Dr. Richard Claydon’s Post

Pure beliefs, noble causes and core values. There's a lot of unbelievable stuff in Tim Shipman's analysis of the ins and outs of Conservative Party leadership during Brexit. Shipman, The Times Chief Political Editor, lays bare the inadequacies of all involved and the absurdities of their decisions. - Theresa May never listening to advice from those she paid to advise her related to what Brexit deal might get voted for. - David Davies, UK's chief Brexit negotiator, having his staff saw off the bottom of the legs of a chair to disadvantage Europe's chief negotiator at a conference - Boris Johnson's team hiding behind furniture when their campaign manager was at the front door Yes, these are the people the UK entrusted with leading their country during the biggest transformation in British life since WWII. But this is not the thing that most shocked me. Hidden in the middle of the article was this comment. "My broad (if banal) conclusion from watching the four iterations of the Tories since 2016 is that it is really important for politicians to be good at politics — but it is one that surprisingly few politicians accept, preferring to talk about their beliefs and their dedication to public service. A little belief is vital in a politician: it gives them direction and purpose, a backbone and a compass for navigating a complicated world. But being good at the political game is not a luxury or a slightly sordid extra." Politicians not being interested in or good at politics or the political game. Only interested in their beliefs, causes and values. You couldn't make it up. But also, what if? I see similar things in corporate life. Executives not being interested in or good at leading, managing or organizing or the organisational game (including its political dimensions). Only interested in their beliefs, causes and values. Why is this? Partly, work itself. Who has time to think about complex stuff when the next target is just around the corner? Just talk about yourself. You know yourself, don't you? But more so, the impact of a certain type of psychology on leadership development. This only focuses on "authentic" beliefs, causes and values. It treats anything pragmatic as dirty. Variations of this have been around for 40 years, and dominant for 30. Its early adopters will be in leadership positions now. Are we seeing that, despite its moral stance and best intentions, this mode of development is delivering quite a lot of leaders who aren't very good at leading? It would explain a lot for me. #leadership #leadershipdevelopment #futureofleadership

Adult development theories have largely been focused on identifying stages or levels through various frameworks (ego, constructive, morality, etc.). There was little done to identify how best to support development or movement. In 1980 Dr. Fischer introduced the dynamic skill theory that described the mechanisms of development, providing the foundation to explore the differences in capacities to act in a certain way in a certain context. This enabled adult development theorists to begin identifying skill capacity at different stages or levels and how best to support that development. Dr. Theo Dawson took up that charge and used Fischer’s model to translate clear structures into scoring rules that produce accurate and reliable developmental scores. Creating a formative assessment that identifies the skill capabilities of a test taker: collaborative capacity, perspective coordination, clarity, contextual thinking, and decision-making. To develop curriculum and support virtuous cycles of learnings (VCoLs), Lectica developed skill maps to make it possible to describe broad categories of skills that broke down into skills that are small enough to be practiced in real time. These open-source skill maps provide conditions for us to explore our complexity of thinking and challenge ourselves to build capabilities. In this series, Dr. Becky Andree will use five dynamic skills to explore our current and emerging capabilities. Collaborative Capacity is essential to working cooperatively with others in a variety of contexts, including collaborative learning, problem-solving, and decision-making. These skills support human interactions by fostering mutual respect, building trust, expanding our minds, regulating emotions, combatting bias, and supporting understanding. --- Hosted by EQ Lab co-founders Dr. Richard Claydon and Oscar Venhuis, Dialogic Drinks is the kind of private and philosophical discussion you have in a coffee shop or bar. There is no demand to find a solution to a problem. Insights and learnings emerge from participating in the facilitated discussion with individuals from all over the world. --- SESSION ONE TUE, Apr 23 03:30 - 05:30 Los Angeles/Vancouver 05:30 - 07:30 Chicago 06:30 - 08:30 New York/Ottawa 11:30 - 13:30 London 11:30 - 13:30 Amsterdam 16:00 - 18:00 Mumbai 18:30- 20:30 Hong Kong/Singapore 20:30 - 22:30 Sydney 22:30 - 00:30 Auckland SESSION TWO THU, April 25 17:00 - 19:00 Los Angeles/Vancouver 19:00 - 21:00 Chicago 20:00 - 22:00 New York/Ottawa FRI, Apr 26 01:00 - 03:00 London 02:00 - 04:00 Amsterdam 05:30 - 07:30 Mumbai 08:00 - 10:00 Hong Kong/Singapore 10:00 - 12:00 Sydney 12:00 - 14:00 Auckland #complexity #adultdevelopment #ledershipdevelopment

The words ‘consensus’, ‘coherence’, and ‘shared reality’ come up with frequency at Drinking Dialogue sessions, as inevitably they would, after all, dialogue is all about creating shared meaning. In this session we go deep…. - We’ll explore why shared meaning can be such a difficult process and how Mirror Neurons can help - We’ll critique a not-quite-yet-released approach* to accelerating team dialogues, while simultaneously practicing and observing your own dialogue skills - And we’ll get back to the essential link from dialogue to action. *This is Mirror Mirror - it was presented at DD a couple of years ago. It’s a way to capture perspectives of team members on aspects of their own effectiveness, turn the inputs into data, then combine the results to see where the group lands and how their perspectives contrast. The low scoring items show where focus is needed. Sounds pretty good - but why wasn’t it taking off? We’re now emerging from a phase of metamorphosis with Mirror Mirror. We’d like to show you what we’re about to take to market and want to hear your reactions. All you need to do is bring an open mind, and be ready for some intentional listening, respecting, suspending, and voicing (as advised by William Isaac). --- DD382 TUE, Apr 16 03:30 - 04:30 Los Angeles/Vancouver 06:30 - 08:30 New York/Ottawa 11:30 - 13:30 London 12:30 - 14:30 Amsterdam 16:00 - 18:00 Mumbai 18:30- 20:30 Hong Kong/Singapore 21:30 - 23:30 Sydney 23:30 - 01:30 Auckland DD383 THU, April 18 17:00 - 19:00 Los Angeles/Vancouver 20:00 - 22:00 New York/Ottawa FRI, Apr 19 01:00 - 03:00 London 02:00 - 04:00 Amsterdam 05:30 - 07:30 Mumbai 08:00 - 10:00 Hong Kong/Singapore 11:00 - 13:00 Sydney 13:00 - 15:00 Auckland Click on the picture to register. #dialogue #alignment #action

How do we think differently about leadership today than we did a century ago? This is a rather wonderful examination of the evolution of leadership studies (albeit presented in a form almost unreadable to the non-academic) entitled "Construct redundancy in leader behaviors: A review and agenda for the future." The title is a wonderful exemplar for its unreadability. In basic terms, it argues that the way we think about leadership has evolved from functional forms (1930-1980) to inspirational forms (1980-2000) to moral forms (2000-today). FUNCTIONAL FORMS OF LEADERSHIP 1. Initiating Structure 2. Consideration 3. Laissez-Faire 4. Management by exception – active 5. Contingent reward 6. Management by exception – passive   INSPIRATIONAL FORMS OF LEADERSHIP 1. Transformational 2. Charismatic MORAL FORMS OF LEADERSHIP 1. Servant 2. Authentic 3. Ethical 4. Neo-Charismatic To further contextualise, functional forms of leadership were dominant when organizational hierarchies represented the capacity of a person to plan and evaluate work. Those higher up would employ various functional modes to get those lower down to do the work. They focus on completing tasks (1), motivating people (2), and delegating responsibilities (3). Items 4-6 combine to form the Transactional Leadership model (ranked in order of supposed effectiveness). As it became increasingly impossible for people further up the hierarchy to understand the complex nature of the work they were supposed to be planning, focus shifted towards ways in which to inspire people to self-manage good work. This gave birth to the 20-year dominance of the Transformational Leadership model. This was tarnished when its poster-child, Enron, was found to be fraudulent, with its leaders enriching themselves by using inspirational methods to persuade employees and convince investors that everything was hunky dory. Consequently, the focus shifted to moral leadership, which is a combination of inspirational methods underpinned by a leader's inner goodness and moral code. This is still the focus today, despite increasing evidence that it is failing to deliver the things that it promises (the best read on this is Pfeffer's Leadership BS, which unpacks and unpicks many of the claims underpinning these models). Note that charismatic leadership, which pre-dates all these models, has been repackaged twice to fit both inspirational and moral forms of leadership. Hope this is a useful summary. #leadership #leadershipdevelopment #futureofleadership

This Drinking Dialogue will apply the sociology of Jurgen Habermas in conversation with ChatGPT to explore his theory of System and Lifeworld, and the tension that plays out through the exercise of strategic and communicative action within these domains. For those new to Habermas, his distinct approach to social science is grounded in a theory of language. Through a brief intellectual history, we will introduce his key concepts through themes of late modernity and communicative rationality, as well as the role technology plays in shaping the way human beings persist and recall information. No prior social science experience required! This will be a hands-on Drinking Dialogue as participants will be encouraged to utilize ChatGPT to enable communicative action within their breakout sessions. --- Gabe Elias applies social theory in Toronto, Canada. Views are his own. --- Hosted by EQ Lab co-founders Dr. Richard Claydon and Oscar Venhuis, Dialogic Drinks is the kind of private and philosophical discussion you have in a coffee shop or bar. There is no demand to find a solution to a problem. Insights and learnings emerge from participating in the facilitated discussion with individuals from all over the world. --- DD380 TUE, Apr 09 03:30 - 04:30 Los Angeles/Vancouver 06:30 - 08:30 New York/Ottawa 11:30 - 13:30 London 12:30 - 14:30 Amsterdam 16:00 - 18:00 Mumbai 18:30- 20:30 Hong Kong/Singapore 21:30 - 23:30 Sydney 23:30 - 01:30 Auckland DD381 THU, April 11 17:00 - 19:00 Los Angeles/Vancouver 20:00 - 22:00 New York/Ottawa FRI, Apr 12 01:00 - 03:00 London 02:00 - 04:00 Amsterdam 05:30 - 07:30 Mumbai 08:00 - 10:00 Hong Kong/Singapore 11:00 - 13:00 Sydney 13:00 - 15:00 Auckland Click on the picture to register. #sociology #AI #communication

In this ongoing exploration into the integration of principles from complex adaptive systems and the wisdom of Daoist Yin/Yang philosophy, we turn our attention to the dynamic interplay of diversity and unity as the focal point of our inquiry. Complex adaptive systems offer the potential for positive-sum outcomes, and our aim is to delve into the synergy between diversity and unity, emphasizing the possibility of achieving a harmonious balance between these essential aspects. Our objectives for this session are as follows: - Investigate the synergy between complexity science and Daoism, examining how the integration of modern scientific insights with ancient philosophical wisdom can provide invaluable clarity for navigating complexity. - Utilize the diversity/unity lens to comprehend mental complexity in adult development, positing that as mental complexity deepens, there is a tendency towards greater unity, allowing for the incorporation of a broader array of diverse elements. - Enhance understanding through a personal developmental narrative, contextualized within cultural responses to emotions. This inaugural segment of the series aims to uncover the fundamental meta-pattern of diversity/unity within the subject-object relationship framework as it relates to adult development. To delve deeper into these concepts, we invite you to explore the accompanying blog posts: "Diversity and Unity: An Yin/Yang Pair" and "Diversity and Unity: Subject - Object relationship." Subsequent installments will continue this exploration across various conceptual frameworks and life scenarios. --- Hosted by EQ Lab co-founders Dr. Richard Claydon and Oscar Venhuis, Dialogic Drinks is the kind of private and philosophical discussion you have in a coffee shop or bar. There is no demand to find a solution to a problem. Insights and learnings emerge from participating in the facilitated discussion with individuals from all over the world. --- DD378 TUE, Apr 02 03:30 - 04:30 Los Angeles/Vancouver 06:30 - 08:30 New York/Ottawa 11:30 - 13:30 London 12:30 - 14:30 Amsterdam 16:00 - 18:00 Mumbai 18:30- 20:30 Hong Kong/Singapore 21:30 - 23:30 Sydney 23:30 - 01:30 Auckland DD379 THU, April 04 17:00 - 19:00 Los Angeles/Vancouver 20:00 - 22:00 New York/Ottawa FRI, Apr 05 01:00 - 03:00 London 02:00 - 04:00 Amsterdam 05:30 - 07:30 Mumbai 08:00 - 10:00 Hong Kong/Singapore 11:00 - 13:00 Sydney 13:00 - 15:00 Auckland Click on the picture to register. #complexity #diversity #unity

Do you want a traditional workplace or a highly leveraged global team? It's either/or. Not both/and. Pick. Asking for both results in the following scenario for anybody working in a global function. Policy: Be in the office 60-80% of your time. That's the traditional way. You: - Get up at 05:30 to have an hour long meeting with one part of your global team before they finish their day. - Grab breakfast, catch up with the overnight emails, and wave the kids goodbye as they leave for school. - Travel to the office - 30 mins (traffic was light) - Work a 9-hour office day (8 hours in meeting - mainly virtual, one hour lunch break - spent in front of your screen catching up on emails). - Travel home - 45 mins (traffic was bad) - Grab 15 minutes with the family. - Work with the rest of your global team in a +12 hour time zone for 3-4 hours - well into the evening. - Catch up with the rest of your emails (eating dinner while doing it). - Wind down (somehow). - Sleep (somehow). - Repeat. --- How long can anybody sustain this without burning out? How long can anybody sustain this without making mistakes? How long can anybody sustain this without breaking down? --- Not surprisingly, many people with global roles are really struggling. Is it reasonable or feasible to make them come to the office to do a traditional day's work alongside the non-traditional extra work that comes with such a role? Is it creating any meaningful value? Is it harming value in any way? We need to be thinking about different ways in which we can re-organize the workload to ensure these roles are performed effectively in a way that sustains and supports the organization and the person in the role. That is going to require a conceptual re-imagination of what good work looks like beyond just "it's being in the office doing observable office-like work." In-the-office is going to be vital for some people in some roles. But it is going to handicap other people in other roles. It's situational. It's contextual. There's no best practice applicable to everyone. We are short of the diagnostic thinking required to know and explain this, meaning people are treating WFH as a basic right rather than a meaningful performance enabler for some people some of the time. Which is clearly the case. More to say, but not enough space to say it. Thanks Justin Abshire, for the prompt. #workfromhome #backtooffice #futureofleadership

Leadership is a social function - the ongoing need to move social systems in one direction or another. - To stabilise them in times of chaos - To energise them in times of stagnation - To agitate them in times of excessive order In today's organizational environments, the capacity to do all this is beyond the abilities of a single person. No leader can sit on an organizational throne and direct its operations like an ancient king to his courtiers. Leadership has had to become collective and collaborative. Initially, the solution was to develop managers who could take control of various discrete parts of increasingly complicated organizational systems. Given management was developed to ensure technical and functional expertise, the socio-behavioural dimension has always been a poor cousin to the calculative-rational aspects of management. But now even managers are finding they don't have the skills to direct the operations of cross-function, multi-national, time-asynchronous teams using emergent technologies to serve rapidly changing customer demands. The solution has been to become more delegative in approach. Delegate responsibilities to the team and get them to self-manage and self-organize their way to good results. Embedded in this delegative environment, managers are being asked to enact leadership - stabilise, energise and agitate teams they can't direct to push themselves harder and harder in the ongoing delivery of great results in this increasingly complex system. - Good in theory - Terrible in practice Delegative leadership in complex conditions results in poor productivity, poor quality, rising levels of in-team antagonism and loss of pride in the work. Although the teams are supposed to self-manage, they are simultaneously supposed to follow delegated best practices (best practice is the end-point of the calculative-rational dimensions of management) to the letter. You can't do both. Few people being asked to lead have had any meaningful psychosocial development. They employ simplistic models (DiSC, MBTI) and simplistic motivational practices to try and stabilise, energise or agitate. None work. Not surprisingly, middle mangers are drowning. They often turn back to what they know - calculative-rational direction (you might call it micro-management). In complex conditions, this: - Can increase productivity (although as it does nothing to improve quality, you just end up with lots of terrible product) - Ensures antagonistic relations between the team and manager - Gets the manager branded as toxic - Worsens engagement and turnover I see this everywhere. I also see the total failure of leadership development programs to address any of this - in fact, the practices they develop often makes things even worse. A reasonable description of organisational reality and leadership development programs? Or me at my cynical worst? #futureofleadership #management #organization

I want to be a leader, but I don't want to manage people. Hmm. That was one of themes of Lean Out by Marissa Orr, which I read last week. It made me think. For me, leadership is a socio-behavioural discipline. It's all about people. For the writer, this wasn't the case. Leadership was about the work. She would display her leadership capacity by being absolutely bloody brilliant at her job, meaning that people would want and choose to let her influence any aspect of organisational work that related to her domain. In short, leadership = being the leader of your field (people choose to follow you because you are so amazing at what you do, thereby making you a leader (leadership = having followers)). She equated managing with getting other people to do the work, whilst no longer doing it yourself. If you were brilliant at the work, and they weren't, this was clearly an ineffective outcome. I found this both interesting and naive. --- It illustrated the degree to which social media has impacted organisational life. Leader = influencer. But it is deeply naive to conflate the two systems. They are very different beasts. --- She presented the classic "maestro v macho" leader-manager dichotomy in a way I hadn't seen before. The leader was a maestro of a technical field. The manager was a macho controller of people. She positioned the macho management model as a central problem of modern organisations. I don't disagree. She illustrated how men and women play this macho game very differently. - The men are aggressive to you to your face - The women destroy your reputation behind the scenes But the maestro model was supposed to displace this - to develop a new generation of leaders who created conditions that enable better sense-making, decision-making and action-taking (knocking onto increased well-being and purpose). It wasn't supposed to be an abdication from the socio-behavioural game into detached techno-expertise. That wide-scale macho games-playing was happening at scale in two companies held up to be the most progressive in the world was troubling. Even more troubling was the degree to which they use their technologies and reputation to impact the socio-behavioural arena for all of us. --- Despite my critique, I heartily recommend the read. It's a great book. #futureofleadership #leadership #leadershipdevelopment

Can we ever say something which cannot be misunderstood? Something that guarantees we get our point across? No, we can't. Natural language is ambiguous and unclear, no matter how much clarity we may want or need. There is no way around it. If we try to remove ambiguity from language, we get legalese, programming languages, math notation, and other things we don't want. So, should we at least strive for clarity? Sometimes, ambiguity may be more beneficial. It can help to leave things vague. We can "soften the blow" of a message that needs to be delivered. We can leave things "open to interpretation". Deliberately planting a seed, to be picked up, and its meaning shaped, by a communication partner and THEIR interpretation. And what about the competing clarities of two contradictory positions? Let us explore the uses of ambiguity and clarity as part of our meaning-making. How do we navigate this space? What motivates us to seek one or the other? Is there meaningful guidance on how and when to use each? Let us gain some clarity on this... --- Hosted by EQ Lab co-founders Dr. Richard Claydon and Oscar Venhuis, Dialogic Drinks is the kind of private and philosophical discussion you have in a coffee shop or bar. There is no demand to find a solution to a problem. Insights and learnings emerge from participating in the facilitated discussion with individuals from all over the world. --- DD376 TUE, Mar 26 03:30 - 04:30 Los Angeles/Vancouver 06:30 - 08:30 New York/Ottawa 10:30 - 12:30 London 11:30 - 13:30 Amsterdam 16:00 - 18:00 Mumbai 18:30- 20:30 Hong Kong/Singapore 21:30 - 23:30 Sydney 23:30 - 01:30 Auckland DD377 THU, Mar 28 17:00 - 19:00 Los Angeles/Vancouver 20:00 - 22:00 New York/Ottawa FRI, Mar 29 00:00 - 02:00 London 01:00 - 03:00 Amsterdam 05:30 - 07:30 Mumbai 08:00 - 10:00 Hong Kong/Singapore 11:00 - 13:00 Sydney 13:00 - 15:00 Auckland Click on the picture to register. #ambiguity #clarity #communication