DAC vs Impact Lens (Part 3 of 3)

Both The Center for Creative Leadership and The Prometheus Framework include a perspective on the practices that lead to results (Sometimes called change and achievement).

This is the primary focus for just one of the twelve lenses of The Prometheus Framework. It is also where the DAC and the Framework have the clearest point of comparison.

The lens was given the label of "Impact". Its thinking is drawn from many sources as well as our own experiences (as it should). But a few sources stand out: Kotter on leading change, Fritz and Senge on the creative process, Wooley on collective intelligence, Imai on Kaizen, Cooperider on appreciative inquiry, and Kockleman on agency (this is an anthropological assessment of shared Indigenous efforts in the Yucatan).

Like the DAC, the Framework expresses getting results as a balance of three areas, but the conceptualizations are not quite the same. The Framework shows those areas as three complementing pairs. That sounds like it could be complicated, but the extra distinctions are worth it.

These are the three complementary sets of the getting to results lens, aka "Impact",

Now and Next

The first pair of practices in this lens of the Framework afford clarity about the tensions in the current reality (what we have now) contrasting to the desired reality (what we want next). The "next" reality is understood in terms of vision which is in relationship to some ultimate purpose ("the why"). Both the vision and the why share a positive attractor energy that the neuro-folks associate with a dopamine hit.

Vision must be clear and discernable for the specific context that the action is in. It is fine to repurpose a broader organization version, but those rarely fit the specific context for this group or that group.

Reality is a common challenge. The well-tested Kaizen principle of starting from where you are applies every time there is an intention to change. We often have opinions, but not alignment or sufficient information about where we are. We humans have the habit of injecting bias and making unsubstantiated assumptions and accepting premature conclusions.

Our reality is that we may not be clear so we feel (and are) stuck, which is a negative energy space.

The remedy is becoming clear with experience - both for where we are and what we want to create. That sets up the creative tension and confidence of command that affords agency and action by the group.

In complex situations, like the natural and social worlds, both reality and destination are contextual systems with markers or factors that affect outcomes. Therefore our clarity of both reality and vision may be similarly formed.

Commit and Learn

Leading in a context can be shared, it can shift seamlessly between contributors. Once we have our endpoints (now and new), we can work to make commitments that are sufficient to afford action and gain experience. The commitments can be more concrete in simpler contexts with a planned linear series of objectives and key results. In complex and uncertain contexts, the factors of change and their associated commitments are more tentative.

The artsy graphic shows an interactive assumption: some simple contexts can support a straight line to results, while more complex and trans-contextual contexts support exploration, learning, and discovery. High uncertainty and high importance attract early action and learning.

(This learning-as-we-work is one reason why the general capability of sustainable learning is included as one of the key meta-competencies for leaders - but that is the subject of another lens)

Frame and Attend

Lastly, the Framework recognizes that action to result in organizations requires attention that sustains or supports that action, indirectly. The person who is attending may be apart from the core team, or they may be contributors with others to those efforts. There are no hard boundaries in this. But, from their perspective as a leader and not a contributor, they are conceding the core work to the team but staying in an adjacent relationship to them.

Specifically, the leader team-adjacent focus is in two areas.

The human dynamics of the contributors need to be attended to during a creative process. Emotional journies, relationship patterns, and cognitive edges all are dynamic processes that cannot be set and fixed going in but evolve as you go. That leading can be from within the team, as a mutual effort, or the focus of individual leading. It is context-dependent, not a fixed model.

The point is that paying attention to human dynamics and inter-relationships will be part of effective performance and therefore, part of leading.

The complement to the human-centric (anthro-centric) side will be to sustain contextualization, knowledge,and coherence for the contributors. In the past, it was easier to find a context that could be independent and stable. Work to results is happening in an alive world of change and adjustment. In most organizations today, and definitely in communities at large, contextualization is likely afforded with intentional efforts that we should include in our understanding of leading to results.

These supporting or scaffolding functions are positioned around the action and accompanying the action (as may be helpful), and not positioned in sequence.