What is Great Leadership?

What is Great Leadership?

            Over the course of my MSLD studies, my notions and/or assumptions of leadership have changed.  In one area, the change was learning of leadership methodologies that I could use, another proverbial ‘tool’ to put into my leadership ‘toolbox’.  Yet, in another area – the concept of leadership – the change was significant in that I now view leadership differently.  I realized two things. First, there is no such thing as a ‘bad’ leader.  Second, being a leader requires a relationship with followers.

            From the age of 18 and through to 39 years old, I witnessed leadership through the lens of the Army culture.  The Army had a philosophy for transformational leadership, that is, to inspire and motivate followers.  The Army’s leadership model is Be, Know, Do (Department of the Army, 2006).  Yet, in actuality, many “leaders” in the Army practiced transactional leadership.  Transactional leadership was getting people to do something through simple reward and punishment.  As a result, many “followers” worked out of fear of reprisal rather than being inspired by a transcendent purpose.

             I once viewed leadership and management as synonymous, as did many others.  It was common to refer to someone that ‘outranked’ you as a leader whether he or she had leader attributes or not.  Leadership was considered inherent with a job position.  Therefore, soldiers categorized ‘good’ or ‘bad’ leaders.  Yet, I realize now that there were no ‘bad leaders’, they were really just people in a position of authority.  Boyatzis & McKee (2005) wrote that leadership is a relationship, that one cannot be a leader without followers.  Thus, those ‘bad leaders’ never had followers, they had subordinates that simply complied either to receive reward or avoid punishment.  These persons (aka ‘bad leaders’) had the following tendencies; they were egocentric, lacked compassion and/or empathy, were confrontational, and lacked trust in their relationships to name a few.  It was apparent which organizations had these ‘bad leaders’ because teamwork was supplanted by individual interest i.e. personal survival.

            Fortunately, there were also many great leaders in the Army.  One great leader that I looked up to was transformational.  He had traits and tendencies that resonated throughout the organization and his followers.  This good leader built relationships with the follower and his or her family.  He was trusting and empowered followers.  As a result, the organization had a family feel where each person strived to do his or her best so as to not let other down.  Lastly, this good leader ‘led by example’.  He made sure that he was of sound mind and body and sought to achieve mastery in all aspects of life, and he challenged others to do the same.

References

Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Department of the Army. (2006). Army Leadership. Washington, DC: Department of the Army.

Polyarchy Reflections

            “Most leadership models have the assumption of oligarchy” (Obolensky, 2014).  This assertion may generally hold true in many organizations.  However, the assumptions about leadership models are shifting as a consequence of today’s complex environments (Obolensky, 2014).  In reflecting on traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership, leadership models ought to change.  The ‘new’ leadership models must be able to empower followers, instill collaboration, and provide feedback. 

            Today’s businesses operate in complex environments – business must adapt to technological, demographic, social/political, and environmental changes (Obolensky, 2014).  Those businesses that adapt the fastest and most efficiently to change have the competitive advantage (Reeves & Deimler, 2011).  Thus, the hierarchical organization, with its ‘topdown’ leadership model, is becoming antiquated.  The problem solving and decision-making in the hierarchical organization is centralized and slow.  In topdown leadership, power comes from a position of authority i.e. a CEO, manager, foreman, etc.  The authority figure creates the vision/strategy, determines the objectives and solutions, and then directs his or her followers to execute.  This model of leadership limits the flow of information/knowledge as it often travels one-way (from top down) with minimal feedback (bottom up) (Obolensky, 2014).  Thus, the hierarchical organization fails to recognize and/or solve problems when they arise – and when they do, it is not quick enough.

            On the other hand, a flatter (polyarchic) organization models its leadership on complex adaptive leadership.  Complex adaptive leadership makes several assumptions: that power resides in the individual, information/knowledge is shared in all directions, and there is constant feedback from leader to follower and vice versa (Obolensky, 2014).  For example, a leadership model such as ‘Level 5 Followership’ has the aim to develop initiative, information sharing, and accountability in followers (Obolensky, 2014).  Another example is the Hersey/Blanchard Situational Leadership model in which the leaders adapts (befitting of complex adaptive leadership) his or her style to the “Skill/will’ of the follower (Obolensky, 2014).  The benefits of polyarchic leadership are followers take more responsibility, communication is faster across the organization, and decision-making becomes easier i.e. less ‘red-tape’ in the process (Reeves & Deimler, 2011).

            As a developing leader, this author will seek the resources that develop the ‘content’ and ‘process’ needs of his leadership development.  ‘Content’ refers to the resources that help build positive and effective relationships with people (Obolensky, 2014).  ‘Process’ refers to the resources that help the leader ‘get it done’, that is, a leader developing tactical and technical skills, decision-making, and management skills (Obolensky, 2014).  Both the content and process will be addressed using the 70–20–10 approach.  The 70–20–10 approach is which one learns from a) 70% from challenging assignments, b) 20% from developmental relationships, and c) 10% from coursework and training (Groth, 2012).  However, this author’s current strategy has focused heavily on ‘coursework and training’ as he completes his MBA.

            In conclusion, this leader must change his assumptions of leadership if he is to adapt with constantly changing business environments.  The leader’s traditional assumptions of oligarchy will be replaced or enhanced with polyarchic leadership assumptions.  He must consider ‘new’ leadership models that enable empowerment, create teamwork, and open communication.  Moreover, using the 70–20–10 approach will ensure the focus of development on the ‘vital few’ in an efficient and progressive manner.

References

Groth, A. (2012, November 27). Retrieved from www.businessinsider.com: http://www.businessinsider.com/kyle-westaway-how-to-manage-your-career-2012-11

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

Reeves, M., & Deimler, M. (2011, August). Adaptability: The new competitive advantage. Retrieved from hbr.org: https://hbr.org/2011/07/adaptability-the-new-competitive-advantage

How Do Coaches Help

            This author has been a ‘client’ before, and needing the help of a ‘coach’.  Sometimes, coaching is necessary for those who are starting from ‘square one’, that is, one who is new to a job position.  Other times, such as when this author needed a coach, it was because he reached an obstacle – an obstacle too high or far to pass – with his given set of skills and/or will.  Aside from work, a coach was sought for personal development e.g. emotional or other mental wellness.  In the broader context of business, a coach is vital to an organization’s leadership and strategy – the aim to improve, overcome obstacles, and have organizational wellness.  Thus, the coach helps enhance the ‘Skill/will’ and leadership strategies of an organization as discussed by Obolensky (2012). 

            This author had sought a coach when he encountered obstacles, professional and/or otherwise.  For example, this author had gone from leading a small ‘line unit’ with one specific function (i.e. to fly and fix helicopters) to a large headquarters unit (a matrix organization) with many functions e.g. human resources, business intelligence, logistics, supply, etc.  Although this author had senior leadership skills and experience, he had not practiced leading followers from a variety of functional disciplines (and all in one team).  In this time of change, this author needed a coach to enhance his ‘skill’, and to generate some ‘will’.  The ‘will’ had declined due to fear of the unknown and anxiety of the new job.  The value that the coach brought to this client was twofold.  First, the coach provided technical and tactical knowledge specific to the task-at-hand (thus improving skill).  Second, the coach was a mentor who enabled a positive shift in belief and perspective (thus improving will).  The aforementioned ‘value’ that a coach brings can apply to any organization and industry. 

            Therefore, coaching can make a big difference in an organization.  As mentioned previously, coaching can work in a short-term and one-on-one basis.  Yet, coaching is also valuable in long-term strategy and leadership development.  For example, coaches enable both leaders and followers to execute the organization’s strategy.  Coaches can be used at any level in the organization to coach ‘what’ is to be done (i.e. strategy) and ‘how’ it gets done (i.e. tactics).  Coaches help the individual, as well as the organization grow, improve, and adapt.  According to the Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland (n.d.), coaching enables leader development – a coach can help a leader develop a leadership development plan, a “roadmap” with “actionable steps and measurable benchmarks” (para. 3).  Furthermore, the organization can employ a strategy akin to ‘Train the trainer’, a strategy in which an experienced leader coaches a less-experienced leader (Department of the Army, 2014).  The ‘Train the trainer’ strategy ensures that knowledge and tactics are cascaded to the lowest levels of leadership.

            In conclusion, coaches are invaluable to their clients, both the individual and/or the organization.  A coach can help both (the individual and organization) to surpass obstacles by improving the skill and will.  Moreover, coaches help in leadership development, either in personal development or in ‘Train the trainer’.  It is important that this author and his organization understand this.  Being able to grow, improve, and adapt requires help from a variety of expert mentors (e.g. coaches) from both inside and outside the organization.

References

Department of the Army. (2014). Army Training and Leader Development. Washington D.C.: Department of the Army.

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

Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.rhsmith.umd.edu: http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/programs/executive-mba/academics/leadership-development-executive-coaching

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.

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.

Reflections on Chaos

            The ‘Chaos Game’ was played/conducted with a group of ten people.  However, this group of people was not co-workers that belong to the same organization; it was a group of people that happen to train in martial arts together (e.g. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu).  There was significance in this.  In this game of ‘chaos’, the randomness of the players added even more complexity.  After all, it was a group of people from varying professions, educational backgrounds, and experiences.  In this group, how the military veteran thinks and acts can be very different from the medical doctor or the IT specialist.  In addition, the demographics of the players included young and old, modest to financial success, male and female, and so forth.  Each player had his or her own belief of leadership and order.  Moreover, each experienced ambiguity and uncertainty under extremely different circumstances.  Really, the only commonality for most was they trained in the same art.  In contrast, this author believed that in a group of co-workers, there would be an increased likelihood of ‘like-mindedness’ because of the commonality of work – similar education, similar exposure to leadership, order, uncertainty, etc.  Moreover, there would be ‘cliques’ at work so people would tend to gravitate into organized groups.  The like-mindedness, he believed, would make the game easier.  Although Obolensky (2012) assured the game organizer (this author) that this seemingly (near) impossible task would find order, he still considered the outcome hard to fathom (Obolensky, 2014).  Surely, when there is complete randomness in the players, the game could not possibly end quickly.  Moreover, this author believed that the players were simply ‘going through the motions’ to appease their friend who had homework to do.  Yet, to this author’s surprise, order was derived out of perceived chaos and complexity and the game resulted in the way it was described to be (in less than two minutes).  This game provided this author with the perfect illustration of the eight principles to confront complexity.  Those principles being a clear individual objective; a few simple rules; continuous feedback; discretion and freedom of action; skill/will of the participants; underlying purpose; clear boundary; and a tolerance of the players for uncertainty and ambiguity (Obolensky, 2014).  In no such way could order have been established if one person were directing all of the movements – that person who have needed the processing power of a supercomputer!  Thus, some implications on strategy are simplicity in the process and the empowerment of people.  As with the game, a single leader would not have the ‘visibility’ of all of the moving pieces to make the best decision at any given time.  As Sull & Eisenhardt (2012) wrote, a simple framework (with simple rules) led to employees making on-the-spot decisions and adapting to constantly changing environments (Sull & Eisenhardt, 2012).  An example of this is the company Semco.  Semco has strived to have a flat hierarchy, which is, “distributing decision-making authority out to everyone” (Kastelle, 2013, p. 2).  It was even written that employees bet on how long between the periods in which the CEO actually make decisions (Kastelle, 2013).  This has led to employee adaptability and innovation – the company has experience success, growing at a 20% rate for the past three decades (Kastelle, 2013).  As the ‘chaos game’ illustrated, many independent decisions (with a sole purpose in mid) can achieve a common goal.

 

References

Kastelle, T. (2013, November 20). Retrieved from hbr.org: https://hbr.org/2013/11/hierarchy-is-overrated/

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

Sull, D., & Eisenhardt, K. (2012). Simple rules for a complex world. Harvard Business Review, 68-74.

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.