Meta-Leadership:

A Framework for Building

.

Leadership Effectiveness
A Working Paper

Authors
Dr. Leonard J. Marcus, Ph.D.
Dr. Barry C. Dorn, M.D., M.H.C.M.
Joseph Henderson, M.P.A.
Eric J. McNulty, M.A.

National Preparedness Leadership Initiative

A Joint Program of the Division of Policy Translation and
Leadership Development, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health
and the Center of Public Leadership, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government
National Preparedness Leadership Initiative
This paper is distributed for informational and educational purposes only. Harvard School of Public Health
No citation, quotation, duplication, or distribution without the expressed [Link]
written permission of the authors. The authors wish to thank Jennifer Grimes P.O. Box 381488, Cambridge, MA 02238-1488
for her assistance reviewing this paper. 617-496-0867

© 2015, Leonard J. Marcus, Ph.D.; Barry Dorn, M.D.; Joseph Henderson, M.A.; and Eric J. McNulty, M.A.
 Meta-Leadership 2

Meta-Leadership:
A Framework for Building
Leadership Effectiveness

Abstract
Large organizations and the work they accomplish are becoming less hierarchical and more reliant on
complex and inter-dependent connections with other entities. Leading in such an environment requires
expanded thinking and activity beyond one’s formal bounds of authority. Meta-leadership is a theoretically
robust and pragmatically useful evidence-based framework and practice method for generating
widespread influence and cohesive action that expands the leader’s domain of engagement,
leverage, and efficacy.

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 (Green, 2007). Beyond the four walls, the locus
Meta-Leadership: of function, be it production or action, often occurs
Introduction at the nexus of relationships among a variety of
parties that contribute to the function (Schilling,
st
Large organizations in the 21 century have 2001). The transformation of the traditional
emerged as global enterprises marked by de- organization requires the transformation of the
layered management structures, diverse traditional leader (Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick,
workforces, dynamic and ubiquitous information Kerr, 2002).
systems, complex supply chains, strategic
alliances, and outsourced resources. These In this environment, one’s formal position is but
significantly expand the scope of responsibility one component of leadership capacity. A more
and complexity of leadership. The speed and accurate definition and measure of leadership is
frequency of change are increasing. Opportunities “people follow you.” To achieve this, leaders find
to source and sell are global. So, too, are threats, themselves challenged to use influence as much
be they market moves, competitor shifts, terrorist as or more than formal authority; authority and
networks, or natural disasters. It is no longer accountability structures are more reciprocal and
simply a matter of leading within a well-defined relational (Wagner, 2008). Organizational
hierarchy: It is now necessary to exercise boundaries function as semi-permeable
leadership across a network of entities with membranes rather than hard walls with the
“interactive, interdependent, and creative involvement of other internal and external entities.
processes” (Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, & Such organizations are often complex, networked,
Buckley, 2003) – both within and outside of one’s emotional, and chaotic (Green, 2007).
own agency or firm. Within the organization, flat or
matrix structures have increased the complexity of The complexities of structures demanding non-
accountability, control, and the exercise of power stratified leadership are often obscured by the
and influence, so adoptation of nonhierarchical focus of traditional theories that presuppose that
leadership models has risen in importance and leadership is a top-down leader-subordinate
demand (Meisel & Fearon, 1999). For the first construct, typical of hierarchical organizations
time in the U.S, four generations are working at (e.g. Weber, 1905; Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939;
the same time (Hankin, 2005), each with different Likert, 1967; Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1973;
expectations and norms for leader and follower Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985). Ancona and Backman
behavior and motivation (Hackman & Johnson, (2010) found that approximately 85% of the
2004). Simultaneously, work has moved from existing leadership literature assumed a
industrial to knowledge-based endeavors that hierarchical leadership structure. Yukl (2002)
require different organizational constructs and argued that many leadership theories dealt with a
protocols. Confronted with these challenges, single level of processes because it is difficult to
leaders cannot afford to lead in traditional ways develop a multi-level theory. Multi-level reality, we

© 2015, Leonard J. Marcus, Ph.D.; Barry Dorn, M.D.; Joseph Henderson, M.A.; and Eric J. McNulty, M.A.

F
 Meta-Leadership 4

argue, is what many leaders face and thus (Marcus, Dorn, & Henderson, 2006; Marcus,
constitutes the impetus for our work. Though the Dorn, Ashkenazi, Henderson, & McNulty, 2012).
traditional boss-to-employee relationship has Meta-leadership addresses leadership challenges
been formalized in clear roles, authority structure, that cross inter- and intra-organizational
rules, job descriptions, and responsibilities that boundaries as well as those that are found within
prescribe performance and productivity hierarchical structures. This paper explores how
expectations (Fernandez, 1991), many meta-leadership integrates a wide range of
relationships critical to leadership success are leadership scholarship and maps critical
not so structured (Hackman & Johnson, 2000). interdependencies when these theories and
Theories of matrix organizations often look at concepts are applied in complex situations
cross-functional relationships within a single and systems.
organization (Thomas & D’Annunzio, 2005).
This research is valuable but insufficient for
addressing the multiplicity of complex challenges
The Model of
that a leader faces today.
Meta-Leadership:
Origins and Extensions
These theories also do not fully capture what
occurs when leaders must catalyze action well The meta-leadership model has been developed
above and beyond their formal lines of decision- by observing and analyzing the actions of leaders
making and control: for example, in leading the in unprecedented crisis situations – post-
launch of a new global brand, a major merger or Hurricane Katrina, during the early phases of the
acquisition, or a crisis response that involves H1N1 outbreak and Deep Water Horizon oil spill,
multiple jurisdictions and government coordination the Boston Marathon bombings response, and
with the private and non-profit sectors. We argue other incidents – as well as mergers, acquisitions,
that the best evidence of effective leadership in and restructurings primarily in the health care
these situations is unified commitment among all field. Field research was integrated with
stakeholders toward a common goal – which we understanding from the scholarly literature
call “connectivity.” To achieve this, leaders today referenced throughout this paper. We have
must simultaneously lead down in the traditional presented meta-leadership in diverse executive
sense, up to influence the people or organizations educational settings: training more than 650
to which they are accountable, across to activate senior U.S. government, private, and non-profit
peer groups and others within their organization sector leaders at Harvard University and tracking
with whom there is no formal subordinate the impact of their work over a multi-year period;
relationship, and beyond to entities outside of the presenting the community-based “Meta-
leader’s organization or chain of command. We Leadership Summit for Preparedness” program
describe such broadly envisioned, integrated and that together engaged 5,000 government, private
overarching leadership as “meta-leadership” and non-profit sector leaders in 36 cities across

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 5

the United States (Sobelson et al, 2013); and one looks at the response to Hurricane Katrina,
working with corporations, as by instructing more the failure of federal, state, and local agencies to
than 300 executives in crisis meta-leadership, act cooperatively and collaboratively has a
management, and communication methods at one prominent role in the tragedy (Davis et al, 2006).
global firm through a multi-year program. As the These failures of rigidly hierarchical organization
principles of meta-leadership have been structures underscore the need for incorporation
developed and applied in a variety of situations, of more flexible, adaptive, and integrative styles.
the observations are presented here as qualitative
rather than quantitative analysis in accordance It is reasonable to ask whether these situations
with recommendations for exploratory research are analogous to the challenges faced by leaders
through “progressive focusing” (Schutt, 2015; of organizations in other sectors and if the lessons
Benbasat, Goldstein, & Mead, 1987). learned are relevant. We believe that, in
leadership terms, they are. Certainly public sector
The people we observed most closely were most agencies lack market-based pressures and are
often working in large, complex organizations with subject to civil service requirements in personnel
thousands of employees, highly structured policy and compensation, and they have greater
management systems, and multiple stakeholders. political oversight; however:
These were individuals from the public, private
and non-profit sectors. The crisis situations - The foundational elements of
brought the leadership challenges and understanding individuals and accurately
accomplishments into high relief although they are diagnosing a situation are not dependent
equally applicable to complex challenges in non- upon organization type or style; neither are
crisis settings. the channels of connectivity – up, down,
across, and beyond;
The majority of our work has been with large
public sector agencies ideal for this analysis as - All organizations face their own highly fluid,
they are perceived to exhibit many of the emotionally charged situations – sometimes
characteristics of traditional bureaucratic crises and other times opportunities – that
organizations – including confining silo-oriented involve stakeholders beyond their direct
behaviors – while also needing to demonstrate control. The difference between effective
connectivity across and beyond organizational and non-effective leadership of the
and sector boundaries to achieve their objectives. response can be measured in share price
When one examines the criticism of the U.S. and sales volume in the for-profit sector
government after the attacks of 9/11, the attention and in reputation and engagement across
is largely focused on the inability of the various all sectors;
intelligence and law enforcement agencies to - Public, private, and non-profit organizations
coordinate their efforts (Kean et al., 2004). When have become less hierarchical and more

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 6

team-based and thus the need for

Output vs. Input and
leadership through influence has increased
Throughput
(Conger, 1998);

Much of the leadership literature looks at its topic

- Public and non-profit sector agency leaders as a set of characteristics or traits of individuals.
are increasingly expected to attend to This is a focus on input to build individual
efficiency and financial concerns—i.e. competencies. Another subset examines
behave “like a business.” leadership as a process. It presents a discussion
and an analysis of throughput described as
Meta-leadership has its greatest impact in
behaviors, relationships, and incentives (Bolden,
situations with high stakes and a high number of
Hawkins, Gosling & Taylor, 2011). We argue that
stakeholders. Scale, scope, and complexity are
output, the “product” of leadership, is as important
perspectives not generally addressed in theories
as input and throughput. Meta-leaders seek to
primarily examining mission, motivation, or power
achieve results that cannot be accomplished by
structure such as transactional vs.
one organization, unit, or department – typically
transformational leaders (Burns, 1978; Bass,
their own – in isolation. The objective can be as
1990).
diverse as streamlining the supply chain,
coordinating the work of different entities during a
The prefix “meta” is likened to its use in “meta-
crisis, integrating health care services, or entering
research,” which systematically identifies cross-
an emerging market, each of which demand
cutting themes found in many different studies, or
change or accommodation by stakeholders
“meta-analysis,” which likewise combines and
outside the leader’s direct line of authority. The
synthesizes findings about a range of questions in
responses to incidents we have studied—
search of overarching thinking and conclusion.
including Super Storm Sandy and the Ebola
Meta-leadership connects what have otherwise
outbreak—have involved multiple public agencies
been disparate areas of inquiry about leadership
at the federal, state, and local level as well as
into a cohesive, interdependent framework. It is
entities in the private and non-profit sectors. In
also likened to its use in “metamorphosis.” Not
situations such as these, poor leadership can lead
only must the leader catalyze change, viewing
to serious negative outcomes including loss of life.
evolution as an active rather than a passive
Output matters.
process, but must build and maintain a capacity
for intentional leadership – able to remain
Broad, consequential objectives both appeal to
proactive in the midst of circumstances that can
and require participation by people who work in
otherwise be overwhelming.
entirely different sectors, organizations, and/or
levels of a hierarchical framework. By intentionally
linking the efforts of these numerous actors and
many otherwise disconnected organizational

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 7

units, the meta-leader, often operating without

The Dimensions of
direct or explicit authority, leverages and
Meta-Leadership: Design,
integrates their activities to accomplish something
Concept and Practice
– an output – that would not otherwise be
achievable (Schein, 2004). There is value in both Meta-leadership is not a new theory of leadership;
the output, the “impact value,” as well as in the it is a framework that helps organize, integrate,
experience of the process, the “collaborative and make more useful relevant insights from the
value.” The tangible progress – impact – amplifies immense volume of leadership analysis, practice,
the experience and rewards of working together – and scholarship. The goal is to help leaders
collaboration – and vice versa making the results effectively navigate complex situations. Each
mutually reinforcing. dimension – Person, Situation and Connectivity –
endeavors to encompass a body of research
(see Table 1) and to meaningfully integrate
the literature.

One: Two: Three:

Dimension
The Person The Situation Connectivity

Leadership Psychometric analyses; Situational awareness; Organizational leadership and

Scholarship personal discipline; self- stakeholder theory; management; leading up;
awareness/emotional complexity theory; risk followership; influence beyond
intelligence/resonant analysis; decision authority/power dynamics; inter-
leadership science. and intra-organizational
authenticity; relations; game theory; network
neuroscience. theory; boundary-spanning,
systems theory.

Table 1: Connecting the Dimensions of Meta-Leadership to Other Leadership Theories

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

As we have observed adoption of meta-leadership These broad themes translate into the three
across complex public and private organizational dimensions of meta-leadership practice. The first,
systems and networks, we note three important the Person, represents leadership capacity. The
advantages. It provides: 1) a conceptual second, an accurate perception of the Situation,
framework and common vocabulary that constitutes the leadership context. These two are
describes intentional networking and cohesion foundational conditions: optimal action is not
within, across and beyond formal organizational possible without them. The third, Connectivity, is
boundaries to connect the purposes and work of the dimension of organizational or interpersonal
different stakeholders; 2) a purposeful strategy for capability: leading down in one’s designated
action to advance coordinated planning and formal purview of authority; up to those to whom
activity; and 3) a compelling mission and rallying one is accountable; across to other departments,
cry for both leaders and followers that inspires, units, or teams within the organization; and
guides, and instructs, setting a higher standard beyond to the various entities outside of the
and expectation for performance and impact. organization. The meta-leader engages in all of
Meta-leadership guides thinking, decision making, the dimensions, variably leveraging each mode of
and action to achieve significant, positive, and thinking and action as called for by circumstances,
powerful outcomes. and always having these different yet
complementary perspectives in mind.
By design, meta-leadership addresses the
complexities of generating a unity of action when The intent of the meta-leadership framework and
many different constituencies must be focused practice method is to draw these different
into a broadly adopted strategy, plan, or mission, perspectives into a pragmatic, unified model. The
even if their priorities and proclivities are depiction of the dimensions below does not
conflicting (Marcus et al., 2006). In concept, it is a describe or reference all that has been said or
question of best aligning mission, strategy, tactics, could be said on each topic, but rather articulates
and success metrics with the problem or key aspects and their fit into the overall structure.
opportunity: what personal and contextual factors
affect what meta-leaders perceive, decide, and
ultimately act upon (Northouse, 2004)? In
practice, it is a puzzle of optimally engaging four
Dimension One:
facets of organizational connectivity – up, down,
The Person of the
across, and beyond: Who are the many
stakeholders that must be influenced and how can
Meta-Leader
they best be leveraged to catalyze mutually-
Meta-leaders begin with knowing themselves and
beneficial forward progress? What other entities
the impact they have on others. A high degree of
should be engaged to create a greater probability
emotional intelligence (Burns, 1978; Salvoney &
of success?
Mayer, 1990; Goleman, 1996), the ability to

© 2015, Leonard J. Marcus, Ph.D.; Barry Dorn, M.D.; Joseph Henderson, M.A.; and Eric J. McNulty, M.A.
 Meta-Leadership 9

process emotional information in order to better take the actions that will achieve the greatest
navigate the social environment, is one critical commitment from a wide scope of stakeholders,
characteristic of the person of the meta-leader. including those outside the formal chain of
People who direct large scale operations or command. Organizational cohesion in high stress
complex initiatives are better able to engage situations has been found to be lacking when
others when they convey these attributes: self- trust-based relationships are absent (Kolditz,
awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, 2007). In practice, as followers tend to mimic the
and social skills. Self-awareness, in particular, has attitude and behaviors of the leader, when the
been shown to correlate with leadership leader presents a model of composure, balance,
effectiveness (Prati et al, 2003; Kerr, Garvin, and appropriate perspective, followers are calmed
Heaton, & Boyle, 2005; Tekleab, Sims, Yun, and readied for productive activity. Alternatively,
Tesluk, & Cox, 2008). Those with high self- agitation, self-centered competition, withdrawal or
awareness have an understanding of the impact other polarizing behaviors by the leader will be
that personality, experience, culture, emotional reflected in group thinking and action detrimental
expression, and character have on others: this is to overall cohesion.
the “who” of the construct (Kirkpatrick & Locke,
1991; Trompenaars, 1994). Self-discipline, drive, The second critical component is that meta-
understanding, and a capacity to form meaningful leaders are willing to filter large, complex
and satisfying relationships are critical in the effort problems through a wide range of possible
to cross the usual divides and boundaries of solutions (Giuliani, 2002). They have abundant
organizational, professional, and cultural curiosity to imagine that which has not otherwise
association (Goleman, 2001). been discovered (Sternberg, 2006, 2007). They
view situations as complex, adaptive systems
Whenever one operates outside of one’s formal where patterns of connection, dependence, and
purview or across clearly drawn boundaries, interdependence are better sources of
perceptions of risk to professional status, in-group understanding system behavior than is a focus on
affiliation, and autonomy may increase. Thus the individual components or actors. When
meta-leaders must also understand how to build, attempting to exert leadership in such an
manage, and maintain trust (Maister, Green, & environment, the leader seeks order beyond
Galford, 2000). This is particularly true when control, knowing that he or she cannot regulate all
decisions and actions must be taken without elements of the relevant systems and that
complete information or certainty, such as when attempts to do so are likely to distort and
operating in a volatile market or an emerging denigrate overall system function (Wheatley,
crisis. When people are evaluating whether or not 1999).
to trust, they weigh factors related to the decision-
maker and the situation (Hurley, 2006). The meta- That the meta-leader has an aptitude for using
leader understands this dynamic and strives to self- and situational insight for seeing the bigger

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 10

picture is particularly important in fast-changing, ascent is up to strategic thinking in the neocortex

emotionally-charged situations such as a product or executive circuits. This is the laboratory where
recall, merger, trauma care or crisis response that complex reasoning and problem-solving occurs.
may send parts of an enterprise into survival An example of this can be seen in a hospital when
mode. In any stressful situation, the brain’s a patient suffers a cardiac arrest. After a brief
response is activated by the amygdala (Cannon, moment of alarm when the amygdala is activated
1929, q.v. Bracha, Ralston, Matsukawa, Williams, and adrenaline is pumping for clinicians, they go
& Bracha, 2004), a section of the brain that into a rote set of well-rehearsed actions. If those
triggers the primal survival responses of “freeze, routine circuit activities do not resolve the
flight, fight.” These responses derive from ancient problem, team members will draw on their
instincts that suppress all other thinking in favor of expertise to develop other options for saving the
a narrow range of behaviors that maximize the patient – using the highest level of executive
chances of survival (Society for Neuroscience, thinking. It takes great self-awareness, stamina,
1998). We call these the brain’s survival circuits. and discipline to control one’s panicked responses
One cannot lead or make decisions effectively in a stressful situation and intentionally elevate
when the survival circuits are in control; they are one’s mental activity.
the brain’s Emergency Alert System (FCC, n.d.),
interrupting regular cognitive programming to Beyond the physiology of the brain, many other
transmit urgent threat-avoidance instructions. factors are at play. Subconscious biases and
heuristics shape how an individual perceives and
This reaction has been given many names evaluates other people and phenomena
including the “amygdala hijack” (Goleman, 1996) (Eagleman, 2011; Kahneman, 2011). They may
and the “dinosaur brain” (Bernstein & Rozen, create blind spots that cause misperception
1989). The term we use for this amygdala- (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013). A wide outlook and
controlled state is going to the emotional curiosity provide the perspective to chart the
basement (Ashkenazi, 2007). The challenge for possibilities and prompt this vital expansive
the meta-leader is to understand that he is in the thinking and action (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002).
emotional “basement.” and consciously move up
to the middle level of the brain – the routine
circuits of learned behaviors, a workroom with
tools to continue the building metaphor. Then the
meta-leader helps others up to the workroom as
well – generally through ingrained routines and
responses: the practiced procedures, protocols, or
patterns of past experiences that trigger
constructive activity and an aura of relative calm
(Zander & Zander, 2000; Pillay, 2011). The final

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 11

the analysis and action are time-constrained. In

Dimension Two:
other words, the greater the complexity, the more
The Situation
difficult it is to develop an evidence-based, clear,

The task of diagnosing and communicating the and actionable description of what is occurring

leadership context – what is happening – is and thus develop the most appropriate response.

among the most difficult yet most critical in any Getting as close as possible to objective reality

complex situation, time of change, or moment of and conveying it accurately to others is at the

crisis. Finding the most appropriate solution to a heart of Dimension Two.

challenge depends first on precisely determining

what is occurring (Bransford & Stein, 1993; Pretz, Especially in stressful times of change, challenge,
Naples, & Sternberg, 2003). This involves more or crisis, there can be difficulties in information
than simply observing surface phenomena: it flow between organizational units, competition
requires “tuning in to the organizational frequency among hierarchies, and priorities that are in
to understand what is going on beneath the conflict. The meta-leader can be caught in the
surface” (Goffee & Jones, 2006). cross-fire. In a complex situation, the many
stakeholders involved naturally each have their

The difficulty is compounded because there is own analysis and interpretation of the “objective

often a gap between objective reality and problem” in accord with their distinct interests,

subjective assessment (e.g., Hazleton, Cupach, & concerns, and purposes (Australian Public

Canary, 1987). This is why Dimension One, self- Service Commission, 2007). The meta-leader also

knowledge, is so important to Dimension Two. In understands that each stakeholder uses a distinct

practice, the meta-leader must grasp, work with, frame, or mental model (Senge, 1994), built of

and narrow the likely reality-belief gap, aided by values, experience, objectives, and priorities. This

the collection of further information, the passage filters what is seen and how risk is perceived.

of time, and the perspective of hindsight. Such Success and failure may be measured differently

complex circumstances demand the capacities by different stakeholders (Daly & Watkins, 2006)

and skills for strategic “situational awareness” yet the leader must make decisions and take

(e.g., O'Brien & O'Hare, 2007), the connectivity action. These unique frames tend to be hard to for

between the personal capacities and others to see, are often perceived as complete by

understandings embedded in meta-leadership the framer but rarely are so, and are difficult to

Dimension One and the realities of the situation adjust (Clyman, 2003). The meta-leader looks for

that are addressed in Dimension Two. ways in which the differences can complement
rather than contradict one another. The intent is to

This gap is further magnified when many different understand and to integrate the divergent

stakeholders are involved, when a great deal of perspectives into a more cohesive view that

information is required to diagnose the problem, incorporates what is happening with the identified

when the stakes and emotions are high, or when interests, potential contributions, and objections of

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 12

each stakeholder, and to characterize both gaps build on decisions already made and actions
and overlaps in activity. To move stakeholders already taken is the POP-DOC Loop (see Figure
toward coherence and clarity, the meta-leader One). It is modeled as a figure-eight Mobius strip
draws upon the capacities outlined in Dimension to indicate that it is traversed continuously as a
One, distinguishing which priorities are most complex situation evolves. A Mobius strip has only
important to the overall endeavor and calculating one side yet it appears to have two; as a non-
both the potential upsides and downsides of each orientable surface it can be completely navigated
option for the different stakeholders. These without ever crossing an edge (Summons, n.d.).
calculations are then used to chart a course This property represents the integral nature of the
forward. With this greater understanding, the six steps in the POP-DOC Loop as well as the
meta-leader can begin to craft a compelling and necessary establishment of a leadership rhythm
mutually agreeable goal that fosters unity of that alternates between thinking and action with
purpose and effort. continuity and emphasis on both in balance.

The meta-leader recognizes that the size of the

gap between perception and reality will shift and
hopefully diminish over time. In practice, the
anticipation of additional and more accurate
information and the expectation that the situation
will remain fluid for some time does not relieve the
meta-leader of responsibility: it puts even more
pressure upon a leader to assess when there is
enough information and when there has been
enough debate to move to action. This is an
iterative process of divergence and convergence Figure Two: The POP-DOC Loop
with concrete intermittent points of agreement
(Roberto, 2005). Herein one finds both the tension
and the paradox of Dimension Two: in a complex
Developed at the National Preparedness
situation, a quick assessment that is close to the
Leadership Initiative as an extension and
mark and moves the process forward is better
expansion of Boyd’s OODA Loop (Hammond,
than a slow though more accurate one that comes
2012), the six steps of the POP-DOC Loop
too late to make a difference, though there are
correlate with distinct cognitive phases necessary
risks associated with premature decision-making.
for leaders to

Even in this quick assessment, a degree of rigor

understand a situation, make informed decisions,
will help avert missteps and oversights. A tool to
and take effective action. The steps are Perceive,
enable leaders to hone their understanding and to
opening one’s mental aperture to gather as much

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 13

data as possible; Orient, narrowing the aperture and difficult inter-personal conflicts each, by their
as patterns appear and make it possible to nature, do not come with clearly obvious
separate relevant from irrelevant data; Predict, computations for what is right and what is wrong
using the identified patterns to anticipate the (Slaikeu, 1998). Not everyone faced with these
trajectory of events and generate options; Decide, ordeals is equally able to establish a calculated
committing to a course of action; Operationalize, assessment and then rise to the challenge: these
securing and deploying sufficient resources to are among the distinct strategic and analytic
carry out the decision; and Communicate, capacities associated with the practice of meta-
ensuring that all relevant stakeholders know what leadership. The POP-DOC Loop helps navigate
is happening, what they can expect, and what is these ambiguities by outlining a strategic process
expected of them, and then pulling in information that functions with the resources of Dimension
useful in reassessing the situation and what can Three, Connectivity.
be done about it.

The POP-DOC Loop can and should be traversed

multiple times as a situation unfolds. As more
Dimension Three:
information emerges, the understanding of the
Connectivity
situation grows and with it, options shift. As
actions are taken, the situation changes, which A distinct feature of the meta-leadership
requires fresh analysis. The left-hand loop framework is its integration of negotiation and
represents the thinking steps and corresponds to conflict resolution theory and practice as is
Dimension One, the Person, and Dimension Two, instrumental to the mindset and skillset for
the Situation. The right-hand loop represents the effective leadership (Marcus et al, 2006; Marcus,
action steps and corresponds to Dimension Dorn, & McNulty, 2011). The work of meta-
Three, Connectivity. The POP-DOC Loop can be leadership is in forging a strategic connectivity for
used to guide individual thinking or as a group coordinated effort among stakeholders, reaching
exercise to elicit multiple perspectives, surface past the usual bounds of isolated organizational
unspoken assumptions and, ultimately, enhance thinking, functioning, competition, and conflict.
alignment. This can only be achieved when the meta-leader
can move stakeholders from individual self-
Meta-leadership requires perspective and interests to shared aligned interests. Certain
measured patience to work with ambiguity. If the negotiation and conflict resolution techniques
situation were clear and every action had a certain such as the Walk in the Woods (Marcus, Dorn, &
and predictable cause and effect, the skills of the McNulty, 2012) are well-suited to this task. This
meta-leader likely would not be called into action. method encourages stakeholders to view
However, complex, multi-tiered relationships, problems and solutions as a gestalt rather than
high-consequence organizational predicaments, through the narrow lens of parochial objectives.

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 14

The resulting connectivity is carefully orchestrated effective meta-leader are inspired and empowered
among distinct components of an endeavor that to reach out beyond the confines of their particular
must be intentionally assembled, shaped, and roles. They create linkages with others that enable
linked. In such a connected system, each a potential that would not otherwise be present.
individual and organizational unit is aware of its They then embed those connections institutionally
role in the whole: those up and down the so they persevere beyond the tenure of the
organizational chart as well as those across the individuals involved. These people-to-people and
spectrum of entities that are part of the larger organization-to-organization connections
enterprise. There are a number of critical overcome the barriers and gaps imposed by strict
questions: How do we define success and silo thinking. Whereas organizational structures
encourage it across the organizational spectrum? can mold and confine the behavior of people in
What are the critical relationships, dependencies, roles and procedures, people, when meaningfully
and interdependencies? How will information, connected, find ways to accomplish the shared
resources, and assets flow? How will interests impact value that is achievable with their
and incentives be optimally aligned? How will risk combined effort (Schuman, 2006). This does not
and rewards be distributed? It is up to the meta- necessarily imply that rules are broken. Rather,
leader to compose or catalyze a compelling, rules are seen more as levers to make positive
integrated picture and message that engages outcomes possible. It describes the difference
each actor and charts the impact they together will between succumbing to obstacles and seeking
create (Dorn, Savoia, Testa, Stoto, & Marcus, out opportunities.
2007).
Building connectivity does not require “tearing
Establishing connectivity is not simply a matter of down the silos.” In fact, silos have important
refining an organizational chart or drafting formal functions. Training, practice, professional
agreements. Instead, it is fundamentally a human advancement, and new knowledge and skills
process (Maslow, 1970) through which people occur in the concentrated and specialized
sharing a common and compelling purpose blend environment of the silo. Silo walls should function
their organizational allegiances with their more as semi-permeable membranes than
commitment to a common goal that can only be concrete walls so information and resources can
achieved when different groups of people are flow to foster overall system function. It is a matter
working together. Individuals must recognize the of reframing what constitutes the system, the
benefits of establishing and nurturing mutually relationships between the components, and the
beneficial relationships with each other. This overall paradigm of system purpose (Meadows,
requires the meta-leader to build unity of mission, 2008).
crafting a strategic view of who needs to be
involved and what will motivate their participation. When connectivity is achieved, individuals and the
People moved by the vision and message of the entities in which they work are better able to

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 15

leverage one another. They can do more because bureaucratic terms, these accomplishments are
they have a wider scope of resources at their often measured in expanding resources, authority,
disposal. Information is more readily available, or autonomy for the entity and its members. In
expertise is more widely accessible, and tangible many bureaucratic settings, departments and
assets are more generously shared. Inter-entity divisions compete amongst one another, and
competition as a primary motivator is reduced followers expect their leaders to triumph on their
because success is less about prevailing in a turf behalf (Lee & Dale, 1998).
battle and more about achieving the overriding
goals of the shared enterprise (Dorn et al., 2007). For the would-be meta-leader, the support of his
or her constituents is essential to achieving
There are four distinct facets of meta-leadership influence within the larger system. Understanding
connectivity defined by organizational how he or she is perceived (see Dimension One),
relationships and power/authority dynamics: demonstrating an ability to diagnose and explain
leading down to one’s formal subordinates; the context in which the group is operating (see
leading up to the people to whom one is Dimension Two), and having a productive
accountable; leading across to other intra- relationship with his or her boss (leading up) are
organizational entities; and leading beyond to all critical to garnering that support. The size of
inter-organizational entities. the meta-leader’s follower base and the regard in
which the followers hold the meta-leader are clear

Leading Down signals that can be read by other constituencies.

The bulk of the leadership and management The meta-leader is a leader of leaders, and
literature focuses on leading within one’s fosters leadership development throughout the
immediate base of operations. The meta- system, though first at home among his or her
leadership framework emphasizes aspects of that constituents. Leadership, after all, does not reside
practice which complement the other facets of within one person. In robust organizations, it is
connectivity. Individuals who rise to be meta- embedded among many people and at multiple
leaders generally have their own organizational levels of the hierarchy (Northouse, 2004). This
base of operations within which followers see requires a sense of leadership confidence and
them as in charge (Phillips & Loy, 2003). In that security: strong, smart, capable followers are not
entity, the leader carries formal authority, has seen as a threat but rather as a vital asset
resources at his or her disposal, and functions (Sternberg, 2007). Such leaders seek followers
within a set of rules and roles that define strong enough to challenge them on occasion
expectations and requirements. Those (Goffee & Jones, 2006). They are willing to hear
subordinates expect adherence to allegiances and truth-to-power. It is the meta-leader’s devotion
loyalties, trusting that the leader will advocate on and commitment to subordinates that generates
behalf of their best interests (Heifetz, 1999). In the same from those followers. Subordinates do

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 16

not follow the meta-leader merely because of a for him or her to establish credibility in the wider
pay-based transactional relationship but rather system if that quality is not established in the
because they believe in what the meta-leader home base of operations (Romzek, 1990).
stands for and is striving to accomplish. Followers in fact serve as ambassadors,
amplifying the efforts and influence of the meta-
To encourage team cohesion, the meta-leader leader by creating their own linkages among
works with subordinates to ensure clarity about counterparts in other organizations. Of course,
what they strive to accomplish individually and much of leadership is modeling and social proof
together. Subordinates’ work is acknowledged (Cialdiani, 2009): thinking, behavior, and action
and appreciated so that they realize a return on that others not only follow, but mimic. Both
investment for their time, energy, and ideas strengths and weaknesses are imitated (Hermalin,
ranging from altruistic satisfaction of doing good 1998). Close-in colleagues and constituents best
or tangible rewards for their efforts, thereby also know their leader and often are the arbiters of an
creating an investment in reciprocity (Cialdini, individual’s meta-leadership effectiveness.
2009). Roles and responsibilities are articulated
and access is afforded to the information and In this facet of connectivity, meta-leadership is
resources necessary to accomplish objectives. closest to the literature on transformational
Emotional intelligence is cultivated such that inter- leadership (e.g. Burns, 1978; Bass, 1990). Meta-
personal relations function constructively. leaders reframe the mission and envision an
Attention is paid to creating a socially safe (Rock, expanded self-interest that engages disparate
2009), trust-based environment that fosters constituencies. There is an emphasis on
teamwork, prudent risk taking, and empowered communication, innovative thinking, and trust
decision making. The relationships within the building. However, meta-leaders may also
team are not an obstacle, but instead are geared challenge the established organizational values
to foster complex independent and inter- and norms, not something typically ascribed to
dependent problem solving. Team members transformational leaders (Northouse, 2004). As
experience a sense of meaning in their work they redefine the in-group, they redefine relevant
together when the team is functioning well and extant aspects of its structure and function.
producing value. Therefore, demonstrating more
inclusive in-group behavior, they strive to make The unity of purpose and reliability of achievement
one another a success, recognizing the that the meta-leader inspires throughout his direct
contributions of each team member in achieving domain of responsibility is the foundation for work
the objectives of the whole. beyond the confines of official authority and
power. The confidence, direction, and
What if the would-be meta-leader has not dependability fostered within one’s immediate
effectively engaged the commitment of his or her official structure serve as the exemplar for what is
direct followers? It would be awkward and difficult communicated to the larger system of influence

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 17

and action. That same momentum could serve to 2003). In so doing, the meta-leader crafts vertical
impress or intimidate the boss, a critical factor for connectivity and bi-directional feedback. Influence
the “leading up” facet of connectivity. is shaped by informing and educating the boss. Of
course, bosses vary in style and temperament,

Leading Up and the meta-leader appreciates that as with any

relationship, this is one that must be carefully and
People who work in organizations most often have strategically managed (Marcus et al., 2006). The
a boss. If they work in a matrixed organization, effective meta-leader/subordinate manages
they have more than one boss. The chief assumptions, does not promise what cannot be
executive officer of a corporation or executive delivered, and assures that the boss is rarely
director of a non-profit organization has a board of surprised. This last point is a sensitive matter.
directors. Below the CEO are a series of senior While bad news and valid criticism are hard to
and mid-level managers who report to him or her deliver, followers who tell the truth and leaders
and who, in turn, serve as bosses to their staffs. A who listen to it are an unbeatable combination
public sector agency is headed by a Director, (Bennis, 1989). Meta-leaders also remember that
Secretary, or Minister who, in turn, ultimately the boss has a boss and work to ensure that they
reports to the President, Prime Minister or other are providing the information and support
elected official. necessary for his or her boss to lead up as well.

Being able to effectively influence those to whom The most sensitive and precarious aspect of
one is accountable is an important requirement for leading up is in telling truth to power. What if the
wider leadership within a system. Followership, boss is making a mistake, or is acting immorally or
like leadership, is a matter of both rank and with emotional instability? The willingness to
behavior (Kellerman, 2008). It is a delicate speak up and take the initiative is critical to
balance. Meta-leaders do not let rank be a limiting leadership (Bennis, 1989). The meta-
factor in their work. At the same time, they are leader/subordinate can bring to the boss a
careful not to upstage their bosses except in the valuable perspective, especially when he or she
most extreme of circumstances. By carefully has closer proximity to the work, has greater
cultivating and managing a productive relationship subject matter expertise, or can better sense
with the boss, the meta-leader/subordinate may frontline problems along with solutions to address
end up with as much or more power and influence them. Strategic decision-making entails
than his or her superior (Kellerman, 2008). simultaneous activity at multiple levels of an
organization. The meta-leader as follower can
In leading up, the meta-leader helps the boss help ensure that the boss is connected and
focus on priority objectives and advances the informed of both formal developments and the
organization toward key goals with personal costs “offline” work that happens in small groups or in
or benefits as a secondary consideration (Useem, one-on-one conversations (Roberto, 2005). The

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 18

subordinate can also provide warning or and quality control within one company to better
assistance when the boss is in the emotional connect and collaborate in order to speed time to
basement, discouraging comments or decisions market or increase customer satisfaction. In a
that could later prove damaging. Caution comes in hospital, leading across involves integrating the
recognizing that subordinates often are less clinical work of different specialty and functional
aware of considerations known only to the boss. units. By aligning their assets and efforts, the
When leading up goes wrong, it can easily reduce meta-leader envisions and activates more than
credibility or even lead to dismissal. The quality of what any one organizational unit could see or do
the inter-personal relationship is crucial. While on its own.
one might lead down to multitudes, leading up is
focused on just one or a few people. This is both important and difficult. While an
opportunity may be apparent to all, it may not be
Leading up and leading down together constitute obvious that by collaborating, each organizational
vertical connectivity in the system. The meta- subunit can maximize their combined return. In
leader – as both boss and subordinate – seeks to fact, they might very well see themselves as being
minimize distortion in information flow up and in competition with one another, vying for budget,
down the formal chain of command. The authority, space or recognition. This is the classic
emphasis is on optimizing system design and and often lamented intra-organizational “silo
function. This includes promoting adaptive mentality,” typified by turf battles among those
capacity to address both sudden and slow-burning involved (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2006).
changes to the leadership and operational Within the comfortable and familiar confines of
context. distinct organizational units, success is often
measured, rewards are achieved, careers are

Leading Across advanced, and objectives are sought in line with

the distinct interests and well-being of the different
In building a wide sphere of influence, the meta- silos and their constituents. There is a natural
leader grasps that just as vertical linkages are tendency for people to ask “what’s in it for me?”
important, so, too, is horizontal connectivity. In The potential for creating cross-cutting benefit is
the meta-leadership framework, leading across curtailed when silos that could be working
refers to relationships with other departments or together see themselves merely as competitors
units within the same authority framework, or (Schuman, 2006).
intra-organizational engagements. Leading across
effectively generates a common yet complex The first challenge for the meta-leader is defining
thread of interests and involvement among what working together looks like along with its
entities that look at a challenge from distinct yet benefits – and why it is urgent to act now (Kotter,
complementary vantage points. It could, for 1996). To be effective, the meta-leader must
example, include getting production, marketing instruct, influence and engage the many different

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 19

entities that are to be linked into the shared effort. values, aspirations, objectives, and
Though they all operate within the same circumstances. With a new appreciation for their
command-and-control structure, merely ordering points of commonality, stakeholders are able to
people to work together does not instill the creatively envisage what they could accomplish
motivation necessary to work beyond the confines together – an end state that is desirable and
of unchecked selfish interest. Certainly, a boss compelling for all, building new equations of
can direct subunits to better cooperate: it is within common ground and achievement. Often, this
the authority of the hierarchical structure to so requires strange bedfellows to work together,
command subordinates. However, there are limits enemies to be invited to a common table, and
to the effectiveness of commanded cooperation. people to appreciate a new or different set of
In a better scenario, the people representing each values, objectives, and incentives. The intrinsic
entity are encouraged and moved by the powerful motives of each individual are thereby harnessed
advantages of acting in concert and by the to achieve what is accepted as the greater good
enlarged possibilities generated by working (Marcus et al, 2011). The meta-leader knows
together. Likewise, they must be assured that action and early triumphs are a critical factor in
individual units will “stay in their lanes,” avoiding demonstrating the value added of working
the tendency to wade into one another’s lines of together (Kotter, 1996).
responsibility or authority, a move that would raise
the competitive ire of others and ruin opportunities Push-back and resistance are to be expected in
for collaboration. The meta-leader focuses fashioning a new alignment of strategy and action
attention on the shared opportunity while at the (Bornstein, 2007). Bureaucratic entities
same time tempering those forces of suspicion characteristically reward internally focused
and jealousy that constrain their achievement leadership that simply builds the budget, authority,
(Marcus et al., 2006). and autonomy of their own endeavors
(Thompson, 1965). The introduction of
To do this, the meta-leader must identify and collaboration may require some traditionally
understand the individual intrinsic motives of competitive constituencies to turn away from well-
these different stakeholders. Aligning their entrenched attitudes about and behaviors toward
disparate yet complementary spheres of activity one another (Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004). If such
into a unified plan and operation requires the push-back and resistance is anticipated and
development of linkages in both thinking and planned for, it is far less likely to undermine the
action. Each entity must be recognized for its shared purposes (Yukl, 2002): Meta-leaders can
unique profile of interests, experiences, and compensate by crafting an alternate reward
contributions to the shared enterprise. While it is structure through which stakeholders are
common for people to focus upon the differences acknowledged and encouraged for their work in
and conflicts among them, the meta-leader turns building shared solutions.
the attention to points of agreement: shared

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 20

Cohesion cannot begin in the moment of decision organizational constituencies. In both activities,
and action: it must be embedded into the thinking the meta-leader integrates different objectives,
and activity of units and people, a purpose and assesses and aligns motivations, and calibrates
mission upheld by the meta-leader (Daft, 2005). It risk and reward sharing. However, they are
is akin to carefully crafting interlocking gears: different because there is no unified
when it is time to move, the cogs link in a way that power/authority dynamic in leading beyond. While
ensures movement and not stasis. For this intra-organizational departments ultimately share
reason, designing and building cross-system an overarching governance structure, report to a
action linkages must be a strategic and intentional common chief executive, and are measured by
effort by which both the process and outcome of the same or similar metrics, these are not in place
the effort attest to the benefits of working toward when leading beyond. Therefore, influence in the
common purposes. As stakeholders experience absence of authority is particularly important in
the demonstrable advantages of leveraging the successfully leading beyond.
expertise and capacity of others, and as they
recognize the added influence gained when their What activities benefit from effective leading
contributions are likewise leveraged by others, beyond? The response to a complex catastrophic
impact and collaborative value both rise. Even so, event, whether a terror attack, natural disaster, or
the meta-leader understands that to keep the major industrial accident, requires many different
shared endeavor on track, these linkages must be government jurisdictions, the private business
carefully monitored and adjusted so they survive sector, the non-profit sector and the general public
expected bumps and remain current with new to respond with coordinated action. Meta-leaders
developments, demands, and challenges. encourage collective leadership (Pearce &
Conger, 2003) with unity of mission, generosity of

Leading Beyond spirit, coordination of action, ego and blame

control among stakeholders and the foundation of
By leveraging external expertise and capacity the trust upon which collaborative action thrives.
meta-leader recruits a wide spectrum of entities Successfully bringing a new product to market
into an extended inter-organizational network often requires different organizations with design,
(Ashkenas et al., 2002). Generating connectivity manufacturing or promotional responsibilities to
could be limited to proximate organizations or coordinate and align their activities. The provision
could be more broadly defined to incorporate of health care involves organizations that provide
constituencies, such as customer groups and the clinical, fiduciary, regulatory and administrative
public at large. functions to manage their inter-organizational
exchanges and ensure that care is properly
Leading beyond – to individuals and inter- provided and financed. When different types of
organizational entities – shares many organizations interact with one another, such as
characteristics with leading across to intra- government and private sector, leading beyond is

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 21

particularly complex. Each sector can seem credibility, each stakeholder is likely to be
foreign to the others in its processes, vocabulary, cautious in how much is shared and integrated.
decision-making protocols, and even conception Catalyzing unity requires the meta-leader to
of the objective to be achieved. intentionally identify leverage points that can
transform potential discord into opportunity. With a
Legal contracts or formal doctrine may govern cohesive, multi-faceted conception of the problem
certain aspects of inter-organizational or opportunity, it is more likely that a wider variety
relationships. These formally constructed of stakeholders will be motivated to generously
arrangements can both allow for and constrain contribute to the achievement of the overriding
action and collaboration. Human factors combine solution. This analysis sometimes requires
with legal considerations and the meta-leader is identification of complex cross-cutting benefits
sensitive to this balance as shared purpose and that arise uniquely from the collaboration itself. In
action are forged. A contract alone does not leading beyond, the meta-leader convincingly
generate enthusiasm, motivation or creative makes the case that the combined objectives are
problem solving. It is up to the meta-leader to best achieved through connectivity of effort and
foster a solution-oriented direction and interest- then guides the process to successfully achieve it.
based negotiation (Marcus et al, 2011, 2012),
overcoming obstacles to productive connectivity
while adhering to legal requirements.

On Being a Meta-Leader
This is a complex process when the stakes are
high, as measured in money, legal liability or There are many who occupy positions of formal
intellectual property. This is particularly true when authority who may think themselves leaders when
the priorities, metrics or consequences are valued in fact their influence is marginal or their position
differently by the involved stakeholders. “Who even resented (Bennis, 2003). These people beg
gets the credit?” or “Who takes the blame” are the question of just what leadership is and how it
both loaded questions. The process demands differs from management or command-and-control
careful diplomacy and diligent negotiation at each power (Zaleznik, 2004). Similarly, it is tempting to
step of decision-making. The meta-leader focuses anoint oneself a meta-leader, a distinction that
on “getting to yes” (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1991). can only be conferred on a person by his or her
followers.
Inter-organizational connectivity can vary by how
closely operations are intertwined and how What is the difference between the traditional and
competitive the entities may otherwise be with one the meta-view of leadership? Industrial age
another. When collaboration requires sharing conceptions of leadership often refer to the acts
proprietary knowledge or technologies, opening taken within one’s recognized or expected span of
systems or processes, or contributing brand name authority in one’s formal role. For example, the

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 22

chief executive officer of a business is expected to who would traditionally be described as their
demonstrate leadership in the way the company is “followers.” They work with (and sometimes
operated, in setting the vision and the strategic within) organizations that are traditionally
direction of the enterprise, and in achieving its bureaucratic, such as regulatory and government
performance objectives. That same CEO would agencies, or structures such as collective
be considered engaging in meta-leadership when bargaining agreements that prescribe a
she, for example, engages related organizations transactional relationship. Transformational
to create joint ventures, strategic alliances, leadership theory alone does not capture the
industry coalitions, or other connections that allow capacity and capability needed to exert such
each entity to accomplish more than if each were transcendent leadership. As they are able to
operating in isolation. It is a matter of taking a identify the gaps between what could or must be
wider, system-level view of both opportunities and done and the will and capacity to do it, meta-
challenges. Instead of a narrow focus on leading leaders coalesce the knowledge, organizational
those people over whom one sits in a hierarchy, workings, and context to attain an otherwise
the emphasis is on those broader constituencies unfeasible cohesion of effort (Kotter, 1996). They
of followers essential to success no matter where navigate multiple environments and constraints in
they reside or to whom they report. Leadership order to achieve the over-arching objective.
effectiveness is defined as “people follow you” of
their own volition. Meta-leaders combine two aspects of the
leadership equation to create a broad expanse of
Meta-leaders galvanize others through their influence. The first is traditional hierarchical
capacity to articulate and achieve these linkages leadership, their primary source of recognition and
and outcomes, appealing to more than just authority (Jaques, Clement, Rigby, & Jacobs,
personal gain or parochial organizational 1985). The second aspect of this equation is akin
interests. Meta-leaders convincingly define a to social movement leadership (Barker, Johnson,
higher purpose – making the case that by acting & Lavalette, 2001), which is what religious
across and beyond the confines of their own leaders, political figures, and humanitarian
organizational entities, the component participants advocates exercise to inspire and engage people
will accomplish more and function with less when they do not have the power of a pay check,
friction, thereby deriving the collective benefits of promotion, or sanction to persuade followership. It
the combined enterprise. When effectively is that blend of commitment to a purpose,
presented, the meta-leader’s vision and the charisma, talent to motivate, and appreciation for
process charted are so compelling that others the fine art of timing that is at the heart of the
follow (Nanus, 1992): Meta-leaders exercise informal side of leadership performance. While the
transformational leadership (Burns, 1978; Bass, exercise of formal leadership incorporates a
1990). They must also, however, demonstrate measure of these qualities, meta-leaders must do
effectiveness with constituencies beyond those both as they influence and rally others – without

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 23

direct authority to command participation – to a organizational framework, and beyond to external

shared, broader purpose. people and entities. Such expansive influence
requires a far-reaching understanding for what
The meta-leader rallies a wide set of success means in the minds of many and crafting
constituencies to a shared and mutually beneficial a set of activities that are widely motivating and
question: “How can I make you a success?” This productive. While one can be hired into a
is how a meta-leader leads down to subordinates, leadership role, one must earn the mantle of
up to a boss, across to others within the same meta-leader.

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

Conclusion
Organizational forms evolve to better meet the needs of their constituencies. So, too, must leadership
th
styles and methods. For the first three-quarters of the 20 century, command-and-control dominated both
management and leadership, in part because much of the managerial class shared the experience of
military service. The advances of the industrial age rested upon the regimented productivity of
hierarchical organizations and processes. It was a familiar model with centuries-old roots. With the
growth of information technology and globalization, however, firms have become flatter, work has become
more team-centered, and multiple organizations have been linked in new and novel value chains.

The command-and-control model does not uniformly fit into this emerging environment. Leadership within
organizations is more distributed. Relationships are now highly collaborative, are often guided by general
principles as much as contractual requirements, and require commitment to an enlarged self-interest.
Meta-leadership is a framework and practice method well-suited to situations that are built on trust and
influence more than formal authority. Layers of management are being compressed, self-organizing
teams are becoming more prominent, and employees are being challenged to find new solutions rather
than simply executing orders from above.

The meta-leadership framework described here emerged out of observation and analysis of leaders in
high-stakes, high-pressure situations involving tense emotions and highly fluid circumstances. In such
instances, collaboration across networks and leading by influence are critical to success. of the model is
therefore informed by the triumphs and failures of leadership at the time: the difficulties in getting
organizations and people to work together when that connectivity of action was the best hope for
mounting an effective response; and the inspiration and results when communities, businesses, and
public agencies joined forces to accomplish what otherwise would have been inconceivable. Finally, it
draws on the expanding understanding of neuroscience and brain function to both diagnose the root
causes of behaviors under stressful conditions and to suggest pragmatic countermeasures leaders can
take to rise to the demands of the situation.

While the application of the meta-leadership model in business and non-profit settings may not be so
dramatic, it is no less important. The correlation with the need for fast action, collaboration across
organizational boundaries and among divergent stakeholders, and the focus on achieving positive
outcomes, all speak to the value of the meta-leadership model for guiding both daily leadership and
crisis leadership.

© 2015, Leonard J. Marcus, Ph.D.; Barry Dorn, M.D.; Joseph Henderson, M.A.; and Eric J. McNulty, M.A.
 Meta-Leadership 25

In this complex web, extraordinary leaders emerge, able to generate greater value by balancing the
expectations, needs, and contributions of all of the players in the extended enterprise. For those meta-
leaders who excel in their strength of character, their keen analytic skills and the ability to lead, follow,
and engage a wide range of people extends their influence well beyond their formal authority. They forge
both impact and collaboration that would not have otherwise been achieved. These meta-leaders – who
certainly predate this model that seeks to describe them – deserve further study so that their important
work and contributions can be better appreciated and understood, better supported, and taught to others.

Dr. Leonard Marcus is the founding Co-director of the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative (NPLI),
a joint program of the Harvard School of Public Health and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Dr.
Barry Dorn is the Associate Director of the NPLI. Joseph Henderson, M.P.A. is a senior executive with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Eric J. McNulty, M.A. is the Director of Research at the
NPLI. For more information on the NPLI, visit [Link]

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

References
Ancona, D. and Backman, E. (2010). It’s not all about you. Harvard Business Review (online), April 26,
2010. Retrieved May 5, 2010 from [Link]
[Link]

Ashkenas R, Ulrich D, Jick T, & Kerr, S. (2002). The boundaryless organization: breaking the chains of
organizational structure. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Ashkenazi, I. (2007, March 9). Psychology and actions of the crisis leader. Presentation at the National
Preparedness Leadership Initiative, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Australian Public Service Commission. (2007). Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective
[Electronic Version]. Retrieved November 5, 2008 from
[Link]

Banaji, M. & Greenwald, A. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. New York:
Delacorte/Random House.

Barker, C., Johnson, A., & Lavalette, M. (2001). Leadership and social movements. Manchester, UK:
Manchester University Press.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision.
Organizational Dynamics, (Winter): 19 - 31.

Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information
systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369-386.

Bennis, W. (1989). The dilemma at the top; followers make good leaders good. The New York Times,
December 31.

Bennis, W. (2003). On becoming a leader. New York: Perseus Publishing.

Bennis W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

Bernstein, A., & Rozen, S. (1989). Dinosaur brains: Dealing with all those impossible people at work.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bolden, R., Hawkins, B., Gosling, J., & Taylor, S. (2011). Exploring Leadership: Individual, Organizational,
and Societal Perspectives. London: Oxford University Press.

Bornstein, D. (2007). How to change the world. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bracha, H. S., Ralston, T. C., Matsukawa, J. M., Williams, A. E., & Bracha, A. S. (2004). Does "fight or
flight" need updating? Psychosomatics, 45, 448-449.

Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993). The ideal problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning,
and creativity. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Burns, J. M. (1979). Leadership. New York: Perennial.

© 2015, Leonard J. Marcus, Ph.D.; Barry Dorn, M.D.; Joseph Henderson, M.A.; and Eric J. McNulty, M.A.
 Meta-Leadership 27

Cannon, W. B. (1929). Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear, and rage: an account of recent research into
the functions of emotional excitement (2nd edition ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Cialdini, R.B. (2009). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Clyman, D. (2003) Decision Traps presentation retrieved on December 2, 2008 from

[Link]

Conger, J. (1998). The necessary art of persuasion. Harvard Business Review. May, 1998

Daft, R. L. (2005). The leadership experience. Mason, OH: South-Western.

Daly, P. H., & Watkins, M. (2006). Advice and dissent: viewpoint into the fishbowl. Retrieved April 1 2009,
from [Link]

Davis, T., Rogers, H., Shays, C., Bonilla, H., Buyer, S., Myrick, S., Thornberry, M., Granger, K., Pickering,
C., Shuster, B., Miller, J. (2006). A failure of iInitiative: Final report of the select bipartisan committee
to investigate the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina. Retrieved May 26, 2009 from
[Link]

Dorn, B. C., Savoia, E., Testa, M. A., Stoto, M. A., & Marcus, L. J. (2007). Development of a survey
instrument to measure connectivity to evaluate national public health preparedness and response
performance. Public Health Reports, 122(3), 329-338.

Eagleman, D. (2011). Incognito: The secret lives of the brain. New York: Pantheon/Random House.

FCC (n.d.). Emergency Alert System. Federal Communications Commission website. Retrieved
March 26, 2015 from [Link]

Fernandez, R. M. (1991). Structural bases of leadership in intraorganizational networks. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 54(1), 36-53.
nd
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in, 2 ed.
New York: Penguin Books.

Goldsmith, S. & Eggers, W.D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury.

Goleman, D. (2001). The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for, measure, and improve
emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goffee, R. & Jones, G (2006). Why should anyone be led by you: What it takes to be an authentic leader.
Boston. Harvard Business School Press

Giuliani R. (2002). Leadership. New York: Hyperion.

Green, D. D. (2007). Leading a postmodern workforce. Academy of Strategic Management Journal,

6, 15-26.

Hackman, M. & Johnson, C. (2000). Leadership: A communication perspective. Long Grove, IL:
Waveland Press.

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 28

Hammond, G. (2012). On the making of history: John Boyd and American security. The Hammond
Memorial Lecture, United States Air Force Academy. Retrieved on March 27, 2015 from
[Link]

Hankin, H. (2005). Can we recognize our future employees? Workspan, 48(9), 12 - 13.

Hazleton, V., Cupach, W. R., & Canary, D. J. (1987). Situation perception: Interaction between
competence and messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(1), 57-63.

Heifetz, R. (1999). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge: Belknap.

Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the danger of leading.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Hermalin, B. E. (1998). Toward an economic theory of leadership: Leading by example. The American
Economic Review,, 88(5), 1188-1206.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2006). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience.
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hurley, R. F. (2006, September). The decision to trust. Harvard Business Review, 55 - 62.

Jaques, E., Clement, S., Rigby, C., & Jacobs, T. O. (1985). Senior leadership performance requirements
at the executive level. Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.

Kean, T., Hamilton, L., Ben-Veniste, R., Kerrey, B., Fielding, F.F., Lehman, J.F., Gorelick, J.S., Roemer,
T.J., Gorton, S., Thompson, J.R. (2004). The 9/11 Commission report. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company.

Kellerman, B. (2008) Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston:
Harvard Business Press.

Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N., & Boyle, E. (2005). Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness.
Leadership & Organization Development JournalKirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership:
Do traits matter? The Executive, 5, 48-60.

Kolditz, T.A. (2007). In extremis leadership: Leading as if your life depended on it. San Francisco:
John Wiley & Sons.

Kotter J. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, J. (1999). What leaders really do. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

Lee, R. G., & Dale, B. G. (1998). Business process management: A review and evaluation.
Business Process Management Journal, 4(3), 214-225.

Lewin, K., Lippit, R., & White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created
social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-301.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value, New York: McGraw-Hill

Maister, D., Green, C., & Galford, R. (2000). The trusted advisor. New York: The Free Press

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 29

Marcus, L., Dorn, B., Ashkenazi, I., Henderson, J., & McNulty, E. (2012). Crisis preparedness and crisis
response: The meta-leadership model and method. In D. Kamien (Ed), The McGraw-Hill Homeland
Security Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Marcus, L. J., Dorn, B. C., & Henderson, J. M. (2006). Meta-leadership and national emergency
preparedness: a model to build government connectivity. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense
Strategy, Practice, and Science, 4(2), 128-134.

Marcus, L.J., Dorn, B.C. & McNulty, E.J. (2012). The Walk in the Woods: A step-by-step method for
facilitating interest-based negotiation, 28(3): 337-349.

Marcus, L. J., Dorn, B. C., & McNulty, E.J. (2011). Renegotiating health care: Resolving conflict to build
collaboration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green
Publishing.

Meisel, S.I. & Fearon, D.S. (1999). The new leadership construct: What happens when a flat organization
builds a tall tower? Journal of Management Education, 23(2), 180-189.

Nanus B. (1992). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling sense of direction for your organization.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

O'Brien, K. S. & O'Hare, D. (2007). Situational awareness ability and cognitive skills training in a complex
real-world task. Ergonomics, 50(7), 1064-1091.

Pearce, C. & Conger, J. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Phillips D.T. & Loy J.M. (2003). Character in action: The U.S. Coast Guard on leadership. Annapolis, MD:
The Naval Press.

Pillay, S. (2011). Your brain and business: The neuroscience of great leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
FT Press.

Prati, L., Douglas, C., Ferris, G., Ammeter, A., & Buckley, M. (2003). Emotional intelligence leadership
effectiveness, and team outcomes. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1): 21-40.

Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. In
J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Psychology of Problem Solving (pp. 3-30). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Roberto, M, (2005). Why great leaders don't take yes for an answer. New York: Pearson

Rock, D. (2009, August 27). Managing with the Brain in Mind. Strategy+Business. Retrieved on
November 9, 2015 from [Link]

Romzek, B. S. (1990). Employee Investment and Commitment: The Ties That Bind. Public Administration
Review, 50(3), 374-382.

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 30

Salvoney, P. & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, & Personality,
9(3): 189-211.

Schein E.H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schilling, M. (2001). The use of modular organization forms: An industry-level analysis. Academy of
Management Journal, December 2001, 44(6): 1149 - 1168.

Schuman, S. (2006). Creating a culture of collaboration: The international association of facilitators

handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
th
Schutt, R.K. (2015). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research (8 ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Senge PM. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:
Doubleday.

Slaikeu KA, Hasson RH. (1998). Controlling the costs of conflict: How to design a system for your
organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

- Sobelson, R., Young, C. Neslund, V., Dorn, B., Marcus, L., McNulty, E. (2013). “The Meta-Leadership
Summit for Preparedness Initiative: An Innovative Model to Advance Public Health Preparedness and
Response.” Bio Security and Bio Terrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science. 11(4).

Society for Neuroscience. (1998). Fear and the amygdala [Electronic Version]. Brain Briefings. Retrieved
November 2, 2007 from
[Link]

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87-98.

Sternberg, R. J. (2007). A systems model of leadership: WICS. American Psychologist, 62(1), 34-42.

Summonds, D. (n.d.) What is the Mobius strip? [Link]. Retrieved on November 9, 2015 from
[Link]

Thomas, S. & D'Annunzio, L.S. (2005, March). Challenges and strategies of matrix organizations:
Top-level and mid-level managers' perspectives. Human Resource Planning, retrieved from
[Link]

Tannenbaum, A.S. & Schmidt, W.H. (1973, May/June). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard
Business Review.

Tekleab, A.G., Sims, Jr., H.P., Yun, S., Teluk, P.E., Cox, J., Are we on the same page? Effects of self-
awareness of empowering and transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies. February, 14(3), p. 185-202.

Thompson, V. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(1), 1-20.

Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture. New York: Irwin.

Useem, M. (2003, November 13). Leading your boss. The Economic Times. Retrieved from
[Link]

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. New York, Basic Books.

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University

 Meta-Leadership 31

Weber, M. (1905). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism: and other writings. New York:
Penguin Group.

Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zaleznik A. (2004, January). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review.
(Originally published in May 1977).

Zander, R. S., & Zander, B. (2000). The art of possibility. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

© 2015, The President and Fellows of Harvard University