Counter-Rebuttal by Team Change Makers to the response from the Team of Extraordinary Educators
Identify the Target Behavior
In the original post, Team Change Makers (TCM) chose to focus on chapter 5 of Lepsinger’s (2010) Closing the Execution Gap Bridge Builder 5: Facilitate Change Readiness (p. 133-166). We discussed several principles for making change as proposed by Lepsinger (2010). The four change talk techniques included (1) identifying the behavior, (2) building trust, (3) exploring importance and confidence, and lastly (4) conducting a pro/con analysis (p. 157-164). Team Change Makers found fault with many of his proposed ideas. Team of Extraordinary Educators (TEE) rebutted our oppositional arguments. This final blog post counters TEE’s rebuttal.
Identifying the Behavior
TEE’s rebuttal leaves us deeply intrigued about what exactly their point is when they quote “You quoted Lepsinger (2010) who said ‘if you can’t name the behavior you want from people, you’re unlikely to get the change you need’ (p.157) and observed ‘the statement was absolutely not true’” (Warkentin, Oberle, Hinksman & Barker, 2018). It’s true naming behavior is not going to necessarily change a person’s behavior, however, it is mindful to note “Each one of us is a work in progress and will be until we draw our final breath” (Helgesen and Goldsmith, 2018, p.215). Nevertheless, our point still stands because leaders should set their focus on building each other up, showing consideration and respect to their co-workers. Instead of pointing out flaws in each other, leaders should emulate the positive character traits they hope their employees would also imitate. What it comes down to is not the subordinates’ behavior but the leaders’ (Lepsinger, 2010).
TEE believes it is rather a bold statement to say “it is absolutely not true when it is quite natural and necessary to help followers identify the behavior which keeps the person from achieving a goal or a change in particular” (Warkentin et al., 2018). But, is it really natural or necessary to point out weaknesses in others when God instructs us to not judge one another? The book of Matthew says quite incontestably “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3). TEE then points out Lepsinger (2010) correlates the behavior with the goal (p. 157). The behavior is the roadblock which stands in the way; it is a barrier which does not allow the person to realize a certain purpose, the change. While that may be the case, it is still not the best approach to pull someone aside and point out their unacceptable flaws. When a leader uses this strategy, it will backfire because it is not done in love. Jesus says our words should be spoken in love, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs” (1 Corinthians 13:4-5).
“Lepsinger (2010) says managers identify a goal (the change) but sometimes fail to take the next step and help the person address the behavior (p. 157). For example, I had a secretary who every so often seemed to come across bossy and demanding. As I addressed the problem with her, she was not sure why people saw her this way. She realized this needed to change, which was her goal” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Whose goal was it? Was it the manager’s goal for the person or the person’s goal for themselves? “I then helped her identify the behavior which made people see her as bossy and demanding. Some of her behaviors were, she failed to greet people in the morning, she kept to herself in her office, only talked to people when she wanted something, and she was very focused on policy and procedures and was not flexible enough with new staff members. As I helped her identify her behaviors, she then could address the behavior to be able to achieve the goal” (Warkentin et al., 2018). The poor woman, having a boss point out a long list of flaws. We do not find this uplifting nor motivational. Perhaps she was not intentionally trying to be pushy? Perhaps this is her learned behavior from her childhood which the Canadian-American behavior psychologist Albert Bandera has done sound research on (Woolfolk, Winnie and Perry, 2012)?
ETT posits “‘it’s not about guessing what behavior is the root problem rather it comes down to leading by example.’ ‘Yes, you are right, we lead by example, but maybe the word guessing is not what Lepsinger (2010) had in mind’” (Warkentin et al., 2018). If it is not guessing then what might it be referred to as? As mentioned in the earlier example, addressing behavior can be “demolishing [to an employee by pointing out their behavior flaws which you have judged him/her on and] will not get you the cooperation you need to resolve the crisis quickly” (Hewlett, 2014, p.63). If we have the wrong behavior, people will follow our wrong example. There is no guessing when you address a specific behavior. That is an understandable concern, however the literature on ways to communicate with your subordinates suggests otherwise. Hewlett (2014) posits leaders must “come from a position that’s not about you, but about what’s best for the company” (p.62). We are focused on modeling the behavior not dictating to others what we believe to be right in our eyes. Just because we have authority in power to tell others something we should be careful not to judge because God’s Word warns us “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:1-6). We should thus be mindful to keep our hearts pure and to do everything in love. Moreover, God’s word also encourages believers to be patient and humble “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love” (Ephesians 4:2) and “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you (Ephesians 4:32).
“Leading by example is very important, but “we also need to speak to each other about our behavior.” This is where we disagree with your point of view. TEE took the liberty to point out from our post “You, yourself, quoted Northouse (2016) who suggests leaders need to find their voice and express it to others (p.174).” The point is true however, if you read Northouse (2016) correctly you would see it is referring to leaders finding their voice when it comes to expressing their “values and philosophy” (p.174). What it does not refer to at all is giving leaders carte blanche to tell their subordinates how their behavior stinks and needs to be made over. Nor is it condoning the use of derogatory words which try to make the leader look great.
TEE lastly states “This does not mean behavior is irrelevant, which seems to be your argument” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Ir is not the case at all. Behavior is important but what is not important is for leaders to go around judging their co-workers and subordinates about what they think a person’s flawed behavior is and isn’t. You also have pointed out “Behavior is still important in the process of achieving a goal.” Certainly, a person’s behavior is one aspect of whether someone is successful or not. We believe the most important takeaway from this dialogue is to keep in mind that as leaders in the making we need to cognitively think about our own behavior and actions towards other people rather than judge others and call out behaviors we do not like in others.
Work to Build Trust
Trust and faith in a leader is not always something earned, but something expected. When a leader calls for change, followers are expected to trust the leader. Much like Christ refers to us as sheep, and he as the Good Shepherd (John 10:27-28); a good leader, expects the followers to abide with his implementation of the vision. A successful leader will know their followers, a transformational leader understands how to direct their followers to accomplish the desired results. “Transformational leadership is the ability to get people to want to change, to improve, and to be led” (Hall et al., 2002). Transformational leadership does not predicate sympathy or empathy for one’s followers, but merely a means of manipulation that will increase productivity and further the vision of the organization. When we teach, we do not put a subject on hold to hear students complaints about said subject. We create interesting lesson plans that will captivate the students. We do this based on our understanding of their passions and how they might relate to the subject in order to further our learning goals for them. When implementing change a successful leader will understand their followers, but will not get caught up in the followers feelings. Lepsinger (2010) presents Figure 6.4 indicating a time verse effectiveness chart with a facilitation of behavior change built on steps of empathy (p. 159). While this example seems that productivity is built on a step by step development of trust, there are many cases where productivity is grounded in the authority of position and trust is a matter of faith in leadership regardless of followers personal readiness for change.
TCM and TEE agree emergency situations or time sensitive demands for change might force leaders to skip over consultation, and there are great benefits to “employee contributions through a more distributed style of leadership” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Yet, we would suggest charismatic leaders do more to drive employee opinion in an organization and further the vision of than a community of voices expressing opinion. When we look at effective leadership in politics the charismatic dictator always accomplishes more than the voice of the masses. One only need look at examples of the villains of history and their accomplishments (Holodny, 2015). Morally they were corrupt, but in production and accomplishment they were vastly successful. Stalin alone brought Russia from a feudal state with two paved roads to a world power of the highest magnitude putting the first man in space (Service, 2018).
Empathy is a noble trait widely popular in modern leadership theory, to the point where there are more than one thousand-five hundred books on Amazon’s search engine with the word empathy in the title (Hougaard & Carter, 2018). While empathy for one’s followers seems like a useful leadership trait, there are pitfalls to being empathetic. According to Paul Bloom (2018) empathy can lead to poor decision making. In his mixed methods study, participants were to interact with a terminally ill child. Half of the participants were required to engage his suffering emotionally versus those who were to refrain from engaging emotionally. The results of the study indicated 75% of participants moved to prioritize the boy above other patients, even against the opinions of doctors, and potentially putting other patients in jeopardy (Bloom, 2018). Empathy can sway decision making away from the morally correct and positive vision of the organization. People’s opinions and desires are often changing. To constantly make decisions for change based on the emotions of staff members does not indicate a soundly thought out strategic plan especially when those emotions and opinions may change. An organization needs to have its own vision that the staff will follow, rather than building a vision based on the staff’s opinions.
Our society is rooted in individualism where everyone’s opinion is considered valid and important. However, we are given the complete truth in the Bible, and regardless of what people think, we are to follow God’s commands first (Whelchel, 2015). When we look at Christ as an example of a leader, there are several times where he professes competition amongst employees (Matthew 25:14-30), blind obedience to the leader (Matthew 19:21), and turning our back on those unwilling to head the plan (Matthew 10:14). These examples of: the parable of the talents, the rich man and the kingdom of God, and Christ sending out the 12 disciples, all guide us in what a servant leader really looks like. A servant leader is not someone who acquiesces to their followers, but one who understands the needs of their followers and calls them to grow in accordance with the leader’s good plan. A servant leader commands change because it will benefit the follower, even when the follower does not wish to change. How many trials did God send Israel to shape them? Were they ready for philistines? Where they ready for Babylon? Were they accepting of his vision? He implemented action in their lives for their growth and development and for the fulfillment of his vision.
Explore Issues of Importance and Confidence
In their rebuttal, TEE disagreed with TCM’s view that Lepsinger’s (2010) approach of making change via importance and confidence is useless (Warkentin et al., 2018). They state “[Lepsinger] is saying when a person has the right level of confidence and realizes the importance of the change, perhaps there is a chance for the resistance to the change to be lessened as he uses the word “diminish”. Diminish means to make less or become less and thus Lepsinger (2010) is not suggesting change will never face resistance” (Warkentin et al., 2018). When digging deeper, we find the dictionary definition of resistance is “the opposition offered by one thing, force, etc., to another” (Dictionary.com). To oppose the force of another implies a lessening, or diminishing, can be overcome when lowered. However, even when a direct report has a small amount of opposition to something proposed by the leader or organization, this still amounts to a decrease in the amount of buy-in by them. Therefore, this implies the change sought by the leader will not be truly effective or realized within the direct report until the resistance is fully dealt with. As teachers, we witness students who will accept the demands of the teacher but their resistance is palpable. Without acknowledging the loss of freedom within the student, they will only be motivated externally. In the same way, when the leader puts energy into having the direct report work through the source of their resistance, they will come into an acceptance, not a lessening or diminishment of resistance as TEE postulates. The resulting change is then long term, not short term. TEE’s citation supports Change Maker’s point here, when stating “Leaders need to recognize it is not the change itself people resist, “it’s the losses and endings that they have experienced and the transition that they are resisting” (p. 24)” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Hence, providing an opportunity for a direct report to voice their resistance will foster the acceptance much more quickly than having them express a need for the change or their confidence and ability in making the change. Lepsinger’s (2010) suggestion, then, is deemed useless when viewed from a long term stance.
TEE then writes “In my personal experience, a leader cannot convince someone of the reasons for change. The realization of the reasons or need for change have to come from within. A leader cannot change someone who does not value the need or reasons for change” (Warkentin et al, 2018). The example provided here directly conflicts with the one given in rebuttal paragraph 1 about the secretary. “As I helped her identify her behaviors, she then could address the behavior to be able to achieve the goal” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Are you not referring to convincing a direct report of the reasons for change? Did the secretary’s realization of the reason or need for change come from within? We think not. TEE’s example implies it came from the leader, having told the secretary how her behavior impacted others in the office. She chose to modify her behavior because she saw her leader wanted her to change. The leader provided a reason for the change. “While it is important for the leader to guide the teacher through loss and then purpose, the leader is not solely responsible for the process” (Warkentin et al., 2018). TEE has thoroughly explained how they were solely responsible for the process and have backed up our point “The onus is also on the leader to provide a reason for the change” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Thank you for proving our point.
Conduct a Pro/Con Analysis
TEE provide four shortcomings to our original account of why conducting a Pro/Con Analysis is a waste of time: overlooking feelings leads to failure; ignoring feelings is disrespectful; alignment of personal MVV is not important; the analysis is not personal coaching (Warkentin et al., 2018). In their rebuttal, TEE implies TCM does not care and disrespectfully ignores people’s feelings. In fact, they warn “overlooking people’s feelings will eventually lead to the failure of the change” and “ignoring the employees’ feelings jeopardizes corporate culture for being disrespectful to the staff” (Warkentin et al., 2018). Referring back to the admonishing of leaders to model behavior at the beginning of our post, if a leader can motivate and inspire direct reports by the use of the organization’s vision, mission, and values (MVV) through modeling, then the need to analyse direct reports is indeed a waste of time. Ulrich and Smallwood (2013) state “Today’s biggest unmet challenge of leadership is not learning more about what to do, it is learning how to make sure what is known is done” (p. 17). In fact, they propose a series of seven disciplines for leaders, called START ME, which begins with “S” to refer to simplicity (p. 19). TCM tacitly assumes leaders know their direct reports, so the constant and consistent messaging of the organization’s MVV has already set the tone of the culture. No one from TCM condones disrespect or creating a climate where followers are not free to share their feelings. However, when those feelings of resistance are explored, as noted in point #3 of TCM’S counter-rebuttal, in addition to aligning follower’s actions to the organization’s MVV, then analyzing readiness for change via a pro/con chart is time wasting. A direct report who is unwilling to change after these measures have been implemented must surely be let go. TEE’s rebuttal of “managers and leaders could do much better than letting the employees resistant to change go by resorting to open communications, skillful relationship management, and so on” (Warkentin et al., 2018) supports what TCM is saying, not counters.
Summary
Lepsinger (2010) espouses four steps to change talk that can be used by a leader: identify the target behavior, work to build trust, explore issues of importance and confidence, and conduct a pro/con analysis. While Team Change Makers found modeling to be a finer strategy for a leader to implement, Team Extraordinary Educators disagreed, suggesting it is more important to call out a follower’s faults the leader deems necessary to change. TCM disagreed with the importance of building trust between leaders and direct reports. Positional authority demands the trust of followers, rather than asking for it. Charismatic leaders guide successfully regardless of follower opinion. There is danger in over implementing empathy and employee opinion. The example of Christ shows us true servant leadership leads for the growth of followers regardless of followers opinions or readiness for change. God works through trials and tribulations for the growth of his people and the implementation of his vision; should we, as leaders, not follow his example? When exploring issues of importance and confidence, TCM admonished leaders to instead focus on loss as the source of follower resistance. TEE, however, took issue with TCM’s judgement that Lepsinger’s tool was useless, yet ended up arguing the need to focus on the sense of loss, as first indicated by TCM. Finally, TCM found Lepsinger’s pro/con analysis tool to be a waste of time, instead focusing on the leader’s modeling of how the organization’s mission, vision, and values are aspirational to its followers. TEE found this strategy decidedly disrespectful which they postulated would lead to a poor result in the corporate culture. Through this blog assignment, we discovered techniques to critically analyze published information through the use of supporting and opposing points of view. Thank you, Team of Extraordinary Educators, for challenging us to defend our positions, to delve deeper, and to discover areas of weakness in our thought processes. We hope you were challenged and inspired by us as well!
References
Atha, D. (2018, July 30). Transformational servant leadership for results – Day one:
Introduction-Foundational faith, values and ethics [PDF document]. Retrieved from http:
//learn.twu.ca/pluginfile.php/130150/mod_resource/content/1/2018_Day_1_Powerpoint.
Bloom, P. (2018). Against Empathy: The case for rational compassion. S.l.: VINTAGE.
Bridges, W. (2009). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Philadelphia, PA: De Capo Press.
Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making sense of change management (4th ed.). Croydon, Great Britain: Kogan Page Limited.
Change Makers. (2018, November 7). Understanding the Impact of Leader Behaviour -Against (6.1) [web log comment]. Retrieved from https://create.twu.ca/seabreeze/2018/11/07/understanding-the-impact-of-leader-behaviour-against-6-1/
Dictionary.com (n.d.). Resistance. Retrieved from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/resistance?s=t
Giesecke, N. M. (2015). ‘The Only Thing That is Constant is Change’–Heraclitus, circa 500 BCE. ASA Newsletter, 79(9), 4-5.
Hall, J., Johnson, S., Wysocki, A., & Kepner, K. (2002). Transformational Leadership: The Transformation of … Retrieved from https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HR/HR02000.pdf
Helgesen, S., & Goldsmith, M. (2018). How women rise. New York, NY: Hatchett Book Group.
Hewlett, S. A. (2014). Executive Presence the missing link between merit and success. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Holodny, E. (2015, October 07). The 25 most ruthless leaders of all time. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/most-ruthless-leaders-of-all-time-2015-10
Holy Bible: New International Version. (2001). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Hougaard, R., & Carter, J. (2018, April 05). The Dangers of Being an Empathetic Leader. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/311413
Hughes R., Colarelli-Beatty K. & Dinwoodie D. (2014) Becoming a strategic leader.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Second Edition.
Kotter, J. P. (2008). Corporate culture and performance. Simon and Schuster.
Lepsinger, R. (2010). Closing the execution gap. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Page, D., & Wong, T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership.The human factor in shaping the course of history and development, 69-110.
Service, R. (2018, July 11). Russia’s revolutions: How 1917 shaped a century. Retrieved from https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/russias-revolutions-how-1917-shaped-a-century/
Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2013). Leadership Sustainability: Seven disciplines to achieve the changes great leaders know they must make. McGraw-Hill Education.
Ungerer, M., Ungerer, G., & Herholdt, J. (2016). Navigating Strategic Possibilities : Strategy Formulation and Execution Practices to Flourish. Randburg: KR Publishing. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.student.twu.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1427028&site=eds-live
Warkentin, M., Oberle, S., Hinksman, S., & Barker, L. (2018, November 9). Response to team change makers: Understanding the impact of leader behavior [Web log post]. Retrieved November 10, 2018, from https://create.twu.ca/ldrs501/2018/11/09/response-to-team-change-makers-understanding-the-impact-of-leader-behaviour/
Whelchel, H. (2015, September 14). Can You Be Compassionate and Competitive? Retrieved from https://tifwe.org/is-competition-sinful-2/
Woolfolk, A. E., Winnie, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2012). Educational psychology (5th ed.). Toronto, ON: Pearson.