How to lead systemic change in organizational ecosystems

Alexandra Stubbings, Stefan Cousquer, Leah Henderson

For L&D leaders, there’s another continuum to consider in the way we think about leadership. “At one end of the spectrum is the ‘great heroic leader’, where a leader operates in isolation,” explains Stubbings. It’s a dwindling school of thought (although L&D readers have probably found themselves coming up against colleagues who think this way at one time or another).

“At the other end of the spectrum, you've got the notion of leadership as a relational phenomenon, which can only happen between people.” From this perspective, leading systemic change is about shifting the ways that people in the system relate to each other. “It's interested in the way in which cultures and norms emerge, but also the systems, processes, and structures that enable an organization to be effective.” This is where leadership meets organizational development (OD), which focuses broadly on the organization as a whole – creating change through dialogue and participative process.

It also accounts for the broader systems that organizations are operating in – complex consumer markets, shifting geopolitics. “When we take a whole system approach, we help people work with all of these dimensions,” says Cousquer.

While different, leadership development and organizational development are not completely distinct. In OD, the essential question is: What's going to help the organization deliver the outcomes it's pursuing? Whatever those may be, leaders have a crucial role.

“To be effective, leaders need to not only focus on the strategic goals of their business, but also exemplify the culture they espouse,” says Stubbings, highlighting the importance of consistency in leading change. “If you have leaders acting at odds with the organizational message, it destroys trust and ultimately value. It’s important to tackle such inconsistencies in a psychologically safe yet robust way. We find executive coaching and team coaching are unparalleled as methods to address sensitive matters like these.”

“Coaching is really at the intersection of good leadership development and organizational development,” she explains. Coaching, and other context-oriented interventions such as Action Learning and Action Inquiry, develop leadership capabilities in line with organizational aims, using real-time data. “I think where the intersection of the two manifests so successfully is in the effort to deeply understand the specifics of the context.”

“There are also forms of experiential learning that you can take into an organizational context, which might mean using aspects of the organization’s strategy or other live activities to tailor the learning.”

Stubbings highlights one example when she facilitated a climate exercise with an organization. “They got really valuable, usable outcomes by getting their leaders to think about the risks for their business in different climate policy scenarios. Simultaneously, it was developing leaders’ understanding of strategic risk, ESG, and their own attitudes around uncertainty.”

Similarly, Cousquer recalls a program he facilitated with an organization that was preparing their top talent to step into C Suite roles. “The executive team were invited in for a conversation with participants on what they should collectively do differently to unlock enterprise value. All parties learnt far more than having separate leadership development activities not grounded in their organizational context.”

Learning within the organizational environment isn’t without risk for those involved, Cousquer says: “Challenging the CEO in the organization is different to challenging them in a simulation.”

Good OD practitioners work with your organization to manage any risk. And while the perceived risk may be greater than if you were to put leaders on a generalist development program outside the walls of the organization, the impact of creating something that is truly tailored to your circumstances is more likely to resonate through the ecosystem, creating lasting change.

For any intervention to be successful, Cousquer highlights the need for a participative approach: “The people impacted by the organizational change need to be engaged in co-creating their own future, otherwise it won't work. Dominant business consulting models create dependency, but if you're really interested in the organization flourishing, you want them to learn with you, then shape it for themselves.”

“What that practically means is co-creating a learning journey, rather than coming with a pre-designed solution,” he says, acknowledging: “Not all organizations are able to do that; sometimes they need structure.”

Stubbings agrees, emphasizing the importance of the relationship between an organization and their chosen service provider. “The quality of the relationship between client and provider is paramount when you’re working in organizational ecosystems to realize change. It must be grounded in trust, transparency, and mutuality. Most importantly, there’s a willingness to learn together.”

Rather than a purely transactional relationship, “you're turning up as partners, setting aside all the hubris of having the right answer,” she emphasizes. “Because whatever the situation is, no one's ever faced it in quite that particular set of circumstances before.”

When the practices of leadership and organizational development are combined thoughtfully, you can move your people and your organization closer to its aims, develop your leaders’ capabilities, and make a difference to the wider systems they work within.

It starts with a conversation. “One of the aphorisms in the OD world is that ‘inquiry is intervention’,” she says. “The point at which you ask a question, you're already making an intervention into the system, so you better make sure it's a good one.”