… and welcome to my professional blog.  Nurture the Goose comes from the Aesop’s fable:  If you want golden eggs, nurture the goose.  At least that’s the way I remember it.  This is very important to me in that no matter what we construct in our human existence, it all starts with people and when we diminish our capacity as people, as individuals, well, honestly, the construct no longer matters, now, does it?

I have held successful careers in live entertainment production logistics and professional services management and operations.  I also apply a lifetime performance background to facilitation.  In professional services, I loved having daily connection with people all across the organization.  The executives I served were my internal clients, the junior resources were my customers, and I had the delight of connecting my clients and customers to create project teams on a daily basis.  I also got to relate with many people in many departments, like human resources, technology, financial operations, all in the care and nurturing of my clients and customers placement and professional development.  I got to balance their performance goals with client project requirements and business objectives, because it is that, a balance.

I have now solidly entered a vocation of human and organization effectiveness.  It began after certification in OD and consulting which I have converted into a full MS in Management and Organization Behavior.  I continue to connect across an organization through learning facilitation, coaching, team building, survey administration, analysis and reporting as well as in support of change initiatives.

I started this blog as I have many a thought occur on the subject of people and why we matter.  My hope in sharing these thoughts is that more than a few heads might nod, that other’s might share their perspectives, all in the interest of getting to the truth of the matter.  To this end, I openly welcome your comments.

Be well. Be kind. Bring compassion.

~ Jacqueline

Jacqueline M. Gargiulo, Scholar-Practitioner,  Human Systems

DISCLAIMER: The statements or opinions expressed herein are my own and are not to be attributed in any way to any employer or professional affiliation.

I asked Elicit for Common attributes of leadership discussed. Here’s what came back from the top 8 papers:

A range of studies have identified common attributes of effective leadership. These include the ability to make sense of complex situations and set clear goals (Tait, 1996), sound management skills (Harrison, 1971), exceptional values, communication skills, and trustworthiness (Gaiter, 2013), integration, innovation, importance, intensity, and integrity (Ivey, 2002), vision, self-awareness, and cognitive ability (Ahmed, 2014), integrity, ethical conduct, and self-control (Campbell, 1992), and vision, creativity, goal achievement, confident decision making, and team building (Sarros, 1993). These attributes are crucial for effective leadership across various sectors and organizational levels.

Elicit

Covey popularized the concept to manage things and lead people. Of the above, I identify the following having to do with people:

  • Set clear goals
  • Exceptional values
  • Communication skills
  • Trustworthiness
  • Integrity
  • Self-awareness
  • Ethical conduct
  • Self-control
  • Team building

Of these, I want to draw out the pursuit of self-awareness (because when are we ever fully aware?) fundamental to any of the others. And, according to Ira Chaleff on the subject of followership, what is defined as leadership can in many ways apply to followership, at least when it comes to being effective working with and supporting others. The other observation I want to point out is that, according to the full list of attributes, leadership isn’t just about people. So, I propose that we manage things and develop people – ourselves, others, teams, and whole organizations of them – to be effective with each other. An opportunity available to leaders and followers alike.

Be kind. Bring compassion.

Whether technology implementation, process improvement, or cultural transformation, implementing change is hard.  It involves engaging the human dynamics of an organization; dynamics that are complex, social, and unique to each community.  In their 2021 International Journal of Engineering Business Management research article, reviewing an array of change models, Abdelouahab Errida and Bouchra Lotfi, ascertain that using only one model may not provide a full description of the change management process… [that] several change models could be combined to best fit the particular situation of change or the circumstances of an organization. Angela Lee of Columbia Business School proposes that resistance to change is rooted in psychology and neuroscience which reveal that our individual brains are wired for laziness, limited capacity, and [simply] don’t like change.  Though the psychology and neuroscience claims may be valid, if cynical, I advocate David Cooperrider’s observation that, People don’t resist change. They resist being changed. 

Fundamentally, the human dynamics challenge seems rooted in the context of individual choice.  The popular Prosci® model emphasizes and coaches around the individual need to desire change. I have, throughout my time engaging change, intuitively sought to leverage available value propositions to influence individual choice for change.  Revealing genuine individual benefit can serve to counter the grief of loss that comes when change feels imposed.  Even leaders must choose to willingly lead the way and model new behavior.

Given these human dynamics, development and change agents remain challenged to discern and affect the human factor of each particular environment seeking to make a change.

I learned of the Milgram Experiment (https://youtu.be/nexpwnwonRc) in my Research Methods class, and I revisit that learning to this day. Coming out of WWII, the experiment was set up to research obedience. It has been performed many times since, and the outcome continues to be the same. Somewhere around 50% of followers will abdicate responsibility for their actions to authority willing to take that responsibility from them. Why? This remains a question, and one I continue to ponder, along with whether humanity might be able to evolve from it.

Where it made sense, much of my writing through that same education referred to what I call personal or self-leadership. There are many attributes we look for in effective leaders that are important for effective leaders and followers alike:

  • Responsibility
  • Accountability
  • Self-Awareness/Self-Agency
  • Integrity
  • Effective Communication/Feedback

There are others, certainly, but these are a good representation. And, when followers possess these traits, we are better able to hold our leaders accountable, as noted 25 years ago by Ira Chaleff in Courageous Followership: Standing Up to and for Our Leaders. In it, he defines Courageous Followership as follows:

Any organization is a triad consisting of leaders and followers joined in a common purpose. The purpose is the atomic glue that binds us. It gives meaning to our activities. Followers and leaders both orbit around the purpose; followers do not orbit around the leader. Courageous Followership recognizes that to be effective at almost every level of an organization, individuals need to play both the leader and follower role adeptly.

Further, Ira discusses Five Dimensions of Courageous Followership:

  • To Serve
  • To Challenge
  • To Participate in Transformation
  • To Take Moral Action
  • To Speak to Hierarchy

And, how well these concepts align with the self-leadership attributes listed previously:

  • To Serve requires taking Responsibility
  • To Challenge requires an understanding and practice of Accountability of both self and others
  • To Participate in Transformation requires Self-Awareness which leads to the Self-Agency to choose to change
  • To Take Moral Action requires Integrity to Purpose
  • To Speak to the Hierarchy requires effective skill in Communication and providing Feedback

With unemployment trending low for the foreseeable future and many employees seeking new opportunities to better fulfill a need for agency and autonomy to manage our lives across work, family and personal needs, it behooves us as a society to recognize that supporting an evolution to better followership through personal growth opportunities is in our best interest. In so doing, we develop better followers who in turn can better hold leaders accountable to purpose, whether organizational or societal.

As Leaders, we do well to develop and leverage Courageous Followership within our organizations to attract talent as well as define and remain true to organizational purpose. Developed followers could also better contribute to fluid leadership situations like self-managed and -directed teams. Whether stepping into fluid leadership or holding leaders to purpose, better followers make better leaders.

“Above all, success in business requires two things: a winning competitive strategy, and superb organizational execution. Distrust is the enemy of both. I submit that while high trust won’t necessarily rescue a poor strategy, low trust will almost always derail a good one. ”
― Stephen M.R. Covey, The Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes Everything

My copy of M.R. Covey’s The Speed of Trust is one of my most dog-eared. So much needed wisdom for me at the time, and it has served me well. Lencioni, too, works with building trust as the first order of addressing dysfunction in teams. His approach is to counter our need for invulnerability, and I don’t outright disagree with that. He even addresses the need for accountability at a later stage. However, I find myself dwelling on accountability as a fundamental aspect of trust.

Accountability is when we say what we will do, then do as we say. When that isn’t possible, we communicate proactively as to any changes we must make. Accountability develops trust in our word because our actions follow, and we otherwise manage expectations.

So, in professional environments that have yet to pursue emotional competence as a way to enhance trust for effectiveness, the pursuit of accountability among individuals and teams (i.e. departments) and across an organization is a suitable avenue.

Originally published January 2022

Contrary to desire, culture is not so much changed, especially by a leader or leadership alone, as it changes. Culture changes based upon the changing dynamics of its participants. Culture change is organic and must be nurtured.  When forced, weeds of resistance are grown in among any viable plants and flowers.  The more nurturing we are with change, really of any kind, the more productive the outcome.

Organization Development (OD) is the scholarship and practice of applied social sciences to cohesive groups of people – organizations, communities, unions and the like. OD professionals tune into and assess an entire social system with an aim to guide and coach it to discover and evolve itself, bringing people-based processes to do so.  To clarify, OD professionals are not hired to fix a system like a doctor or manage it like human resources (HR). We might work with individuals and teams, though usually with ALL of them or those identified as requiring support to fit the organization as it needs and wants to be as a whole.  Those who practice are typically systems thinkers, with a view on how people, process and systems work (or don’t) together. We discover how a system may work against its own interests and support it to evolve to serve those interests instead, not in doing anything to the system but by supporting its development of a more effective way.

We support pursuits like strategy-culture alignment and employee engagement through a variety of aforementioned people processes, including:

  • Strategy development
  • Leadership and management development
  • Team development
  • Coaching and facilitation
  • Conflict resolution
  • Large group interventions
  • Succession planning
  • Talent acquisition, retention and development
  • The list goes on…

…but OD professionals do not typically specialize in a single process. We usually have a capacity for multiple processes. Our specialty is in getting to know the system and what it may need, then figuring out the process to support it through research, drawing from our professional community, and trial and adaptation.

As a coach supports an individual to their own growth and development, so do OD professionals support an organization and all its individuals to its whole growth and development. To do this, we must start by engaging the very top level. If leadership is unwilling to change, there is little hope for the whole system to do so. That is the rub. On the subject of employee engagement, for OD, it isn’t about managing employees to engage; it’s about engaging employees, and we can support leadership and management to develop the capacity to do so effectively. Transformation of an organization requires every single member to develop new capacities. We can support that process, too.

If, as a leader, you are looking to take your organization to a new level or in a different direction, we can support you to evolve your organization, as a whole, to move that way. Call on us via OD professional organizations such as the OD Network or the International Society of Organization and Change as well as higher education such as Benedictine or Case Western Reserve University. You can bring us in as external or internal consultants as we do our best work in autonomy from the system, not tucked in to a department, other than perhaps the C-Suite.

We, Organizational Development professionals, look forward to serving your organization’s strategic development needs.

Be well.

Published September 2019

When it comes to planned change, transactions do not, can not, in and of themselves,  yield transformation.  Yet, this seems to be the default of too much IT and HR change management in organizations – that change has occurred enough times, a formula of transactions to manage change is now readily applicable.  This is not to say that transforming an organization does not involve transaction, it does.  It just doesn’t work the other way around, not really.

Seth Godin and Krista Tippet of On Being, revealed a great insight in an interview:

MR. GODIN: Yeah. People impart a lot into the notion of evolution — some of which wasn’t Darwin’s work itself. But what is important here is not only do times change, but those times change, not just our stories about ourselves and our expectations, but they actually are changing our brain. So you know, when the Industrial Revolution came, there were 20 years when basically everyone in Manchester, England, was an alcoholic. Instead of having like coffee carts, they had gin carts that went up and down the streets. Because it was so hard to shift from being a farmer to sitting in a dark room for 12 hours every day doing what you were told. But we evolved, we culturally evolved to be able to handle a New World Order. And so when we talk about evolution as a metaphorical thing where we have memetics and ideas laid on top of this idea of survival of the species and things changing over time, what fascinates me about it is that this bottom-up change in the world is everywhere all the time. So much more common than change that gets put down on us by a dictator or by someone who’s putatively in charge.

MS. TIPPETT: Right.

MR. GODIN: And yet we ignore this bottom-up thing when in fact it’s the thing we are most likely to be able to touch and change.

MS. TIPPETT: Also I think what you’re pointing at in a lot of your work is that because of the way the world has changed subjectively, because we’re living in a post-geography world. That’s a phrase you use. Because we have what you call a connection economy, we — technology is actually empowering that bottom-up change, right, and kind of dismantling the hierarchical overbearing leader model that a lot of us actually still grew up with.

MR. GODIN: And at the same time that is what’s empowering technology. So they’re both feeding on each other. The Internet wasn’t built by 30 people who are working for a boss. It was built by 300,000 people, many of whom have never met each other. And that this protocol and that technology work together even without a central organizing force. And that’s happening to every industry. And it’s happening even to the way our communities organize and the spiritual organizations that we get involved in.

What this reveals is that creating sustained change requires the involvement of an organization as a whole, starting with leadership.  A gate-keeper approach to change cannot work because an organization does not transform by the will and direction of leadership (or HR on its behalf for that matter), but the empowerment of the individuals of the organization to take it in a new direction.  Yet, so long as leaders prefer to command and control, this cannot occur.  A new ERP system may be rammed into the organization, but thereby creating a level of ignorance, even resentment, rather than empowerment.  HR may address employee engagement with various communications transactions but that will likely get scoffed at.

No, transformation comes through evolving interactions, addressing emotion and developing rapport, even relationships 😱, across the organization.  As leaders, are you willing to enter these realms?

I caught an interesting article recently on LinkedIn, Power Causes Brain Damage.  It got me pondering and recalling the impact the Milgram Experiment we watched in a Methods of Organizational Research class had on me where I realized our temptation to abdicate personal responsibility when someone will take that mantle from us.  Along with another part of my research on leadership, where I came upon how charismatic leaders can easily take up the responsibility of those in depressed, repressed or oppressed circumstances, it occurs to me that followers have a responsibility in the corruption of power, especially in leadership.

Effective leaders will keep those around them who are able to keep them in check and rooted in reality, even empathy.  Unfortunately, we see too many leaders who are not so effective, right?  Leadership can be isolating unless precautions are taken and that takes awareness.  Awareness takes learning.  Too often, those merely vocationally or academically skilled are promoted without learning how to lead others, let alone themselves.

Then there is the Navigating Conflict workshop I developed and facilitated based on the Peter T. Coleman and Robert Ferguson book, Making Conflict Work.  It reveals how power, relationship and goal compatibility impact how we navigate conflict.  Human sociology is naturally hierarchical, yet as even revealed in the book, we know the effective and compatible use of power when we encounter it.  Don’t we?  If we delineate power along a continuum of self-serving to common good or socially responsible, when those with power start leaning too far into self-serving, as followers, what do we do?  We appease, we submit, we navigate around.  It may work, at least in the short term, but how often do we let it become a long term proposition?  How often do we let the fear of self-serving power go unchecked?  It seems to me that in the face of self-serving power, we reflexively retreat to a follower’s version of it.  Do you witness that?  We retreat into fear and fall into protecting ourselves.  I see this retreat, however naturally human, as abdicating our followers’ version of social responsibility.  It creates an ugly cycle, doesn’t it?

I have long advocated and facilitated the idea of self-leadership being a skill for all to develop – those inclined to follow as well as lead.  It involves developing self-awareness, effective communication and relationship building capabilities, collaboration and teaming savvy, conflict navigation, emotional intelligence, and other ways of being more socially effective.  Anyone can pursue these concepts.  They can be naturally derived from effective family leaders, academic experiences that put us in circumstances that can organically nurture our need to be more effective with others.  Unfortunately, those same self-protective aspects of human nature can play out within those same circumstances, so we all need exposure to more effective and socially responsible ways of being.   This could even be the case for the more vocationally minded, whom we, in the US, have not seen fit to value and support with an educational path.

I see self-leadership as a way to developing better followers, better follower-ship, where we, with care and consideration, keep the powerful, especially those in leadership, in check, even if they haven’t chosen us to do so.

I welcome your thoughts on the matter.  Please chime in!

Most kindly,

~ Jacqueline Gargiulo, MSMOB/MA

I would like to say a few words here about meaning that I have found myself sharing in comments of social media posts.

We don’t seem to realize that the truest meaning of an action or words used is derived from the person speaking or performing the activity.  A great example of this is the kneeling for the flag.  So many have been projecting their own context and meaning onto the meaning of those kneeling.  There is no consideration given to the meaning of it by those doing the kneeling.  I read an exceptional letter by a military person who bothered, and with the understanding he gained, he is now a supporter of those who choose to kneel.  He realizes, as do I, that I am not called to kneel nor does their choice to kneel take away from my choice to stand for the meaning it has for me.

To those who may identify with meaning projected by those un-involved with the activity, please consider, for even a moment, that the meaning projected on the activity or words has nothing to do with your own context, that it does not take away from your reason for doing otherwise, that you need not choose to join.  This goes for so much of the auger thrown around on social and marketed media anymore.  If someone says or does, have the decency to ask “how come”, to seek to understand their reasoning.  No, it may not be yours, and it does not have to be, but with understanding, I’m willing to bet, we could start letting the anger go and maybe start respecting our differences which have everything to do with making a rich experience of society.

If you need the rest of society to look like and do as you do, to believe as you do in order to live in it, then you might consider that to be your personal issue to address rather than that of those onto whom you project it.

The concept of respect and obey for a long while, most of my life actually, left me with a feeling of trepidation. I think it has to do with the way I learned its meaning and use. I was taught to respect and obey my elders, those in authority.  Something never felt right with that as a requirement of my childhood.

In 2010, as part of a certification in Organizational Development (OD) and Consulting, for the class in International OD, the reading included a chapter on Confucius. Confucius observed a number of ways the senior and junior relate. In the Chinese societal structure, seniority was assumed by the eldest male in the relationship. Husband in authority over wife, son and daughter, eldest son over siblings, etc.

What intrigued me was while the junior was observed to respect and obey, the senior was observed to consider and protect the junior. This seems to have been lost in translation over the centuries, because how many of us have ever learned that part of the equation? There does exist the observation that respect is less demanded than commanded. I venture that respect, and any resultant obedience, is commanded by those in authority when they are considerate and protective of their subordinates.  I have gone on to realize that the senior and junior roles appear more fluid in Western society.  Seniority can exist simply where one person has a knowledge advantage over another, for instance. Seniority is also all too often taken for granted when dependent upon positional authority, even as parents. We have a tendency to wield authority too easily rather than exhibit leadership, by considering and protecting those in our charge and our care.

Respect and obedience are earned from followers when leaders consider follower capacity and protect their best interests. In that, I observe a deficit of leadership in positions of authority in the western culture with which I am familiar, especially in the U.S. How often do those in positions of authority, perhaps simply more intelligent or informed than another, take advantage of ignorance rather than look after the other’s best interest?

We may all find ourselves in the position of senior at various points in our lives. It is justice to consider and protect those in our charge and care if they are to respect and obey us as followers.

Most respectfully…