Values

By generating a fictitious organization holding the same values as themselves, members have an expectation of the real based on it and on what the real organization purports to be. This is very often the real organization’s statements with which they initially identified and to which they have formed an allegiance. Basically, members want to identify with the people and the organization that thinks and looks like them. Perhaps the members of a religious organization said it best when describing these expectations as the practices that any “Bible based congregation that is serious about its faith, friendly to each other, and those who visit” and that considers itself “a place where people genuinely love others” should, by definition of the word “church,” be engaged. My opinion is that due to the identity people derive from their transcendent values, leaders seeking to re-narrate that story, except in instances when the values are no longer adequate for their identity, may not be successful.

I took from this two points: First, that it underscores why you and those who ask you to lead their enterprise must share, at a primary level, a common identity expressed as going the same direction. Second, is the suggestion that changes in identity are more likely to be in the way members relate to the organization than in the way they view themselves. I think it possible that all members may not have transcendently held the narratives I deemed dominant: mistrust of leadership and the priority of self-care. Instead it is likely some held them as working or transactional narratives and others, particularly those oriented to power, held them transcendently. This would explain the willingness by so many to recast themselves in the new story and the departure of those who could not. It also begs the question of what changes in narrative change: the story of people about themselves, the story of people about their organization, the transcendent values, the transactional values or some of all these? Earlier I noted that I understand organizational identity as an amalgam of member’s individual narratives with the narratives and myths of the organization. If anything, this view is reinforced by my experiences. Just as change is not a neatly bound package of ideas with a checklist, neither then can our work in the nuts and bolts of a person’s identity be so simple. Rather it is both complex and is a complex of competing then conflicting ideas and emotions from which we form positions held as permanent and temporary simultaneously. The hope is that we, the leader and the led, arrive at an understanding of our joint purpose and content to accept that sublimate our differences to it.

Leading Narratively

I have been intrigued to discover what I call the difference between leading and leadership. In the first are the practices that build up a people and in the second the environment of mutual trust and respect that makes it possible. I point this out because I suspect that in human sociality the majority of people aren’t as interested in having a leader as in having leadership. Of course one cannot occur without the other but I think it serves to locate the primary task of leaders as “environmentalists” while reminding us that our role cannot be fulfilled in a vacuum: we need people. It’s oxymoronic yet so fitting in the grander scheme of life that what we need to accomplish our mission is also that which defeats it. Leaders and perhaps particularly narrative leaders then dance the perpetual steps of the unconvinced but always moving toward a destination, taking people with us.

Leading Narratively

Re-narrating even working practices involves an appeal to transcendent values and asks if the practices that represent those values are the best way of relating to the world. Changing them requires another story, another way of looking at the same truth but through eyes freshened with possibility and that takes into account the myriad ways custom and technology creates new opportunities. Members now have a firm grasp of what their organization should and does represent and appear pleased with that identity. I suspect the contentment is associated with the belief that the organization now more closely represents what they have held all along as of ultimate importance.

Values

As mentioned earlier, during the change process I talked with the members asking them, among other things, how they felt about change, if they felt the organization’s story had changed, and how they personally adapted to change in the story. I was surprised by the effect of what I’ve come to call transcendent values on narrative change. I’ve parsed an individual’s values as being held as transcendent or transactional (the language is mine). Values held transcendently are absolutely right or correct, non-negotiable, and resistant to change. Values held transactionally are those needed to transact a person’s living in a given situation or course of life. An example of this is one member’s comment that if the practices of the church changed she would “keep an open mind, evaluate it, and see if it’s something that the other members want to do.” When asked if other members were to change their position regarding the Bible being inerrant would she go along with that? Her response was a firm, “No.” “That’s one thing I won’t change.” The willingness to change and even adapt to a practice not completely of her liking so long as it was “something that the other members want to do” would not extend to every practice. Clearly, there was more than a single value or a single narrative at work.

Critics or Detractors

Much has been made about the priority of people over the organization, about preserving people, and that, unable to fire volunteers you just have to deal with them. All of that is true but only up to a point. There are decision points where you must know that by refusing to confront an individual’s behavior you’re allowing them control over all change efforts. These are people who sometimes are in your direct line of authority (which makes their opposition really interesting) but have found a task that it’s thought no one else does as well or even wants. It’s their corner and they’ve backed into it. Their willingness and supposed skill is thought to make them vital to the organization’s ongoing movement and from this position of power they fashion a podium to pontificate about all that you and others are doing wrong. They, however, are safe because no one can fill their shoes. If you and the group are to advance one of two things must happen: the embedded person has to quit their dissension or quit the position. Neither will happen; the role of savior and counselor is too intoxicating. Besides, who will ever take their place. However, those who bluff shouldn’t be surprised when it’s called and call it at the appropriate time you must.

Critics or Detractors

It is difficult to see duplicity and not be able to deal with it in a direct fashion however, haste is not in your favor. Those who follow you must know that you have nothing to fear from an examination of what you’ve been saying. By taking time to deal fairly and address concerns without allowing yourself to be dogged, you will reassure members of the validity of what they’re coming to believe. Truth never runs. Earlier, in dealing with the protestor, your integrity and truthfulness caused him or her to be ignored. Here, your patience and unflappable approach will likewise isolate this new problem. Working through these matters, as opposed to dismissing them, reveals the extent that you believe the new story. It tests your own conviction that for this organization to reach its destination the story must change and answers the question of your willingness to disagree with significant people, even to the extent of watching them leave. What this at first unseemly trouble accomplishes is that uncommitted members now will buy-in, interrupted momentum resumes but more broadly than before, people take leadership roles, and initiative increases. The beginnings of identity with the new story are underway. Though you will not dismiss issues, even in the volunteer staffed organization you may reach such an impasse that you will have to dismiss people.

Critics or Detractors

There is a difference in not wanting the story to change and believing the organization’s purpose is misplaced. Both can be power issues but the latter can take on an added dimension: zealotry. Zealots, though polite, cannot be reasoned with. Their analog is the person who only sees black and white. These are the people whose numerical table stops at two and ignore the infinite possibility surrounding them. They are a monochromatic spectician avoiding the intoxicating world of color and combination they live in. Are they evil? No. Are they perverse? No. They simply hold one issue at a time and your new story didn’t adequately address that issue, at least as they perceived it. Therefore, you must be stopped. When this person arises he or she provides cover for those who don’t care about the issue animating the believer but do care that you’ve changed the story. Like our first protestor theirs is about the story changing, the difference is that they wouldn’t speak up and be identified as such. However, in the discontent of the believer they have found the perfect cover for their grievance so they too join the cause.