A633.7.3.RB - Leader Follower Relationship

When I think about myself as a leader and what I would want from a leader, I always think about the followers first and how I can help them grow and be successful.  In my current job, I try to implement this strategy through some of the tools I have learned throughout this program.  After taking this assessment, I found that it was fairly accurate to how I current take steps to be a leader.  I scored 9 points in the strategy 3 section (involve), 4 points in the strategy 4 section (devolve), 2 in strategy 1 (tell), and 1 in strategy 2 (sell). 

For the strategy 3 (involve), I think this most closely resembles my actions as a leader.  I am very people oriented because I often feel that with my skill set and personality, being people oriented will help reach the goal.   I also think that I scored highest in this section because I often times question my decisions and whether or not I am leading the right way.  My lack of confidence is something that I feel I have learned to develop a lot more with the help of the courses I have taken in this program.   Aside from lacking confidence, when I feel that there are a variety of right answers to a solution, I tend to let the follower make the decision, not because I feel my decision would be inaccurate, but because I feel like it will help to empower the individual and take on more ownership of their tasks. 

The second category I scored highest in was strategy 4.  Strategy 4 is also very similar to the way I try to lead throughout the day.  Especially in my current job, a lot of the followers are very knowledgeable in their particular tasks, so I feel that I do not necessarily need to intervene with their decision making process, unless I feel it hinders us reaching our goal.  The followers here know the boundaries and the rules, so I am simply a monitor in the situation.   Both strategy 3 and 4 and styles that I felt I naturally gravitated toward, but never really understood how to ‘own my voice’ in them.  I have started to learn to develop and grow this voice throughout the program and it has helped me greatly with understanding different situations and making the right leadership call for those situations. 

I started my current job around the same time I started this class.  This was my first opportunity to really be in a leadership role in a company where my actions and decisions are widely seen and speculated.  I was very nervous at the beginning, but it paired nicely with the conversations we were having in the class.  I have learned that there are a variety of different ways to lead and that the way I was gravitating toward could be successful.  This has helped my confidence grow overall, as well as allowed me to implement different strategies suggested in our readings throughout the course of my position.  I would like to further work on developing my voice and learning about situational actions to take.  I feel I still struggle with leading a group that is a lot more knowledgeable about different tasks.  While I am always eager to learn, I also recognize that people see that as a lack of ability to lead.  I feel that working on my questions to ask and strategies to develop in my leadership role will help others see me as someone who is eager to learn, but also has a lot to offer.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.

A633.6.5.RB - Circle of Leadership

As both a leader and a follower in my current organization, I have witnessed and experienced the “vicious circle for leaders”.  In general, when I am a follower in a situation, I generally have a lower confidence level because I know I am a position to learn.  I never want to make a mistake even though mistakes are ok, so when looking at the circle, I can easily see how it can spiral out of control for both a leader and a follower. 

This is something I have witnessed happened over and over again both in my current organization, and also in previous jobs I have held.  The effects that this can have on an organization can spiral into pretty significant.  As a manager, I have begun to recognize that each individual responds differently to advice, training, and general responses to their work.  I find that it is important to recognize these differences when bringing something to their attention.  If this spiral becomes an integral part of the organization it can lead to a lot of problems when attempting to empower employees and have them reach the level V followership.  It can also affect the way they see themselves and their job and can lead them to resent their position because they feel that they are incapable. 

 

A positive cycle that could help to promote change would start out like this:

- The follower is seeking advice and is demonstrating low skill to the leader

- The leader then recognizes an area where he/she may have missed and provides training and different types of tasks to help build confidence.

- The follower’s confidence begins to build because they are feeling successful and empowered by their abilities.

- Leader continues to act as a mentor and slowly adds tasks that provide a higher level of difficulty.

- Follower’s skill/will improves over time and begins to take on more initiative because they are feeling more empowered.  Follower becomes a level V follower and takes initiative, informing the leader routinely.

I feel this would be very successful in my current organization, as both leaders and followers are working together on a daily basis.  There is a lot of opportunity to utilize this concept and help to build a stronger relationship between leader and follower.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.

A633.5.3.RB - Reflections on Chaos

This exercise was a great visual for showing how the more complex a situation is, the less leadership and direction one really needs.  I feel like this is a concept, that when seen visual, makes a lot of sense; however, I would have never thought of less leadership in more complex situations until seeing this visual.  After seeing the visual and reading about complex situations, I agree that less is more in these situations as long as a few set principles are in place, as Obolensky notes. 

Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamic systems that are sensitive to different conditions.  Knowing this, a situation that is sensitive to additional support could definitely become more chaotic with the presence of more leadership.  In situations like the experiment provided, chaos works itself out faster than if there were intervention.  I feel like this is true because chaos is something that an individual cannot solve on their own faster than it solving itself because the individual is spending more time trying to problem solve everyone’s problem, whereas the individuals involved are all focusing on their own problem, which in turn helps to solve the big chaotic problem faster. 

In order for this scenario to play out correctly, a few set principles need to be in place.  A clear individual objective needs to be established first and foremost.  If all the individuals participating in the experiment know what their objective is in the beginning, then each individual is working toward the same goal, just taking a different path to get there.  Second, a few basic rules need to be in place so that boundaries are established and the chaos in controlled in a smaller area.  Third, it is important to establish continuous feedback.  Obolensky notes “every individual knows at any time where they are in relationship to achieving their objective…and are able to interpret the data they see.”  (Obolensky, 2010)  It is important to make sure that there is a balance between what the individual’s understanding of the process and your expectations.  Next, it is crucial that each participant has not only the skill to participate, but also the will.  Skill is necessary in that they need to be capable of completeling the task at hand, if they are unable to, then the experiment is not as relevant for them.  If they have the skill, but lack the will, then there will be an unwillingness to try or care.  It is also important to allow for freedom of action.  In a chaotic environment with a few set rules, it’s important to allow the participants to let it play out naturally.  In order to do this, the participants need to be allowed to use their own discretion and judgment to make the decisions that they make. Having an underlying purpose is similar to having a goal.  Making sure everyone has their own reasons for wanting to be a part of the experiment and that they are able to achieve something from this experiment is important because it gives them an opportunity to develop an action plan and then play out that plan and analyze the results.   Finally, allowing for ambiguity and uncertainty is important – it allows each participant to problem solve and think critically in their own way to help solve the overall problem at hand.  Without this, there would no flow. 

Overall, this experiment was a really fun, eye opening experience.  It’s a simple, yet complex idea that sometimes, as a leader, it is important to let the chips fall where they may and let it work itself out.  When indivbiduals share these principles discussed earlier, it is quite surprising what they are capable of doing on their own in a very fast amount of time.  If one single individual attempted to fix the chaotic situation, it would have been a struggle to problem solves each individual’s task, underlying purpose, and goal.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Leadership has gone through many changes over the years, but has recently gone through a dramatic shift toward a bottom-up approach, where companies are no longer led in a hierarchal manner.  There are changes in the global environment, as well as changes in the overall complexity of different organizations.  With the rise of technology making a huge boom in the past few decades, organizations are starting to shift the way they lead.  Leaders are starting to see that a hierarchal approach to leading is just not effective anymore.  There is now a trending shift toward a bottom-up approach, where leaders are recognizing that they do not know everything and are willing to ask more questions and share ideas with people near the bottom who may have more valuable insight to certain areas of the company. 

While I believe this should be the shift that is taking place in my current organization, it just is not what is happening.  My current organization still holds tight to the top-down approach and sees the idea of not knowing everything as a weakness in the chain of command.  My current organization definitely leads by dictatorship.  We have several managers that form a hierarchy – one manager in training who is at the bottom of the management hierarchy, 2 supervisors next on the hierarchy, followed by 2 department managers, and then at the top are two 2 overall managers.   In theory, this may seem like a successful concept, however, there is constant conflict between management styles.  Many of the managers feel a need to compete with one another, which ends up turning into a “who can be more domineering” battle. 

I believe that a change needs to happen within this organization, so that the tenured staff at the bottom does not feel unheard or disrespected.  This is important because in my current organization, the staff at the bottom tend to experience more of the day-to-day issues that the company is facing; therefore, they have more of a grasp and understanding of how to fix these solutions.  I believe the upper management at the top has a difficult time admitting they do not know because they have yet to recognize that the shift in leadership style is happening.  They still hold true to the idea that the people on top need to know everything and then funnel the information that is necessary down to the bottom.  In reality, the bottom knows and understands more of the issues at hand and should be heard and respected. 

For a change like this to occur in my current organization, a shift in attitude needs to happen.  There are several approaches Obolensky discussed that can be beneficial for aiding in this change.  The first approach is the recognizing you do not know and admitting it.  It shows honesty and transparency, while also allowing the other individual to add their own input.  Asking what the other individual thinks, while also admitting you do not know and are seeking advise shows that you respect their ideas and are willing to listen to them and learn from them.  Sharing ideas and utilizing a more dynamic approach to question and answer dialogs can also be beneficial.  Not only are you utilizing the previous discussions, but you are developing a proactive conversation and dialog between management and non-management.  This is a positive conversation because ideas can be shared and people can be heard without feeling like they are in a defensive zone. 

If all of these ideas where implemented in my current organization, I feel that the moral and productivity would shift dramatically.  I feel that people would feel more uplifted and empowered, instead of beaten down and neglected.  The staff would want to stay, drama and gossip would decrease, and the overall productivity would increase because the moral would be higher and people would want to come to work to do their jobs well. 

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems

Companies have begun to shift from functional silios, to the present model to a cross-functional matrix, or complex adaptive systems (CAS). (Obolensky, 2010)  CAS reflects a “dynamic organization where teams are formed, perform and then disappear as the need arises.” (Obolensky, 2010)  To get to this ideal in business, the foundation needs to be formed with clear people processes and policies, flexible information and communication technology systems, and transparent strategy development.   A company that I believe truly highlights this concept is a company called IDEO based out of Palo Alto, CA. 

IDEO is an international design and consulting firm that is involved in management consulting, organizational design, and design thinking methodology to help design products and ideas for other companies.  IDEO follows a similar idea to CAS systems because it has to be flexible and changing to meet the needs of their customer.  Depending on the customer and the discussed end result, the firm puts together a variety of different teams to fit that particular need.  The team is organized with a variety of different types of members with different background and skills sets.  This helps to develop an environment for sharing ideas from across the board, which in turn, helps to bring about better results. 

This way of organizing and strategizing uses creative strategies to bring results that a lot of companies are starting to notice and take note of for their own services.