Summary
This module introduces leadership as a way all workers, regardless of their role in the co-op, can contribute to the business’ success. Through an interactive building exercise, participants analyze the difference in sustainability between an organization with few leaders and one with many leaders. Finally, participants are introduced to the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model to recognize how workers may act in times of homeostasis and/or stress. Understanding how to lead through conflict is an important skill in a “leaderful” organization.
Essential Questions
What are some differences between managing and leading?
How do I demonstrate leadership in the co-op?
How can I lead through conflict in teams?
Essential Learnings
I recognize that everyone in the co-op, regardless of their title, can be a leader.
Analyze the relationship between the number of leaders in an organization and the organization’s sustainability.
Name at least 3 ways to handle conflict in the co-op.
4 Pillars
Teaming: Understanding how workers can have healthy conflict to create high quality results and achieve common purpose.
Democracy: Building will to contribute to strategic decisions at every level of the organization.
3 Concepts:
Cognition: Preparing workers to think like owners who are all responsible for leading the co-op.
Transparency: Understanding how other people handle conflict allows workers to see beyond themselves to the diversity of member interests.
Co-op Rights and Responsibilities:
Freedom of Expression: Appreciate and bring out the many sides to every issue
Freedom of cooperation: Contribute to making the best decisions possible
Justice and the Rule of Law: Collectively control checks and balances on the exercise of power
Materials
Markers
Flip chart paper or board
Pens
Paper or journals
Multi-colored gummy candies
Toothpicks
An envelope containing each of five styles of behavior in the Thomas-Kilmann model on a small piece of papers for each team
Thomas Kilmann Behavior Handout
Post-its
Agenda
Welcome everyone into the space and thank them for their participation. Review & Recommit to Public Agreements
Check in Question
In pairs, ask participants to share on the following question:
Remember a time when you felt like a leader. What were you doing, saying, and feeling? How did other people respond to your leadership?
The facilitator can share a 30-45 second example from their own experience to model the direction. Take at least 2-3 share outs.
Activity
The decisions you make as an employee, employee-owner, or manager impact not only yourself, but the business as a whole. As we discussed in a previous module, hundreds of decisions need to be made every day to keep the business running. And it can be scary to step up and take responsibility, knowing you are accountable to other people in the co-op. In this module, we are going to discuss how leadership can show up at every level of the co-op.
What are you concerned about when it comes to being a leader in the co-op?
Possible Answers:
I might be unsure of what decision to make
I might feel alone
There might be too much input
There might be time pressure to make a decision
I don’t want to let anyone down
What are you concerned about when it comes to working with other leaders in the business?
Possible Answers:
Not having an opportunity to give input
Being delegated too much responsibility
Having my voice listened to
Changing my job responsibilities without my input
What are some differences between managing and leading?
Possible Answers:
Managers might see their role as ensuring work gets done rather than contributing to the work that needs to get done by leading through example or empowering workers to take on tasks.
A Manager’s job is to keep everything running smoothly
Leaders create “circles of influence” by being open to questions and being available for coaching or advice giving.
Leaders motivate people towards their goals and steer them in the direction of organizational success.
Leaders recognize the capabilities and value of all people in the business.
Leader develop their self-awareness and ask how they can improve on a daily basis
Leaders help people get excited and stay focused on organization’s mission
Managers focus on execution, while leaders focus on purpose. The changes that leaders make are oriented to visioning, networking, and relationship building. Leaders have to have political skills inside and outside of the organization.
Leadership is multilateral and distributed. It is not concentrated at the top because that would put too much responsibility in the hands of too few. Leaders shape people and allow their co-workers to shape them.
We are going to do an activity to demonstrate the effects of leadership on the organization as a whole. You have the task of designing a three-dimensional structure with gummy candies and toothpicks. The goal is to build a structure that is sustainable. This means the structure should be able to stand on its own and stay upright in the face of small movements like shaking the table.
The first structure we will build will be based on a traditional business.
In a traditional business, leadership is typically only expected from people who are managers. On average, what is the ratio of managers to workers? 10 workers for every 1 manager
Only the yellow candies, 10% of all your gummy candies, will be “leaders.” As you build your structure, only yellow “leader” candies can touch the table.
Give participants 8-10 minute to build their first structure.
Now, we will build a structure based on a cooperative business. What percentage of people in a co-op would consider themselves leaders? 80%-100%
Now 80-100% of your gummy candies are “leaders.” Remember, that only the leader candies can touch the table. Leader candies can also be placed anywhere throughout the structure.
Give participants 8-10 minute to build their second structure.
Now test the two structures sustainability by shaking the table slightly or blowing air in the direction of the structure. You could try other tests such as removing 1-3 candies to see how the rest of the structure responds. You could also try adding 1-3 new worker pieces to the existing structure.
Debrief:
What do you notice when you compare and contrast the two structures?
Possible Answers:
Because it has more leaders, the cooperative structure has a larger foundation, creating a more sustainable structure.
It was harder to build the traditional organization because there were too few “leader” pieces. We had to create work arounds.
What do you think tests like shaking the table and removing pieces could symbolize?
Possible Answers:
Disruptions in the business or market
Removing a piece is like someone leaving the business
Adding a piece is like hiring new people into the business
Having an abundance of leaders in a cooperative can be a competitive advantage and make the business more sustainable.
Take a moment to individually write your responses to the following questions on a piece of paper.
What are actions I take at work that demonstrate leadership?
How does each of those actions contribute to the success of the co-op as a whole?
Invite participants to share their responses on chart paper.
What are actions that demonstrate leadership in the workplace and how do they contribute to the co-op’s success?
Possible Answers:
Giving extra attention to a customer
Working with a colleague to figure out a problem
Coaching someone through a challenge they are having
Making decisions within your scope of responsibility
It is both an amazing opportunity and a potential challenge to have so many leaders in an organization.
What are some potential challenges of having multiple leaders in an organization?
Possible Answers:
People have different leadership styles
There are too many ideas and not enough action
No one takes “point” on a decision
People have conflicting opinions on what should be done
People are prioritizing different aspects of the business for example prioritizing relationships over tasks or vice versa
Thomas-Kilman Conflict Model
Adapted from Marsha Willard and Axis Performance Group
Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann examined the fundamental ways people approach conflict. They found that each of us has a preferred way of dealing with conflict. Thomas and Kilmann categorize these preferences along two basic dimensions: 1) to what extent someone is prioritizing relationships and 2) to what extent someone is prioritizing tasks. These two basic dimensions of behavior can be used to define five specific methods of dealing with conflicts. These five “conflict handling modes” are plotted below.
Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative. The individual does not immediately pursue his or her own concerns or those of the other person. He or she does not address the conflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation.
Competing is assertive and uncooperative. An individual pursues his or her own concerns at the expense of others’. This is a power-oriented mode in which one uses whatever power seems appropriate to win one’s own position. This might include the ability to argue, pull rank, impose economic sanctions and the like. Competing might mean standing up for your rights, defending a position that you believe is correct or simply trying to win.
Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative. When accommodating, an individual neglects his or her own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity, obeying another person’s order when one would prefer not to, or yielding to another’s point of view.
Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative. Collaborating involves an attempt to work with the other person to find some solution that fully satisfies the concerns of all parties. It means digging into an issue to identify the underlying concerns of the participants and to find an alternative that meets all concerns. Collaborating might take the form of exploring a disagreement to learn from each person’s insights, committing to resolve some condition which would otherwise have participants competing for resources, or confronting and trying to find a creative solution to an interpersonal problem.
Compromising is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. The objective is to find some quick, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. It falls on a middle ground between competing and accommodating. Compromising gives up more than competing but less than accommodating. It addresses an issue more directly than avoiding, but does not explore it in as much depth as collaborating. Compromising might mean splitting the difference, exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground position.
Each of us is capable of all five conflict-handling modes; none of us can be characterized as having a single, rigid style of dealing with conflict. However, every individual is more comfortable and effective with some modes more than others. This preference is often related to a person’s temperament and experience. The conflict-handling behaviors that an individual uses are therefore a result of both his or her personal predispositions and the requirements of specific situations.
Ask participants to gather in small groups with people they most often team with in their work environment. Provide each team with an envelope containing each of five styles of behavior in the Thomas-Kilmann model on a small piece of paper and several post-its. Ask participants to write their name on a post it and place it on the map based on the following questions.
Think about your own style. Where do you live? Which style to you most often default to? What does that imply about how you operate in teams?
Allow team 10 minutes to discuss their answers.
Now think about yourselves in times of high stress. Where does your post-it move? What behavior do you most often fall into during stress and why? What changes for you from times of homeostasis? How will you minimize negative outcomes during times of stress?
Allow team 10 minutes to discuss their answers.
Debrief:
What came up in each team?
What surprised you?
How can you stay open to new ideas, even if they conflict with your viewpoint?
How can people lead from every level of the co-op?
What structures or process would allow more people to step into leadership?
Conclusion
Knowing the styles of your teammates can help you understand what is behind conflict. Hopefully the model will help you all determine where and the other people are “coming from,” as well as make you each less intimidated about conflict. Moving to teams usually means more open disagreement, not less. This is actually healthy. But conflicts should be carefully handled to ensure they remain productive. Often, a well-handled conflict will launch the team onto a higher plane of openness and performance.
References/Facilitator Resources
Thomas, K. (1976). Conflict and Conflict Management . The handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Nayar, V. (2014, August 07). Three Differences Between Managers and Leaders. Retrieved May 31, 2017, from https://hbr.org/2013/08/tests-of-a-leadership-transiti
Ryan, L. (2016, March 28). Management Vs. Leadership: Five Ways They Are Different. Retrieved May 31, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/03/27/management-vs-leadership-five-ways-they-are-different/#34e4f86969ee
Weiss, D. (n.d.). Ideal Ratio of Managers to Staff. Retrieved May 31, 2017, from http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/ideal-ratio-managers-staff-24643.html
Willard, M. (2015). Pinchot Team Handbook [Pamphlet]. Seattle, WA: Pinchot University.