Seeing Leadership As a System

The mental model that I use with clients to both simplify and broaden their leadership focus.

How do you know if you’re doing a good job as a leader?

Is it about pure performance? How much do other people’s opinions on your effectiveness matter? Or is it just a gut feel thing on whether you’re doing well or not? Perhaps some combination of the bunch?

What then do we do when our gut tells us to do something that will adversely affect results in the short term? And what if our people think we should do something quite different?

I encounter leaders wrestling with these questions weekly. Many wishing for a clear, concise guidebook to light a simple path forward.

But leadership is inherently complex, incredibly nuanced. The job begins in forming simplicity from this chaos.

Others mental models — like the one I’m about to show you — will take some practice to learn how to work with. Applied regularly it can reframe your entire leadership experience.

The I, WE, and IT model simplifies, but more importantly it frames leadership as a system. Each dimension interconnected. All three in an endless interplay with one another.

An example can help here…imagine that there is a shift in your strategy for the coming year (this is an IT perspective change). The change would need to be communicated to and ideally embraced by the team (WE perspective). And each individual will then have their own internal beliefs (the I perspective) form around the strategic shift.
Continuing further…that person’s beliefs will reshape how they interact with others (WE) and ultimately drive the results (IT) of the new strategic direction. Those results will then shape the future of the organization (i.e. hiring, firing, morale, funding, acquisition, IPO, etc.).

Every decision made impacts throughout the system.

And so, viewing any decision through each of the three perspectives makes it a useful tool on its own. But the real power of I — WE — IT is in the macro-view. If company building is a system of three dimensions then the job of the leader becomes quite simple: make the system more efficient, more effective.

Healthy organizations orient toward equal development across all three dimensions. One that lags means the entire system suffers.

Let me show you how…and as I do see if you can spot which dimension might be lagging for your team.

Prioritization of the I and WE dimensions at the expense of the IT results in a kumbaya around the campfire organization. There’s an unmistakable feeling of togetherness. Individuals are happy. There’s a sense that what we’re up to is important, meaningful. And yet, not much is getting done.

Process and structure are treated as inconveniences to be avoided. Any attempts at mandating them will be quickly dismissed, labelled as “bureaucratic” and antithetical to the good times we’re having.

But an underdeveloped IT, means the good times won’t last long. A lack of results and accountability makes the entire organization unsustainable. One of two paths are likely for the organization:

If any of the above rings true, a few questions to consider for prioritizing the IT:

Prioritization of the I and IT dimensions at the expense of the WE results in a “gotta get mine” culture. It’s meritocracy on steroids with each individual oriented toward their own results. Other people and their ideas are seen as an inconvenience. Collaboration is rare. Rather, every decision feels like a pitch contest to be won.

The siloing of the organization is a clear sign that the WE has being under-prioritized. Humans have a natural hunger for community. When community is lacking, people create silos to have some semblance of a tribe. You’ll see an “us vs. them” mentality sweep through the organization. This is weak, fractured culture.

Persistent communication challenges are another symptom of an undeveloped WE. Information isn’t flowing. Who owns what is often unclear. The blame game ensues.

When the WE is underdeveloped, the system as a whole eventually is impacted. Individuals grow frustrated and disillusioned by infighting. Leaders in particular will suffer as they feel the internal pressure of disconnection build. Morale drops, the company’s impact and results follow.

Questions to consider for organizations wanting to prioritize the WE:

Prioritization of the WE and IT at the expense of the I is a recipe for burnout. You fail to scale alongside the organization. The pressure builds. It feels there’s no choice but to put in more hours, more energy. The business takes over your life. You can sustain only so long.

Do you operate from a fixed or a growth mindset?

Most everyone who reads that question instantly presumes that — of course, I operate from a growth mindset. But do you really? Often the quick presumption rather than true reflection is proof that your ego is grasping at yet another way of “proving you’re smart or talented.”

It’s worth being honest here because the fixed mindset eventually catches up to you. You’ll become the bottleneck for the organization’s growth. Frustrated with your ineffectiveness, you’ll throw more energy and hours into the work to compensate. The additional effort might momentarily mask the problem, but the same problems will trip you up again and again. You’ll give more and more for the work and for the team. You defer living the life you want to a future time once you’ve “done” enough. This is the dark side of hustle culture: convincing ourselves that self-sacrifice is ok, even a necessary part of building a company.

But a leader can grind only so long before burnout. When they do, both the business (IT) and the people (WE) are left rudderless.

Questions to consider for prioritizing the I:

—

Each of the above three scenarios are quite common. And there’s also one more — especially common in high-growth startups — to be aware of: when the IT overshadows both the I and WE. The business’ success becomes paramount to all else. Any negative impact to individuals (the I) or the collective (the WE) becomes seen as perhaps unfortunate, but necessary.

The result is an obsessively outcome-focused, corporate, bureaucratic workplace. It’s business at the expense of people. Not a business worth building. There’s no soul in the IT alone.

I — WE — IT not only helps you identify weaknesses in the system but also the leadership path for addressing inefficiencies:

Healthy beats smart by creating an environment where the I, WE, and IT can collectively thrive and offers a systematized way to create a healthy, successful company. A place of work that honors who you are and how you want to live. A place of work where people feel a sense of connection, purpose, and togetherness. A place of work where the strategy, processes, and results make both the business and our world sustainable.

We need more places of work like this. I — WE — IT can guide our way.

—
Thank you to my colleague, Simon D’Arcy, for his thinking on some of the impacts of de-prioritizing dimensions of the I, WE, and IT.

Related posts:

Pada era globalisasi saat ini dimana kita hidup di masa Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi (IPTEK) mengalami perkembangan yang sangat pesat. Dalam era teknologi yang terus berkembang, pengguna gadget…

Siapa yang tidak kenal browser ini, Chrome ini memang salah satu dari yang populer, banyak pilihan lain yang tak kalah menarik tapi entah kenapa saya lebih suka menggunakan Chrome ini di ponsel dan…

I really like when the piece comes to a peak that everyone put a lot of energy into it. Compare to the peak part, I think we all need to work on the transition part especially brass. The brass might…