See Torbert's article here. A
criticism I've had before on Torbert's work is that it focuses on just
changing the leadership of an organization. It still maintains the
earlier action logic that organizations need hierarchical leadership
that transforms the org from the top down based on the hero/leader
mythology. While he does list (in his charts) a transforming leadership
creates an organization of collaborative inquiry from a participatory
approach, it's still the bosses that do this when collaborative inquiry
redefines organizational interaction as peer to peer.
That
doesn't negate that some peers assume leadership roles in some
contexts, but it does challenge the same top leaders in charge all the
time on everything. He does in fact note that "committed collaborative
action in teams" is required. And that "transforming leaders lead toward
collective leadership." Yet it seems that CEOs and org Boards are still
the final arbiters of organizational policy and decision, when orgs run
on collaborative inquiry processes have proven that they can run
without such top heavy structures (e.g. here and here).
Even
Harvard is getting in on the action with this collaborative leadership
training: "You will explore the current evolution of organizational
design from traditional, command-and-control models to a system of
empowered networks [... and] gain critical insights about broad
macro-level shifts in organizational design from traditional,
command-and-control organizational structure towards a team-centric
structure organized for autonomy, agility, and purpose." Also explored:
"Alternative models to hierarchy (including organic forms, cross
functional teams, holacracy, collaborative leadership development)."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.