Working with EI: Getting Results!

           I have always been driven by emotion; however, I have not always had emotional intelligence (EI).  Goleman asserted that self-awareness is knowing what we are feeling and why we are feeling it (Goleman, 2012).  He further adds that self-awareness leads to good decision-making and having a moral compass.  So then, when I was younger (around ages 16 – 18), I completely lacked self-awareness.  I often had the emotions of being angry, hurt, selfish, and insecure.  This stemmed from my upbringing and environment.  I grew up in a low-income household in a tough city (El Paso, TX).  I ran the streets with gang members – I connected with those who were like me, those who didn’t have much and wanted more but didn’t know how to get it.  As a result, I had a “me against the world” mentality.  I felt as if everything were conspiring to keep me an outcast in life.  I had little self-control and acted impulsively, and I often made bad decisions.  Fortunately, I decided to join the Army.  My new job took me away from the things that had negatively influenced me and gave me purpose.  Moreover, my life had structure and I had a path to follow.  My self-awareness had changed.  My emotions changed to energetic, hopeful, and optimistic.  Yet, there was still a bit of anger – anger at those who would continue to doubt and/or marginalize me – but I used the emotion to motivate me to achieve.  To this day, I am still driven by emotion but I recognize which ones are constructive and which are destructive.

            Yet, self-awareness was not enough because I was still (as some people called me) a “hot-head”.  Although I knew which emotions were destructive, I acted on them out of impulse.  Therefore, I needed the EI for self-management.  Self-management is described as “managing one’s internal states, impulses, and resources” (Boyatzis, 2009).  As time passed, I began to mature and became a young leader.  I started to understand the need for self-management and particularly the need for emotional self-control.  Early in my career, I had learned hard lessons about losing control, or to put it another way, giving in to my vices.  As my self-control improved, I derived other benefits – I adjusted to change easier, was achievement oriented, and had an overall positive outlook.  Being positive gave me strength; I wasn’t fearful of obstacles or failure.  Goleman (2012) said that self-management is being able to “handle your distressing emotions in effective ways so they don’t cripple you”.  A favorite quote of mine is from Admiral (retired) James Stockdale who once said, “The test of character is not ‘hanging in there’ when you expect a light at the end of the tunnel, but performance of duty and persistence of example when you know that no light is coming” (Department of the Army, 1985, p. 19).   I was becoming that leader whom I aspired to be, one who would lead by example.

            To become a good leader, I also needed social awareness and social skills.  Social awareness, described as a competency of social intelligence, refers to a relationship with others and awareness of their feelings, needs, and concerns (Boyatzis, 2009).  A significant emotion that I had to develop as a young leader was empathy.  Although I understood others struggles, I seldom empathized.  I had pulled myself up from my own “bootstraps”, so why couldn’t they?  I felt that it was enough when I gave them an example that good things happen when you have purpose and grit.  However, I realized that as leader, I had the responsibility for my followers’ well-being, both in their personal lives and in work.  Moreover, I recognized that I had only become who I was because I was fortunate to have leaders that cared for me.  My leaders had coached and mentored me, inspired me, and influenced my emotions and actions.  They made me better.  Thus, I want to do the same for others.

References

Boyatzis, R. (2009). Competencies as a behavioral approach to emotional intelligence. Journal of Managment Development, 749-770. doi:10.1108/02621710910987647

Department of the Army. (1985). Leadership statement and quotes. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. Retrieved from buildingamidshipman.wordpress.com: https://buildingamidshipman.wordpress.com/

Goleman, D. (2012, April 23). Retrieved from www.youtube.com: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7m9eNoB3NU

Am I a resonant leader?

Am I a resonant leader?  I believe I am.  However, I made that claim with long held assumptions about leadership.  The Army taught me that leadership was providing ‘purpose, direction, and motivation’.  However, ‘purpose, direction, and motivation’ could be attained through either transactional or transformational leadership (akin to dissonant and resonant leadership, respectively).  I believe that have led in a transformational way so I assumed that I was a resonant leader. 

            However, with self-reflection, and looking upon my leadership over the years, I realize that my environment drove my leadership style.  Rather than controlling the environment, it controlled me.  For instance, when the job demands were high and results were expected immediately, I led in a dissonant way.  For instance, in my early Army career, I succumbed often to ‘power stress’ – the stress associated with those in positions of power over others (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005).  I worked hard, very hard, to prove that I was deserving of a leadership position.  Consequently, I adopted the mindset of “work hard & play harder”, and thus engaging in destructive behavior (i.e. excessive drinking, partying, etc.) that I believed was the “reward” for my sacrifices.  Unfortunately, my destructive behavior also became my follower’s destructive behavior. 

            Years later, I no longer had the self-destructive behavior and was actually very focused and disciplined.  Yet, under demanding workplace conditions, I still acted in a dissonant manner.  This time around, I was so narrowly focused on job standards and results that I failed to properly interact with my followers.  There is an Army adage that says, ‘The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in war’ – I took that axiom and made my followers “sweat”.  I pushed them hard and had little tolerance for failure or excuses.  I became socially and emotionally distant from my followers.  I was not necessarily concerned about their personal lives.  We were preparing for war – I believed that I was not here to be their friend but to be the leader that brought them back home alive.  Only later in my career (as a senior leader) did I realize that I was wrong.  I failed in showing compassion to my followers for their personal needs.  Kokemuller (2011) write that this type of dissonant leadership causes “emotional frustration, stress, burnout and disengagement” (para. 4) among followers.

            Yet despite my previous dissonant ways, I had gradually transformed (and am continuing to evolve) into a more resonant leader.  I believe that good leaders lead by example.  A good personal example inspires and builds trust with others.  This goes beyond displaying job knowledge and skills.  My example includes having strong values – values such as loyalty, duty, respect, selfless-service, honor, integrity, and personal courage.  Moreover, resonant leaders are said to have mindfulness, hope, and compassion (Teleos Leadership Institute , 2016).  I am mindful -- a mental state that I have learned to develop through critical thinking, yoga, and martial art – and control my emotions better.  I also have hope – I aspire to achieve more in both my personal and professional life e.g. quality relationships with my family, Jiu-jitsu (martial arts) mastery, and pursuing an MBA.  Moreover, I actively influence my family (e.g. spouse and kids), friends, and followers to do the same.  Lastly, I have compassion – I actively help others in both their good and bad times.  People often have the will to do something but are discouraged by what limits them.  I find purpose in helping other achieve their goals.

            Through this course’s teachings, I understand that emotions do matter (McKee, Boyatzis, & Johnston, 2008).  Moreover, I also understand that a resonant leader has greater awareness of him or herself and others.  Knowing this, I will be able to better manage others and myself in stressful and complex environments. 

References

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

Kokemuller, N. (2011). Retrieved from smallbusiness.chron.com: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/resonant-vs-dissonant-leadership-styles-65011.html

McKee, A., Boyatzis, R., & Johnston, F. (2008). Becoming a resonant leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Teleos Leadership Institute . (2016). Retrieved from www.teleosleaders.com: http://www.teleosleaders.com/howwedoit/resonant.php

           

            

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.