Changing Dynamics of Leadership

            A shift is in leadership is occurring in business.  Obolensky (2014) wrote that the balance of leadership has shifted from the few i.e. an oligarchy to the many i.e. a polyarchy (Obolensky, 2014, p. 19).  The impetus for this phenomenon is that the business world has changed (and will continue to change) due to continuing changes in human socio-conditions.  Some conditions, as noted by Obolensky (2014) are technological advancements in military, communication, and transportation (Obolensky, 2014, pp. 12-14). 

            Thus, changes in technology are one reason for the shift in leadership.  Technology has given business the capability to grow globally.  For example, a U.S. based (and American owned) business can operate in many geographical locations around the world.  However, a business operating globally faces complexity – it operates within the laws and norms of a host country, different ethnicities, and different cultural subsets.  As such, a unique strategy must be applied in to meet the opportunities and challenges in each of the aforementioned contexts (Dewhurst, Harris, & Heywood, 2012).  In other words, Dewhurst, Harris, & Heywood (2012) assert that a business must be able to adapt its product and/or service to meet local needs.  Thus, this strategy requires local leadership “on the ground” to meet local needs (i.e. polyarchy).

            The second and third conditions for change are the rise in human awareness and the change in leadership assumptions (Obolensky, 2014, pp. 14-18).  The rise in human awareness generally refers to our (human) understanding of the world or lack thereof (Obolensky, 2014, p. 16).  Business recognizes that an oligarchic leadership structure cannot adequately confront ambiguity.  For instance (and referring to the aforementioned U.S. company), senior leadership back in the U.S. does not have the information and specific domain knowledge of a given area (say China) to make the best decision in regards to dynamic events.  Therefore, business must rely on polyarchy and rather than senior leaders exercising command and control, they must relinquish control and empower followers.  Although human awareness does not inherently mean a formal education, education is a factor that leads to the change in leadership assumptions.  According to a report, between 1990 and 2014, the percentage of adults 25 to 29 years old (in the U.S.) who had completed a bachelor's or higher degree increased from 23 percent in 1990 to 34 percent in 2014 (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).  This one example shows that there is an ever-growing population of educated adults.  The illusion that leaders are smarter than their followers does not necessarily ring true anymore.  Thus, employees want more responsibility and empowerment.  In addition, business is willing to give it to them because it also understands the benefit when both the leader and the follower share responsibility in the common goals and outcome (Burns, 1978, p. 20).  

            The successful business – the one that empowers its employees (aka junior leaders) – also benefits from solutions (to problems) being thought of and developed at the proverbial point of where the ‘axe meets the grind’ (Obolensky, 2014, p. 36).  This bottom up approach to decision making requires that business consider leadership development at the beginning of an employee’s career.  This applies to all employees.  Although not every employee will rise to become a leader in the organization, the traits of leadership e.g. awareness, effective communication, intuition, initiative, etc. can be instilled into each employee.  Thus, in the words of Obolensky (2014) the organization overall can transform “…from a machine type organization which can be ‘run’ to a more fluid organic type of organization which runs itself” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 27).  As for the leadership dynamic, leadership must change from transactional to transformational leadership.  A transformational leader inspires his or her followers in the pursuit of a common goal while also mentoring them to become leaders themselves (Burns, 1978, p. 20).

References

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Dewhurst, M., Harris, J., & Heywood, S. (2012, June). Retrieved from www.mckinsey.com: http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/the-global-companys-challenge

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership - Embracing paradox and uncertainty. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.