In the last chapter, we showed how Reactive Mind is structured and how it generates the predictable pattern of returning to normal. We showed how this structure is not mature enough to lead transformational change. In this chapter, we will build on that by showing how leadership, functioning collectively from a Reactive Mindset, has a natural tendency to establish patriarchal organizational structures and cultures. We will also show, as we try to transform these cultures, how they tenaciously reestablish themselves, unless we lead them from a Creative Mindset. To understand this we need to delve more deeply into the nature of the dynamics that play out when leadership teams come together and lead reactively.

MOVING FROM PATRIARCHY TO PARTNERSHIP

Since most organizations are still led predominantly by men, and since most cultures are heavy on top-down control, we tend to create cultures of Patriarchy. Patriarchy evolved in times when most of the population was illiterate. The over-controlling tendency of patriarchy has its place when the workforce lacks the basic knowledge and capability required. It also works well in times of crisis and business turnarounds. It may well be the optimal structure for these situations. However, the global consensus in developed economies is that to compete in today's complex business environment and fulfill on the Promise of Leadership, we need to move toward cultures of Partnership, toward organizations that are more diversely led, and engage more people in cooperatively creating, innovating, and taking responsibility for the success of the business. The emerging form of organization asks everyone (customers, suppliers, employees, managers, and leaders) to partner in the organization's success. We call this transition the movement from Patriarchy to Partnership.

On the journey from Patriarchy to Partnership (see Figure 9.1), leaders, despite the best of intentions, block their own progress (Block, 1993). Early in our careers, before we fully understood how the Reactive IOS operates, we were surprised to watch leaders, deeply committed to transformation, fall into old patterns of behavior (over-control at the top, caution in the middle, blaming from below) that undermined the very change effort they championed. The inconsistency between their behavior and vision was rarely obvious to them. These inconsistent behaviors led to many mixed messages, which created a climate of caution. People avoided taking the change effort seriously. They sat on the sidelines, waiting to see which way the wind would eventually blow.

We are so familiar with patriarchal, top-down systems that we are blind to the ways that we continually “act out” that system, even while trying to change it. Our externally based mental models, identity, beliefs, and assumptions are formed in, and by, that system. We are subject to them. They are on autopilot. Thus we neither see them, nor do we see the inconsistency between the new vision and the way we are showing up as leaders, individually and collectively. This is the primary reason why transformation efforts fail.

When we try to change the system, we run smack into ourselves. We are the primary obstacle to the very future we are committed to creating. Moreover, we seldom notice when we are in the way. If we want to transform the performance of organizations we lead, we must do most of the changing. We cannot just sponsor change or merely redesign systems and processes; we must redesign ourselves! The organization will never perform at a higher level than the consciousness of its leadership. As we change the system, we must change ourselves; otherwise, the change we champion will become the flavor of the month.

NAVIGATING TWO JOURNEYS

Moving from Patriarchy to Partnership requires navigating two journeys simultaneously, the system journey and the personal journey (see Figure 9.2).

We tend to spend most of our time on changing the system (without a Whole Systems approach) and relatively little on the profound personal changes required of us. We try to change culture as if it is separate from ourselves. We try to change it, not us. Our observation is that the deep work of change is internal. Since 80% of adults are living and leading from a Reactive Mind, most organizations are structured and function reactively. The shift from Patriarchy to Partnership is a move from a Reactive to a Creative organizational structure and culture. Reactive Mind is incapable of ushering in the needed change. Creative level leadership is the minimum system (IOS) requirement.

System change requires a transformation in consciousness within the leadership. The work required of change leaders is to discover how we personally contribute to the culture we are trying to change. When we lead change, we are the culture we are trying to change. To be transformed by the effort, we must see how our ego/identity/character structure is organized to produce the current culture. This requires us to see into how our Reactive IOS is organized and the ensuing cultural dynamics. We need to see how we are the culture we are trying to change.

THREE CORE REACTIVE TYPES

One reason why Reactive Mind naturally gravitates toward establishing and reestablishing patriarchal structures and cultures has to do with how the three Reactive types—relationship (heart), intellect (head), and results (will)—interact. These are the three main ways that we form our Reactive Mind. Therefore, there are three basic types of people, and these three types, as they develop into the Reactive Mind, form their ego structures in different ways. These type differences, when they are reactively on autopilot, create patterns of behavior that result in patriarchal cultures, limiting leadership effectiveness and business performance.

In her book, Our Inner Conflicts, Psychologist Karen Horney identified three basic “trends” in the way we form our character or ego structure (Horney, 1945). She labeled them: Move Toward, Move Against, and Move Away. We call these three types the Heart type (relationship), Will type (results), and Head type (intellect). These titles reflect the essence, gift, and strength around which each type organizes its character/ego/identity. Each will leverage their core strength.

These three character structures show up in many different forms and diverse bodies of work. The Enneagram describes nine different types: three of them are Move Toward types, three are Move Against, and three are Move Away. In our efforts to integrate the field, we came across Pathwork, a spiritual system of development wherein we wear three ego masks: Love, Power, and Serenity.

As this three-way typology kept showing up, we became even more curious and turned to science. The atom is composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Electrical circuits have a negative lead, positive lead, and neutral or ground lead. The waveform of energy is a down wave, up wave, and the stasis or neutral position at the top and bottom of the wave.

We began to think that there are three basic energies that explain the three core types. Heart types are the electrons—the negative, feminine charge. They are the down stroke in the wave. They are yin, the receptive energy. They move toward others to form bonds of relationship. Will types are the protons—the positive charge, the up stroke in the wave of energy, the yang or masculine energy. They move outward and proactively act on the world to create results. Head types are the neutron—the still, stasis position in the wave of energy. They are the ground and balance between yin and yang. They remain neutral, still, and composed and bring knowledge and truth to any endeavor.

Each of us is a unique blend of all three energies. Metaphorically, each of us is our own unique shade or color, made up of the three primary colors. While each of us has all of these energies, strengths, and gifts, we tend to have one that is primary. Each type—Heart, Will, and Head—organizes its personality around one of these basic energies. This is core to who they are, their essential nature. As we mature, we tend to develop our primary energy orientation first. We leverage our best. Other strengths tend to develop later or remain under-developed. At the Reactive Stage, while we are always a blend of all three, one of these core behavioral tendencies is usually central to our identity and to how we deploy ourselves. Understanding these three types and how they interact at the Reactive level helps us understand the natural tendency of Reactive Structure to create patriarchal cultures.

As we explore each of these types, keep in mind that each of the three character types (Heart, Will, Head) has its origin in our unique essential nature. We organize our ego structure, our core identity, in a way that expresses the best in our individual, essential nature. We put our best foot forward and pack our best into our Reactive Structure and strategies.

Heart Type. Heart types move toward others. Like electrons, the receptive, feminine charge, they move toward others to form relationship bonds. They establish their core ego identity in relationship to people. They form their character around their gift of Heart. They are relationship oriented. This is their essential nature and gift. At the Reactive level, they are identified with that gift. They establish their self-worth and security by ingratiating themselves with others. Their self-worth and security depend on others liking, loving, or accepting them. The core beliefs that make up this type are, “I am okay if you like, love and/or accept me,” and “I am not okay if you do not.” The strength of this type is that it moves toward others to establish relationship as its first priority. The limitation, at the Reactive Stage, is that Heart types give up too much power in order to be liked. The core fear is rejection. Since not being accepted, loved, and liked feels like death, this type of person tends not to push controversial issues, to be conflict-averse, and thereby fails to lead. At the Reactive Stage of Development, we call the Heart type the Complying type.

Will Type. This type is the opposite of the Heart type. These people move against others. Rather than ingratiating themselves to others, they compete in order to triumph over others. They are protons, the positive masculine charge. Rather than giving up power, they take up power and use it to get ahead. They organize their character structure around their strength of will. Their core strength and gift is their inner drive to make things happen and get results. They are naturally gifted at using their personal power to accomplish and create what they want. This is their essential nature. They are born to lead and to drive things forward. As they develop into the Reactive level, they identify with this capacity. They organize their identity around their gift of will and use of power. Their core beliefs are, “I am okay if I am the one who gets results, if I am perfect, if I move up the organization, and if I am the one in charge and in control.” Their core fear is failure. Failing at anything, or even coming up short, feels like death. Their strength and gift is driving results forward. The limitation, at the Reactive level, is taking up power at the expense of others and seeing others as resources to be used to accomplish what they want. Hence, they can leave a host of maimed bodies in their wake. They do not delegate, develop teamwork, build trust, or mentor others gracefully because trusting others with results risks failure. We will call this Will type, at the Reactive level, the Controlling type.

Head Type. This type moves away from others in rational, analytical distance. They form their character structure around their gift of Head—Intellect. They are usually intellectually brilliant and quite rational. They seek knowledge and truth. This is their essential nature and gift. At the Reactive level, they are identified with that gift. They establish their sense of worth and personal security by demonstrating their analytical and critical capabilities. Like neutrons, they remain detached. They remain in their head, staying above the fray, and provide rational explanations for what is going on around them. Their self-worth and security depend on others seeing them as smart, knowledgeable, and superior. Their core beliefs are, “I am okay if I am smart, self-sufficient, superior, and above it all and can find the flaw in others' thinking.” Their strength is remaining composed and rational amid chaos and conflict, analyzing what is going on from a safe, rational distance and providing brilliant analysis to complex and conflictual situations. Their limitation is that they play from the neck up. They are often experienced as cold, distant, disengaged, overly analytical, critical, or arrogant. Their core fear is vulnerability while life and leadership are inherently vulnerable. They protect themselves from vulnerability with the safety of the rational analytical world. Consequently, they tend to stay in their head and provide analysis, but often come across as being harshly critical, finding fault, and feigning superiority. We call this Head type, at the Reactive level, the Protecting type.

GIFTS OF EACH TYPE

We defined each type by describing their core strength or gift. Each of us, at the core, is a uniquely gifted person. We form our character around our native strengths. This leads us to develop some very valuable and admirable qualities. The Will/Controlling type serves others and the organization by mastering the ability to achieve results, push for aggressive growth, accomplish important priorities, and organize vast resources toward the accomplishment of a worthy objective. Organizations need such people of drive to succeed in a competitive marketplace. The Heart/Complying type becomes loyal, hard-working, gifted at creating harmony, sensing others' needs, and helping and supporting others. Organizations need these qualities as well, so that people can work together. The Head/Protecting type brings the strength of the analytical mind to bear on complex problems. They stand apart to gain perspective and engage with unemotional calm, clarity, and often-needed insight.

Each type has its own strengths and gifts, summarized in Table 9.1. Each Reactive dimension in the table is a dimension of the Universal Model and measured on the LCP. The gifts listed describe the full maturity of that gift when it is free of Reactive limitation.

While leaders who function out of Reactive Mind will likely be less effective, this does not mean that there is something wrong with the leader. On the contrary, at the Reactive level, each type of leader organizes around a core gift or strength. The limitations of Reactive leaders come not from their giftedness, or lack thereof, but because they run their strengths through a Reactive Structure of Mind. This creates liabilities.

GIFTS HUNG ON A REACTIVE STRUCTURE

At the Reactive level, we are identified with our gifts, and this becomes the limiting factor of the very gift or strength we try to offer. The inner game runs the outer game, and the Reactive, play-not-to-lose game is a limiting game. When we hang our core strengths on a Reactive Structure, we effectively remove the gift from the field of play and introduce liabilities.

For example, if we are a Heart type, our core belief might be, “I am okay if I am accepted.” With this belief, we move toward relationships, but our need to be accepted limits our power. We fear not being accepted because not to be accepted is not to be. This emotional risk is huge. Therefore, we will avoid conflict and we do not deal with important issues in order to have cordial relationships. As a result, our relationships suffer. In this case, the need for acceptance subverts the very thing it wants—relationship. The gift is removed/diminished. Furthermore, since not to be accepted is not to be, rejection feels like death. Consequently, we are in a compulsive relationship with our core strength. We have to be acceptable all the time. We overplay this strength by always trying to stay within the good graces of those around us. We cannot not play it safe in our relationships. In a leadership role, this means we will not advocate clearly and strongly for what we think is important; we will hold back in crucial, conflictual conversations; and we will limit our vision to what is safe and acceptable.

(Based on 500,000 rater surveys)

Complying seriously interrupts leadership effectiveness, as clearly seen in the Inner Circle Correlation Matrix (Table 9.2). Reactive Complying is inversely correlated to Achieving (−.75), Systems Awareness (−.61), and Authenticity (−.72), and since these Creative Dimensions are highly and positively correlated to Leadership Effectiveness (.91, .84, and .78, respectively), Reactive Complying turns the core gift into a liability. Furthermore, Complying is inverse to Relating (−.44) and, thus, it undermines its own gift—reducing the quality of relationship and teamwork that the Heart type most cares about. When Heart types hang their gift on a Reactive Structure, the gifts become Complying liabilities.

The same can be said for the other two types. Each organizes their identity around their essential, unique, and gifted nature—whether that's being smart and knowledgeable in the case of the Head/Protecting type, or the power, drive, and ability to get results in the case of the Will/Controlling type. Since these types form Reactive beliefs from the outside-in—“I am OK if you see me as X”—not to be X (e.g., seen as smart or seen as in control) is not to be. This sets up a compulsive relationship to the core gift. We have to be seen as X (smart or in control) or else, and the “or else” is not to be, or we will lose identity and safety.

Since this is unacceptable (failure is not an option, and being seen as stupid is a fate worse than death), these types are always overusing these gifts. They are always super-rational, analytical, and critical or they are always pushing and controlling. Thus, overextension of a strength becomes a weakness. Over-controlling fails to build the trust, teamwork, and bench strength required for high performance—the very thing that the Controlling type is trying to achieve. Remaining overly analytical and critical is experienced by others as cold, aloof, and harsh. It, therefore, fails to get the message across because others are put off by the delivery.

All of this can also be seen in the Inner Circle Correlation Matrix. Controlling is inverse to everything, most notably Relating (−.64), Self-Awareness (−.74), Leadership Effectiveness (−.41), and Business Performance (−.21). Furthermore, Controlling is inverse to Achieving (−.24), thus working against its own gift, the very thing Will types care most about—creating results. The same pattern can be seen for Protecting. It is inverse to all the Creative Dimensions and inverse to its own strengths (Self-Awareness at −.74, Authenticity at −.38, and Systems Awareness at −.51). Protecting, too, undermines its own gift, what they care most about—the honest exchange of learning, knowledge, and wisdom.

Notice how each of these types takes their gift off the table as they hang it on a Reactive Structure. This is why (and how) a Reactive relationship to our core strength over-extends it, creates liabilities, and reduces effectiveness.

If managed well, the differences between the types can cause each to play to their strength; the best qualities of each person are available for the team and organization. This ideal, however, seldom happens. The collective intelligence is usually well below the average intelligence of group members because when these differing types come together, they often trigger each other's liabilities. The conflictual and dysfunctional dynamics we often see in leadership teams can be explained by what happens when opposite types react to each other.

REACTIVE DYNAMICS—TRUE TO TYPE

Several years ago, we consulted with the Senior Team of an oil refinery. Two senior managers could not get along. They could not be in the same room with each other, and this was causing major problems. We were hired by the president and asked to “fix them.”

Let's call these two managers Ken and Jack. Ken was the VP of Technical Services, and Jack was VP of Operations. Most of the 500 people who worked at the plant reported to one of these two men. When we first met with Jack, he described Ken, saying: “He is a wimp! He cannot make a decision. I cannot get anything I need out of his organization. I have no use for him.”

Ken described Jack as an “animal.” He thumped his chest with both hands saying: “He is a big hairy ape. He sits in meetings all day beating his chest. He is an egomaniac. I cannot stand him and I cannot work with him.” Needless to say, we had our hands full.

First, we administered the LCP to each manager. We also interviewed several people who worked for and with each of these men.

When the profile results came back, Jack scored very high on the Controlling and Protecting dimensions. He was described as excessively Ambitious, Autocratic, Arrogant, and Critical. He was also scored low on Relationship dimensions—on Caring, Teamwork, Mentoring, Collaboration, etc. What bothered Jack the most, though, was that he was scored low on Integrity. He thought of himself as a high integrity person and had read many books on high-involvement, high-fulfillment workplaces. He cared passionately for people and sought to empower them through his leadership. His interview data validated his high Controlling and Protecting scores. People described him as Jekyll and Hyde—good Jack, bad Jack. They never knew which they were going to get. One day he would show up in an inspiring way, talking about high involvement, empowerment, and engagement. On other days he would take people apart. He dominated every meeting and left little room for discussion. Jack did not walk his talk, thus his low Integrity scores. Jack was a high Controlling type with a Protecting backup style.

Ken was a Complying type with a Protecting backup style. He scored high on Pleasing, Belonging, Passive, and Distant. He had low scores on Achieving Results, Strategy, Decisiveness, and Courage. This would suggest that he was not leading, but playing cautiously and letting key issues fester. When we talked to Ken's team, they told us Ken was very smart and technically competent, but he was indecisive and did not confront the difficult issues to improve Tech Services. This was hard news for Ken to swallow.

To both men's credit, they leaned into their feedback. We met with both men separately for some time. Jack got a lot of insight about his demanding, caustic, over-controlling behavior. He defined himself as a turnaround guy who did not want to be one any more. He discovered the belief that he is only as good as his latest turnaround. One failure, he feared, would ruin his career. Failure was not an option. He looked squarely at his core organizing belief: “I am my results, and not to get results is not to be.” Since these belief structures are all-or-none, one failure meant the ball game is over. He acknowledged that these assumptions were very emotionally powerful and that they had driven his behavior all his life. Second, he realized that they were false. They are simply too extreme (success every time or else) to allow for him to lead with greater flexibility, agility, and inclusiveness. As soon as results began to slip, he reacted from the fear of failure. He then took people apart or took over. He did not mentor, he dictated. He realized that if he were to become the kind of leader he aspired to be, he needed to change this assumption. He began to challenge his automatic angry, aggressive reaction as it came up in his body. He started to ask good questions instead. He started to listen.

Ken, too, began to see into his Reactive operating system and found a core organizing assumption that he needed to be a nice guy. He wanted people to like him. His leadership was constrained by the belief: “I am my relationships. I am a good person if people like me. Not to be liked means I will be rejected, and that is unacceptable.” He, like Jack, came to two conclusions. His need for approval had him playing too safe and did not enable him to say what he knew needed to be said. Since he is a people person, he could say things in a way that would likely be heard. Second, he realized that he could live with people not liking him. His belief, too, was all-or-none. One person's disapproval meant the end of the world. Ken realized the irrationality in this false belief, and he began to challenge his fear and step into conversations that required courage.

Once Ken and Jack had enough insight into the way they were reacting, we brought them together for a meeting. They each put their LCP's down, side-by-side, and looked in silence at the results (Figure 9.3). Then they looked up at each other and said, “No wonder.”

They could see that they were opposite types who triggered each other. Ken was looking for approval from Jack, and as soon as Ken showed any caution or indecisiveness, Jack clobbered him. Ken's indecisiveness threatened Jack to the core. He needed the output of Ken's team to get results and so when Ken hesitated, Jack erupted, which sent Ken further into caution. Each triggered the worst in the other. Both were brilliant men, but the dynamics between them had them playing at a low level of collective effectiveness.

As they saw the dynamics, they saw how each contributed to it. They saw the opposite ways they had each configured their ego/identity structure. They realized that each represented their shadow opposite (more on this later). Each saw his part in the name-calling, and both acknowledged that they were playing from the fear of rejection and failure. As each man took in the other man's fear, compassion and understanding grew. They saw how they were playing in a not-to-lose game that kept them in an oscillating pattern of bouncing off of each other and getting nowhere productive. They agreed to change the game, and they did. It was not always smooth between them, but they made it work. The plant was much better off because of it.

There were other players in this story. Jack and Ken had peers and a boss on the leadership team. Each contributed to the dysfunctional dynamics between Ken and Jack. Some of Ken and Jack's peers were Protecting types. Their play-not-to-lose strategy was to move away. They kept a safe distance from the explosive relationship. They could analyze what was going on, but would not jump in and help resolve it. In this way, they colluded in the dance. The boss, the President who brought me in to “fix them,” was a strong Complying type who lacked the power to challenge Jack and Ken to clean up their act. So, every member of the Senior Leadership Team contributed to the ineffectiveness of the team. It was not all on Ken and Jack.

To break through to higher business performance, we must take on the Leadership Agenda inherent in that goal. Ken and Jack took on this challenge. Theirs is a story of vertical development happening inside a business conversation. Ken and Jack had begun the shift of mind from Reactive to Creative.

REACTIVE TYPE DYNAMICS IN THE UNIVERSAL MODEL

The Leadership Circle Profile and the Universal Model integrate the best of Cognitive and Rational Emotive Psychology, within the Type framework at various Stages of Development, and relate all of this to what we have learned from the field of Leadership and Organizational Development about what works and what does not.

There is a solid (−.76), inverse relationship between Reactive Leadership and Creative Leadership Competency (see Figure 9.4). This relationship shows dramatically how running our gifts and strengths through a Reactive IOS takes those gifts and strengths off the table.

The bottom half of the circle is a complete map of how Reactive Mind structures itself (see Figure 9.5). The 11 measures of Reactive behavior, run from well-researched self-limiting beliefs, fit neatly into one of the three types and form the core organizing beliefs and behaviors of each type. Since the opposite types of Complying and Controlling are displayed on opposite sides of the circle, with Protecting in the middle, the Model and the Profile are very useful in explaining the dynamics between types (e.g., Ken, Jack, and the Senior Team).

Providing leaders, like Ken and Jack, with feedback through the lens of this model elucidates the Reactive Mind and enables a leader to make the subject–object shift that Kegan describes (Kegan, 1998). The LCP invites leaders to:

• Learn how they are establishing their identity;
• Explore the Reactive beliefs to which they are subject—beliefs that run on autopilot;
• See clearly the behaviors that these beliefs are running;
• See how they might be playing-not-to-lose;
• See their predominant Reactive type;
• Learn how they may be sub-optimizing the tension between purpose and safety;
• See how their leadership is set up to return to normal—maintain the status quo;
• See how they contribute to the functional or dysfunctional team dynamics;
• See how they may contribute to creating results that are contrary to best intensions.

This dynamic model maps out how Reactive Mind is organized, how leaders behave when they are run by a Reactive IOS, and the organizational dynamics that can play out between leaders of different types. The Universal Model and LCP describe the structure, beliefs, and behavior patterns of leaders, individually and collectively.

NATURAL SELECTION PROCESS—CREATING COLLECTIVE PATTERNS OF PATRIARCHY

The Ken and Jack story (and Duke's refrigerator story in Chapter 8) represent the kind of type dynamics that, when taken to a larger scale, naturally sort themselves out into patriarchal structures and cultures. How do the interactions of types establish patterns of patriarchal behavior and structure?

In his book, Beyond Ambition (1991), Robert Kaplan observes that Controlling types tend to move up. Their strengths are ready-made for senior levels, and they are ego-driven to move up. Since their self-esteem is often related to their altitude in the pyramid, they work unceasingly to advance, succeed, and expand their power base. This serves the organization's need for people who will expand, push aggressive agendas, grow the organization, and step up to the rigors and demands of leadership. Consequently, the top levels are populated predominantly by Controlling types.

Complying types tend not to move up as readily. Since they do not measure self-worth in the same way that Controlling types do, they are not as driven to move up. Also, because using power and taking risks may not get them liked (which is how they measure their self-esteem and security), they have not developed the repertoire of behaviors that seem natural to Controlling types. So they are less likely to end up in the most senior positions. Instead, they populate middle and lower levels and serve the organization by their loyalty, hard work, and dedication to doing what is right and meeting the expectations of others.

This natural selection process that pushes Controlling types up and Complying types to lower levels directly leads to patriarchal relationships and systems (as displayed in Figure 9.6) that Protecting types fill in across the board. We realize there are exceptions to this pattern and we are over-simplifying it to show the general dynamic tendency.

It is the habitual/compulsive nature of the three types which makes them interact in such a way that an overly hierarchical, patriarchal pattern of relationship often results. People at the top take most of the responsibility and control, while people at the bottom say: “It is not my job to take responsibility. My job is to do what is expected.” In this exchange, both types get their identity/ego needs met. Controlling types feel safe and worthwhile because they are in control and on top, and the Complying types feel safe because they do not have to risk being controversial and taking responsibility. The Controlling types feel justified in taking control because they do not see those below them taking risks and making the tough decisions. Complying types feel valued because they are doing what is expected of them and doing it well. The relationship is reciprocal and self-reinforcing. Each type does its part in maintaining the patriarchal dynamic, and both types are not aware of how they “must” continue to maintain that system in order to continue using their Reactive strategies. Both would feel at risk and devalued if the game were to change. This is what makes change so difficult, especially if that change is in the direction of Partnership.

This natural selection process, where Controlling/Protecting types tend to inhabit the high ground, and Complying/Protecting types fill in below, creates the dynamics of Patriarchy. When leaders fail to re-optimize the tension between purpose and safety, when they do not challenge their play-not-to-lose game, and when they lead change from a Reactive IOS, the resulting culture can be costly.

Culture, when it is ineffective, eats strategy for lunch. The number one reason for failure of strategy is not that it was poorly conceived. It is because the collective leadership effectiveness to execute that strategy is inadequate. The kind of Reactive organizational culture and team dynamics described in this chapter are costly. Strategy gets consumed.

Reactive Mind is designed to return to normal—to create an equilibrium between its belief structure and current reality. As a result, the kinds of cultural dynamics described in this chapter tend to reassert themselves as we attempt to change them, in spite of our best intentions to operate in a new and transformed way. We are all carriers of the culture we are trying to change. Transformation efforts give us the opportunity to see how we are, individually and collectively, the culture we are trying to change. As one leader said to us, “How did we think we could transform the culture without being transformed ourselves?”

When the collective leadership mind has its center of gravity at the Reactive Stage, the kinds of type dynamics illustrated by Ken and Jack play out. Collective effectiveness suffers and the collective intelligence drops below the average intelligence. The hidden points of leverage needed for breakthrough are, therefore, not surfaced and acted upon. This is why we see Leadership Effectiveness scores from those assessed at the Reactive Stage of Development averaging at the 40th percentile with a Leadership Quotient of .67—not mature enough for leadership to be a competitive advantage. Great results simply cannot be achieved from within a play-not-to-lose structure run by fear (from unconscious beliefs) and designed to go back to a patriarchal normal. We simply cannot build the kinds of Creative partnership cultures we envision with Reactive Leadership. Personal leadership transformation to Creative Mind is required.