Research and theories of leadership development link the capacity for complex thinking to effectiveness at leading adaptive change. However, few empirical studies examine how this link operates in natural work settings, or explore its implications for practicing the kinds of leadership being called for in higher education today. In this study, I address this gap using post-positivist, ethnographic methods to examine how three higher education leaders, who are publicly recognized as effective change agents and demonstrate the capacity for complex thinking via research-validated instruments, use complex thinking to understand and lead adaptive change in natural work settings. Drawing on a conceptual framework that spans multiple theories of leadership and human development, including Torbert’s developmental action inquiry, Kegan’s subject-object theory, and Heifetz’s adaptive leadership theory, I interpret the data in the context of two research questions: (1) How, if at all, do three developmentally mature leaders in higher education use complex thinking to understand their adaptive leadership work?; and (2) How, if at all, do participants' uses of complex thinking shape their decisions and actions on the ground? I find that participating leaders use their ongoing awareness of the constructed nature of reality, combined with high attunement to convergence and divergence of local and broader situational factors, to help their communities identify and address three types of value-reality gaps: part-whole tensions, critical ambiguities, and identity fractures. I provide rich illustrations of how these individuals draw on complex-thinking capacities to pursue six action strategies: (a) dynamically balance autonomy and oversight, (b) create shared frames illuminating larger realities, (c) engage and reorient the community, (d) co-construct and dynamically interpret goals, (e) cultivate strategic relationships grounded in mutual trust, and (f) create conditions that help people weather uncertainties, build new identities, and shape the future. I also discuss five, complex thinking informed action themes that run robustly through these three participants’ leadership practices: (a) cultivate expansive multicentered purposes, (b) illuminate the invisible, (c) redefine and recalibrate, (d) keep things connected, and (e) orchestrate co-construction. I discuss implications for leadership practice and outline opportunities for future research.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:harvard.edu/oai:dash.harvard.edu:1/27112707 |
| Date | 31 May 2016 |
| Creators | Yeyinmen, Karen Coskren |
| Contributors | Kegan, Robert |
| Publisher | Harvard University |
| Source Sets | Harvard University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis or Dissertation, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | open |
Page generated in 0.0015 seconds