The ‘Vicious Cycle for Leaders’

The ‘Vicious Cycle for Leaders’

            The ‘vicious cycle for leaders’ is one in which a follower seeks constant affirmation from the leader, and thus resulting in the leader actively (and unnecessarily) overseeing the follower (Obolensky, 2014).  This inherently leads to a leadership and followership charade of ‘I don’t know’ (Obolensky, 2014).  This charade will affect follower engagement (to act) in the organization i.e. upward leadership and the leader ability to ‘let go’ i.e. downward leadership.  This author’s organization is a myriad of paradoxes where the ‘cycle’ can exist but both upward and downward leadership is exercised.  The organization is a delicate balance of leaders desiring initiative and autonomy of their followers, but delivered in a traditional command and control culture.  

            The ‘vicious circle for leaders’ has occurred in this author’s organization.  Several things have caused this.  For one, in a hierarchy and traditional institution like the U.S. Army, one has a certain inclination to defer to leaders.  It is a culture that breeds a strict obedience to orders so long as those said orders are moral and ethical.  This is essential because of what the organization does.  Both leader and follower understands that there will come a time, and possibly many more, when the leader ‘orders’ the follower to perform a task/job at the peril of his or her (the follower’s) life.  This demands great trust from the follower in which he or she trusts in the skill and judgment of the leader.  There is a paradox in this – the follower defers the decision, not out of a lack self-confidence, but because of confidence in the leader.  Although the example above is the extreme scenario, this mentality permeates into almost all aspects.  Yet, this does not mean that followers blindly execute orders.  Part of the organizational culture is also upward (and lateral) leadership.  The follower is expected to challenge the leader, not by disobedience, but by bringing forth better ideas, ways, etc.  This illustrates that each can ‘lead by example’ – one has high moral and ethical standards, communicates, is competent, problem-solves, etc. 

            Another cause is that leaders can be wary of enabling too much empowerment because of the ‘blame game’.  This author had mentioned this before – one can delegate authority but not responsibility.  This author was once given advice from a mentor, ‘trust, but validate’.  Once again, there is a paradox in this thinking.  How can one expect to advance ‘followership’ if he or she is constantly checking up on their followers?  The impetus for empowerment is for the leader to ‘let go’.  In this organization, downward leadership is exercised mainly in strategy development.  In regards to strategy development, it is still an oligarchic view in the which the ‘few’ determine how the organization will evolve.  Admittedly, even this author applied this thinking to the organization in which he was a senior leader.  The junior leaders/followers in the organization may not have had much say in ‘why’ something is to be done but they were given much autonomy in ‘how’ it was done.  Along these lines, the followers planned the mission but the leader  ‘approved’ it.  The problem that lay therein was the lack of ownership from the followers.  Therefore, this author must ensure that both leader and follower create organizational goals and share in the accountability of those goals.

            However, there are still moments in the organization in which a leader has deferred to the follower.  This shows that the ‘charade’ can be broken.  For instance, a young Lieutenant (or any Officer for that matter) sought the advice/mentorship/knowledge of an NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer).  This illustrates the dynamics and paradoxes of the organization – there a leaders who both ‘know’ and ‘don’t know’ and there are followers who ‘don’t know’ and ‘know’.  Yet, the balance of leadership and followership is achieved because each other understands the know/don’t know boundaries.  This sharing of knowledge and experiences comes from open communication and feedback.  The organization is a learning organization.

            In conclusion, the organization does exhibit some variations of the ‘vicious circle for leaders’.  From a downward leadership perspective, leaders do not completely ‘let go’ because of a perceived unreliability of followers and the ‘blame game’.  From an upward leadership perspective, followers are not completely autonomous because of the control of leaders.  Despite this, the organization manages the paradoxes by encouraging follower engagement, instilling ‘ownership’ into all organizational members, and breaking the leadership/followership charade.  The ‘glue’ that binds all is in the belief in the purpose of the organization, that is, to serve our nation proudly and to the best of our abilities.  Both leader and follower must then a) lead by example, b) set goals, c) learn and share knowledge, d) collaborate/do, and e) provide feedback.  Thus, the ‘vicious cycle for leaders’ disappears and a new circle of leadership/followership appears:

References

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