10_pathwaystopartnership

7/29/2019 10_PathwaysToPartnership

1/13

Pathways to Partnership

Bob Anderson,Founder & CEO, The Leadership Circle


2/13

Pathways to Partnership 1

www.theleadershipcircle.com

Organizations today are moving in a common direction. For years, we have been ambivalent in

this country about the need or a more participative orm o management. Recently, however, a

clear consensus has emerged that wholesale involvement at all levels is one o the keys to success

in the uture. We are moving away rom topdown patriarchal organizations, where a ew people

take responsibility or the success o the business, to a much more bottomup, selmanaging

organizational structure. In this new organization, everyone takes responsibility or the success o the

business and participates in both its rewards and its decisionmaking process.

Many organizations today are well into this transition. Many are just beginning the journey, and

some are still at the starting gate. Tis paper is not intended to convince you to embark on this

journey. It assumes that, i you are considering this workshop, you are already on the way or are

already committed to moving in the direction o empowerment. No matter where your organization

is along this path, the going is oen tough. I created this workshop because I see organizations

getting stuck at one place in particular during the transition.

Self-managedteams

Participativemanagement

Total qualitymanagement

Everyone creatingwhole systems

Partnership

Patriarchy

Pathways to Partnership is about how, despite the best o intentions, people in the organization

block their own progress. Te need or a workshop such as this came to me as a surprise. I was

at the time working with a very senior manager who could easily be described as an enlightened

leadersomeone deeply committed to changing the organization, to empowering people, to movingdecisionmaking down, and to extraordinary customer service through the involvement o everyone

in the organization. His behavior, however, surprised me. He was managing the way he used to

manage, while talking a lot about empowerment.

Te workshop comes out o many similar experienceso working closely with people at all levels

who are committed to empowerment, and watching them all into old patterns o behavior (over

control at the top, caution in the middle, blaming rom below, etc.) that undermine the change

Pathways toPartnership


3/13



eort. Tese behaviors lead to mixed messages, which in turn create a climate o caution in the

organization. As a consequence, people at every level avoid taking the change eort seriously. Tey

sit on the sidelines, waiting to see which way the wind will eventually blow. Te issue is seldom the

degree o commitment (or the intention) but rather the tenacity o old behaviors.

I was even more surprised, as I worked with people committed to change, to see people use old

behaviors without being aware o it. Te inconsistencies between their behaviors and the direction

o change were not at all obvious to them. I thought that, because they were committed, their

behavior would naturally ollow suit. Tat this does not happen suggests that we are so amiliar with

patriarchal, topdown systems that we are blind to the many ways in which we continually act out

that system. When we try to change the system, we run smack into ourselves. We are the primary

obstacles. Furthermore, we do not even notice that we are in the way. Pathways to Partnership is

designed to go aer the ways we behave that continue to maintain control at the top and dependency

at the middle or bottom o the organization.

PERSONAL JOURNEY

SYSTEM JOURNEY

PartnershipPatriarchy

Over-

control

Dependency

Self-

management

Empowered-

creating

Moving rom patriarchy to partnership requires navigating two journeys simultaneouslythe system

journey and the personal journey. Historically, we have spent most o our attention on changing the

system and relatively little on the proound personal changes required o people at every level. We

have tried to change organizational culture as i it is somehow separate rom ourselves. We try tochange it and not us. My observation, over the past ten years o watching organizations try to change

their culture, is that the deeper work o change is internal. It has to do with the part o us that needs

control and the part o us that hangs onto dependency. Te deeper work is discovering how we

personally contribute to the very culture we are trying to change.


4/13



HE CONROL-DEPENDENCY CYCLE

Tere is a whole series o reciprocal, selreinorcing behaviors that keep organizations stuck in

old patterns. When we look down rom within the organizational pyramid, we tend to act one

way. Looking up triggers another set o behaviors. Te behavior associated with looking down is

supported by the behavior associated with looking up, and vice versa. Tey are linked in a cycle; A

causes B, which causes A. Each party contributes to the others behavior, yet it is ar easier to see the

others culpability than to see your own part in the cycle.

Taking/Denying Responsibility

Looking down, we tend to take too much control. Tat is, managers,

who are genuinely committed to empowerment, unconsciously and

reexively continue to take over, take control, step into delegated

decisions, concern themselves with detail they dont need to be

concerned about, and withhold authority that was promised. Looking

up, we tend to take too little responsibility or the success o the

business; we expect those above to have all the answers and to walk

their talk immediately; we wait or mixed messages to clear upbeore we act; and we excuse all this by saying, Te mess we are in

is not my ault. I the people above me would get their act together, change would proceed. Tese

two behaviors are linked in a selreinorcing cycle. aking too much control while talking about

empowerment encourages those below to avoid taking the change eort seriously and accepting

responsibility or its success. It allows them to continue a dependency on those at the top. It is hard to

delegate responsibility to people who seem to lack commitment. Te lack o initiative by those below

encourages those above to continue taking control.

Aggression and Caution

Looking down, some managers continue to act in aggressive/deensive wayspushing andconronting aggressivelythat hurts others and encourages caution. When we look up, we tend to be

preoccupied with caution. Caution in organizations goes way beyond what is rational. We ear alling

out o avor with those above. Tis ear is the primary obstacle to the risktaking required to change

the system. Caution leads to manipulation and limits authentic autonomous action. We ocus on

waiting or a sae culture in which to act with greatness (Block, 1987). People spend energy managing

their political uture rather than taking action to create what is best or the organization. Again, this

is a selreinorcing cycle. Aggression encourages caution, and caution supports aggression (by not

conronting its inconsistency with the new culture).

Mistrust, Secrecy and Blame

When we look down, we are inuenced by the mistrust and secrecy

that characterizes hierarchical systems. We are reluctant to share

nancial data, pertinent inormation, bad news, and difcult times.

We believe that i people really knew this, they couldnt handle it or

would not use it responsibly. Looking down, we are also reluctant

to share our humanity, vulnerability, uncertainty, conusion, and

Stating the Case

Looking down

behaviors

Looking up

behaviors

Over-

Control

Not Taking

Responsibility

Aggression

Caution and

Manipulation

Secrecy and

Invulnerability

Blame


5/13



not knowing. We believe that eelings, the personal side o lie, have no place in the business.

Furthermore, we would look bad (Never let them see you sweat) and lose support and credibility

i we shared how we really elt. Looking up, we have a bias or mistrust. As soon as someone is

promoted rom the ranks, they become suspect. People below are wounding the people above

them by blaming, putting them under a microscope, and expecting them to perorm awlessly. We

believe that our mistrust and anger at the people above us is justied. We oen ail to notice how our

mistrust is a response to our own powerlessness, to the power we have given up in our preoccupation

with caution, and to our reusal to take responsibility. Mistrust rom below encourages secrecy andinvulnerability above and vice versa.

Over-Extension and Helplessness

op managers today privately tell us they are exhausted and overextended. We are simultaneously

cutting resources and expanding organizational commitments. We hear the growing despair and

disenchantment in statements like, How much can I give? No matter how much I give, it is not

enough. People below are experiencing the same kind o exhaustion, but it comes more out o their

helplessness. Everything is a priority, and they are too cautious to say no, set reasonable priorities,

and conront limits. Consequently, there is a growing sense o helplessness and an inability to really

make a dierence.

Looking down, leaders tend to establish new vision without a serious inquiry into the behavioral

changes that are required to support the new vision. Ten they blame others or not being aligned,

not buying in, or lacking commitment, all the while ailing to notice that these are consequences o

the missing behavioral changes. Looking up, people at the top all too quickly become scapegoats or

everything that is not working. Blaming is the easiest way to excuse ourselves rom responsibility.

Tere is a personal development challenge or everyone i we are to succeed in breaking with old

patterns. We naturally resist this deeper, more personal learning because nding out how we need to

change can be painul.

I point out these issues not to be harsh or cynical. I encounter all o them in organizations that are

truly enlightened and serious about change. Tese behaviors and their selreinorcing relationship

to each other are a vestige o the past. Tey were normal in the old system, and they stand out

today because they are out o harmony with the new system. Facing them is an inevitable part o

navigating the organizational journey rom patriarchy to partnership. I we ignore the personal work

o changing these behaviors, we put our vision o an empowered organization in jeopardy.

Over-Extension

Helplessness

Tere is a lot o discussion about leadership and management styles today. Te term style seems to

indicate that we should be able to change it quickly or easily, as we change the style o our clothing or

the cut o our hair. My experience is ar dierent. Our leadership stance and orientation toward the

organization is much more resistant to change than the word style would lead us to believe. Change

is possible, but it takes deliberate work.

I am convinced that these behaviors and stances are habitshabits that have their roots in the very

way we have organized our consciousness. We have all grown up in a patriarchal society and have

learned hierarchical ways o thinking about ourselves in relationship to others, to work, and to

organizations. We drink it in. It becomes a part o our consciousness without our being aware o it.

In that context, we have all drawn conclusions in our lives about what makes us valuable, worthwhile,

and sae in this hierarchical world. Tese conclusions orm the very structure o our character and

The DecidedlyPersonal Focus ofthe Workshop


6/13



have a powerul inuence on how we think, eel, behave, lead, and ollow. Tese habits o behavior,

then, are deeply rooted in us, and only deep insight and personal development will eect a change.

Pathways to Partnership is designed to do just that. It is designed to help people reect deeply on their

leadership stance. Te workshop is based on the premise that the culture we are trying to change is in

us. We are all carriers o the old culture. For too long we have been trying to change it and not us. So,

the ocus o this workshop is decidedly personal. Te context o the workshop is the roletransition

leaders nd themselves in as the system changes. We discover the extent to which our behavior

supports the old culture, learn about the psychological underpinnings o that behavior, and identiy

new, more empowering behavior. As one person said during the workshop

WO OPPOSING CHARACER SRUCURES

Pathways to Partnership is based on another premiseall behavior has its roots in ways o thinking

which I call belies. We all have belies about how we must relate to the world in order to survive,

how we establish our sel worth, identity, and pursue our uture. Belies orm the structure o our

consciousness and/or character. Many o these belies were ormed when we were young and, or the

most part, inexperienced thinkers. Tereore, some o our core belies are awed. Flaws in our belie

structure lead to the kind o ineective behaviors described above. o change habitual, wellingrained

behaviors requires indepth reection and work at the level o our belie structure. Supercial,

behavioral, and prescriptive training is relatively impotent to eect the change that is needed.

Te nature o the belies we hold determines our basic character and our strategy or interacting with

the world. Karen Horney (1945) described two primary directions people take in organizing their

core belies. One direction I will call the expansivecontrolling character structure. While the issue

o topdown control is much talked about, little indepth work was done on this issue until Kaplan

(1992) used this character structure to explore the nature and pitalls o senior leadership in his

book, Beyond Ambition. Te other, I will call a dependentcomplying character structure. Tere is

a great deal written about this structure. (See Block, 1987, and just about anything on the issue o co

dependency.) Each character structure has its strengths and weaknesses, and the two are similar and

dissimilar in some very important ways.

Tese two character structures share a similar oundation. Each has ormed its basic belies around

the same core issues. As young children, our deepest concerns have to do with survival and identity.

Te questions we asked o lie were, Can I survive in this world o big and powerul others? Am

I sae, or is the world a dangerous place? Do I have what it takes to take care o mysel? Am I

worthwhile? Does anybody care about me? Am I a lovable person? Am I good? Do I have a uture?

Tese are the existential concerns o early lie. Early experiences in our amilies, close relationships,

TheoreticalUnderpinnings


7/13



schools, and etc. help us orm conclusions to these questions. Our conclusions determine whether

we move in the direction o an expansivecontrolling character structure or a dependentcomplying

character structure.

Tese two character structures are undamentally alike, because they are strategies we adopt in

response to the same core issues. But the way we answer the central questions, the belies we adopt,

and the behavioral strategies that ow rom these belies are very dierentopposite, in act.

Te expansivecontrolling person experiences the world and orms belies, which sound something,like, It is a hostile world out there, a struggle o all against all, where rewards are scarce, where

there are big and powerul people, and where only the strong survive. (Horney, 1945). Given that

experience o the world, this person makes the expansivecontrolling choice and concludes that, I

will depend entirely on mysel. I must become big and powerul to establish my identity, saety, and

uture. I reject my helplessness and vulnerability and will triumph over others. I will take charge,

control, win, and/or excel over others. I I can do that, I will be sae and worthwhile. I I cannot do

that I may not survive. (Horney, 1945).

Te dependentcomplying type looks out at the same hostile world o big and powerul people and

makes essentially the opposite decision. Whereas the expansivecontrolling type chooses to depend

exclusively on him/ hersel, the dependentcomplying type concludes that, I am dependent on

these big and powerul others to provide me with identity, saety, and my uture. (Horney, 1945).

Whereas the expansivecontrolling type rejects helplessness and vulnerability, the dependent

complying type concludes, I must accept my helplessness and vulnerability by submitting to others,

especially powerul others. I have to please them, t in, meet their expectations, and gain their love

and protection. I I can do that, I will be sae and worthwhile. I I cannot do that I may not survive.

(Horney, 1945).

Expansive-Controlling Dependent-Complying

Excelling

Achieving

Dominating

Competing

Winning

Controlling

Being:

Aggressive

Strong

Tough

Invulnerable

Right

On top

Number one/One-up

Better/More than others Etc.

Meeting Expectations

Fitting in

Submitting to others needs

Pleasing

Playing by the rules

Belonging

Being

Sensitive

Protected

Needed

Take care of

Liked

Loyal

Loved

Respected Etc.

Depending on how our core belies are organized, we choose the expansivecontrolling path or

the dependentcomplying path. Each is outlined below. As you read, notice how each is a way o

establishing identity and saety, but the strategies are mirrorimage opposites.

Te inherent aw in each o these character structures is linking our very survival and identity to


8/13



some orm o external achievement or validation. We believe that selworth, saety, and our uture

depend on always being or getting X (where X is any one or a number o items on the above lists).

Tis link makes these strategies compulsive. Compulsive means we must act them out (the behaviors

in the lists above) or ace dire consequencesthe loss o saety and identity. Te compulsive nature

o these strategies leaves little room or ree choice, and, in eect, we become slaves to them (Hurley,

Dobson, 1991). We cannot not act this way. A lietime o acting this way makes these behaviors

habits; and, because we have achieved some measure o success, love, and security, we have more

than enough evidence to prove that our belies are true, that our character structures work, and thatto deviate rom our strategies would be oolhardy.

It is important to point out that the belies and the strategies we adopt in response to our core belies

are unconscious. Most o us (unless we have become experienced at selreection and inner work)

are not aware o the compulsive nature o much o our behavior. Nor are we aware o the inherent

aws in our belie systems; aws that, i corrected, would allow or a broader choice o behaviors

rom one situation to the next.

It is also important to point out that each character strategy leads the person to develop some

very valuable and admirable qualities. Te expansivecontrolling type serves others and the

organization by mastering the ability to achieve results, push or aggressive growth, accomplish

important priorities, organize vast resources toward the accomplishment o a worthy objective, etc.Organizations need this type o drive in order to be successul in a competitive marketplace. Te

dependentcomplying type becomes loyal, hard working, gied at creating harmony, sensing others

needs, helping and supporting others, etc. Organizations need these qualities as well, so that people

can work together. Each stance has its own strengths and gis.

Te problem o each stance is not its strength, but the overreliance on that strength. Te linkage

o that gi to saety and identity leads to compulsive overdevelopment o certain qualities and

underdevelopment o others. Furthermore, it eels threatening to develop qualities that seem to be

the opposite o those linked to saety and identity. Consequently, we become tied to one strategy and

lack the exibility o behavior required in many situations. In addition, when our primary strategy

gets threatened, we tend to respond in counterproductive ways. For example, when an expansive

controlling type, with a need to always be seen as right, has his or her ideas challenged, he or she is

less likely to respond by listening to the others point o view (one o the strengths o a dependent

complying type), than by aggressively putting the other person down. Tis counterproductive

behavior, and overuse o certain behaviors, limits our eectiveness.

I am convinced that much o what blocks organizational change is rooted in the way we have

organized our character structure. Te selreinorcing behaviors (described earlier in the control

dependency cycle section) represent the downside o each character strategy and tend to block the

organizations transition rom patriarchy to partnership. I you compare the behaviors ascribed to

each character structure (listed above) with the description o how we tend to behave looking up or

down in the pyramid, you will notice a striking correspondence. Patriarchy is the natural result o

how our compulsive character structures relate to each other. I we do not deal with this compulsivebehavior, we are bound to continue recreating patriarchal relationships and systems, even though we

may talk about our vision o empowerment.

How does all this help to create and maintain patriarchal organizations? Kaplan (1991) observes that

expansivecontrolling types tend to move up in the organization. Te strengths they have developed

are readymade or senior levels. In addition, they are driven to move up. Because their selesteem

is oen related to their altitude in the pyramid, they cannot not move up. So, they work unceasingly


9/13



to advance, to succeed, to expand their power base, etc., all o which serves the organizations need

or people who will expand, push aggressive agendas, grow the organization, and step up to the

rigors and demands o leadership. Consequently, the top levels in most organizations are populated

predominantly by expansivecontrolling types.

Expansivetypestend

to

riseto

thetop.

Dependenttypesle

ssso.

Lookinguptriggersdependency/caution

Looking

downtriggerscontrol.

Dependent-complying

Expansive-controlling

Dependentcomplying types tend not to move up as readily. Tey do not measure selworth in

the same way that expansivecontrolling types do. As such, they are not as driven to move up.

Also, because selassertion may not get them liked (which is how they measure their selesteem

and security) they have not developed the repertoire o behaviors that seem natural to expansivecontrolling types. Consequently, they do not end up in senior positions. Instead, they populate

middle and lower levels and serve the organization by their loyalty, hard work, and dedication to

doing what is right and meeting the expectations o others.

Tis natural selection process that pushes expansivecontrolling types up and dependentcomplying

types to lower levels leads directly to patriarchal relationships and systems. Te habitual/compulsive

nature o the two stances interacts in such a way that hierarchical/ patriarchal relationships inevitably

result. People at the top take most o the responsibility and control, while people at the bottom

say, It is not my job to take responsibility. Tat is your job. My job is to do what is expected. It is

important to note that in this exchange, both types get their compulsive needs met. Te expansive

types eel sae and worthwhile because they are in control and on top, and the dependentcomplying

types eel sae because they do not have to risk being controversial and taking responsibility. Te

expansivecontrolling types eel justied in taking control because they do not see those below them

taking risks and making the tough decisions. Dependentcomplying types eel valued because they

are doing what is expected o themand doing it well. Te relationship is reciprocal. Each type does

its part in maintaining the patriarchal cycle, and both types are unconscious o how they must

continue to maintain that system in order to continue using their compulsive strategies. Both would

eel at risk and devalued i the game were to change.


10/13



As we move toward selmanaging organizations, people at the top are challenged to let go o their

compulsive need or control. Tis is asking a lot, given the way they have organized their character

structure. We are also asking people in the middle and lower levels o the organization to let go o

dependency, to begin to assert themselves, to act more autonomously, to conront tough issues,

and to take responsibility or creating the uture. Tis is also asking a lot, given the way they have

organized their basic stance in lie. Te direction o organizational change challenges each type to

act in ways that contradict their basic character structure. When this happens, it is natural or both

types to eel at risk, awkward, vulnerable, not useul, etc. As these eelings arise, it is easier and morecomortable to revert to old patterns o behavior. However, when we do this, we move away rom

our uture by not walking our talk. We run smack into the most signicant obstacle on our journey

towards the new organizationourselves.

Given our character structures, the journey o transormation is dierent or each type. Ultimately

each type needs to move toward a more interdependent way o working, leading, and living. Te

steps or achieving interdependence, however, are dierent or each type. Dependentcomplying

types need to move toward autonomy, and expansivecontrolling types need to move toward

intimacy. Tis eels vulnerable or each type.

Te rst step on the journey is to let go o the bargain we have made with lie; that is, we stop using

our strengths and gis as a strategy to prop up our security and identity. We oer them as appropriate

to the situation and as an act o service with no strings attached. Te expansivecontrolling type, or

example, continues to achieve, but not at the expense o sel and others, and not as a strategy to gain

admiration, approval, promotion, security, etc. Achievement is pursued or the love o doing it and/or

because the results are needed. Te dependentcomplying type who has become masterul at sensing

and responding to others needs, or example, continues to oer this gi, but not at the expense o

his/her autonomy and not as a strategy to gain love and security. So the rst step or each type is to

claim the true gi o their type and detach the strings o saety, selworth, and identity. Tese strings

keep us compulsively tied to one strategy when the situation may require another kind o action.When we ree ourselves rom these compulsive strategies, we do not lose the gis we have developed

in pursuit o that strategy, but gain a greater repertoire o behaviors and selexpression.

Te second step on the journey is to move into the opposite side o ourselves and to cultivate the

shadow part o ourselves, those parts o ourselves we have le dormant or underdeveloped. Te

expansivecontrolling types work is to develop the relational, sensitive, eeling, and othercentered

skills that the dependentcomplying types have mastered. Te dependentcomplying types work is

The Path of Change

Journey Insight Letting GoClaiming

the True Gift

Cultivating the

Shadow SideInter-dependence

Dependent-

Complying

Approval seeking and

Caution

Using approval to get

safety, love, respect

Support others

needs for its own

sake, not at own

expensive

Learn to say no. Take

own stand. Confront.

Support and confront

Expansive-Controlling Over-control &

Achievement

Using successful

task accomplishment

& being in charge

to measure worth &

safety

Achieve for joy and

service not at the

expense of others

self-expression

Listening

relationships.

Vulnerability.

Support.

Achieving.

Listening.

Asking for help.

System Journey Patriarchy Partnership


11/13



to develop autonomy. Tis means learning skills related to assertiveness, conrontation, selpromotion,

and achievementskills that the expansivecontrolling types are good at. As the opposite side o

ourselves is developed, we gain the reedom to deploy ourselves in whatever way is authentic and most

serves the higher vision we are pursuing. Tis movement into our shadow side also creates the ability to

unction in a truly interdependent way.

Public Victory

Personal Victory

Call/

Pain

Threshold

Crossing

Insight

Letting go

Claiming

true gift

Cultivating

slide show

Inter-

dependency

Our compulsive strategies are essentially selcentered. We ocus on getting our compulsive needs met.

Interdependence is othercentered. It is a special relationship between people and groups o people

where we ocus on the higher good o those involved or aected by the action o the group. For our

organizations to unction in this way, members need to have a broad repertoire o skills. We need to

courageously conront difcult issues in a compassionate way. We need to take clear positions and

advocate strongly or them, while simultaneously inquiring deeply into the others position. We need

to ocus on task achievement and build trusting, caring team relationships. We need to know when to

take control or say no, and when to let the group struggle with discovering its own solution. We need tolearn how to be vulnerable enough to learnlearn not only about how to make the new system work,

but also about ourselves in the process. Tis is the high level o unctioning that the transition rom

patriarchy to partnership requires. Future organizational structures will be built on interdependence.

Te uture o our world depends on interdependence. Genuine interdependence will be attained only

when people do the deeper work outlined in this paper.

Finally, this journey is a spiritual one. It is the hero/heroines journey told in the mythic stories o

cultures worldwide. It is the path suggested by our artistic and spiritual traditions or centuries. It is the

rightening and liberating journey into the loss o our ego attachments, where our ego sel is stripped o

its illusions, and a more powerul, soulul, essential sel emerges. It is the way o the leader, and the only

way to create the interdependent organizations we envision.

In this paper, I have tried to show how the behavior that blocks the organizational shi to

empowerment is rooted in deeper structures o consciousness. In so doing, I have described the need

or a workshop like Pathways to Partnership. It is my conviction that organizational transition can be

expedited by helping managers at all levels gain insight into the nature o their character structures.

In Pathways to Partnership, managers learn how to change their belies, enabling them to more ully

embody in their leadership the principles o the new system.

Conclusion


12/13



Autry, J. Love & Prot. William Morrow and Company, 1991.

Beesing, M., Nogosek, R., OLeary, P. Te Enneagram. Dimension Books, 1984.

Block, P. Te Empowered Manager. JosseyBass Publishers, 1987.

Bly, R. Iron John. AddisonWesley Publishing Company, 1990.

Burns, D. Feeling Good. Signet, 1981.

Covey, S. Te 7 Habits o Highly Eective People. Simon & Schuster, 1989.

Danzinger, S., Danzinger, R. You are Your Own Best Counselor. SelMastery Systems International,

1984.

Depree, M. Leadership is an Art. Doubleday, 1989.

Ellis, A., Harper, R.A New Guide to Rational Living. Wilshire Book Company, 1961.

Heider, J. Te ao o Leadership. Bantam Books, 1086.

Horney, K. Our Inner Conficts. W. W. Norton & Company, 1945.

Hurley, K., Dobson, . Whats My ype?Harper San Francisco, 1991.

Kaplan, R. Beyond Ambition. JosseyBass, 1991.

Kets de Vries, M., Miller, D. Te Neurotic Organization. JosseyBass, 1987.

Kouzes, J., Posner, B. Te Leadership Challenge. JosseyBass, 1987.

Palmer, H. Te Enneagram. Harper San Francisco, 1988.

Ryan, K., Oestreich, D. Driving Fear Out o the Workplace. JosseyBass, 1991.

Schae, A., Fassel, D. Te Addictive Organization. Harper & Row, 1988.

Schutz, W. Te ruth Option. Will Schutz Associates.

______. Proound Simplicity. Will Schutz Associates.

Bibliography


13/13


As ounder and CEO o Te Leadership Circle, Bob has created and conducted intensive leadership

development workshops, pioneered innovative assessments, and mentored practitioners worldwide in

how to manage complex leadership transormations. Spanning nearly 30 years, Bob Andersons story

is one o an innovator and visionary in leadership development. As early as high school and college,

Bob staed intensive personal and leadership development retreats. In business school, his love or

statistics and economics helped to culture a unique talent. He became skillul at taking complex

ideas and integrating them into models and methods or leadership development that are powerul,tangible, and accessible. While working as a manager in manuacturing, Bob completed a Masters

degree in Organizational Development. Early in his career, he was ortunate to have had Peter

Block as his mentor. He has also worked closely with some o the industrys most respected names

including Peter Senge, Robert Fritz, and Ken Wilber. He and David Whyte cotaught leadership

workshops created by Bob.

oday, under his leadership, Te Leadership Circles clients rank among the nations top companies.

Bob explains, We now recognize that leadership is a process o transormation whereby a leader is

encouraged to make a proound shito gain a deeper understanding o themselves, the world, and

their relationship to others. Tis deeper, longer term work is what our Leadership Prole brings to

the table, what Te Leadership Circle stands or, and this is the kind o work we invite organizations

to experience.

About the Author

10_pathwaystopartnership

Documents