WHY it existed—to serve people—with HOW it did business—to offer low prices. They forgot Walton‘s WHY and their driving motivation became all about ―cheap.‖
In Wal-Mart‘s case, forgetting their founder‘s WHY has come at a very high human cost. Ironic, considering the company‘s founding cause. The company once renowned for how it treated employees and customers has been scandal-ridden for nearly a decade. Nearly every scandal has centered on how poorly they treat their customers and their employees.
What has changed is that their WHY went fuzzy. If we, as outsiders, have lost clarity of Wal- Mart‘s WHY, it‘s a good sign that the WHY has gone fuzzy inside the company also. What is clear is that the Wal-Mart of today is not the Wal-Mart that Sam Walton built.
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 14
For some people, there is an irony to success. Many people who achieve great success don‘t always feel it. Some who achieve fame talk about the loneliness that often goes with it. That‘s because success and achievement are not the same thing, yet too often we mistake one for the other.
Achievement is something you reach or attain, like a goal. It is something tangible, clearly defined and measurable. Success, in contrast, is a feeling or a state of being. ―She feels successful. She is successful,‖ we say, using the verb to be to suggest this state of being.
While we can easily lay down a path to reach a goal, laying down a path to reach that intangible feeling of success is more elusive. In Sinek‘s vernacular, achievement comes when you pursue and attain WHAT you want. Success comes when you are clear in pursuit of WHY you want it. The former is motivated by intangible factors while the latter by something deeper in the brain, where we lack the capacity to put those feelings into words.
Success comes when we wake up every day in that never-ending pursuit of WHY we do WHAT we do. Our achievements, WHAT we do, serve as the milestones to indicate we are on the right path. It is not an either/or—we need both.
In the course of building a business or a career, we become more confident in WHAT we do. We become greater experts in HOW to do it. With each achievement, the tangible measurements of success and the feeling of progress increase. Life is good. However, for most of us, somewhere in the journey we forget WHY we set out on the journey in the first place. Somewhere in the course of all those achievements an inevitable split happens. This is true for individuals and organizations alike.
Those with an ability to never lose sight of WHY, no matter how little or how much they achieve, can inspire us. Those with the ability to never lose sight of WHY and also achieve the milestones that keep everyone focused in the right direction are the great leaders. For great leaders, The Golden Circle is in balance. They are in pursuit of WHY, they hold themselves accountable to HOW they do it and WHAT they do serves as the tangible proof of what they believe.
Most of us, unfortunately, reach a place where WHAT we are doing and WHY we are doing it eventually fall out of balance. We get to a point when WHY and WHAT are not aligned. It the separation of the tangible and the intangible that marks the split.
Chapter 12: Split Happens
Nearly every company or organization starts the same way: with an idea.
At the beginning ideas are fueled by passion, that very compelling emotion that causes us to do quite irrational things. That passion drives many people to make sacrifices so that a cause bigger than themselves can be brought to life.
The reason so many small businesses fail, however, is because passion alone can‘t cut it. For passion to survive, it needs structure. A WHY without the HOWs, passion without structure, has a very high probability of failure. Passion may need structure to survive, but for structure to grow, it needs passion.
The single greatest challenge any organization will face is success. As the organization grows, as it becomes more successful, it becomes physically impossible for one person to make every major decision. Not only must others be trusted and relied upon to make big decisions, but those people will also start making hiring choices. And slowly but surely, as the megaphone grows, the clarity of WHY starts to dilute.
The moment at which the clarity of WHY starts to go fuzzy is the split. At this point organizations may be loud, but they are no longer clear.
When organizations are small, WHAT they do and WHY they do it are in close parallel. Born out of the personality of the founder, it is relatively easy for early employees to ―get it.‖ Clarity of
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 15
WHY is understood because the source of passion is near—in fact it physically comes to work every day.
For organizations that want to pass the School Bus Test, to become billion-dollar organizations or work at a scale large enough to shift markets or society, the need to manage through the split is paramount.
The School Bus Test is a simple metaphor. If a founder or leader of an organization were to be hit by a school bus, would the organization continue to thrive at the same pace without them at the helm? So many organizations are built on the force of a single personality that their departure can cause significant disruption.
It‗s just a question of when and how prepared the organization is or the inevitable departure. The challenge isn‘t to cling to the leader; it‘s to find effective ways to keep the founding vision alive forever.
The founder‘s WHY must be extracted and integrated into the culture of the company. What‘s more, a strong succession plan should aim to find a leader inspired by the founding cause and ready to lead it into the next generation. Future leaders and employees alike must be inspired by something bigger than the force of personality of the founder and must see beyond profit and shareholder value alone.
Successful entrepreneurs need to return to a time when WHAT they did was in perfect parallel to WHY they did it. Companies like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Starbucks, the Gap, Dell and so many others that used to be special have all gone through a split. If they cannot recapture their WHY and reinspire those inside and outside their organization, every one of them will end up looking more like AOL than the companies they were.
Most organizations today use very clear metrics to track the progress and growth of WHAT they do—usually it‘s money. Unfortunately, we have very poor measurements to ensure that a WHY stays clear.
Money is a perfectly legitimate measurement of goods sold or services rendered. But it is no calculation of value. Value is a feeling, not a calculation. It is perception.
A strong brand, like all other intangible factors that contribute to the perception of value, starts with a clear sense of WHY. Loyal buyers will always rationalize the premium they pay or the inconvenience they suffer to get that feeling. To them, the sacrifice of time or money is worth it. They will try to explain that their feeling of value comes from quality or features or some other easy-to-point-to element, but it doesn‘t. Those are external factors and the feeling they get comes completely from inside them.
Microsoft
Like all visionary leaders, Bill Gates is special because he embodies what he believes. He is the personification of Microsoft‘s WHY. And for that reason, he serves as a physical beacon, a reminder of WHY everyone comes to work.
When Gates founded Microsoft with Paul Allen in 1975, he did so to advance a higher cause: if you give people the right tools, and make them more productive, then everyone, no matter their lot in life, will have an opportunity to achieve their real potential. ―A PC in every home and on every desk,‖ he envisioned; remarkable from a company that didn‘t even make PCs.
Make no mistake, Microsoft has done more to change the world than Apple. Though we are drawn to Apple‘s well-deserved reputation for innovation and challenging the business models of more than one industry, it is Microsoft that was responsible for the advancement of the personal computer. Gates put a PC on every desk and in doing so he changed the world. As the physical embodiment of the company‘s WHY, the ―everyman‖ who fulfilled an amazing potential, what happens now that he‘s gone?
Although Microsoft went through the split years ago, changing from a company that intended to change the world into a company that makes software, having Gates hanging around helped Microsoft maintain at least a loose sense of WHY they existed. With Gates gone, Microsoft does
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 16
not have sufficient systems to measure and preach their WHY anymore. This is an issue that will have an exponential impact as time passes.
It wasn‘t until Jobst returned in 1997 that everyone inside and outside the company was reminded WHY Apple existed. With clarity back, the company quickly reestablished its power for innovation, for thinking different and, once again, for redefining industries. With Jobst at the helm again, the culture for challenging the status quo, for empowering the individual, returned. Every decision was filtered through the WHY, and it worked.
When the person who personifies the WHY departs without clearly articulating WHY the company was founded in the first place, they leave no clear cause for their successor to lead. The new CE0 will come aboard to run the company and will focus attention on the growth of WHAT with little attention to WHY. Worse, they may try to implement their own vision without considering the cause that originally inspired most people to show up in the first place. In these cases, the leader can work against the culture of the company instead of leading or building upon it. The result is diminished morale, mass exodus, poor performance and a slow and steady transition to a culture of mistrust and every-man-for-himself.
Starbucks is another good example. In 2000, Howard Schultz resigned as CEO of Starbucks, and for the first time in its history and despite 50 million customers per week, the company started to crack.
The reason the company was floundering was not that it grew too fast, but that Schultz had not properly infused his WHY into the organization so that the organization could manage the WHY without him. In early 2008, Schultz replaced Donald with a leader who could better steer the company back to a time before the split: himself
The entire culture of all these companies was built around one man‘s vision. The only succession plan that will work is to find a CEO who believes in and wants to continue to lead that movement, not replace it with their own vision of the future.
That‘s why we call it succession, not replacement. There is a continuity of vision.
It will be easy to know if a successor is carrying the right torch. Simply apply the Celery Test and see if what the company is saying and doing makes sense. Test whether WHAT they are doing effectively proves WHY they were founded. If we can‘t easily assess a company‘s WHY simply from looking at their products, services, marketing and public statements, then odds are high that they don‘t know what it is either. If they did, so would we.
With a company so beloved by employees, customers and communities, Walton made only one major blunder. He didn‘t put his cause into clear enough words so that others could continue to lead the cause after he died.
Since Sam Walton‘s death, Wal-Mart has been battered by scandals of mistreating employees and customers all in the name of shareholder value. Their WHY has gone so fuzzy that even when they do things well, few are willing to give them credit.
PART 6: DISCOVER WHY Chapter 13: The Origins of a WHY
The WHY does not come from looking ahead at what you want to achieve and figuring out an appropriate strategy to get there. It is not born out of any market research. It does not come from extensive interviews with customers or even employees. It comes from looking in the completely opposite direction from where you are now. Finding WHY is a process of discovery, not invention.
Every company, organization or group with the ability to inspire starts with a person or small group of people who were inspired to do something bigger than themselves. Gaining clarity of WHY, ironically, is not the hard part. It is the discipline to trust one‘s gut, to stay true to one‘s purpose, cause or beliefs. Remaining completely in balance and authentic is the most difficult part. The few that are able to build a megaphone, and not just a company, around their cause
[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 17
are the ones who earn the ability to inspire. In doing so, they harness a power to move people that few can even imagine. Learning the WHY of a company or an organization or understanding the WHY of any social movement always starts with one thing: you.
Sinek‘s WHY is to inspire people to do the things that inspire them. The vision is to have every person and every organization know their WHY and use it to benefit all they do.
Chapter 14: New Competition
When you compete against everyone else, no one wants to help you. But when you compete against yourself, everyone wants to help you.
Imagine if every organization started with WHY. Decisions would be simpler. Loyalties would be greater. Trust would be a common currency. If our leaders were diligent about starting with WHY, optimism would reign and innovation would thrive.
As this book illustrates, there is precedence for this standard. No matter the size of the organization, no matter the industry, no matter the product or the service, if we all take some responsibility to start with WHY and inspire others to do the same, then, together, we can change the world. And that‘s pretty inspiring.
Recommendation: Start With Why is one of the most useful and powerful books that I have read. It is both simple and elegant – it shows us how leaders should lead. It is a powerful and penetrating exploration of what separates great companies and great leaders from the rest. And Simon Sinek is an incredible human being – having met him I adore him!
Get 100 business book summaries just like this one at 100mustreads.com
Contact Frumi at 949-729-1577 [email protected] www.frumi.com
www.100mustreads.com
About the reviewer: Frumi Rachel Barr, MBA, PhD Many CEO's find themselves asking “What now?” to sensitive situations that only an experienced former CEO can understand. Frumi is brought in to solve problems and often remains to work with you, as your confidante and secret weapon. She has an uncanny knack of getting to the heart of your corporate climate and maximizing your team’s performance, profitability and sustainability. To schedule a free Break From the Pack to Success consultation email [email protected] or call 949-729-1577
, The cognitive Fitness Consultancy
Authentic leadership: the key to
Building trust Personal integrity in leaders is one of the foundations for building trust Research with RAF officers has helped to define the behaviours associated widi 'authentic leadership' - and points to the need for a different emphasis in management and leadership development
o anyone who cares to look, whether they are HR professionals or not, it's obvious that tíiere is a crisis in leadership. The Ipsos MORI sur- vey on trust in 2011 showed that only 29 per cent of people helieve business leaders can be
trusted to tell the truth, while the most recent DDI Global Leadership Fore- cast has found that UK HR practitioners are sorely disappointed with the people who lead them. Only 18 per cent report high quality leadership within their organisations, identifying a staggering 39 per cent failure rate of external leadership appointments and a 28 per cent failure rate of inter- nal appointments. Boards and the HR function need to do something dif- ferently, and to begin to do it now, if they are to address this crisis within their own organisations.
Fiona Beddoes-Jones is principal psychologist at The Cognitive Fitness Consultancy, and author of the Authentic Leadership 360. Thanks to the business leaders, RAF officers and their colleagues who participated in this research, and to the project sponsor. Group Captain Jupp OBE, of the RAF Leadership Centre
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP IS NOT a new concept, but several factors have contributed to an upsurge of interest. First, there is the global problem of a perceived lack of ethi- cal decision-making from political and business leaders, which has led to a breakdovra in trust. This is a serious mat- ter because trust is the primary virtue that followers say that they want in their leaders. Recent CIPD research into trust and why trust matters suggests that, in order to build effec- tive organisations, we need leaders who display personal integrity and humanity, who allow followers to get to know them, and who are fundamentally trustworthy. The CIPD report further suggests that organisations, in the private and public sectors alike, now need to redesign their leadership development processes to identify, select and develop this new kind of leader - one who is self-aware, compassionate, honourable, ethical and authentic.
A second, longer-term driver is the essentially western desire for self-fulfilment while being personally authentic as a leader. With Harvard, Cranfield, Ashridge and Henley business schools all offering development programmes in "authentic leadership", we could be forgiven for thinking that it is the latest in a long list of approaches that promise to be the holy grail of leadership. So, what is "authenticity" and how is it relevant to HR practitioners?
The ABC of authentic leadership is A for authenticity: being true to your values and to yourself. B is for bravery: having the courage to lead and to do the right thing, espe- cially in the face of danger or dissent, and C is for compas- sion: leading with empathy and a concern for the physical and emotional well-being of others. Authentic leadership links together who you are as a person, your beliefs and values, how you lead and manage, your personality, think- ing and behaviours. To be authentic is to be true to your own ethical standards of conduct, to live a life where what you say matches what you do, and importantly, both are consistent with what you believe, your principles and how you feel.
Personal authenticity, however, can be egocentric and self-centred. It can ignore everything to do with other peo- ple, including followers, who are obviously crucial to lead- ership. Being authentic as a leader oneself is therefore not the same as being an authentic leader, which involves much more than simply being true to yourself
Previously, the only empirical research into authentic leadership has been carried out in the US, using students. They, crucially, lacked any significant leadership experi- ence, thereby limiting its validity and reliability. My research in the UK, undertaken for a PhD thesis, began with an ;xtensive academic and applied literature review into lead- ership, authenticity and authentic leadership, resulting in
44/ AUGUST 2012PEOPLEMANAGEMENT.CO.UK
1. Self-awareness (cognitive)
PSYCHOLOGICAL SELF ~
3. Moral virtue (cognitive)
~ PHILOSOPHICAL SELF
2. Self-regulation (behavioural)
4. Moral actions (behavioural)
CHART 1
> The cognitive and behavioural aspects of authentic leadership - a new model
the development of a new model of authentic leadership (see Chart 1, above). This theoretical model has four factors, linking the cognitive elements of self-awareness with the behavioural elements of self-regulation, and a leader's ethi- cal thinking (which I call moral virtue) with actual behav- iours (moral actions). It therefore links the psychological aspects of leadership with its philosophical ones; a useful distinction that many leadership development initiatives fail to make.
Three pillars of authentic leadership
TO TEST THIS FOUR-FACTOR MODEL empirically, 150 item statements were generated and reviewed by an expert panel of psychologists, leaders, leadership development consultants and academics. As a result, some items were deleted and others added, resulting in a final item bank of 100 questions; 25 for each factor. These were piloted, in a self-report format, on a business leader population sample of 140 people who were either CIPD professionals or mem- bers of the UK Institute of Directors. In the final study - using a 360-degree feedback design, which mitigates the tendency for leaders to over-estimate their performance and capabilities - 54 senior RAF officers, with a mean aver- age of 19 years' service, were rated by their superior officers, subordinates and peers, making an RAF research popula- tion sample of 380 in total.
'LOOK FOR LEADERS WITH AN ETHICAL. PRO-SOCIAL, PEOPLE-FOCUSED PERSPECTIVE. RATHER THAN AN OVERLY NUMBERS- DRIVEN. TASK FOCUSED. GOAL ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION'
In both the pilot business sample and the RAF officer research, an identical factor stmcture emerged, suggesting that the model and the 360-degree questionnaire could be generalised across leadership populations. Empirically, three components of authentic leadership - not four - became evident: self-awareness, self-regulation and ethics. It seems that, statistically at least, followers don't make a distinction between the ethical and moral thinking that drives a leader's ethical decision-making (their rhetoric) and what they do in practice. In other words, a leader is judged equally by what they say and what they do. Cru- cially, these must match, or a leader will not be trusted. Qualitative, written feedback ftom colleagues and subordi- nates found that followers evaluate a leader on their levels of consistency.
Each of the three "pillars" of authentic leadership com- prises a number of cognitive, behavioural and emotional ele- ments, which are displayed to a greater or lesser extent by all leaders (see helow, and Chart 2, overleaf). Leaders who are more authentic display more of these pro-social, appropriate attributes of "good" leadership, more of the time; and have better quality relationships with colleagues and followers than less authentic leaders do. In this sense, authentic leader- ship is "relational" rather than transactional, transforma- tional or driven by an underpinning philosophy of power or control as some other leadership approaches are.
Self-awareness includes an understanding of our own beliefs, values, thinking processes, emotions, bounda- »-»
PEOPLEMANAGEMENT.CO.UK AUGUST 2012 / ¿1 C
RELATIONSHIPS
: SELF-AWARENESS t
Relationships
Strengths '
Weaknesses
:' Empathy ^
¿,_ Influence
' Impact , '
ETHICS i V
Integrity • • • ^
Honour
Courage
Honesty
Transparency- '
Fairness
SELF-REGULATION
• 'Discipline .
> Energy 4
Flexibility
" Emotional control
j / Patience '
' ' • Resilience
CHART 2
o Three pillars of authentic leadership
TRUST
ries, strengths and weaknesses. It encompasses an apprecia- tion of the influence that we have over others, such as the impact that our moods, behaviours, thoughts and language have on followers and colleagues. It also incorporates a lead- er's understanding of the motivations, emotions, thinking, beliefs, values and psychological make-up of others, at both an individual, personal level and also collectively at the stra- tegic, organisational level. The degree of a leader's self- awareness seems to be a good predictor of the strength of their relationships with others.
Self-regulation embraces those elements of leadership concerned with self-management: a leader's focus, their self-discipline and their ability to be actively and deliber- ately in control of their thoughts, emotions and behaviours. It includes levels of tolerance and patience, how they man- age their energy, and their physical, mental and emotional resilience. Unsurprisingly, perhaps because of the high lev- els of self-discipline and physical courage required from our military leaders, it was here that RAF officers scored most highly in the 360-degree feedback ratings from their supe- rior officers, subordinates and peers.
Ethics incorporates ethical virtue (thinking) and ethical actions, which are the cognitive and behavioural elements of a leader's ethical orientation and are philosophical, rather than psychological, aspects of leadership. A leader's per- sonal leadership philosophy, their professional integrity, honour, fairness and desire to do what's right, all reside here. Balanced by the necessary commercial concems of the
'THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TRUST AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE TRUSTWORTHINESS IS THE ATTRIBUTE THAT FOLLOWERS MOST SEEK IN A LEADER"
sector they work within, authentic leaders have an ethos that is pro-social (geared to the good of the group as a whole) and people-focused. They have a desire to contrib- ute. They also have the moral courage to speak up for what they believe in and to remain steadfast in the face of dissent or wrongdoing by others, to the extent that they vidll blow the whistle or leave an organisation that falls short of their high ethical standards.
The three pillars comprise many cognitive, emotional and behavioural elements that, taken together, make each leader authentic in his or her own way. Interestingly, authentic leadership is correlated with a number of posi- tive organisational outcomes, of which trust is the most significant. The association between trust and authentic leadership is important because trustworthiness is the attribute that followers most seek in a leader. Moreover, high levels of trust also correlate with improved employee engagement and well-being, increased levels of creativity and problem solving, reduced employee turnover and greater productivity.
Embedding the behaviours
s o WHAT MIGHT HR PROFESSIONALS do to encourage and support the strengthening of authentic leadership in their organisations? Here are some suggestions:
46/ AUGUST 2012PEOPLEMANAGEMENT.CO.UK
• Recruit for collaboration, not competitiveness. Look for leaders with an ethical, pro-social, people-focused per- spective, rather than an overly numbers-driven, task focused, goal achievement orientation. Recruit too for empathy, a willingness to apologise, and a learning orienta- tion. Everything that happens to a leader is an opportunity for them to develop their awareness about themselves and others - which is the fundamental starting point for all three pillars of authentic leadership. Without developing self-awareness and an accurate sense of self, a leader is not able to monitor, regulate and fiex their energy, focus and behaviours. Without the self-awareness to understand the implications and impact of their decisions and subsequent actions, their ethical compass will lack a sense of right and wrong and they will blunder through leadership, ulti- mately failing.
• Encourage whistleblowing. Look carefully at those people who have found the courage to risk everything for some- thing they profoundly believe in. Some of them may be exactly the right people to promote. • Develop managers and leaders vidthin a framework and philosophy of authentic leadership and the three pillars approach. When you create an organisational culture con- sistent vvrith authentic leadership, then respect, trust and all of the positive organisational outcomes associated with trust will follow. This culture vnW ensure that authentic leadership behaviours are modelled by leaders and manag- ers at all levels, thereby making the often difficult discus- sions and subsequent decisions about taking the right pro- social and ethical course of action much easier.
Turning specifically to management and leadership development programmes, some key aspects to look at are: 1. Get your philosophy right. Every effective leadership development programme has a clear philosophy that underpins it. This is usually a refiection of the leadership philosophy of the programme sponsor and/or the board. This needs to be clear, transparent, and consistent with organisational objectives. It must be supported by senior management, as it creates your organisational culture, implicitly and explicitly.
2. BuUd the programme around the three pillars of authentic leadership. Your approach and every activity must relate to one or more ofthe pillars. An example can be found on my organisation's website, 3peaksleadership.co.uk. Include a 360-degree measurement before and after the programme, so that participants can get real feedback from their teams, more senior managers and their colleagues. Suppliers and clients can also be invited to contribute feed- back if appropriate.
3. Select the right people. With its pro-social, collaborative orientation, not everyone is capable of becoming an authen- tic leader. As authentic leadership development is essen- tially a personal leadership journey, recognise that not eve-
• Ipsos MORI research: "Doctors are most trusted profession - politicians least trusted" bit.iy/lpsosTnist
• DDI Global Leadership Forecast 2011 ddlworld.coin/glf2011
• Gallup 2009 research: "What followers want from leaders" biLly/Galhipfollow
f • CIPD research report - "Where has all the trust gone?" bit.ly/CIPDtrust
^ PM feature "Organisa- tional effectiveness: how trust helps" blt.ly/Pmrasthelps
• Fiona Beddoes-Jones can be contacted at cognKivefitnessxo.uk
ryone viâll want to invest the time, effort and personal introspection required to become an authentic leader - and if they do, understand that they will become an authentic leader in their own way. This may mean that ultimately, if they feel there is not a meaningful fit, they will decide to leave your organisation - or conversely, you may need to ask them to.
4. Make sure the programme is long enough. Most lead- ership development programmes last five days or fewer. This is far too short a period to allow for deep thought, self-refiection and the practice of new behaviours that will lead to sustainable change. A programme that lasts a year allows for real, organisation-relevant, project-based, live case studies and the support of a coaching and mentoring programme where leaders become mentors as well as mentees. It will also give participants enough time to develop meaningful relationships with other leaders on the programme who they may work with across the organ- isation in the future.
5. Build in an ongoing review of the programme results and successes. Tweak the programme as you go along to ensure it always achieves the desired personal, professional and organisational objectives. Making successes public, and celebrating the programme at the end, will support organi- sational culture and provide evidence of return on invest- ment. Growing leaders from within an organisation is both more effective and less costly than external appointments. It also supports intemal relationships and a more authentic organisational culture, so don't make the programme a one- off, but rather, make it an annual or biannual benchmark of success for your organisation. •
CONCLUSION ̂ Why leaders fail
THE THREE PILLARS not only provide a route map for the development of authentic leaders, they also identify the three reasons that leaders fail. Historically, leadership failure may have involved a deficit in knowledge or exper- tise. Modern leadership failures, however, invariably seem to involve either a lack of self/other awareness, a lack of self-regulation/discipline or a moral/ethical deficit. In other words, a leader found wanting in any one ofthe three pillars of authentic leadership will not achieve their poten- tial and is more likely, ultimately, to fail. Understanding the reasons for leadership failure is as important as under- standing the components of leadership success.
This research into authentic leadership provides organi- sations with a potential blueprint and route map to identify, recruit and develop the leaders they now need to ensure a sustainable and viable future. ®
AUGUST 2012 PEOPLEMANAGEMENT.CO.UK
Copyright of People Management is the property of Haymarket Media Group Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Journal of Management Education 2016, Vol. 40(6) 747 –768
© The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1052562916674465
jme.sagepub.com
Lasting Impact Award 2016
Republication of “On Becoming a Critically Reflexive Practitioner”
Ann L. Cunliffe1
Abstract Critically reflexive practice embraces subjective understandings of reality as a basis for thinking more critically about the impact of our assumptions, values, and actions on others. Such practice is important to management education, because it helps us understand how we constitute our realities and identities in relational ways and how we can develop more collaborative and responsive ways of managing organizations. This article offers three ways of stimulating critically reflexive practice: (a) an exercise to help students think about the socially constructed nature of reality, (b) a map to help situate reflective and reflexive practice, and (c) an outline and examples of critically reflexive journaling.
Keywords reflexivity, social constructionism, journals, ethics
Setting the Scene: Definitions and Reasons
What is critically reflexive practice and why is it important to manage- ment education? Pollner (1991) defined reflexivity as “an ‘unsettling,’i.e.,
1California State University—Hayward, Hayward, CA, USA
This article was original published as: Cunliffe, A. L. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 407–426. (Original doi:10.1177/1052562904264440)
Corresponding Author: Ann L. Cunliffe, Department of Public Administration, California State University—Hayward, Hayward, CA 94542, USA. Email: [email protected]
674465 JMEXXX10.1177/1052562916674465Journal of Management EducationCunliffe research-article2016
748 Journal of Management Education 40(6)
an insecurity regarding the basic assumptions, discourse and practices used in describing reality” (p. 370). In practical terms, this means exam- ining critically the assumptions underlying our actions, the impact of those actions, and from a broader perspective, what passes as good man- agement practice. The concept of reflexivity has been debated across a variety of disciplines including sociology, the natural sciences, and psy- chology (e.g., Clifford, 1986; Gergen, 1994; Latour, 1988) and more recently in organization and management studies (e.g., Calás & Smircich, 1999; Chia, 1996b; Hardy & Clegg, 1997; Weick, 1995). However, it is often difficult to translate the conceptual and theoretical aspects into practical implications for managing. In this article, I suggest that the prac- tice of critical reflexivity is of particular importance to management edu- cation because by thinking more critically about our own assumptions and actions, we can develop more collaborative, responsive, and ethical ways of managing organizations.
If we accept that management education is not just about helping man- agers become more effective organizational citizens but also about helping them become critical thinkers and moral practitioners, then critical reflex- ivity is of particular relevance. Managers and administrators influence oth- ers—individuals, communities, societies, and the environment (Reynolds, 1999). They find themselves dealing with accelerating rates of change, uncertainty, and ambiguity and often work in politicized organizations where they have to deal with a wide variety of ethical issues. Recent scan- dals (e.g., Enron, WorldCom, the FBI’s response to information on terror- ist activity) have raised questions about the nature of ethical action and the pressures managers face when trying to act in morally responsible ways. Consequently, it is becoming more important to develop different ways of thinking, organizing, managing, and relating to people. Critically reflexive practice offers a way of surfacing these pressures by encouraging us to examine the assumptions that decisions are justified solely on the basis of efficiency and profit, that there is one rational way of managing, that main- taining current managerial practice is paramount, and that as professionals we know what is best for others. In examining these assumptions, we can uncover their limitations and possibilities, become less prone to becoming complacent or ritualistic in our thoughts and actions, and develop a greater awareness of different perspectives and possibilities and of the need to transform old ways of theorizing and managing. In this article, I explore three ways in which we can help our students become critically reflexive practitioners.
Cunliffe 749
Critical reflexivity draws upon very different ways of thinking about the nature of reality as well as a different way of thinking about management learning. In particular, it means focusing on three issues:
Existential: Who am I and what kind of person do I want to be?
Relational: How do I relate to others and to the world around me?
Praxis: The need for self-conscious and ethical action based on a critical questioning of past actions and of future possibilities (Jun, 1994).
It is crucial for educators and students to recognize these issues, because otherwise critical reflexivity becomes just another technique rather than a philosophy-driven practice in which we take responsibility for creating our social and organizational realities. In the following section, I outline the assumptions of reality underlying critical reflexivity and their impact on ped- agogy and learning. In the remainder of the article, I draw on these assump- tions to offer ways of helping students become critically reflexive practitioners.
Assumptions Underlying Critically Reflexive Practice: Implications for Learning
The work of Paulo Freire (1972) was instrumental in drawing attention to the need for critically reflexive practice in education. He suggested that tradi- tional pedagogies are often emphasized at the expense of critical pedagogies and that we need to redress the balance. Each draws upon different assump- tions about the nature of reality and leads to a different way of teaching. Freire argued that traditional pedagogies encompass the banking approach to learning and assume that:
•• Social reality is objective. There are things out there we act into, for example, organizational structures, norms, behaviors, and ideologies.
•• Learning is a disembodied, structured, cognitive activity. In other words, learning takes place inside the head as an intellectual activity in which mind and body, intellect and emotion, thinking and acting are separate.
•• We can apply knowledge to practice and use it to change situations, people, and events. We therefore teach techniques, principles, and models that can be used to align individual actions with the organiza- tional goals of efficiency and effectiveness.
750 Journal of Management Education 40(6)
Teachers therefore deposit information with students who learn to see the world in objective ways and separate knowing and being. In practical terms, this often means teaching management and administration as a system and set of principles; as relationships involving authority, control, and accountabil- ity; as a process of making and implementing objective rational decisions; and as a concern with means rather than questioning ends. Critical thinking, as commonly defined, is also based on this idea that there is a reality out there that we can analyze in a systematic way, using established conceptual knowl- edge, and to which we can apply universal, rational standards (Caproni & Arias, 1997; Elder & Paul, 2001). This way of thinking still requires us to separate ourselves from reality and think about situations objectively, that is, thinking about reality. In essence, traditional approaches take the person and subjectivity out of management theory.
Freire (1972) suggested that a critical pedagogy is one that transforms reality and unites critical thinking and dialogue to develop a more humanistic approach to learning—one that puts a self-conscious being able to think criti- cally about the impact of his or her actions firmly at the center of learning. I wish to develop the idea of critically reflexive practice by linking Freire’s ideas with social constructionist conceptions of reality. This is particularly important because critically reflexive practitioners hold subjective under- standings of reality and think about the impact of their own actions in creat- ing reality and knowledge, that is, thinking in realities.
Social constructionism gained prominence with the work of Goffman (1959), Garfinkel (1967), and Berger and Luckmann (1967). Contemporary authors have assessed the implications of social constructionism for our orga- nizational lives (e.g., Cunliffe, 2001; Gergen, 1994; Hatch 1997; McNamee & Gergen, 1999; Watson 1994; Weick, 1995). Essentially, it is based on the notion that our social realities and sense of self are created between us in our everyday interactions and conversations—through our oral and written lan- guage. This reality-constituting process is ongoing and never fully under our control, because it emerges in the spontaneous, taken-forgranted, nonverbal/ verbal, subjective, un/conscious ways in which we respond, react, and nego- tiate meaning with others. Our knowledge of the world is also constructed through our interaction, and we make sense of what is happening around us as we interact with our surroundings (Prasad & Caproni, 1997). Knowledge is not just theory or information; it also incorporates knowing from within, a tacit practical consciousness of everyday sense making in which we implic- itly know things about our surroundings (people, places, actions) and act from this (Giddens, as discussed in Pleasants, 1996; Shotter, 1993). Thus, a self-conscious person is at the center of understanding and learning; as
Cunliffe 751
Gouldner (1970) said, “There is no knowledge of the world that is not a knowledge of our own experience of it and in relationship to it” (p. 28).
From a social constructionist perspective, learning also becomes an embod- ied (whole body), responsive understanding in which we become more aware of, and skilled in, constituting and maintaining our realities and identities. In practical terms, we can equate learning with moments in which we are “struck” (Wittgenstein, 1980, p. 85) and moved to change our ways of talking and act- ing. Essentially, being struck involves our spontaneous response (emotional, physiological, and cognitive) to the events or relationships occurring around us. It may result from a comment, an event, a sense of unease or anxiety (Vince, 1998), or an aha! moment. This terminology can be very powerful in helping students recognize and work through learning opportunities. Both they, and we, use the language intuitively: “I was struck by the idea that . . . “ and “What struck you about this reading?” Once students recognize that people are struck by different issues, they may become more tolerant of different perspectives, of the idea that we are each responsible for our own learning, and of the impor- tance of developing their own skills as critically reflexive practitioners.
To contrast these assumptions with the banking ones outlined previously:
•• We construct our social realities and sense of self between us in our everyday interactions.
•• We utilize taken-for-granted ways of sense making that draw on the flow of our everyday activity—a “knowing-from-within” (Shotter, 1993, p. 18) or tacit form of knowing (Polanyi, 1966). Learning is an embodied, responsive process that may arise from being struck.
•• Thus, instead of applying theory to practice, critical reflexivity empha- sizes praxis—questioning our own assumptions and taken-for-granted actions, thinking about where/who we are and where/who we would like to be, challenging our conceptions of reality, and exploring new possibilities.
From this perspective, teaching focuses on enabling students to think more critically about themselves, their assumptions, actions, and situations they encounter; to see multiple interpretations and constructions of reality; and to see praxis as a relational activity in which we question our actions and work with others to achieve collaborative and ethical goals (French & Grey, 1996; Giroux, 1988; Jun, 1994).
In the remainder of the article, I offer ways of teaching critical reflexiv- ity: first by outlining a map that helps situate and define critically reflexive practice, second by helping learners grasp the underlying suppositions of
752 Journal of Management Education 40(6)
intersubjective realities through a simple class activity, and third by offering excerpts from student journals to illustrate how writing can help students think in critically reflexive ways. These three practices offer ways of helping students recognize the role they play in constituting their everyday organiza- tional realities for developing critically reflexive practice.
Developing Critically Reflexive Practice
How can we help students understand the socially constructed nature of experience and the need to think and act in critically reflexive ways? We can develop critically reflexive practice by encouraging students to think about how they, with others, construct realities and identities. The supposi- tions and approaches to learning outlined above are complex and very dif- ferent from the educational experiences of the majority of students. It is therefore important to build up to critical reflexivity and to situate it in practical circumstances. When doing so, I find it useful to introduce two ideas early in my courses (undergraduate and graduate Organizational Behavior and Organizational Change courses). I refer to Schön’s (1983) idea of “reflective practitioners” before moving on to critically reflexive practice. Students also find Argyris’s (1982, 1991) distinction between single- and double-loop learning useful and often refer back to his 1991 article throughout the course. They readily identify single-loop learning as reflective (problem solving, identifying, and correcting errors) and begin to think about double-loop learning (thinking more critically about behav- ior; questioning assumptions, values, and espoused theories; disconfirm- ing, inventing, producing, and evaluating new theories in action) as the beginning of critical reflexivity.
Throughout the course, I try to be deliberately opportunistic and introduce critical reflexivity by asking the following questions (or different versions) at opportune moments:
•• What is reality? Do we each see reality in the same way? •• What is knowledge? •• What is theory?
and by highlighting multiple perspectives. Three teaching practices I find par- ticularly useful in helping students develop their skills as critically reflexive practitioners are (a) the idea of reflex interaction/reflective analysis/ critically reflexive questioning, (b) a class activity to highlight a different way of thinking about how we constitute reality, and (c) the use of critically reflexive journals.
Cunliffe 753
A Map: Reflex Interaction, Reflective Analysis, Critically Reflexive Questioning
Figure 1 helps students grasp the different ways we make sense of experience.
Reflex interaction refers to the instantaneous, unselfconscious, reactingin- the-moment dialogue and action that characterizes much of our experience. We respond to other people on the basis of instinct, habit, and/or memory (reflex), and in doing so, we draw intuitively on our tacit knowing (Polanyi, 1966) and on who we are. Much of our interaction is reflex—routine, habit- ual actions, and immediate responses to those around us. As we talk we respond to the verbal and nonverbal behaviors of others, often in an intuitive, subconscious way. Reflex interaction is therefore a primitive preordering or state of unawareness connected with an image, emotion, and moment of being struck. Our learning depends on our ability to take this reflex interac- tion further and reflect on or in the process.
Typically, when talking about reflective analysis, we are assuming that there is an object to reflect upon—something we can think about, categorize, and explain. Reflective analysis (single-loop learning) means creating order and making connections, often using theory to help us see our practice in dif- ferent ways (Bailey, Saparito, Kressel, Christensen, & Hooijberg, 1997). Schön (1983) best summarized this form of analysis when he talked about reflection in action as an objective, analytical process in which we make con- nections and construct an understanding of a situation by testing “intuitive understandings of experienced phenomena” (p. 241). Reflective analysis can be both retrospective—making sense of something that happened in the past and examining reasons why we made a decision or acted in a particular
Figure 1. Reflex Interaction, Reflective Analysis, and Critically Reflexive Questioning.
754 Journal of Management Education 40(6)
way—and anticipatory—planning our future actions. It draws on traditional assumptions of objective reality as a basis for a reasoned, impartial assess- ment of action or ideologies using universal principles or values (Mezirow, 1998). Much of what we do in the classroom incorporates reflective analysis: We ask students to use theory and principles to discuss and analyze case stud- ies, reflect on questions or problems, and observe and analyze role plays. These reflective conversations can be important in processing learning, because they help us make sense and develop new understandings of situa- tions. I offer an example of reflective analysis in a student journal (I discuss the format and use of journals later):
I feel our group is in the process of socialization among the members. Pascale (1985) describes socialization as the “process in which individuals become members of the group, learning the ropes, and being taught how one must communicate and interact to get things done.” All individuals within our group are experimenting with ways to create an effective and efficient team. …Following Pascale’s steps of socialization, it becomes apparent that the first exam served as a “humility inducing” experience for the group. . . . Creating a multicultural group (Cox, 1991) will provide significant benefits to group interaction and eventually lead to a shared vision (Senge, 1990). (Journal Excerpt 1)
The writer is reflecting upon the group as an objective entity. He speaks seemingly as an outside observer and applies theory to make sense of his experience.
I use a simple activity to illustrate the difference between reflex interac- tion and reflective analysis. I ask students to fold their arms, and then I ask them to fold their arms the opposite way. The former is reflex interaction, something we do without having to think about how we do it; it is comfort- able, habitual, and unselfconscious. Most of us have to think about folding our arms the opposite way—we must reflect on how we position and inter- weave our arms—and the outcome is not always comfortable.
The difference between reflective analysis and critically reflexive ques- tioning is more complex. Whereas reflective analysis draws on traditional assumptions that there is an objective reality that we can analyze using logic and theory, critically reflexive questioning draws on social constructionist assumptions to highlight subjective, multiple, constructed realities. This means exploring how we might contribute to the construction of social and organizational realities, how we relate with others, and how we construct our ways of being in the world. Critically reflexive questioning also means exposing contradictions, doubts, dilemmas, and possibilities (see Hardy & Palmer, 1999, for further discussion). In doing so, we can expose unspoken
Cunliffe 755
assumptions that influence (unconsciously or otherwise) our actions and interactions: We can surface silences in conversations—what is not said or interpretations that may remain hidden or unspoken (Martin, 1990). Critically reflexive practitioners therefore question the ways in which they act and develop knowledge about their actions. This means highlighting ideologies and tacit assumptions—exploring how our own actions, conversational prac- tices, and ways of making sense create our sense of reality. A critically reflex- ive stance can be seen in the student journal excerpt below:
My expectations (espoused theories) and my knowledge proved to be incorrect. Today I feel as though I have shared too openly and trusted too much. In turn, I feel that there is nothing left in disguise and I feel vulnerable—the reciprocal relationship [between the student and other course members] is lacking (Cohen & Bradford, 1989). The more I offer, the more taken for granted my source of information seems to become (at least in my mind), and therefore the lesser the value of my perceived influence. When I desire clarification or need assistance, I am often puzzled by the reaction [of course members] to my attempts at open discussion. . . . Through all of this, I have still not altered my behavior. My desire to share and communicate openly overpowers my feeling of exclusion (Hall, 1973). Why? (Journal Excerpt 2)
In this example of critically reflexive questioning, the student discusses con- tradictions, doubts, dilemmas, and (later in the journal) possibilities (Chia, 1996a). Whereas reflective analysis is concerned with a systematic searching for patterns, logic, and order, critically reflexive questioning opens up our own practices and assumptions as a basis for working toward more critical, responsive, and ethical action.
Grasping the Nature of Intersubjective Realities: A Class Activity1
A short activity I find particularly useful in helping students think about how we construct our realities is one I first saw demonstrated in a session on the relation- ship between improvisation and organization theory at the Academy of Management in 1999. I ask for four volunteers to stand at the front of class. The rules are (a) no one can speak; (b) at any given time, one person has to stand, one sit, one lean (on a chair, desk, or other person), and one fold their arms; and (c) participants may stay in one position for no longer than 20 seconds. The activity lasts for 2 to 3 minutes. I initially ask the audience for their observations and then ask participants to comment, summarizing both on a flip chart. These com- ments form the basis for drawing out ideas about the constructed and responsive nature of reality, the tacit aspects of knowledge, and reflex interaction. This
756 Journal of Management Education 40(6)
provides a basis for further discussion of the ideas in Figure 1 and leads in to the journals and how critically reflexive questioning means writing from within experience. Table 1 provides a list of questions and some typical responses.
The instructor can help students make connections between the activity, their comments, and the socially constructed nature of reality by discussing the following issues:
•• We constitute our realities in spontaneous and taken-for-granted ways. Each movement is unique and creative, as are our daily conversations and interactions. We experience socially shared moments that we are not able to anticipate or plan. This means our actions and conversa- tions are never wholly the same. There may be some repetition, but the unique peculiarities of each interaction call out different responses from people. This constitutes much of our social interaction.
•• Interactions are responsive relationships (Bakhtin, 1986). We act in response to others and our surroundings. We react to eye contact, movement, and facial expressions. Some of this is reflex—spontane- ous reactions—and some reflective. As we begin to pick up patterns in others’ behavior, we can coordinate our own responses. We are sensi- tive to, yet not necessarily fully conscious of, movement; that is, we gain an implicit understanding of what others are doing, although we may not be able to articulate it. These ideas can be applied to our day- to-day interactions.
•• There is intertwined complexity in what may seem like a simple activ- ity. We are not wholly responsible for our own actions, because we act in response to others and they act in response to us. Shotter (1993) called this a “third realm of activity”—jointly and intricately struc- tured yet under no one person’s control. How does this relate to what good managers do? They must be responsive listeners and responsive speakers and help organizational members make connections and rela- tions given a chaotic welter of impressions (see Cunliffe, 2001, for further explanation).
•• The activity draws on a practical, tacit understanding—one initially difficult to articulate but that has a powerful impact on our actions, for example, picking up and responding to nonverbal clues.
•• In relation to Figure 1, the activity incorporates reflex interactions on the part of participants, and we (particularly the audience) can reflec- tively analyze those actions as observers. However, from our discus- sion, we can see the activity is subject to multiple and sometimes differing interpretations (participants, audience, instructor). Critically
Cunliffe 757
Table 1. Typical Questions and Responses to the Class Activity.
Questions Responses
Audience: Audience: What struck you when
observing the activity? It wasn’t planned, they improvised, they
watched each other carefully, B did his own thing, they all remained very close to the chair, C tried to trick the others.
Who controlled the actions?
No one person, it varied at different times, it looked as though A and B were collaborating, C was obviously trying to control others.
How did the participants act?
Carefully, ignored others, they helped each other by moving slowly, watched each other.
Participants: Participants: What struck you about this
activity? It was fun, we were interdependent, we
had to watch each other. Why did you do _____ at
this point? Because A did ___ so I __, I thought B
was . . . To what extent can you
anticipate your next move or the move of others?
You can’t, you can watch the beginning of the movement and react, I watched C—he kept doing the same two activities.
How simple is the activity? It’s not as easy as you might think, I had no idea who was going to do what, it does get easier.
What kind of understanding does this activity involve?
You have to pick up nonverbal clues, you can’t plan, spontaneous responses.
If we did the activity again, what might happen?
We couldn’t do exactly the same, I’d have a better idea of what to do because I’d watch each person.
Did the audience give a true interpretation of events?
Not really, because I wasn’t doing that, I wasn’t trying to control others, when they laughed I had no idea why.
Can an observer say, “Let me tell you what is really happening here?”
No, there are different interpretations, we do not see the activity in the same way as observers or each other.
So what does this tell us about theorizing and/or making assumptions about what others are doing?
See below.
758 Journal of Management Education 40(6)
reflexive questioning can help surface differing interpretations, under- lying assumptions, and taken-for-granted actions.
The activity therefore offers an example of the practical implications of social constructionism and how we can draw out practical understandings from within experience. It also highlights a crucial aspect of critically reflexive practice: the differences between developing theory about something/ some- one else—that is, observing and reflecting (an outside-in approach, Journal Excerpt 1)—and creating theory in practice—surfacing and questioning tacit knowledge (an inside-out approach, Journal Excerpt 2). Baker and Kolb (1993) contrasted these two approaches to learning, the traditional one being the “outside-in approach which leaves human affairs to the experts” and focuses on the analysis and application of theory to practice, and the “inside- out perspective, which is rooted in our personal experience” (p. 26). They argued that the latter is more effective in valuing diversity and plurality in organizations, a view I extend to recognizing our ability to shape situations through our shared, responsive interactions. The second approach is crucial in developing skills as critically reflexive practitioners, because it draws attention to how we relate with each other ethically, which Deetz (1995) saw as resting “not in agreement to principles, but in avoidance of the suppression of alternative conceptions and possibilities [italics added]” (p. 223).
In other words, by emphasizing the nature of our being in relation to oth- ers and the creative and responsive manner in which our identities, experi- ences, and opportunities for action are shaped, then we recognize a moral requirement to make available opportunities for others to communicate (Shotter, 1993, p. 163). This means recognizing our place in creating ethical discourse, respecting the rights of those around us to speak, and understand- ing how our use of words orients responses and ways of relating—a “know- ing how, knowing how to live, knowing how to listen” (Lyotard, 1984, p. 18). A critically reflexive practitioner not only questions her basic assumptions but also whether she may be silencing the voices of others, and she is more aware of how she constitutes and maintains realities and identities through responsive interaction.
Becoming A Critically Reflexive Practitioner: Using Journals
Journals can be powerful in helping students develop their skills as critically reflexive practitioners, because they are a means by which students engage in their own learning (Bickford & Van Vleck, 1997) and surface tacit knowing. In explaining the purpose and nature of the journals, I often use the previous
Cunliffe 759
activity to highlight the difference between writing in reflective and critically reflexive ways. I use one of two approaches: Students complete three jour- nals over the semester, moving from a reflective analysis of a situation they encountered to a critically reflexive questioning of their own learning (about 6 to 8 pages each), or they complete one journal (8 to 12 pages) to be handed in at the end of the semester (see appendix). The idea of using journals in the learning process is not new. Journals can be used to improve writing skills, improve analytic and creative thinking, and build self-awareness. Locke and Brazelton (1997) suggested that writing is itself a learning process, because it offers a way of surfacing, articulating, and rethinking our conceptualizations of the world. I include excerpts from graduate student journals to show the form critically reflexive journals take. From a critically reflexive perspective, journal writing is not just thinking about thinking but thinking about self from a subjective perspective. It requires us to be attentive to our assump- tions, our ways of being and acting, and our ways of relating. As one student wrote:
So who am I, who am I becoming? I have been puzzled, frustrated, curious, and anxious throughout this semester. . . . I have experienced on a personal level both the “unfreeze” and “movement” stages (Lewin, 1951) yet seem to teetertotter between the two. I have been very open to self-analysis and find learning about others and myself in a critical manner very intriguing. (Journal Excerpt 3)
This and the following excerpts illustrate a crucial aspect of the inside-out form of writing—”finding one’s voice” (Boys, 1999, p. 131) and beginning with lived experience and writing about me, my feelings and frustrations, my assumptions and actions, that is, talking from within. We can begin the pro- cess by engaging in double-loop learning—being open and identifying assumptions and then moving to a critically reflexive questioning of those assumptions and actions and recognizing uncertainty and contradictions. In doing so, we may not only find our own voice but the voice of others and voices we may silence by our words and actions.
From a teaching perspective, this form of journaling means listening to those voices, needs, hopes, and concerns, often at an intellectual and visceral level, as students explore their experiences. It also means being critically reflexive about our own teaching practices and the voices we might silence, as Reynolds (1999) suggested when he called for coherence between teach- ing others how to take a critical stance and taking a critical stance ourselves. The journal excerpt below caused me to do some critically reflexive ques- tioning of my own:
760 Journal of Management Education 40(6)
The process of questioning ones assumptions and values is disconcerting and tortuous. It is uncomfortable to truly look inwards and then reflect on all the assumptions and values that one has built over almost a lifetime. I have always assumed that my values and goals were just right for me and proceeded almost with single-minded purpose to achieve them. There was no reason for me to question them. Yet, I have been forced to be conscious [italics added] of this process over the past weeks especially as I become increasingly aware of the applicability of the course material to myself. (Journal Excerpt 4)
Although this student talked about the relative and nonabsolute nature of knowledge and voice, the language he used struck me: Have I “forced” oth- ers? Have I acted inconsistently by claiming students must consider multi- ple perspectives? I need to look at my own teaching practices to ensure I am enacting the values I espouse.
I discuss at least one draft of the journal with each student. This is impor- tant in helping each person grasp how to write from an inside-out, critically reflexive stance. Typically, many students begin from an outside-in stance because this is the term-paper approach they are familiar with, and most have not experienced this way of writing and questioning before. In our conversa- tions, I highlight reflexive comments they may have written, ask them to think about their assumptions, surface any contradictions in language use that might affect their actions (e.g., “we need to work as a team, so what I want to do is . . . “), and suggest what to avoid. I also emphasize the importance of asking questions and raising issues and state that I am not looking for answers but possibilities.
Journal Excerpts 5 and 6 illustrate the process of critical reflexivity— writ- ing as an involved insider, from a prospective stance, questioning assumptions and taken-for-granted ways of acting and thinking. Theory and readings are used in reference to experience, not as tools to analyze external events. Students find these excerpts helpful to their understanding of reflexive writing:
I willingly subscribed to the notion that management (and sometimes, life itself) is a “scientific, technically-rational, value-free” system of theories and practices and believed that “goal achievement carries with it no implicit moral commitments and consequences” (MacIntyre, 1981). I considered with interest those who swore that “conscience is but a word that cowards use, devised at first to keep the strong in awe” (Shakespeare’s Richard III). I believed in totally being motivated to achieve ones goals. . . . This is perhaps the kind of mindset Peter Drucker (1999) had in mind when he advised all of us to discover whether our intellectual arrogance was causing disabling ignorance so that we may at least overcome it.
Cunliffe 761
Having started with such a frame of mind, the tendency to reinforce longheld objectives and values to reinvent and perpetuate the old system was always present. Therefore, fuelled by what I can now see was an inherent fear of change and an instinctive desire to protect the system of values I’ve subscribed to over a lengthy period, I initially looked for loopholes and weaknesses in the theories and practices to disapprove them to myself. The fact that there existed a relationship that could best be described as murky between some of the theories we discussed and real-world management practices lent credibility to this process. My first impulse therefore, for quite some time, was to play the devil’s advocate as a part of me instinctively resisted the changes that I was undergoing. Though I based my initial reluctance to change my old assumptions and ways by trying to convince myself that a mere exchange of schemas (a new set of values for the ones I was contemplating to modify) would not be successful, I became aware that these were defensive mechanisms (Argyris, 1991) aimed at clouding the issue. Looking back, the extent to which these single-loop schemas formed a part of me is startling. I was starting with the premise that my goals were the preferred ones for all “right-thinking” individuals. (Journal Excerpt 5)
Basic human interaction is built on how we interact, or relate to each other. I am more likely to respond to those individuals who respond to me and will, in most cases, emulate their attitude towards me. The old adage (again from my grandmother), “Treat others the way you would like to be treated,” sounded good, but I rarely practiced it. For me, the psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995; Sherwood & Glidewell, 1972) of reciprocity has always been somewhat etched in stone, only now after a particularly difficult year in terms of relationships at work do I stop and consider why. . . . Asthis year has progressed I have learned that it is the efforts of many individuals (with different views) within the department that are needed for organizational effectiveness, not just myself directing individual efforts. I have also come to accept that we all have different ways of achieving results and that each way has merit. It took a criticalreflexive analysis of myself to make me realize that I needed to step back and let other people contribute to the solution(s). Now, putting this realization into practice has been a different story! My need to direct the situation may be appropriate at times—what has been difficult for me is taking a different, more collaborative course of action when appropriate. (Journal Excerpt 6)
Both journals illustrate critical reflexivity and the concept of praxis—ques- tioning our reflex actions, creating our own theories from experience, and using these as a basis for changing our own realities. Reflexive journals, therefore, offer a means of exploring new possibilities for being and acting.
762 Journal of Management Education 40(6)
Issues Relating to the Journals
1. Comfort Zone
Some students feel uncomfortable writing in this way. They see it as too personal or too ambiguous and unstructured. I try to accommo- date these feelings by offering a second approach based on Drucker’s (1999) article, “Managing Oneself” (see appendix). These students usually find the ideas in this article helpful in providing a framework for structuring their writing and see it as a less touchy-feely approach. In offering this option, I hope I am being responsive to individual dif- ferences while still encouraging students to question and reflect. I use these two approaches in both graduate and undergraduate courses. Many undergraduates prefer the Drucker approach, which helps them develop their skills of reflective analysis. Some do move on to a criti- cally reflexive approach as they examine their assumptions and begin to think about ideologies and what constitutes ethical practice or moral responsibility. Graduate students usually have more work experience and a feeling that organizational practices could be improved. They often find it easier to recognize implicit power rela- tions, contradictions, and dilemmas.
2. Is This a Diary?
Students often ask this question. No, it is not a description of daily activities but, rather, a critical questioning of experiences. Students often want to begin by describing their life history. I emphasize that this is important and excerpts can be woven into their journal as sup- porting information; however, summarizing life history can result in a book-length journal and be descriptive rather than analytical. A use- ful start point is for each student to list his or her struck bys, why they are important, assumptions made, and their impact on action and reactions (see appendix, Approach 1). Students taking Approach 2 find it helpful to work through the ideas in the Drucker article (“Am I a reader/listener, what are my values?”)
3. Are Critically Reflexive Journals Just Naval Gazing?
The answer is no. I expect students to take their reflexive questioning and assess possibilities for change. I ask them to end their journals by answering the question, “So what am I/we going to do now?” As one student wrote:
Cunliffe 763
We must first know and understand ourselves before we are at peace internally. We must be at peace internally to participate in our world in an effective manner. When we are at peace we natu- rally exhibit characteristics of integrity, honesty, openness, and trustworthiness. True success comes with truly knowing oneself and having an internal comfort zone so that we can openly express ourselves and openly accept the expression of others. . . . True suc- cess is powerful; mere power is not success. It takes me some time to reach my own “true success,” my ideal of “what might be.” The process of creating this paper, however, made me realize it is most definitely attainable. (Journal Excerpt 7)
The writer is drawing out her own practical theories (Shotter, 1993) from her experience—theories that are likely to be all the more power- ful because they are her own and not imposed externally.
4. And You Grade These . . . ?
One issue that still remains problematic is how to grade this form of writing. It is difficult to create a grading structure, and I find it impos- sible to allocate percentages for individual elements. Rather, I ask myself whether I think this is an A, B, C, and so forth paper. When discussing the brief for the journal in class, I state that the nature of this form of writing requires a different way of grading; there are no right or wrong answers. I outline my grading criteria in the brief (see appen- dix). Students seem to see these criteria as acceptable and often say that they found the journal a difficult but enlightening experience. My written comments in journals consist of questions and possibilities rather than judgments: “Have you thought about . . . ? Are there other possible interpretations? Might this be interpreted as a defensive state- ment? How might you do this? Is there an implicit power issue here? How might the language you use(d) in this instance influence/have influenced the response of . . . ? Might this behavior be self-sealing? How might this relate to the reading by ___?” In other words, my com- ments are aimed at helping students ask further questions, explore pos- sibilities, or make connections (practical or theoretical).
Final Thoughts
This type of journal is not necessarily appropriate for every student or every faculty member; it depends upon the comfort zone of each. It is a
764 Journal of Management Education 40(6)
timeintensive process for a student and a faculty member, but it can be a rewarding experience for both. One benefit I have discovered is that many students come to class saying that they cannot change anything because they are not the boss. By understanding reality as relational and socially con- structed and by developing their ability to question in a critically reflexive way, they realize they can influence situations.
Two journal writers have the last word:
I am confused. I am becoming more confused. And “they” say this is a good thing? …Irecognize that change can be good, and I realize that from confusion there is so much more for me to learn. (Journal Excerpt 8)
Being reflexive is something new for me, a concrete experiencer, and a person of action, although I do like it. More than the chance to learn, it’s a chance to catch my breath and absorb. It’s kind of like the difference between yoga and high-impact aerobics. Mentally, I have come to a place in my life and career where both have merit, even with the doubts I have. It is this realization that makes me think I’m headed in the right direction after all. (Journal Excerpt 9)
Appendix
The Critically Reflexive Journal
The reflexive journal is based on assumptions that learning is meaningful when embodied, when we interweave theory and experience, and when we focus on developing skills of lifelong learning. It challenges students to think about learning in relation to the topics covered in the course, explore their learning, and create a personal development plan. This means:
— Reviewing information learned about yourself during the course and finding integrative themes and interrelationships.
— Identifying and questioning your assumptions and behavior in a situa- tion (double-loop learning) and how they might have influenced the other person’s response.
— Thinking about the unspoken assumptions that influence (uncon- sciously or otherwise) our actions and interactions, silent voices in a conversation, what is said and not said, and whether there are multiple interpretations. How might/ do these relate to current/potential contri- butions (Drucker, 1999)?
— Identifying possibilities for self development—new roles, stretching abilities, risk-taking, and more complex and integrative thinking.
Cunliffe 765
My grading criteria include the following:
Linking personal experience to ideas, theories, and material from class and exploring how these may offer possibilities for practices.
Ability to make connections between actions and responses. Drawing out insights. Evidence of critical reflexivity and double-loop learning. Challenging his or her thinking and ways of acting. Exploring possibilities. Asking questions. Following the basic standards of writing, grammar, and presentation. Expressing key points clearly and persuasively. Citing material correctly.
Students choose one of the two approaches below.
Approach #1: A Critically Reflexive Approach— What Have You Been Struck By?
1. Identify personal insights, issues, moments of critical questioning, and revelation/connection with ideas, moments, and comments (by you, other course members, me) that struck you and offered the poten- tial for reflective insight or significant learning.
2. Describe why these are important to you. What impact did they have and/or what dilemmas, questions, or possibilities did they raise? Have these resulted in order or chaos for you?
3. So what are you going to do now? What issues, questions, and dilem- mas are you going to explore further? Why and how? How will this influence who you are and how you relate to others? What relational nets can you construct/ connect with to continue this process of reflec- tive and critical learning?
Approach #2: Feedback Analysis (Drucker, 1999)
Reread the Drucker article. Think about the following:
1. How do I perform/what are my strengths? 2. What are my values? 3. What can I/do I want to contribute? 4. What areas do I need to work on?
Formulate your learning plan. What can I do in the short-, medium-, and long-term to manage myself?
766 Journal of Management Education 40(6)
•• How you will construct learning opportunities, overcome your limita- tions, and practice your learning skills?
•• What is the social support system you plan to set up to maintain your continuing learning activities?
Note
1. I am indebted to John Shotter for the idea behind this activity.
References
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 99- 109.
Bailey, J. R., Saparito, P., Kressel, K., Christensen, E., & Hooijberg, R. (1997). A model for reflective pedagogy. Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 155-167.
Baker, A., & Kolb, D. A. (1993). Diversity, learning and good conversation. In R. R. Sims & R. F. Dennehy (Eds.), Diversity and differences in organizations: An agenda for answers and questions (pp. 17-32). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986) Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1979)
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Bickford, D., & Van Vleck, J. (1997). Reflections on artful teaching. Journal of Management Education, 21(4), 448-463.
Boys, M. C. (1999). Engaged pedagogy: Dialogue and critical reflection. Teaching Theology and Religion, 2(3), 129-136.
Calás, M., & Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 649-671.
Caproni, P. J., & Arias, M. E. (1997). Managerial skills training from a critical per- spective. Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 292-309.
Chia, R. (1996a). Teaching paradigm shifting in management education: University business schools and the entrepreneurial imagination. Journal of Management Studies, 33(4), 409- 428.
Chia, R. (1996b). The problem of reflexivity in organizational research: Towards a postmodern science of organization. Organization, 3(1), 31-59.
Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In J. Clifford & G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1-26). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2001). Managers as practical authors: Reconstructing our understand- ing of management practice. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 351-371.
Deetz, S. (1995). Character, corporate responsibility and the dialogic in the postmod- ern context: A commentary on Mangham. Organization, 2(2), 217-225.
Cunliffe 767
Drucker, P. F. (1999). Managing oneself. Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 64-75. Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2001). Critical thinking: Thinking with concepts. Journal of
Developmental Education, 24(3), 42-44. Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. French, R., & Grey, C. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking management education. London:
Sage. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall. Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships. Boston: Harvard University Press. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Postmodernism and the discourse of educational criticism.
Journal of Education, 170(3), 5-30. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday. Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The coming crisis in Western sociology. New York: Basic
Books. Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. (1997). Relativity without relativism: Reflexivity in post-
paradigm organization studies. British Journal of Management, 8(Special Issue), S5-S17.
Hardy, C., & Palmer, I. (1999). Pedagogical practice and postmodernist ideas. Journal of Management Education, 23(4), 377-395.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Irony and the social construction of contradiction in the humor of a management team. Organization Science, 8, 275-288.
Jun, J. S. (1994). Philosophy of administration. Seoul, Korea: Daeyoung Moonhwa International.
Latour, B. (1988). The politics of explanation: An alternative. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 155- 176). London: Sage.
Locke, K., & Brazelton, J. K. (1997). Why do we ask them to write, or whose writing is it anyway? Journal of Management Education, 21(1), 44-57.
Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Martin, J. (1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organization Science, 1(4), 339-359.
McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1999) Relational responsibility: Resources for sus- tainable dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(3), 185-199. Pleasants, N. (1996). Nothing is concealed: De-centering tacit knowledge and rules
from social theory. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 26(3), 233-254. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Pollner, M. (1991). Left of ethnomethodology: The rise and decline of radical reflex-
ivity. American Sociological Review, 56, 370-380. Prasad, P., & Caproni, P. J. (1997). Critical theory in the management classroom:
Engaging power, ideology and praxis. Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 284-291.
768 Journal of Management Education 40(6)
Reynolds, M. (1999). Critical reflection and management education: Rehabilitating less hierarchical approaches. Journal of Management Education, 23(5), 537-553.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London: Sage.
Vince, R. (1998). Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 304-319.
Watson, T. (1994). In search of management. Culture, chaos and control in manage- rial work. London: Routledge.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wittgenstein, L. (1980). Remarks on the philosophy of psychology, Vols. 1 and 2.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Composed a cohesive document that addresses the following:
· Document includes all journal entries
· A fluid and cohesive document includes six (6) journal entries and summary.
· Each journal entries are supported by learning resources and/or other credible and relevant resources.
· No plagiarism
· APA citing
1st journal entry - address the following:
· Your assumptions and interpretations of critically reflective practice, as discussed within the Cunliffe (2016) article.
· Your role as a leader in your professional life or within your community and how the critically reflective practice can benefit you.
2nd journal entry - address the following:
· How have the characteristics of a transformational leader influenced your decisions or actions in finding your inner leader?
· Based upon what you discovered from your own experience, identify your strengths and weaknesses as a transformational leader.
3rd journal entry - address the following:
· Explain why the author believes “Gut decisions don’t happen in your stomach” is an important concept and discuss how it can shape your inner leader.
4th journal entry - address the following:
· Compare and contrast your own style of leadership to that of the selected servant leader and explain why you want to lead.
· Explain how being a servant leader will enhance your development as a transformational leader.
5th journal entry - address the following:
· Compare your leadership techniques used to inspire others with those used by your chosen servant leader
· Explain how fostering collaboration within your organization or community enhances your leadership ability to bring about positive social change.
6th journal entry - address the following:
· Explain how ethical dilemmas can shape others’ perceptions of your trustworthiness.
· Reflect on your ability to understand how trust is developed.
Summarize
