INTERDEPENDENT LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS

INTERDEPENDENT

LEADERSHIP IN

ORGANIZATIONS

EVIDENCE FROM SIX CASE STUDIES

Cynthia D. McCauley

Charles J. Palus

Wilfred H. Drath

Richard L. Hughes

John B. McGuire

Patricia M. G. O’Connor

Ellen Van Velsor

A Center for Creative Leadership Report

INTERDEPENDENT

LEADERSHIP IN

ORGANIZATIONS

EVIDENCE FROM SIX CASE STUDIES

INTERDEPENDENT

LEADERSHIP IN

ORGANIZATIONS

EVIDENCE FROM SIX CASE STUDIES

Cynthia D. McCauley

Charles J. Palus

Wilfred H. Drath

Richard L. Hughes

John B. McGuire

Patricia M. G. O’Connor

Ellen Van Velsor

Center for Creative Leadership

Greensboro, North Carolina

The Center for Creative Leadership is an international, nonprofit educational institution founded in

1970 to advance the understanding, practice, and development of leadership for the benefit of society

worldwide. As a part of this mission, it publishes books and reports that aim to contribute to a general

process of inquiry and understanding in which ideas related to leadership are raised, exchanged, and

evaluated. The ideas presented in its publications are those of the author or authors.

If you have comments, suggestions, or questions about any CCL Press publication, please contact the

Director of Publications at the address given below.

Center for Creative Leadership

Post Office Box 26300

Greensboro, North Carolina 27438-6300

Telephone 336 288 7210 • www.ccl.org

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,

without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America.

CCL No. 190

ISBN 978-1-60491-006-3

Director of Publications: Martin Wilcox; Manager, Publication Development: Peter Scisco; Associate

Editor: Karen Lewis; Copy Editor: Sylvia Graham; Design and Layout: Joanne Ferguson; Editorial

Assistant: Marianne Moorhead

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................... vii

About the Authors ............................................................................................................................... ix

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

Guiding Theoretical Frameworks ....................................................................................................... 1

Research Questions .............................................................................................................................. 4

Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Recruiting and Screening Organizations ......................................................................................... 5

Data Collection ............................................................................................................................... 5

Data Analysis Process ...................................................................................................................... 8

Making Sense of the Research Findings with the Participating Organizations ............................... 9

Participating Organizations .............................................................................................................. 9

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 14

Interdependent Leadership Cultures and Practices: Qualitative Data ............................................ 14

Interdependent Leadership Cultures and Practices: Survey Data .................................................. 32

Antecedents and Outcomes of Interdependent Leadership Cultures and Practices ....................... 37

Themes from the Learning Forum ................................................................................................. 45

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 47

References .......................................................................................................................................... 52

Appendix A: Call for Candidate Organizations .............................................................................. 53

Appendix B: Primary Data-Collection Tools ................................................................................... 57

Key Informant Interviews .............................................................................................................. 57

Story-Based Interviews .................................................................................................................. 60

Walk About Culture Tool .............................................................................................................. 65

Organizational Survey ................................................................................................................... 68

Appendix C: Item and Scale Means and Standard Deviations for Direction,

Alignment, and Commitment ..................................................................................................... 79

vii

Acknowledgments

This project would not have been possible without the help of key collaborators within each of

the six case study organizations: Butch Peterman and Tanya Patrella at Abrasive Technology,

Inc.; Jon Abeles at Catholic Healthcare Partners; Ray Fidel and Jon Ehlinger at DriveTime; the

CEO and Chief of Staff at National Nonprofit; Bob Fishman and Marolyn Robertson at Resources

for Human Development; and Ingar Skaug and Morten Raabe at Wilh. Wilhelmsen. We

are grateful to these individuals for providing access to their organizations, guidance in our

process, insights about the findings, and enthusiasm for the work.

We also want to thank those people who helped us identify and connect with potential case

study organizations: John Alexander, Lisa Moye, Hugh St. Onge, Laura Quinn, Bill Torbert, and

Marv Weisbord.

This report benefited greatly from feedback from our colleagues Chris Ernst, Kelly

Hannum, Emily Hoole, and Bill Torbert, and from the work of our editors Karen Lewis and

Joanne Ferguson.

Finally, we owe a special debt to Becca Baker, who played a number of key roles for our

project team: research analyst, survey administrator, project coordinator, wiki designer, central

hub of information, and adviser. We could not have pulled this project off without her.

About the Authors

Cynthia D. McCauley is a faculty member at the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro,

North Carolina. During her twenty-two years at CCL, she has held various positions in research

and management. She codeveloped two of CCL’s management feedback instruments, Benchmarks

and the Job Challenge Profile. She has written numerous articles and book chapters for

scholars, HR professionals, and practicing managers. Along with Ellen Van Velsor, she is coeditor

of The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. Cindy

received her Ph.D. in industrial and organizational psychology from the University of Georgia.

Charles J. Palus is a faculty member at the Center for Creative Leadership. Chuck began his

career as a chemical engineer at DuPont Company, then transitioned to work focused on individual

and organizational development, joining CCL in 1990. Chuck is codesigner of two CCL

programs (Leading Creatively and Facing and Solving Complex Challenges) and codeveloper of

the leadership tool Visual Explorer: Picturing Approaches to Complex Challenges. His publications

include Making Common Sense: Leadership as Meaning-Making in a Community of

Practice and The Leader’s Edge: Six Creative Competencies for Exploring Complex Challenges.

Chuck received his Ph.D. in social psychology from Boston College.

Wilfred H. Drath is a faculty member at the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro,

North Carolina. He has worked with people in organizations on their development and has

participated in leadership development design over the last twenty years. His current research

focuses on the evolution of leadership and leadership development toward more inclusive and

collective forms. His publications include Making Common Sense: Leadership as Meaning-

Making in a Community of Practice and The Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the Source of Leadership.

Bill graduated from the University of Georgia and attended graduate school at the University

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Richard L. Hughes is Transformation Chair at the U.S. Air Force Academy. In that role he

works with other senior leaders at the Academy to transform its educational practices and culture

to better support its mission of producing leaders of character. Rich also served as a professor and

department chair at the Air Force Academy earlier in his career. At CCL from 1995 to 2007, Rich

worked in a variety of roles in research, program design and delivery, and management. Rich is

the senior author of the textbook Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience and coauthor

of Becoming a Strategic Leader: Your Role in Your Organization’s Enduring Success. Rich

received his Ph.D. from the University of Wyoming.

x Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

John B. McGuire is a faculty member at the Center for Creative Leadership in Colorado

Springs, Colorado. John has a diverse work history that includes senior business management in

corporate settings, consultation in leadership and organizational development, and a practice in

counseling psychology. At CCL, he has worked in a number of different roles, including program

design and delivery, research and development, and director of business development. John’s

current work focuses on organization-wide change through leadership. He is working with Gary

Rhodes on a book about transforming organizational culture, to be published by Jossey-Bass in

2009. John holds master’s degrees from Harvard and Brandeis University.

Patricia M. G. O’Connor is a faculty member at the Center for Creative Leadership in

Singapore. Her research and innovation work focuses on developing leadership practices required

to address complex global challenges. She has served as CCL’s director of business development

and has designed and delivered multiyear leadership development initiatives. She created the

Action Learning Leadership Process, a customized approach to action learning for CCL clients.

Patricia speaks and publishes on a variety of topics, including strategies for developing organizational

capacity for leadership and coaching teams to engage across organizational boundaries.

She holds an M.B.A. in management and organizational behavior from Baruch College (CUNY).

Ellen Van Velsor is a faculty member at the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro,

North Carolina. In her twenty-five years at CCL, she has worked in a variety of roles in research;

program design, delivery, and evaluation; and management. She has expertise in the use and

impact of feedback-intensive programs, gender differences in leader development, how managers

learn from experience, and the dynamics of executive derailment. Ellen is coeditor of The Center

for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development and is coauthor of Breaking the

Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach the Top of America’s Largest Corporations? She holds a

Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Florida.

Introduction

In September 2005, the Connected Leadership Project Team (Bill Drath, Rich Hughes, Cindy

McCauley, John McGuire, Patricia O’Connor, Chuck Palus, and Ellen Van Velsor) undertook to

design and implement a case study research project to better understand “interdependent” leadership

in organizations. Our assumption was that for organizations to deal effectively with increasing

complexity in their environments, new approaches to leadership are needed—approaches that

are themselves more complex than current approaches. We relied on constructive-developmental

theory and related frameworks (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Kegan, 1994; Torbert and Associates,

2004; Wilbur, 2000) to hypothesize about these new approaches; however, there was limited

research examining organization and leadership development through a constructivedevelopmental

lens. We chose a multiple case study research strategy based on a sample of

organizations thought to exemplify interdependent leadership. This approach allowed for a

detailed investigation of leadership phenomenon in several different organizational contexts.

Because of the limited previous research, we also saw this study as an exploratory first phase of a

longer-term project.

We begin the report with the theoretical frameworks and the research questions that guided

our inquiry, then describe our methods and results. We end with conclusions and ideas about

future directions. Appendices provide more details about methods.

Guiding Theoretical Frameworks

In this project, we view leadership as a social process that produces direction, alignment, and

commitment in collectives with shared work (e.g., workgroups, teams, organizations, and communities)

(Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004). Three aspects of this social process were of particular

interest to us:

• Leaders: the individuals actively involved in the process of producing direction, alignment,

and commitment.

• Leadership practices: the actions and routines intentionally used in the collective to

produce direction, alignment, and commitment.

• Leadership culture: the taken-for-granted assumptions, beliefs, and values widely shared

in the collective that determine and justify the leadership practices.

We used constructive-developmental theory as our main theoretical lens. Constructivedevelopmental

theory refers to a stream of work in psychology that focuses on the development

of meaning and meaning-making processes across the life span (see McCauley, Drath, Palus,

O’Connor, & Baker, 2006, for an in-depth review of the use of this theory in the leadership field).

The theory is “constructive” in the sense that it deals with a person’s construals, constructions,

2 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

and interpretations of an experience, that is, the meaning a person makes of an experience. It is

“developmental” in the sense that it is concerned with how those construals, constructions, and

interpretations of an experience grow more complex over time. The basic propositions of

constructive-developmental theory are the following:

• People actively construct ways of understanding and making sense of themselves and the

world (rather than “taking in” an objective world).

• There are identifiable patterns of meaning-making that people share in common with one

another; these are variously referred to as stages, orders of consciousness, ways of

knowing, levels of development, organizing principles, or orders of development.

• Orders of development unfold in a specific invariant sequence, with each successive

order transcending and including the previous order.

• Because subsequent orders include all earlier orders as special cases, later orders are

more complex (they support more comprehensive understanding) than earlier orders; later

orders are not better in any absolute sense.

• Developmental movement from one order to the next is driven by limitations in the

current way of constructing meaning; this can happen when people face increased complexity

in the environment that requires a more complex way of understanding themselves

and the world.

In this study, we use constructive-developmental theory not so much to look at individual

psychological functioning, but rather to examine the collective phenomena of leadership cultures

and practices. Others have also applied constructive-developmental theory to the functioning of

collectives (Torbert and Associates, 2004; Wilbur, 2000). This study represents an early test of

whether leadership cultures and practices can be usefully understood through this lens of

constructive-developmental theory. From this perspective, leadership cultures and practices can

be broadly characterized as dependent, independent, or interdependent (see Table 1 for our initial,

tentative descriptions of the different cultures/practices). Organizations are assumed to develop

from predominantly dependent to predominantly independent to predominantly interdependent

leadership cultures and practices. Each later culture transcends and includes the prior culture and

is more complex than the previous one. Greater complexity of internal organizational culture is

assumed to be necessary to adapt to more complex market and environmental challenges.

Table 1

Descriptions of Dependent, Independent, and Interdependent

Leadership Cultures and Practices

Dependent leadership cultures and practices are broadly characterized by the assumption that

only people in positions of authority are responsible for leadership. This assumption may lead to

organizations that emphasize top-down control and deference to authority. In general, dependent

cultures can be thought of as “conformer” cultures. Other characteristics associated with dependent

cultures are the following: concentration of decision-making authority in a few senior

positions, seniority and position levels as an important source of status, a conservative approach

to change, an emphasis on keeping things running smoothly, and the tendency to smooth over

mistakes publicly.

Independent leadership cultures and practices are broadly characterized by the assumption that

leadership emerges as needed from a variety of individuals based on knowledge and expertise.

This assumption may lead to decentralized decision making, high demand for individual responsibility,

strong reliance on experts and expertise, and competition among experts. In general,

independent cultures can be thought of as “achiever” cultures. Other characteristics associated

with independent cultures include the following: individual performance as an important source

of success and status, an emphasis on taking calculated risks, open disagreement, and independent

actions within functions or workgroups.

Interdependent leadership cultures and practices are broadly characterized by the assumption

that leadership is a collective activity that requires mutual inquiry and learning. This assumption

may lead to the widespread use of dialogue, collaboration, horizontal networks, valuing of

differences, and a focus on learning. In general, interdependent cultures can be thought of as

“collaborative” cultures. Other characteristics associated with interdependent cultures include the

following: the ability to work effectively across organizational boundaries, openness and candor,

multifaceted standards of success, and synergies being sought across the whole enterprise.

Guiding Theoretical Frameworks

4 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

In the current project, we were particularly interested in characterizing interdependent

leadership cultures and practices. We theorize that interdependent perspectives have been emerging

in organizations in recent years commensurate with the rise of globalization and information

networks, though they are not yet widespread. Thus leadership practices built from this perspective

are newer and less familiar in organizations.

For each type of culture, there is a different underlying “logic” or way of understanding the

organization. We extrapolated from Kegan (1994) to describe the interdependent logic in terms of

three interrelated frames.

1. Intersystemic framing means seeing the organization and its environment as a product

of the interaction of systems. Thus, in general, organizations using this frame value the

interaction among various people, functions, and constituencies as sources of identity

and knowledge.

2. Dialectical framing means seeing how beliefs and values are always entangled with

their opposites. Thus, in general, organizations using this frame value learning from

differences and engaging with paradoxes.

3. Transformational framing means seeing the core identity, mission, and strategy of the

organization as being open to revision and change. Thus, in general, organizations using

this frame value inquiry into the identity of the organization to bring about useful

change.

Research Questions

At the beginning of the project, we articulated a set of research questions:

1. Do interdependent leadership cultures and leadership practices exist?

2. If so, what are they and what characterizes them?

3. What influences their emergence/development?

4. What outcomes are produced (or not produced) by interdependent culture and practice?

5. How are such outcomes produced (or not)? How are such outcomes sustained over time?

This report focuses in detail on data related to the first two questions. The data produced in

the current study related to the third and fourth questions are more limited; however, we do share

our insights related to these questions. The last question is beyond the scope of the present phase

of the study. In other words, the current study focused primarily on discovering and describing

interdependent leadership cultures and practices.

Methods

Recruiting and Screening Organizations

We began by recruiting and screening organizations to be included in the study. We initially

set the goal of recruiting ten organizations. Ideally, we wanted a mix of for-profits and nonprofits.

Because the research team was based in the U.S., we expected to more easily recruit U.S.-based

organizations but wanted to include at least one organization headquartered in Europe and one in

Asia in our sample. We also did not want to include organizations smaller than 500 employees.

Small organizations generally have less complex operations, and findings from larger organizations

are more generalizable to CCL’s client population.

We recruited organizations by circulating a Call for Candidate Organizations (see Appendix

A) among our CCL colleagues and our professional networks. Because we wanted to include an

organization in the study only if there was some initial evidence of interdependent culture and

practices in the organization, the Call for Candidate Organizations listed what we hypothesized to

be telltale signs of interdependent framing. Our colleagues’ knowledge of an organization was

our first screen in looking for appropriate research sites. Our second screen was a conversation

with a high-level individual in a nominated organization to obtain confirmation that some of the

telltales did exist in his or her organization.

Twelve organizations were nominated by a team member or colleague. After reviewing

organizational information related to the telltales during the screening process, the research team

considered nine of these organizations as viable candidates for the study. Six of the organizations

agreed to participate in the study. Three of these organizations were for-profit, and three were

nonprofit. One organization was headquartered in Europe, the remaining five were headquartered

in the U.S. More detailed descriptions of each organization can be found below in the Participating

Organizations section. Although we did not obtain the number and diversity of organizations

that we initially hoped for, we felt that the sample was adequate given that we saw this as the

exploratory phase of a longer-term initiative. We also discovered during the study that two of the

organizations (or the part of the organization we were studying) had fewer than 500 employees.

However, since they had passed our other screens and we had begun our work with them, we

kept them in our sample.

Data Collection

Each case study organization was assigned a two-person research team (the one exception

was the Europe-based organization, which had only one primary researcher). In order to support

ongoing learning among research team members, we purposely paired team members who had

less previous experience working together on a project.

As is typical with case study research, we used multiple data-collection methods: interviews,

surveys, observations, document review, and focus groups. Because this was an exploratory

case study, we created most of our data-collection tools from scratch. Our primary datacollection

tools included the following (see Appendix B for a full description of each tool).

6 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

• Key Informant Interviews: Semi-structured interviews with senior executives and others

in the organization with responsibilities for major organizational processes and systems.

We sought interviews with people in charge of strategic planning, human resources, and

external relations management, as well as processes more unique to a particular

organization’s mission or industry. The purpose of the interviews was to learn more about

these processes and systems and the degree to which they reflected interdependent

framing. Between five and thirteen key informants were interviewed in each organization.

In four of the case study organizations, most or all of the key informant interviews were

conducted by phone. In the other two, most were conducted face-to-face.

• Story-Based Interviews: Semi-structured face-to-face interviews with a “diagonal slice”

of employees (i.e., employees from a variety of levels and functions). The purpose of the

interviews was to collect specific and very concrete stories about how leadership outcomes

(direction, alignment, and commitment) have been achieved in the organizational

experience of the interviewee. Eight to ten story-based interviews were conducted in each

organization. The key contact in each organization selected the interviewees and asked

them to participate in the study.

• Walk About Culture Tool: An ethnographic tool for systematically observing and recording

aspects of the organizational environment, including artifacts, language, rituals,

norms, physical environment, and interactions with employees. Each case study researcher

used the tool for recording observations made during each visit to the organization.

Typically, two two-day visits were made to the organization for data-collection

purposes.

• Organizational Survey: The purpose of the survey was to collect data about the following.

(a) Leadership outcomes in the organization (i.e., to what extent is direction, alignment,

and commitment present in the organization?). Item content that reflected aspects of

direction, alignment, or commitment in organizations that had been generated for a

previous project and was adapted for the current project.

(b) Leadership culture (i.e., to what extent does the culture show signs of dependent,

independent, and interdependent beliefs and values?). A version of the Culture Evaluation

Tool (CET) was utilized. This instrument is under development and had used a

grounded theory approach to develop item content.

and if so, what do they look like?). Items derived from a subset of the interdependent

framing telltales were crafted for this study.

It is important to note that the survey consists of measures that are in early stages of

development, and although the results were plausible to the organizations that generated

them, the measures have not yet been subject to a formal validation process.

An initial review of the Organizational Survey by colleagues and by some of the key

contacts in the participating organizations led to an effort to simplify the language used.

Rules for Simplified English (SE) were used in simplifying the language in the survey.

SE was developed so that documents written in English could be understood by people

who lack English proficiency.

For the most part, the organizational survey was administered online. In three companies,

some employees did not have Internet access; thus paper copies of the survey were

provided along with a business reply-by-mail envelope for returning the survey to CCL.

Participation was voluntary and anonymous. One organization elected not to administer

the survey because it was in the midst of another major organizational survey and did not

want to detract from that initiative.

Although our goal was to obtain a representative sample of survey respondents across

organizational levels and functions, this was not possible in each organization. Both

managers and nonmanagers were represented in all but one organization (in this organization,

we administered the survey to managers only because the organization was most

interested in the perspectives of this group). The samples tended to be more representative

of home office or headquarters employees than of employees at local offices or units.

Response rates varied widely across organizations (16 percent, 33 percent, 50 percent, 51

percent, and 95 percent).

In addition to these four primary data-collection tools, we reviewed organizational documents

to learn more about the organizational context and also to learn about organizational

values, beliefs, and practices. For all organizations, this included annual reports and public Web

sites. Some of the following types of documents were reviewed for each organization: organizational

newsletters, strategic objectives and plans, statements of organizational values, videos

describing organizational initiatives, climate survey results, minutes of meetings, and sales and

marketing material.

Case study team members also kept individual journals describing what they were noticing

about the organization; personal reactions to what they read, saw, or heard in the course of

collecting data; and any sense-making they were generating (e.g., hunches, assumptions, or

hypotheses). Using Torbert and Associates’ (2004) action inquiry framework, we supplemented

our third-person (more objective) data with this first-person (more subjective) data. We also

generated second-person (intersubjective) data when the two researchers assigned to a case

compared notes and discussed their insights during the process of data collection. We were less

systematic in capturing this intersubjective data.

Methods

8 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

After initial analysis of interviews, surveys, and documents, the two case study researchers

for each team identified topics, practices, or initiatives that appeared to reflect interdependent

framing and that they wanted to learn more about. Typically this additional learning took the

form of a focus group discussion during which the researchers posed questions to a group of

employees who were most familiar with the topic/practice/initiative. Focus group size ranged

from four to ten individuals. Focus groups are useful for gathering multiple perspectives and for

understanding underlying dynamics revealed as participants build on each other’s descriptions,

agree or disagree, and remind each other of examples or exceptions. In some cases, focus groups

were supplemented by observing groups in meetings or by additional one-on-one interviews.

Data Analysis Process

Case study teams first analyzed each type of qualitative data separately (key informant

interviews, story-based interviews, walk about observations, and documents), identifying what

aspects of the leadership culture and practices reflected interdependent, independent, and dependent

framing. Themes from this analysis were combined with survey and focus group results to

generate a case study report for each organization. These reports were shared and discussed with

the key contacts at each organization. It is important to note that, while we found some evidence

of interdependent leadership cultures and practices in all six organizations, we are not claiming

that interdependence was the primary or predominant mode in all six.

To look more closely at the question of what characterizes interdependent leadership

cultures and practices, each case study team extracted from its case study report any organizational

processes, ways people worked together, or shared values and norms that it saw as reflecting

interdependent framing. The entire project team then reviewed all the extracted material

across cases and discussed (and sometimes challenged) why it reflected interdependent framing.

A framework for organizing the extracted material evolved over the life of the project.

The three theory-based frames that characterize interdependent logic served as the primary

criteria for classifying a practice or cultural norm as interdependent. As we examined the data

with this framework, particular characteristics stood out to us as indicating that an interdependent

frame was operating to some degree.

1. Intersystemic framing (seeing the organization and its environment as a product of the interaction

of systems):

• People with diverse perspectives working together to create new solutions or opportunities.

• People engaged in mutual influence, shared sense-making, or co-construction of direction,

alignment, and commitment.

• People collaborating to enhance the effectiveness of the total system (rather than just the

effectiveness of their individual units) and to develop their collective competence.

• People expressing an open-systems perspective (e.g., any system is part of larger systems,

systems have permeable boundaries).

2. Dialectical framing (seeing how beliefs and values are always entangled with their opposites):

• People engaged in dialogue to explore differences.

• People actively managing organizational polarities.

3. Transformational framing (seeing the core identity, mission, and strategy of the organization

as being open to revision and change):

• People engaged in continuous change processes, seeing change as normal and desirable.

• People indicating that collective development requires individual development and vice

versa.

Another indicator was whether a practice appeared to transcend and include independent

entities (i.e., independent individuals or independent groups). Did the practice encourage autonomous,

self-defining individuals (or groups) to work together in integrated ways while maintaining

their differentiation?

Making Sense of the Research Findings with the Participating Organizations

Each case study team wrote a case report for the organization it studied. Team members

shared the report initially with their key contacts in the organization to get reactions and input.

For several of the organizations, the case study team also presented highlights of the report and

discussed the findings with a larger group of senior managers.

Each case study team also gauged the key contact’s level of interest in meeting with representatives

from the other organizations participating in the study to further discuss the findings

and to learn more directly from one another. Each organization expressed an interest in such a

meeting, and the CCL project team designed a one-and-a-half day Learning Forum for representatives

from the participating organizations. One to five senior staff attended from each organization

along with five members of the CCL research team.

Before the Forum, each participant received a copy of an earlier draft of this report to

review. During the event, each organization shared a story with the group that illustrated interdependent

leadership in its organization, and participants provided feedback and reactions to the

draft report. The participants also generated topics that they wanted to explore in more depth, and

using a modified Open Space methodology, they self-selected into groups for discussion around

these topics. The stories, feedback, and discussions were documented by CCL staff participating

in the Forum and became a further resource for understanding interdependent leadership in these

organizations.

Participating Organizations

During the data-collection and analysis process, the identity of participating organizations

was confidential. At the end of the Learning Forum, we discussed the pros and cons of the

organizations’ remaining anonymous in our documentation and dissemination of the research

Methods

10 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

findings. Anonymity could be achieved through the use of pseudonyms for organizational names

and omitting identifying details about the organization. Five of the organizations decided to have

their identity known in the research report, and one organization decided to remain anonymous

(we use the pseudonym “National Nonprofit” for this organization).

Abrasive Technology, Inc.

Abrasive Technology (ATI) is a globally integrated company with headquarters in Ohio that

designs, manufactures, and markets products for superabrasive grinding and tooling. Founded in

1971, ATI has nine plant locations in four countries and about 425 employees worldwide. The

company owns numerous patents and continues to innovate and develop new products and

processes. ATI has expanded through sustained internal growth as well as a series of strategic

acquisitions over the years. ATI has thousands of custom-engineered and in-stock products

serving the aerospace, automotive, ceramics, glass, lapidary, medical and dental, stone, textiles,

and tool and die industries, among others. The company is ISO 9001:2000 certified, which means

it has met stringent objective criteria for quality.

A key feature of ATI is its process-centered organization. In this approach, specific work

processes (rather than overall functions) are the core organizing principle. Work processes

include manufacturing processes such as machining, bonding, and plating; marketing and sales

processes; human resource processes; and leadership processes. For each process there is a

process team consisting of associates and a process engineer. The process engineer’s responsibility

is to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the process continually—not to act as

a supervisor. Operation-level associates and process engineers work in close collaboration to

make day-to-day decisions that assure the quality and timeliness of the process. Many associates

are cross-trained and routinely make decisions, move themselves from process to process, and

otherwise act to meet emergent manufacturing and delivery needs. This calls for ongoing lateral

communication and coordination among process teams. A special role in the process-centered

organization is that of the coach. Coaches partner closely with process engineers providing

counsel to individuals and whole process teams on training and development, teamwork development,

conflict resolutions, 360-degree biannual performance reviews and discussions, and other

human resource concerns. The process-centered organization is designed to provide a positive

focus for associates and reward them for individual, team, and overall organizational success.

The goal is the continuous improvement of all of the organization’s processes.

DriveTime

DriveTime owns and operates the largest chain of used-automobile dealerships in the

United States exclusively for subprime customers—people with modest incomes who have

experienced credit difficulties. They operate over 90 dealerships in nine states and 13 inspection

and reconditioning centers, employing over 2,000 people.

The company went private and was rebranded in 2002 with a vision of innovation, quality,

and outstanding service. And yet, the legacies and traditions of the low-end used-car industry are

powerfully in the opposite direction of such a vision. Prior to 2002, DriveTime was probably

typical of the industry. The new CEO (an industry outsider) set the task of building a very different

kind of company, one with an integrated value chain, a proprietary credit model, and a culture

of quality and service. A main strategy has been to transform the culture. Four years later, the

company is doing well by many measures, including impressive evidence of a changing culture

that supports the business strategy. The three main avenues for culture change at DriveTime are

vision, projecting the vision into the work, and leadership development.

The CEO brought the new vision—but the vision had also been forming among the existing

cadre of managers. Initially there was a core team of senior leaders who collaborated on the new

vision and business model. Many qualities characterize this vision—making a difference in

people’s lives; open lines of communication; constructive debate; no fear of change; a fun and

balanced work environment based on trust, loyalty, and integrity. Most importantly, the senior

team started trying to live this new vision in its work with each other and with the organization.

To develop its leadership, DriveTime has adapted the leadership models and techniques of Bill

Torbert that describe leadership as a collaborative process (Rooke & Torbert, 2005) and has

begun to formally identify the developmental needs of its leaders and provide workshops, coaching,

and other forums for development.

National Nonprofit

National Nonprofit (a pseudonym) is a large, not-for-profit, global membership organization

devoted to youth development. Governed by a National Board of Directors, National Nonprofit

has its headquarters in the northeastern United States. The headquarters staff includes 400

employees responsible for developing programs and otherwise supporting National Nonprofit’s

affiliate organizations and membership. Most of the people who work for National Nonprofit

through these affiliates are volunteers. National Nonprofit works in partnership with many

corporate, government, and individual supporters.

Recently, the organization has undertaken a massive transformation that included a

reorganization of its headquarters operation and the affiliate organizations that deliver programs.

Before the reorganization, there were about 300 of these affiliates. Many of them drew members

from the same geographic area and otherwise encountered overlaps in their work. As a result of

the reorganization, there will soon be about 100 affiliate groups. This massive effort required that

the national headquarters work in close collaboration with the affiliates. In addition, the reorganization

included a realignment in structure that resulted in a staff reduction at the headquarters

operation. The impetus for this huge change was to position the organization to continue to be

able to pursue its mission and remain relevant to its members for many years to come.

Wilh. Wilhelmsen

Wilh. Wilhelmsen is a leading global provider of maritime services, including shipping,

logistics, and ship management and services. With some 13,200 employees (about 22,000 when

partly owned companies are included), the organization has 388 offices in 70 countries and

Methods

12 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

cooperates with partners in an extensive global network. Listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange,

Wilhelmsen is headquartered in Norway. Over the last two decades it has experienced significant

growth, primarily through acquisitions and partnerships. It has transformed itself from a traditional

shipping business with an emphasis on owning and operating vessels into a global supplier

of maritime services. Wilhelmsen had a record financial year in 2006—which the CEO attributed

to good market conditions, more efficient operations, and the exploitation of synergies among its

various operating companies.

Wilhelmsen sees a main driver of its success to be its corporate values: empowerment,

learning and innovation, being customer centered, stewardship, and teaming and collaboration.

The organization aims to be an innovator and pioneer in the maritime services sector. It also has a

long tradition of being concerned with good working conditions, the natural environment, and

social responsibility. Employee experience and knowledge is seen as providing the bedrock for

all Wilhelmsen’s activities; thus developing employees takes a high priority in the organization.

An in-house educational institute, Wilhelmsen Academy, was established several years ago to

meet this challenge; it provides a full range of courses and development programs for employees

worldwide.

Catholic Healthcare Partners

Catholic Healthcare Partners (CHP) is one of the largest not-for-profit health systems in the

United States. Headquartered in Ohio, the system consists of more than 100 organizations in a

five-state region, including acute care hospitals, long-term care facilities, housing sites for the

elderly, home health agencies, hospice programs, and wellness centers. The organization has

about 35,000 employees and 7,500 affiliated physicians. A faith-based organization, its mission is

to extend the healing ministry of Jesus by improving the health of its communities with emphasis

on people who are poor or underserved.

The organization was built out of a series of consolidations of independent, regionally

based healthcare organizations. CHP makes use of a federalism structure in which the regional

organizations maintain their local identity while also being part of the larger CHP system. This

structure is designed to integrate the local strengths of responsiveness and creativity with the

system strengths of resources and pooled knowledge and expertise.

CHP must deal with the multiple, complex challenges facing the healthcare sector—rising

costs, complicated payment-for-services systems, rapid advancements in medicine and technology,

competition for professional employees, medical errors, and public image problems—as

well as the day-to-day challenge of integrating mission attainment and financial viability. To deal

effectively with these challenges, the organization aligns its major initiatives around key results

areas articulated and developed through a strategic planning process. Currently, the organization

is focused on excellence in five areas: quality, human potential, physician relationships, regional

growth, and stewardship.

Resources for Human Development

Resources for Human Development (RHD) is a nonprofit organization based in Philadelphia

with over 100 programs and more than 3,000 employees in ten states. RHD partners with

government, foundations, corporations, and other agencies to provide health and social services

(primarily residential programs for dependent populations) in a variety of challenging contexts.

RHD was begun in 1970 by a founder with the vision of a human services organization that

would be an ethical and equitable workplace serving the common good and at the same time be

fiscally responsible and well managed. From the beginning, RHD has been able to define and

instill a specific set of beliefs among all employees, consisting of assumptions, values, and

simple rules for organizing (e.g., there is no single right way; decentralize what you can, centralize

what you must). These basic beliefs directly produce effective actions and unique practices

throughout this organization, which have in turn led to shared direction, high levels of mutual

commitments, and a unique form of decentralized management.

These beliefs were always understood as strategically vital in pursuit of the founder’s

vision of “the common good corporation.” These beliefs at RHD are kept active through ongoing

open and honest dialogue, through training, and by example. The result is a certain kind of

corporate culture that channels the actions of employees and even by extension those being

served by RHD.

At RHD, decentralized units (delivering social services) are fully empowered to creatively

serve the needs of their consumers. At the same time, fiscal oversight is maintained centrally.

New funding builds on the successful, fiscally responsible execution of existing contracts. Units

are linked by a strong and unique culture and by voluntary peer networks. The right balance

between centralization and decentralization is continuously explored in open dialogues. Responsible,

creative risk taking is a natural part of doing the work.

The strategy in this case was successful. RHD has experienced a 28 percent average annual

growth since 1970, with current annual revenues of $145 million. RHD is respected by its constituencies

for high quality work and as an outstanding workplace. The founder’s vision of an

economically successful common good organization with a unique set of socially oriented values

has become real.

Methods

14 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

Results

The results of our case studies are presented in four sections:

A. The leadership cultures and practices that we learned about (through interviews and

observations) in the case study organizations that are consistent with an interdependent

frame.

B. The survey data, which show the degree to which employees perceive an interdependent

leadership culture and leadership practices in their organization.

C. What we learned about the antecedents and outcomes of interdependent leadership

cultures and practices.

D. Themes from the Learning Forum.

A. Interdependent Leadership Cultures and Practices: Qualitative Data

We examined all the descriptions of interdependent leadership cultures and practices identified in

the six cases and grouped them into ten categories.

1. organizing structures

2. executive team

3. organizational planning

4. lateral integration mechanisms

5. pay and benefits systems

6. social responsibility initiatives

7. statements of organizational values

8. making decisions and solving problems

9. dealing with differences and conflict

10. facilitating organizational change and adaptation

The first seven categories represent more formal organizational structures, systems, and

processes. For each of these categories, we note the characteristics of interdependent practices

identified in the category, and we provide examples of specific structures, systems, and processes

within the case study organizations that reflect more of an interdependent logic. We are not

saying that the specific examples we point out reflect a fully formed interdependent logic, but we

think they all reflect, at minimum, movement toward an interdependent logic.

The remaining three categories (making decisions and solving problems, dealing with

differences and conflict, and facilitating organizational change and adaptation) represent clusters

of organizational work that people are engaged in fairly constantly at many levels throughout the

organization. Organizations tend to develop particular patterns or ways of carrying out work in

each of these clusters. We identified patterns (or emerging patterns) in the case study organiza15

tions that reflect more of an interdependent logic. Again, it is important to note that this does not

mean that the pattern had become predominant in the organization.

The distinction between organizational patterns of work and organizational structures,

systems, and processes is somewhat fuzzy and thus a bit artificial. Clearly there are connections

between the two (e.g., the functioning of the executive team may be an aspect of a broader

pattern in how decisions are made and conflict dealt with in the organization). However, we think

the distinction is useful in the sense that individuals (particularly those with high levels of formal

authority in the organization) have more direct control over the design of organizational structures,

systems, and processes; whereas, organizational patterns result from the accumulation of

many actions taken over time throughout an organization (within and sometimes outside of the

formal structures, systems, and processes).

It is important to note that our exploration of interdependent cultures and practices in each

of the organizations was by no means exhaustive. There may have been many more examples of

practices and aspects of the culture that we did not come in contact with in an organization that

are not included in this report.

1. Organizing Structures

Following are characteristics of interdependent ways of structuring the organization:

• encourages interaction across the organization

• minimizes hierarchical differentiation

• supports members gaining a more comprehensive perspective on the organization as a

whole

• engages an organizational tension or paradox

• reproduces the whole system in subunits of the organization, thus maintaining intimate

interaction among diverse perspectives

Following are examples from the case study organizations.

Process-centered organization (Abrasive Technology). A process-centered organization is

organized around work processes rather than around functions and positions. There are no

traditional vice presidents, managers, or supervisors. Rather there are “process engineers”

whose responsibility is to collaborate with members of the process to improve its overall

efficiency and effectiveness and “coaches” for individual and team development. The

process-centered organization encourages a potentially high degree of interaction both

within and across processes. As such interaction grows and continues to develop, and as it is

increasingly directed toward an understanding of what work is being done and why, employees

can begin to acquire a more comprehensive perspective on the organization overall.

Results

16 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

Interdependent organization (DriveTime). DriveTime replaced its vertical functional

structure with one in which all functions (while still retaining functional identities) operate

as a unified system with shared organizational objectives and values. This structure is more

like an organic process than a formal architecture. It is described by one leader as “a

balancing act to create just enough structure.” The functional subsystems (inventory, sales,

customer service, finance and collections) are expected to self-organize in relation to one

another in seeking coordinated solutions to organizational challenges. The result is a

network of formal and informal managerial relationships with low emphasis on hierarchy

and a high emphasis on intimate and intense interpersonal connections. (We should note

that DriveTime had been exposed to the dependent-independent-interdependent framework

prior to beginning the case study research and had intentionally adopted the interdependent

label.)

A federation of 100 affiliates supported by a national headquarters (National Nonprofit).

Governed by a National Board of Directors, National Nonprofit has its headquarters operation

in the northeastern U.S. It is comprised of about 400 employees responsible for developing

programs and otherwise supporting National Nonprofit’s (soon to be 100) affiliate

organizations and more than 3.8 million members. While the headquarters is structured in a

fairly traditional and hierarchical way, there is a strong belief on the part of the executive

team that moving the headquarters to a culture characterized by less dependence on authority

and more shared leadership is an important step in the team’s overall change effort.

What seems interdependent about the National Nonprofit organizing structure is the wider

design and relationship of headquarters to the affiliates. Each affiliate is independent and

has its own CEO and executive team, more akin to franchisees or parts of a federation than

to “branch” operational units. Most decision making is decentralized, with national headquarters

seen as responsible for overall strategy, program design, and support of the affiliates

as a whole. There is a strong belief at headquarters that headquarters actions and

problem solutions should align primarily with affiliate needs. Affiliate CEOs and their

staffs (as well as members and volunteers) are regularly included in decision making and

problem solving meetings and have significant influence over the direction of the organization

as a whole.

Co-ownership of operating companies (Wilhelmsen). Wilhelmsen co-owns two operating

companies on an equal basis with another shipping company (i.e., each owns 50 percent of

the operating companies) and shares ownership of a third operating company with two

other partners. These operating companies represent a large part of their core shipping

business. Such partnerships are known as “collaborative commerce” in the shipping industry.

This co-ownership arrangement engages a paradox: pursuing what is in the best interest

of the organization versus what is in the best interest of the partnership.

Federalism governance model (Catholic Healthcare Partners). CHP can be thought of as a

federation of nine regional healthcare operating systems and a central office that houses

strategic functional expertise. Each region maintains its distinctive organizational name and

is headed by a CEO who also has the title of SVP of the CHP corporation (which reflects

the CEO/SVP’s dual role of leading his or her region and jointly managing the operations

of the total system). This structure allows the organization to take advantage of being both

big and small. More importantly, it brings together regional perspectives and system

perspectives in an effort to manage the local/global organizational polarity.

Decentralize what you can, centralize what you must (Resources for Human Development).

This has been a guiding principle since the founding of RHD. As a result, the bulk of

alignment and coordination of work is done locally within the units. What must be centralized,

as RHD believes and practices, are two key aspects of the corporations. First, fiscal

oversight is maintained centrally in order to act responsibly toward funding sources and to

maintain the integrity of the corporation. Fiscal management, however, is decentralized—

local units keep all but around 15 percent of their funding and retain local control over

budgeting, hiring, contracting, and purchasing. Secondly, cultural values and norms are

taught and reinforced by RHD as part of a single corporate identity.

Hubs (Resources for Human Development). Hubs are administrative groupings of several

units and are the mechanism through which fiscal oversight is centrally coordinated. Hubs

also coordinate other support and communications activities needing a central channel. The

current Hub structure is meant to approximate the “smallness and intimacy” of relationships

and diversity of units within a tightly knit community, as experienced in the early

days of RHD when the scale of work was still relatively small and local. Hubs are intentionally

diverse in their units’ programmatic specialties. This combination of smallness,

intimacy, and diversity is deliberately valued and cultivated as a way of producing transformative

learning across narrower perspectives in order to foster creative solutions for

emergent consumer needs. This practice is coupled to the belief that homogenization of

viewpoints within narrow specialties runs the risk of stifling creativity and adaptation.

Overall, Hubs are explicitly a way of participatively managing the ongoing dialectic of

centralization/decentralization.

Results

18 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

2. Executive Team

Following are characteristics of executive teams operating from an interdependent perspective:

• Openly expressing viewpoints and exploring them through dialogue.

• Engaging with one another in mutual influence and co-construction of new perspectives.

• Operating as an open system with permeable boundaries that supports mutual influence

with the larger organization.

Following are examples from the case study organizations.

DriveTime Senior Team. The senior team has engaged a development process called

developmental action inquiry (Torbert and Associates, 2004). This includes personal and

team coaching around ways of being and acting in the world (or “action logics”), as well as

workshops and activities to promote double- and triple-loop learning (Argyris, Putnam, &

Smith, 1985; Torbert and Associates, 2004) among themselves and others. A key purpose of

this development process is to create collaborative relationships among managers who have

independent points of view and yet are interdependent with one another in the ways they

work and relate. The hierarchy of the senior team is de-emphasized in favor of an open

network of relationships in which the senior team’s authority is central rather than topdown.

Wilhelmsen Corporate Management Team (CMT). The team has engaged in a development

process (aided by a coach) to create a team environment in which members are self-aware

and open to others. This includes giving public feedback to one another and sharing feedback

they’ve received from others. Good relationships are also fostered by getting to know

each other as whole people (not just in work roles). There is an emphasis on getting all the

views on the table so that the team can find good solutions—not compromises but rather

reaching consensus about the best strategy among the various alternatives. Members of the

team often have strong viewpoints but can also change their minds in discussion with

others.

Catholic Healthcare Partner Executive Management Team (EMT). The team undertook a

year-long individual and team coaching experience to develop its ability to engage in open

and honest dialogue in discussing and making system-level decisions. The team members

practice balancing advocacy and inquiry and are sensitive to the polarities in their joint

work. Such conversations are viewed as important for reaching decisions that all parties can

support. Natural subgroups of the executive team made up of members who share common

work meet in separate forums, generating more space for candid discussion. The team also

builds in time for reflecting on its meeting processes and learning together.

Resources for Human Development. Senior management deliberately maintains a minimum

amount of centralized authority for the management team. Corporate strategy is developed

throughout the organization, with senior management participating rather than driving the

process. Senior managers have workspaces without walls in the common area with all the

other workspaces. Once a month, the weekly senior management team meeting becomes

open to anyone in the organization and becomes a special forum known as the RHD Council

Meeting. On alternative months, this meeting becomes the Extended Management

Meeting, open to all people with corporate management responsibilities.

3. Organizational Planning

Interdependent planning processes open up the possibility of direction being co-constructed from

multiple perspectives from throughout the organization and intentionally engage tensions or

paradoxes in the organization.

Abrasive Technology. During the annual planning process, process engineers gather data

from process team associates on their manpower and resource needs. This information is

the basis for the plans created by the strategy process team (the senior team). Process

engineers also bring plans to process team associates for discussion, and some modification

of plans can result from this. At the annual September meeting, the process engineers, each

representing their processes, present their operational plans, and a discussion follows in

which plans are modified based on areas of conflict and synergy. As noted, further modifications

come from discussion of plans with operational associates.

Catholic Healthcare Partners. Within the annual plan for the CHP system are three types of

objectives: (1) Operational focus is a balanced set of outcome measures reflecting the

important indicators of effective operations (e.g., quality care, employee and physician

satisfaction, operating income margins); (2) Strategic objectives are sometimes referred to

as “federalized” objectives, objectives that are “in everyone’s best interest to do collectively,

although they are likely to be disruptive to each unit” (e.g., centralizing accounts

payable, a corporate-level leadership development initiative); (3) Individual regional CEO

and home office executive objectives are locally selected objectives. Agreeing on the

“federalized” objectives requires the most dialogue among executives; arriving at them was

described as a process in which “we [leaders of regions and home office] have to talk

ourselves into it.” The first set of objectives engages the mission/business polarity experienced

in the organization. The second set engages the local/system polarity.

Resources for Human Development. The Future Search Conference has been used by RHD

for strategic conception and planning on two occasions. This process is a way for bringing

Results

20 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

“the whole system in the room” to practice systems-thinking and to find common ground

among diverse viewpoints (the many autonomous program units, for example) and under

complex conditions (Weisbord & Janoff, 2007). For example, the first Future Search led to

the creation of the Hub structure at RHD.

4. Lateral Integration Mechanisms

Interdependent mechanisms for lateral integration allow for direct collaboration across organizational

boundaries and for co-construction of new perspectives, knowledge, and identity across

boundaries.

Following are examples from the case study organizations.

DriveTime. In creating the specialized proprietary analytical software needed for their

business, DriveTime has begun using what the information technology (IT) field calls an

Agile IT Development methodology. The version DriveTime has adapted is called Scrum

(see http://www.controlchaos.com/). Scrum uses collaborative, cross-functional, rapidly

moving teams to iteratively and incrementally develop systems and products when

requirements are complex and shifting. According to DriveTime, Scrum encourages

interdependence by being radically open to continuous input, formal and informal testing,

and revision from anywhere in the organization. Scrum surfaces and engages conflicting

needs and perspectives about the software under development by solving problems

through rapid iterations (daily and monthly) of prototypes. Scrum thus accommodates

continuous transformation in the organization by deliberately revisiting priorities from

one iteration to the next. Scrum reinforces a whole-system view of the organization by

testing iterations throughout the organization and evolving the software accordingly.

DriveTime was led to this methodology by the failure of its previous practices in its IT

department to meet DriveTime’s rapidly changing and complex software needs. Previously

its IT department used a traditional “waterfall” or sequential development methodology

in which needs were first meticulously specified, and only then exhaustive specifications

written, and so on. DriveTime found the waterfall methodology to be slow and

inflexible and found that it reinforced the IT function as an independent “silo” walled off

from other functions by its own esoteric expertise.

National Nonprofit. Floor communicators are lower-level staff who act as a bridge

between staff/operational-level employees and the senior team. This is a formal role

which serves as a mechanism for surfacing and discussing questions and airing rumors

from lower levels of the organization. As rumors have dissipated, the role is starting to

evolve into a sounding board for senior managers for ideas that will support and

strengthen the work environment and desired culture. The floor communicators share

these ideas with others and bring back reactions and additional ideas to senior managers.

Catholic Healthcare Partners. An important set of cross-regional committees at CHP are

the Executive Management Team (EMT) Committees—each focused on an area of

strategic emphasis in the organization (e.g., patient safety, advocacy) and made up of

people from each region and from a variety of roles, disciplines, and organizational

levels. The executive management team delegates work to these committees and seeks

their recommendations and advice, and the committees also identify and act on issues and

share knowledge and trends across regions. Another set of cross-regional committees at

CHP is a network of individuals with similar roles and responsibilities working in different

sites and regions (i.e., communities of practice). This network promotes the sharing of

best practices, collective learning, and a shared identity.

Resources for Human Development. Issues related to growth and change are surfaced and

broadly shared in open dialogue in a wide variety of meetings and corporate forums. Key

issues that by emergent consensus pose an adaptive challenge (such as a threat to the

integrity of the shared values and principles) are then allocated (as facilitated by senior

management) staff, resources, and meeting time, drawing on representatives from all

parts and levels of the organization. Two examples are “cent-decent” (centralizedecentralize)

meetings and the Benefits Committee:

• RHD lives with a certain healthy tension or dialectic between centralization and

decentralization, with the latter preferred but with a suitable balance attained.

Lately many occasions arise in which some people advocate strongly for a centralized

solution. A regular open “cent-decent” meeting is in place for the senior team

to meet with anyone in RHD addressing any ideas or concerns related to this

tension, with controversy actually welcomed.

• The Benefits Committee was formed by senior management to address a growing

gap in benefits (especially health) between higher- and lower-paid staff. A diverse

team was put together representing all stakeholders: management team members,

corporate assistant directors, budget managers, unit directors, supervisors, and line

staff. The adaptive challenge in this case was the widely and acutely perceived

threat to the RHD value of “the equality of all people.” In the end, team consensus

was reached on a difficult decision for a net transfer of benefits from higher- to

lower-paid employees, transforming the status quo while upholding deeper values.

Resources for Human Development. It is typical at RHD for various kinds of networks

and coalitions to form among otherwise autonomous actors in response to felt needs in

various aspects of shared or related work. For example, the Units Directors Network is a

voluntary, regular, self-managed forum for directors of the program units, for purposes

Results

22 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

including mutual support and exploring opportunities for alignment and direction among

otherwise autonomous units. Such emergent networks and coalitions then tend to garner

modest funding and other resources from RHD depending on need and results.

5. Pay and Benefits Systems

Interdependent pay and benefits systems are designed to engage a dialectical tension in the

organization by using multiple, often conflicting criteria for rewarding employees, for example:

• Individual rewards based on own subsystem and total system performance;

• Individual rewards based on market value and on social values of equality and fairness.

Following are examples from the case study organizations.

Abrasive Technology. People are compensated at the individual, team, and organization

level. Annual performance reviews have a merit increase attached to reward individual

performance of the skills and abilities needed to work effectively in the process-centered

organization (TILL: Teamwork, Information, Learning, and Language). A quarterly incentive

compensation program based on team performance (products shipped) rewards people

for being good team members. And the annual profit-sharing system rewards associates for

the overall profitability of the company.

DriveTime. The reward system is based on a complex formula weighting toward whole

company and regional performance while also offering incentives for individual and local

group performance. Thus both independent and interdependent values and behaviors are

surfaced and rewarded.

Catholic Healthcare Partners. Regional CEOs’ incentive pay is based in part on whether

shared system objectives (see earlier mention of federalized objectives) are achieved by the

total system. Each region has regional goals that support the system objectives, and regional

CEOs are rewarded for meeting their regional goals. But maximum rewards are

available only if the shared system objectives are achieved.

Catholic Healthcare Partners. CHP’s employee compensation and benefits are based on

values of fairness and justice (rather than simply on market-competitive practices). For

example, it pays employees in minimum-wage-type jobs a “livable wage” (i.e., income

needed to support a family of four above the federal poverty level) rather than minimum

wage.

Resources for Human Development. RHD has been proactive about translating its value of

“equality of all people” into compensation and benefits practices. This translation has been

done in a sense of creative tension with norms for the industry. Two key examples illustrate

this.

• RHD caps CEO salary at 14 times the compensation of the lowest-paid full-time

employee. (In the for-profit world that multiple was 431 in 2004. Equity advocates

have proposed a CEO pay standard of 25 times the lowest wage.)

• RHD recently went through a process (dialogue to consensus among employees at all

levels) of reforming employee benefits such that higher-paid managers gave up

benefits to lower-paid staff.

6. Social Responsibility Initiatives

Following are characteristics of an interdependent stance toward social responsibility.

• Organization recognizes multiple relevant stakeholders in the economic, social, and

environmental realms (i.e., owners, customers, employees, local communities, broader

society) and searches for solutions that create value and synergy across these realms.

• Organization engages in cross-sector partnerships and alliances that are working toward

common social-responsibility objectives and integrates these objectives into its core

business or organizational mission.

Following are examples from the case study organizations.

DriveTime. DriveTime’s SchoolTime Program creates and sustains regional partnerships

with elementary schools serving predominantly “at risk” students. The program provides

opportunities for employees to give back to their communities and provides personal and

financial resources to add value to the educational experience, improve and enhance

student well-being, empower and support parents, and support and applaud the efforts of

teachers and students. This program allows DriveTime not only to just “do good” but also

to develop relationships to better understand the customer community and be more

empathetic toward this community. DriveTime acknowledges that it is dependent upon the

lower-income strata of the broader community for long-term success (in ways that go

beyond individual transactions), and so the organization seeks a degree of interdependence

for mutual benefit. This stands in contrast to the usual norm in the subprime used-car

industry of preying on the vulnerable.

Results

24 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

DriveTime. DriveTime Cares Program is a customer assistance program in which customers

faced with life-altering events are identified and helped through their problem or crisis.

Assistance may include everything from bringing them current and paying ahead a few

payments to directing them to assistance (e.g., church, shelter, agency for housing, agency

for job assistance). As with the SchoolTime Program, the intention is to instill a degree of

interdependence with customers (rather than the industry norm of exploitation) such that

each party benefits in the long run. For example, it is believed that encouraging independent

(self-managing) behaviors in DriveTime loan recipients will result in more reliable

payments.

National Nonprofit. National Nonprofit collaborates with a variety of stakeholders, funding

resources, and partners in accomplishing its work and serving members, affiliates, and

volunteers. Social responsibility has always been a key focus of the National Nonprofit

program, emphasizing both environmental and social aspects of care. The financial bottom

line is clearly seen as subservient to the work of the organizational mission.

Wilhelmsen. Wilhelmsen is at the forefront of the shipping industry in terms of taking

measures to minimize the environmental impact of its operations. Being good stewards of

the environment is one of its core values. Wilhelmsen partners with research institutes and

government agencies to advance sustainable practices for the entire shipping industry. Its

long-standing focus on the environment is now part of a broader emphasis on corporate

social responsibility (CSR). It is engaged in a collaboration (facilitated by several

Norwegian educational institutions) with NGOs and government agencies to develop a

shared understanding of CSR.

Resources for Human Development. RHD collaborates with a wide array of external

partners, funding sources, and allies (e.g., government agencies, foundations, advocacy

groups, other service providers) who share similar values and goals related to the common

good. For-profit businesses are started by RHD in line with the mission of community

service and development. A “double bottom line” attracts investors with socialresponsibility

investment “screens.” The founders have recently written a book describing

lessons learned at RHD with the intent that the “common good corporation” model might

be applied elsewhere. RHD can thus be understood as nurturing productive interdependencies

within the broader community.

7. Statements of Organizational Values

Interdependent beliefs and values can be supported by formally articulated sets of organizational

values, beliefs, and principles that guide organizational behavior.

Following are examples from the case study organizations.

Wilhelmsen. The core corporate values at Wilhelmsen—stewardship, learning and

innovation, teaming and collaboration, empowerment, and being customer-centered—are

consistent with an interdependent belief system. A values-based culture is understood as a

defining aspect of the organization—an aspect of the organization that is chosen, not one

that simply evolved. The values are chosen based partly on what is viewed as “right” and

partly on what stakeholders expect from the organization. The values have to be constantly

nourished through communication, education and development, and feedback.

Resources for Human Development. Since inception in 1970, RHD has been based on

explicit values and a “few simple rules” pertaining to “the common good corporation.”

These values create both individual autonomy and responsibility and interdependence in

tasks and relationships. A single document called the Bill of Rights summarizes this

system of beliefs and practices. The Bill of Rights is then used as the reference point for

all matters of imparting the organizational culture (e.g., employee orientation, training)

and discernment (e.g., conflict resolution, complex decision making). Perhaps the

simplest distillation of these values is the following (per the founder): People are basically

good and trustworthy. The path between here and there is not singular, but multiple.

Welcome diversity. There is no single right way. The intended (and often realized) result

of these values is collaboration among multiple strong (“right”) and sometimes conflicting

perspectives and paths. This type of values-based collaboration is seen as the engine

of creativity and emergent strategic directions for the corporation.

8. Making Decisions and Solving Problems

The interdependent pattern is as follows: Direct collaboration across organizational boundaries

(i.e., with minimum coordination orchestrated by higher management) is used as a process for

making decisions and solving problems. This collaborative work brings people with diverse

perspectives together for mutual influence, co-construction of new perspectives, and selfauthorized

decision making (i.e., the decisions don’t need to be approved at higher levels in the

organization). The goal of the collaborative work is to maximize system effectiveness and learning.

Mutual influence and co-construction are possible to the extent that participants in the

collaboration bring autonomous, self-defined views to the joint work.

Following are ways in which this pattern is emerging in case organizations.

Abrasive Technology: Collaboration within and between process teams. Interactions that

produce alignment and mutual learning occur among process teams associates, between

Results

26 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

associates of different process teams, and to a smaller extent between different process

teams overall. Within process teams, associates work together to solve problems and make

decisions that affect work flow, product quality, product and process innovation, manpower

needs, and personnel problems. For example, associates often reconfigure themselves,

swapping team members among different process teams, to meet emergent manufacturing

or delivery challenges.

DriveTime: Bringing together people (physically and/or virtually) from diverse areas of the

business to work on a problem. Collaboration is a deliberate process of pulling, gathering,

and weighing candid, broad-based input to create solutions that span multiple areas as

opposed to simply representing a narrow field of expertise. Both expert and nonexpert (and

generalist) views are valued in creating fresh approaches that avoid merely adopting typical

industry practices. One set of norms that supports this kind of dialogue is around informal,

frequent, and intense conversations—managers at DriveTime are encouraged to talk

through their shared challenges with whoever has something to offer. There is relentless

alignment and coordination of work across subsystem boundaries (e.g., co-location of sales

and front-end collections, and cross-training of managers across different functions).

Formerly these functions were semi-autonomous (independent). Now, while the unique

needs and perspectives of each function are valued, each is expected to align within an

interdependent, whole system.

National Nonprofit: Meeting with large groups. Large groups are convened for information

sharing and communication. Large group retreats function as a forum for sharing stories

and surfacing issues. The national headquarters CEO has used “open mike” discussions

with over 100 people on the phone to hear about issues from affiliates. This reflects both

the “federated” structure of the broader organization and the widely espoused belief that

leadership is and should be everywhere, that everyone is or can be a leader, that empowerment

is the best process.

National Nonprofit: Setting strategy and problem solving using large, diverse groups. The

current strategy was created by convening a large, diverse team comprised of representatives

from national headquarters and the affiliates. Such groups often mix new people with

long-time organizational members to gain an additional diverse perspective. Conventions

involving people from across the affiliated organizations are used for policy creation and

enactment. Various advisory groups of affiliate CEOs are used to review and endorse ideas,

policies, and programs created at the national level. There is a strong espoused belief in the

value of bringing in diverse skills and opinions.

Wilhelmsen: Large groups working laterally across boundaries to resolve problems and to

capitalize on new opportunities. Groups often coordinate and integrate work across func27

tional boundaries. For example, a series of large meeting/working sessions (50 people)

brought together the sales and operations functions of a newly merged logistics organization

to better align the work in service of business development. A project brought finance

and operations staff together to create new processes jointly for financial forecasting that

integrated the perspectives of both functions. These are not simply cross-functional teams

brought together to work on shared problems (with team members representing different

functions), but rather teams that bring many people together across functional lines for

mutual influence and learning.

Catholic Healthcare Partners: Team-based approaches used to generate shared understanding

and coordinated work across boundaries. There are numerous examples of direction,

alignment, and commitment being created across groups within CHP by people from

multiple disciplines and roles working directly with one another in a more integrated way:

hospital management and physicians working together to improve quality metrics, ER staff

and environmental services staff working together to resolve problems in the emergency

room, home office and front-line employees working together to improve aspects of the

medication event reporting system. Team-based approaches are also increasingly used in

direct delivery of care to patients and services to clients. CHP has been experimenting with

ways to create and support these team-based approaches to patient care. For example, they

have piloted a new heart-failure patient advocate role—a role that serves to strengthen the

interaction and alignment among the various healthcare providers working with each heartfailure

patient, thus providing more integrated and effective care to these patients. The

advocates act as a catalyst for integration—using education, role modeling, advising, and

creating settings for dialogue—rather than as a coordinator or formal authority directing the

integration.

Resources for Human Development: Participative decision making. Decision making is

public, participative, and as close to the needs of the consumer as possible. There is a deep

reluctance to impose decisions outside of having reached a consensus. A variety of forums

are in place to invite, capture, and engage employee perspectives. Information of all kinds

is freely exchanged. This type of decision-making environment serves a number of purposes.

First, it encourages each person to have or develop a strong voice and to express an

individualized (independent) perspective—something that invites further development for

many employees. Secondly, the norms around participative decision making provide

venues for productive debate and conflict among the “many right paths” encouraged by the

RHD values. Thus the form of consensus produced is the kind produced by robust dialogue

among independent viewpoints, rather than group-think or mere acquiescence.

Results

28 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

9. Dealing with Differences and Conflict

The interdependent pattern is as follows: Differences in perspectives among employees and

among organizational groups—and the resulting conflict these differences often produce—is seen

as normal and useful. Openly expressing viewpoints and exploring them through dialogue is

encouraged and serves as a foundation for collaborating effectively across boundaries. The

leveling of status and authority in the organization encourages more open dialogue.

Following are ways in which this pattern is emerging in the case organizations.

Abrasive Technology: Conflicts dealt with by teams. Differences and interpersonal conflicts

within and across process teams are the responsibility of the process teams to deal with,

since in the process-centered organization there are no supervisors in a traditional sense

from whom to seek conflict resolution. Coaches also play a critical role here. As one

example, a coach described a problem he’d dealt with recently in the machining process. A

relatively new hire had shown dependability problems (showing up late, not showing up).

The process team called attention to this individual’s behavior, noting that his behavior was

adversely affecting the process and the team (and machining teams on other shifts as well).

The process engineer and coach met with the individual, and the team members collectively

confronted the individual. Despite this, the individual continued to show deficient behavior,

and on the recommendation of the process team, was let go by the human resources team.

But the problem was identified by the team as a whole, noting adverse impact on the team

as a team.

DriveTime: Facilitating conflicts and difficult conversations. Recent training at DriveTime

has focused on proactively engaging in “difficult conversations” that bring to the surface

conflicts of various kinds. A number of managers have actively been practicing conflict

resolution, and giving and getting difficult feedback, as part of their leadership responsibility.

A related norm expressed by the CEO is to “seek meaning, not harmony or happiness.”

Another related norm is to name and value mistakes and failures as a requisite part of

individual and collective learning.

Catholic Healthcare Partners: Engaging in difficult conversations. There is recognition at

CHP that to meet client needs, solve difficult problems, and create a positive work environment,

employees (and doctors) need to engage in open and honest dialogue with one

another. Such dialogue gets more information and perspectives on the table, makes conflict

more visible and thus discussable, and enhances shared learning. Engaging in difficult

conversations is supported through training and development for employees (e.g., programs

for developing the capability to engage in “crucial conversations,” training for facilitators

of cross-regional committees).

Resources for Human Development: Constructive, active engagement of conflict and

differences in perspective. Practically every meeting can serve as a forum for airing difference

and practicing respectful dissent. Formal support is in place for escalated conflict,

such as the Citizen’s Advocate role, in which advocates in each unit are trained to mediate

worker grievances with management from an RHD-values perspective.

Resources for Human Development: Question authority. RHD uses the phrase (and lapel

button) “question authority” to stand for a strongly held principle: that authority should be

leveled (particularly with respect to its potential abuses) within the organization. The

authority of the CEO and the senior team is open to questions and challenges from literally

anyone in the organization. Questioning authority is seen not as an act that produces conflict,

but that surfaces differences and produces dialogue.

Resources for Human Development: Open dialogue. Interactions tend to be open, peer-like,

and inclusive. There are few space dividers in the open floor plan of the home office.

Meetings are “circle oriented” and dialogical, with open agendas. Facilitators for meetings

are always available as needed. Emergent consensus is the goal.

Resources for Human Development: Equality of all people. The dignity of each person and

the equality of all people in the organization are affirmed. The principle of “role” is subordinate

to the principle of “equality.” This supports fluidity of relationships across boundaries

and the softening of hierarchy. Interdependence is thus made possible when strong,

equal, independent people are able to collaborate freely without the distorting effects of

strong hierarchy and rigid roles.

10. Facilitating Organizational Change and Adaptation

The interdependent pattern is as follows: The organization is intentionally engaged in change and

adaptation in relation to the larger system of which it is a part. Experimentation with new approaches

is encouraged in all parts of the system with the expectation that learning will be

broadly shared throughout the system. Organizational roles are flexible and evolve as needed in

the larger system. Individuals and the collective are experienced as linked in mutual development.

Learning is focused on producing collective competence and system effectiveness.

Following are ways in which this pattern is emerging in the case organizations.

Abrasive Technology: Some process engineers understand their role/identities flexibly.

Although the process engineer role is designed to make the process engineer an active and

co-equal member of the process team, there are times when it is more effective for the

Results

30 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

process overall if the process engineer temporarily acts as a supervisor. This can happen

around some personnel issues and when the process engineer has information that cannot

be widely shared. At other times the process engineer may take on an advisory role (as

when the team brings a problem it cannot solve alone). There are also times when the

process engineer takes on a teaching role (such as clarifying aspects of the process-centered

organization). The ability to negotiate roles that span “authority over” and “equality with”

supports the leveling of status and authority.

DriveTime: Experimentation, prototyping, and piloting as an approach to work. DriveTime

is acutely aware that norms in the used-car industry run counter to its own values and

practices. Thus DriveTime strives to conceive and test new approaches as experiments

rather than as imposed formal systems. Prototyping and piloting of new approaches is seen

as a way to cut past conceptual disagreements by creating empirical facts for shared

exploration.

DriveTime: Managers create their roles in relation to the work as a whole. Many middleto-

upper managerial roles are not defined in advance. Everyone takes on roles besides his

or her official roles. For example, the VP of Legal Affairs is working closely with IT

project development and also writes a Culture Column in the organizational newsletter.

Everyone is expected to look out for the system as a whole and not be constrained by

functional boundaries. Typically this involves mutual adjustment with other managers in

organizing around the work itself rather than according to role definitions. For example, a

recent initiative to scope out and create a lifetime warranty was staffed and vetted by a

diverse and changing selection of managers, including general managers, strategists, senior

team members, and financial specialists.

DriveTime: The explicit corporate goal of system-wide interdependence is based on transforming

the culture through various learning opportunities. New beliefs and values are

promoted as being even more important than new required skills. DriveTime is constantly

looking for ways to develop people in line with the new culture, from on-the-job coaching

to formal training programs to the way national meetings are conducted. Deep personal

insight, awareness, and self-change is seen as one key to the culture change process; a high

degree of developmental maturity is viewed as necessary to engage fully with others in an

interdependent way. For example, DriveTime has a process called Road Trips, a weekly

action learning session in which all employees in a dealership participate, looking at how

all the various pieces of the corporate system work together in producing value for

DriveTime and its customers. Another example is a senior role called Strategist, which is

explicitly developmental. Strategist is a unique role in DriveTime to support the development

of new business practices simultaneously with the development of the new culture.

Strategists work within regions and travel among the dealerships as agents of corporate best

practices, innovation, and culture change. Initially, the Strategist role was not effective

because strategists often became mired in problem solving instead of supporting strategy

and development. Collective learning about how to enact as well as change the role over

time has helped more strategists to be more effective in the desired ways. In particular,

senior management framed “failure” in this role as something to be expected and actually

embraced in service of rapid learning. One strategist who failed (this is the word they use

publicly in their learning debriefs) was supported in growing from the experience, encouraged

forward, reassigned to a different function, is now back in the Strategist role with a

deeper foundation, and is doing very well.

National Nonprofit: Inclusive strategic planning process. The organization’s CEO and its

senior leadership team have worked with a number of consultants to develop highly inclusive

processes for creating and implementing strategy. This resulted in a strategic planning

process which involved getting people across the National Nonprofit affiliates involved in

the planning and research about where they needed to head in the future. An invitation was

extended to people (affiliate board chairs and CEOs, national board members, and national

staff) to participate in the development of a core business strategy. All of these people were

then assigned to core business strategy teams. Each of the teams was given an aspect of the

core business strategy on which to work. The teams did research, gathered information for

study, and shared information with the other teams. The teams worked individually and

were then brought together at key points throughout the process. The shared information

was analyzed in the larger group (all the teams working together). This happened over an

18-month period. A culture of responsibility, risk taking, and collaboration is seen by the

senior team as key to organizational transformation and success.

Catholic Healthcare Partners: Developmental interventions as central to organizational

change initiatives. There is recognition within CHP that alignment and commitment for

new organizational directions requires developmental shifts in employees’ capabilities and

perspectives and in the ways they work together. This has led to investment in long-term

developmental interventions that support organizational change initiatives. For example, a

two-year regional change initiative to improve patient satisfaction scores by increasing

prioritization, alignment, and accountability in the organization included ongoing individual

and team development. Efforts to create a culture of patient safety include programs

to enhance the dialogue skills of healthcare providers who often have to work in teams to

deliver patient care.

Resources for Human Development: Creative risk taking and experimentation. Employees

are encouraged (e.g., via guidelines, and explicit training) to experiment, innovate, take

risks. Creativity is fostered by the values, by training, and by examples across RHD’s

history. An incubator program nurtures fledgling human services entrepreneurs. RHD

Results

32 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

regularly works with external partners to develop new funding sources, programs, and work

processes. For-profit businesses have been created by RHD to take advantage of potential

synergies among services and needs. The “closed pharmacy,” for example, is a newly

created for-profit business serving the special pharmacy needs of RHD’s residential units

while also serving similar needs for other human service agencies.

Resources for Human Development: Aligning around the work itself. RHD relies on creative

action of individual units and widespread collaboration to foster growth and new

directions. Alignment arises out of the practical demands of the actual work being done,

requiring constant formation and reformation and some chaos and ambiguity; boundary

crossing is expected and encouraged. For example, a program takeover (from another

service provider) on a short time frame required a large amount of flexibility and volunteering

within a trusting set of relationships.

Resources for Human Development: Values-based personal and organizational development.

RHD has a consistently strong learning intentionality: learning from others, from

daily work, from tension/polarities, and from mistakes. Debriefing of critical incidents is

common. For example, the Citizen Advocate role is meant to shift what might normally be

grievances by workers with management into situations where all parties and their constituencies

can learn from difficult situations.

B. Interdependent Leadership Cultures and Practices: Survey Data

Two sections of the organizational survey generated data about leadership cultures and practices

in the case study organizations (see Appendix B for a copy of the survey).

Survey Section 2

In Section 2 (the Culture Evaluation Tool), respondents reviewed sets of three statements.

They were asked to divide ten points among the three statements to show how relatively true the

statements were about their organization (more points equal more true). One statement was

indicative of an interdependent culture, one was indicative of an independent culture, and one

was indicative of a dependent culture. The section consisted of ten sets of triplet statements.

The average number of points given to each statement in each of the five organizations that

distributed the survey (labeled A, B, C, D, and E) are shown in Table 2 (see pages 34–36). The

first statement in each triplet is the interdependent statement, the second is the independent, and

the last is the dependent statement. Sample sizes varied by organization and are noted at the top

of the table. We are intentionally not identifying organizations in this section to keep each

organization’s survey results confidential.

For each triplet, if one or two of the statements were given more points than the other

statement(s) (operationally defined as more than one-half point difference in the averages), then

the average is in bold. The triplets are grouped according to the three frames of interdependent

logic (i.e., the primary frame reflected in the interdependent item in the triplet): intersystemic

framing, dialectical framing, and transformational framing.

The data in Table 2 show that in each triplet, all three statements were endorsed to some

degree in each organization. However, different patterns of endorsement can be seen in different

organizations. For example, in organization A respondents gave more weight to the interdependent

statements in five of the ten triplets, in organization B respondents gave more weight to the

dependent statements in nine of the ten triplets, and in organization D responses varied more by

triplet.

Only two of the interdependent statements were endorsed more strongly (than the other

statements in their triplets) by three or more of the organizations: “A person’s success is judged

by how well he or she helps the entire organization work together as an integrated whole,” and

“Leaders practice continuous transformation to achieve long-term success.”

Looking at the pattern of responses by the three interdependent frames, we see a tendency

to more endorsement of the interdependent statements reflecting intersystemic framing. None of

the interdependent statements reflecting dialectical framing received strong endorsement; the

dependent statements in these triplets were most strongly endorsed across organizations. For

three of the triplets with interdependent statements reflecting transformational framing, the

independent alternative was more strongly endorsed across organizations. These results suggest

that the three frames are somewhat distinct aspects of an interdependent logic. The results also

suggest two hypotheses worth further exploration: (1) Intersystemic framing may be the first

aspect of an interdependent logic to emerge in organizations; (2) Dialectical framing of conflicts

may be the most challenging and therefore the last aspect of interdependent logic to emerge in

organizations.

It is important in looking at the survey results to remember to interpret them with caution

since these measures are under development and thus contain items that need further refinement

and require further psychometric evaluation.

Results

34 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

(n=53)

4.32

3.02

2.96

4.57

3.08

2.54

3.67

3.45

3.49

Organization

(n=99)

2.12

2.76

5.02

2.01

3.69

4.24

2.12

2.61

5.27

(n=128)

3.83

2.22

3.92

3.67

2.50

3.83

3.54

3.50

2.85

(n=224)

3.40

2.64

4.03

3.22

3.34

3.52

3.44

3.56

3.08

(n=286)

3.29

2.73

3.98

3.01

2.40

4.59

3.30

3.31

3.39

Decision making involves collaboration

with people across multiple

organizational boundaries.

Decisions are made independently

within businesses, functions, or

groups.

Decisions are made by a few people

at the top of the organization.

During times of change, people use

diverse perspectives to create new

directions together.

During times of change, individuals

and groups create their own

direction.

During times of change, people take

direction from above.

Decisions made by senior leaders

create strategic synergies across the

whole enterprise.

Decisions made by senior leaders

proactively address needs in specific

parts of the organization.

Decisions made by senior leaders

are typically reactive and tactical.

Table 2

Average Number of Points (out of 10) Given to Each Statement

(Note: First statement in each triplet is interdependent, second is independent, third is dependent)

Interdependent Statement Reflects Intersystemic Framing

Decision Making

Direction During Change

Executive Decisions

4.98

2.61

3.17

3.75

3.80

3.18

1.35

5.51

4.58

3.41

2.77

2.12

2.67

5.11

1.51

2.60

5.89

2.03

3.30

4.60

2.96

2.17

4.82

4.36

2.72

2.80

2.91

3.20

3.91

2.48

3.10

4.26

5.31

2.63

2.02

4.62

3.06

2.43

2.55

3.21

4.35

3.00

2.68

4.35

4.67

2.55

2.86

2.98

3.60

3.42

3.01

2.92

4.07

2.82

2.90

4.28

3.73

2.46

3.81

A person’s success is judged by how

well he or she helps the entire

organization work together as an

integrated whole.

A person’s success is judged by how

well he or she makes his or her

individual performance goals.

A person’s success is judged by how

well the person’s boss thinks he or

she is doing.

People take advantage of disagreements

to solve complex challenges.

People openly disagree and argue

about things they believe are

important.

People want to keep the peace and

not make disruptions.

People value public truth-telling.

People value competitiveness.

People value loyalty.

Leaders practice continuous transformation

to achieve long-term

success.

Leaders take significant risks for

significant rewards.

Leaders are fairly conservative in

their approach to change.

Measure of Success

Interdependent Statement Reflects Dialectical Framing

Disagreements

Values

Results

Interdependent Statement Reflects Transformational Framing

Leaders’ Approach to Change

36 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

3.98

3.96

2.27

2.64

2.77

3.88

2.98

4.33

3.20

1.82

2.31

5.74

2.01

6.18

1.80

1.10

2.63

6.26

3.60

3.75

2.57

2.86

3.40

3.69

3.10

3.79

3.13

3.63

4.06

2.40

2.73

3.62

3.70

2.63

4.32

3.07

2.70

3.98

3.32

2.30

4.41

3.26

2.43

3.44

4.11

What makes a person important

is the way he or she learns and

changes with others.

What makes a person important

is his or her job performance and

results.

What makes a person important

is his or her position in the

organization.

People take responsibility for one

another’s learning.

People are responsible for their own

learning.

The organization is responsible for

identifying what people need to

learn.

People talk about their mistakes

with everyone as a way to help

everyone do better throughout the

organization.

People talk about their mistakes

with people in their group because

doing so helps improve the group’s

performance.

People do not talk about their

mistakes because it might risk their

future in the organization.

Source of Status

Responsibility for Learning

Mistakes

Table 2 (continued)

Survey Section 3

In Section 3 of the organizational survey, respondents indicated whether each of 12 practices

were regularly done in their organization, and if so, to give an example of how they were

regularly done. Although this list of practices was generated from our original telltale signs for

screening organizations for the study (see Appendix A), we did not expect yes/no responses to be

a strong indicator of interdependent practices. Rather we hoped that this section would generate

examples of practices, many of which would be more interdependent.

Table 3 (page 38) shows the percentage of survey participants in each organization who

indicated that the organization did regularly engage in each practice. The practices are organized

by the three interdependent frames: intersystemic, dialectical, and transformational.

Again, different patterns of responses can be seen in different organizations. However,

across organizations, the practices we associated with transformational framing were more

strongly endorsed (compared to those associated with intersystemic and dialectical framing).

Although a majority of respondents in four of the organizations indicated the presence of

many of these practices in their organization, most of the examples provided would not be

considered an interdependent practice. For example, respondents who said “yes” to “we treat

people outside our organization like part of the team,” provided examples of treating people

outside the organization with respect, allowing them access to facilities, educating them about the

organization and how it operates, and asking for their input. None of these practices require an

interdependent perspective. Some of the examples provided by respondents (e.g., jointly working

on solutions together, including outsiders on internal teams and committees) are potentially more

interdependent, but rarely were there enough details provided to make such a judgment. One

conclusion is that endorsement of these items is not a particularly good indicator of the presence

of interdependent practices in organizations.

C. Antecedents and Outcomes of Interdependent Leadership Cultures and Practices

From our interviews in the case study organizations, we learned about some of the factors that

influenced the emergence of more interdependent leadership cultures and practices in these

organizations. Because each organization’s path is somewhat unique, we provide a description of

what we understand about the antecedents of interdependence in each organization.

Abrasive Technology

When the current business owner bought out his former partners, he wanted to address

several challenges. First, he was looking to create an environment where people were comfortable,

enjoyed their work, and had fun. Second, he believed there had to be a better way to organize

and manage work. As he began to read about various theories of organizing in the manufacturing

industry, he began to search for a vision and structure for a new kind of organization. One

book he read struck a chord with him. It described how to organize around work processes rather

Results

38 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

Table 3

Percentage of Survey Participants Who Indicated That the

Organization Regularly Engaged in These Practices

(n=286)

(n=224)

(n=128)

(n=99)

(n=53)

Organization

We treat people outside our organization like part

of our team, such as suppliers, distributors,

government, customers, or other organizations.

Nearly everyone helps create the organizational

mission, vision, and strategy.

We make decisions by involving people from

different parts of the organization.

Managers and workers treat each other as if they

are equals.

We work together, sometimes across the whole

organization, to produce new products and

services.

We talk openly and honestly with people outside

the organization, even with some people who

disagree with the way we do things.

We treat disagreements and conflicts as a chance

to learn and make better decisions.

We make it safe for people to tell the truth.

We have ways of getting important feedback to

individuals.

We have ways to save and share our knowledge.

We help each other learn.

We take time to feel proud of our strengths as an

organization.

60%

52%

60%

52%

51%

35%

27%

44%

24%

38%

80%

63%

66%

58%

52%

58%

42%

58%

48%

65%

69%

45%

64%

62%

TRANSFORMATIONAL FRAMING

DIALECTICAL FRAMING

INTERSYSTEMIC FRAMING

53%

60%

59%

23%

22%

23%

57%

65%

62%

40%

51%

53%

61%

51%

66%

67%

76%

72%

56%

27%

35%

60%

73%

86%

79%

64%

69%

75%

67%

71%

64%

70%

71%

than a traditional hierarchy of departments and functions. He decided that he would reinvent the

organization along these process-centered lines. His main reason for doing this was, as he put it,

“to create the kind of organization I wanted to work in,” an organization in which people were

treated with respect as fully contributing colleagues. But instead of taking the popular advice of

process reengineering the enterprise, he decided to focus on improving the process teams first

and then move toward enterprise-wide improvement, launching the new initiative in 2001.

This “process-centered” organization also called for the end of traditional supervisory and

managerial roles. New, nontitled roles were created around tasks to be performed. All employees

were assigned a process, and each process had a continual improvement process engineer and

coach to assist them with the work and their development. Individuals were no longer thought of

as employees but as associates with full responsibility for managing themselves and their work in

collaboration with the process coach and other process members. Perhaps the most challenging

change was for associates to work for the customer through the value-chain process rather than to

work for a traditional supervisor.

For a number of years, the business owner was the driving force behind the transformation.

He constantly worked to instill in people the new ways. He worked with consultants to educate

himself; with the strategy process team; with the process engineers and coaches; and with all the

associates in the values, behaviors, and even the language of the newly emerging organization.

Some people took to it immediately. Some people did not see the value in it for them, and they

eventually left the organization. They have been replaced by new associates hired with the

process-centered organization culture in mind. It has been a long developmental process that is

just beginning to yield the expected benefits to the organization.

DriveTime

The CEO at DriveTime has a strong mandate from private ownership to reinvent the

organization. This is not seen as a quick turnaround venture. Thus the CEO has some of the

characteristics of a founder and entrepreneur rather than a short-term CEO. The CEO came with a

unique vision about the reinvention of DriveTime, and there was strong resonance with this

vision from the rest of the top team. The vision combined strong business practices in value chain

integration with strong social values and ethical practices. DriveTime’s industry as a whole

lagged behind in both of these arenas. Combining these strengths was seen as a way to leapfrog

their competitors while having DriveTime be a good, attractive place to work (also rare in the

industry).

Culture development has been an explicit strategy for pursuing the vision. The nature of the

new culture was not determined at the outset. Rather it evolved through inquiry among the top

team and expanded to include others. Attrition and selection further strengthened shared commitment

to the new culture (i.e., people not attracted to the new culture left, and people attracted to it

came onboard).

One aspect of the new culture is an emphasis on experimentation, prototyping, and smart

risk taking. These act as a self-catalyzing set of norms for the emergence of interdependence; in

Results

40 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

other words, engaging in continuous learning promotes development. In DriveTime, there is also

a foundation of independent logics governing semi-autonomous functions. Although this foundation

is inconsistent and still developing, it is providing a platform from which interdependence

can develop.

Also important is that the CEO conducts himself according to an interdependent logic,

allowing those around him to “stand up” to their own highest level of development (we return to

this notion of “headroom” for development in the Conclusion section).

National Nonprofit

The move toward interdependent leadership practices at National Nonprofit has been

primarily motivated by a recent decline in its membership and the need to work in new ways to

keep the mission relevant to its members and to position the organization as the best development

program for its membership population group. This development has also been supported and

made possible by the organization’s CEO and its senior leadership team, who have worked with a

number of consultants to develop highly inclusive processes for creating and implementing

strategy.

The strategic planning process helped the organization know what to do to position the

organization for the future: to make National Nonprofit sustainable, to make sure the brand is

appropriate, and to ensure that governance and organizational systems align at national and local

levels. The result was a clear picture of where the organization was now and where it wanted to

be in the future. Teams were created to come up with ways to close the gap between the current

state and the desired future. The “gap teams” were assigned according to the five strategic priorities

for National Nonprofit—organizational structure and governance, National Nonprofit brand,

funding, volunteerism, and programs—which were approved by the national board of directors.

This was an unprecedented inclusion in the strategic planning process. As one informant

put it, some of the gap teams “struggled a little bit because people get used to doing things a

certain way. This was a huge change from the normal process. It required people to think differently

about what National Nonprofit could be in the future.” Such different thinking involves a

fundamental change in culture, including perhaps movement toward more interdependent leadership

practices on a day-to-day basis.

As of now, this developmental process is just getting underway. The transition from the

traditional ways of working is difficult, and some employees in the headquarters operation are

experiencing stress and confusion with respect to new norms and expectations. The senior

leadership team and the CEO, however, are committed to continued learning and development.

Wilhelmsen

The CEO at Wilhelmsen was the main catalyst for articulating and reinforcing the organizational

values of stewardship, learning and innovation, teaming and collaboration, empowerment,

and being customer-centered. He believes that an organization that lives these values will be

successful at its business and will effectively meet expectations of its multiple stakeholders. He

can point to experiences in former organizations and to experiences as president of one of

Wilhelmsen’s daughter companies to support this belief. Although the CEO was a main catalyst,

there are other senior managers at Wilhelmsen that share his perspective and have been active in

its refinement and further development in the organization.

The functioning of the senior team has also been influenced by external coaches who have

provided expertise and structured learning experiences to develop more open and honest dialogue

on the team.

Shipping industry dynamics have also challenged Wilhelmsen to work in more interdependent

ways. The notion of “collaborative commerce” among shipping companies has developed as

a strategy for generating efficiencies and synergies through partnerships while maintaining

individual organizational identities and control of primary resources.

Aspects of the country culture from which Wilhelmsen was founded (and where its headquarters

remain) also support some of the beliefs linked to more interdependent leadership

practices. Organizational members point to two aspects of the Norwegian culture as having a

major influence on their organizational culture: the emphasis on equality of all people, which

leads to a preference for minimal hierarchy and a reliance on lateral teamwork in the organization,

and a deep respect for the natural environment, which generates an approach to business that

values outcomes beyond the economic.

Catholic Healthcare Partners

A number of the interdependent leadership practices at CHP grew out of their use of the

federalism governance model as an organizing concept. This model was introduced at CHP by

the CEO when he came into the organization to take the top position in 1995. He believed that

this model was a good fit for the evolving dynamics in the healthcare services sector. Hospitals

and healthcare systems are consolidating into larger systems in order to create economies of

scale. At the same time, individual units in these systems need to maintain local identity and

close relationships with the local consumer and the local physician community. In other words,

differentiation and integration are needed in these increasingly larger healthcare systems. The

federalism model calls out the local/system tension and offers a way of managing it that capitalizes

on the strengths of acting from both a local and system perspective.

Senior management at CHP also sought external expertise in developing their own and the

larger organization’s capacity to function effectively in the federalism model. Working across

boundaries and managing polarities required skilled conversations and strategies for shared

learning. Expertise, coaching, and facilitated learning from external consultants (from the organizational

learning and leadership development fields) influenced the development of more interdependent

beliefs and practices.

Another influence on CHP is the increasing emphasis in its field on more integrated, teambased

approaches to healthcare service delivery. Just as the lack of teamwork among cockpit

crew members became the focus of scrutiny in the 1980s as the airline industry tackled passenger

safety issues, the lack of teamwork in operating rooms, emergency rooms, and hospitals in

Results

42 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

general has come under scrutiny as the medical field struggles to improve patient safety. Efforts

to develop more team-based approaches that break down hierarchy, improve communication

among staff who are delivering care to patients, and emphasize shared learning across the broader

system are primarily a response to demands for better patient care but also are supported by the

demand for more cost-efficient healthcare.

Resources for Human Development

At RHD, the development of interdependence started decisively with both the founder and

the founding process of the company. Much unfolded from a strong enactment of the initial

conditions—a few simple rules and concepts plus an adept leader with a founding vision. Interdependence

especially originated in the founding values of “multiple perspectives—no one right

answer.” RHD’s norms around “creative experimentation and risk taking” are also important for

the ongoing development of interdependence. Norms of experimentation directly support continuous

organizational learning.

RHD’s development of interdependence also emerged from the intentional engagement of a

dialectic in the organization. Two points of view were deliberately named and managed: social

justice/equity and business/fiscal accountability. This was likely a unique combination in 1970,

but one seen recently in the ideas of corporate social responsibility. The initial vision was explicitly

radically different from most of the rest of the field. There was a sense that nobody else was

really doing it this way, even though the business case for being different was strong.

RHD developed an independent mode fairly early in its life. Each program and each group

of programs formed a strong system. Behind that was a well-run fiscal management system. Thus

some requisite degree of independent logics matured strongly and early—setting the foundation

for the development of interdependence. Note that this competence in systemic business operations

is not the norm for the social services field, which tends toward bureaucracy and inefficiencies.

Also supporting the requisite degree of independent logics was the movement from an initial

concentration of power within the founder and his peers to authority being delegated out into the

operations.

Finally, the practical and legal realities of RHD’s business are well served by an interdependent

culture. For example, RHD has to work in collaboration with multiple outside entities

(funding sources, regulatory agencies) in order to serve its customers.

Antecedent Themes across Organizations

Although each organization has a unique story to tell, in the following, some themes can be

noted across multiple stories (although not necessarily all the stories).

• The top executive in each of these organizations played a central role in the organizations’

movement toward more interdependent practices. Often the executives had a vision

of “a different kind of organization” in which certain social values would be a driver. In

several cases, they were instrumental in engaging the organization in recognizing and

managing an organizational tension.

• Senior teams played active roles in the change process.

• Organizational members who were not onboard with the changes left, and new members

who were attracted to the changes joined the organization.

• External experts and consultants further stimulated and facilitated development.

• New practices were needed to be successful in the organization’s industry. There was an

explicit desire to be different from the industry norms.

• There was a leveling of hierarchical status differences and a sense of equality in the

organization.

• A strong foundation of independence supported movement toward interdependence.

Outcome Themes across Organizations

Given our research design (i.e., exploratory, cross-sectional case studies in a limited number

of organizations), it is much more difficult for us to clearly assess the organizational outcomes

(such as financial performance, goal attainment, growth, stakeholder satisfaction) that can

be attributed to interdependent leadership cultures and practices. Leadership cultures and practices

are factors that influence organizational outcomes. And since dependent, independent, and

interdependent beliefs and practices were all operating in the case study organizations, it is

difficult to disentangle the effects of each.

However, in interviews with organizational members, we often did hear their perspectives

on the outcomes produced by specific interdependent practices. For example, at ATI, what was

the impact of changing to a process-centered organization? At CHP, what changes are being

brought about as a result of EMT committees? At RHD, what impact does its compensation

practices have? The following two interrelated types of outcomes stand out.

• Organizational learning. A number of the interdependent practices fostered organizational

learning. More people had access to more information; more shared sense-making

was created; improvements to systems and processes were generated; new solutions were

created; organizational change was facilitated.

• Enhanced organizational capabilities. We also saw examples of how interdependent

practices contributed to enhanced organizational capabilities. Examples include RHD’s

ability to turn around underperforming, newly acquired units; DriveTime’s new corporate

identity that has at least partly overcome its former negative brand identity; CHP’s

improved ability to address patient safety problems.

We should also note that interdependent cultures and practices created challenges for the

organizations. Some organizational members did not see why a particular practice was necessary

or beneficial. Sometimes the practices were seen as too messy, too chaotic, too complex, or a

duplication of effort. Organizational members sometimes did not have the skills or perspective to

participate effectively in a practice or saw the practice as an abdication of leadership on the part

of senior managers.

Results

44 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

Survey Section 1

One outcome that we intentionally collected survey data about was the degree to which

organizational members experienced direction, alignment, and commitment (DAC) within their

organizations. This was an important outcome for us to examine given our view of leadership as

a social process that produces direction, alignment, and commitment in collectives with shared

work. As part of the organizational survey (Section 1), we asked respondents to indicate how

much they agreed or disagreed (on a 6-point scale with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 6

indicating strong agreement) with each of a set of items designed to assess DAC in the organization.

Average DAC scores for each organization are shown in the table below (more detailed

item-level results are shown in Appendix C).

DAC scores in four of the organizations are moderately high and similar across the organizations.

Scores in organization B are significantly lower than those in the other organizations.

Table 4

Degree to Which Organizational Members Experienced DAC

(n=286)

Mean (SD)

4.47 (.73)

4.29 (.73)

4.52 (.73)

Organization

(n=224)

Mean (SD)

4.38 (.75)

4.27 (.75)

4.16 (.85)

(n=128)

Mean (SD)

4.64 (.84)

4.50 (.77)

4.56 (.80)

(n=99)

Mean (SD)

3.13 (1.22)

2.95 (1.16)

3.17 (1.30)

(n=53)

Mean (SD)

4.51 (.94)

4.32 (1.02)

4.62 (.79)

Direction

Alignment

Commitment

These levels of DAC cannot be attributed directly to interdependent leadership practices,

but we did examine the relationship between the degree to which interdependent statements were

endorsed (in Section 2 of the survey described in the previous section of the results) and ratings

of DAC in the organization. The relationship was positive and statistically significant at the

individual and organizational levels. In other words, individuals who gave more points to the

interdependent statements in Section 2 also tended to rate the organization’s level of DAC higher,

and organizations with higher endorsement of the interdependent statements had higher average

DAC scores.

D. Themes from the Learning Forum

The Learning Forum was an opportunity to further explore the concept of “interdependent

leadership cultures and practices” with members of the participating organizations. Much of the

discussion during the Forum reinforced the main findings from the case study reports. However,

there were particular themes that received more attention or emphasis during the Forum, or that

we came to see more clearly.

• We heard much more about the challenges inherent in movement toward interdependent

leadership cultures and practices. Participants in the Forum were straightforward about it

being a difficult journey, saying “it’s very hard” and “some days it’s very rocky.” They

have often taken an incremental approach (“we made little changes toward the culture we

wanted”) and an experimental approach that allowed them to learn along the way (“we

began experimenting with self-directed workgroups”). Gains were experienced as fragile

with the possibility of reverting to previous practices ever present (“you have to continue

to fight for the interdependent aspects”). Among these organizations, interdependence is

still largely an aspiration. No one thought his or her organization was there yet.

• An important part of the movement toward interdependence is a strong foundation of

employees who exhibit elements of an independent logic. Some practices are aimed

directly at moving people from dependence to independence. For example, ATI got rid of

time clocks and provided attendance guidelines to employees, who were then personally

responsible for managing their time on the job. In general, the organizations encourage

employees to own their own work and to get things accomplished through influence

rather than relying primarily on directives from individuals with formal authority. More

independent individuals are better equipped to work effectively in peer contexts where

the normal leader/follower roles often don’t exist—contexts such as self-managed teams,

cross-functional project work, and communities of practice.

• Most of the organizations were deliberate about forming or maintaining a culture based in

clearly articulated values. Values served as “a common guide,” “the glue that keeps us all

on the same page.” Some values were more frequently articulated and discussed during

the Forum in relation to interdependence:

o Creating good places to work: places where people are involved, engaged, learning,

doing interesting work, being treated well by others;

o Social justice: serving people whom others won’t serve, improving the lives of people

in difficult circumstances, standing up for those who haven’t been given a voice;

o Holism: treating people as whole people (mind, body, and spirit), taking a systems view

of problems, working with the whole enterprise in mind.

Results

46 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

These values may be correlates of movement toward interdependence, but it isn’t clear

whether they should be understood as aspects of an interdependent logic, outcomes of an

interdependent logic, or aspirations that serve as fertile ground for stimulating movement

toward interdependence.

• Agility is perhaps another correlate of interdependence. These organizations are not risk

averse, they are proactive in their environments, they are “moving a little bit all the time,”

and they value quickness and flexibility.

• There was some confusion (which may be generative) about the focal term “interdependence.”

Its numerous senses often got used interchangeably in the conversation at the

Forum:

o interdependence as a mutually dependent relationship (“So the relationship has always

been interdependent with the councils.”)

o interdependence as an individual characteristic (“The CEO is interdependent.”)

o interdependence as a group characteristic (“Finance is not so interdependent.”)

o interdependence as a value or perspective (“We are striving to be in interdependent

mode. When I talk about it to others in the organization, I talk about “communication,

connectivity, collaboration—people are better able to understand these terms rather

than the term interdependent.”)

o interdependence as an organizational form or design (“A values-based organization in

which people at all levels are expected to make decisions.”)

• Participants also shared additional practices during the Forum, many of which were

consistent with the ten categories described earlier in this report. However, several of the

examples suggest that an organization’s approach to knowledge management is another

useful arena to examine for movement toward interdependence (e.g., practices that move

beyond the sharing of knowledge to the collective development of knowledge, practices

that help individuals develop a whole-system perspective on their work). For example,

ATI described its efforts to make production information available to employees in such a

way that employees didn’t focus just on individual or group productivity but also on ways

to make the throughput of the entire system better.

• The discussion also generated more questions about movement toward interdependence

in organizations:

o Is movement toward interdependence easier for some people—for example, younger

versus older employees, top-level and front-line employees versus those in the middle,

newer versus long-tenured employees?

o Can the movement toward interdependence start at any place in the organization, or

does it have to start at the top?

o Can organizations regress developmentally?

o Does interdependence go into all parts of the organization?

o Is some deep level of personal connection and intimacy required for interdependence?

Conclusions

We found evidence of interdependent leadership cultures and practices in the six organizations

we studied. At the same time, interdependent cultural beliefs and practices are not widespread in

these organizations; interdependence is not the predominant logic governing the organizations’

actions. Rather, we observed dependent, independent, and interdependent cultures and leadership

practices existing simultaneously. So we are left with the sense of interdependence being the

exception rather than the rule in these organizations.

However, in many cases, it is the interdependent leadership beliefs and practices that

appear newer, more experimental, and a change in how things have been done in the past. There

seems to be an element of pragmatism about these practices; they are used as tools when necessary

to deal more effectively with some tension or challenge in the organization. They also seem

to be crafted primarily at the top of organizations—which is not surprising given that senior

management is often responsible for dealing with major tensions or challenges and that they have

greater authority for crafting responses. Although crafted at the top, new practices can serve as a

stimulus for adoption of new behaviors and the evolution of beliefs throughout the organization.

(We should also note that more of our data were collected at the top of organizations, so the study

was likely less sensitive to practices crafted lower in the organization.)

We observed that senior management enacted interdependent leadership and was a catalyst

for organizational development by doing the following:

• Developing the capability as an executive team to operate from an interdependent

perspective;

• Designing organizational structures that encourage interaction across the enterprise,

minimize hierarchical differentiation, and engage organizational tensions;

• Supporting those structures with planning processes and lateral coordination mechanisms

that allow for direct collaboration across boundaries and that encourage joint reflection

on and integration of multiple perspectives (without coordination from above);

• Naming organizational tensions (e.g., local/system, centralization/decentralization,

multiple stakeholders) and engaging others in holding those tensions;

• Articulating strong values and norms about experimentation, collaboration, systems

thinking, equality, authority, and social responsibility;

Conclusions

48 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

• Providing systemic, long-term developmental processes that enhance the organization’s

capacity to make use of interdependent practices.

They pursued organizational change deliberately, sometimes going against the grain of the

standards of the industry. Going-against-the-grain choices were based on a shared belief (even if

only among the senior team) that a different approach is not just an option, but an imperative.

This link between how senior management enacts leadership and the ability of the organization

to develop toward more interdependent cultures and practices is consistent with research

by Rooke and Torbert (1998, 2005). They found that successful transformative change efforts in

organizations were more likely to be led by CEOs operating out of an interdependent logic.

Based on the characteristics of the interdependent practices identified in the case study

organizations’ formal structures, systems, and processes (see pages 15–24) and the interdependent

patterns in carrying out work (see pages 25–32), we can revise our original description (in

Table 1, page 3) of “interdependent leadership cultures and practices” to the following.

Interdependent leadership cultures and practices are broadly characterized by the assumption

that leadership is a collective activity that requires mutual inquiry and continuous

learning. This assumption may lead to patterns of working in an organization that make use

of (a) collaboration, mutual influence, and maximization of system effectiveness in making

decisions and solving problems, (b) dialogue to explore differences and manage conflicts,

and (c) experimentation and change processes that maximize individual and collective

learning. Other characteristics associated with interdependent systems and processes

include leveling of status and authority, valuing differences, engaging organizational

tensions, working laterally across boundaries, co-construction of solutions with multiple

stakeholder groups, and use of whole and open-system perspectives.

Interpretation through a Constructive-Developmental Lens

From a constructive-developmental perspective, we can think of the manifestation of

interdependent logics (through cultural beliefs and leadership practices) as providing “headroom”

for development in the organization. In other words, the logics provide a large enough “developmental

container” to stimulate and support the development of individuals throughout the organization

(who are at various stages of individual development) and the ongoing development of

shared beliefs and practices in the organization. For example, interdependent practices can act as

catalysts for the development of more independent logics in employees because they call for

more individual initiative and a greater sense of ownership of work (rather than looking upward

for direction or for permission to make decisions).

Another way of saying this is that interdependence appears as the highest-order logic in a

nest of logics. In this study we saw it as a “minor mode” but one that nonetheless makes a difference

because of its ability to (at least occasionally) organize, contain, or objectify the “major

mode” of independence. Thus a “more interdependent” organization is one that has a minor mode

of interdependence that nonetheless proves decisive in its ability to transcend independence in

certain situations (e.g., among the senior team). We are able to describe how this minor mode has

a major role in terms of the leadership culture and practice categories in this report.

Interdependence also acts as contraindication of dependent logics (i.e., it sends the signal

that dependence is not desired or is limited in some fundamental ways). This is why the development

of interdependent cultures and leadership practices seems to go hand in hand with developing

independent logics in those people where dependent logics have been the limiting stage. We

hypothesize that individuals who consistently experience interdependent practices as negative or

not helpful are more likely understanding leadership out of a dependent logic (see Berger &

Fitzgerald, 2002, and Kegan, 1994, for similar arguments). They see leadership as appropriately

coming from people more senior in a hierarchy, and thus might experience interdependent

practices as “no leadership at all,” that is, as an abdication of leadership on the part of senior

management. This may be most likely to occur when interdependent leadership practices are

introduced into a system that has previously been characterized by directive leadership practices

and is in the midst of other major organizational changes (reorganization, reductions in force, and

so on.).

Interdependent Leadership and Organizational Learning

Our descriptions of the various aspects of interdependent leadership cultures and practices

overlap with concepts used extensively in the learning organization literature (Senge, 1990;

Watkins & Marsick, 1993): the concepts of double-loop learning, mutual inquiry and dialogue,

systems thinking, minimization of hierarchy, collaboration, and collective learning. We have used

the lens of leadership, and others have used the lens of organizational learning and change to

examine the social processes that best equip organizations to operate effectively in increasingly

complex contexts. It is not surprising that we find ourselves focusing on some of the same

dynamics. What we think our perspective contributes is a developmental view of these dynamics.

Moving toward more interdependent social practices requires fundamental changes in the perspectives

or logics that individuals and organizations use to make sense of the world. This can

help explain why becoming a learning organization is difficult; it is not only just a matter of

becoming more aware and knowledgeable and learning new skills (which are certainly important)

but also requires letting go of current worldviews (which can be scary) and constructing new

ones (which is a gradual process). The overlap in concepts also points to the need for more crossfertilization

and collaborative work across the leadership development and organizational learning

fields.

Limitations and Future Directions

It is useful to recall that this was an exploratory study, and thus we learned a great deal

about the limits of our case study process and how to improve our methodology. For example,

our methods allowed us to identify leadership practices, yet the beliefs embedded in the culture

were more difficult to tease out. In analyzing the organizational survey, we learned that a much

Conclusions

50 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

shorter measure of DAC could be created and that some of the distinctions between interdependent,

independent, and dependent statements in Section 2 (the Culture Evaluation Tool) could be

improved. And although it made sense (given our research questions) to start this line of inquiry

by focusing on organizations that already appeared to be making use of interdependent practices,

we realize that in future phases it will be necessary to include other organizations that have not so

clearly moved toward interdependence in order to make more useful distinctions among interdependent,

independent, and dependent cultures and practices. Also, to understand leadership

cultures and practices outside of U.S.-based organizations, we need more global diversity in the

organizations we examine. Our plan in Phase 2 of this project is to streamline and improve our

methodology and increase the diversity of our sample of organizations.

We also experienced the challenge of taking descriptions of interdependent, independent,

and dependent logics derived from individual psychology and applying them at the organizational

level. We assumed a direct correspondence between the concept of interdependence as an

individual logic and interdependence as a cultural logic. Our assumption was that what characterized

an individual with an interdependent logic would also characterize a culture based on an

interdependent logic. However, an organization obviously has different system dynamics than the

intrapsychic dynamics of an individual. Individuals can be characterized as operating from a

particular place on a developmental path, and they organize prior logics from the perspective of

their current one. Organizations are made up of people using a variety of logics; thus interdependent,

independent, and dependent logics are constantly in interaction with one another—creating

a different dynamic at the organizational level. We now see that it would be useful to examine

these assumptions more carefully. Two strategies for doing this would be to (1) know something

about the individual logics in the organization (not just the logics of the senior leaders) as well as

having an understanding of its culture and practices, (2) not impose the interdependentindependent-

dependent schema on our data and look more openly at leadership cultures and

practices to see what characterizes them: the developmental sequence from least complex leadership

culture to increasingly complex cultures may not mirror the individual sequence.

As we were working on this case study project, we were also working to articulate more

clearly the theory of leadership that has been developing more broadly in our Connected Leadership

work. The current version of this theory is shown in the figure on the following page (Drath

and Associates, 2007). In this theory, we propose that leadership is known to exist or to have

occurred whenever one finds intentionally produced direction, alignment, and commitment

(DAC) among a collective with shared work. DAC is produced from social practices that are

crafted from and justified by underlying beliefs (at both the individual and collective levels). The

efficacy in producing DAC provides feedback that may cause adjustment of practices or, more

developmentally, reconsideration of beliefs. The production of DAC is a necessary (though not

sufficient) condition for achieving the longer-term purposes and goals of the collective.

The current study particularly informs the “leadership practices” construct, delineating ten

arenas of practice and the characteristics of the practices in these arenas when they are influenced

by interdependent beliefs. We also saw how a number of these practices contributed to longerterm

outcomes through organizational learning and enhancement of organizational capacity.

Individual

Leadership Beliefs

Collective

Leadership Beliefs

Leadership

Practices

Longer-Term

Outcomes

Direction,

Alignment,

Commitment

(DAC)

aaaaaa a

aaaaaaa

aaa

Conclusions

52 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

References

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills

for research and innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berger, J. G., & Fitzgerald, C. (2002). Leadership and complexity of mind: The role of executive

coaching. In C. F. Fitzgerald & J. G. Berger (Eds.), Executive coaching: Practices and perspectives

(pp. 27–58). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Beck, D. E., & Cowan, C. C. (1996). Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership, and change.

Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Drath, W., & Associates. (2007). Direction, alignment, commitment: An integrative leadership

theory. Unpublished manuscript.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

McCauley, C. D., Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J., O’Connor, P. M. G., & Baker, B. (2006). The use of

constructive-developmental theory to advance the understanding of leadership. Leadership

Quarterly, 17, 634–653.

Rooke, D., & Torbert, W. R. (1998). Organizational transformation as a function of CEO’s

developmental stage. Organization Development Journal, 16, 11–28.

Rooke, D., & Torbert, W. R. (2005). Seven transformations of leadership. Harvard Business

Review, 83(4), 66–76.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New

York: Doubleday.

Torbert, B., & Associates. (2004). Action inquiry: The secret of timely transforming leadership.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Van Velsor, E., & McCauley, C. D. (2004). Introduction: Our view of leadership development. In

C. D. McCauley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of

leadership development (2nd ed., pp. 1–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art

and science of systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S. (2007). Future Search: Common ground under complex conditions.

In P. Holman, T. Devane, & S. Cady (Eds.), The change handbook (pp. 316–330). San Francisco:

Berrett-Kohler.

Wilbur, K. (2000). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science, and

spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.

Appendix A: Call for Candidate Organizations

CENTER FOR CREATIVE LEADERSHIP

STUDY OF NEW APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP

CALL FOR CANDIDATE ORGANIZATIONS

The Center for Creative Leadership is seeking organizations to participate in a study of new

approaches to leadership. Our goal is to develop case studies of the leadership culture and leadership

practices in approximately ten organizations that we have reason to believe are practicing

leadership that is more inclusive, boundary-spanning, and learning-oriented. These case studies

will serve as a resource for CCL presentations, publications, funding proposals, and the design of

future research.

The key word is “practicing.” We know many organizations aspire to approach leadership in new

ways. We are looking for organizations that have actually begun to figure out how. We think such

organizations would bear certain telltale signs. These signs are described in detail below.

The benefits of participating in the study to the organization include an opportunity to do the

following:

☛Engage in reflection and self-study, guided by informed external observers;

☛Increase awareness of and insight about its leadership culture and practices and those of

other organizations in the study.

The study is expected to run for approximately six months, with a target completion in June

2006. The study involves the following four phases:

1. Context Setting: Review of key organizational documents (e.g., mission and vision

statements, strategic goals) and interview of a few senior-level executives.

2. Data Gathering: Launch an electronic survey with a cross-section of employees and

conduct in-depth interviews with ten employees.

3. Dialogue Groups: Based on the results of phases Phases 1 and 2, facilitate dialogue on

the core themes.

4. Feedback to the Organization: Develop a report of the overall findings and facilitate

discussion of the findings with appropriate internal stakeholders.

54 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

Signs of New Approaches to Leadership

In general, we think the signs indicating leadership is being practiced in new ways fall into three

broad categories: intersystemic, dialectical, and transformational.

(1) Intersystemic framing means seeing the organization and its environment as a product of the

interaction of systems. Thus, in general, organizations using this frame value the interaction

among various people, functions, and constituencies as sources of identity and knowledge.

In organizations demonstrating this kind of framing, we should be able to observe some of the

following:

☛partnering and knowledge sharing with suppliers, distributors, customers, unions, and

other constituencies

☛inclusive and widely shared reflection about organizational mission

☛getting multiple constituents together for dialogue

☛fully engaged participation in strategic planning processes at all levels of the

organization

☛organizational commitment to the “triple bottom line” (accountability for economic,

social, environmental outcomes)

☛direct horizontal coordination between and among functions, such as through crossfunctional

agreements, “work-out” processes, and so forth

☛intentional, ongoing conversations that skip levels and cross functional lines

☛superiors and supervisors acting as collaborators and facilitators

☛a conscious leveling of status differences associated with power and position

☛decision making being carried out as closely as possible to the first-hand knowledge

affecting decisions

☛experiments with various ways of organizing authority and power, such as multiple

people in a high-power role, power-sharing with unions, or worker councils

(2) Dialectical framing means seeing how beliefs and values are always entangled with their

opposites. Thus, in general, organizations using this frame value are learning from differences

and engaging with paradoxes.

In organizations demonstrating this kind of framing, we should be able to observe some of the

following:

☛the intentional and structured use of dialogue as a key sense-making process

☛ongoing dialogue with constituents who hold perspectives that often conflict with the

organization (such as unions, regulators, investment bankers, and environmentalists)

☛the explicit use of “outsider” perspectives to create positive turbulence, such as bringing

in provocative speakers or creating out-of-the-box learning opportunities

☛processes for surfacing and making sense of contradictory or conflicting values and

perspectives within the organization

☛conflict and difference routinely used as an opportunity for learning

☛people able to act decisively while also paying attention to conflicting perspectives

☛structures and processes for engaging organizational paradoxes, such as short term and

long term; quantity and quality; action and reflection; centralization and decentralization;

productivity and learning

(3) Transformational framing means seeing the core identity, mission, and strategy of the

organization as being open to revision and change. Thus, in general, organizations using this

frame value inquire into the identity of the organization to bring about useful change.

In organizations demonstrating this kind of framing, we should be able to observe some of the

following:

☛the widespread use of “system in the room” processes such as Future Search and Open

Space

☛ongoing inquiry and continuous improvement being applied to organizational processes

and structures

☛the widespread use of Appreciative Inquiry processes

☛after-action reviews as a routine aspect of work at all levels of the organization

☛well-designed, rich, effective feedback systems and processes for individuals, groups,

units, and the organization overall

☛processes for gathering information about and inquiring into both success and failure,

treating both as opportunities for learning

☛open and honest communications to all levels and constituents about the organization,

including good news and bad

Appendix A: Call for Candidate Organizations

Appendix B: Primary Data-Collection Tools

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS

Purpose: To learn about formal organizational processes and systems that are characterized by

signs of interdependent action/logics (intersystemic, dialectic, transformational).

Who to interview: There are two types of key informants:

(1) Senior executives who can provide an overview of the philosophy and formal practices

related to (a) strategic planning (How does the organization approach issues of direction and

alignment?), (b) human resources (How does the organization approach issues of employee

commitment?), or (c) external relationship management (How does the organization manage

its boundaries? The focus here could be on customer relationships, relationships with key

partners, government relationships, and so on.).

(2) Individuals who have some organizational responsibility for particular processes/systems

that stood out as strongly interdependent in the screening phase, in gathering organizational

background data, or in key informant interviews with senior executives. For example, an

organization may be partnering with a competitor in a highly developed way or may have an

advanced “system in the room” practice or a rich horizontal feedback system.

Process

(1) Work with the organizational contact to identify from two to three senior executive (Type 1)

interviewees. These interviewees should have high-level responsibility for some aspect of

strategy development, human resource management, or external relationship management.

In making choices among potential interviewees, consider which areas may be supporting

interdependent leadership culture and practices the most, as well as practical considerations,

such as availability, depth of organizational knowledge, and communication skill.

(2) Work with the organizational contact to identify from two to three targeted process/system

(Type 2) interviewees. Note that some Type 2 interviewees may not be identified until after

the Type 1 interviews are completed. Interviewees should be highly knowledgeable about a

particular process or system that stands out as interdependent.

58 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

(3) Work with the organizational contact to clarify a process for inviting the interviewees to

participate. Even if the process starts with a more informal contact with the potential interviewee,

it should include a formal invitation to each interviewee that includes:

a. General description of study (see recruiting material).

b. What you want to interview him/her about (include a list of the major questions noted

below).

c. Confidentiality of data (although we will use descriptions and stories from the interview,

names will not be connected to these descriptions and stories).

d. Logistics (interview will be by phone and be recorded, 45 minutes needed for interview,

how the interview will be scheduled, interviewer’s contact information).

(4) Research analyst schedules interview and checks that interviewer has needed recording

equipment.

(5) Conduct interview by phone.

Interviews are semi-structured, i.e., major questions (see below) should be covered in the interview,

but probing questions are up to the interviewer (to make sure major questions are adequately

addressed or to follow a particular story line more deeply).

Interviews will be conducted by phone and will be recorded but not transcribed. The interviewer

will produce a written summary of responses to the interview questions (hence the recording to

help where notes get vague).

Interview sessions should be no longer than 45 minutes. All interviews should begin with a

reminder of the purpose of the interview and how the interview information will be captured and

handled (i.e., interview will be recorded, interviewer summarizes from notes and reviewing tape,

interviewee will get a copy of the summary and have a chance to make corrections, summaries

will be available only to the project team, descriptions and stories taken from the interview and

used in reports and publications will not have the interviewee’s name associated with it).

General structure of Type 1 interviews:

• Tell me about the organization’s approach to [strategic planning OR human resource

management OR customer relationship management . . . or substitute similar terms used

in the organization].

• What key processes are in place to support this approach?

• How was this approach developed in the organization?

• What are the advantages of this approach? Any downsides to the approach?

• What would you consider to be one of your most innovative practices related to [strategic

planning OR human resource management OR customer relationship management]?

What’s innovative about it? How well is it working?

General structure of Type 2 interviews:

• Tell me about [the process/system].

• How does it work?

• How did it come about (e.g., why was it developed, who was involved)?

• What organizational values or beliefs does it represent?

• How has the organization benefited?

• What challenges has it encountered? How has the organization dealt with these

challenges?

• What are the next steps in the development of this process/system?

(6) Write summary of interview responses (to become part of case study database).

(7) Research analyst sends summary to interviewee with note of thanks and asks interviewee to

review for accuracy. If interviewee does edit the interview summary, research analyst sends

revised interview summary to interviewer.

(8) Analyze each key informant interview, highlighting:

• Aspects of the organization’s formal processes and systems that reflect interdependent

action/logics. Describe and provide rationale for labeling this aspect as interdependent.

• Aspects of the organization’s formal processes and systems that reflect dependent or

independent action/logics. Describe and provide rationale for labeling this aspect as

dependent or independent.

• Aspects of the organization’s formal processes and systems for which it is hard to tell the

action/logic it reflects. Describe and explain why it is difficult to categorize by stage of

development.

Appendix B: Primary Data-Collection Tools

60 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

STORY-BASED INTERVIEWS

Purpose: To encourage the telling of specific and very concrete stories about how certain leadership

outcomes have been achieved in the organizational experience of the interviewee. We want

to learn about leadership practices as they have actually occurred.

Our goal for the interviews: Our goal is to learn about the interviewee’s experience in the

interviewee’s own words, using his or her own framing and concepts. We’re interested in getting

the story of what happened from the interviewee’s point of view. We’re interested in the event as

an event, not as an example of the interviewee’s thinking on leadership. These interviews are

designed to produce data at the most grounded level. This means it is important not to frame the

interviews as being about “leadership,” since this may (probably will) cause the interviewee to

frame answers in terms of his or her implicit theory of leadership (e.g., “I believe leadership is

what my boss says and does, so I should tell this as the story of what my boss did”). This would

be much too abstract for our purposes.

Process

(1) Select interviewees

a. As a group, the interviewees in an organization should represent a diagonal slice as

closely as practicable. This means including people from the top, middle, and operational

levels of the organization and from a variety of functions.

b. Interviewees must have enough tenure with the organization to be steeped in the

organization’s culture, to have a history in the organization, and to know “how things

work around here.”

c. Interviewees must be willing to be open and honest about their experiences in the

organization. They must not be worried about “saying the wrong thing.” They must trust

our guarantees of confidentiality. It will also be helpful for the interviewees to be the

kind of folks who tend to have more rather than less to say.

d. Interviewees must be willing to spend about 75 minutes being interviewed and another

60 minutes later on going over and marking their transcript. They must agree to return

the transcript to us within the time given.

e. Once all of the preceding criteria have been considered, the interviewees should be as

diverse as practicable: females and males, various ethnicities, ages, and so on.

(2) Send orientation letter to interviewees

Dear [interviewee name]

Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed by a researcher from the Center for Creative Leadership.

The purpose of this letter is to give you information about the interview process.

If the interview has not already been scheduled, it will be set up soon at a time convenient to

you. It will be conducted somewhere private where you can speak freely.

The interview will be tape recorded so that we can make a transcript. The interview itself and

the transcript will be treated with utmost confidentiality. In summarizing our research, we may

use examples and quotes from the interview, but your name will never be used.

The purpose of the interview is for us to learn in some detail about how things work in your

organization. Management of your organization has given us permission to conduct these

interviews, and management supports our overall goals. The content of your interview will be

summarized into broad themes and added in with themes from other interviews. No one from

your organization will know what you have said. You will be talking about events, stories, and

happenings that you know about directly. The interviewer will use a process that allows you to

decide what to talk about. The interviewer will simply ask questions to draw out details. It is

important that you feel confident to speak freely. There are no right or wrong answers. No

advanced preparation for the interview is needed. Just show up ready for a good conversation.

The interview itself will take about 60 to 75 minutes. Sometime after the interview, you will

receive a copy of the transcript in the mail. You will also receive instructions about how to

complete a simple task involving the transcript. This task will take about 60 minutes, and you

will be asked to return the transcript to us in a pre-paid envelope.

That’s all there is to it. If you have questions, please send e-mail to [Principle Investigator,

e-mail address]. Once again, thank you for your time and willingness to participate in this

research.

Regards,

[Principle Investigator]

Appendix B: Primary Data-Collection Tools

62 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

(3) Conduct the interview

a. Recording

The most important technical consideration in recording is eliminating background noise as

much as possible. The quieter the place the better. Listen for sounds you might not ordinarily

pay attention to, such as HVAC, traffic, machinery, and so on. Place the recorder directly in

front of the interviewee.

Remind the interviewee that you will be recording in order to make a transcript, which they

will get a copy of. Remind them that the recording and transcript will be kept in strict

confidence.

Do not start the recording until the person has finished looking through the cards and is

ready to talk. Begin the tape by saying “Today is [date.] This is [first name] and I will be

talking with [interviewee’s first name.]” This allows the transcriptionist to know who is

who.

b. Framing the interview and using the cards

Say something like: “We’re interested in certain kinds of outcomes and how they come

about in an organizational setting. We’re gathering stories of these kinds of outcomes from

several different levels and functions in the organization. The interviews will be part of the

data that will give us a picture of how people in the organization work together. Look over

these cards and choose from two to three that remind you of something that happened

recently in your organization that you were involved in. Look over all the cards before

making your choice. You can make a few notes on the chosen cards as an aid to your

memory.”

If the person wants to know what “recently” means, tell him or her within the last few

months. When the person has chosen from two to three cards, ask, “Would you like to start

with the card that seems most important to you? Just tell about what happened that made

you pick this card.” Make a note of which card is the trigger for each story.

There is a card for each of these words and phrases (that express direction, alignment, and

commitment—or the lack of direction, alignment, and commitment).

• We found our purpose.

• We faced up to our real problem.

• We did the right thing.

• We changed our direction.

• We lost our way.

• Everyone worked together.

• We all knew our roles and responsibilities.

• We saw how all the parts of the work fit together.

• We got organized.

• We felt isolated from one another.

• Everyone was pulling in a different direction.

• Everyone was motivated and inspired.

• We were committed to one another.

• Everyone was willing to take on extra work.

• Everyone felt responsible for the work.

• Everyone just wanted to know “What’s in it for me?”

c. Prompts

The prompts are aimed at drawing out details and clarification to get more depth about the

facts of the story. The key to successful prompts is to use the interviewee’s own words and

story as the basis for the prompt. Do not use inferences you are making about the story as a

source for prompts. Only probe for more information about what the interviewee has actually

said.

Example: The interviewee says, “So the decision was made to go ahead.” GOOD prompt:

“How was the decision to go ahead made?” BAD prompt: “Was this decision a turning point

for the project?” Don’t put words in the interviewee’s mouth even if everything said leads

you to believe the decision was the turning point.

Use prompts to keep the interviewee talking about concrete actual events.

Examples:

How: . . . did that happen? . . . did that work? . . . did that play out? . . .

was the decision made? . . . did you come to that process? and so on

Who: . . . was involved? . . . played a role? and so on

What: . . . was involved? . . . happened next? and so on

Why: . . . did that happen? . . . do you think?

Under what conditions . . .

GOOD general prompt: “Is there anything more to tell to round out that story?”

Appendix B: Primary Data-Collection Tools

64 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

d. Closing the interview

When the person has finished telling the story as he or she wants to tell it, it will be helpful

to our study to try to get the story into a larger context. Here are a couple of possible questions

for getting at this:

(1) “So, is the story you just told typical of the way things happen around here?”

(2) “What do you think is important about that story? What’s the 'So what?’ for you?”

When the interview is over, TURN OFF THE TAPE RECORDER. Thank the interviewees

for their time and insight. Assure them that what they had to say was interesting and useful.

Remind them that they will be receiving a copy of the transcript in from two to three weeks.

They will receive simple instructions for what to do with the transcript, and they will then be

asked to return it in a prepaid envelope. This task will take about an hour.

(4) Have the interview transcribed

On the tape, write “CL interview. [date/organization/interviewee’s name/your name].” Give

or send the tape to the research analyst who will be arranging for transcription. Once it is

transcribed, she will send it to the interviewee along with the following instructions: “Please

read over the transcript of your interview. (1) If you see any inaccuracies in the transcription,

please mark through the incorrect text and write your changes in the margins. (2) Use a

highlighter to mark any places where you see leadership happening or where you think you

were talking about leadership. After doing this, please return the marked transcript in the

enclosed prepaid envelope. Thanks again for your time and insight.”

(5) Analyze interviews

The basic approach to analysis will be exploratory. Our hypothesis about these interviews is

that, in telling stories about the kinds of outcomes represented by the cards, people will be

telling us about the kinds of processes and events that produce DAC (leadership practices).

So the first step in analysis will be to try to identify passages in which you think the interviewee

is talking about leadership practices. Each principle investigator will independently

read and identify leadership practices, and then they all together will compare what they

have identified. We will learn what we mean by leadership practices by arguing to consensus

about what should be labeled as a leadership practice.

The second step is to review what has been labeled as a leadership practice and code the

practices as primarily dependent, independent, or interdependent practices (or no code if the

practice is hard to classify). Again, each principle investigator should work independently,

then together compare codings and argue to consensus.

WALK ABOUT CULTURE TOOL

Purpose: To understand the possible forms and patterns of the organization’s culture revealed by

its artifacts, language, rituals, norms, shared meaning, and even the organization structures and

physical environment that it produces and inhabits.

Background: We will make use of the Walk About Culture Tool (developed for use in Connected

Leadership practice). This tool is intended for use within the Discovery process and is not reliant

on long-term interactions. Because the tool produces only a series of impressions derived primarily

from observations, its value is in using the data derived with multiple other data sources.

However, when feasible, it is suggested that the practitioner engage with the client (or subject of

a study) to explore the deeper meaning and beliefs underlying what is being observed.

The Walk About Culture Tool reflects an ethnographic approach to data collection. The hallmark

of ethnography is that its interpretation of what people say, do, and believe is guided by the

concept of culture. Paul Bohannon’s definition of culture is “a combination of the tools and

meanings that expand behavior, extend learning and channel choice.”† Choices made in cultures

are the mediator, or translator, that lie between beliefs and behavior. In this sense, culture is both

beyond our awareness and shapes our awareness. The organization’s particular forms of artifacts,

language, rituals, and structures are, therefore, the manifestations of those choices made in

organization cultures. These forms, when viewed dispassionately, may suggest orders or patterns

of beliefs revealed through layers of decisions made over time by the organization. Ethnographic

studies are comprised of both observation of and engagement in cultures. Observations can be

conducted at any time, but ethnographic methods of engagement usually require long-term

contact and interactions with people that build trust.

Ideally, the Walk About Culture Tool is a way of independently observing the environment

through free access to client sites. However, it can also be used in the context of other work being

conducted within an organization. Paying attention is required, in particular paying attention

from right and left modes, and including kinesthetic attention and attention to negative space.

Being fully present and dispassionate, the observer will alternate between a wide-angle lens and

the precision of a telephoto lens.

Appendix B: Primary Data-Collection Tools

†Bohannon, P. (1995). How culture works (p. 8). New York: The Free Press.

66 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

Process

(1) Observe. Outlined on page 3 are the aspects of the physical environment, cultural beliefs and

practices, and organizational structure to pay attention to. Most observation will be conducted

during visits to the organization to conduct Story-based Interviews and Dialogue

Groups. Immediately record what you see as accurately and descriptively as possible (have a

notepad with you or—if you prefer and have one—a small recorder). You can also use a

digital camera to capture aspects of the physical environment or cultural artifacts. Work with

your key contact to arrange some “free-access” time during one of these visits to extend your

observation. During on-site observation where interaction with people in the environment is

available, explore with them the meaning of what is being observed. Some cultural observations

can also be made during Key Informant phone interviews and from the documents

collected as part of gathering Organizational Background Data.

(2) Type up your observations, organizing them under the three categories of Physical Environment,

Cultural Beliefs and Practices, and Structure and Culture (see next page). (Note: We do

have some resources for transcription if you want voice-recorded observations to be transcribed.)

Walk About Culture Tool: Observations and Engagements

Physical Environment

☛ Look over the physical plants, buildings, and working environments. Pay attention to

how environments change and their relationship to each other. What is the working

space like—windows, walls, closed or open? Describe who (people from what part of

the organization) inhabits them and what activities are enacted. Do the different environments

reflect organization divisions, subcultures, or hierarchies?

☛ Look for artifacts, art, carpets/concrete, living things (sunlight, plants, and so on),

bulletin board contents, signage and slogans, recognition systems, official brochures for

sales or stakeholder reports, organization structure charts, and so on.

☛ Explore, to the degree possible, what beliefs are externalized and what are internalized.

For example, if work slogans or corporate values are prominently displayed on signs,

seek opportunities to engage people in inquiry about what is being espoused versus

what is in action.

Cultural Beliefs and Practices

☛ Describe the language—for example, usage levels of acronyms and technical, theoretical,

or philosophical grade-level of language. Explore language that seems particular to

the place.

☛ Organization philosophy—observe and look for both written and stated mission, vision,

and values of the organization; explore the stated belief systems; and engage people

where feasible in views about any gaps in stated versus enacted philosophy.

☛ Observe ritualized interactions—this can include unique shared language, conduct in

meetings, e-mail practices, levels of isolation versus interaction, use of common space,

or nature of social manners in use.

☛ Shared meaning—how is it made, practiced, renewed, and changed through recurring

patterns of behavior?

☛ Rules and norms—explore the territory of social boundary setting and maintenance by

reviewing written or expressed norms and values (stated theories), and where possible

compare these with observable patterns of behavior (theories in use).

Structure and Culture

☛ Seek artifacts that represent organizational structure such as organization charts. Note if

no such artifacts exist and what is said about finding and sharing them.

☛ Pay attention to the organizational structure as an extension of the organization’s

philosophy and beliefs—is it a logical manifest alignment to beliefs? Does it run

counter to stated philosophy and values? Is it postconventional?

Appendix B: Primary Data-Collection Tools

68 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY

Purpose: To collect data about (a) leadership outcomes in the organization (i.e., to what extent is

direction, alignment, and commitment present in the organization?), (b) leadership culture (i.e., to

what extent does the culture show signs of dependent, independent, and interdependent beliefs

and values?), and (c) leadership practices (i.e., to what extent are there interdependent leadership

practices in the organization and what do these look like?).

Sample: Our goal is a sample size of 200 from each organization (for organizations in the from

500 to 1,000 employee range, we could go as low as 150 in the sample). Respondents should

represent different levels and functions in the organization. Work with your organization contact

to determine the best strategy for obtaining an adequate sample. Factors such as typical response

rates in the organization, who sends out the survey, and how the survey is framed to respondents

will influence the number of employees needed in the original respondent pool (i.e., how many

employees are asked to complete the survey).

If you or the organization wants to do within-organization comparisons (for example, comparing

responses by organizational level), we need a minimum sample size of 30 from each subgroup in

the comparison.

Process

(1) Work with key contact to identify sample and articulate a process for administering the

survey. We prefer to administer the survey online, but can make a paper version available if

needed.

(2) Work with key contact to determine any customization parameters of the survey (what name

will be used to identify the appropriate organizational entity being rated, what would be the

appropriate response options to the “function/unit” question in Section 4).

(3) Research analyst will be responsible for setting up, launching, and monitoring the

online survey.

(4) Once the survey is “closed,” research analyst will provide summary data to the team (e.g.,

means, standard deviations, frequencies at the item level and at any relevant grouped-item

level). Teams can decide on any further analysis that they would like to have.

Organizational Survey

This survey asks you to answer some questions about [name of organization or part of organization

participating in the study]. The survey is part of a research project being conducted by the

Center for Creative Leadership (CCL), a nonprofit educational institution. The survey is divided

into four sections and should take you less than an hour to complete.

Your answers are anonymous and confidential. We will combine your answers with those from

others in the organization to produce an overall organizational profile. This will allow CCL to

learn about your organization and help your organization understand itself better.

If you have any questions about the survey or have any technical problems, please contact

[contact information].

Section 1

Answer by choosing a number from 1 to 6 that shows how much you agree or disagree that the

following sentences are true about the way things usually work in [name of organization or part

of organization participating in the study]. The words we, our, us, everyone in the sentences refer

to employees of [name of organization or part of organization participating in the study].

Appendix B: Primary Data-Collection Tools

RESPONSE OPTIONS

Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

1. Everyone understands what we are trying to accomplish.

2. We align our work.

3. We are all committed to our shared goals.

4. We hold together as a unit.

5. We are clear about what is expected of us.

6. We cooperate well with one another.

7. We stay focused on our mission.

8. We regularly achieve our shared goals.

1 2 3 4 5 6

70 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

RESPONSE OPTIONS

Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

9. We share an understanding of what organizational success looks like.

10. Our work is well organized and coordinated.

11. We can count on one another to support our goals.

12. Even when something happens that we cannot deal with effectively, we

know how to work together to face and solve the problems.

13. We have a shared vision of where we need to be in the future.

14. It is easy for us to find the important things we agree on when working

together.

15. We put our shared success above our individual success.

16. We make the process of leadership work effectively.

17. We all know what our strategy is for reaching our goals.

18. The work goals of one group rarely conflict with the goals of another

group.

19. All of us feel ownership for our collective success.

20. When we face new or different demands, we know how to change and

adjust.

21. When we make changes in one part of our work, we adjust the other

parts to bring them into alignment.

22. When our commitment gets low, we know how to get everyone

committed again.

23. Even when our direction is not completely clear, we have a way of

moving forward together.

24. When we change direction, we can adjust our work to support the new

direction.

25. When changes in our work take us in a new or different direction, we

know how to get everyone fully committed again.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Section 2

This section contains ten groups of sentences, with three sentences in each group. Your task is to

divide 10 points among the different sentences in each group. Please divide the 10 points to show

how true the sentences are about [name of organization or part of organization participating in the

study]. Giving more points to a sentence means that the sentence is more true; giving fewer

points means that the sentence is less true. Within each group of sentences, you can give any

individual sentence 0 to 10 points, but the total points for each group must equal 10 points.

Example: If one sentence in a group tells the whole truth give it 10 points and the other two

sentences 0 points; if two sentences are equally true, give each of them 5 points and the other

sentence 0 points; if all three sentences are about equally true, give one sentence 4 points and the

other two sentences 3 points each. You may divide the 10 points any way you want, but the total

for each group must equal 10 points.

1. Divide 10 points among these three sentences to show how well the sentences tell what is true

about [name of organization or part of organization participating in the study].

____ Decisions are made independently within businesses, functions, or groups.

____ Decisions are made by a few people at the top of the organization.

____ Decision making involves collaboration with people across multiple organizational

boundaries.

2. Divide 10 points among these three sentences to show how well the sentences tell what is true

about [name of organization or part of organization participating in the study].

____ What makes a person important is the way he or she learns and changes with others.

____ What makes a person important is his or her position in the organization.

____ What makes a person important is his or her job performance and results.

3. Divide 10 points among these three sentences to show how well the sentences tell what is true

about [name of organization or part of organization participating in the study].

____ A person’s success is judged by how well he or she helps the entire organization work

together as an integrated whole.

____ A person’s success is judged by how well he or she makes his or her individual performance

goals.

____ A person’s success is judged by how well the person’s boss thinks he or she is doing.

Appendix B: Primary Data-Collection Tools

72 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

4. Divide 10 points among these three sentences to show how well the sentences tell what is true

about [name of organization or part of organization participating in the study].

____ People do not talk about their mistakes because it might risk their future in the

organization.

____ People talk about their mistakes with everyone as a way to help everyone do better

throughout the organization.

____ People talk about their mistakes with people in their group because doing so helps

improve the group’s performance.

5. Divide 10 points among these three sentences to show how well the sentences tell what is true

about [name of organization or part of organization participating in the study].

____ During times of change, people use diverse perspectives to create new directions

together.

____ During times of change, people take direction from above.

____ During times of change, individuals and groups create their own direction.

6. Divide 10 points among these three sentences to show how well the sentences tell what is true

about [name of organization or part of organization participating in the study].

____ People value loyalty.

____ People value public truth-telling.

____ People value competitiveness.

7. Divide 10 points among these three sentences to show how well the sentences tell what is true

about [name of organization or part of organization participating in the study].

____ Leaders practice continuous transformation to achieve long-term success.

____ Leaders take significant risks for significant rewards.

____ Leaders are fairly conservative in their approach to change.

8. Divide 10 points among these three sentences to show how well the sentences tell what is true

about [name of organization or part of organization participating in the study].

____ The organization is responsible for identifying what people need to learn.

____ People take responsibility for one another’s learning.

____ People are responsible for their own learning.

9. Divide 10 points among these three sentences to show how well the sentences tell what is

true about [name of organization or part of organization participating in the study].

____ Decisions made by senior leaders create strategic synergies across the whole enterprise.

____ Decisions made by senior leaders are typically reactive and tactical.

____ Decisions made by senior leaders proactively address needs in specific parts of the

organization.

10. Divide 10 points among these three sentences to show how well the sentences tell what is

true about [name of organization or part of organization participating in the study].

____ People want to keep the peace and not make disruptions.

____ People openly disagree and argue about things they believe are important.

____ People take advantage of disagreements to solve complex challenges.

Section 3

The sentences in this section describe various kinds of things that are sometimes done in organizations.

Please mark “Yes” for any of them that are regularly done in [name of organization].

Please mark “No” for any of them that are not regularly done. If you mark “Yes” for any sentence,

please give a short example of how it is regularly done in [name of organization].

1. We treat people outside our organization like part of our team, such as suppliers, distributors,

government, customers, or other organizations.

___ No, not regularly done.

___ Yes, regularly done.

Appendix B: Primary Data-Collection Tools

Please give a short example of how this is regularly done.

74 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

2. Nearly everyone helps create the organizational vision, mission, and strategy.

___ No, not regularly done.

___ Yes, regularly done.

3. We make decisions by involving people from different parts of the organization.

___ No, not regularly done.

___ Yes, regularly done.

4. Managers and workers treat each other as if they are equals.

___ No, not regularly done.

___ Yes, regularly done.

5. We talk openly and honestly with people outside the organization, even with some people

who disagree with the way we do things.

___ No, not regularly done.

___ Yes, regularly done.

Please give a short example of how this is regularly done.

6. We treat disagreements and conflicts as a chance to learn and make better decisions.

___ No, not regularly done.

___ Yes, regularly done.

7. We make it safe for people to tell the truth.

___ No, not regularly done.

___ Yes, regularly done.

8. We have ways of getting important feedback to individuals and groups.

___ No, not regularly done.

___ Yes, regularly done.

9. We work together, sometimes across the whole organization, to produce new products and

services.

___ No, not regularly done.

___ Yes, regularly done.

Please give a short example of how this is regularly done.

Appendix B: Primary Data-Collection Tools

76 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

10. We take time to feel proud of our strengths as an organization.

___ No, not regularly done.

___ Yes, regularly done.

11. We have ways to save and share our knowledge.

___ No, not regularly done.

___ Yes, regularly done.

12. We help each other learn.

___ No, not regularly done.

___ Yes, regularly done.

Please give a short example of how this is regularly done.

Section 4

Please provide the following information about yourself.

1. Your age: ______ years

2. Number of years you have worked at [name of organization or part of organization participating

in the study]: ______ years

3. Your managerial level: [customized response options by organization]

4. Your organizational function/unit: [customized response options by organization]

5. Country you currently live in: __________________________________________

Appendix B: Primary Data-Collection Tools

Appendix C: Item and Scale Means and Standard Deviations for

Direction, Alignment, and Commitment

Note: Survey participants used the following response options:

1 (strongly disagree)

2 (disagree)

3 (somewhat disagree)

4 (somewhat agree)

5 (agree)

6 (strongly agree)

(n=53)

Mean (SD)

4.75 (0.94)

4.42 (1.29)

4.60 (1.13)

4.40 (1.24)

4.23 (1.10)

4.52 (1.18)

4.73 (0.97)

4.51 (0.94)

Organization

(n=99)

Mean (SD)

3.36 (1.39)

2.92 (1.39)

3.07 (1.33)

3.67 (1.51)

2.90 (1.39)

3.13 (1.24)

3.31 (1.44)

3.13 (1.22)

(n=128)

Mean (SD)

4.67 (1.19)

4.66 (1.19)

4.60 (1.17)

4.77 (1.02)

4.50 (1.13)

4.53 (0.99)

4.63 (0.94)

4.64 (0.84)

(n=224)

Mean (SD)

4.52 (0.96)

4.52 (1.01)

4.37 (1.03)

4.45 (0.98)

4.22 (1.08)

4.28 (0.99)

4.28 (0.92

4.38 (0.75)

(n=286)

Mean (SD)

4.56 (0.89)

4.48 (0.93)

4.49 (1.00)

4.56 (1.05)

4.30 (0.99)

4.41 (0.87)

4.39 (0.86)

4.47 (0.73)

Direction Items

Everyone understands what we are

trying to accomplish.

We are clear about what is expected

of us.

We share an understanding of what

organizational success looks like.

We have a shared vision of where

we need to be in the future.

We all know what our strategy is for

reaching our goals.

When we face new or different

demands, we know how to change

and adjust.

Even when our direction is not

completely clear, we have a way of

moving forward together.

Direction Scale Score

80 Interdependent Leadership in Organizations: Evidence from Six Case Studies

Note: Survey participants used the following response options:

1 (strongly disagree)

2 (disagree)

3 (somewhat disagree)

4 (somewhat agree)

5 (agree)

6 (strongly agree)

(n=53)

Mean (SD)

4.31 (1.15)

4.72 (1.06)

3.78 (1.53)

4.54 (1.11)

3.85 (1.33)

4.33 (1.18)

4.67 (1.17)

4.32 (1.02)

Organization

(n=99)

Mean (SD)

2.96 (1.44)

3.10 (1.34)

2.56 (1.37)

3.40 (1.38)

2.59 (1.34)

2.81 (1.29)

3.21 (1.30)

2.95 (1.16)

(n=128)

Mean (SD)

4.52 (1.02)

4.68 (1.08)

4.41 (1.12)

4.62 (0.92)

4.05 (1.28)

4.49 (0.95)

4.65 (0.94)

4.50 (0.77)

(n=224)

Mean (SD)

4.34 (0.89

4.33 (0.99)

4.22 (1.06)

4.41 (0.87)

3.89 (1.18)

4.25 (1.00)

4.42 (0.93)

4.27 (0.75)

(n=286)

Mean (SD)

4.35 (0.96)

4.57 (0.99)

4.15 (1.00)

4.64 (0.84)

3.77 (1.12)

4.13 (0.92)

4.39 (0.85)

4.29 (0.73)

Alignment Items

We align our work.

We cooperate well with one another.

Our work is well organized and

coordinated.

It is easy for us to find the important

things we agree on when working

together.

The work goals of one group rarely

conflict with the goals of another

group.

When we make changes in one part

of our work, we adjust the other

parts to bring them into alignment.

When we change direction, we can

adjust our work to support the new

direction.

Alignment Scale Score

Note: Survey participants used the following response options:

1 (strongly disagree)

2 (disagree)

3 (somewhat disagree)

4 (somewhat agree)

5 (agree)

6 (strongly agree)

(n=53)

Mean (SD)

4.72 (1.05

4.66 (1.02)

4.90 (0.85)

4.73 (0.95)

4.46 (1.00)

4.40 (1.03)

4.46 (1.04)

4.61 (0.79)

Organization

(n=99)

Mean (SD)

3.44 (1.42)

3.70 (1.41)

3.28 (1.32)

3.16 (1.43)

3.34 (1.44)

3.01 (1.37)

2.96 (1.38)

3.17 (1.30)

(n=128)

Mean (SD)

4.65 (1.03)

4.63 (1.11)

4.69 (1.05)

4.34 (1.19)

4.65 (1.12)

4.40 (1.10)

4.47 (1.01)

4.56 (0.80)

(n=224)

Mean (SD)

4.26 (1.11)

4.39 (0.96)

4.25 (1.04)

4.14 (1.13)

4.28 (1.10)

3.80 (1.08)

4.06 (0.98)

4.16 (0.85)

(n=286)

Mean (SD)

4.76 (0.92)

4.90 (0.89)

4.60 (0.89)

4.42 (1.14)

4.50 (1.00)

4.17 (0.91)

4.24 (0.89)

4.52 (0.73)

Commitment Items

We are all committed to our

shared goals.

We stay focused on our mission.

We can count on one another to

support our goals.

We put our shared success above

our individual success.

All of us feel ownership for our

collective success.

When our commitment gets low,

we know how to get everyone

committed again.

When changes in our work take us

in a new or different direction, we

know how to get everyone fully

committed again.

Commitment Scale Score

Appendix C: Item and Scale Means and Standard Deviations for Direction, Alignment, and Commitment

Ordering Information

To get more information, to order other CCL Press publications, or to find out

about bulk-order discounts, please contact us by phone at 336-545-2810 or

visit our online bookstore at www.ccl.org/publications.

INTERDEPENDENT LEADERSHIP IN

ORGANIZATIONS

EVIDENCE FROM SIX CASE STUDIES

In September 2005, the Connected Leadership Project Team at the Center for

Creative Leadership undertook to design and implement a case study research

project to better understand “interdependent” leadership in organizations. Our

assumption was that for organizations to deal effectively with increasing complexity

in their environments, new approaches to leadership are needed—

approaches that are themselves more complex than current approaches.

We relied on constructive-developmental theory and related frameworks

to hypothesize about these new approaches; however, there was limited research

examining organization and leadership development through a constructivedevelopmental

lens. We chose a multiple case study research strategy based on a

sample of organizations thought to exemplify interdependent leadership.

This report outlines the theoretical frameworks and the research questions

that guided our inquiry, then describes our methods and results. We conclude

with our ideas about future directions based on what we learned in this first

phase of a longer-term project.