In fact, the book seeks to confront our historic, cultural approach to leadership personality and even the idea that non-charismatic leadership still needs to look \u2018leaderly\u2019. The book nudges leading toward tackling the more rapidly changing and complex organisational and contextual landscape. Berger and Johnston encourage us to think more about what is \u2018possible\u2019 than \u2018likely\u2019. Consequently, they articulate three primary habits of mind that individuals need to nurture to make the shift:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Asking different questions (instead of having the answers),<\/li>\n
- Taking multiple perspectives (even when we disagree), and<\/li>\n
- Seeing systems (including emergence).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
I thought the first two were somewhat self-evident, but then I live in the context from which Johnston, particularly, lives and writes. However, the third grabbed my attention: \u2018Seeing the systems\u2019 moves me away from tales of cause and effect.<\/p>\n
One key mistake we make is to fill in the connection between cause and effect with very little data. We dislike knowing about an effect without a sense of cause\u2014it offends our sense of story. So we take whatever data we have and create a causal story. It doesn\u2019t matter that the story is missing pieces\u2014as long as we can tie the pieces together (and our brains will fill in the missing bits), we\u2019ll be able to make a satisfying story we can believe in.[2]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This of course shapes the way leaders see the past in order to make a way in to the future. The problem is, the story we create may emphasise the wrong parts of the story in order to create an outcome that we want, not one that is required. Hence, searching for the missing pieces of the story may be more crucial, but not necessarily convenient. However, such wilful ignorance scuttles our ability to lead coherently in a VUCA context. That little piece of information I found rather challenging as I do it frequently – tell the story of the past in such a way that it justifies (of at least makes sense of) what is ahead. Connect that behaviour with \u2018retrospective coherence\u2019 (we look back at something and can suddenly make sense of it all) and there\u2019s a problem. Retrospective coherence encourages an arrogance as we ask why the previous generation of leaders couldn\u2019t see what is so plainly obvious to us in retrospect; how did they miss it so badly? In doing so we avoid the VUCA reality in our midst. Somehow, by seeing the problems of the past with such perceived clarity, we become trustworthy prophets of an equally uncertain, complex and ambiguous future \u2013 our personal leadership feels in control.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/Screen-Shot-2019-03-08-at-1.28.19-PM-300x262.png\")
<\/a>As an antithesis to \u2018cause and effect\u2019 storytelling and the inherent abuses of retrospective coherence, the authors use David Snowden\u2019s Cynefin framework, which he describes in the Cognitive Edge<\/em>. [3]<\/a><\/p>\nThis involves sorting unpredictable and predictable elements into the complex, the complicated, the chaotic and the simple. The whole point is to understand our \u2018present\u2019 reality from different perspectives so that our action comes from a much clearer perspective about \u2018what is\u2019. Hence the development of the \u2018feedback mindset\u2019.[4]<\/a> This is where egalitarian thinking appears on the scene; we challenge the assumption that the giver of feedback is the sole possessor of the truth, especially a leader. By shift to questions about \u2018what can we<\/u> learn\u2019 in any given situation we enhance our capacity for listening and seeing more data and often a very different picture. Unfortunately, listening is not a strong point in leadership training \u2013 and by listening, I mean, hearing and understanding and absorbing and rethinking.<\/p>\n
There is a bit missing from all this though. Most churches and organisations expect their CEO, Pastor or Key Leader to be people who know, \u201cYou\u2019re the boss, you decide\u201d, in part because there is a desire to deflect blame. So, though the book provides a new model of leadership, for many leaders there is a long transition to changing expectations around decision making processes. Though it is partially addressed in chapter 8,[5]<\/a> shared consideration tends to require shared accountability, but transitioning to that kind of culture is not well covered in the book.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
[1]<\/a> Jennifer Garvey-Berger and Keith Johnston. Simple Habits for Complex Times: Powerful Practices for Leaders.<\/em> (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2015), Kindle Edition 13<\/p>\n
[2]<\/a> Ibid. 37<\/p>\n