Tetenbaum and Laurence make a compelling argument for Heifetz’s adaptive leadership model, but not so compelling that I’m ready to jump on board. They fail to share how this model is different from other leadership models or the model of Organization Development. Some of the things that they discuss, which I agree with, are:

– The leader needs to lead
The leader needs to show support of the initiative and play her part in bringing about the change. What she can’t do is make the change happen herself. The entire organization needs to buy in and support the change to ensure adoption. The sooner everyone is on board with the new goal, the faster people can begin implementing change.

This is the heart of what leadership is, to challenge people to push themselves in new ways. Tetenbaum and Laurance write that change is difficult and can cause stress and that a good leader needs to know when to push and when to back off. I don’t think that is a model rather than a good idea and makes strong leaders stand out.

– Manage stress
Change is hard. We’ve all experienced that in the last year and a half. One day we were at work in the office. The next day we were temporarily working from home, which segued into eighteen months of work from home. Now, offices are opening, and people are returning to the office. Many are being asked to return in the same way that they were working pre-pandemic.
This is stressful for our leaders who have to figure out the best direction forward is – is it a return to a semblance of pre-pandemic life? And if so, how and do we incorporated much of what was learned and practiced during the pandemic into our new office culture?

This is stressful for the followers. Do they want to follow a leader who’s moving them in a direction they’re not ready to go? Do they push back? How do they push back? Do they have a voice? Do they trust that it’s the right decision? How do those who support the decision interact with those who don’t? All of these questions, I think, would be answered by including the followers in the conversation.

– It’s chaotic
The questions noted above come up in the area where change begins. This is the chaotic period, where things aren’t running as normal, where the lines start to blur, everyday tasks begin to get more complicated as new ways of work emerge, and habits are broken and reformed.

– Communication
Change can be made easier with communication, a lot of it. The more a leader communicates her ideas and questions of the future, the more she listens to her followers’ answers, suggestions, thoughts, and ideas, the less friction there is towards the change. However, to expect that there will be no friction is wrong. Tetenbaum and Laurence discuss the need for friction or, in their words, “disequilibrium.” They suggest that the model requires resistance, stress, confusion, and ambiguity. During this time, the leader needs to use non-verbal cues, such as remaining calm when questioned, to show that she believes in the change and the ability of her followers to create the change.

– Keep an eye on the goal
When things get overwhelming, people can become frozen and unable to move forward when the goal gets too big or too ambiguous. That’s when the overarching goal needs to be broken down into smaller milestone goals and targets to clear the next step in the process. Breaking down the big goal into smaller steps is where the leader can lean on her followers. This is where she can grow support from her base in challenging them to come up with goals and steps that are aligned with the overarching change but important to them to build collective buy-in and forward momentum.
Allowing people to set their own goals in alignment with the overarching vision gives them ownership of the solution, which helps to reduce stress.

As goals and milestones are developed, they can be put into a project plan. Each milestone can be considered in scope or out of scope of the overarching goal. Using a similar structure and elements of project management can help align milestones, measure progress and create accountability.

I can’t entirely agree with Tetenbaum and Laurence that Heifetz’s adaptive leadership model is in itself a model. It appears to be a bunch of great ideas that will yield transformative results if practiced in a certain way. Perhaps if they had included a visual representation of the model into their paper or outlined the actual steps of the adaptive leadership model, they could make a more compelling argument that this is a model which should be followed. Instead, they’ve taken several great ideas and strung them into a paper about leadership.

Their paper supports what I love about organization development (OD). OD is about creating change at all levels in the organization through the support of all stakeholders. While OD relies heavily on the support of leadership, organizational change through OD requires everyone at all levels of the organization. Tetenbaum and Laurence discuss ways to achieve that support and change across the organization. They fail to make a case as to why Heifetz’s model is different from OD.