In a recent conversation with an executive I found myself explaining the difference between what I spontaneously called “Type I” and “Type II” leadership action.
Type I is when a leader inquires informally about the experience of people, say over a cup of coffee or part of hall talk, welcomes a genuinely open exchange, learns something important about how the work is going and then collaborates with staff on making needed improvements and changes. As in, “Wow, I didn’t know most people see the staff meeting as a waste of time. What can we do about that?” This is right in line with the culture change methods I discussed in a June post, Lessons in Snow and also harks back to an earlier post, Why Talk About Leadership? For me, the capacity to initiate and follow-through on Type I conversations has everything to do with what is described as “employee engagement.”
Type II is when a leader introduces some sort of needed work, change, or initiative above and beyond typical daily work, the result of evolving organizational needs. This could be a new strategic plan, an innovation or cost cutting effort, or a new technology. In theory at least, in Type II, the leader also collaborates with staff to communicate about, plan, manage, and implement the change.
Type I emerges from the experience of staff. Type II comes from shifting organizational directions and demands.
Detail: Fishing Boat
My sense is that a great many leaders believe their job is really only Type II. They may assume they already know staff concerns and issues, whether they actually do or not. Despite the fact that Type I is essential to the health of the enterprise and gives people in leadership roles an opportunity to actively demonstrate their connection and engagement, it is typically less valued.
We then come to the staggering statistics. Here’s one, from a Forbes article titled, “When CEOs Talk Strategy, 70% Of The Company Doesn’t Get It,” by well-known professor, change management author and consultant, John Kotter and colleague, Jimmy Leppert. Australian researchers found that in high performing companies about 70% of staff could not correctly pick their own company’s strategies out of six possible choices.
Perhaps it’s only me, but I find it an almost magical coincidence that 70% is the same number of unengaged and actively disengaged workers (including managers), as determined by the Gallup organization.
At least, perhaps, these two 70%‘s overlap like a Venn diagram?
A closer reading of the Kotter article reveals some clues. Of the three actions the authors suggest to increase alignment with strategy (a Type II problem), none have anything to do with Type I action. All that is present is 1) a suggestion that leaders be clear about the vision, 2) exhortation to “create a movement” and excitement around these larger goals, and 3) encouragement to celebrate contribution after the fact. There is not one word devoted to finding out how staff actually feel about the goals, discovering the needs they have or assisting them in reducing the challenges they face. Not one word about the participation of staff in the design of the strategy. I suspect if the option for Type I action came up in the context of strategy implementation many would say it is just assumed leaders are in touch with their staff and know the problems. And many others might express blame either for those staff members who do speak up or for those who do not. Those who speak up without being asked might well be labeled as complainers while those who do not as unhelpful victims.
As a consequence of the failure to acknowledge Type I, Type II results (and the strategic alignment they are supposed to accomplish) are actually pretty tough to achieve.
By the way, I am not suggesting that Type I and Type II are kind of a trade-off, as in “I have to satisfy those pernicious staff hygiene needs in order to get the work done.” The real problem is deeper, in the mindset that worries about exactly that kind of “bargain” and really believes “we shouldn’t have to deal with that stuff.” It is in the mindset that believes employee surveys handle the challenge of “employee attitudes.” It is in the one that surreptitiously believes that because people are paid for their work, they shouldn’t actually think too much.
If this false Type I, Type II dichotomy is the past, tell me, what do you think the future looks like or ought to look like? How can we break down the walls?
RSS and email subscription, monthly Unfolding Leadership newsletter, search and other functions may be found at the “Further Information” tab at the bottom of this page.
Dear Dan,
May I suggest what we call in Communication Networks a “Bottom Up Approach”? In other words, start by talking to your people, know what they can do and like to do, create a reliable link (honest connection) between you and each one of them, synchronize your work with theirs, check and correct errors if any, create different networks of people having similar capabilities, interconnect these networks to provide a coherent inter-network (i.e. Be the glue). Then consider the company goals, discuss them in a language that could be understood by everyone, divide your goals into smaller tasks. Find out what type of channels/resources you need to have to carry those tasks, and fill in the gaps between what your different networks of people can provide as services and the requirements of the needed channel (i.e. train them, provide coaching).
Obviously, what we have now running in most organization is the “Top Down Approach†and that’s what is causing the disengagement of most employees.
Another great post that made me thinking, Thank You!
Hoda
Hi Dan,
You hit the home run on this when you said Type I and Type II don’t need to be bargained.
Leadership is about seeing and living the whole. See the big picture goes far beyond just the business vision.
It includes everything: inspiring, listening, critical thinking, guiding, setting limits, and the list goes on and on.
No need to choose just Type I or Type II — embrace what is and that’s the whole truth!
Kate
Dear Hoda~
Thanks, Hoda. Your list of what a leader can do is excellent. For me, in the ideal, Type II and Type I or top down vs bottom us would meld more toward a more integrated whole systems approach. Too often the effort to create meaningful change is so one-sided! If we can see that traditional one-sidedness, we can then begin to experiment, open doors, ask questions, explore the system as a whole — what it is , who it is. While such exploration leads us out of linear process and may increase rather than reduce ambiguity, it is also in the end a much surer path than pretending things can be done lock-step. Thanks so much for adding your vision of where we could go!
All the best
Dan
Dear Kate~
Exactly — this is what I believe, too. No need to choose or channel energy in some formulaic way. Just discern by fully seeing and listening. Be curious about what is and you can do so much more to foster what might be!
All the best
Dan
Dear Dan,
I truly loved your post.
I found it interesting and yet eye opening.
I want to say, its great to distinguish types, like Type I or Type II — but as we know, we are human beings, with a little of both types and as leaders we must remember to bring all of humanity to the work we do and the life we are leading.
Thanks so much for sharing.
Love your mind and heart.
Lolly
Dear Lolly~
You are so right. We must look into our own humanity as part of reducing the distance between Type I action and Type II. There we will naturally see how these forms of leadership inevitably must blend.
One things leaders can do is reflect on their own hearts: what would happen if they were asked and felt safe to tell the truth about those hearts, and had someone to work with who wanted to help fulfill their heart’s desire?
If a person can get in touch in this way with their own genuine experiences and desires, they can then turn to others and become curious about the experiences and desires they, too, hold. From knowing our own hearts we can reach out to others.
I remember a conversation in which a leader said to me after inviting feedback from some managers, “I hated to hear what they had to say. It was really disappointing.” This is so often the barrier to asking, isn’t it? — not wanting to hear where improvement might lie and feeling responsible. Yet by going into this darkness together we discover where the switch is and with a little effort begin to turn on the lights.
As always, it’s wonderful to see your words here and share in your soulful advice.
All the best, Lolly!
Dan,
In Type 1 and Type 2, an ingredient needed in both is clarity. In Type 1, clarity in understanding the perspective of others is essential. In Type 2, clarity in why change is needed is essential. In both cases, clarity of conversations needs to be absorbed by those involved and then acted upon. Consequently, in addition to clarity is an action of absorbing and adapting based on what was heard and exchanged.
It is interesting to see how lack of understanding matches up with lack of engagement.
Great post again!
Jon
Dear Jon~
Your riff on clarity is such a beautiful expansion of the post. Clarity is a powerful value and strategy in its own right. Without it, Type I and Type II hardly matter.
It is such a common challenge and needed discipline. We think we are being clear, but often our words and conduct are not as clear as we imagine. As a consequence, others may come away from us feeling misunderstood despite our intentions to be helpful, and they may also misunderstand our actions because we haven’t clearly conveyed the “why” behind them. If the water isn’t clear, why would I drink it?
A brilliant point, Jon!
Thank you~
Dan
Dan — The 70% in both studies impacted me like the old V‑8 ads! (Thanks for just smacking me in the forehead!)
Seriously — what an awesome connection!
Dear Chery~
It hit me in the head, too. I think it means leaders need to do a great deal more than “announce” strategy and then imagine it will just happen. They confuse one-way communication with engagement, then complain about “resistance.” Oh my–there’s a lot of work to do!
All the best to you
Dan