Getting Your Head and Heart to Agree

Recently I talked with a leader who was in the quandary of feeling she should do one thing but thinking she should do something else. In essence, her head and heart weren’t in agreement. She knew what convention expected of her even what the demands were that she placed upon herself but meeting those expectations wasn’t satisfying her emotionally. I asked, “What makes your heart sing?” and after the briefest pause she answered with the thing she loved doing above all. That was her heart; what remained was for her to reconcile her expectations with what brought her satisfaction.

In reality, emotions are formed from chemical reactions within our brains.[1] This makes the notion of head and heart as separate more a false dichotomy than a reality. The wisdom of sacred text established this fact and firmly posited all we are as stemming from our thought life in the saying, “As he thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).[2] For leaders this holds sobering implications. Here’s why: Our emotions can be coded responses to earlier events in life and may not reflect the reality before us. This means that what we feel can be different from what we see. Put another way, it could mean that what we want to do may not always be the same as what we should do. One reason for this is that our emotions are linked to memories. Caroline Leaf explained,

If you had a math teacher who shouted at you and said you would never be able to do math, you would have stored that memory... Thereafter, every time you do math or anything related to the subject, you will re-experience the negative feelings of shame, hurt and fear... you will struggle to learn anything new about math, because the negative feelings... block the learning process. (28)

If you’ve ever felt fear that defied rational explanation then you’ve encountered the linkage of memory and emotion. In recognition of the emotional quotient in our lived experience Richard Stott said, “We frequently rely on partial information and convenient heuristics in making judgments. Our knowledge and beliefs thus originate and continue to be shaped by a complex mix of perceptions, deductions, guesses, memories, hazy inferences, and gut feelings.”[3] The resulting distraction for those who trust our leadership can be deafening. Its cure is to achieve an internal congruence within ourselves where work reflects our core values and our decisions the awareness of what has formed them. Making the resolve of these a key priority is critical for leaders.

Value Congruence and Inner Congruence
Technically, the expression “leader congruence” refers to the leader’s work life being aligned with his/her values.[4] This is where the leader in our example struggled. There are other forms of Value Congruence: Some point to the common understandings that followers take from a leader’s initiatives[5] as well as the leader’s ability to foster shared values among followers.[6] One additional concept is the leader’s imposition of his/her values on the organization through selecting other leaders who share the same values and in this fashion achieving congruence or agreement within the organization.[7] What these underscore is that the leader’s influence upon both people and organization originates in his/her inner life. However, Value Congruence isn’t the only alignment a leader should seek. Although doing so will increase our effectiveness it will not make us the kind of person that makes better people. That’s the role reserved for Inner Congruence.

Although leading can take many forms it seems that leadership originates in one place: Our self-expression. I believe it possible to achieve all the above forms of Value Congruence yet still be a dysfunctional leader - think of Hitler or Hussein. While developing value alignment is to be prized, even necessary, our leading as a whole person and aware of the influences that have shaped us is even more so. Inner Congruence isn’t oriented toward the degree of influence exerted upon others but asks why we influence people as we do. It may require coming to grips with the why and how of our memories and that in the willingness to forgive and love. The result will be the ability to distinguish our emotional reactions from the facts before us so that our influence isn’t tainted with self-interest but for the welfare of those we serve.

---

[1]Leaf, C. (2007). Who switched off my brain: Controlling toxic thoughts and emotions.Rivonia, South Africa: Switch on Your Brain Organisation PTY (Ltd.)

[2]The New King James Version of the Holy Bible.

[3]Stott, R. (2007). When head and heart do not agree: A theoretical and clinical analysis of rational-emotional dissociation (RED) in cognitive therapy. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. 21,(1).

[4]Bono, J. and Judge, T. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 45, (5), 554-571.

[5]Scroggins, W. (2006). Managing meaning for strategic change: The role of perception and meaning congruence. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration.Summer.

[6]Brown, M. and Trevino, L. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, (4), 954-962.

[7]Dickson, M., Giberson, T., and Resick, C. (2005). Embedding leader characteristics: An examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,(5), 1002-1010.

Memories and Narrative Construction

Memories and Narrative Construction

There continues to be a good deal of research about the importance of story in leading an organization. Some thoughts about this revolve around the understanding that narratives are powerful because they are stories. They are the stories we tell about ourselves that fix our place in time and link our memories with events. They bring coherency to our experiences1 and help us create meaning.2 When our stories are woven into a comprehensive narrative, they become the way we know ourselves and our larger society3 as well as the main source of knowledge in our organizing.4

The narrative of everyday life is a timing of activity in an attempt at making sense of our experiences. It provides rhythm to the social order5 and through it we relate what is past to what is present, organizing the experience of time into a personal history6 (Richardson, 1990). Richardson said,

People organize their personal biographies and understand them through the stories they create to explain and justify their life experiences. When people are asked why they do what they do, they provide narrative explanations. It is the way individuals understand their own lives and best understand the lives of others. (p. 126)

Collective Identity

In forming these narratives, our memories refer to events that are known and verifiable, the same memories that provide us a sense of personal coherence and integrity. In effect, they help form the basis of our personal identity9 and make change of our identity (something we choose to do) perceived differently than change to our identity (something forced upon us).10

Organizational identity is a combination of member’s individual narratives with the narratives and myths of the organization. It represents what an organization does, enables its members to locate themselves and their place in the world, and reflects the underlying values, assumptions, philosophies, and expectations of organizational life.11 The result is that the organization becomes a unique expression the individual identifies with, even to the extent that self-esteem can be intimately connected to the organization’s identity.12 Taking this concept and applying it the members in the “Blue Chair” story makes it possible to see why what the members held corporately was also held personally. In other words, these were organizational narratives because they were also personal narratives.

At issue in leading organizational change is the leader’s appreciation for the lived experiences of members and the practices they have privileged. It is not a slavish confinement to honor everyone’s story but those that result in the practices for which the organization is known.

---

1 Bojea, D. & Rhodesb, C. (2005). The leadership of Ronald McDonald: Double narration and stylistic lines of transformation. Leadership Quarterly, 17, (1), 94-103.

2 Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

3 Denzin, N. (2000). Narrative’s moment. In Andrews, M., Sclater, S., Squire, C., & Treacher, A. (Eds.), Lines of narrative: Psychosocial perspectives. London: Routledge.

4 Brown, A., Humphries, M., & Gurney, P. (2005). Narrative, identity and change: A case study of Laskarina Holidays. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, (4), 313-326.

5 Patriotta, G. (2003). Sensemaking on the shop floor: Narratives of knowledge in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40, (2), 349-354.

6 Richardson, L. (1990). Narrative and sociology. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19, (1), 116-135.

9 Fivush, R., & Neisser, U. (Eds.), (1994). The remembering self: Construction and accuracy in the self-narrative. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

10 Lundberg, C. (1999). Organizational development as facilitating the surfacing and modification of social rules. In Pasmore, W., & Woodman, R. (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development. Volume 12. Stamford, CT: Jai Press.

11 Hopkins, A., Hopkins, W., & Mallette, P. (2005). Aligning organizational subcultures for competitive advantage. New York: Basic Books.

12 Brown, A., Humphries, M., & Gurney, P. (2005). Narrative, identity and change: A case study of Laskarina Holidays. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, (4), 313-326.

Change Leadership

Leading Change

Leading organizational change can be daunting and while it likely will never become a favorite task neither does it have to be your crucible. During research into the leader’s use of story to conduct change, I discovered three essential practices.

You Have to Know Your Approach to Leadership

Knowing your approach deals with two things: Your personal approach to leadership and your approach to leading change. While not meant to be prescriptive or exhaustive I encourage leaders to determine which of the following three leadership approaches is most natural to them: Builder, Crusader, or Developer. Builders are people who get their strokes building the organization; it and not people are the priority. Crusader oriented leaders are consumed with a cause. For the Crusader oriented leader the cause is greater than either people or organization. Developer oriented leaders develop people and are highly relational. They too can successfully lead organizations but may do so with a greater value for those they lead. To accomplish their work leaders move into and out of these domains but will tend to exert greater influence in only one of them. Because our leadership approach reveals how we instinctively relate to members, I’ve found that before undertaking a change initiative leaders must get clear about this facet of their leading. The second essential practice for leading change is to have a firm grasp on how we approach change.

You Have to Know Your Approach to Change

How leaders approach change is as important as the change they envision. Here are four that work regardless your leadership approach. Communicate. First, realize that people don’t reject change as much as they resist being surprised. The three C’s of change are simply communicate, communicate, communicate. Change. Second, in making a change if it isn’t necessary to remove the practice you want changed then don’t; merely add the new one. This gives those who need more time the time to adjust and those ready to move forward the path to do so. Contact. Third, periods of high change demand high touch. That is, you and your leadership team must not only be accessible but pro-active in giving assurances with your words and presence. Confirm. Fourth, acceptance of any proposition is made easier when people know that their values are being honored. As members evaluate our change efforts to determine whether their values are supported or threatened we’re given the opportunity to touch those values and provide the concepts and language needed to discuss the meaning of the change. These efforts are given greater meaning when leaders take it upon themselves to know the story of those they serve.

You Have to Know the Story

Simply put, conversation in organizations is on two levels. The first merely reports activity and are the reporting stories that informs you Mike went skiing, Susan was sick, etc. Not particularly remembered by those who hear them they pass into what was just another day. The second are those that by bearing an essential truth of our corporateness provide structure and meaning for our interactions. Think the “HP Way” or Ray Kroc’s message of consistency for McDonalds. These structuring stories speak of values; they form the organization’s heritage and even become the shared understandings to which everyone is expected to subscribe.

Stories not only create identity for organizations but define it for individuals as well. Our fondness for narrative makes us ready receptors for cultural stories as from them we extract what eventually becomes the components of our selves. To some extent this same fondness is at work in our appropriating organizational stories, especially if there is agreement with our personal values. The result can be a sense of “fit” and affinity with the organization. While this doesn’t mean we will like everything our organizations do, it underscores that in the areas where the corporate story and our own share similar values and because our personal identity and that of the organization are similarly grounded, we will resist change to the story. Our identity demands it and is the reason why knowing the story is important.

There are instances when the organization’s story must change but these, I suspect, are few. Usually, the leader’s role is to restate the original story, bringing the organization back to the values that made it successful.