Leader Follower

            Complex adaptive leadership requires that the leader knows him or herself.  Obolensky (2012) wrote that many leaders saw a distinction between ‘leadership’ and ‘management’, in that leadership required something special (Obolensky, 2014).  Indeed, this author believed that a true ‘leader’ had those qualities (i.e. confidence, charisma, intuitive, etc.) that separated him or her from those that were managers who simply wore leader “shoes”.  He thought that managers had the capability to ‘get it done’ but with coercion i.e. transactional leadership while leaders used transformational leadership.  During the course of these studies, this author has realized that leadership and management is symbiotic – both leadership and management seek to meet ‘people needs’ and ‘goal needs’ (Obolensky, 2014).  Moreover, it is realized that a leader can also be a follower.  Thus, it is the challenge of the leader to understand thyself, his or her followers, and the situation/environment; and to employ the right ‘style’ as proposed in the in the Hersey/Blanchard situational leadership model (Obolensky, 2014).

            In order for this leader to understand thyself, he reflected on his leadership style.  His self-reflection revealed that he is predominantly ‘authoritative’ in leadership.  Authoritative leadership is ‘leadership by example’ – “It assumes the leader knows what needs to be done and communicates this by showing the example” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 148).  However, there were three challenges he often faced.  They challenges were failing to ‘let go’, trying hard to know/learn everything, and focusing too much effort on unimportant things.  Coincidentally, Obolensky (2012) wrote that many executives also felt this way.  These self-imposed challenges were the result of an “oligarchic assumption of traditional leadership” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 151).  Upon taking a test on ‘Complex Adaptive Leadership in Action’, this author’s ‘challenges’ were further validated by the resulting scores – the scores revealed someone who ‘finds it hard to let go’ either emotionally and/or physically.  Paradoxically, despite failing to ‘let go’, this leader generally believed that he had faith in his subordinates and empowered them.   

            Yet, this author now understands that it requires a greater distribution of the six leadership styles (e.g. coercive, authoritative, pace setting, coaching, democratic, and affiliative) to properly balance the ‘people needs’ and ‘goal needs’.  It is a matter of applying the simple rules and using the leadership model applicable to the skill/will of the followers (or the organization as a whole).  Thus, this leader’s goal is to focus himself and his followers on the ‘big picture’.  This author once believed it was his responsibility to put the pieces in place, whereas, if he ‘let go’ the pieces would fall into place (simplicity comes from complexity).  Lentz (2011) wrote that leaders helped an organization piece together the puzzle by providing followers vision, that is, “what could be and where they might go” (Lentz, 2011, p. 1).  Providing vision for ‘what could be’ and ‘where they might go’ requires a flow of strategies (e.g. strategies of the situational leadership model) like this: Sell why something must be done, Tell the what/how it gets done, Involve followers for the how/what, and Devolve and enabling followers to get it done.

            In closing, leadership in a complex and adaptive environment involves understanding – a leader understands him or herself and the organization.   A leader must understand and accept the following paradoxes of complex adaptive leadership.  The leader can be the follower if he or she ‘let’s go’ and thus enabling followers to lead.  A leader and a manager are different and yet the same, with both working towards the ‘big picture’ by addressing ‘people needs’ and ‘goal needs’.  To devolve, the leader must be many things, traversing between being authoritative and affiliative, coaching and coercive, and so forth.  Thus, leaders must have yin and yang – to be opposite or contrary while also being complementary. 

References

Lentz, C. (2011). Retrieved from erau.instructure.com: https://erau.instructure.com/files/7999202/download?download_frd=1&verifier=MqAqi0cgPF7RWxw5FdQGZpTmdvkV5B3j9noc5yWD

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