The document discusses introducing action learning and leaderful practices to an organization through internal consultants. It outlines problems like poor communication and lack of employee motivation. The consultant proposes hiring internal consultants to address these issues and help implement leaderful leadership. After meetings to discuss the proposal, it is approved to hire two internal consultants to be trained and overseen by the consultant. The goal is for the internal consultants to help change the organizational culture by practicing leaderful leadership through reflection and collaboration.

1. ©
SMART Leadership Consulting
a SMART way of doing business
April 14, 2013
Daryl Horney
SMART Leadership Consulting
Leadership Case Study
Client: Confidential
Goal: Introduce and implement action learning and new
leadership practices as described in the leaderful model
by Raelin (2010)
Introduction
Action learning is the process of learning by doing (action) and reflecting on
what was done (Pedler 2008). The organization continues to operate by doing
and not thinking of what was done as long as it was done to the company’s
satisfaction. There is no learning by doing and the act of reflection is not
practiced.
In my opinion, this type of leadership model is debauched. It speaks of
modernization, however it operates as if it were stuck clinging to a hierarchal
past. Whatever one director says is fact and it cannot be questioned. I want to
help my client change the organizations behavior and I believe in a sequence
for solving the workplace problem and with help from a team of internal
consultants, it would be a fantastic start.

2. Workplace problem
The organization has grown rapidly for the past few years. Naturally, growth
can be met with opportunities such as, profit, additional customers and brand
recognition. Unfortunately it can be met with perils such as, employee
turnover, loss of quality and financial issues (Heibutzki 2013).
Last year alone the organization added 80 additional sales staff. The
marketing department had been working tirelessly to keep up with the
demands from upper management; their product development team is
stretched to its limits, the training department has cancelled employee
training programs to keep up with new hire orientations and their business
development team is waiting for everyone else to catch up so they can
continue to do their work. As all of this is happening, many cracks are
starting to show as the pressure builds. It’s as if they are in a ten-story
building, built on a side of a hill without any foundation, and the rainy season
is approaching.
In addition to departmental challenges, communication between departments
had been diminishing, many employees were not taking responsibility for
their actions and there had been a growing distrust toward middle
management, as they did not have any answers to their present challenges.
Departments would create solutions and some times they would create
incentives, however it seems that these solutions were only a temporary fix to
larger problems and the incentives only had a short lifespan.
Upper management was not clueless and was well aware of the situation. In
fact, two months ago the president of an international department addressed
the severity of their present condition and called for innovative solutions to
help address the problems. To start, upper management redefined its mission
by establishing a triple bottom line. The triple bottom line includes,
commitment to their customers, dedication to their employees and profit for
their shareholders.
To meet the goals of the triple bottom line the president decided the way
forward is to be a healthy organization (my italics) as defined by Patrick
Lencioni. Lencioni (2002) states a healthy organization has low turnover,
morale and productivity is high and company politics is at a minimum.
Lencioni (2002) adds a healthy organization is complete when its culture,
management, strategy and operations fit together.
The majority of the employees had high hopes for the new direction the
company was headed and they truly believed in the message the leadership
was sending, however it is not being delivered. No one knew exactly why. I
personally believe there was not a system in place for the messages to be
processed. As we know, many things in life are easier said then done. There
simply was no follow through. Managers have to keep reiterating the
message of their directors and leadership team.

3. Solution
I have offered my services to help assist the president and upper management
to meet its objectives. I began by ‘planting seeds’ referring to giving an idea to
some one else in a subtle way and have them act on it (Cohen & Bradford
1989).
My idea consists of creating an internal position(s), amply called internal
consultant (IC). The IC will be responsible for bridging communication across
departments, linking necessary company information to its sources and
spending time with employees. The latter responsibility has three objectives:
it serves to raise employee moral, reestablish trust and collect employee
information to use for future job placement and to have a present data base of
employees (resources). Discovering and uncovering employees collective
strengths is key to their motivation and subsequent retention (Lueneburger
2012).
Leadership
The director of the international department reviewed my idea and we sat
down to discuss the details. As I mentioned earlier, the decision to go forward
with implementing this new position wasn’t over night. In my first meeting I
used the ‘Brokering Leaderful Change activity’ (Raelin 2010) as a sort of sales
tool to convince the director that my idea of creating an internal consultant
would be hugely beneficial. I knew he was not alone in making the final
decision to give my idea final approval. I had to influence his opinion so that
when he met with his bosses he would be convincing them of the benefits
(Graen & Uhl-Bien 1995).
Below are the set of questions I purposed to the director. The questions were
taken from (Raelin 2010):
What would happen if we were to keep our current state?
If we as a company kept our communication issues as issue, we would not
be able to communicate properly. I a lot of blaming would still be taking
place, employees would avoid responsibility, and employees in general
would remain frustrated and unmotivated.
What are we losing?
We are losing valuable time, time that could be better spent being
productive. If I added all the time employees complained about lack of
communication and put 10 cents for every minute wasted, I would be a
millionaire in 4 months.

4. What will we become after the change?
Employees will be motivated, as well as feel needed. Communication will
be open and transparent. Resources will be used properly and office politics
and confusion will be at a minimum.
How should any knowledge acquisition be accomplished?
This is what the new job position entails. Knowledge acquisition will be
gathered for the interviewing employees face to face individually to really
find out what is going on under the surface of the organization. Part of the
job description is to gather this information and review it.
Are we ready to make adjustments based upon our ongoing assessments?
Yes, this is required in order to be consistent with our mission of
establishing a healthy organization.
These questions were the perfect tools to use in order to influence his
decision. As Isaacs (1993) mentioned, capacity of dialogue assists to further
influence decision makers. The questions clearly demonstrated what we have
to benefit and what we have to lose if we do not take action (Johansen,
Johansen, & Ryan 2012). Essentially, I was “turning a circumstance into a
situation that is comprehended explicitly in words that serves as a
springboard into action.” (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld 2005).
In my second meeting, we discussed how many internal consultants were
needed to make this project successful. We decided two persons were enough
to handle all the responsibility and we also decided the length of the project
should be six to eight months, but definitely no longer than eight months as
there was no room in the budget. We then discussed whether to hire
internally or externally. I was surprised to get so much resistance from him
when I expressed my idea of hiring internally. He argued internal consultants
would not be neutral and subjective. I argued on the contrary, the internal
consultant had to be neutral and objective. I further argued that he already
had a vast amount of talented employees who were more than qualified to
take on this position and the current employees already know the company
culture and have the knowledge and experience suited for this position
(Andreatta 2002).
We definitely had a conflict of interest. My first reaction was to accommodate
him as I didn’t want my idea to go straight down the drain, but I truly
believed we had to hire internally so I had to challenge him. I changed from
an accommodating demeanor to one of collaboration as described by Thomas
(1977), I reiterated the benefits for hiring internally (Grima & Trepo 2011),

5. spoke of the what the objective was and reestablished my commitment for
making this project successful. I was exhibiting altruistic behavior (Sosik,
Jung, & Dinger 2009). I believe he knew I was truly being collaborative and
trying to work with him and not against him. He relented and agreed to go
with hiring internally.
As the director was well aware of my involvement in other projects, I would
not be able to be one of the internal consultants. However, we concluded the
two internal consultants would be trained by me and report directly to me as
well. I offered him to share a collaboration role (Raelin 2003) for this project,
but he preferred not to be directly involved, for whatever reason.
I knew I was in a new leadership role now that I had added responsibility to
oversee two internal consultants. I have not yet hired the two consultants as I
am wrapping up another project. However, I am in the stage of planning
what the full responsibilities will entail and as importantly how I will lead
this project. I had to ask myself if I would be taking the role of a leader or a
manager. Ideally, I do not want to manage the internal consultants. I prefer
them to manage themselves so they have a sense of autonomy. Nauert (2011)
emphasizes autonomy has many benefits which “include greater employee
commitment, better performance, improved productivity and lower
turnover.”
Usually, I would just go forward with a project I was leading and not think
about what leadership style I would be using. However, for this project I
decided to keep a journal for self reflection. Will I change my leadership style
during the period of the project? What is the best way to lead two persons in
newly developed positions and make it successful? Am I merely managing
this project or leading it? The last question I had to extinguish immediately. I
recalled reading Zaleznik (1992), Zaleznik declares, “Managers follow the
tasks set forth from their leaders. They motivate their staff and on the other
side of the spectrum punish their staff.” I am not here to motivate or punish
the consultants; I am the one who is creating the tasks not following tasks set
forth by anyone else.
I believe I have to be influential. I have noticed influencing others is one of my
daily activities. Not influential to get what I want, but to influence a new way
of leading. I did not realize it until I took a step back and reflected on my
workdays. Reflection has been one of the greatest assets I have gained thus
far. It was after reading Revans (1998) and Pedler (1996) that I absorbed the
importance of reflection.
As a leader on this project I have a vision not to lead by a traditional model,
but to implement the leaderful model. My vision is for the internal
consultants to absorb a new approach of leadership and spread it internally.
Three persons cannot only accomplish this, however with the participation of
others we can uniformly make change (Brenkert 1992).

6. In my opinion this is way overdo. How do I go about doing this?
I do not plan to choose one pattern of leading Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1973)
nor do I plan to set myself up as a failing hero (Manz & Sims (1991) and I
definitely to not want to start off as charismatic leader and then see it fade
(Congor et al 2000). I want to start off right. I want to embrace the leaderful
model so the internal consultants will see the benefits of it. I want them to
learn by doing and then reflect on what they did (Pedler 2008). It is simple as
that. I know this is easier said then done, however with the right attitude and
for the right purpose, I believe it is a realistic goal.
Conclusion
I did not necessarily believe by introducing the leaderful model as presented
by Raelin (2003) to two employees that I was directly working with would
ultimately change the leadership of the company over night. However, I do
believe that it was a positive start. Raelin (2003) admits, “We also recognize
that teams are not automatically leaderful. They need to be developed.” This
was my goal and what I had been hired to do.
The traditional (hierarchal) leadership model the organization was following
had many negative impacts on its employees. Too many irresponsible
managers wielded too much power. They had the authority to fire or hire
whomever they wanted without full consent of HR, they controlled and
manipulate others, were dispassionate, and never shared leadership. They
represented all of the tenets of old school leadership, leadership practice that
had been on the decline for some time.
It was in their best interest to introduce ‘the leaderful practice’ as I believe
there is room to share power, to hear a collective voice rather than only one,
be comfortable entering into conflict and lastly, to be compassionate or in
other words, to respect the dignity of others (Raelin 2003).
The organization was able to fully implement leaderful practices and actually
practice them on a daily basis, thus changing the organizational culture. The
organization was able to bridge departmental communication, link company
information to its sources (Sharepoint) and got to know the employee
sentiment through ‘Employee Participation Surveys.’
Now looking at the big picture, I see added value. I see how I taught and
influenced a couple of employees and a director through action learning to
lead not only themselves, but also others as representatives of leaderful
leadership.

7. Short Reflection
As Raelin (2010) mentions anyone can be a leader. I did not share these beliefs
at first. I always thought leaders were born leaders (innate) and followers
were born followers (Leithwood 1994). Now that I have completed this
project I have spent a lot of time reviewing works by leaderful authors.
I believe anyone can be a leader, perhaps not as influential as some or
compassionate as others, however we all share come characteristics of
leadership. So, I ask myself, is leadership an innate characteristic?
For myself, it has taken time to accept that I do not hold all the tenants of
leaderful leadership. I still have difficulty sharing leadership and I definitely
always feel responsible for others. Through progression and practicing
alternative leadership models and concurrent leadership behaviors, I believe
progress and development is surely to be made.
Reference and Further Reading
Andreatta, T. (2002) Changing organizational culture throught he involvement and
participation of staff at all levels, Action Learning and Action Research Journal, 7(2), pp 25-29.
Brenkert, G.G. (1992) ‘Freedom, participation and corporations: the issue of corporate
(economic) democracy’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 2 (3), pp.251-269.
Conger, J.A., Kanungo R.N. & Menon, S.T. (2000) ‘Charismatic leadership and follower
effects’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (7), pp.747-767.
Cohen, A. & Bradford, D.l. (1989) Influence without authority: the use of alliance, reciprocity,
and exchange to accomplish work, Organizational Dynamics, 17 (3), pp.5-17.
Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) ‘Relationship-based approach to leadership: development
of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective’, The Leadership Quarterly, 6 (2), pp.219-247.
Heibutzki, R. (2013)The Disadvantages of Expanding a Business, Demand Media. Available from:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-expanding-business-22611.html.
Isaacs, W.N. (1993) Taking flight: dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning,
Organizational Dynamics, 22 (2), pp.24-39.
Lencioni, P. (2002), The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. Jossey-Bass ISBN 0-7879-6075-6.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
Lueneburger, A. (2012) Retaining High Potential Talent : Assessment and Coaching As a
Means of Avoiding the “ Mahna-Mahna ” Effect. International Journal of Evidence Based
Coaching and Mentoring, 10(1), 124–132.
Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) ‘Relationship-based approach to leadership: development
of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective’, The Leadership Quarterly, 6 (2), pp.219-247.

8. Grima, F. & Trepo, G. (2011) Internal consultants: Why do clients use them and what for what
benefits? European Management Journal, vol. 29(2), pp. 114-154.
Johansen, B., Johansen, R., & Ryan, J. R. (2012). Leaders make the future: Ten new leadership skills
for an uncertain world. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Manz, C.C. & Sims, Jr., H.P. (1991) ‘Superleadership: beyond the myth of heroic
leadership’,Organizational Dynamics, 19 (4), pp.18-35.
Nauert, R. (2011) Worker autonomy can lead to greater productivity, satisfaction.
PsychCentral. Available at: http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/01/25/worker-autonomy-
can-lead-to-greater-productivity-satisfaction/22885.html
Pedler, M. (1996) Action learning for managers. London: Lemos and Crane.
Raelin, J. A. (2003) Creating leaderful organizations: how to bring out leadership in everyone.
San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Raelin, J.A. (2010) The leaderful fieldbook: strategies and activities for developing leadership in
everyone. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Revans, R. W. (1998) ABC of action learning. London: Lemos and Crane.
Sosik, J.J., Jung, D. & Dinger, S.L. (2009) ‘Values in authentic action: examining the roots and
rewards of altruistic leadership’, Group and Organization Management, 34 (4), pp.395-431.
Tannenbaum, R. & Schmidt, W.H. (1973) ‘How to choose a leadership pattern’, Harvard
Business Review, 51 (3), pp.162-180.
Thomas, K.W. (1977) Toward multi-dimensional values in teaching: the example of conflict
behaviors, Academy of Management Review, 2 (3), pp.484-490.
Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. & Obstfeld, D. (2005) Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking.
Organization Science, Vol. 16, No. 4 pp. 409-421.
Zaleznik, A. (1992) ‘Managers and leaders: are they different? Harvard Business Review, 70 (2),
pp.126-135.