Discussion: ‘Shifting dependencies’

Characteristics of a ripple effect were also associated with ambiguous aspects of leadership culture defined simply as ‘the way leadership is round here’ (Tate, 2009, p33). This ambiguity related to shifts in the way the leaders were leading (accelerated pace, radical aims) and the way team members were responding (to a clear lead and to opportunities to take a lead). An opportunity for mild confusion seemed to exist in the ambiguous relationship between the perception of opportunity and the scope of opportunity to contribute. These findings into the nature of leaders’ needs and of the ambiguities associated with leadership culture provide novel insights that are underemphasised in empirical studies.

In terms of the interplay between leaders and team members, this study has identified unpredictable responses to leadership coaching outcomes that suggest that for coaching in general, changing an organisation relies too heavily on a hierarchical and linear view rather than an holistic view of leadership and change. Findings show non- linear consequences of leadership coaching outcomes that are bound up with intricate personal responses to organisational change. This complex picture appears to resonate

with the outcomes of a longitudinal qualitative study into sense making during organisational change. In this recent study unintended consequences flowed from the different ways that people interpreted changes instigated by leaders (Balogun and Johnson, 2005, p1587). It seems that a coaching agenda drawing on experiences in the whole organisation could bring insight into the unpredictable roots of an organisation’s challenges and strengths and create helpful coaching ripples from these sources. Drawing on the whole organisation is a feature of Lean Thinking (Womack and Jones, 2003), an approach that focuses on reducing ‘waste’ in order to create greatest value from a customer perspective. From a Lean perspective, reducing waste in manufacturing terms includes, for example, eliminating quality problems, reducing waiting time between activities and avoiding overproduction. The idea is to eliminate activities that add nothing to serving the customer. In my previous experience as a member of a Manufacturing Executive Team, this approach extends throughout the supply chain and so involves all stakeholders in the supply chain from client through to the source of the product or service. Hence reducing waste involves all stakeholders and embraces ‘kaizen’, the Japanese concept of continuous incremental improvement. This idea of waste is used in the context of leadership to draw attention to the ‘waste’ of leadership talent that persists in organisations (Tate, 2009). Here the suggestion is that creating value is about identifying and addressing obstacles to leadership. In this regard Tate sets out the seven categories of waste more usually associated with Lean

Thinking, applies these to leadership (pp108-9) and then offers ways of avoiding such

waste (p110). From the unique perspective of an organisation’s experience this study similarly uncovers unintentionally missed opportunities for leadership to flourish widely. ‘Kaizen’ therefore seems to offer a helpful perspective by emphasising collective accountability to continuously and incrementally improve the ‘relational space’. By viewing organisational development in Lean terms it can be seen that understanding the organisational system goes much wider than the immediate organisational boundaries. In relation to this study it could be argued that a wider agenda for coaching could extend throughout a supply chain, with the potential to reach more widely than imagined at the start of this study. A coaching framework that embraces wider stakeholders would be important, and I would argue that it is critical to understand the natural, interrelated aspects of stakeholder relationships by adopting a systems perspective, rather than to take a linear perspective.

Whilst the immediate organisational environment may be characterised as ‘murky’ water (Tate, 2009, p32), this study offers a contrast by beginning to see brighter aspects of the organisational context: the collective commitment of individuals coping in an unpredictable environment, a desire for authentic relationships, and the good intentions

towards helping others. It seems that even where aspects of ‘intolerance’ are identified by this study, this could be viewed as a virtue being associated with striving for excellence (Long, 1998, p110). However these positives may signal opportunities masked by tensions associated with competing organisational influences.

Findings appear to support the view that leadership is more polarised in an SME context than in larger organisations, due to a greater reliance on leaders from team members (Haugh and McKee, 2004, p391). At the same time findings indicate responses to seemingly ambiguous leadership aspects that might also prompt reflection in larger organisations. These aspects include setting a firm direction and seeking ideas, acceptance of risk associated with learning and requiring high standards at an accelerated pace, and also encouragement for greater participation and hesitancy among staff in terms of coming forward. These ambiguities indicate the level of nuance involved in the leadership culture at Quantum, and perhaps leadership culture in general, in contrast with the hopes implicit in the following definition of an interdependent leadership culture:

the combined actions produced by all the organisation’s members to ensure ideal direction, alignment and commitment. (Palus, 2009, p4).

Based on the findings of this study, team coaching – at all levels of the organisation – could be a potentially helpful intermediary space between leader centred coaching and wider organisational change by adopting an outward facing, systemic approach (Brown and Grant, 2010, p31). With an understanding of dynamic organisational concerns as a starting point, team coaching could help individuals to reflect on team dynamics in the context of organisational concerns: for example, the team’s concept of leadership (on a spectrum from ‘heroic’ to relational), and the influence of the team on other teams, clients, suppliers, investors, and the community.

To accompany this approach coaching might use feedback on leadership culture defined as ‘aspects of organisational life that are deep seated, affect many people and are a function of more than one leader’ (Tate, 2009, p175). Such feedback could be derived from appropriate inquiry in anecdote circles, forums suited to uncovering hidden cultural aspects. In contrast to individual focused 360 degree feedback, leadership culture related feedback would offer a more expansive starting point for bringing insight to, for example, hindrances to greater participation or levels of independent thinking. Based on the findings from this study I would suggest identifying reciprocal learning space as the starting point for a wider reaching team coaching agenda. Opportunities for further research might include looking beyond the boundary of the team to understand the team’s relationship with the whole system, rather than dealing with apparent weaknesses or amplifying strengths solely within the team. Reciprocal learning space

could be viewed as a set of presenting issues from the client (the organisation) that a team might address with the help of a systemic approach to coaching. This approach could involve inquiring about patterns and relationships:

the impact or influence that parts of this larger picture have on each other: what may make a change in one factor more or less effective, and what unexpected outcomes may occur. (Clutterbuck, 2007, p231).