Inclusion and Change

I've been formulating a reflection paper on one of the books I've been reading lately, Principle-centered Leadership, by Stephen R. Covey, a Morman who writes about his philosophy on how we can create more meaningful relationships and successes in our homes, businesses and organizations. It has been interesting to see how some people in my class immediately wrote him off since he is a Morman and includes spiritual nurture as one of the aspects we need to attend to as leaders and managers. I have worked with many Mormons over the years and so I was not surprised by his incredibly optimistic and idealistic views, but I almost wrote him off too, thinking this was going to be another one of those fluffy or surfacy, "let's just be nice to one another" books. Yes, his tone is extremely positive and convincing, but through it all, I found it substantive, combining many of the pioneering views of Mary Parker Follet and Fisher & Ury's "Getting to YES."

In chapter 21 Covey talks about the difficulties in bringing about changes in people and organizations. People cling to their established views, ways and habits and so a leader needs to attend to attitudes, skill levels, perceptions and established patterns. A topic I've been tossing around and around in my mind lately is the question of inclusion. Do we only include people in special groups or decisions if they demonstrate commitment? Or does commitment become stronger as people feel included?

Covey has this to say, "To make or break a habit takes great commitment, and commitment comes from involvement -- it acts as a catalyst in the change process." He goes on to quote from Harold Geneen's book, Managing, "Most chief executives slip into authoritarian roles without realizing that the process is going on. Subtly, they change [because] it's easier and less time-consuming to be authoritarian." Covey points out that most authoritarian leaders are benevolent. They are very nice to people, but they don't know how to involve people as "human resources," ways that they can contribute and feel valued. Covey adds:

"To manage by the principles of human resources is to leave safe territory. Involvement is a ticket to adventure . . . [one] never knows at the outset what will happen or where he or she will end up. Is the risk worth taking?"

Geneen asserts that one of the "primary, fundamental faults with American management is that over the years it has lost its zest for adventure, for taking a risk, for doing something [new]" I know that people are usually scared of changes. But another thing I have observed is how people are scared of inclusion, broadening the circle of decision-making and responsibility.

The truth is that changes cannot happen well if people are not respectfully included in the process. This chapter helped me better understand the reasons why leaders shy away from inclusion. For some, the unknown and potential failures associated with including people can be huge barriers. When leaders invite other people to be involved in facilitating change or making things happen, it takes a lot of trust, but it can reap lots of benefits. With greater inclusion often comes greater trust. People are more apt to trust transparent leaders. Not surprisingly there also ends up being greater ownership and understanding for what happens in the organization. Most importantly for the leader, there will be more support within the uncertain times of change.

But the principle of inclusion is just as important for the those included. Including people makes them feel valued. People who feel valued will contribute meaningfully and actually broaden the span of control of a leader. And I tend to believe that people who feel they are making meaningful contributions will increase their level of commitment, therefore circling back to increase the security of the organization as a whole. I see it as a mentoring process. As leaders take risks toward inclusion, people can feel empowered. Empowered people are the greatest asset any home, business or organization can have.