Maxime Fern and Michael Johnstone are life and working partners, based in Sydney and Canberra, Australia, where they started their consulting practice (Vantage Point Consulting) in 1988. They have worked as leadership consultants, facilitators, and coaches with clients in the public and private sectors, not-for-profits, and professional service firms for forty years. They were visiting faculty at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University for fifteen years, are on the Faculty Advisory Board of the global Adaptive Leadership Network (Washington, D.C.), and are members of the Inaugural Faculty for the Australian Adaptive Leadership Institute.
Before starting Vantage Point, Maxime was a development officer for the Australian Public Service, a social health visitor in a low-income neighborhood, and a counseling psychologist for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. She is an Australian National University (Psychology and Politics) graduate with a Master of Educational Counselling from Canberra. Maxime can be found in her gardens, and she practices her Italian on Duolingo in her spare time.
Michael trained as a youth worker and has worked as a town and regional planner, social researcher, and university lecturer in Human Geography and Sociology - and for a while, was a dairy farmer on a kibbutz in Israel. He holds a BA from Auckland University, a Master of Social Science (cum laude) from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and a Ph.D. from the Australian National University. In his spare time, he likes to read, cook, watch movies, and work in the gym.
They have three children and eight grandchildren and live in Sydney and Lazio, Italy, north of Rome.
Quote From This Episode
Resources Mentioned in This Episode
About The International Leadership Association (ILA)
About The Boler College of Business at John Carroll University
About Scott J. Allen
My Approach to Hosting
Maxime Fern and Michael Johnstone are life and working partners, based in Sydney and Canberra, Australia, where they started their consulting practice (Vantage Point Consulting) in 1988. They have worked as leadership consultants, facilitators, and coaches with clients in the public and private sectors, not-for-profits, and professional service firms for forty years. They were visiting faculty at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University for fifteen years, are on the Faculty Advisory Board of the global Adaptive Leadership Network (Washington, D.C.), and are members of the Inaugural Faculty for the Australian Adaptive Leadership Institute.
Before starting Vantage Point, Maxime was a development officer for the Australian Public Service, a social health visitor in a low-income neighborhood, and a counseling psychologist for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. She is an Australian National University (Psychology and Politics) graduate with a Master of Educational Counselling from Canberra. Maxime can be found in her gardens, and she practices her Italian on Duolingo in her spare time.
Michael trained as a youth worker and has worked as a town and regional planner, social researcher, and university lecturer in Human Geography and Sociology - and for a while, was a dairy farmer on a kibbutz in Israel. He holds a BA from Auckland University, a Master of Social Science (cum laude) from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and a Ph.D. from the Australian National University. In his spare time, he likes to read, cook, watch movies, and work in the gym.
They have three children and eight grandchildren and live in Sydney and Lazio, Italy, north of Rome.
Quote From This Episode
Resources Mentioned in This Episode
About The International Leadership Association (ILA)
About The Boler College of Business at John Carroll University
About Scott J. Allen
My Approach to Hosting
Note: Voice-to-text transcriptions are about 90% accurate, and conversations-to-text do not always translate perfectly. I include it to provide you with the spirit of the conversation.
Scott Allen 0:00
Okay everybody, welcome to the Phronesis podcast. Thank you so much for checking in wherever you are in the world. Today, I have Maxime Fern and Michael Johnstone, and they are life and working partners based in Sydney, and Canberra, Australia, where they started their counseling practice, VantagePoint Consulting, in 1988. For the past 40 years, they have worked together around the globe as leadership consultants, facilitators, and coaches, with clients in the public and private sectors, not-for-profits, and professional service firms. They are known for their different but complementary approaches, which have assisted many hundreds of executives in expanding their skills and mindsets to lead change and adaptation. They were visiting faculty at the Kennedy School of Government Harvard University for 15 years, and are on the faculty advisory board of the Global Adaptive Leadership Network in Washington DC. They're also members of the inaugural faculty for the Australian Adaptive Leadership Institute. Both authors are members of the Australian Psychological Society, Chartered Management Consultants, and members of the Australian Institute of Management Consultants. They are also senior adjunct faculty at the University of South Wales and contributors to the Academy of Adaptive Leadership. And Michael is faculty at the Turin-based United Nations System Staff College. They have three children and eight grandchildren, and they live in both Sydney and their home in Lazio, Italy, north of Rome. Prior to starting VantagePoint, Maxine worked as the development officer for Australian public services social health visitors in a low-income neighborhood and as a counseling psychologist for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. She is a graduate of the Australian National University in psychology, and politics and holds a Master of Educational Counseling from the University of Canberra. In her spare time, Maxime can be found in her gardens and practicing her Italian on Duolingo. Michael trained as a youth worker, and has worked as a town and regional planner, social researcher, university lecturer in human geography and sociology, and for a while as a dairy farmer on a kibbutz in Israel. He holds a BA from Auckland University, a Master of Science from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and a Ph.D. from the Australian National University. Michael has lived and worked in New Zealand, his country of origin, the UK, Malaysia, Italy, and Australia. In his spare time, he likes to read, cook, watch movies, and work out in the gym. Wow, this is going to be a fun conversation. I know it already because the background, the perspective, the lenses that the two of you bring to this conversation, I'm so excited to jump in. Before we jump in, though, and talk about the book that we're going to discuss today, I had just a magical five or six days in Sydney this summer. Such a beautiful, beautiful part of the world. And it was one of the most beautiful breakfasts I've ever had. I had a previous guest, Andrea Brownlow. She's at the University of Sydney. She had me over for breakfast, and we were overlooking the opera house for breakfast. And I can't tell you that I've ever had a more beautiful breakfast. It was a sunny morning, with a beautiful view and incredible conversation. It'll forever be imprinted in my heart. So, it's so good to have the two of you here today.
Michael Johnstone 3:27
It means you will have to come again so you can have lunch and dinner in equally beautiful places in Sydney.
Scott Allen 3:33
Oh, I'm so excited. What do listeners need to know about the two of you? Is there anything else before we jump into our conversation that you want people to know?
Maxime Fern 3:44
I think that something that is true about us, it's probably a sad thing, that we laugh, talk, and are in our work all the time. Yeah, well, I can't believe that we are lucky enough to get away with calling this work. It is such an exciting set of ideas and engagement that we are constantly nattering about it together. To the extent that our children learned very early on that they would lay down the rule at the dinner table which was, “There will be no speaking of work, and certainly nothing to do with leadership, thank you very much.” Because everything in life comes to this thing of leadership, embroidering it in is something that we do all the time, and probably too much, do you think?
Michael Johnstone 4:33
Well, I suppose the other thing to complement what Maxime has said, and you did allude to it in your introduction, your very kind introduction is how excited we are to meet with you and to be reminded that you've been part of some of the work we've done over the years at the Kennedy School. And to just highlight the fact that we are extremely fortunate to be a working and life couple. And, for some people, that's astonishing, and they just don't believe how that can be done. But for us now, it's like this is the water we swim in, and the air we breathe. This is not without its challenges, but to spend your personal and working life with the one you love is a pretty special thing.
Scott Allen 5:11
You know, my wife and I, we walk every morning, and we engage in dialogue and it is just so incredibly wonderful. And so, I can appreciate the fact that you all have this relationship where you have this common passion. And it resonated when you kind of spoke of, “Our kids had to lay down the law,” because sometimes… I was saying this to a friend the other day: I don't know if this is a hobby, if it's a passion, or if it's workaholicism. I don't know what I have, but I know I'm engaged, and I'm excited, and I'm curious, and I have jet fuel for this topic. But I guess I don't know what it is. And to have a life partner that you can kind of explore and just be curious with, I think that's just such a wonderful gift, as you said.
Michael Johnstone 6:00
Thank you. Yeah.
Scott Allen 6:01
And the two of you are authors together. And so, let's go there today, this ‘Provocation as Leadership.’ So, talk a little bit about that. Would you talk about the seeds of the book, the idea of the book?
Maxime Fern 6:15
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky, I think partly for putting up with us at the Harvard School for all that time, for helping us learn so much and adding it to the place we'd already come from. So, we were systems family therapists for a long time. And the important part about that is that people would bring us a person, an identified person who was, capitals, THE PROBLEM. And we learned this, really, that the problem, the difficulty was very by far best seen as residing in the system that was the family, not inside the person. That understanding and ability to identify where we should look when it is a problem had us meet with Ron and Marty's ideas about adaptation and what's required in a head-on way. So in an odd way, as we wrote, we came to realize the role of provocation that had always been in our work, but how pivotal and central essential it is to actually make anything different, to making progress when we're faced with a situation that none of us know. And we call that adaptation.
Michael Johnstone 7:37
Just to add a little to that, in terms of the kind of seeds and the origin of our ideas in the book, we both worked in other environments prior to being leadership development practitioners and consultants. And Maxime’s experience as a social health visitor in low-income neighborhoods. In my work as a youth leader and as a town planner, we learned viscerally about how hard it is for people with good intentions to create the conditions where real change can happen, whatever [Inaudible 8:06] analysis, a family, an institution, an organization. So, in town planning, the intentions are always very good, but we see viscerally there how, even though it's not ideal, people hold on to what they know. It's better to have dirty streets than to risk the change where you don't know the outcome. Literally, and metaphorically.
Maxime Fern 8:28
You can see what happens here; you can't stop us once we get underway. So, you're going to have to be tough.
Scott Allen 8:35
Okay. So, a couple of things. My undergraduate degree at the University of Minnesota was in family social science. So, family systems theory was baked into that whole experience, and that was the foundational theoretical lens. So, you're speaking my language, and I 100% understand kind of the roots of what you're discussing. And I so appreciate it because anytime we're in a group, I've always had that lens when thinking about leadership and thinking about this topic. So, I just love that. I love that.
Maxime Fern 9:09
I guess where we got to and why provocation became, for us, an essential focus is, if you like, we rediscovered the love affair we all have with the status quo. And as Michael said, despite what we demand, and ask for, and insist on having and doing differently, what's really going on is unlike it here. So, what is necessary is going to be a poke, or a flick, or a question, or something that says, “Look, hang on, wait a sec, go away, or what is that?” Something that disturbs and perturbs so that there's, at least, a glimmer of something else.
Michael Johnstone 9:53
Yeah. We've also found over the years, both in our consulting work and the work we've done as leadership educators at Harvard and in our own client work, even the word ‘provocation’ is problematic because it's highly provocative. No one particularly likes to be provoked. It has all sorts of negative connotations. And therefore, part of the reason we wrote the book. and we actually developed the framework on the balcony here at our home in 2019. We wanted to kind of rehabilitate this idea, and to expand people's kind of capacity to think about provocation as something productive, something worthwhile, and that, for leaders, something essential even though there are risks.
Scott Allen 10:36
Well, I love that framing that it's worthwhile, that it's productive. Because I think you're exactly right, I can be standing in front of a piece of artwork that might be provocative. I just finished a book called ‘A More Beautiful Question.’ And I think a really well-framed question can be so incredibly provocative. And I think, sometimes, people construct this role of leader or even sometimes follower, but they construct the role as leader as the person having the answers. And sometimes, I think the leader is the individual who elevates the right provocative questions for us to work.
Maxime Fern 11:15
Yeah, whether or not that's your formal role, or you find yourself sitting in the family and you think, “Oh, God, I don't want to do this,” but there it is. The question.
Michael Johnstone 11:24
A lot of the anecdotes and small examples we provide in the book come from people who weren't really in, you might say, senior positions of authority, big leaders, but team leaders, just individual contributors who found a moment of time where they plucked up whatever chutzpah energy they needed to ask a question. And that created an opening for people in just the way that you described.
Scott Allen 11:50
Well, let's talk about some of the capabilities and skills that are required when you think about this, or maybe before we do that, is there anything else that you want to say to kind of lay the foundation or the groundwork for listeners about this whole space of provocation? Anything else there?
Maxime Fern 12:08
I think what we would really want people to understand if anyone is to buy into the fact that we have to do uncomfortable work sometimes to make progress, is to understand the scale. So, we've made a difficulty for ourselves. As Michael said, provocation is such a big word. We were doing a book launch in a country I won't name, and one of the participants said, “How dare you, on the front of a book, put the words provocation and leadership together?” And was upset and angry. And so, one of the things that we hope people will understand as a baseline is that we are talking about the range of what provocation is. So, for example, simply, if you're standing in front of a group as an educator, or whatever, if you can just hold sometimes to 10 seconds longer than you would have before you give an answer, that's a perturbation, that's a provocation because it's disappointing people's expectations. So, provocation sounds like we're talking about let's go out there and thump them. What we're really on about is, guess what? You're actually doing it already, it’s within your range, we just want to make that muscle more visible so you got more choice.
Scott Allen 13:32
I really enjoy that framing as well. And I would have looked at that participant and said, “So it worked.” (Laughs)
Maxime Fern 13:39
Why didn’t I think of that?
Michael Johnstone 13:41
I think the other thing we would kind of add as an overarching kind of idea to the particulars of what we write about in the book is, pretty well, all the people that we spoke to in our research and the major case studies we have on the book, none of them would have called them… Except with maybe one or two exceptions, they would have called themselves leaders, let alone provocateurs. Those who were in formal positions of authority, institutions, and businesses. But, in talking with them, it was very clear that they recognized kind of three or four key things. One is the status quo, the way things were being done was no longer serving that community or organization, and that something more was needed. Secondly, they recognize that to create more productive patents, some kind of nudge, push, and disturbance was required to open things up so the stable patterns of the past could be, at least, examined. Thirdly, as you would know from your own work and being at the Kennedy School, the minute you begin to do that to nudge people to shift the status quo, it creates disturbance, and you have to keep them in what Heifetz and Linsky called the productive zone of disequilibrium. So, learning and exploration can happen too little, too much, no work. Finally, despite the need, there are risks, and we make a point in the book of talking about how to manage those risks and the consequence of too much or too little provocation.
Scott Allen 15:05
Well, let's talk a little bit about some of those provocative capabilities and skills because you all outline some very, very important things to have in mind as we think about these capabilities and skills.
Michael Johnstone 15:21
Well, that's a really big question. So, let's see how to summarize that.
Scott Allen 15:28
So, for instance, you talk about observation, interpretation, and questioning; maybe we start there because I think that's so valuable. You were almost alluding to it just now.
Michael Johnstone 15:38
I think that, if someone wanted to begin to think differently about their own leadership practice because they saw that some kind of disturbance, shelf provocation, or challenge was needed, probably the critical skill set would be the ability to begin to observe how a system operates, what the patterns are, and literally, to be able to just even sit back in your chair and notice what's going on in a meeting. And, for instance, just to get a little practical, a little case we've got as a team leader in a tech organization, the first woman to lead this engineering team. And she noticed how the blokes in her -- that's an Australian word for men -- how the men and her team weren't talking to her directly but to the senior engineer, the person they thought would get the job. And finally, she said to them, she plucked up the courage and said, “Look, there's something going on here. I don't know what it is; I'd like to understand what, but I'm noticing that you're not directing your comments to me.” So, she saw the patterns, and she made that pattern available and said, “What do you think?” And that led to a much richer discussion. So, in the simple act of observing, feeding it back, asking a question, let alone, offering a proper interpretation. And, as we know, interpretations for people are disturbing because they provide a perspective that may be different than what conventional wisdom would have. So, that'd be the kind of first cluster, the primary critical cluster.
Scott Allen 17:08
And I like the phrasing of ‘interpretation’ because, in some ways, it’s, “Here's something I'm noticing, and one interpretation of that could be this. I'm checking that, is that accurate?” So it's not, “I'm correct. I'm judgmental. I'm saying this is what's happening.” It's a more inviting way, and a softer way to provoke to say, “Look, this is how I'm experiencing this, this is one interpretation of that behavior. What do you all think?” And, to your point, Michael, I am in class. I use a variation of some of Heifetz's work around case in point, but it's always amazing to me how quickly individuals move out of the gear of staying completely present and aware of the dynamics. Get sucked into the conversation. They can't get on the balcony and observe some of those patterns, observe some of what's happening. And it happens very, very, very quickly. And I will often push the pause button and say, “Okay, what's happening right now?” And people will say, “Oh, okay. Yeah, I guess we kind of went off on there.” “Yes. Just be aware that you've now gone over here, and is this what you want to be spending your time on?” And I'm just building awareness. But to your point, that observation, that skill of observation, even though it sounds simple, it's so difficult to keep people in that space of truly being present and aware.
Maxime Fern 18:34
And one of the things that goes with that is the opportunity for, if you like, the intervener, the holder of the space, to genuinely explore different roles within themselves. So, in the description that you just made, we are holding, if you like, a mirror and say, “Well, hang on, what happened here?” And that's a genuine piece of perplexity.”So, hang on, you were saying how keen you are to talk to the other half of the motor group. And you've been just talking about what you're keeping from them. So, I'm confused. How should I understand that?” And it's genuine; there is no smart-ass involved. I think linked to that, if you like, we all go to the gym to exercise muscles. I think, in this work, a muscle that, sometimes, needs to be identified, practiced, and built is whether I can actually see a situation in different ways. I use the notion of, okay, what I've just seen and said and described might be at 12 o'clock on an analog clock. All right. Well, let's stretch what would it look like if I said six o'clock? Oh, no, I don't like that. Nine o'clock, three o'clock. But in daily life, what can I take? What am I prepared to give up in how I'm seeing stuff in a way to stay honest because that's a bit of the experience of the pain that we inflict on others, but also to genuinely get a view from different points?
Scott Allen 20:15
Talk a little bit about the provocative mindset. I'm intrigued. I'm very intrigued by the provocative mindset.
Michael Johnstone 20:24
Well, this might be among the more challenging ideas for practitioners and leadership educators, particularly for those who are in positions of authority who exercise more leadership because most systems function best when they're stable. And when the cogs of that system are churning in a way that helps the system be productive, and that's what we want. And so, there's nothing wrong… One of the pieces of the mindset is there's nothing wrong with stability provided it's working for you, and it's helping you live into the values, goals, and ambitions of the organization, the business, and the community. It's when that's not working -- and that's the job of leadership, to help people, whatever scale analysis you’re looking at, see into their best future. But we know that, by and large, people will not change that standard operating procedure without some kind of nudge, it's rare. It happens, but it's rare. People don't turn up to work today and say, “Hey, boss, will you piss us off today? Will you make us feel uncomfortable? Will you raise issues that we'll have us confront some of the gaps between how we are going?” This is why the work you've described with your students in the classroom is potentially so rewarding. They can leave with the tools to kind of see themselves in action and the gap between what they want for themselves and each other and what's actually happening. So, we talk about some of the capabilities in the book about having a flexible mindset, being unpredictable, being the Muhammad Ali of the leadership space, floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee, and being willing to speak the truth when it's required. But we also talk about the importance of being able to diagnose what a group can tolerate at the appointed time and to be able to… Unbridled truth is not necessarily the best form of intervention because it might be too shocking. So how do you calibrate, how to get people ready? How do you build their muscle to tolerate more difficult news?
Scott Allen 22:31
Well, because we will go to great lengths to avoid confronting the fact that the system isn't working, that the current approach… It's fascinating to observe. All of a sudden, that's off the agenda and never reappears. (Laughs) It's really, really interesting as I work with organizations just not wanting to admit to ourselves that things aren't going well, that things aren't productive right now, that the system in place isn't working or yielding the results we want. Just getting people to that point to have that conversation and to confront that is sometimes very, very difficult. And then, to your point, I think it's beautiful, ‘Okay, now, how do I elevate this so it can be heard? So that it's not going to bring people into such a space that now I'm ostracized?” So, there's these nuances to this conversation about, to use a KLC, Kansas Leadership Center, how do I skillfully intervene right now? How do I intervene in a way that helps the work of the group move forward? As Heifetz would say, ask the question but in a way that can be heard. It's so complex, so complex.
Maxime Fern 23:43
And I think what precedes stepping into that complexity is the recognition on the part of people in senior roles, firstly, that, in fact, they need to expand their repertoire and have that as a legitimate part of the work they're doing. And then enable the people that they work with to do the same. And I'm thinking of a guy we've worked with, actually, for many years in different ways in a central government agency who was and is an absolute sweetheart but does things very skillfully and absolutely by the book and doesn't veer or didn't. And over time, we would have conversations about some of the frustration he had with his groups of very smart people. And, over time, he learned to actually offer them less, to allow them to be less comfortable, less protected, less sure. And his provocation was, firstly, to himself; you can imagine the panic in a guy who really knows what he's doing and is known and promoted for it, and now he's standing in front of these people actually doing nothing and watching their rising panic, and intervening just before they shout, or whatever they're going to do. And over time, we've seen just an extraordinary expansion in his willingness to confront, actually, quite gently, and provoke into a quite a different pattern of work, responsibility, and progress.
Scott Allen 25:20
I think that's just such an interesting example of provocation. Sometimes it might just be staying silent and letting others swim in those waters and chart a path forward or struggle a little bit. And people use different phrasing for this. Vygotsky, I think, was the 'zone of proximal development.' It's not too much, it's not too little, but it's kind of that sweet spot of, “I'm interested, I'm intrigued, I'm engaged. I'm not overwhelmed yet, and I'm not underwhelmed, but I'm in that space.”
Maxime Fern 25:56
Yeah. Rising.
Scott Allen 25:59
Yes. (Laughs)
Maxime Fern 25:59
I think part of our journey, too, in teaching others in this work, we've had a little concern that, at times, practitioners have actually, in our view, misunderstood provocation. And it's almost like a badge of honor to throw a bomb in the middle and see what happens. And I think it's an odd thing to say but I often find myself saying, and I certainly believe, that this form of leadership is an act of love because we are going beyond what is comfortable and what we know in the service of something we need for our survival and well being. And yeah, that's difficult, rocky territory, and it'll never be a game of upsetting people to see what happens.
Michael Johnstone 26:50
And there is quite a paradox and a conundrum. People often ask us, “When's the best time to intervene and to nudge the system? Is it when things are going well and stable, and people are happier, or when there are obvious problems, and, if you like, there is complaint and crisis?” And the answer is yes and no. The importance of having a kind of a 360 view. So strangely, when things are going really well and people are happy and content, it is often the hardest time to get people to think about differences and move forward in some different ways because they're really committed to success that may have been built on yesterday's work, not tomorrow’s work. And, at the same time, during a crisis, things [Inaudible 27:33] So a number of the chapters in our book talked about situations where change has happened in part catalyzed by an external crisis that's really got people's attention and has affected the protagonists deeply. But, at the same time, when there's a crisis in a family or in a group, you might say that the disturbance is right at the upper limit. So, how you intervene and create more productive disturbance crises is critical, and that may be the very best time to seize an opportunity. So, we do try to talk about where an individual or a group are the ones who are catalyzing the challenge. And where people seize an opportunity because of some kind of external challenge where the system is already kind of disturbance. It sort of widens the scope of what a leader's role is.
Scott Allen 28:30
As we begin to kind of wind down our conversation today, I want to make sure that we leave listeners with just a little bit of kind of an entree into this conversation around risk because I think this way of thinking brings us to a place of is I mean, one part of the conversation is managing my risk if I am the individual elevating the question in the system, who might be disturbing the authority figure because of my question. I've had that happen at times when I asked a question, and it was taken incorrectly by an authority figure, or assumptions were made about what was behind the question. It was too much for that individual at the moment. But I also think there's risk in that leader you mentioned just a few moments ago, stepping back and pausing. Letting the group struggle a little bit and holding steady in their own development as a leader, but also holding steady as he's disappointing, or she's ‘disappointing,’ quote-unquote, the group that he's giving the work back to, or she's giving the work back to. There's risk embedded in this, and I think I want to just explore a little bit of how the two of you think about that.
Maxime Fern 29:47
What comes to mind, as you know, is hopefully, none of us do this work without making sure that we are supported. Supported by people who range across just being honest with us or loving us no matter what we do, but where we can debrief. And I think the risk of entering without support is quite high. And I think that is mitigated by reaching out to others in a way that furthers the work and allows one to fight another day or, in your experience, to lick your wounds after someone else's authority has given you a punch on the nose. Yeah, so mitigating to acknowledge the risks that are there because we're in the business of upsetting, and then to say, “And now what? Do I just assist, or how do I make this a safer place for me to live and do it another day? And how do I keep my eye on the safety of those that I am messing about with?”
Michael Johnstone 30:52
I think I'd add a couple of things just to extend that out. The first is just because someone is upset now doesn't mean they will be tomorrow or next week. And therefore, you need to gauge, if you like, their reaction and what you own people's tolerances for holding that because, in many instances, a couple of days down the track, or even longer, people can back and say, “Oh, my God, I get it.” At the same time, we write that this is one of the capabilities, the idea of radical scrutiny. It's good to apply that to others, but, more importantly, to yourself as the instrument of leadership, as the instrument of change. And in a way, to have an idea that what I'm offering, whether it's a question or interpretation, some kind of suggestion or intervention, I may be perfectly on target, but equally, I could be totally hooked and way off target, and I have to be ready, then to take a one-down position and a cop what comes back.
Maxime Fern 31:49
We've each got some famous examples of that, I'm afraid.
Michael Johnstone 31:54
And then, surrounding that is one of those diagnostic skills that we talked about in that book, is to be able to gauge, even though it's best to guess, how ready people in the system are and what their capability is; if people don't have much experience of living in disturbance or being challenged, you got to build that capability over time. If they do, but the issue hasn't arrived, and they don't think the issue that you want to move forward with is the critical one, then how do you ripen the issue? And we find a very practical tool for people is to think of that matrix, that two by two; readiness and ripeness, and then you can calibrate what kind of action, what kind of intervention to take.
Scott Allen 32:35
Well, a word I've used on the podcast a couple of times now and in a lot of my work with clients is thinking partners. If you're in a position of authority, I think even if you're not in a position of authority, who are your thinking partners? I just mentioned that I go on a walk with my wife every morning; she's a thinking partner. I have a therapist that I talk to every two weeks; he is a thinking partner. I have a mentor; he is a thinking partner. And who are those individuals that are your thinking partners? And then, some words just come to mind for me. Design. Have you designed this intervention? Is there forethought? Is there intentionality in your behavior, or is this an off-the-cuff willy-nilly just kind of ‘whoa’? And that's not going to go well. So, those are some words that come to mind for me as I listen to you. If we're going to disrupt this system, if we're going to provoke, is there a design to our intervention? Is there forethought? Is there intentionality? And Michael, you'd use the word, I think another thing that can be a little bit worrisome for folks sometimes is that, in a lot of these complex adaptive challenges, there aren't ‘answers,’ quote-unquote. There's no one we can call to say, “Do these five things, and everything will be great.” No, it's your best guess. And that thinking partner and those thinking partners are helping you design and think through, “What's our probably best path forward?” But, even then, it's still a little bit of improv, it's still a little bit you don't know how this is going to hit.
Maxime Fern 34:06
You know, when you say that, I agree with you very strongly that we have a responsibility to think through, to design in the very best way we can, and to know ourselves as fully as possible. And then, in addition, I believe, at times, we have to just have courage and fly at the moment because we can never actually design what will happen with a group of people, but I think that doesn't say, “Okay, well, let's just wing it.” So, we have to design the hell out of it and then fly because that, I think, is an honest and genuine reaction to what's turning up in the room. And, in a way, when we are as engaged as the group we're in, genuinely, then think the outcome is more likely to be real on a number of levels that people can hook onto, take ownership of, and have agency.
Michael Johnstone 35:09
Your comment about design and intentionality kind of reminds me of one of our case studies, which is about a bank in the Northeast of the United States. The CEO took over after the death of the founder. And his guiding principle was, “We're doing very well. but this is a crisis, and people are expecting me not to do anything. And so, if I'm going to do anything, it has to be very well-designed and purposeful.” And he started with his own people in the executive team and held them over a six-month period to a very purposeful, simple set of questions that really shifted how that executive team thought about the work that the bank needed to do. The thing about it for Renee was that this was genuinely intentional. And he said, “We can't afford just to rest on our laurels at this time.”
Scott Allen 35:57
Well, to the two of you, I'm so thankful, and I hope we can continue this conversation. I hope the two of you will come back. And for listeners, the book is ‘Provocation as Leadership: A Roadmap for Adaptation and Change.’ And I just have so much respect for the work and so much respect for how you all are thinking about this work of leadership and helping organizations, systems, and communities move forward. And, as I mentioned at the very beginning, that interdisciplinary lens within which the two of you walk into this conversation, I think, is just so wonderful because we need that, and we need people who are looking at this through the lens of psychology, or sociology, or family systems theory, or community planning. We just need that. And, Maxime, to stick with the boxing theme a little bit, I think you're exactly correct. Was it Mike Tyson? Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. So, yes, we also have to be prepared for that improv space. And what have we done to… Do we have both and, or yes and in our bag of tricks when we get into that improv space? And again, I love the word that you use, courage because I think this work takes courage. Our second podcast episode of this whole series was with Ed O'Malley from the Kansas Leadership Center. And he asserted that leadership is risky and rare. And again, it takes courage. If you're really truly leading, not just kind of keeping the lights on and staying safe, but truly leading, there's a risk. And, at times, it takes courage.
Michael Johnstone 37:43
And as Ben Zander, the previous conductor of the Boston Philharmonic, said in his work, “It's all made up.”
Maxime Fern 37:52
When it goes pear-shaped, he says, putting his arms up in the air, “How fascinating.”
Scott Allen 38:00
(Laughs) Exactly.
Maxime Fern 38:02
Can I say to you that, in our pre-conversation and during this conversation, you used the word ‘you really like to help prop people and ideas up?’ And I think that is such a wonderful… Propped-up is an odd term as well, but it feels very comforting to know that you are looking out for others and creating platforms and support to further work that might make a difference. So, for us, it's lovely to be invited to be part of us. And I know, speaking for both of us, we’ve really enjoyed the conversation.
Michael Johnstone 38:33
Yeah, very much so. And then, for what it's worth, you bring a wonderful combination of likeness and good spirit, as well as clear rigor to what you're doing. And that's wonderful to be part of it. It felt both very easy and potentially quite impactful to be able to talk. So, thank you very much.
Scott Allen 38:51
Well, thank you. Thank you. I always close out this conversation by asking what the two of you have been listening to or reading, or it could be that you're streaming something. But what's caught your attention recently? It could have to do with what we've just discussed, it could have nothing to do with what we've just discussed, but what might listeners be interested in that has caught your eye in recent times?
Michael Johnstone 39:15
Well, as it happened, we yesterday joined a webinar with a colleague of ours in the UK, Steve Austin, from the Office of Leadership. And he runs a book club every month. And the book was called ‘The Social Brain' by Robin Dunbar, Tracey Camilleri, and Sam Rockey. And basically, it's about the psychology of successful groups. And, Robin Dunbar is an evolutionary biologist and psychologist who has just been working on kind of the evolutionary capacity of the human brain and what it means for the size of groups and relationships we can manage. And so, the three of them have kind of worked this up. And pointing to the connection of our work and this, they're on about what's required to build connected, thriving groups, teams, communities, and organizations. Building on the theory of Robin Dunbar’s work, our compliments there by looking at, well, in those environments, what's required to actually assist and make progress for more adaptation to occur even when things are working well. And it's a very good book, and brings forth some wonderful ideas and practical ideas about kind of how to help groups and organizations thrive.
Maxime Fern 40:23
And I think, for us, we were very excited because the authors were there as part of this book club, to hear them talk about, if you like, the real relationships that unfold in the room when the conditions are right. And that seems like where the good work, the real work, is done because all the other stuff we have to do is not so interesting, but really necessary. And then, the stuff where people's hearts and guts emerge. And so, that's what they are uncovering and cataloging, and it seems to fit very well about how we like the world to be seen and how we see it.
Scott Allen 40:58
Well, I will put that in the show notes for sure. I just started the Elon Musk biography by Isaacson. I'm listening to it, so I'm going on walks and listening to Elon Musk's biography, talking about a provocateur who might be in the way that you aren't hoping to be thinking about this topic. But that's a fascinating listen so far. And one reason that I appreciate it is that it goes into his upbringing and just some of the roots. And so, I'm intrigued by the read. I'm very intrigued by the read because, as our friend, Mr. Zander, might say, “How fascinating”.
(Laughter)
Maxime Fern 41:40
What a world where we can kind of coalesce around one person or one idea so powerfully, given the technology. We have got what to do with that convergence, but really exciting to get inside somebody's mind, someone like that.
Scott Allen 41:57
Yeah. Very complex. Very complex individual, at least, that's what is kind of emerging so far. Well, to the two of you, thank you so much, so much for the work that you're doing. For listeners, everything is in the show notes, have a look, and you know what incredible work. Thanks so much. We'll have you back. I would love to hear some kind of case studies of how this is interfacing with the world and what your experiences are. Take care, you all. Enjoy Italy.
Michael Johnstone 42:26
Thank you.
Maxime Fern 42:26
Thank you.
Michael Johnstone 42:27
Thanks again for the invitation, Scott.
Scott Allen 42:27
You bet. Bye-bye.
Maxime Fern 42:28
Bye-bye.
[End Of Audio]