Reading through Podolny's article, one may be left with a relatively bleak outlook as to the state of the business education community. At first glance, the assessment leaves one thinking that business schools have taken on one of the stereotypes of contemporary big business, pursuing their results at any cost. It is heartening though seeing that Podolny and others have dug deeper in the wake of recent business scandals and found there to be an emphasis on data and qualitative methods which a lack of education towards values and ethics.
Podolny suggested that schools needed further integration of ethics education to their course work, and even professionalizing the field with a code of conduct, among other ideas that also include putting less emphasis on comparing ranks and graduate income, and encouraging more qualitative research (Podolny, 2009). I'm inclined to agree that these would be helpful steps. Certainly, if the goal is to attract individuals that think about big picture impact rather than the bottom line, it would do schools well to highlight alumni that have "made a difference" with the knowledge they've gained, rather than what their take-home pay is. While data and hard numbers will always be important, people and society need to be brought back into the equation of business thinking.
Since the Podolny article was written in 2009, more has been written on the topic of ethics in the MBA field, and action seems to be underway. Yale and the Aspen Institute have implemented a curriculum emphasizing the application of ethics in the workplace, with a focus on standing up for one's values. Columbia has incorporated "analysis, decision making, and leadership." Harvard is offering a program for first year students called "Field Immersion Experiences for Leadership Development" that gives an opportunity to apply classroom learning while working with industry, and apparently building an entrepreneurial company in six weeks (O'Connor, 2013). The same year that Podolny wrote his article, Harvard also began promoting a student-led MBA oath (Anteby, 2013).
Having said that, although there are programs being put into place, there is still a strong word of caution underlying the conversation. One article suggested that there still isn't quite enough being done, and suggested there needs to be further opportunities for application, or interacting with MBA students from other countries to better understand their own ethical challenges (Himsel, 2014). I can certainly understand the concerns, and I've got additional thoughts as well on the long term impacts of these programs. Although these new efforts at imparting ethics will touch the current generation of MBA students, one has to wonder about the enduring value of these lessons once they set off into to world of business...one that presumably still has a fair number of individuals inundated in the old ways of business, and quite possibly with a body of senior leadership that continues to lead as they've always led and as they've seen in their own experiences rising through the ranks. I agree, and see it as the way ahead, that the institutions will need to continue seeking opportunities to apply ethics, and they should continue to integrate it into existing lesson plans where possible, for ethics cuts across so many lanes of business practices.
In short, this new breed of ethically minded MBA students need to not only learn and apply ethics, but they must have the resilience to maintain these attitudes and behaviors throughout their career until, through attrition and setting the example, the culture of ethics takes hold as the preponderance and the norm rather than simply being a new upstart. It is when ethical business practice becomes the standard by which all newcomers are judged, the new metric upon which the great leaders are remembered, that the greatest effect will be realized.
Works Cited
Anteby, M. (2013, October 22). Why business schools need business ethics. In The Guardian. Retrieved October 26, 2014
Himsel, D. (2014, August 6). Business Schools Aren't Producing Ethical Graduates. In Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved October 26, 2014
O'Connor, S. (2013, May 15). The Responsibility Of Business Schools In Training Ethical Leaders. In Forbes. Retrieved October 26, 2014
Podolny, J. M. (2009). The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business School. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 62-67.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Saturday, May 24, 2014
A633.9.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
If one were to take Obolensky's Complex Adaptive Leadership at face value, they would likely foresee a steady takeover of polyarchy systems over oligarchy, and may make old notions of leadership redundant or obsolete. Especially when numerous writings exist documenting bottom up style or collaborative organizations and non-traditional management styles, its fair to wonder what role there is for the old or traditional ways of doing business.
Having been through the course on strategic leadership and examining my own organization in light of the text, I personally see both old and new styles of leadership as having their own place and function within the overall continuum.On the one hand, the military environment traditionally demands a chain of command that members are expected to abide by unless the order given is illegal, immoral, or unethical. This becomes especially important in a crisis situation that demands rapid response with very little to no time to discuss options or share ideas. On the other hand, the military organization has a strong undercurrent of upward communication, and very recently, in introducing a new feedback system, has stated an expectation that leaders share their vision, receive feedback, and appropriately be engaged in the lives of their subordinates (Losey, 2014).
This brings to bear something of a necessary paradox for leadership in a military organization...there are certainly components that recognize and embrace concepts that are in line with the practices of polyarchy, but the organization can never be rid of oligarchy, and may at times require it. This can create several implications at the level of the individual leader and the organization as a whole. If this dichotomy of leadership exists in the organization, and signs indicate it should and must, to be a leader in more than title is paramount. Rather, the individual leader needs to be adaptable, able to assess the situation such as with Edward Snowden's Cynefin Framework, or assess the individual through concepts noted in Obolensky's text such as Level 5 Followership or Skill/Will assessment. Additionally, they need to be able to "code switch," able to move from more traditional and directive styles of oligarchy to the more open and patient styles of polyarchy. This implication carries as well to the organization as a whole and its leadership. Although it becomes more difficult and time consuming to redirect the mentality of an entire organization, higher levels too will need to be able to "code switch" in order to direct its resources most effectively towards the end goals that they've ideally set and are striving towards.
The impact upon myself as a leader, of course, is I will need to be able to hold myself to these same ideals. On top of the need to maintain my own development as an officer and as one who is heavily involve in the ever changing IT field, if I were to seriously continue pursuing leadership development I would need to be cognizant of the balance between oligarchy and polyarchy at all levels between my own workplace and higher headquarters. Furthermore, I would be required to be very thoughtful of my own actions when faced with different leadership and coaching situations around the office, particularly in light of whatever the interests of our work group's strategic goals are, and in keeping with the general expectations of developing my subordinates.
Future strategy becomes yet another issue, and one that can change in either subtle or drastic ways. The key will be to remain targeted towards the strategic goals of my immediate organization, and how they impact the goals of the different tiers of command above us all the way to headquarters. So long as we understand the overall mission, we should simply be able to make changes that will keep us on that track. Although changes in geopolitical circumstances and the nation's priorities may change over time, so long as the strategic goals are properly balanced being flexible and measurable, the organization should be able to make any necessary changes in direction. Having said that, some growing pain can be anticipated. As the military moves to integrate elements of polyarchy, there will for some time be many who are used to the old way of doing business and need to learn new modes of thought. Incoming personnel will still have to be schooled in the balance of the old and the new. Most critically, leaders at the very top will have to be among the best thinkers, best able to understand and utilize the dual culture of leadership over which they have strategic influence. Any strategy that is formulated and put into practice must not only endure time and inevitable change, but be one that can be executed under most any leadership paradigm.
Resources
Losey, S. (2014, May 21). New rule directs commanders to 'engage' in airmen's lives. Air Force Times. Retrieved May 25, 2014
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Having been through the course on strategic leadership and examining my own organization in light of the text, I personally see both old and new styles of leadership as having their own place and function within the overall continuum.On the one hand, the military environment traditionally demands a chain of command that members are expected to abide by unless the order given is illegal, immoral, or unethical. This becomes especially important in a crisis situation that demands rapid response with very little to no time to discuss options or share ideas. On the other hand, the military organization has a strong undercurrent of upward communication, and very recently, in introducing a new feedback system, has stated an expectation that leaders share their vision, receive feedback, and appropriately be engaged in the lives of their subordinates (Losey, 2014).
This brings to bear something of a necessary paradox for leadership in a military organization...there are certainly components that recognize and embrace concepts that are in line with the practices of polyarchy, but the organization can never be rid of oligarchy, and may at times require it. This can create several implications at the level of the individual leader and the organization as a whole. If this dichotomy of leadership exists in the organization, and signs indicate it should and must, to be a leader in more than title is paramount. Rather, the individual leader needs to be adaptable, able to assess the situation such as with Edward Snowden's Cynefin Framework, or assess the individual through concepts noted in Obolensky's text such as Level 5 Followership or Skill/Will assessment. Additionally, they need to be able to "code switch," able to move from more traditional and directive styles of oligarchy to the more open and patient styles of polyarchy. This implication carries as well to the organization as a whole and its leadership. Although it becomes more difficult and time consuming to redirect the mentality of an entire organization, higher levels too will need to be able to "code switch" in order to direct its resources most effectively towards the end goals that they've ideally set and are striving towards.
The impact upon myself as a leader, of course, is I will need to be able to hold myself to these same ideals. On top of the need to maintain my own development as an officer and as one who is heavily involve in the ever changing IT field, if I were to seriously continue pursuing leadership development I would need to be cognizant of the balance between oligarchy and polyarchy at all levels between my own workplace and higher headquarters. Furthermore, I would be required to be very thoughtful of my own actions when faced with different leadership and coaching situations around the office, particularly in light of whatever the interests of our work group's strategic goals are, and in keeping with the general expectations of developing my subordinates.
Future strategy becomes yet another issue, and one that can change in either subtle or drastic ways. The key will be to remain targeted towards the strategic goals of my immediate organization, and how they impact the goals of the different tiers of command above us all the way to headquarters. So long as we understand the overall mission, we should simply be able to make changes that will keep us on that track. Although changes in geopolitical circumstances and the nation's priorities may change over time, so long as the strategic goals are properly balanced being flexible and measurable, the organization should be able to make any necessary changes in direction. Having said that, some growing pain can be anticipated. As the military moves to integrate elements of polyarchy, there will for some time be many who are used to the old way of doing business and need to learn new modes of thought. Incoming personnel will still have to be schooled in the balance of the old and the new. Most critically, leaders at the very top will have to be among the best thinkers, best able to understand and utilize the dual culture of leadership over which they have strategic influence. Any strategy that is formulated and put into practice must not only endure time and inevitable change, but be one that can be executed under most any leadership paradigm.
Resources
Losey, S. (2014, May 21). New rule directs commanders to 'engage' in airmen's lives. Air Force Times. Retrieved May 25, 2014
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
A633.8.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
When a client turns to a coach, they are often seeking additional guidance or advice outside the scope of that which they've thought of already. Based on the prompt given in this week's blogging assignment, the value that coaches provide to any prospective client is at the very least an alternative outside perspective that may be able to perceive additional variables not apparent to the client, or they may be able to share their own experiences and thus offer additional ideas, potential solutions, and may even provide the client a stronger foundation upon which to reach for their goals and objectives.
Based on the Obolensky readings, coaching does represent a challenging but powerful tool with regards to leadership and strategy, as he writes coaching can bridge the divide between tell/sell practicies of the leader taking point and the involve/devolve practices of the follower taking lead. Additionally, Obolensky writes that coaching is a means of moving subordinates towards a Level 5 level of followership (Obolensky, 2010). In short, coaching is part of what enables an organization to move beyond one or two highly skilled individuals to building a cadre of capable people that can work together as a team towards (ideally) established goals and objectives. Thus, it is arguably a critical piece that spells the difference between the organization plateauing, and continuing to be successful and fruitful over the long haul as times change and people move through the organization.
As for how successful coaching can make a difference in a given organization, while the scope and exact impact may vary with a given circumstance, effective coaching can help maintain quality performance, break any potential jams in thinking, or in a case of following the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) a coach can help a subordinate or the organization reach higher levels of performance and achievement (Obolensky, 2010). The coach, as an outside voice that the client has reached out to in the context of the prompt, may be in a better position to get past any preconceptions or biases the client might have if they worked only with perspectives from their own organization, and may also highlight options the client may have not even known they had.
To me personally, I admittedly haven't thought much about reaching out for coaching. However, my unit and other units I've worked with are proactive in providing opportunities for professional development and mentoring opportunities. I go to these events sometimes, but on reflection I have to admit I don't seek a great deal of coaching. I suspect this is partially due to my propensity to solve problems on my own without seeking help, in line with the ISFJ personality type I learned about in another MSLD course. Considering the argument made for coaching, it might behoove me to seek it out in order to gain additional perspectives and further my own development.
Organizationally speaking, I'm not sure if there is much more we can take from the discussion, as regular feedback and mentorship mechanisms are firmly in place. However, there has admittedly been more than one occasion where in working with a sister unit, we found them trying to muddle through problems when a different solution set could have well made problem solving easier or even prevented the problem from occurring in the first place. At times we would essentially be solving problems for them, but there have also been times that we would share our knowledge and teach them what we knew, such as letting them know about an asset accounting website that technically needed to be used but was very poorly advertised. My point in this is that although an organization may think they're doing alright, it is entirely possibly they are only assessing themselves from within their own perspective and quite likely are missing any issues that exist within their "blind spots." This doesn't happen regularly, but I would think that being open to outsiders having a look in and sharing where the organization would like to be, it may well help the organization realize performance gains they didn't know could be made. Overall, I think individuals can be well served by embracing coaching, but an entire organization willing to be coached as well may certainly benefit from a fresh set of eyes.
Works Cited
Based on the Obolensky readings, coaching does represent a challenging but powerful tool with regards to leadership and strategy, as he writes coaching can bridge the divide between tell/sell practicies of the leader taking point and the involve/devolve practices of the follower taking lead. Additionally, Obolensky writes that coaching is a means of moving subordinates towards a Level 5 level of followership (Obolensky, 2010). In short, coaching is part of what enables an organization to move beyond one or two highly skilled individuals to building a cadre of capable people that can work together as a team towards (ideally) established goals and objectives. Thus, it is arguably a critical piece that spells the difference between the organization plateauing, and continuing to be successful and fruitful over the long haul as times change and people move through the organization.
As for how successful coaching can make a difference in a given organization, while the scope and exact impact may vary with a given circumstance, effective coaching can help maintain quality performance, break any potential jams in thinking, or in a case of following the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) a coach can help a subordinate or the organization reach higher levels of performance and achievement (Obolensky, 2010). The coach, as an outside voice that the client has reached out to in the context of the prompt, may be in a better position to get past any preconceptions or biases the client might have if they worked only with perspectives from their own organization, and may also highlight options the client may have not even known they had.
To me personally, I admittedly haven't thought much about reaching out for coaching. However, my unit and other units I've worked with are proactive in providing opportunities for professional development and mentoring opportunities. I go to these events sometimes, but on reflection I have to admit I don't seek a great deal of coaching. I suspect this is partially due to my propensity to solve problems on my own without seeking help, in line with the ISFJ personality type I learned about in another MSLD course. Considering the argument made for coaching, it might behoove me to seek it out in order to gain additional perspectives and further my own development.
Organizationally speaking, I'm not sure if there is much more we can take from the discussion, as regular feedback and mentorship mechanisms are firmly in place. However, there has admittedly been more than one occasion where in working with a sister unit, we found them trying to muddle through problems when a different solution set could have well made problem solving easier or even prevented the problem from occurring in the first place. At times we would essentially be solving problems for them, but there have also been times that we would share our knowledge and teach them what we knew, such as letting them know about an asset accounting website that technically needed to be used but was very poorly advertised. My point in this is that although an organization may think they're doing alright, it is entirely possibly they are only assessing themselves from within their own perspective and quite likely are missing any issues that exist within their "blind spots." This doesn't happen regularly, but I would think that being open to outsiders having a look in and sharing where the organization would like to be, it may well help the organization realize performance gains they didn't know could be made. Overall, I think individuals can be well served by embracing coaching, but an entire organization willing to be coached as well may certainly benefit from a fresh set of eyes.
Works Cited
Obolensky,
N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing
Limited.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
A633.7.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In taking the course on strategic leadership and the complex adaptive leadership studies associated with it, it would be fair to say that I haven't experience a dramatic shift in my actual thinking, but it has certainly gotten me to examine my thinking from some different angles in some ways, and certainly has reinforced some of my previous leadership studies, particularly in areas of how followers can lead and how organizations can benefit by getting away from strict hierarchies.
I will say that within the time frame of this course versus prior to taking it, I may need to work further on how I apply my leadership and balancing the ideals of complex adaptive leadership with what is required of me at the office. On the one hand, based on my test results and how Obolensky would assess it, I work myself too hard and have a hard time letting myself go. On the other hand, some of the feedback I've received at work indicates I need to do more to know my workcenter inside and out, and the ideal that is being impressed upon me by my current commander is that someone in my position should know the status of their flight and what they're working on at any given time. In the midst of all this is also the undercurrent of how leadership functions in my organization...while there may be officers that are held responsible for decision making, there are still moments where their subordinates can design the solution and make a recommendation. I might argue that, although I'm continuing to be exposed to different ideas, I'm still living and breathing within the context of my organizational culture where there is limited room to explore different ways of doing business.
Overall, what this experience has shown me is further evidence of a suspicion I've had that while I understand good leadership from an academic standpoint, I still have further need to apply my knowledge and learn from the associated experiences. This, I hope, will be an opportunity I can pursue as I continue to progress in my organization, gain additional responsibility, and ultimately work in real world circumstances.
I will say that within the time frame of this course versus prior to taking it, I may need to work further on how I apply my leadership and balancing the ideals of complex adaptive leadership with what is required of me at the office. On the one hand, based on my test results and how Obolensky would assess it, I work myself too hard and have a hard time letting myself go. On the other hand, some of the feedback I've received at work indicates I need to do more to know my workcenter inside and out, and the ideal that is being impressed upon me by my current commander is that someone in my position should know the status of their flight and what they're working on at any given time. In the midst of all this is also the undercurrent of how leadership functions in my organization...while there may be officers that are held responsible for decision making, there are still moments where their subordinates can design the solution and make a recommendation. I might argue that, although I'm continuing to be exposed to different ideas, I'm still living and breathing within the context of my organizational culture where there is limited room to explore different ways of doing business.
Overall, what this experience has shown me is further evidence of a suspicion I've had that while I understand good leadership from an academic standpoint, I still have further need to apply my knowledge and learn from the associated experiences. This, I hope, will be an opportunity I can pursue as I continue to progress in my organization, gain additional responsibility, and ultimately work in real world circumstances.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
A633.6.5.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In Chapter 9 of Complex Adaptive Leadership, Obolensky introduces to readers a possible "vicious circle for leaders," in which a follower may ask for advice from the leader, and in demonstrating a lower level of skill on the service, this drives the leader to get concerned and take a more hands on approach, which leads to a follower's confidence lowering and assuming they need to demonstrate greater deference. When caught in a vicious circle, these steps continue to repeat and the problem compounds itself.
Within my own organization, I wouldn't say that it happens on a regular basis, but there are occasions for it to happen either on and off during normal activities or around larger projects that have garnered high attention from senior leadership. As our organization is in the unusual position of having relatively new officers filling roles in mid level leadership positions, although these officers are trusted to perform at an above average level there are still inevitably times when inexperience shows and higher levels of leadership will need to jump in to provide additional guidance or offer corrections. How the young officer reacts can vary based upon situation and personality...I admittedly tend to become a little more cautious and deferential, while some of my peers can continue to assume their typical role as hard chargers.
The effects on the organization as a whole can also vary and can be argued upon. If higher level leadership is called in to take a more hands on approach, this can restrict some freedom of action for junior leadership and create additional stressors. Depending upon the senior leader's methodology, the younger officer may feel put "under the microscope" and may experience something of a fight or flight response or pressure to perform, which depending upon how they process it can also make life unpleasant for their subordinates or render the officer less effective in the leadership decisions they are given. Senior leadership may in turn feel additional stress from feeling the need to more closely monitor activities, and having to move between tactical and strategic viewpoints may increase the possibility of them missing other issues. Overall, from my limited experience, the unit will continue to run although the leadership experience can become more unpleasant for the follower.
As for how to diffuse this cycle, it may simply involve replacing the hands on approach from leadership step with instead giving the appropriate response from the Level V Followership hierarchy and perhaps even giving on the spot feedback that gives emphasis on what the follower did well and what more they can do. By doing this, rather than simply intervening and possibly putting a halt to any of the follower's forward momentum or causing them to become risk averse, the follower can better comprehend what did for them and take a tailored approach to making improvements on weaker areas. This would ideally yield a follower that will steadily improve over time, be willing to take reasonable risks, and perhaps even build their confidence by having their success validated and having an interest taken in their continued development.
Within my own organization, I wouldn't say that it happens on a regular basis, but there are occasions for it to happen either on and off during normal activities or around larger projects that have garnered high attention from senior leadership. As our organization is in the unusual position of having relatively new officers filling roles in mid level leadership positions, although these officers are trusted to perform at an above average level there are still inevitably times when inexperience shows and higher levels of leadership will need to jump in to provide additional guidance or offer corrections. How the young officer reacts can vary based upon situation and personality...I admittedly tend to become a little more cautious and deferential, while some of my peers can continue to assume their typical role as hard chargers.
The effects on the organization as a whole can also vary and can be argued upon. If higher level leadership is called in to take a more hands on approach, this can restrict some freedom of action for junior leadership and create additional stressors. Depending upon the senior leader's methodology, the younger officer may feel put "under the microscope" and may experience something of a fight or flight response or pressure to perform, which depending upon how they process it can also make life unpleasant for their subordinates or render the officer less effective in the leadership decisions they are given. Senior leadership may in turn feel additional stress from feeling the need to more closely monitor activities, and having to move between tactical and strategic viewpoints may increase the possibility of them missing other issues. Overall, from my limited experience, the unit will continue to run although the leadership experience can become more unpleasant for the follower.
As for how to diffuse this cycle, it may simply involve replacing the hands on approach from leadership step with instead giving the appropriate response from the Level V Followership hierarchy and perhaps even giving on the spot feedback that gives emphasis on what the follower did well and what more they can do. By doing this, rather than simply intervening and possibly putting a halt to any of the follower's forward momentum or causing them to become risk averse, the follower can better comprehend what did for them and take a tailored approach to making improvements on weaker areas. This would ideally yield a follower that will steadily improve over time, be willing to take reasonable risks, and perhaps even build their confidence by having their success validated and having an interest taken in their continued development.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
A633.5.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
The chaos game, although it has the air of "ice breaker" activities from group settings I've experienced or more so the leadership exercises given to us during cadet training, represents an interesting departure from the usual in terms of drills in collaboration. If nothing else, it provides something of a visual or reference points to what I think is some of Obolensky's main points with chaos theory. The game suggests to me that despite the apparent chaos that one sees upon first glance, and the prevailing notion that an entropy exists that moves things towards disorder, there is also an intrinsic state of order that individuals can find when given the opportunity to seek it out. In short, the game is a readily available demonstration that chaos theory can work. The trick, I think, is trusting the members involved enough to let them find that solution at their level.
What this implies to me in the context of strategy is that chaos theory can reinforce the eight principles that were discussed in this week's readings regarding strategic creation. For instance, if Obolensky hadn't given any parameters whatsoever to the group in the video, there would be multiple means of communication, people traveling about the room every which way, and in all likelihood they wouldn't even know what they were working toward. By contrast, with the limited directions they were given in terms of how they were allowed to communicate and what was require of them in terms of spacing in relation to reference points, the group succeeded. They didn't talk or use signals, but they knew what they had to accomplish and were free to move towards the given objective relatively quickly without being micromanaged by the leader.
To me, this observation has further implications for both followers and leaders within an organization. The leader, if they understand and apply the eight principles of objectives, rules, boundaries, feedback, skill/will, freedom of action, purpose, and tolerance of ambiguity, can both give their followers an appropriate level of instruction while being able to effectively gauge if they have what's required to be successful. The followers, in turn, can develop the confidence to act independently and carry out the mission given to them as they see fit. The chaos game and chaos theory arguably reinforces many of the key lessons about strategy, in keeping it just specific enough to give the vision of an end state, but flexible and broad enough that followers can thrive in a seemingly chaotic and difficult situation. Almost paradoxically, chaos theory recognizes the disorder, but also can give a sense that things can work out fine.
What this implies to me in the context of strategy is that chaos theory can reinforce the eight principles that were discussed in this week's readings regarding strategic creation. For instance, if Obolensky hadn't given any parameters whatsoever to the group in the video, there would be multiple means of communication, people traveling about the room every which way, and in all likelihood they wouldn't even know what they were working toward. By contrast, with the limited directions they were given in terms of how they were allowed to communicate and what was require of them in terms of spacing in relation to reference points, the group succeeded. They didn't talk or use signals, but they knew what they had to accomplish and were free to move towards the given objective relatively quickly without being micromanaged by the leader.
To me, this observation has further implications for both followers and leaders within an organization. The leader, if they understand and apply the eight principles of objectives, rules, boundaries, feedback, skill/will, freedom of action, purpose, and tolerance of ambiguity, can both give their followers an appropriate level of instruction while being able to effectively gauge if they have what's required to be successful. The followers, in turn, can develop the confidence to act independently and carry out the mission given to them as they see fit. The chaos game and chaos theory arguably reinforces many of the key lessons about strategy, in keeping it just specific enough to give the vision of an end state, but flexible and broad enough that followers can thrive in a seemingly chaotic and difficult situation. Almost paradoxically, chaos theory recognizes the disorder, but also can give a sense that things can work out fine.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
A633.4.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Considering the readings from Obolensky, as well as the other selections for this week, what seems to be happening is a greater demand for leaders to be almost omnipotent, knowing everything about what happens under their organization. Why this is happening can vary from case to case, but generally speaking this may be due to the higher profiles leaders have in being credited for successes and failures in their organizations, whether it be successes such as Apple or Google, or any number of fallen or organizations hitting upon hard times such as Chrysler and GM. In either case, it is the senior leader that is in the spotlight of media and society, being hailed either as a genius or fraud as they are held accountable for what has transpired in the organization. Additionally, Obolensky seems to be getting at the concept of a "flat" organization in his writing, something I've seen discussed in other courses as essentially giving greater empowerment to subordinates to ask questions or share knowledge in order to cultivate a diversity of ideas and increase engagement in the organization's activities.
In the case of my organization, it is expected in a multitude of ways that the leader is credited with all successes and failures. If something is botched, I'm held responsible and am expected to fix it. If something goes well, even though I may have never touched the keyboard or executed the planning process, I can take credit for the purposes of awards or annual performance reports. It is even told to use in multiple forms of mentorship that we are ultimately responsible for whatever happens, even if we delegate. In that sense, we are running into the risks inherent to a traditional hierarchy. At the same time, we also have built into our service culture the idea of innovation and not settling for business as usual. There are mechanisms by which the lower tiers can pass up ideas or (tactfully) challenge questionable leadership policies and plans. Officers are expected to engage with their senior enlisted, and all ranks know that the younger enlisted personnel are expected to have hands on knowledge and technical expertise. To make things even more interesting, there's even something of an unwritten expectation for a healthy duty section that the officer will provide top cover for their section (e.g. giving the commander reasonable assurances issues will be resolved and thus buying time to work in relative peace), and the personnel will execute their duties and pass up information so as to bolster the officer's reputation and appearances.
Having said all of that, I don't believe there is much that needs to be done for promoting dialog and breaking down the leadership charade, as there already exists a certain dichotomy for polyarchy type organizational functionality under the framework of a traditional hierarchy. Having said that, there are unique challenges for leadership dynamics and organizational strategy. In most cases, commanders rotate about every two years...this means that besides different leadership styles being introduced to an audience where a fair portion may have already had one or two previous leadership climates, any long term strategy needs to be especially robust. If a strategy involves a plan that has a more limited lifespan of a year, perhaps two, its fairly sure the plan will carry out. However, anything extending further will need to have enough structure so as to maintain continuity with existing personnel, while also having just enough flexibility to accommodate not only changing work conditions, but also changing leadership climates. On that note, that could well make for the groundwork of truly excellent strategy...something that endures throughout time and defines an organization, no matter who specific members may be at a given time, while still ensuring long term success and survivability.
Resources
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
In the case of my organization, it is expected in a multitude of ways that the leader is credited with all successes and failures. If something is botched, I'm held responsible and am expected to fix it. If something goes well, even though I may have never touched the keyboard or executed the planning process, I can take credit for the purposes of awards or annual performance reports. It is even told to use in multiple forms of mentorship that we are ultimately responsible for whatever happens, even if we delegate. In that sense, we are running into the risks inherent to a traditional hierarchy. At the same time, we also have built into our service culture the idea of innovation and not settling for business as usual. There are mechanisms by which the lower tiers can pass up ideas or (tactfully) challenge questionable leadership policies and plans. Officers are expected to engage with their senior enlisted, and all ranks know that the younger enlisted personnel are expected to have hands on knowledge and technical expertise. To make things even more interesting, there's even something of an unwritten expectation for a healthy duty section that the officer will provide top cover for their section (e.g. giving the commander reasonable assurances issues will be resolved and thus buying time to work in relative peace), and the personnel will execute their duties and pass up information so as to bolster the officer's reputation and appearances.
Having said all of that, I don't believe there is much that needs to be done for promoting dialog and breaking down the leadership charade, as there already exists a certain dichotomy for polyarchy type organizational functionality under the framework of a traditional hierarchy. Having said that, there are unique challenges for leadership dynamics and organizational strategy. In most cases, commanders rotate about every two years...this means that besides different leadership styles being introduced to an audience where a fair portion may have already had one or two previous leadership climates, any long term strategy needs to be especially robust. If a strategy involves a plan that has a more limited lifespan of a year, perhaps two, its fairly sure the plan will carry out. However, anything extending further will need to have enough structure so as to maintain continuity with existing personnel, while also having just enough flexibility to accommodate not only changing work conditions, but also changing leadership climates. On that note, that could well make for the groundwork of truly excellent strategy...something that endures throughout time and defines an organization, no matter who specific members may be at a given time, while still ensuring long term success and survivability.
Resources
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)