A633.9.3.RB

Most leadership models have the assumption of oligarchy – leadership is done by a few leaders over many followers.

If polyarchy is fast replacing the old oligarchy assumptions does this make these old leadership models redundant?  We have learned a lot over the last 9 weeks and in previous program courses; however, I do not feel traditional leadership is becoming outdated or redundant.  However, I do believe it must transcend to adapt to its environment.  Some may consider old leadership models as redundant, but if they study history they will see many of the theories of today have been tried throughout history.  The reason why traditional leadership models are acceptable is because they have been proven successful.  Most organizations and leadership models are under the assumption that oligarchy is a successful approach to leadership.  As the saying goes, climb up the ladder high enough and sooner or later you will find the one person who makes the final decision.  So if we are to assume that polyarchy is replacing the old oligarchy theory, then one must question at what level is such replacement in the power structure taking place.  In organizations that fit the modern generational thinking processes, leaders are starting to embrace leadership changes while learning to better understand their followers.  Many experts believe that polyarchy is a positive force that breaks traditional oligarchy assumptions.  

Reflecting on traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership, address the implications and how they will affect you as a leader in the future.  I do not think that the new assumptions of polyarchy make the old models of oligarchy redundant.  I think a good leader must have an open mind to be able to take advantage of both the past and the present.  Just like traditional leadership, complex adaptive leadership also demands a definite degree of dedication to being the best leader you can possibly be.  Although, I do not agree with every aspect of polyarchy, I believe that the new model of polyarchy has given us a greater understanding of leadership.  It shows us how leadership can be accomplished by more than just a select few in modern day business society.  For me, the key is that it has to be in the right type of organization with the right people.  An organization can grow and transform when it is not just controlled by just a few.  Sometimes organization and those that lead that organization can become complacent with the status quo and tend to stifle changes based on any outside ideas.  I think that polyarchy from a complex adaptive leadership standpoint can enhance the organization while allowing the employees to become vested in the organization’s success.

What impact will they have on your future strategy? I think that as an individual that wants to return to the supervisory or leadership role, I must now look at the world differently.  It is necessary for me to look at the chaos around me differently.  I have to understand how chaos can evolve from a peaceful situation.  I must also learn to better use the tool of empowerment; embracing the many functions of my leadership roles.  As I go forward, I must look at each organization from two perspectives.  I have to look at each organization that I work for as a leader and as a follower to determine where I stand.  Then I must choose what type of leader I want to be to help the organization move in a positive direction because even today some organizations choose polyarchy while others choose a more traditional approach.  One has to know the type of organization they are dealing with in order to build a better leadership strategy

A633.8.3.RB

To be an executive coach, it is necessary to know that clients are the first and best expert capable of solving their own problems and achieving their own ambitions, that is precisely the main reason why clients are motivated to call on a coach. When clients bring important issues to a coach, they already made a complete inventory of their personal or professional issues and of all possible options. Clients have already tried working out their issues alone, and have not succeeded.
  

·         Given the statement above what is it that coaches do to provide value to clients?  To understand coaching, there needs to be an understanding that this is not a long term situation.  Coaching focuses on the task at hand and should focus on what’s good for the organization versus what’s only good for the individual.  All of that being said, coaching is not just about telling, it is about providing support in the decision making process while explaining the benefits and consequences of certain solutions or decisions.  It is about the client or person learning to see the big picture that executives need and not having a myopic view point.  I would not go so far as to say that coaching involves building a relationship where both parties learn to benefit one another because it doesn’t.  In most cases, one must keep in mind that once the client has the solution they need, the relationship is over.  However, after resolving the current situation, the client now has an immediate resource when faced with future situations that need resolution.  The coach acts as a facilitator and a motivator in the decision making process.  They support and challenge the client to learn and develop their decision making process.

 

·      Why is coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy? From my educational and personal experience, executive coaching is grounded by two factors. First coaching is vital because it is about developing the individual for leadership at the highest level no matter what organization they represent. Secondly, coaching teaches individuals to see beyond what is directly in front of them.   This strategy that is taught helps the individual comprehend and develop a clear picture of what the organization will look like in the long term future.  Coaching helps the future leader better grasp the current direction of the organization while allowing the individual to build a focused strategy as the organization moves forward.  

·       How can it make a difference in an organization?  A good coach sets a team’s tone.  However more importantly, a good coach can be vital for setting the organizational culture.   Just like in the sporting community, employee talent is very important, but when a leader understands the advantages of good coaching, they will make the most of whatever talent they have in the organization.  Once again a good coach acts as a facilitator and motivator for the leaders as well as the followers in the organization.  A good coach makes those around them better just by example.  They help the organization save time and money by providing a means for quick resolution and continued organization focus.

 

·         What does this mean to you and your organization? Without a doubt, coaching can assist the federal government to promote/increase: organizational development, teamwork and learning.  A good coaching program can focus the organizations employees on the tasks at hand because in the federal government one is often give several tasks to completer at once.  In the federal government, one has to work closely with other organizations and a coach would help with the organizational relationship building process.  A good coach would enhance the culture and set the tone to get thing s done faster.

A633.7.3.RB – Leader Follower Relationship

I have learned throughout my adult career that leaders and managers deal with all different types of people and that task in itself can be a challenge.  The results of this assessment were not surprising to me because I have taken several assessments in the past.  After completing the assessment at the beginning of chapter 10, I found that I scored highest in quadrant S3 and S2; S3 receiving a score of 6 and S2 receiving a score of 5. My lowest quadrants were S4 and S1: S4 receiving a score of 1 and S1 receiving a score of 4.

 

There are two statements by Obolensky (2010) that applied to my results. 

Statement one: “if the sum of S1 and S3 is greater than the sum of S2 and S4 then you may be taking too direct of an approach.”  I agree with this assessment; I have never been one to candy coat communication when it comes to accomplishing the mission at hand.  I have always been a very direct person.  I do no not like procrastination and therefore I prefer to either train employees or assign a qualified person to train employees on how to complete a task correctly rather than going through trial and error over and over.  Not to seem like a tyrant, I do believe in delegation; but the time must be correct and the person must have both the skill and the will to complete the task.  If they do not have those two factors, then they will most likely fail.  There are many styles available to choose from and everyone needs to adapt to what works best for their organization.

 

Statement two: “if the sum of S2 and S3 is greater than the sum of S1 and S4 then you may be working too hard.”  I would agree and at the same time disagree with this assessment.  As stated earlier, I believe that the timing must be correct and the person must have both the skill and the will to complete the task.  Until then, someone has to be present to make sure the work is completed correctly and on time.  A good leader will make sure this is not an everyday habit.  If you train your employees and provide those employees with the right motivation, then the task of delegation is much easier.   

 

After reading this chapter, some of the things I have learned in the past were reinforced.  I have always understood the importance of delegating and allowing others to mature and take the lead in certain situations.  I have learned to train your replacement because everyone is replaceable. The last thing you want to hear is that you must stay because I have no one to replace you.  I feel this philosophy is good for me (future promotions), my subordinates, and the organization.  So far in my career, I feel I have mentored and created leaders rather than followers.  This course has given me the opportunity to better understand my actions which in turn allows me to grow not only as a leader but as an individual as well.

 

A633.6.5.RB - Circle of Leadership

Considering all of readings in this module and the learning exercises regarding upward and downward leadership; reflect on the diagram (figure 9.5; p.152) "the vicious circle for leaders". 

Does this happen in your organization?  Regrettably, the Circle of Leadership as illustrated in the Obolensky text has occurred in the organizations I have been exposed to especially where I work now.  I am not so sure if the reason for this action really falls on the employees.  I would put more emphasis on the failure of management.  It is an environment where there is a lack of confidence in leadership which often transcends to the employees.  Often supervisors are not hired for their experience or their skill level; often it based on who you know.  The long term is exactly what was discussed earlier in the course “leadership charade”; except this time the charade is heavily based on reality.  Supervisors want to be more knowledgeable and will often change things just so the employee is at a disadvantage; this often has drastic consequences.  

What are the effects on the organization? Without a doubt, the effects on my organization are negative.  Now to be fair, many times good leaders may get caught up in a system that they cannot change.  Their intentions may be good initially, but when your boss has initiated a system that does not work, you find yourself trying to manage a system in which the daily basis employees have lost confidence.  This causes employees to feel less empowerment and motivation, which hinders creativeness and ingenuity.  As stated earlier, “Supervisors don’t want employees to know more than them and will often change things just so the employee is at a disadvantage; this often has drastic consequences.”  In such an environment, employees are often forced to remain in stages 1 thru 3; in order to satisfy the insecurities of the individuals in charge. The organization has recently suffered a huge issue of a decrease in employee moral; which has led to occurrences as severe as some of the most experienced employees in the world quitting.

Create a new circle that would promote strong followership and even leadership at the lower levels of the organization.  An annual meeting is held between the supervisors and the employee or an ideal is born this is how I would envision how the cycle for a leader and a follower would look like:

- Initial annual meeting between supervisor and employee

·         Supervisor explains their and organizational expectations. 

·         Supervisors allows employees to ask questions about past performance and ways they can improve

·         Supervisors provide employees with resources to find answers before he/she has to come to them

- Employee now understands their duties and responsibilities

·         They now takes initiative to meet or exceed expectations

- Midterm – Leaders observe performance and provide employees the opportunity to mature

·         Supervisor explains how the employee has met expectations from the initial meeting

- Supervisors start to adopt a more hands-off approach

·         Employees are given more freedom to make daily decisions

- Supervisors provide employees feedback on past performance (positive and negative)

·         Supervisors provide information on how to make improvements

·         Employee confidence increases ( Meeting for cycle to start over is established)

Hopefully this process will accomplish several things:

·         Help enhance employee confidence

·         Help employee increase in skill and ability levels

·         Helps employees better understand the organization

·         Build a positive bond between management and employees

 

A633.5.3.RB - Reflections on Chaos

First thing to consider when examining the video is to make sure you understood the directions were.  The video for this week’s module is titled “Who Needs Leaders” and it provides an example of the exercise/game Obolensky (2010) describes in chapter six. The object of this exercise is to examine the importance of leadership, especially during the simplest of task. 

·         One person (not the identified leader of the group) tells each person to pick two reference points (two other people) within the room specifically stating that one cannot indicate whom they have picked.

·         The individual person informs everyone to move around the room until they have equal space between each reference point.

Initially the room is in constant flux.  Everyone is trying to accomplish the simple task given to them.  It takes a little time for everyone in the room to accomplish the objectives.  So as I considered this exercise, I decided to put on my critical thinking cap.  Then, I realized that there are two trains of thought for this exercise. 

The first is the foundation of the exercise.  To create this foundation, you must give a group of individuals a few simple guidelines.  Next, you must give them the freedom to act based on the instructions they received.  The group of individual will soon drift into a chaotic state before they figure out how to accomplish the task.  This is a good example of how bottom up management works in an organization.  In the end, the individuals did figure out how to reach the objectives, however, key skills like clear communication were missing which would have shortened the time for the task to be completed.    

Let’s consider if the chaotic environment have been avoided if there was an assigned leader for the group of individuals. Perhaps, someone could have taken the initiative to take an unassigned leadership role.  I think this was a great example of how you can take a very simple task and complicate it without some form of structured leadership. 

Now my perspective is one of the two sided coin.  Due to the intricacy of the exercise, the number of possible solutions is vast.  As long as the instructions are clear, some would say that the more complicated the task, the easier it is for us to follow.  Even without leadership, this exercise was proof that problems can be solved in many ways as long as the directions are clear.  The completion time may be different, but the task can be completed. 

Having seen similar exercises, I did not doubt whether or not the exercise could be completed.  I was more concerned with the completion time without some form of leadership.  I think it would have been great to do the exercise in sequence (with two different groups; one with and one without leadership presence).  It would have also been interesting to repeat the same exact exercise to examine the learning curve of the group.  I simply assumed that the time would decrease for each exercise.   

I do feel that the exercise was beneficial and informative.  The exercise examined the dynamics of chaos and complexity from two perspectives.  The task showed insight into human nature; this means we, as people, first panic and then thrive when thrown into a new situation.

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Why do you think there is a shift in leadership thinking and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization.  It is well known that there is a massive shift in the global business community.  Businesses of all sizes are being challenged to adapt to both internal and external factors; and their leadership is being challenged to manage these changes and still remain successful.   As we discovered in module one, there are various ways to define organizations. We now use new descriptive terms like polyarchy and complex adaptive systems (CAS) to define an organization.  To add to these factors, we are facing multiple terms of demographics in the workforce.  Today’s leaders now have to understand that today’s workforce is a diverse mix of generations and that each employee comes with their own collective backgrounds and value systems. What worked (leadership styles) decades ago, may not work today.  The ability of leadership to adapt to these pressures is increasingly crucial to an organization’s survival.  I will admit that my original perception of leadership styles was very traditional; however, I have learned that I must change if I plan on being successful as a deciding factor for any organization I represent. 

In my current organization, the leadership style has not changed much from the traditional form of hierarchy.  The government is a not for profit organization so the complex adaptive system and polyarchy are not ideal.  Some of the concepts of the less traditional forms of organizational styles can and should be implemented; however, the entire concept cannot. 

As far as the opening exercise goes, I believe that less than 20 percent of the solutions suggested come from executive leadership; while the majority of all solutions are derived from a mixture between middle management and bottom level supervision.  I am not sure if I agree with other perspectives on the statement that top managers/executives know very little about the day-to-day processes/procedures performed within the organization.  I agree that they may not understand the details of daily operations, and there is a shift that senior leadership depends more on the middle and the bottom to education then details of daily operations. 

List three reasons to support or refute this position.
1. Improvements in Global Wide Technology - Technology has made the world a smaller place; one in which business cultures are more interconnected and interrelated when it comes to business operations.  Think about the daily activities of today’s leader versus twenty years ago.  Leaders at every level must now be attached to some type of computer device; which includes checking emails, surfing the web, or attending a virtual meeting. 

2. Information - Information is more abundant today than it has ever been in history.  Twenty years ago no one really understood the true value of what a computer server, but now it is one of the more important styles of retrieving and storing information.  There are not many large organizations that could sustain its oracle of information while maintaining itself.  To complicate things, social media is now one of the leading sources of information.   

3. Generational Differences- As I stated earlier, leaders have to understand that today’s workforce is a diverse mix of generations that each come with their own collective background and value systems.  Organizational cultures and employee values continue to evolve and reform toward a more independent and diversity-driven society. Leaders must not only understand this shift, they must embrace it is they are to manage it successfully.

If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promotes these types of changes?  In order for leadership dynamics to accommodate and promotes these types of changes, organizational cultures must be willing to accept change and the factors that come with them.  Traditional leadership structures must be able to empower lower levels of management and subordinates.  Communications within the company must flow from all directions.  The decision making process must involve more than just the few at the top of the organizational pyramid. 
 
What are the implications of this strategy? The most important implications of this strategy are survival.  In order for an organization to survive, its leaders must share their goals and visions with all level of employees.  By making sure that everyone has an understanding of the goals of the company, they can all work toward achieving success.  This helps everyone to feel empowered.  Leaders that do not understand that there is a massive shift in the global business community are doomed.  Implementing and accepting change is never easy and never will be; leaders and organizations must be aware of this.  Change must be initiated and supported by all levels within an organization. 

  

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

Find a company which reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and reflect in your blog what the implications are for you and your present organization (or any organization you are familiar with). Identify what you believe are appropriate actions to move your organization forward.

Module three of this course focused on the movement of the traditional corporate hierarchy.  It started with an understanding of the past (functional silos), to the present model.  We now have a cross-functional matrix, to what Nick Obolensky, author of “Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty” refers to as what future innovative companies will call a Complex Adaptive System (2010). In the CAS system, traditional management levels have been removed, flattening the organization’s hierarchy.  Employees, at all levels, now have increased responsibility and greater control over how they perform their job.  For this task, I was asked to find a company that reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS).  St. Luke is a small British company that has adapted an aggressive CAS strategy.  Some very prominent business critics have described this company as experiencing a monumental growth spurt.  This little company has the determination of “the little engine that could” when it comes to its goal to reach the global market.

My first thought process was to look at Zappos, a shoe company developed by CEO, Tony Hsieh.  His company has gained the reputation of a work environment that is about people who believe in shoes and the importance of customer service , not about profit; thus blowing away the shoe industry by breaking the mold.  If you research the company and its organizational core values you will see something different; the ten organizational core values never mention profit. 

However, I soon discovered there was a company that more closely reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS).  The company I am referring to is Valve Corp., a videogame maker in Bellevue, Washington.  The company was founded in 1996 by former Microsoft software developers Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington.  Like St Luke’s, the most astonishing aspect of life at Valve Corp is that there are no bosses. In this successful organization, there is no explicit hierarchy.  Employees, at every level, are involved in hiring and firings which can be initiated by something as simple as a conversation between employees.  Here bonuses are based on peer reviews (not management or leadership) and can be as large as 10 times an employee’s base pay.  Now as great as this may sound, it is important to understand that such based spontaneous enterprises rely to a large extent on individuals who actually believe in the social norms that govern their existence. 

This system will not work for my current organization, the federal government for numerous reasons.  Having such a system requires taking a lot of risk.  The federal government is not a profit based organization and cannot operate like a normal everyday business.  Yes, success is measured by achieving set objectives; however, often times the objectives are not tangible.  I do however believe the federal government can learn from the CAS process.  The government could start the process by learning about and implementing better ways to understand all internal and external stakeholders.  Like Zappos, they can learn how to developing a plan to achieve specific financial and budgetary goals (Glassman, 2013).  Last but not least, I feel it is important that the federal government learn that the company culture is something that many corporations take for granted, not realizing how important it actually is to employee morale, work quality, and overall success.

 

Obolensky, N (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Unlimited.

Glassman, B (2013).  What Zappos Taught Us About Creating The Ultimate Client Experience. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2013/05/13/what-zappos-taught-us-about-creating-the-ultimate-client-experience/

Wagreich, S. (2013). A Billion Dollar Company With No Bosses? Yes, It Exists.  Retrieved from  http://www.inc.com/samuel-wagreich/the-4-billion-company-with-no-bosses.html