V O LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1

Reflections
The SoL Journal
on Knowledge, Learning, and Change

FEATURE ARTICLE

Outside Insight
A Conversation with Peter Senge
and Saj-nicole Joni

Commentary
Don Arnoudse

Commentary
Deborah Merrill-Sands

ON THE WEB

Reader Survey
Volume 5 Feedback Request
From the Editors

Published by The Society for Organizational Learningreflections.solonline.org
ISSN 1524-1734

F E A T U R E 6 .1

Outside Insight:
Balancing Private and Public Inquiry
A Conversation with Peter Senge and Saj-nicole JoniEDITOR’S NOTE: Thoughtful leaders in many

The Third Opinion, talked about ways to support

organizations have created forums for honest dia- leaders engaged in collaborative decision making.
logue and inquiry. But often missing, especially in

Joni offers a commonsense, but potentiallythe most open organizations, is a network of

powerful, way to apply shared thinking and solve

informed, trusted, and truly impartial advisers who complex problems. Together, Senge and Jonican provide a sounding board for the kinds of explore the limits of traditional coaching and condecisions senior executives make. In a recent con- sulting, the need to balance public and privatePeter Senge

versation, Peter Senge, founding chairperson of

inquiry for successful leadership, and the role of

SoL, and Saj-nicole Joni, global business adviser,inquiry in accelerated learning and improved deci-

former software executive, and author of the book sion making.

P
Saj-nicole Joni

ETER SENGE (PS): A cornerstone of organizational learning is effective inquiry – enhanc-

ing the individual, team, and organizational skills necessary to inquire into complex
and conflictual situations. When managers apply established ways of thinking andacting in knee-jerk fashion, without even realizing or questioning that this is happening,they make bad decisions, and they erode trust by failing to listen to differing points of view.
Over time, people can get frozen into counterproductive defensive routines in which crucial
issues become “undiscussable” and practices that many question privately are not confronted
publicly.
In the organizational learning field, the standard response to this dynamic has been tobuild skills and norms around greater public inquiry, such as helping management teams
discuss tough issues by learning how to surface and question their own assumptions. But
some issues, like those involving difficult personnel matters, can never be fully examined in
the team context. And executives who fall back on private advice from people who have a
stake in the outcome can also form distorted perceptions. What’s needed is a different, more
impartial, kind of adviser that can provide “the third opinion.”Let’s start by talking about what parts of inquiry should be done in the teams or larger
groups that will be carrying out the work, and what parts should be done privately, eitherwith members of the organization or with impartial advisers.

SAJ-NICOLE JONI (SJ): As an executive, I found that the better the quality of our work groups’

collaborative inquiry, the more I needed to be well supported in the private aspects of inquiry.
Initially that was quite confusing to me, because it was politically correct to do all our thinking in the group. But I’ve come to see that “private” individual inquiry – first-person, or
what might be called “first-opinion” reflection – is inextricably interwoven with collective,
or “second-opinion” inquiry. Both types are always happening.

reflections.solonline.org

Feature O Senge, Joni 1

Team inquiry comprises individuals, all of whom work at thinking about, gathering information for, and developing their understanding in the group. They also do some of that on
their own. It’s an organic process: sometimes shifts in thinking happen for individuals when
they are in physical proximity or community, and sometimes when they’re in quite private
spaces. Sometimes shifts happen based on public conversations, interactions, or experiencesthat then mesh with other experiences that are private. There’s a kind of interYou tell the truth, weaving of these processes. Both public and private reflection are necessary; infact, they’re interdependent.
even if the truth
During the past 10 years my work has evolved into focusing on “third-opinputs you out of the ion” advising – essentially, private advising with senior executives who typically spend a significant amount of their time in collective decision processes.
job of advising.
These (private) advisers are a kind of “kitchen cabinet” – they aren’t directly
engaged in the action but allow executives to sort through information and perspectives andto push their own thinking forward. These third-opinion advisers are an integral, yet separate, part of executives’ leadership in making decisions with the collective.
PS: How did you come to see that third opinions were important to your own work as amanager?
SJ: I found I often had to engage subject matter experts in collective inquiry with me. I had

to learn how to dig in with these experts. But it was difficult to think together with themin a truly collegial way, and easy to become completely dependent upon their advice. I real-

2 Reflections O Volume 6, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

ized that there were many ways to see an issue, and while seeking diverse perspectives I alsoneeded someone who was objective enough to act as a sounding board. I needed to talk it
out and process my thoughts to reach a decision or point of view.
This third-opinion work can be public or private, with individuals or with groups. Its twohallmarks are: (1) outside insight, and (2) no vested interest in the particular decisions. As an
outsider, you might have opinions, but you’re not invested in them. You’re serving as a thinking partner, but you don’t have an agenda. Your thinking is independent of the organization’s
culture and embedded stories, and it’s no-holds-barred. You tell the truth, even if the truth
puts you out of the job of advising.
As contrast, the hallmarks of second opinions lie in their sources – people with great expertise and insight who have significant interest and stake in the outcomes of the decisions. This
includes most people on our teams, often our peers and bosses, and many outside partners
and consultants, as well. First opinion, of course, is your own reflection and personal thinking. I don’t want to be misunderstood: second opinions are extremely valuable. We all want
to be surrounded by and to work with great and passionate second opinions. They are justnot the whole story when it comes to the full range of leadership and inquiry.
PS: It seems to me that most of the models for inquiry and learning that have become popularduring the past couple of decades focus on the process of team-based, collective inquiry. For
example, Argyris’s and Schoen’s single- and double-loop learning models focus on “good”
learning that takes place in public, in an open way, and not in private.1 The bias for many of
us seeking more learning-oriented and effective cultures is for open, collective inquiry. Thisbias arises for good reason in reaction to traditional, shadowy, “adviser to the president”
types who often have the greatest power and the least accountability. More open and honestreflection and inquiry in working teams are antidotes to the kind of rigidity and abuse of
power that can occur when everything is offline, private, and hidden. But the framing you’redescribing is of a much more complex decision-making process. You’re saying that bothpublic and private inquiry, learning, and decision making are important, that neither kind isbetter than the other.
Is there an example of a question that would be unproductive to bring to a group?

Outsiders in the Inner Circle
In his memoir, Counsel to the President, Clark Clifford,
adviser to several American presidents, including John
Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, describes the vital
importance of having well-placed and well-preparedoutsiders in a leader’s inner circle:“Even if he ignores the advice, every President should
ensure that he gets a third opinion from selected andseasoned private citizens he trusts. (The second opinion
should come from Congressional Leaders.) Though
Cabinet members and senior White House aides often
resent outside advisers, a President takes too manyrisks when he relies solely on his own staff and thereflections.solonline.org

federal bureaucracy for advice. Each has its own
personal or institutional priorities to protect. An outside adviser can serve the role of a Doubting Thomas
when the bureaucracies line up behind a single
proposition, or help the President reach a judgment
when there is a dispute within the government. They
can give the President a different perspective on
his own situation; they can be frank with him whenWhite House aides are not.”Excerpted with permission from Saj-nicole Joni,
The Third Opinion (New York: Portfolio, 2004), 14.

Feature O Senge, Joni 3

SJ: Suppose I had past business experiences that I hadn’t fully resolved intellectually or emo-

tionally. It isn’t necessary to subject the whole group to my puzzling out what happened orwhat was really true and relevant. Of course, sometimes being revealing and letting the groupsee me struggle with a certain issue can be productive. But all of us only have so much time
available to spend together; it’s precious and needs to be respected.
PS: Yes. There’s a thin line between vulnerability and self-indulgence. Revealing that I’m

struggling with something can be really useful. It can engage others in the struggle, and givethem some insight into my deeper assumptions – which may also help me. But it can also
become almost an abuse of a team. Carried to an extreme, the team meeting becomes
We each have the boss’s psychotherapy session.

a personal
stake in being
perceived as
effective.

SJ: Exactly. In addition, different people have different thinking and framing prefer-ences. I naturally, and unconsciously, start with a very big picture of how things
work, and then see things in relation to this framing. As a leader, early on I becameaware that not everyone thinks this way. Many people build up a big picture fromsmaller pieces. I also became aware that there might be other big pictures to consider.
It’s important that I have opportunities to challenge and develop my own ways of thinking.

PS: In a situation like that, you would look for an adviser who would naturally appreciate

the kind of frames you generate and who could also generate different ones. That’s a little
different from simply reflecting on my blind spots or biases, as is emphasized by most process consultation methods. It’s more like considering “what are my thinking predispositions
vis-à-vis an issue like this?”
SJ: Yes, that’s one role an impartial observer can play, but there also are many practical rea-sons why leaders need to cultivate their third-opinion network. For example, an executive
may need a place in which to ask questions that would have unintended and inappropriate
consequences if explored in the group setting. Say you were a business unit leader thinking
about exiting your core business. You would need to work through many considerations
with people who would be affected by your decision. But to prepare for those conversations,
you would need to do some important preparation and thinking, and have in place goodsounding boards in people not attached to the outcome. Otherwise you would have to work
everything out either in isolation, or with a group of people who were definitely not disinterested. If you broached the subject in the group before you were ready, you could easily put
in motion cascading reactions that might trigger a lot of unintended consequences.
Ideally, you need one or more individuals whom you know and trust, and who are fromoutside the system, have the right expertise, and don’t have a vested interest in your decisions. Some consultants fall into this category but others do not.
The trouble is that most consulting firms have a natural and explicit interest in expanding
their work and most are set up to look for opportunities to leverage their expertise andteams. Every executive who hires consultants is aware of that business model. Consultants
who provide third opinions, by contrast, do not seek to maximize their tenure or expand
their firm’s role into implementation and follow-on work.

4 Reflections O Volume 6, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

PS: I have seen a few consultants who acted more as elder advisers: they were there as aresource to a community, but were not always intensely engaged. They got to know a company as a culture, and grew to appreciate the business more deeply because they could see
the business problems and dilemmas from multiple perspectives. In such a role, over timethey develop a kind of connection with the organization as a whole, and feel a sense of realaffinity for its mission, its purpose, its culture, and its personality – warts and all. Isn’t thatpossible?
SJ: It’s possible, but is not the most common sort of role, because it can be hard to sustain

over time. Most people find that the more they get involved in working in the system, themore difficult it is not to have a stake in the outcome. At some point, people are pulled overthat line. It is a very interesting gray area to explore.
PS: I can see that, but let’s talk more about the meaning of the phrase “stake in the outcome.”It’s impossible not to have opinions. We’re human. We have opinions. It’s impossible not tothink things like, “This seems like a stupid idea to me.”reflections.solonline.org

Feature O Senge, Joni 5

SJ: We all have opinions and we all have stakes in outcomes, even if that stake is only that wewant to be highly regarded as a smart person who had a good idea. I write about something
I call “structural trust”: trusting that someone’s agenda does not, and will not, compete withyour own. It’s different from trusting someone personally or trusting someone’s expertise.
It’s often tied to roles and involves whether people stand to gain – in stature, financially, by
promotion, or in power – by the decisions you make. If they do, you won’t have the highest
levels of structural trust and that will compromise the inquiry.

You are notinvested in being
right or in being
smarter.

PS: So, on the one hand, we each have a personal stake in being perceived as

effective. But, I hear you suggesting two ways that can be effective or productive:
first, the client might do what you’ve advised, and second, the client might say,“Thinking together with you was really useful.” And you’re talking more about
the latter.

SJ: That’s right. Your stake, as adviser, is really in the totality of the relationship rather thanin any particular outcome from the relationship. You are not invested in being right or inbeing smarter. It’s a framework in which you can tell the truth. There’s true mutuality in therelationship.
PS: That makes so much sense. Most consulting or advising is one-way. The adviser is an in-strument to aid the client, as opposed to how it is in a real relationship, in which neither party
is an instrument of the other’s need to accomplish something. It’s an intrinsic relationship.
I remember a comment Chris Argyris once made before a seminar. Chris is very wellknown and respected. But he’s also experienced a fair amount of mean-spirited, thinly veiled
nastiness from academics because his work is quite radical. We were chatting about this andhe said, “You know, what I most like are the people who are really high on admiration andreally high on criticism.” It was a lovely way to point out the dualistic either-or framing that
we can fall into. A relationship with somebody that allows you to be critical of each other,while still admiring each other, can be very rewarding. It defines a particular kind of trust.
In my experience, those sorts of relationships don’t always require a lot of time to develop.
Sometimes there’s very strong intellectual and emotional chemistry and it just clicks.
Having that kind of deep connection with someone outside doesn’t lessen the kind of support and inspiration you get from your team – those are essential. But everybody around you
is usually caught up in the same things. The danger of talking only with your peers or subordinates is that everybody can subtly start colluding with everybody else, reinforcing established points of view. The kind of reaffirming connection we’re talking about has to comefrom outside your immediate circles of formal relationships in a work setting. I would call it
co-inspiration.
Comparatively speaking, most of us are relatively sophisticated as individual thinkers andrelatively unsophisticated as collective thinkers because so little of our training and education
is about what it means to engage in collective inquiry. So we have to recognize there’s anatural bias toward private, individual inquiry. I’d like to think that, over time, if this processof balancing collaborative decision making and private reflection and advice works, more ofour difficult issues would find their way into the collaborative realm.
But that raises another question: how does one assess whether the whole process is working? For example, it would be very disconcerting if, as a result of some wonderful private

6 Reflections O Volume 6, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

thinking and advising, I had less to bring to my team for discussion. If that happened, in
effect, the whole process would be abetting my predisposition to avoid the conflict, messiness, and vulnerability of coming into truly collaborative inquiry. It seems to me that the first
criterion for judging progress is that the range of topics that I bring to collaborative inquiry
is expanding, along with my tolerance for conflict, differences of view, and all the emotional
struggles that inevitably will attend collaborative inquiry.
SJ: I’ve found that many of the people I work with can and do raise the complexity of what

they take on and try to move into a much larger inquiry. They can broaden the scope ofinquiry with their natural teams. But they also start to see that what they thought was theteam-sized inquiry is only one node in the network of teams that have to be involved. They
become much broader and inclusive, sparking multiple sets of inquiries and conversations.

Important Inner-Circle Conversations
Conversations with inner-circle thinking partners arebroad ranging and typically fall into one or more of fourbasic categories.
1. The visionary conversation
The primary purpose of this kind of dialogue is toimagine the different possible futures that one might
create, and use that insight in the present. In this kindof conversation, you and your thinking partners consider
world trends – micro- and macroeconomics, global andpolitical realities, scientific and technological developments – sometimes as much as seven to ten years into
the future. If this is the future you want to commit tocreating (or to avoiding), what are the steps you shouldtake now to influence the desired outcome?
2. The sounding board conversation.
This conversation takes place when you want to workwith someone who has the right expertise, wisdom, andexperience to take a third opinion look at a new strategy
or a set of ideas. You and your thinking partner look together at the implicit assumptions involved in the courseof action, check them against external reality, and vet
the decision in a variety of ways, including legal, political,
and environmental implications. You want to ask the“what-and-why” questions. (“What if we looked at it thisway?” “Why do we believe that this is right?” “What’s
the sacred cow that we might not be willing to touch?”)In leadership, the little things need to go right as wellas the big things. The sounding board conversation is
the place to explore actions and decisions of all sizes
and importance, as well as to explore doubts and, perhaps,
to discover the wisdom behind the doubts. It is a place
to explore certainty and to find the limits of that certainty.

reflections.solonline.org

3. The big picture conversation.
In this conversation, a leader and a thinking partner
step back and look at all the things that are going on,
making sure that where you intend to go is alignedwith all the complex and interdependent moving parts
involved in getting there. The purpose is to makesure that nothing has been left out, that your thinking
hasn’t become blinkered by a too-narrow corporate
focus.
4. The “expertise in inquiry” conversation.
In these dialogues, the leader is looking for morethan an expert problem-solving conversation. You arelooking not only to develop your knowledge, but also
to develop fundamental models and new ways ofthinking about the terrain. You need a thinking partner who is an expert, an expansive thinker, and someone who can help you learn the new information in
ways that are highly relevant to your current situation.
The leadership terrain is complex, and the thinking
required to master that terrain is concomitantly demanding. Thus, learning what you are not a master ofis just as important as developing your thinking skills.
To be a successful leader today you need, perhaps
above all, to know your own limits. And then you
need to know how to go out and find others who
can take you the rest of the way.
Excerpted with permission from Saj-nicole Joni,
The Third Opinion (New York: Portfolio, 2004), 21–23.

Feature O Senge, Joni 7

I think there are three questions to ask to measure the health of the inquiry process. First,
are the richness and complexity of the inquiry inside a team increasing? Second, are the connections between public and private inquiries growing? And third, are more people encouraged to find their own balance between private and collective inquiry? As the level ofcollective inquiry rises, invariably the need for private inquiry increases, as well. Private
inquiry becomes more important if the collaborative inquiry is permitted to get to the really
tough stuff. My hypothesis is that some very well-meaning and pretty skilled collective
inquiry gets stalled because it doesn’t have this balance.
PS: For the reason you just identified, many people that I respect a great deal have set up

their practice of team development so that there’s also intense personal coaching happening
simultaneously. You get to tougher and tougher issues. You can count on that old saw: “If it’sgoing well now, it’ll get tougher.” I think what you’ve been saying all along is that we often
can neglect the personal demands this can create.
SJ: That’s true, but it’s only part of the story. I think of these as “individual” demands, which

are often much broader than what we mean when we say “personal.” Personal demand
sounds like it’s about a leader’s psychological or coaching needs. But this is about individual
business demands, individual content demand, and building individual capacity to think incomplexity. Typically, coaching has tended to focus on the personal aspects of leadership.
That’s very important as the heat goes up, but people need other kinds of resources in theirprivate thinking space.
PS: Yes, I agree. This raises a very practical problem. I’m surprised that it wasn’t evident tome before. The whole OD [organizational development] field has suffered for 40 years fromthe plethora of people who come to it with behavioral science training, who want to workin business, but who don’t actually have much expertise or feel for the real business issues.
You might define the difference between what you’re calling third-opinion
As the level ofwork and coaching in an analogous way. Coaching means a lot of things,
collective inquiry rises, but 9 times out of 10, it requires little, if any, deep business knowledge.

invariably the needfor private inquiry
increases, as well.

SJ: Here’s a useful way to think about this: executive coaching is a narrowgenus, or type, of third-opinion work. Almost all of us can use this typeof personal coaching at certain junctures and for particular challenges inleadership. But I have seen leaders make big mistakes when a coach plays
too big a role. For example, guided by their coaches, many leaders focus on trying to fix cultural issues in organizations when the things that are really “broken” are strategic issues.
And then there’s this myth about isolation that we touched on earlier. Many people holdthe idea that when leaders and teams engage in collective inquiry, members’ isolation will defacto be reduced. True, and not true. In many cases, the better people get at wading into thehardest inquiries, the more it raises levels of isolation, because people get to difficult issues
that can no longer be pushed aside. If we really want to support organizations and societies
in doing this inquiry work well, we have to understand that these two forces need to work inharmony.
In the 1980s, when I first started to lead collaborative inquiry, I thought, “Oh, great – I’m
in a company that’s committed to collective inquiry, and as an executive, I don’t have to know

8 Reflections O Volume 6, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

all the answers anymore. I can work with my teams, and I can be much more open.” But I
discovered that, although this was true, in unexpected ways my isolation also grew.
PS: This can be one of the most insidious, undiscussable phenomena. If we’re all into col-laboration and teams, there’s no space for me to say, “Hey, wait a second, I’m feeling moreisolated,” because it would be tantamount to saying I’m not with the program of collaboration and team development. Maybe one simple reminder is that making headway in creating
a culture of collaborative inquiry does not cause the “left-hand column” to disappear. We will
always have private thoughts and feelings that we do not share. Creating that cultural change
also does not resolve all of people’s issues about what to discuss and what not to discuss.
We have an illusion that somehow, once we figure out this collaboration stuff, work isgoing to be a lot better. But it isn’t. As we unleash the collaborative capability, we naturally
take on harder issues, and ones that matter much more. And as you say, there are more andmore demands, on interpersonal and emotional, but also on strategic and operational levels,
so people have a greater need for private space in which they can talk with qualified people
about their dilemmas.
SJ: We need to reincorporate the notion of private inquiry into the work of broad collabora-

tive inquiry and decision making.
PS: Creating private space is one of the balancing processes critical to collaborative inquiry;
failure to create that space prevents real collaborative cultures from maturing very far. People
run into problems that they cannot discuss, and eventually, this stifles the collaboration. A
slightly different way to say it is that becoming better and better at doing things together
requires becoming better and better at doing things on one’s own.

reflections.solonline.org

Feature O Senge, Joni 9

What Do You Look for in Your Most Important
Advisers and Thinking Partners?
Thinking partners are exponential thinkers who are able
to offer you new information and new lines of sight. They
explore existing mental models and work with others tochallenge and expand their own mental models. They
are skilled at looking for hidden assumptions, in testingand validating, and in challenging the status quo. They
are appropriately wary of thinking by analogy.
The best thinking partners have a well-developed ability
to think across parochial boundaries. They have an aptitude for detecting interdependencies and they know how,fundamentally, to see a problem at several different
levels – and have the ability to pick the right level forthe best solution.
The capabilities of your inner-circle thinking partners
should reach well beyond categories of expertise, suchas finance, global strategy, product development, ororganizational dynamics. In short, here’s what you
look for:• The ability to see all sides of a complex issue(exponential thinking).
• Someone who asks great questions and listens
closely – including for what isn’t said.
• Someone who doesn’t offer advice.
• Someone who has a reputation for integrity.

• Someone who has high-quality expertise andexperience relevant to the key issues you needto resolve.
• A person who can provide unique perspective.
• Someone who has the ability to tailor content
to challenges and questions at hand.
• Someone who clicks with you intellectually
as well as personally.
• Someone who has an intuitive understandingof your strengths and meshes well with them.
• A person who possesses authentic curiosityand empathy.
• Someone who is free from conflict of interest,
both personal and structural.
• Someone who reciprocates in choosing you.
It’s hard to imagine leaders who would not wantto have people like this on their team. It’s powerful,interesting, fun, and a safety net, all at the sametime. Beyond that, it’s deeply satisfying to build
and sustain these kinds of lifelong leadership
relationships.
Excerpted with permission from Saj-nicole Joni,
The Third Opinion (New York: Portfolio, 2004), 24–25.

Endnotes
1 Chris Argyris and Donald Schoen, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978).

ABOUT THE AUTHORSPeter Senge is a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and the founding chairperson of SoL. A renowned pioneer in management innovation, Peter is the author of the widely
acclaimed The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (Doubleday/
Currency). reflections@solonline.org
Saj-nicole Joni is the founder of Cambridge International Group, Ltd., a high-level advisory
services firm. She is a director of publicly held companies, and has served for over ten years on
the faculties of MIT, Carnegie Mellon University and Wellesley College. The author of The Third
Opinion: How Successful Leaders Use Outside Insight to Create Superior Results (Portfolio/
Penguin Putnam), she has written articles for a variety of publications. saj@camix.com© 2005, Society for Organizational Learning. All Rights Reserved.

10 Reflections O Volume 6, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

COMMENTARY

Commentary
By Don Arnoudse

Don Arnoudse

In her conversation with Peter Senge and in her
book, The Third Opinion, Saj-nicole Joni offers aframework that has helped me expand the scopeof my own coaching practice. Her notion of “outside
insight with no vested interests in the particulardecisions made by the executive” is a compellinggoal for anyone who hopes to earn the trust of asenior colleague or client. I have found three ideas
in Joni’s framework particularly useful in expanding
my impact as a coach.

possibilities of a situation. She asserts, and I agree,that exponential thinking is an essential leadership
practice that is best done with others – in an environment of high trust. The core of third opinion workis creating the private space for such high-powered
exponential thinking.

The first is her model of the three levels of trust:personal (do I trust this person’s honesty and ethics?),
expertise (do I trust his or her competence in a particular domain?) and structural (does this person’s
other interests affect the ability to deal straightforwardly with me?). My experience with clients confirms that as leaders move to more senior positionsin their organizations, they find fewer people withwhom they have high structural trust. Everyone aroundthem has an agenda. Thus, at the same time thatleaders need deeper inquiry with advisers in whomthey have structural trust, the opportunities forsuch conversations becomes more limited.

expertise who can help them develop their own dayto-day critical thinking. For “key leaders,” thoseheading a business unit or division and focusing on
the bigger picture, leadership is increasingly definedby the quality of outside insight that they build into
their inner circle. Closely scrutinized “senior leaders,”
whose every move sends ripples throughout the organization, are best served by advisers who bring diversityof opinion, perspective, and thinking style. If leaders
approach this network-building process with a senseof purpose and discipline, they can create a networkthat gives them honest advice when it’s needed most.

Third is that a leader’s inner circle should be built bydesign throughout their career. For instance, “earlyleaders” – typically unit heads managing 20–50
people – could recruit a few key advisers with relevant

Joni’s model has also helped me examine my own
capacity to put aside any personal agendas and engage honestly with every new client – a precondition
for helping them confront tough issues. As Jonideclares, it’s not about having a stake in being rightor being smarter; it is about telling the truth as I see
it, having opinions but not being attached to them,and being independent of the culture and the politics of the organization that my client is leading.

I believe that one of the defining characteristics ofeffective leaders is their willingness to call for help
quickly when facing important and complex issues.
Having an inner circle “third opinion” network in placeassures that any call for help will be answered immediately. And for those who do answer the call –whether third-party advisers, executive coaches,or consultants – Joni’s model gives us the basis tomeasure and maintain the essential structural trustwith our clients.

The second useful idea is based on what Joni calls
exponential thinking; that is, seeing all sides of acomplex issue, exploring context, unearthing assumptions, and probing to expose the full reality and

Don Arnoudse
Founder, The 2nd Half
darnoudse@the2ndhalf.com© 2005, Society for Organizational Learning. All Rights Reserved.

reflections.solonline.org

OImmediato
Commentary
Feature OOSenge,
Arnoudse
Joni 11
Commentary

COMMENTARY

Commentary
By Deborah Merrill-Sands

Deborah Merrill-Sands

We know that inquiry and learning underpin effective
leadership. And as a new leader in an executive role,
I have found the “outside insight” of a third opinion
adviser to be especially valuable. As peers andconfidants suddenly become direct reports, as new
networks of peer relationships need to be cultivated,
and as new bosses are yet to be understood, newleaders face a depleted pool of trusted voices. Yet
this is the time when new leaders need advice themost. With little time for reflection and inquiry, we
have to make decisions and undertake initiatives that
not only have critical implications for the future of
our organizations but also for shaping stakeholders’perceptions of our capabilities as a leader. As a newleader, at a time when the stakes are highest, weare at our most isolated and our ability to harness
advice and expertise is most wanting.
My “third opinion” adviser has provided the ballast
to keep me upright and focused in the turbulence of
my leadership transition. (While Joni speaks of advisory networks I’ve found that even one trusted adviser
is a powerful asset.) She serves as a sounding board
as I give voice to doubts, concerns, or vulnerabilities
I cannot afford to share internally. She serves as athinking partner as I survey my new domain of responsibilities, digest advice from internal stakeholders,and seek to assess our strengths and weaknesses
and develop options for new directions. She challenges me to examine my interpretation of motivations, behaviors, and assumptions of the organizational players I’m still getting to know. She helps me
to map out new networks of alliances and dig deeper
to understand the viewpoints of my opponents. She
asks the most basic questions about our strategy,
our values, our services, and our ways of working
together, forcing me to reexamine assumptions thatare deeply embedded in our organizational culture.
And, perhaps most important, she helps me to maintain the crucial discipline of reflection and learning
during a period when time is my scarcest resource.

days, we focus our attention on building new relationships and reframing the old. We consult our organizational mentors to deepen our understanding of our
new organizational landscape and the expectations of
our new positions. We revitalize our networks. We ask
questions, listen, and learn from our colleagues anddirect reports within our organizations. We know these
are crucial steps towards our long-term success. But,
we are moving fast, digesting volumes of new information, and working in new realms of complexity. At
the very time when we need a sounding board andobjective advice most, we are also in the process ofreassessing and renegotiating trust within our new constellation of “second opinion” advisers. As a result,
we are vulnerable to making mistakes and missteps
that, in some cases, can never be recovered.
I found that my work with my “third opinion” adviser –serving as an objective sounding board and thinking
partner – has been a wonderful source of insight andstrength in helping me navigate my leadership transition. She has helped catalyze my inquiry and learning
in four ways that I think are essential to any leader.
First, because she has no agenda or stake in the outcome of my decisions, she has invited frank and introspective reflection. Second, she has the liberty to be
iconoclastic – challenging norms and “truths” that I
and my most valued internal advisers take for granted.
Third, she provides dispassionate advice to help me
puzzle through and develop foresight in the complex
political chess games intrinsic to organizational life.
Finally, she has asked me the hard questions I needto explore to maintain a sense of self and stayengaged with the creative, but hard, work ofcollaborative leadership.

Deborah Merrill-Sands
Acting Dean, School of Management,
Simmons College
deborah.merrill-sands@simmons.edu

Having a “third opinion” adviser is a privilege. It isalso a critical factor for success that many of us as
new leaders do not know to seek out. In our early© 2005, Society for Organizational Learning. All Rights Reserved.

12 Reflections O Volume 6, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

Reflections
The SoL Journal
on Knowledge, Learning, and Change
Volume 6, Number 1

Editorial Team
Editors-in-Chief
Karen Ayas and Peter Senge
Senior Editor
Paul M. Cohen
Managing Editor
Nina Kruschwitz
Publisher
C. Sherry Immediato

Subscription Options
Receive Reflections as a SoL Connections member:• USD$125 U.S.
• USD$135 International
One year individual subscription:• USD$75 U.S.
• USD$85 International
To order online and for a full description of subscription options, visit our website: reflections.solonline.org.
For institutional subscriptions,contact David Mahaffey (see below).

ISSN 1524-1734
EISSN 1536-0148© 2005 by the Society for Organizational Learning.
SoL is a registered trademark of the Society for Organizational Learning.
Design & Production: DG Communications (NonprofitDesign.com)

Reflections: The SoL Journal is published 10 times
per year in electronic format and once per year as a
hard copy compilation by the Society for Organizational Learning. Inquiries regarding subscriptions,address changes, back issues, reprints, and permission requests should be directed to:David Mahaffey
Publications AssistantReflections: The SoL Journal
25 First Street, Suite 414
Cambridge, MA 02141 USA+1.617.300.9515 (phone)+1.617.354.2093 (fax)E-mail: reflections@solonline.org
reflections.solonline.org