Constellation Leadership: Reflections on the Study

My academic research for a new model of leadership – one where there is no “leader” – has been reviewed, and I wanted to share how the model for Constellation Leadership developed and my reflections on why it’s important.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be translating the academic study and findings into something a little more palatable (academic writing can be a little inaccessible at times!).

In the meantime, here’s my reflections on the journey

I created and posted this statement on LinkedIn in 2020:

At the time, I was struggling with organising my workload as the COVID-19 pandemic changed approaches within the blue-chip organisation I was supporting.

The initial “let’s all pull together” mentality of March – where various areas of the organisation dropped their tribal behaviours and politics and worked together to move all employees to a homeworking model – had long elapsed. We were now in a situation where home-working was normalised, support structures were established, and the Government still didn’t have any plan to let businesses know when lockdowns and other approaches might be stopped.

As a result, not only did I have the core role and the emergency response to perform, multiple backup plans to revert employees to office working (should the Government provide the guidance) had to be formulated.

In this new environment, the familiar tribal behaviours had returned. Siloed mentality; protectionism; defensive decision making. Processes moved like molasses, as multiple departments refocused their energies onto their core roles. Interoperability had practically ceased.

I remember feeling frustrated. We – as a company and as a society – had shown what was possible, if we freed ourselves of these social shackles. If we had a clear objective and we rallied around each other with common purpose, behaviours, actions and practices.

Somewhat coincidentally, I was delivering a development session to a group of senior leaders on teamworking across an organisation. One delegate described their role as being like the clichéd swan metaphor: looking calm on the surface, but kicking like mad underneath to keep everything afloat. I challenged and built on this analogy.

“Managers do things right; Leaders do the right things”, I suggested. “Management is about operational effectiveness and efficiency. Doing what we do today exceptionally well and always looking to improve.”

“Management is the majority of the swan. It improves those leg kicks; the foot positions; the spread of the webbed toes. It keeps the organisation moving.”

“Leadership is the swan’s head. It plots the swan’s path through the river, looking out for debris in the water, opportunities to eat or to mate.”

“It doesn’t even think about the legs.”

It doesn’t even think about the legs.

That’s when the idea of an organisation as an organism popped into my mind. The various parts of any organism aren’t “thinking” about other parts. Your hands don’t “think” about the lungs that are providing the oxygen needed by the opponens pollicis every time you oppose your thumb. Indeed, they don’t “know” each other at all.

The various parts of the organism have a clear goal: keep you alive long enough to pass on your genetic material. Every part of you is focused on that goal.

What if organisations could be the same?

If the purpose is paramount, known and understood by all of the organisation, surely the organisation would thrive in pursuit of that objective?

But we still have those tribal activities. Those sub-cultures within sub-cultures; that Russian nested doll of teams within teams, each with their own interpretation of how to get things done and what the accepted norms are. Each with their own limiting beliefs and suspicions of other groups in the same organisation.

It would take more than a clear purpose.

Through COVID, many of these tribal behaviours paused. Communities rallied round to ensure vulnerable neighbours had food deliveries. Charitable donations increased. People spoke with their families more frequently (albeit on Zoom). We shared social norms.

Perhaps culture is the second part of the equation?

The swan’s legs make a terrible beak. But the swan never puts itself in a position where its legs are expected to be a beak. Every part has a purpose and is allowed to lean into that strength. If the purpose and culture are appropriate, individuals could also be put in positions to play to their inherent strengths.

A goalkeeper never needs to worry about scoring from a 20-yard free kick. Yet, how frequently do organisations ask employees to “work on your development areas” or place them in situations where they are playing out of position?

Today, the importance and impact of networks (constellations) is more evident to me.

I believe that, in the right environment, distribution of responsibility and accountability can be incredibly powerful and fulfilling for all group members. We are greater than the sum of our parts.

There is evidence of this all around. Wikipedia is a self-governing network of members, focused on creating the world’s most accurate encyclopaedia. Though it has an owner, a board and internal employees, the power of the network decides what is and isn’t publishable. What and how to challenge inaccuracies and bias. How to self-police when group members or outside factions behave in ways that are incongruent with the purpose.

This study hopes to offer an alternative view of leadership. One that does not appear to have been academically studied, but has real-world, successful examples.

The world has changed since the mills and production lines of the 20th century. Perhaps it’s time for leadership to potentially change, too…