Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Florida State University Opportunities for Strategic Change Essay | acewriters

Purpose of AssignmentThe purpose of this assignment is to provide you with the opportunity to examine an existing organization and apply research to identify opportunities for strategic change. Assignment StepsWrite a 700- to 1,050-word essay to identify one global creative organization, as defined in Ch. 10 and 11 of Mastering Leadership. Analyze the opportunities for strategic change that are evident, citing evidence. Explain the impact of culture and structure in relation to strategic change. Include the following in your essay: Identify one organization that could be considered creative according to the definitions in Mastering Leadership.Explain whether or not you believe the organization meets the criteria.Discuss the impact of organizational culture and structure on opportunities for strategic change.Formulate a conclusion that includes your personal analysis of the organization’s potential for strategic change. Format your assignment according to APA guidelines.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Chapter 10 Creative Leadership Fulfilling the Promise of Leadership The transition from the
Reactive to the Creative Mind is arduous. Only about 20% of adults fully make it. It is the major
transition in most adults’ lives. In the Mythic literature, it is called the Hero’s Journey or the
Heroine’s Journey. It is not for the faint of heart. PERFORMANCE REVIEW Before we launch
into the nature of the Creative Mind and how it devel- ops, let’s summarize briefly what we have
said about its effectiveness (Figure 10.1). While Reactive Leadership styles are strongly inverse
to Effectiveness (−.68), Creative Competencies are very strongly and positively correlated to
Leadership Effectiveness (.93). In the highest performing businesses, those evaluated in the top
10% compared to industry peers, Creative Competency scores average at the 80th percentile
compared to the world- wide norm base of 500,000 rater surveys. Reactive Leadership styles are
well below the norm at the 30th percentile. The reverse is true in under- performing businesses
(bottom 10%). In our Stage of Development study (Figure 10.2), those people assessed as living
and leading from a Creative Structure of Mind had average Leadership Effectiveness and
Creative Competency scores at the 65th percentile compared to norms. This constitutes a
Leadership Quotient of
The Creative Mind is much more capable of leading in today’s com- plex organizations. Since
only 20% of leaders operate out of a Creative mindset, the Development Agenda in most
organizations should be to accelerate the development of Creative Leadership, individually and
col- lectively. This is a leadership imperative. To execute this Development Agenda, senior
leaders and HR execu- tives need to lead the way by developing Creative Mind themselves and
then by developing it within the organization. For that to happen, we need to understand the
nature of Creative Mind, how it is different than Reactive Mind, why it gets a different pattern of
results, and how Cre- ative Mind develops—what needs to happen to support its development.
The metamorphosis of Reactive Mind into Creative Mind is the major transition in most adults’
lives. It is a profound development, and those who make the passage into Creative Mind seldom,
if ever, go back. THE HERO’S JOURNEY In his book, Hero With a Thousand Faces, Joseph
Campbell describes this transition as the Hero’s Journey (Campbell, 1949). In the Mythic
stories of many traditions, the hero goes on a journey in pursuit of a deeper call or aspiration.
Usually the kingdom is in peril; the land is in famine, war is rampant, the kingdom is under a
spell, and there is much suffering. The hero takes the journey to heal what is broken. At the start
of the journey, heroes may not be aware of the relationship between the kingdom’s need and
their aspiration. They respond to the call of the soul from a deep place of longing without fully
understanding why. The movement from the known to the unknown makes no sense. The
journey only makes sense at the end, looking back. Shortly after the heroes cross the “Threshold
of Adventure” (code for leaving behind the conventional mind, with all its socialized assumptions and well-worn solutions that are reaching adaptive limits), they get thoroughly trashed—
abducted, lost, swallowed by a whale, attacked, dis- membered. Mythologically, this is the way
of expressing the arduousness of the passage and the reality that the one who starts the journey is
not the one who finishes it. The person who starts the journey is too small, too reactive, too full
of themselves, too scared, too controlling, too cau- tious, too protected, too subject to
conventional wisdom, and too caught in an unseen play-not-to-lose game to be ready to lead with
the neces- sary uncommon wisdom. The old self, the Socialized, Reactive Self, is too much on
autopilot and can only replicate what is, not lead with courage and clarity into a new and thriving
future. That self must die. It must come apart and be reconstituted into a new self, one that
marches to the beat of a different drummer. What makes this passage so disorienting is that the
hero is shedding all the known and familiar ways of knowing that have worked well. The old self
is being shed for a new self that has not yet been discovered. It feels like death, and when the
hero/heroine goes through this transition, they are not gifted with the certainty that it will all
work out. There are no guarantees. There is only the pull of the unknown longing to contribute.
This transition is “Spiritual Boot Camp.” It is hard but required if we are to move from the old
conventional reality to a new creative reality. The spiritual traditions refer to this process as
Metanoia—a profound shift of mind, a transformation in the Structure of Mind. The butterfly is
the symbol for this transformation. The caterpillar, following some unknown impulse, spins a
cocoon, crawls inside, and disintegrates. Halfway through the cocooning process, there is no
form, only gelatinous goo. Disintegration precedes integration. Death precedes resurrection. As
the butterfly gives itself over to the metamorphosis process, a new, higher-order structure begins
to take form. When the transition goes “full circle,” the butterfly emerges. No longer limited to
crawling, it arises to a winged life. This life is more free, more agile, more fluid, and capable of
going farther and faster and doing so from a higher perspective. In this transition, the tension
between purpose and safety is re- optimized. The self that was previously playing-not-to-lose (in
a Comply- ing, Protecting, and/or Controlling game) reorients on higher purpose. It orients on
the question, “What would you do if you could?” The outside- in identity is traded for an insideout identity. The Socialized, Reactive self moves from subject (operating unseen) to object (seen
and capable of being reflected upon). The emerging Creative Self can now take a perspec- tive
on the old Reactive Self, which no longer runs the show on autopilot. It is incorporated and
utilized from the higher perspective of the Creative Self. This is the shift from an External Locus
of Control to an Internal Locus of Control, from a Dependence to Independence (Covey, 1989),
from the Socialized Self to the Self-Authoring Self (Kegan and Lahey, 2009). If it happens, it is
often seen, and experienced, as a crisis. WHAT THE TRANSITION LOOKS LIKE When we
first met Joe, he was the Chief Technology Officer for one of the largest U.S.-based
telecommunications companies. It was the morning before the first day of a public workshop.
We were in the meeting room preparing for the day. We had arranged the tables and chairs and
were writing on the flipchart when we heard the door open. We did not turn around, but
continued writing. We heard Joe say in a loud gruff voice, “This room arrangement sucks! I do
not think I can find a seat in this room.” We were surprised by his outburst, but continued to
work. You can imagine what Joe’s 360◦ feedback might look like, given the way he entered the
room. It showed, among other things, low scores on Creative Relating competencies and high
scores on Reactive Controlling and Protecting. His feedback, handed out on the afternoon of the
first day, sobered him. He became quiet and reflective. The next day, we asked the group to write
down the results they would commit to create going forward. We looked at Joe and noted that he
was not writing anything. He was simply staring at a blank sheet of paper. Our first assumption
was that he had checked out of the workshop. However, we noticed that this judgment was our
reactivity to him, so we walked up to him and asked, “We notice that you are not writing. Is there
anything we can help you with?” He looked up, aggressively jerked his thumb in the direction of
the door and said, “Let’s take this outside.” We were not sure if he wanted to talk or punch us
out. When we stepped outside the room, he said rather aggressively: “Let me tell you what I got
from this workshop. If you want me to write down on that sheet of paper a list of results, that is a
no-brainer. I do that every day. But, if you want me to write down what I really want, I don’t
know. That is what I got from this workshop, and I got it from the 360◦ feedback and from the
stories you told about your own lives.” What he next said is a vintage example of the Socialized,
outside-in, Reactive Level Mind in the form of Controlling-Protecting, being seen perhaps for
the first time. You can also read, in what he says, the Creative Mind starting to boot up. Joe’s
next words to us are an example of the vulnerable and courageous inner work that goes on in this
transition. He continued: “When I was a boy, my dad told me to go to college. So I did. When I
was in college, they told me that the highest job availability was in engineering, so I became an
engineer. No one asked me if I wanted to be an engineer, but I did so. When I started working as
an engineer, they told me that I should be a manager, so I became a manager. When I became a
manager, they said I was better off if I moved up the ladder, and so I began to climb. Now I sit at
the top of a very large organization and I can chase results with the best of them. So, if you want
me to write on that sheet of paper a list of results, that is no problem. I do that every day. But, if
you want me to write what I really want, I don’t have a clue. What do I do with this?” Joe was
now looking at us, wide-eyed, like a deer in the headlights, and his eyes were misty as he said,
“What do I do with this?” Needless to say, we worked with him to create a supportive plan going
forward. In this story, you can hear Joe describe his Socialized Mind and how it was formed.
You can hear him describe the core of his identity, “I can chase results with the best of them,”
which is code for, “That is who I am. If I am not that, who am I?” Given this self-definition, you
can understand the source of his aggressive and autocratic way of leading. It makes perfect
sense. You can also see him start to take a perspective on the limitations of his externally defined
and driven Reactive Structure of Mind. “I can chase results, but I do not know what I really
want.” You can hear in the core organizing questions of the Creative Mind. “Who am I if I am
not my ability got get results? What do I really want? What would I do if I could?” You can also
hear the courage and vulnerability of a leader facing these questions. This is the Hero/Heroine’s
Journey. In this story, you can hear the old self disintegrating and the new self that has not yet
emerged. This is what makes the transition so scary, a crisis. Joe is messing with the core of the
operating system that has brought him the success he has achieved. He is not sure that if he
dismantles this way of being it will work out well for him. He does not yet have any experience
with the new Creative Mind. He will not know the benefits of Creative Mind for some time. All
he has is the question that naturally arises from the Creative Mind to initiate the transformation,
“What do I really want?” While Joe does not know where this question will lead, he intuitively
knows that this is the right question. Joe does not yet know that this transition is not asking him
to give up his hard-won capability to get results. He does not yet realize that he is hanging that
gift on a Reactive Structure, and that in doing so is limiting the gift and introducing liabilities
(evident in his 360◦ results). Joe has not yet experienced that, in the transition to Creative Mind,
you keep your gift and jettison the liabilities. As a result, you get your gift in a higher form. The
Creative capacity to achieve far outperforms what can be achieved from his Reactive
Controlling-Protecting mindset. Joe does not know any of this yet. All he can say is, “What do I
do with this?” So he is faced with the courageous choice to go forward on a journey with no
guarantees, or to retreat back into his Reactive Mind. That choice will define the future of Joe’s
leadership. TALKING ABOUT IT WITHOUT KNOWING IT The leadership literature has
described Creative Leadership for decades, but without the framework of Adult Development.
This has limited our ability to understand what it is, what makes the Reactive and Creative Mind
so different, and how to support the evolution. Robert Fritz masterfully described the difference
between the Creative and Reactive orientations. However, he did not place each orientation
within a vertical development framework. Larry Wilson did the same thing. He described these
same two orientations as play-not-to-lose and play-to-win, but did not see these as progressively
developing structures of mind. This is true of most of the good leadership theory and research. In
the work that led up to his book, The Empowered Manager, Peter Block started out trying to get
the bathroom conversation into the meet- ing room (Block, 1987). In the bathroom, people say
how they are really experiencing the meeting. When the meeting reconvenes, everyone agrees
that things are going fine. This is usually not the conversation that hap- pened in the bathroom at
break. To address this, and to get the truth to appear in the meeting room, Peter began to work on
teaching the neces- sary authentic “political” skills. As Peter engaged leaders in the skill-practice
of telling the truth in meetings, he ran into caution. Peter constantly heard leaders say, “If I stand
up, I will get shot.” In order to address this cautious, play-not-to- lose game, Peter realized that
he needed to help leaders discover a vision or purpose that was bigger than their fear—worth the
risk. This led him to challenge leaders with the question of vision: what would you do if you
could? These questions (How am I playing not-to-lose? How am I getting in my own way? What
do I really want? What would I do if I could? How would I lead if I knew I could not fail or
would not be fired?) are key developmental questions for the evolving Creative Mind. If asked
frequently and with searing honesty, they reliably boot up the Creative Mind. Peter was on to
something. He and others were describing Creative Mind and how to develop it without seeing or
describing the vertical process of development. The Leadership Development field is a random
collection of great stuff—models, frameworks and research. Each is use- ful, but partial. Most of
it describes the leadership that emerges at the Creative Mind, without attributing it to a natural,
sequential process of development. In his book, In Over Our Heads, Bob Kegan made a gamechanging statement. He said that most of the leadership literature describes the kind of leadership
that naturally emerges on Creative Mind (Kegan, 1998). The leadership literature and
competency research is quite clear in describing effectiveness. Effective leaders are purpose
driven and trans- late their deep sense of purpose into a clear and compelling vision and strategy,
which become the focus of execution and decisions. Leaders are systems-aware, redesigning
systems to produce higher-order results. They are authentic and courageous in their
conversations, lead with integrity, and are self-aware, emotionally intelligent, interpersonally
skillful, and relationally competent—fostering high teamwork and trust, as well as mentoring and
developing others. Kegan says that such leadership is vin- tage Creative, Self-Authoring Mind
(Kegan and Lahey, 2009). He con- cluded that these leadership competencies arise naturally on
Creative Mind, but do not reliably boot up on Reactive Mind. Our research cor- roborates
Kegan’s conclusion. The leadership literature has described Creative Mind without know- ing it.
This has led us to approach Leadership Development primarily as an outer game of skill
development and ignore the maturity of the inner game. Meanwhile, a well-researched
understanding of the process of development, and the vertically sequential structures of mind,
was being incubated in the field of Developmental Psychology, outside the main- stream of the
Leadership Development field. Stage Development theory needs to move to the center of the
Leadership Development conversa- tion. It is at the center of the Leadership Circle Profile and
the Universal Model of Leadership. CREATIVE STRUCTURE The Reactive Mind creates an
oscillating pattern of performance over time, the natural tendency of which is to seek equilibrium
and return to normal (Figure 10.3). The natural tendency of the Reactive Mind is to establish
hierarchical, patriarchal structures, dynamics, and cultures. Such organizations do not perform as
needed today. The Creative Mind creates a different pattern of results. In the story of the
insurance salesman, we mentioned that he talked about the prob- lem, his disgust with himself,
and his swinging into gear, but he never talked about his vision or why he cared about selling. He
expressed no overarching passion, which is the heart of the Creative Mind. Cre- ative Mind
orients on Purpose. The core of the Creative IOS is a con- stant focus on a desired future vision,
and amid the current reality (with all its mixed messages and hurdles) taking authentic,
collaborative action to bring that vision into being over time. Creative Leadership is about
creating an organization that we believe in, creating outcomes that
The Creative Mind starts from purpose and vision, not with a problem. There are plenty of
problems to deal with as we create the futures we want, but the driving focus is on creating a
vision that we care about, a vision worthy of our deepest commitment. Not any vision will do. If
it does not matter, it generates no energy. The energy that fuels the Creative Mind is passion.
Love is not too strong a word. While fear is naturally present when creating what we want (the
spark behind fear), fear is not running the show. The focus on purpose and vision generates a
passion, love, and commitment that is bigger than the fear. Love is superordinate to fear. It is
more powerful, and, thus, Creative Structure supersedes the Reactive play-not-to-lose game. The
focus on vision, fueled by passion, results in action, not reaction. In Creative Structure, we do
not take action to eliminate what we do not want. Nor is action a reaction to fear—trying to
attenuate it. In the Creative Mind we do not react, but we act to bring into being what we
As we get clearer about our purpose and translate that into a clear picture of the future we want,
passion naturally grows. As passion grows, the tendency to take the action necessary to creating
our desired future also grows. As we take action to create what we want, we either get closer to
our vision or clearer about it. Then our passion grows again (or stays high). As passion grows,
the tendency to take additional action also grows, which takes us farther in the direction of our
vision. This is a virtuous growth cycle. Each time through the cycle, it grows and funds future
growth (unlike the Reactive Mind, where each time through the loop, it reverses the direction of
results, thus oscillating). Creative Mind is designed to seek vision, not equilibrium. It is designed
for the complexity of leading change and creating new futures. It is the minimum system
requirement for mastering leadership.
The Creative Structure is inside-out. It marches to the beat of a different drummer. It is not
driven by what we are socialized to think is in our best interest. We live and lead from our own
internally discerned sense of purpose, values, and vision. This is why Kegan calls it SelfAuthoring (Kegan and Lahey, 2009), Covey calls it Independent (Covey, 1989), and Susanne
Cook-Greuter calls it Individualist (Cook-Greuter, 2004). We cal …
Purchase answer to see full

error: Content is protected !!