In her book March of Folly, Barbara Tuchman examines an interesting concept with real consequences for individuals, communities, countries and the world. She defines folly as an event that meets three criteria: 1) it must have been perceived as counter-productive in its own time, not merely in hindsight, 2) a feasible alternative must have been available, and 3) the policy in question should be that of a group, not an individual ruler, and should persist beyond any one political lifetime (Tuchman, 1984). She suggests that world events such as The Vietnam War, Britain’s loss of America and the Trojan War as examples of this concept in action.

An additional concept offered by Tuchman is that of “wooden-headedness.” According to Tuchman, Wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception, is a factor that plays remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts” (Tuchman, 1984, p. 7). In addition, Tuchman suggests that wooden-headedness is the refusal to benefit from experience. No matter how often something goes wrong or does not work, current policies and procedures remain the same.

The big question – can we teach corporate, governmental and non-profit leaders to avoid folly and wooden-headedness? – Scott J. Allen

Do you run a leadership development program? Click on the link to “Evaluating Outcomes and Impacts: A Scan of 55 Leadership Development Programs” – a resource offered by the W.K Kellogg Foundation.  According to the the organization website, “The W.K. Kellogg Foundation, teamed with the consulting firm of Development Guild/DDI, identified ways on how leadership programs evaluate success or failure via research conducted on various leadership development programs. The scans map the outcome terrain for change-oriented leadership programs, provide an overview of evaluation approaches used to determine leadership outcomes and offer an overview of the most common learning methodologies.” – Scott J. Allen

Today’s Sunday NY Times Magazine (August 26, 2007) has an interesting article written by Fred Kaplan entitled “Challenging the Generals – America’s junior officers are fighting the war on the ground in Iraq, and the experience is making a number of them lose faith in their superiors.”

After reading the NY Times article, I was intrigued by its inspiration, an essay entitled “A Failure of Generalship” published in the May 2007 issue of Armed Forces Journal.

Remarkably, the author of “A Failure of Generalship” is active duty Army deputy commander, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Lt. Co. Paul Yingling, who has served two tours in Iraq, another in Bosnia and a fourth in Operation Desert Storm. He holds a master’s degree in political science from the University of Chicago.

All students of leadership would be well served by reading both of these essays because they present textbook cases of leadership failure that can occur in any type of organization. They are also particularly instructive at highlighting the need for effecting adaptive change to systems that are often most resistant to change. Finally, from Lt. Co. Yingling’s perspective, they demonstrate that leadership requires the courage to step forward in the most difficult and challenging situations and environments. As Linsky and Heifetz state in Leadership on the Line (Harvard Business School Press 2002):

“For people exercising leadership without or beyond their authority, ripening an issue becomes more difficult, requiring more dramatic and therefore riskier steps” (p.153)

“When exercising leadership, you risk getting marginalized, diverted, attacked or seduced. Regardless of the form, however, the point is the same. When people resist adaptive work, their goal is to shut down those who exercise leadership in order to preserve what they have.” (p. 31)

Would you have the courage to confront an adaptive challenge, “without or beyond your authority,” in your organization like Lt. Col. Yingling has done with his essay in the Armed Forces Journal?

Peter A. Mello

(Cross-posted in Center for Leader Development Blog and Sea-Fever blog)

A few months ago, I wrote a couple posts on how/why humans change their behavior. As we all know, this is a complex process. Josie McLean’s recent post (which mentions connecting head and heart) reminded me of a quote from Kotter & Cohen’s The Heart of Change.

• The single most important message in this book is very simple. People change what they do less because they are given analysis that shifts their thinking than because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings. This is especially so in large-scale organizational change, where you are dealing with new technologies, mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, new strategies, cultural transformation, globalization and e-business – whether in an entire organization, an office, a department, or a work group.

Interesting. I wonder how Kotter and Cohen’s concept applies to Leadership Development? How do we best involve the head and the heart when developing others? Actually, all of this makes me think of an exercise we did with Robert Kegan at the Art & Practice of Leadership Development last May. The activity (immunity to change) hit me in the heart and was transformational in nature. In fact, I am attending a course in the Fall to learn more and cannot wait. – Scott J. Allen

By way of introduction, I am a Leadership Coach, designer and facilitator of leadership programs in Australia. My business, founded in 1999 works nationally with private and public organizations mainly in Eastern Australia.

I had an experience this morning as I walked in my semi-rural surrounds and enjoyed the smell of spring in the air; the sun shining and bouncing off the gum leaves; the magpies warbling in the distance… I walked on at a determined pace, using the time to organise today’s “to do list” in my head. My footsteps noisy on the path beneath me.

I don’t know why: somehow I must have become aware of a presence nearby and I raised my head and actually looked around just in time to notice two kangaroos on the other side of the fence – not more than 2 metres away. I stopped in my tracks. Still, and holding my breathe -kangaroos are nervous creatures. We stood, me watching them watching me. We all started to relax. Closer inspection revealed a joey in the mother’s pouch – head just peering out to see what his mother was looking at. We all continued looking at each other – a strange feeling started to come over me.

I am not sure it translates very well into writing, but what I felt for those few minutes was just being. Being a part of something bigger than me – and totally accepted as a part of that bigger picture. I was meant to be a part of it as much as my three furry friends were meant to be there.

The small family gently hopped away from me, going about their day…. and it made me think as I started to walk on. Climate change, corporate social responsibility, balancing between the needs of stock holders and the rest of society … concepts some leaders grapple with to find an adequate response to. Maybe the task would not be such a “grapple” if they simply reconnected with nature? Maybe what needs to be decided and done would just become really clear, if they simply reconnected and listened to what is inside them?

I know this sounds naïve and way too simplistic…. But what if leaders felt more connected to nature again?

As people who have an interest in developing leaders, I would be really interested to hear any experiences you have had, in leading Leadership Development programs in the wilds or connecting to nature as a part of the program – intentionally connecting the heart – and the mind. What has emerged from these programs?

Josie