A Leadership Approach to Address Inequities1

A Course Note on Bridging Leadership

Draft paper for classroom discussion only

Introduction

Similar to many leaders in the late 1980s, Tessie Fernandez faced a difficult
issue. The livelihood program that her NGO was running was being threatened
by the occurrence of violence being done to the women beneficiaries by their
own husbands. This phenomenon, now called Violence Against Women (VAW),
was then a silent issue with many personal, community, and institutional barriers
to addressing it. The normal response would have been for Tessie Fernandez to
design an intervention to have her NGO address the issue. However, she did
things differently. She initiated a multi-stakeholder effort to build awareness of
the issue and to build a network of groups committed to fight violence against
women. This effort gave birth to numerous successful projects involving the
different stakeholders and resulted in a ‘Galing Pook’2 award for the City of
Cebu.3

This experience and many others like it provide a window into the research of a
leadership approach meant to address complicated issues – Bridging
Leadership. This was the research agenda when the Synergos Institute
commissioned a global research project in 2002 to explore the phenomena that
was beginning to be called Bridging Leadership. This project brought together
practitioners from different parts of the world to write cases and articulate this
leadership approach. This research culminated in the development of some 20
cases on Bridging Leadership and a paper by Steve Pierce entitled, “Bridging
Differences and Building Collaboration: The Critical Role of Leadership”. This
research was successful in doing a few things: 1) It established the existence of
Bridging Leadership; 2) it established the appropriateness of this leadership

1
The paper was written by Prof. Michael Joseph U. Juan for the Asian Institute of Management – TeaM
Energy Center for Bridging Societal Divides as an introduction to the Bridging Leadership Workbook.
2
Galing Pook is a Philippine award-giving body that honours excellence in local governance.
3
Reference to the Tessie Fernandez case

1
approach to addressing inequities; and 3) it established the place of Bridging
Leadership within the existing universe of leadership approaches.

The global research project did not continue beyond the initial cases and the
Steve Pierce paper but Prof. Ernesto Garilao of the Asian Institute of
Management decided to continue the application and further research into
Bridging Leadership.

This paper does not seek to revisit the discussions presented in the initial
Bridging Leadership paper because the concepts presented there are already
articulated well. This paper will, instead, try to push the discussion of Bridging
Leadership forward and meet the following objectives: 1) It will discuss the
continuing research of the Asian Institute of Management on Bridging
Leadership; 2) Expound on inequities as the context of the leadership approach;
3) Present some concepts that the continuing research suggests as related to the
concept of Bridging Leadership; and 4) Present a more detailed leadership
framework that integrates the initial research done and the related concepts.

The Continuing Research of AIM

In October 2002, even if the research project had ceased, AIM ran the first
bridging leadership training workshop for heads and senior officials of civil
society organizations, using the Synergos cases (Tessie Fernandez, Parawagan
and Howard Dee). The sessions were well received. The participants accepted
the relevance of the framework in their work; saw the importance of dialogue;
and that the co-ownership portion was most important portion. In subsequent
sessions, the training was made available to participants from diverse sectors,
which was another appreciated feature of the workshop.

By 2004, AIM had conducted 10 BL programs. These programs were had a two-
fold objective: (a) to develop the capacities of leaders who would be able to
address societal divides, and (b) provide a venue to enhance the framework
through the interaction with the participants. The course likewise moved to the
classroom. Bridging Leadership modules were also offered in the masters in
management course and in the executive development program of the Asian
Institute of Management. .

In early 2004, AIM received an endowment fund to establish the AIM-Mirant

Center for Bridging Societal Divides. The Center was formed to continue
research on the BL Framework and to pursue programs in the actual application
of the framework. One program was on bridging leadership formation. This was a
two-year fellowship for 10 selected leaders to be assisted in bridging the societal
divide they have identified. This gave the Center the opportunity to use the
framework in bridging leadership formation.

2
The Center was also involved in the formation of the Pagtabangan Basulta, a
consortium of 15 Manila-based CSOs involved together with local CSOs working
to improve the human development indicators (HDI) of the poorest provinces of
southern Philippines. The consortium used the human security as the
development framework and bridging leadership as the leadership approach in
addressing the societal divides.

It is this experience that provides insight into the further development of the
concept of Bridging Leadership. As the theory is applied and presented to
people, the discussions and inquiry into the topic force the Center to refine the
thinking and revisit the foundations of this leadership approach. It is this
refinement that this paper wants to present as the ongoing contribution of the
Center to the study of Bridging Leadership.

AIM Contribution to the Leadership Approach

One of the reasons why AIM was included in the initial research project and is
the institutional host for the Center was because it was one of the oldest and
most experienced management schools in the region. It has been running post
graduate programs for general management and development management for
over 40 years. It is also one of the first academic institutions to integrate the
study of leadership in its Masters in Business Management and Masters in
Development Management programs.

As the concepts of Bridging Leadership were being evolved and were moving
into the academic programs of AIM, it could not be helped that the leadership
concepts being taught in AIM would also be integrated into the Bridging
Leadership Framework. Two such concepts that clearly found its way into the
framework were: 1) Leadership is Personal, and 2) Defining “acts of leadership’.

One of the new concepts that has been integrated in the way leadership is taught
in AIM is that Leadership is Personal. Dr. Eduardro Morato puts it very well when
he says that, “the biggest propeller, as well as inhibitor, to achieving life’s
personal goals is the person himself or herself” and that it is ironic that “there is
not that much emphasis, either from the school system or from the parents, to
grow and nurture a person”4. Leadership cannot be simply looking at the outward
actions of the leader as he works to achieve his goals. It has to include an inquiry
into the inner quality of the leader that allows him to be successful. The study of
leadership includes a study on how to develop a person’s character, values,
attitudes, motivations, and competencies to enable him to achieve his goals.

The other aspect of the personal nature of leadership is an inquiry on how some
leaders seem to pursue their goals with passion while some others do not. This is
an important inquiry because it has been observed that those who pursue goals
4
Personal Mastery by Prof. Morato

3
with passion are more successful than those who do not. It seems intuitively
logical to say that leaders who genuinely desire to achieve their goals will be
more successful than those who lead only because it is a job.

Bill George, in his book entitled “True North”, speaks about this concept when he
talks about finding the purpose of one’s leadership. To find one’s purpose, the
leader “must first understand themselves and their passions. In turn, their
passions show the way to the purpose of their leadership. Without a real sense of
purpose, leaders are at the mercy of their egos and narcissistic vulnerabilities.”5
The implication of this concept is that leadership development must also be
about trying to align the purpose of the leader with the work that he is doing. This
is, admittedly, a long process but it is a process that must be undertaken
nonetheless.

Defining “acts of leadership” comes from the fact that AIM ascribes to the
concept that leaders can be developed. Therefore, leadership can be developed
within individuals who are willing to learn. This does not contradict the fact that
there are people who, because of their circumstances, are predisposed to
leadership. It just says that leadership is a skill that can be learned if one wants
to learn. However, the challenge of this concept is that one needs to demystify
the concept of leadership and distill it into a form that one can teach. Heifetz says
this when he calls for a prescriptive framework of leadership6 that essentially
shows a leader what he must do given certain situations. The implication of this
thinking is that the research goal is to define the “acts of leadership” that shows
what a bridging leader must be doing to achieve his goals.

Leadership to Address Inequities

Once the research goal was clear, to surface the acts of bridging leadership, the
research now faced a practical question: Where does one start in defining the
acts of bridging leadership? This was discussed at length and the starting point
became one the early insights into Bridging Leadership was that is was a
leadership approach to address inequities. It is logical that the discussion of
inequities is where the further inquiry into Bridging Leadership begins. It provides
reason why Bridging Leadership is needed. The premise is that inequities are
difficult to resolve. If the old approaches do not work, there is a need for a new
leadership approach like Bridging Leadership to address these persistent
problems.

Inequities are defined as differences in the availability of opportunities to different

individuals. In an inequitable society, individuals have varying access to
opportunities that are important to pursuing a life that is spared from deprivation

5
True North by Bill George
6
Leadership Without Easy Answers by Ronald Heifetz

4
in all of its forms (economic, social, cultural & political). One example of such
inequality is the difference between the average quality of life of a Filipino and
the quality of life experienced by a Filipino who lives in the Autonomous Region
of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

Table 1: Quality of Life Indicators for Basulta and ARMM

Indicators Basilan Sulu Tawi-tawi ARMM RP Int’l
Comparison
Population (2000) 332,628 619,668 322,317 - 78.6 M
Life Expectancy at 60.2 52.3 50.8 57.4 69.8 Senegal
Birth (HDR, 2004) 52.7
Benin 50.7
Probability at birth 18.1 28.6 29.7 7.4 Gambia 29.6
for not surviving to Gabon 28.1
age 40 cohort
(PHDR, 2002;
HDR, 2004)
Infant Mortality - - - 63 29 Sudan 64
(HDR, 2004) Lesotho 64
Families with 55.9 29.9 11.4 61.6 86 Chad 27
Access to water Togo 54
(APIS, 1999. WDI,
2000; HDR, 2004)
Poverty Incidence 63 92 75.3 62.9 36.9 Zambia 72.9
(NCSB, 2003, Malawi 65.3
HDR, 2004)
Ave. Annual Per P13,193 P 7,850 P 11,349 P
Capita Income 48,816
(FIES in PHDR, (MM)
2002)
Poverty depth 16.7 37.3 25.8 7.2
(PHDR, 2002)
Per cent HS 28.6 18.1 34.2 - - -
Graduate
Adult Functional 51.9 42.3 47.3 - 7.4 Chad 54.2
Illiteracy (age 15+) Sudan 40.1
(PHDR, 2002, Haiti 48.1
HDR, 2004)
School enrolment - - - 0.583 - Senegal
of 6-12 yrs. old Mauritania
among the poorest
(WB, 2003)
% Basic Enrolment 82.1 77.7 - - -
Rate
Cohort Survival 34.3 29.7 42.8 33.96 -
Rate
(PHDR, 2002)
Source: as stated per indicator. National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB), Human
Development Report (HDR), World Bank (WB), Family Income and Expenditure Survey
(FIES)

The table clearly shows a stark example of inequities in the Philippines. It shows
how, within the same country, there are areas that enjoy a better quality of life

5
than others. Most people have access to education, water, and health but the
people in the ARMM live in conditions similar to failed African states. This reality
is made even more disturbing when one realizes that the issues have been
present for decades. Poverty reduction efforts have been present since the
1970s any development practitioner has to ask the questions: Why are these
problems so difficult to solve? Why do the efforts seem to be ineffective?

In his book, “Solving Tough Problems”, Adam Kahane posits that the reason why
people are unable to solve many difficult problems is because people do not
understand the “complexity” of the problem. This is because people are taught in
school that problem solving entails simplifying the problem into a simple cause
and effect model. The assumption here is that if one is able to address the
cause, the effect will similarly disappear. This is applicable for many problems
but the process is not applicable to the difficult social issues. The problems of
poverty, poor access to health, and other inequities are simply to complex for the
conventional problem solving methods.

The first step, therefore, in solving tough problems is to understand the

complexity of the problems. Kahane again posits a framework to better
understand complexity. There are 3 general aspects of complexity: 1) dynamic
complexity, 2) social complexity, and 3) generative complexity. It is in the
discussion of these three aspects of complexity that one is able to surface the
different acts of bridging leadership.

Dynamic Complexity and Systems Thinking

Dynamic complexity is when the cause and effect of the problem are far apart in
time and space. One cannot begin to pinpoint any more what the real causes of
the problem are and from where the effects of the problem exactly originate. The
best way to understand dynamic complexity is by using metaphors to
demonstrate the concept. A sample of a situation that is dynamically simple is
that of a car that stalls. If this happens, the owner of the car brings it to a
mechanic and the mechanic can generally diagnose what the problem is.
Normally, the cause will be only one or two things that can be repaired. When
these repairs are completed, the car will begin to run again.

On the other hand, a dynamically complex situation does not have the same
conditions. One example is the situation of poverty in a community. Experience
has shown that it is difficult for an expert to simply point at one or two causes of
poverty. Even if causes are identified, one will have to contend will a range of
complicating factors and conditions that make implementing solutions more
difficult.

Acknowledging a situation is dynamically complex means that analysis has to go

beyond most problem solving methods. The appropriate method of analysis

6
becomes Systems Thinking. The approach of systems thinking is fundamentally
different from that of traditional forms of analysis. Traditional analysis focuses on
the separating the individual pieces of what is being studied; in fact, the word
"analysis" actually comes from the root meaning "to break into constituent parts."
Systems thinking, in contrast, focuses on how the thing being studied interacts
with the other constituents of the system—a set of elements that interact to
produce behavior—of which it is a part. This means that instead of isolating
smaller and smaller parts of the system being studied, systems thinking works by
expanding its view to take into account larger and larger numbers of interactions
as an issue is being studied. This results in sometimes strikingly different
conclusions than those generated by traditional forms of analysis, especially
when what is being studied is dynamically complex or has a great deal of
feedback from other sources, internal or external.7

One example of dynamic complexity is an analysis done during a facilitated

workshop in the municipality of Sta. Fe in the province of Nueva Vizcaya.8 The
issue being discussed was the low achievement test scores9 being experienced
by the students in the town. Traditionally, the blame was always set on the
Department of Education because they are the government agency tasked to
handle the education of the students. The analysis did show that there were
deficiencies in terms of school facilities, capability of teachers, and availability of
school materials. However, the analysis also showed that there were other
factors that contributed to the low test scores.

The group noted that there were some factors that had to do with the socio-
economic situation of the students’ families. Some of the students were going to
school without eating so even if the teachers taught, the students were not
absorbing the material. Another factor cited was that sometimes the students
were asked to take a ‘vacation’ from school to help with the family livelihood.
Most would go back to school but they would already be behind in the lessons.
Both factors were alarming but the most detrimental behavior was that the
students were not being encouraged to do their homework at home. Most
educators will say that learning needs to be done in the homes for it to be
effective. Since this was not being done, the students were also not absorbing
the material properly. There were other factors cited such as the peace and order
of the area and the overall health of the children.

This example highlights the need for systems thinking because there are
numerous factors that cause the problem situation and one needs to look beyond

7
systems thinking article
8
the workshop was done with the Jollibee CRLDP project
9
Elementary school students in the Philippines are required to take an achievement test in six subject areas
to determine their proficiency in the said areas before they move to high school. The passing score is 75%.
The municipality of Sta. Fe was experiencing test scores in the 50s and 60s meaning that the students were
unfit to move to high school especially in the subject areas of Math and English.

7
the traditional cause model to understand why a situation persists. In this
example, it is possible that the reason why the low achievement test scores were
difficult to solve was that people were focusing on the deficiencies of the
Department of Education in terms of facilities, teacher capacity, and materials. If
people do not realize that there are other factors involved and these factors are
not addressed, the problem will continue well into the future.

Social Complexity and Multi-stakeholder processes

If one understands the systemic nature of a problem one immediately

understands that one sector alone cannot solve a complex issue. Going back to
the previously presented example on education, it is clear that the Department of
Education cannot solve the problem alone. They can address the lack of
facilities, teacher competency, and school materials but they will need the help of
other sectors to address the other factors. At the very least, the help of the
parents will be needed to address the behavior that the students do not study at
home. The Local Government, civil society and a number of related government
line agencies will be needed to address the socio-economic conditions of the
students’ families. The armed forces and police will also be needed to take care
of the areas where peace and order is a concern. Given this kind of situation, the
logical course of action is to bring together all the concerned stakeholders to
work together to solve the problem situation.

However, bringing stakeholders together is not easy and this is the definition of
social complexity. Social complexity occurs when people who are part of the
problem situation have very different assumptions, values, rationales, and
objectives10. If this is the case, it is unlikely that stakeholders who experience
high social complexity will be able to agree on a common course of action if no
intervention is done.

The implication of understanding social complexity is that one must make sure
that some intervention is made to allow people to level off their different
assumptions, values, rationales, and objectives so they are able to come
together to be able to agree on a common course of action. This means that one
must understand multi-stakeholder processes and dialogue to address social
complexity.

Multi-Stakeholder Processes (MSPs) are the practical application of the concept

that societies and communities have the capability to learn and adapt to be able
to address the challenges it faces11. If one believes in this concept, MSPs are the
methods that improve the ways in which we learn as a society. These are
processes that allow communities to assess the consequences of their behavior

10
Solving Tough Problems by Adam Kahane
11
Facilitating Complex Multi-Stakeholder Processes by Jim Woodhill

8
and how social structures affect the way people think and act. MSPs are a
communicative process that allows a group to understand problems and create
strategies for improvement. There are many examples of multi-stakeholder
processes that have been developed over the years

Dialogue, on the other hand, has developed many definitions and connotations
over the years. For the purpose of this paper dialogue is defined as a
conversation between a group of people where the group brings together many
voices, stories, and perspectives to facilitate a process of shared inquiry,
exploration, and discovery. It is hoped that through this process, the group is able
to achieve shared meaning-making of the information that they have and that
they co-construct their knowledge.12 It is a process of surfacing individual
perspectives within a group so that they understand each other prior to the
process of deliberation and decision making.

Both MSPs and Dialogue seek to address social complexity by bridging the
natural differences in groups. The goal is not for the members of the group to
agree with each other. The goal is, instead, to allow the members of the group to
understand where the others are coming from. The assumption is that people
who understand their group mates’ perspectives are better equipped to agree on
a common course of action.

Generative Complexity and Personal Response

Generative complexity is when there is no solution available, a solution has yet to

be created, or a solution has still to emerge for the problematic situation. Most
complex problems have not been encountered before and therefore solutions for
problems of the past are most probably both useless for complex problems and
deficient references on how to go about solving such problems.

Going back to the metaphor of a car, a car breaking down is an example of a

generatively simple problem. It is likely that what is wrong with the car is
something that a mechanic somewhere in the world has experienced before.
There is a great possibility that, even if he does not know what to do, the
mechanic can look at a book or manual that will tell him what to do for a given
situation. On the other hand, a person who is working on a complex issue like
poverty or peace and order does not have the same luxury. Even if there are best
practices that worked previously, conditions in the successful are never the same
as the new target area. New physical, economic, and cultural factors have to be
considered before one can decide on implementing a program in a new area. It is
almost as if one has to start from scratch every time one implements a program
in an area.

12
Democratic Dialogue by Bettye Pruitt and Philip Thomas

9
The way to address generative complexity is to move away from the thinking that
template or “canned” solutions will work in all situations. Even if solutions have
been developed in similar situations, people with intimate knowledge of the
conditions of the are must be involved in identifying the issues and programs to
ensure that the process will work given the peculiarities in an area. This means
that there should always be a process where a person or group connects to their
understanding of an issue area and connects to their creativity as they identify
what to do. In the language that has been adopted in the application of Bridging
Leadership, this is called a ‘response’. There must always be a process where a
personal or group response is surfaced relative to an issue.

The added benefit of a ‘response’ process is that it has been observed that
people who are involved in identifying the problems and identifying a course of
action are more inclined to be involved in the intervention. Surfacing a group
response to an issue not only helps address generative complexity, it also makes
it easier to generate future support for an initiative.

The Bridging Leadership Framework

Many related concepts have been presented thus far but the real work of
developing the Bridging Leadership framework will be to integrate the concepts.
Before that is done, it would be best to review the concepts that have been
discussed:

• Leadership begins with the leader.

• The approach is used to address inequities and the key to understanding
inequities is to understand it’s dynamic, social, and generative complexity
• Systems Thinking is the appropriate technology to understand and find
solutions for dynamically complex issues.
• Dialogue and multi-stakeholder processes are the appropriate approaches to
understand and find solutions for socially complex issues.
• Generative Complexity should be addressed by making sure that there is a
personal or group response to the issue.
• The leadership approach defined in Steve Pierce’s article needs to be further
distilled into “acts of leadership” to facilitate it being taught.

From these concepts and the action research work that it has done, the AIM
TeaM Energy Center posits the following framework to further define Bridging
Leadership:

Fig 3. The Bridging Leadership Framework

10
 OWNERSHIP CO-OWNERSHIP CO-CREATION

Empowered
Engagement Citizenry
Mechanisms

Societal Multi-Stakeholder Responsive

Bridging Inequity/Divide Persona Processes/ Shared New Programs
and l Convening and Trust- Vision & Institutional and Societal
Leader
Stakeholders Vision & Building Dialogue Mission Arrangements Services/ Equity
Social
Innovations

Personal New Collaborative

Response Relationships Response Transformed
Among Institutions
Stakeholders

Source: The AIM TeaM Energy Center for Bridging Societal Divides

The proposed Bridging Leadership Framework has three phases: Ownership,

Co-Ownership, and Co-Creation. The acts of leadership for each phase are
discussed below:

1. Ownership. The process of ownership begins with the leader. He realizes his
leadership capital – the collection of his assets of the leader. This includes his
values and principles; his sense of mission; his educational and experience
training is social networks and his experiences. The leader then looks at the
societal inequity he faces and looks at it from the viewpoint of systems
thinking and is able to see the different subsystems and the components of
the complex system. He can also see the different stakeholders involved. The
leader understands the stakeholders: their interests in the issue; the
resources they have and their capacity to be able to support or to block the
work to address the issue. The stakeholder analysis is important because he
is now able to see whether convening these stakeholders is within the
capability of his leadership capital

Once he is able to recognize the inequity and the system of stakeholders

which cause it, he decides that he wants to do something about the issue.
The intensity of the response is dependent of whether the leader is able to
relate his response to his life mission. This response can be articulated in a
personal vision and mission.

2. Co-Ownership. Once the bridging leader commits to a response to the issue

faced, he brings together the different stakeholders of the issue into
collaboration towards addressing the issue. The underlying processes used
by the bridging leader are multi stakeholder processes, activities that facilitate
11
 the collaboration, and dialogue, defined as processes that bring diverse
stakeholders together for understanding and agreement. In the same process
that the leader owns the issue,

3. Co-Creation. The third segment of the BL is the co-creation. This is the

segment where the collaborative agreements are operationalized into
collective action. This means that the agreements are now translated into
actions that are new institutional arrangements and will result to more
innovative programs. The institutional arrangements would hopefully lead to
more empowered citizenry and more responsive institutions. These programs
should eventually reduce the original inequity being faced.

Conclusion

It is hoped that this paper has achieved the objectives presented at the
beginning: 1) to discuss the continuing research of the Asian Institute of
Management on Bridging Leadership; 2) to expound on inequities as the context
of the leadership approach; 3) to present some concepts that the continuing
research suggests as related to the concept of Bridging Leadership; and 4) to
present a more detailed leadership framework that integrates the initial research
done and the related concepts. In summary, the paper has tried to present
concepts and integrate them into a framework that posits the “acts of leadership”
of a bridging leader.

12