The Inner and Outer Game of Leadership

Frank now sees that he got it wrong. The staff in question were quite right to feel upset that he had not consulted them further about his failure to suspend the unruly pupil. Now he had the professional association representative asking for an audience and this was going to take time out of his already busy schedule.

“Damn and blast,” he said to himself. “You were a fool and you don’t learn!”

This is exactly what happened over the Delago affair last semester when he had allowed Delago’s parents to push him into another unpopular decision with staff. He had not involved the pastoral staff as fully as they wanted on that occasion either; had he done so he would have got much better buy-in to the decision and saved a lot of time consuming hassle.

This is not an unusual scene. Here we have a leader castigating himself over a particular course of action taken, although we might just as easily have heard him congratulating himself over something he felt quite pleased about.

In fact, Frank’s partner is quite used to hearing him talking to himself in the shower most mornings. Sometimes she has felt it necessary to chide him over his occasional expletive, but usually teases him over this self-dialogue, warning him that it is the ‘first signs’.

But as Frank criticises himself in this scene with, “You were a fool and you don’t learn,” who exactly is doing the rebuking and who is being rebuked? Gallwey* notes this phenomenon on the tennis court. It fascinated him to observe how tennis players are constantly talking to themselves when, more often than not, getting highly agitated at self-induced errors.

Gallwey went on to hypothesise that the very nature of this self-talk proved an important psychological fact, and one upon which success and failure can be determined in any performance arena. He argued that within each player there must be two selves and he labelled these Self One and Self Two. It is Self One that adopts the critical stance, standing in judgement over the actions of Self Two, the automatic self that plays the game of tennis.

Self Two is that well-oiled part of the player that actually plays the game of tennis, or whatever other skilled activity is being executed naturalistically and automatically. We see that aspect of ourselves performing every skill that we have ever learned, every day in virtually every field of our lives. From driving a car, to observing our fingers tripping effortlessly over the computer keyboard, to even more basic skills, we see this ‘self’ in ‘unconscious’ and effortless activity.

This is made all the more obvious when we observe the infant taking those first few tottering steps. The interested observer will note the intense concentration on the child’s face as they earnestly focus on their goal. Very soon the child’s progress is tangible and they have moved on to concentrating on the next building block in the hierarchy of skills that will soon see them running without any of the conscious deliberation that was so obvious just weeks ago.

So it is with each and every skill we learn through to the point of mastery. At this stage, the state of mastery, the skill can be executed both accurately and fluently, the two key components of skill accomplishment.

This process is very obviously apparent in those performance fields, such as sport or stage, where people have honed their talents to approach or reach their personal potential. For example, talk to the concert pianist whose years of toil and endeavour can take them to the experience of playing masterfully and looking down at their hands, observing the music pouring out of them with a sense of detachment. They will tell of the reality of Self One and Self Two; of the Observed and the Observer in a delicate equilibrium.

This equilibrium can easily become undermined when Self One, in keen judgement over Self Two, begins to intrude on the automaticity of the process. Ask the golfer about this. Skilled golfers know only too well how conscious Self One can become over-zealous and begin to get in the way of what should be an unconscious activity. In this way the ‘yips’ of the putter are borne on the golf green and the penalty miss of the football star made frustratingly frequent as he ‘keeps getting in the way of himself’.

Frank is the head-teacher of a large inner city school. He has a doctorate in Physics, has progressed in education along the academic route, and was undoubtedly the right choice of candidate for the period of organisational consolidation required at the point of his appointment. His well practised leadership style had suited the more academic setting from which he had originated, even though he now found it wanting.

His school now has new challenges looming with the forthcoming and recently announced amalgamation with the other major inner city school. Declining roles had forced the reality of this on the local education authority and Frank’s chance of taking on the role of head following the merger situation were lessening as his leadership was also found wanting by vocal junior colleagues.

Frank was only too acutely aware of how exposed he was, which just served to add to the anxiety he felt and his tendency towards self-rebuke. Unfortunately, however, as any well coached golf player would tell him, the efforts of Self One to aid the situation are often counter-productive. Self One’s criticism of Self Two usually has a reversed or paradoxical effect, making the situation worse rather than better.

This is well illustrated by the story of the tightrope walker with a strong and vivid imagination. She had been set an unusually extreme challenge, causing her to doubt her ability. In that circumstance she might will herself to achieve the task as much as she could but, as Self One and Self Two were forced into conflict, Self Two reigned supreme. This was because Self Two had the imagination in immediate attendance, and the imagination can readily overwhelm the will. Rather like the obese person trying not to think about the bar of chocolate, the more she tried not to think about falling, the more she made it a reality. Thus, it was the imagination that propelled her off the tightrope onto the safety net, just as she had ‘awfulised’ in her imagination.

We come now to the Inner Game of Leadership. In essence, this is about managing the relationship that exists between Self One and Self Two so that a healthy equilibrium is created. Frank’s salvation was in finding some coaching that allowed him to understand more about this and to put on one side the self-defeating behaviours he had been engaging in. Despite his best of intentions, Self One had been getting in the way, and interrupting Frank’s implementation of the pragmatic principles of Formula 4 Leadership he had been in such enthusiasm about only months ago.

What Frank had needed to understand was that, when under pressure, he tended to revert to a less pragmatic style, more directive in nature than was often called for. He knew this at a conscious level, when he sat and thought about it, but old habits, rather like the ‘yips’ of the golfer, or biting one’s nails, die hard. Thus, he might chide himself all he liked, but changing leadership behaviour to suit the situation would need something else, something different, something sports coaches, working at the highest levels, know all about.

The first thing that Frank learnt about the Inner Game was that there are certain rules of engagement that one has to be aware of when attempting to influence Self Two. These can be summarised as follows:

1. Whenever you concentrate or force your attention on an idea over and over it tends to spontaneously realise itself.

   (For example, repetitive advertising is based on this principle.)

2. Whenever you think to yourself “I should like to, but I can’t......,” you may wish as much as you like, but the harder you try, the less you will be able to do it.

   (For example, stopping blushing or trying to go to sleep.)

3. Whenever a thought is attached or enveloped by a strong emotion there is a greater likelihood that it will be realised.

   (For example stage fright or examination nerves.)

4. When a possible outcome has been vividly, strongly and realistically imagined the unconscious mind will find the means for its realisation.

   (For example, imagining the golf ball is already on the green.)

5. It is always easier for you to secure personal acceptance from a positively phrased suggestion than from one that is phrased negatively.

   (For example, “I am getting calm, relaxed and confident” rather than “I am less anxious, tense and nervous”.)

6. That what is considered at the beginning and end of any period of learning is more likely to have impact than what occurs in the middle.

   (For example, it is best to break exam revision into half-hour ‘chunks’ of time.)

These ‘rules’ were certainly helpful, but Frank discovered much more. Of particular note were the specific exercises that enabled Self One to have maximum influence over Self Two and to facilitate some remarkable changes that began to become very obvious to others within a month of trialing. These can be listed as follows:

• Mind calming - the focus of one-pointed attention to compose the mind and allow it to move from thinking about one thing to resting in the calmness of thinking about 'no thing'. This released him from the circling thoughts and imaginings that had been plaguing him and also made him more receptive to the other exercises.
• Affirmations - a means whereby a short positive and specific verbal postulate about a forthcoming state of success was repeated on a daily basis. Frank learnt about the best way to employ these to make them most efficacious.
• End State Imagery - an approach that utilized the imagination in a way that created a self-fulfilling prophesy. This helped create a 'mould' with the mind into which he could automatically begin to pour himself.
• Mindfulness - exploring how to be more 'awake' in the present moment about how one is responding to situations. Here he learnt about the practice of 'self-remembering' and of attending to stimuli as they presented themselves to his senses 'now'.

Although each new skill proved to be extremely useful, it was this last exercise that allowed Frank more understanding and awareness about patterns of behaviour that had been getting in the way of his adaptability in leadership situations. This, in turn, allowed him to become much clearer about his values; what he stood for, and how his leadership behaviour could contribute towards the health and well-being of his organisation. This awareness also allowed him to become more congruent with himself and much more authentic in his dealings with colleagues.

He, therefore, came to appreciate that there were several ‘pillars’ to his leadership behaviour that could be defined as follows:

• The Inner Game of Leadership
• Appreciating his Values, the bedrock of his professionality
• Acting with more authenticity and in tune with his own unique character
• The invaluable pragmatism of the Formula 4 decision making model
• His emerging group facilitation skills

Group facilitation is a well researched area and one that can dictate the effectiveness of all participative approaches to leadership**. Frank, therefore, had to question himself about his skill sets in the following areas, each having clear interrelationships with the ten Formula 4 leadership competencies† :

1. How well he could articulate the ‘felt tension’ between the present state and the desired state in such a way that all colleagues identified with the definition and in a manner which established a sense of mutual interest. He soon discovered more clearly how this ability in a leader can undoubtedly dictate how well collaborative efforts are harnessed.
   
   In the case of future difficult and challenging pupils in Frank’s school, his approach now became one of negotiating a set of shared values about the school’s duty of care to all students. From that point onwards they would use this value set as a mechanism to reference all their actions against in the face of behavioural challenge. These became the ‘desired state’ against which they could ‘test’ their proposals for all troubled and troublesome students; a standard and externalized benchmark owned by all, not imposed by him.
   
   In all of the ensuing negotiations with staff and other stakeholders his vivid and clear mental image of what the organisation he was leading could look like was a vision he increasingly externalized in a newly crystallized form. And although he did not make ‘mindfulness’ an overt practice, he encouraged all colleagues to become increasingly present and attentive to the precious values they continued to dynamically explore.
2. To be alert to the possibilities and dangers, all too real given his proclivity towards being directive, of acquiescence in some staff when healthy debate was really needed. He realized that a primary and previously unconscious goal of his had been to have a community where harmony reigned. The maintenance of this state had been his primary objective, not true problem resolution where there was permission to have energetic and even warm debate in searching for solutions that all staff could say they stood behind.
   
   Frank, therefore, accepted the necessary requirement to encourage disagreement and conflict in a structured and ‘safe’ way; in a manner that allowed fears and concerns to be articulated at the outset, rather than materialize later in subversive or corrosive forms.
   
   Therefore, the surfacing and resolution of conflict was a skill that he needed to hone; so the organisation’s passage through uncharted waters, where nobody had clear answers, could be less stormy rather than more so. The natural consequence of this was to begin to involve all stakeholders in a managed debate, which could include students as well.
   
   This became especially helpful as preparations for the merger of Frank’s school began to take place, even though his own personal future was unclear. He accepted that no one person or group had all the answers, and that structured debate could enhance decision quality in all matters of uncertainty. This was even more so in a situation where the commitment and motivation of all was an essential prerequisite to obtaining an ethos of mutuality and collegiate responsibility.
3. To this end, it became a necessity for Frank and his colleagues to become well versed in the creative exploration of issues, with a clear understanding about when and where critical evaluation should appear in the process. His penchant for early closure on some issues, and his temptation to exert his ‘position power’ in judgement, had previously stymied precious debate. Therefore, coming to understand more about the necessary steps in the effective brainstorming of issues was essential. This involved knowing when to encourage free and nondirective discussion and when to bring in more structure by synchronizing the discussion of issues so that everyone discussed the same aspect of the problem at the same time.
4. Despite all this, Frank was only too conscious that time urgency is a reality of organisational life and that not every issue needs the involvement and consensual participation of all. To make this transparent Frank discovered that sharing the Formula 4 Leadership judgement process was an elegant way to educate those who demanded a voice on every matter, as well as a means of appeasing those more authoritarian colleagues who, like him, had a preference for clear and decisive decision making on every issue. This would enable them to get on with ‘doing what they were there to do’ – to educate youngsters, not attend meeting after meeting, listening to the same voices pontificating and expelling more hot air than was ever necessary.

    

   Frank’s growing preference for greater transparency in problem solving had a ripple effect of a positive nature. Thus, he found colleagues proposing other decision making structures to engage with stakeholders. They began to experiment with other tried and tested decision making and problem solving models. Of particular merit was the thinking of Glasser†† whose model has proven impact when dealing with the unruly troubled and troublesome student:

   • ‘What did you do?’
   • ‘What do you think about that?’
   • ‘How is that helping you, the group …?’
   • ‘What will you do next time?’

     Glasser’s approach to engaging others in problem resolution, much like Frank’s value based negotiation*†, pushed evaluation of behaviour back where it belonged and empowered students in the way that Frank’s Formula 4 practice was doing.

     ---

     Frank is now much closer than ever to achieving his wish to lead the two merged schools. He now firmly asserts that the outer game of leadership has to be balanced by an equally skilful inner game; one without the other causes leadership ‘yips’; with both, true referent power is achieved and colleagues who will ‘run through brick walls’.