One of my all-time favorite books is ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ by Robert M. Pirsig. This book begins with the lines “And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good, Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?". When it comes to the domain of Leadership and Organization Development, it is very important to have a clear understanding of ‘what good looks like’, because we are often dealing with the inner world of individuals and groups that tend to be quite ‘subjective’. This is especially true when it comes to leadership transitions.
Leadership transitions, those involving new leaders moving into the organization in particular, are important and risky at the same time, from both the individual leaders’ and the organization’s points of view.
From the organization's point of view, leadership transitions are high-stake situations as the level of effectiveness of the new leader will have a significant impact on the team, the organization, and the other stakeholders. This becomes even more important when the new leader has been hired with the mandate to drive organizational transformation.
Similarly, from the individual leader's point of view, moving to a new organization might imply high risks, as a leader's effectiveness is often quite context-specific and as the leader is making the transition decision based on limited information. Also, how the leaders approach the job change process and how they look at the degree of ‘success’ in their job changes can vary from leader to leader.
I have had the opportunity to observe many such leadership transitions and their impact closely. Please see ‘When the new doesn’t outperform the old’ for some ‘unorthodox’ perspectives on this fascinating domain that also include suggestions for the leaders in transition like
- considering a bit of 'exorcism’,
- validating 'what good looks like.
- being politically aware without 'playing politics', and
- ‘alignment, alignment, alignment’.
Now, let us come back to the inner world of leaders in transition - their ‘lived experience’ of job transitions and their tacit definitions of success (i.e., the factors that affect the perceived degree of success in job changes made by leaders, as perceived by the leaders themselves). In a way, success in transitions is a construct that exists in the minds of the individual leaders in transition, and it has no clear boundaries.
It is possible that the above factors that affect the
perceived degree of success are different for internal job changes and external
job changes. Similarly, these factors that affect the perceived degree of success
in job changes might vary based on the nature of job change (e.g., that for lateral
moves as compared to moves involving a level change, moves within the job
function as compared to cross-functional moves, moves involving relocation as
compared that moves that don’t involve relocation etc.).
It is also possible that these tacit definitions of success change as the leaders spend more time in their jobs. For example, it is possible that when accepting a new job, the tacit definition of success is more in terms of 'objective' factors (e.g., salary and job description). Then transition-related factors (e.g., how smooth was the transition process), fit related factors (e.g., person-organization/person-team fit, person-job fit, and the fit between assumptions made by the leader while making the job change decision and the experienced reality), and progression related factors (e.g., capability and career development) get added on.
Again, there could be variations in the factors that affect the perceived degree of success in job changes based on personality related factors. gender, age, job function, job level, type of organization, national culture etc.
I guess, what makes this domain fascinating to explore is the interplay of individual and context related factors apart from the very fact that we are we are exploring the inner world of leaders in transition. The inner worlds tend to follow ‘their own rules’ and sometimes they might even refuse to follow any rules!
Having said this, I must also add that there is a strong 'business case' for exploring the inner worlds of leaders in transition and their tacit definitions of success.
Such an exploration can help the leaders to be more intentional about job changes and to make better-informed decisions and actions that can enhance their perceived level of success in job changes. Also, it can help the organizations to make better selection decisions by probing the tacit definitions of success the candidates for leadership positions have and comparing them with what the organization offers. Again, it can inform interventions like executive coaching, leadership induction, new leader assimilation, and leadership development.
Any comments/ideas?
