We’re delighted to have a new video to share, featuring Mark McKergow himself introducing the concept of host leadership through three leadership metaphors – hero, servant and host. This intimate presentation was recorded live at a workshop in Helsinki, Finland, and thanks go to Taitoba’s Peter Sundman who both organised the workshop and made the recording. It’s around seven minutes of Mark’s engaging live presentation style – check it out below.
As we look back on world developments in 2017, I wonder whether this will come to be seen as the year that ‘soft power’ went missing. On one side of the Atlantic, we have the British Government’s attempts to negotiate Brexit by threatening from the start to walk out of the talks because ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’. On the other side of the Atlantic, we see President Trump overtly threatening nations who fail to support that US’s policy on recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. These are ‘hard power’ moves – the power that comes from force, threat and coercion. Whatever happened to ‘soft power’?
The concept of soft power was developed by Harvard academic Joseph Nye as the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion. Rather than falling back on tough-guy stances and strong-arm tactics, proponents of soft power point to the influence that can be gained from an outstretched hand of welcome, the desirability of co-operation rather than the pain of dispute. Soft power is based, in the end, on the attractiveness of positive consequences and outcomes. Hard power, on the other hand, is rooted in the pain of negative consequences.
Countries like the UK and USA have been able to develop huge soft power over the years, in no small part down to cultural exports like music, TV and (for the USA in particular) films. For decades, other countries have taken on western thinking and customs almost by osmosis, by watching, listening and engaging. These countries have also had long-term diplomatic and voluntary programmes such as the Peace Corps and the British Council, who in various ways have built connections based on common interests and the furthering of humanitarian and social progress.
Of course, hard power tactics are always hovering in the background and can’t be completely set aside in international relations. The question is about the relative positions that hard and soft power can take on in building progress. In our book Host, Helen Bailey and I talk about ‘smart power’, which is using both hard and sort power in appropriate combinations. As proponents of host leadership, we advocate starting with soft power and using it as far as it can go. Good hosts – and good leaders – tend to leave the hard power options hanging in the background, perhaps as a gentle reminder of possible alternative ways and as a last resort when other routes have failed.
So what’s going on today? We see the UK and USA, so often leaders in soft power diplomacy, resorting to overt and public hard power bargaining. I suspect that in both cases the administrations have been co-opted by groups who have been fuming on the sidelines for decades, without experience of actually getting things done. In the UK, the Brexiters look back to an imagined past where Britannia ruled the waves and the world marched to the Empire’s drum. (This Empire was, of course, primarily a hard power construction.) The role of ‘experts’, at least in international relations, trade, economics and business, has been explicitly rejected by those who now find themselves Cabinet ministers.
In the USA Donald Trump, a businessman of dubious record and practices, seeks to play the zero-sum game that he and his supporter base understands (predicated on winning and losing) rather than the longer-term more ambiguous soft power of partnership building and mutual gain – where both sides can ‘win’ by enhancing their positions together. Trump’s rejection of science, knowledge and expertise is surely unparalleled in modern times – who else would appoint to the role of Education Secretary a billionaire with no previous experience, or an EPA (environment) head wilfully ignorant of the scientific consensus about global warming and air quality? On both sides of the pond, there seems to be no way to sustain a rational basis for debate and discussion – and so the emphasis immediately shifts to clumsy execution of threats and hard power tactics.
What will happen in 2018? It seems to me that the role of soft power, and host leadership overall, has never had a more important part to play, in both trying to ensure that the worst results of failed hard power tactics are avoided and in bringing relations back onto a more productive level. The trouble with making chest-beating threats is that one quickly finds oneself in a position where one must carry through (and damage everyone in the process) or back down (and find oneself in a much weaker position long-term). Perhaps given the noise made by these administrations, we might hope to see soft power being used behind the scenes to attempt to find creative ways out of the knots inflicted on us by one-eyed simplistic leaders.
In the longer term, whatever happens, our societies will surely need to be reforged into some kind of greater unity and connection. This simply can’t happen using hard power leadership – Governments can impose their will for a while, but the democratic pendulum will eventually swing back and new visions will ensue. The question is how long this will take, how much damage will be inflicted in the mean time, and who has the vision, skill and courage to do it. Because – and get this – soft power is actually more difficult, more subtle, more effortful – than hard power. But the results are immeasurable more, the potential hugely greater. Let’s make 2018 the year where soft power reveals itself in new ways and gains new traction in this always difficult emerging world.
By the way… we will have some exciting news about Host Leadership in January! Keep 29 May 2018 free to come and join our next international Gathering.
Mark McKergow PhD MBA is a consultant and author bringing new ideas into the world of organisations. He is the co-author of the best-selling The Solutions Focus which has sold some 30,000 copies and is in 11 languages. His latest book (with Helen Bailey) is Host: Six new roles of engagement for teams, organisations, communities and movements (Solutions Books, London, 2014). Mark has worked on every continent except Antarctica, and is known around the world for his winning combination of scientific rigour (as a ‘recovering physicist’) and performance pizazz. His work presents ways of acting which fit, rather than fight, the complex emerging world in which we find ourselves.
Christmas time is always a time for parties and gatherings, and so it’s also a great time to practice your inviting skills. Jenny and I spent last weekend in the Scotland/England Border region – an amazing place, very sparsely inhabited, now a Dark Skies park area (the low artificial light levels make for excellent stargazing conditions). In the midst of all this, we stumbled on one of the earliest surviving written invitations in the world.
Some of you will know that this area is crossed by Hadrian’s Wall – the Vallum Hadriani, as they called it – which runs for 73 miles across the island of Britain. Construction started in 122AD, and it’s the largest Roman artefact anywhere. What is less well known is that the Romans were in this area for several decades before they built this wall, building forts and encampments which were inhabited not just by soldiers but also by their wives, families, traders and so on. The best-preserved of these places is Vindolanda, built initially around 85AD near what is now the town of Corbridge.
Vindolanda has proven to be a rich source of archaeological discoveries, not least the Vindolanda tablets. These fragile wooden sheets were used for all kinds of written records, from inventories to personal communications, and date from the last decade of the first century, around 92-102AD. When the first garrison at Vindolanda were given orders to move on to with is now Romania (what a march that would be!), orders were apparently given to destroy the records and a bonfire was constructed to burn the tablets. However, a rain shower intervened and many of the tablets survived. They then fell into boggy wet ground which preserved the fragile wood in anaerobic conditions, until being uncovered by archaeologists in recent decades.
The most famous tablet is the ‘birthday party invitation’ (above), written by a woman to her friend around 100AD. The wording is beautiful and striking even today:
“Claudia Severa to her Lepidina greetings. On 11 September, sister, for the day of the celebration of my birthday, I give you a warm invitation to make sure that you come to us, to make the day more enjoyable for me by your arrival… Give my greetings to your Cerialis. My Aelius and my little son send him (?) their greetings. (2nd hand) I shall expect you, sister. Farewell, sister, my dearest soul, as I hope to prosper, and hail. (Back, 1st hand) To Sulpicia Lepidina, wife of Cerialis, from Severa.’
As you can see from the image, the writing is in a scribe’s shorthand rather than spelled out in conventional lettering, and so is not easy to read directly. The part in ‘2nd hand’ is where Claudia Severa has added a peroration herself, in her own hand, before giving the tablet back to the scribe. This is the oldest knowingly female handwriting in Europe. It’s amazing that this everyday document has survived for us to read.
The wording of the invitation bears close examination, even 2000 years later. “Make the day more enjoyable for me by your arrival…” is a powerful sentiment. “I shall expect you, sister” is perhaps even more assertive, particularly given that Claudia has added this in her own hand.
The invitation is a fine display of our three elements of a great invitation from the Host book. These are:
- Make it attractive – to what are we being invited?
- Make it personal and acknowledging – why is our presence particularly important?
- Make it optional – it’s an invitation after all, and in order for an authentic ‘Yes’ response there must also be the possibility of ‘No’.
Is it attractive? It’s a birthday party! Is it personal and acknowledging? Absolutely – it’s personally addressed, and we are told that our presence will ‘make the day more enjoyable for me’. Wow. Is it optional? Well, just about… the invitation is clearly a strong one, but an invitation it is, not an instruction or a demand.
These three facets were in use 2000 years ago and they still hold good. Next time you are inviting people to get engaged in a project, business or activity, invite them using these three elements and see what response you get. All the very best for a peaceful and engaging 2018 from us at Host Leadership!
Check out this excellent interview with Mark McKergow online – listen and enjoy.
“Sun Ra, the jazz composer, bandleader, poet and philosopher is the starting point for a conversation on Leadership and the art of Hosting. Lush’s Andrew Paine and Dr Mark McKergow, co-director of sfwork – The Centre for Solutions Focus at Work – and author of Host talk about creating space for experimentation, finding new frontiers, throwing out the rule book, co-participation and the emerging need for Leaders to take on a hosting mindset in an increasingly unpredictable and changing workplace.
One of the six ‘roles of engagement’ in Host Leadership is the Gatekeeper – the negotiator of boundaries and the welcomer at the door. Very often the Gatekeeper role is about setting expectations, encouraging people to get involved, helping to decide what’s appropriate here and encouraging people to play along nicely and co-operatively. Sometimes, however, it can be about letting people know that they are overstepping the mark, exceeding the boundary, and need to rethink their behaviour.
I cam across a very nice blog about this recently, entitled “We don’t do that here“. The author talks about how this simple phrase, “We don’t do that here”, has helped her in her professional career in pointing out quickly and clearly to folk that they have overstepped the mark. So, if someone is getting too close or taking too much personal space and someone else is getting uncomfortable, you can step and say “We don’t do that here”. The person may push back, saying something like “I was just trying to be friendly!”. This gives you the chance to affirm their intention, and also rule out their behaviour all in one sentence – “Yes, being friendly is great. And we don’t stand that close here.”
Notice that I put ‘and’ in that last sentence. It’s tempting to say ‘but’, but… the but tends to de-emphasise everything before it and minimise the affirming. So best stick to ‘and’.
I think this simple phrase can be a real gift to host leaders. It’s so brief, it’s so to-the-point, and it helps us build and reinforce ‘house rules’ and expectations in a very nice and yet firm way. Now please go read the blog, which gives more examples.
PS the blog featuring the post about “We don’t do that here” is called Thagomizer. It’s named after one of my very favourite Gary Larson cartoons:
The Bulgarian language edition of Host is now out. Published by Istok-Zapad, it goes under the Bulgarian title of ‘Гостоприемно лидерство’, or (literally) Hospitable Leadership. The ISBN is 978-619-01-0105-5. More details from the publisher at http://iztok-zapad.eu/books/book/2007/гостоприемно-лидерство-марк-маккъргоу-и-хелън-бейли.
As many of you will know, Mark McKergow (the co-author of Host) is also a global expert and pioneer in using Solution Focused (SF) ideas with organisations and in coaching. Mark runs a 16-week online course in SF with the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee – the course runs twice a year and attracts people from all over the world, often experienced consultants, coaches and managers who want to make even better use of the power of SF in building positive change in tough situations (and get a university certificate at the end of it!).
One of the topics we consider on the programme is – of course – Host Leadership and the connections with SF thinking. On the most recent course, Niklas Tiger (CEO of Hi5, a software development company based in Sweden) produced this answer about the connections between Host Leadership and SF. I think it pulls together a great deal of wisdom and so I’d like to share it with you. Niklas writes:
“In SF practice it is all about managing and amplifying change that is already happening in a complex and unpredictable system. We do this in order to take steps in a desired direction towards what’s wanted. We also realise that we can have some impact on the outcome, but also that there are many other forces in play that will have impact on where we end up. Since we are constantly expecting this to happen we are responsive and adapt quickly to the changing circumstances keeping a clear (and sometimes updated) idea on where we are heading. Direction and velocity is much the focus.
“With the Leader as Host metaphor it’s much the same. There’s a general idea on what’s wanted and how to get there, but there is also a responsiveness to the complexity in hosting and that there are many other forces in play (the guests and the space for example) that will constantly change over time and require different types of actions in order to keep moving forward towards the desired direction. Sometimes new possibilities or constraints will present themselves and this will require the host to adapt, take action and even change the direction when needed.
“The Host can in some respect be compared to the coach in SF. But a difference from SF is that the Host will both be the coach and the customer since one aspect of hosting is also taking part as one of the guests. Acting in a complex and constantly changing environment and trying to have some impact to move towards to what’s wanted seem to be very similar in both worlds. Also being responsive to what is happening and taking actions that are appropriate to this rather than following a predefined plan from A to B.”
I love the way Niklas connects the flux and complexity assumptions of the SF paradigm with the responsive skills of a great host leader! And of course the wonderful thing is that by learning more about SF we can become better hosts (and host leaders) too. The next SF Business Professional course starts 22 October 2017 – check it out. Perhaps it’s your next development step as a host leader?
Come and join Mark McKergow for an action-packed conference in Sofia, Bulgaria. Mark will be leading a half-day session about using host leadership ideas to engage people for performance and results, and then participating with seven other speakers in a packed conference day about all kinds of new organisational thinking. More details at http://2017.reinventingorganizations.eu/.
My friend and colleague Chris Corrigan from Canada has proposed an excellent model for thinking about how we use the power of invitation. He offers five key points to consider:
- Verb: ‘Invite’ is a verb, and it requires action and responsiveness to do it
- Attractors and Boundaries: Invitations should have an attractive purpose at their centre, but also give a sense of the ‘container boundaries’ into which you are inviting people. What’s NOT part of this?
- Leadership: To invite is to lead, and following through on an invitation requires great leadership.
- Urgent: What’s the zeitgeist to which you are responding? What’s needed right now?
- Embodied: Invitation are person-to-person, and inviting is a whole-body sport where people see your enthusiasm and reactions close-up (so they’d better be congruent and convincing).
This all adds up to the VALUE of a great invitation! Here at Host Leadership we’re right behind this way of thinking and acting. We might add the importance of making the invitation Acknowledging of the person being invited, bringing out not only the attractiveness of the purpose but also the reasons why THIS particular person is being invited – what are we hoping they can bring to the ‘party’ in terms of experience, strengths, outlook or whatever. And remember, all invitations have an element of Choice about them – in order for there to be a heartfelt ‘Yes’ in response, there has also to be the possibility of ‘No’.
I particularly admire Chris Corrigan’s work on containers and boundaries, and it’s very interesting to see this kind of language included in the vocabulary of an invitation. Great stuff Chris!
Chris is coming to Scotland soon to run a two-day workshop on ‘Working In Complexity’ in Glasgow with our own Bronagh Gallagher later in the year (perhaps November 2017) so there is a chance for UK folks to experience his excellent and skilful work in person. Now please go check out Chris’s blog if you haven’t already – http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot/the-value-of-invitation/.
I recently returned from the ‘Solution Focused Safari’ conference in Johannesburg, South Africa. It was a marvellous event, the first large-scale international SF meeting there, with presenters from all over the world and a good contingent of South Africans eager to learn and join in. One particular workshop which stood out was my good friend and colleague Stanus Cloete (pictured on the right during a trip to Soweto along with his wife Riekie and my wife Jenny) presenting on his experience with the Kgotla.
The Kgotla – pronounced ‘hotla’ to our Western ears (the K is silent) – is a form of participative leadership process developed by African tribal groups. It has survived in some places, particularly in Botswana, and it’s this example which Stanus presented to us. If there is a question concerning the whole community, then a Kgotla may be called. Stanus started from the African concept of ubuntu – “I am who I am because of who we all are”. This stance is about the importance of connection and social process, and sits very well alongside a host leadership perspective.
The Kgotla is a group meeting to which the whole community is invited. (OK, so in the traditional form only the men are invited, but this is about learning from ancient wisdom rather than criticising it. (Nowadays woman also partake though there is still some criticism about the role of women in the Botswana community.) There are five key principles for a Kgotla:
1. Neutral ground – it’s held in the open air, and is open to all, with an expectation of mutual honesty.
2. No time limit – any one may speak, but everyone has a chance to speak before the same person can speak again. All points of view are listened to.
3. Focus on the now and the future – the discussion is about where we are and how to move forward helpfully, rather than a recounting of the past (as seen in western legal courts, for example). The focus is on reconciliation, restorative justice and reintegration.
4. Collective responsibility – the focus is on how to do things together rather than separately, building consensus and compromise.
5. Proverbs – there are some wonderful sayings which help to connect and understand the way of the Kgotla which are used as reminders for those present, including:
• All words spoken at the Kgotla are beautiful
• Everyone is entitled to their own views no matter what they are
• The king is king by the grace of the people
• The chief is the shepherd of the people
• The chief is a tree branch on which every bird seats (sic – not sits. This gives a different meaning)
• The wealth of the king is in the affections of his subjects.
One important aspect is that the chief and elders sit somewhat outside the discussion. Their role is not to speak in the first instance – it is to listen and understand. When all has been said (and remember, that can take a while) then the chief and elders will come forward to summarise what has been said. Then, they reach a conclusion, in front of everyone, about what might happen next
From a host leadership perspective, there are a number of interesting aspects to the Kgotla.
- Attendance is invited rather than compulsory and is open to all. This means that those with an interest are free to come, rather than only certain representatives.
- Everyone can speak, and there are mechanisms for allowing all voices to be heard.
- The neutral ground also reinforces that the process is open to all.
- The proverbs set an atmosphere and expectation of constructive and future focused contributions.
- The role of the chief and elders is most interesting. Rather than chair or lead the discussion, they are expected to listen and then summarise. This means that any summary must be seen to be a fair reflection by those present, which itself brings the need for appreciative and constructive listening from the elders.
It would certainly be interesting to use this form of dialogue in difficult and confrontational situations here. There are echoes of circle practices (with everyone given the opportunity to speak) and also reflecting teams (with the chief and elders listening to the whole discussion before responding). I hope that Stanus can continue to share and develop the ideas of the Kgotla more widely in South Africa and beyond.