Posts
MIT is looking ahead, trying to figure out what skills the
next generation of scientists, engineers, applied social scientists, designers
and managers will need. After careful consideration,
and a close review of numerous studies of the future of work, MIT believes it
will have to complement the depth of the training it currently offers in dozens
of technical fields with an equal commitment to developing the breadth of each
individual’s leadership capabilities. To build this necessary breadth, it will
be necessary to focus on helping learners know
themselves (e.g., improve their emotional intelligence, adaptability,
resilience, ethnical awareness, reflective capacity, etc.), work with others to get things done
(e.g. motivate others, give and receive feedback, build teams and networks,
communicate effectively, resolve conflict, and negotiate with difficult people);
and build organizational capacity
(e.g., manage change, manage crises, help organizations learn, implement user
experience design and better marketing, and commit to process improvement). No one can learn all these things at once; so,
we’ll all have to commit to life-long self-improvement. The university’s job
will be to make it easy for everyone to acquire both technical depth and leadership
breadth as they need it. In all
likelihood, this will involve a range of new teaching and learning formats.
As I listen to successful individuals say what it took for
them to achieve their goals (at every level, in every sector), many seem to be
stuck on an old-fashioned view of a leader as someone with a strong personal vision
who can command others to do what needs to be done. In my view, this model -- derived mostly from
accounts of military, sports, political and business victories -- is not likely
to work in the future. More distributed or facilitative models of leadership-- that
emphasize knowing how to work in partnership with others and build organizational
capacity -- are likely to be more valuable. When I look at the way ideas about leadership
are changing at MIT, shifting from top-down to facilitative models, three specific
leadership skills stand out for me: setting a constructive problem-solving
tone, facilitating group efforts and negotiating in a value-creating fashion. These
are likely to surprise traditionalists, but I think we can already see how these
capabilities will define a new generation of leaders.
Setting a
constructive problem-solving tone
What do leaders need to be aware of at the outset of a
venture? Not just their own goals and
vision, but the way their behavior influences others. Efforts to establish one’s
firmness or strength are less important than an ability to model or set a joint
problem-solving tone. Whatever the organizational context, technical managers,
team leaders and CEOs must be able to motivate and inspire others to work and
think creatively. The more everyone is ready to share responsibility for the
success of the group, the lighter each person’s load will be, and the greater
the collective wisdom available to apply to problem-solving. Leaders
are people who are able to put themselves in the shoes of others. They are in sufficient control of their ego to
be able to share responsibility and applaud the good work of others. Emotional intelligence
and self-awareness are crucial to the ongoing success of teams or organizations
in an era of flattened hierarchies and distributed leadership. If a leader can’t
inspire a problem-solving tone, commanding that everyone perform is likely to
backfire.
Facilitating group
efforts
The general presumption in the world of management is that
technical experts will be able to collaborate with each other; it turns out,
though, that collaboration is a learned, not an innate capability. Launching multifaceted
high-performance teams is an important leadership responsibility, and it
involves being able to facilitate group interactions, not just leaving
everything to the team members. In my
view, facilitation is a crucial leadership skill. Those of us who teach
facilitation know that it involves selecting the right mix of team members, designing
the work plan properly (including parceling out assignments and setting ground
rules regarding the way members will interact with each other), holding a
mirror up when the group members are not working well together, mediating among
contending individuals and serving as a scribe so there is a reliable record of
what transpired. While it is possible to
contract out for many of these facilitation services, leaders better understand
exactly what the facilitation assistance is that they want and need. And,
sometimes, only the leader can resolve internal team disagreements.
Negotiating in a
value-creating fashion
The success of many organizations hinges on the ability of
their leaders to negotiate effectively with representatives or leaders of other
organizations. Supply chains work that way, as do inter-organizational
partnerships. Leaders who think that these kinds of negotiations are like
traditional win-lose bartering in the market place, do their organizations a
terrible disservice. Negotiating when long-term relationships are important, requires
a different (i.e., “mutual gains”) approach to deal-making. The Mutual Gains
Approach (MGA) to negotiation requires finding trades or ways of reframing
disagreements that add to, rather than just divide, value. The most successful
leaders know how to do this.
As colleges and universities re-organize to enhance the breadth
of the leadership skills they are imparting, I hope they will realize that the
learning involved is probably not best presented in traditional semester-long
courses, nor delivered in lecture format. Helping students learn from their own
experience, and engage as co-learners with others (often online), will require
new pedagogical strategies. And, when
this happens, learners are likely to demand certification: not just an
indication that they have completed the required work, but a guarantee that
they have achieved mastery of the skills involved.