The Three I’s
The Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice is an incredible compilation of, and tribute to, the importance of leadership. The book is a nearly 800-page collection of essays, writings, and insights from some of the top scholars on leadership through the years. The book, which is edited by Nitin Nohria and Rakesh Khurana, sets out to cut across a variety of disciplines to explore best practices and learning when it comes to the art and science of leadership.
The chapter that I want to focus on in this post is by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, and is entitled “Leadership in a Globalizing World.” Kanter sets out to explore and explain the ways that top flight leaders (especially in global business, but also in other fields) will need to lead differently in the era of “globalization.”
Globalization is a big word, with many different variations. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, globalization is “the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets.”[1] I would expand on this definition to say that globalization means that the world is more connected, that people can move more freely, and that that the world is becoming “smaller”. Kanter asserts that globalization leads to a set of challenges, which include “increased uncertainty, complexity, and diversity”[2]
According to Kanter, there are “three big tasks” that leaders in the era of globalization must take up, which are the “Three I’s”. These are described as “institutional work to deal with uncertainty, integrative work to deal with complexity, and identity work to deal with diversity.”[3]
To be honest, the idea of doing “institutional work” does not naturally appeal to me. It makes me think of a lumbering organization or a place where there are all sorts of defined systems and set patterns for how to operate. But what Kanter is really suggesting by using this term is something different.
She writes, “Institutional work involves active efforts to build and reinforce aspects of what is loosely called organizational culture—but it is also much more than that… (it) is an investment in activities and relationships…”[4] She says that, “The institutional work of leaders involves establishing and reinforcing values and principles throughout the organization through conversations and actions.”[5]
The more I read about “institutional work”, the more it sounds like pastoral leadership in a congregational context. The tasks that are described are the same ones that a pastor seeking the health and growth of their church would also pursue. And it is only the leader who has not only “positional authority”, but also “relational authority” who can guide this effort. The conversations and relationship-building that is described by Kanter for business executives is a parallel work within congregational systems.
This ongoing engagement with people, especially to communicate and reinforce shared values and goals, is what a leader does in order to “keep the main thing, the main thing.”
Along with relationship building, connections, and communicating values and goals, the institutional work for leadership also has to do with what, Podolny, Khurana and Besharov identify as “making meaning”.[6] This idea of “meaning making” is a central function of leaders in an institution, and this is certainly the case in the church.
In a recent podcast, Mark Labberton the President of Fuller Theological Seminary interviewed the Rt. Rev. Dr. D. Zac Niringiye, who is a theologian and pastor who served as Assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Kampala, Uganda. In their conversation, Niringye says that he has uneasiness when, “the church gets preoccupied with church, and forgets the world that God loves. The world of injustice, the world of poverty…” He says, “I believe that we must not only speak, but act, do things that say ‘this must change.’ I believe that the gospel is about dignity, human flourishing.”[7]
This is the corrective to “institutional” leadership work, making sure that the “meaning” is being made clear for everyone involved. Otherwise, as Niringiye suggests, we are just “the church getting preoccupied with the church”, rather than with the real meaning of our faith and life together.
In the end, I am inspired by this article because it is an encouraging word to pastors doing ministry in congregational settings. Not only does Kanter describe leadership work as “institutional building”, which can seem dry or uninspired, but she gives it dignity. She explains how this ongoing work of convening conversations, guiding processes, asking questions, and making meaning is so vital to the health and future of the organization.
If I had a critique of Kanter’s article, it is that the second I (integrative work) is really related to the first I. All of this is part of a whole. And the third I (identity work), which is what drew me to the article in the first place, was the most undeveloped of the 3. Indeed, most of the Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice is written by people of power from elite institutions. Maybe this is what gives it the prestige or influence, but when it comes to globalization, one of the lessons is that the world is becoming smaller and more inter-connected. I wonder if the academy is standing back and “studying” globalization, without realizing how much they themselves are being affected.
The lesson for the church is the same. The big idea of “globalization” is out there and happening al the time, and our calling is not to hang back or hope it goes away. Instead, Christian leaders and pastors must step into the challenge to lead our beloved institution of “the church” into the future.
[1] Merriam-Webster, “Globalization”, accessed December 6, 2017, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalization.
[2] Rosabeth Moss Kanter, “Leadership in a Globalizaing World,” in Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, ed. Nitin Nohria and Rakesh Khurana (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2010), 570.
[3] Rosabeth Moss Kanter, “Leadership in a Globalizaing World,” in Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, ed. Nitin Nohria and Rakesh Khurana (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2010), 570.
[4] Rosabeth Moss Kanter, “Leadership in a Globalizaing World,” in Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, ed. Nitin Nohria and Rakesh Khurana (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2010), 577.
[5] Rosabeth Moss Kanter, “Leadership in a Globalizaing World,” in Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, ed. Nitin Nohria and Rakesh Khurana (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2010), 579.
[6] Rosabeth Moss Kanter, “Leadership in a Globalizaing World,” in Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, ed. Nitin Nohria and Rakesh Khurana (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2010), 70.
[7] Fuller Theological Seminary (2017). Bishop Zac Niringiye on Justice. [podcast] Conversing. Available at: https://fullerstudio.fuller.edu/bishop-zac-niringiye-on-justice/ [Accessed 7 Dec. 2017].
About the Author
Dave Watermulder
4 responses to “The Three I’s”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Dave,
This was a great post, and not just because you ended up blogging about the same chapter as I did. 😉
You are right to compare Kanter’s observations about institutional leadership with the culture shaping that happens by pastors in a local church.
Your critique regarding the powerful writing on and defining leadership is interesting that aligns with the argument of a book I just added to my annotated bibliography on Privilege, Power, and Difference by Johnson. Those of us with privilege and power must learn to lead from the edge, listening to and ceding power to the margins. I think it’s the Jesus way which He modeled for us.
I have really enjoyed interacting with you this fall and so appreciate your keen insights you bring to this cohort. This comes with my prayers for you and your family over this Christmas season. Merry Christmas!
Thank you, Mark!
I love globalization. It has brought Cheese and blueberries to my neck of the woods:-)
I have always struggles with the word “Institution”. It rings in my ears with such negativity. It makes me think on an entity that in more concerned with keeping itself a live rather than growth or change. We need the structure of the church but how do we have that without it being about self-preservation of the structure?
I am drawn to the idea of not forgetting the world for the sake of our church. I know we are drawn to what is comfortable and thoughts of the world is a little frightening.
Thanks for the reminder and the challenges. Have a great Christmas.
Thank you, Greg! You are a true missionary!