A633.7.3.RB - Leader Follower Relationship

When thinking about leadership, Theodore Roosevelt always comes to mind.  He’s the only one to win both the Nobel Prize and the Medal of Honor. Roosevelt believed that leadership is an ongoing project of self-creation (Strock, 2015). Roosevelt stated, “If I have anything at all resembling genius, it is in the gift for leadership…. To tell the truth, I like to believe that, by what I have accomplished without great gifts, I may be a source of encouragement to Americans” (Strock, 2015). President Roosevelt was an inspirational leader and a master manager. Becoming a Naval Officer has taught me about Honor, Courage and Commitment. In my career, I strived for excellence, knowledge and leadership growth. I’ve been lucky enough to have mentors and coaches in my life that invested their time to teach the many lessons in leadership.

The classes that I have taken toward the master’s degree in Leadership at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University have been instrumental in my leadership development process.  Recently, I’ve researched the difference between leadership and management. There is a distinct difference between leadership and management; however, each without the other is unsustainable (Obolensky, 2014). Obolensky (2014) points out that leadership is about developing people and ensuring goals are achieve; where management is the act or process of deciding how to utilize people to achieve the goals. Using the right strategy for the right situation is important in leading high performance teams. Obolensky (2014) provided an assessment that delivers a glimpse into the strategies one uses when faced with certain leader-follower situations.  This assessment is located in Chapter 10 of Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (Obolensky, 2014).  The results can be use with the Hersey and Blanchard (1988) model to see how to adapt leadership style to follower development style. There are four leadership styles (S1 to S4) that match the development levels (D1 to D4) of the followers (Blanchard, Zigarmi & Zigarmi, 1988). The four styles suggest that leaders should put greater or less focus on the task in question and/or the relationship between the leader and the follower, depending on the development level of the follower.

After completing this test, I was able to see which strategies I utilized and didn’t utilize in leader-follower situations. Obolensky (2014) stated,  “leadership strategies fall into four categories. These categories are telling, selling, involving, and devolving” (pp. 170-173). Strategy 1 (S1): Tell (Low People, High Goal) is as simple as showing someone how to do something. Strategy 2 (S2): Sell (High People, High Goal) is where the benefits of a certain proposal is laid out in order to achieve buy-in. Strategy 3 (S3): Involve (High People, Low Goal) is used when a leader wants to hold back to see if the follower can discover the solution. Strategy 4 (S4): Devolve (Low People, Low Goal) is where the leader is hands off and practicing in a wu wei state of inaction (Obolensky, 2014). I scored a 5 in Tell (S1), a 4 in Sell (S2), a 4 in Involve (S3), and a 3 in Devolve (S4).  Taken together S1 and S2 are typical strategies when the leader knows the solution and either needs or chooses to ‘Tell’ it or ‘Sell’ it.

Obolensky (2014) describes that considered as pairs, the approach of S1 and S2 is more Yang than Yin – it assumes a male type leadership ‘pushing’ solutions. Meanwhile, S3 and S4 assume a more Yin type approach, more female and ‘pull’
(Obolensky, 2014). Obolensky (2010) states, “if the sum of S1 and S3 is greater than the sum of S2 and S4 then you may be taking too direct an approach”. In my case this is a true statement; there has been many times where I have done the work of others because I felt I could do a faster and better job. I realized this was neither good for the team or for me. I’m continuing to learn how to find a balance between being direct and still empowering others.

Looking back on the last 6 weeks, I have learned the many ways a leader can implement change and adapt to the demands for change. I’m extremely confident that this course has taught me valuable lessons. I’m already seeing positive results of some of the changes I’ve already made in my department. I highly encourage everyone to see a Ted Talks video by Bob Davis on management and leadership.  This video in my views summarizes some of the things I’ve learned in these couple of weeks.

https://youtu.be/UQrPVmcgJJk

Reference:

Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1988). Leadership and the one minute manager: Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. New York: William Morrow.

Obolensky, Nick (2014-11-28). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty ( p. 153). Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Strock, J. (2015, October 26). 10 Theodore Roosevelt Leadership Lessons. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from http://servetolead.org/10-theodore-roosevelt-leadership-lessons/

A633.6.5.RB - Circle of Leadership

        Nick Obolensky (2014) depicts a diagram for a typical vicious cycle for leaders.  A typical vicious cycle is illustrated by the Follower thinking he has to defer more, then the Follower asks for advice-demonstrates low skill to leader, the Leader gets concerned and the Leader takes a more hands-on approach, this results in the Followers confidence lower (Obolensky, 2014). This cycle hurts the natural effect of followership and decreases the overall climate of the organization. Followership maturity can be defined as the extent to which a follower is prepared to take the lead and get on with what needs to be done without leadership provided by an ascribed leader. If leaders don’t empower subordinates to do their jobs then followers will not have the confidence to step up and take up a leadership role. Obelensky (2014) describes how follower behavior will dictate the type of leadership that is shown from the leader. This is important part of the vicious cycle and leaders need to understand the influences they made have on their subordinates. Instead of taking over a project, motivate the followers to lead and to take the initiative in order to achieve the mission. According to Bayer (2010) top Management can only fully focus on the strategic aspect of the business if people at all levels can be relied on to do their job well. My department is improving in this area by communicating concerns and increasing the level of involvement within the team. The cycle plays a small part in my organization.  There are times when subordinates may ask for advice on an issue and might be taken as a lack of confidence or knowledge. Additionally, the advice from leaders is not taken as constructive criticism but as a punishment. This is something both the manager and follower need to understand how to communicate with each other.

The question, How does a person, leader or follower, break the vicious circle?  Having leaders institute and practice upward and downward communication can break the circle.  Instilling confidence, and giving a sense of responsibility or purpose to follower can also help break the cycle. Bayer (2010) suggest a number of things a leader can (and should) do to increase responsibility:

• ·      Delegate authority to the lowest appropriate level and set minimum number of check-offs (depending on capabilities) in order to empower people.
• ·      Ensure that subordinates have sufficient room to act and encourage them to:

o   Be adventurous in taking personal initiative

o   Exercise individual judgment

o   Take reasonable and calculated risks

o   Manage their time well, and

o   Overcome obstacles to reach the objectives

• ·      Encourage subordinates to cooperate, communicate, and practice teamwork within their unit and across the lines.
• ·      Informally check in with the staff to provide information, reinforce progress, and listen.
• ·      Show concern for people by helping them grown and develop.
• ·      Hold people accountable for overall performance

            To create a better circle of trust, communication and transparency leaders need to train, empower and trust their followers. It is important that leaders of organization continue to break this vicious cycle. By breaking the complacency of a top-down approach and encourage a balance of a bottom-up approach organization will see an increase of confidence within their subordinate and more will rise to the plate and take on more leadership roles.

Bayer, A. (2010). Breaking the vicious circle. Retrieved February 21, 2016, from https://www.haygroup.com/Downloads/gr/misc/Breaking_the_vicious_circle.pdf

Obolensky, N (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company

A633.5.3.RB - Reflections on Chaos

Who Needs Leaders

Duration: (3:32 min.)

Source: YouTube

             Obolensky's video "Who Needs Leaders"(2008) illustrates a fun game that shows how chaos dynamics and complexity theory works. It shows how self-organization can get better results than leader directed organization within a complex task ("Who Needs Leaders", 2008). Obolensky (2014) discussed how organizations are becoming more complex and are operating in contexts more fluid than ever before. The exercise involved twenty-five men and women who are asked to pick two unidentified people in the room, and place themselves equal distant between the two references. Once the instructions were provide each participant had to decide how they would execute the instructions. It was amazing to see that it only took them 1minute to accomplish a rather interesting yet challenging task. Most of those who participate in the simulation initially feel it was impossible, and were surprised by the outcome.

 

              This was an amazing example of how leaders can take complex problems and simplify them with a few simple clear rules and objectives where everyone can understand the expectations and the goal. According to Obolensky (2014), there are 8 key principles that can help organizations, particularly individuals complete complex tasks successfully. The eight principles are: clear individual objective, a few simple rules, clear boundary, continuous feedback, skill/will of participants, discretion and freedom of action, underlying purpose, and ambiguity & uncertainty (Obolensky, 2014). The exercise in the video portrayed Obolensky’s 8 principles and how it might work in an organization. The biggest emphasis in utilizing the 8 principles (2014), is that every organization will find their own unique way of expressing them, which in part reflects the 'dynamic' aspect of the principles (p. 125). These 8 principles are further elaborate below:

• Clear individual objective- according to Obolensky (2014) each person has a very clear idea of what they are trying to achieve. 
• A few simple rules- the rules are sufficient to enable effective action, and enough to keep the system from descending into too much chaos Obolensky (2014).
• Continuous feedback- Obolensky (2014) suggests that every individual knows at any time where they are in relationship to achieving their objective.
• Discretion and freedom of action- each person can act without needing permission; this requires an organizational culture that allows risk taking and initiative (Obolensky, 2014).
• Skill/will of participants- each person has the skill and the will to achieve the objective Obolensky (2014).
• Underlying purpose- The organization clearly states their purpose and have a purpose to bring everyone together.
• Clear boundary- the boundary gives a definition where the action is (Obolensky, 2014).
• Ambiguity and uncertainty. According to Obolensky (2014) ambiguity and uncertainty should be embraced rather than avoided. By implementing controls and guidelines we can minimize uncertainty.

This exercise was eye opening and showed how leaders don’t always have to be in control. At the end of the exercise the mediator asked, “What would have happened if we had put one of you in charge?” The group laughs; because they understand how hard it would have been if someone was telling them what to do all the time. This proves that leaders can learn to let go and trust in their subordinate to accomplish the tasking.

 

References:

 

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty. Surry, England: Gower Publishing limited

 

Obolensky, N. (2008). Who Needs Leaders. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

According to Webster dictionary (2016), change is the ability to give a different position, course, or direction. In contrast, organizational change is the process companies or organization goes through when in a progression of transformational change (Organization change, 2016). Change cannot be stopped and organizations need to be ready to adapt to the changing environments. Leadership within organizations has drastically changed and will continue to change over the years for several reasons. First, Globalization and the Internet changed everything. Suddenly customers had real choices, and access to instant reliable information, and the ability to communicate with each other (Denning, 2013). Second, the complexity with organizational structure and their strategy is often seen as obstacles when dealing with change.  This why many managers that lead their organization are more stressed, challenged, and confused today more than they have ever been before (Obolensky, 2014, p. 37). Finally, some leadership styles like the command and control style, which is the most common leadership style, and does not work for transformational change, yet most leaders and organizations rely exclusively on it (Denning, 2013). The problem arises when individuals are resistant to change and leaders don’t invest the development of their subordinates. Change occurs from the top down and upper management need to lead by example, in contrast lower level of the organization need to be receptive to change. As Obolensky notes, “subordinates need to challenge in order to follow, and superiors must listen in order to lead” (2014, p.38). It’s important to have a clear line of communication between leaders and subordinate in order to adapt to the changing environment. Additionally, leaders need to understand that it takes time to change such behavior and is not done by dictating (Obolensky, 2010).

A great example of an organization that embraces change is Apple. Apple meets the diverse needs of hundreds of millions of individual iPhone users by launching its own ecosystem—a technology platform that enables hundreds of thousands of developers to create Apps that can meet every conceivable human need and to offer them directly to customers (Denning, 2013). This technology grew with the changing time and continues to be ahead of the times, allowing Apple to work more innovative products.

The military is another organization that has seen tremendous change. I’ve been in the Navy for 13 years and I’ve already got the development and integration of the F/A 18 Super Hornet and the F-35C Lightning II. Also the US military coped with asymmetric warfare against elusive terrorists through ”mission command”, an approach built on decentralization, spontaneity, informality, loose rein, self-discipline and initiative. It draws on ability from all echelons. Its communications are multi-directional interactions, not just top-down directives (Denning, 2013). In my opinion the military is adapting well to the demand of change; however, with new budget constraint and duty limitation it has made it difficult to implement change.

Hyatt (n.d.) said, “If you are happy with the status quo, you don’t need a leader. But the moment you want something to change—to shift—that’s when you need to bring in a leader.” I think this quote says it best, as it states, “many organizations feel comfortable in their current situation and miss out on the opportunity to change.” An example is Blockbuster and how it failed to adapt when Netflix was dominating the streaming market. Also, how Kodak didn’t change its technology to meet the demand of the 21th century and up almost in ruins. If the organization does not keep with the changing technology, consumer demands, and effective business processes, they will lose their competitive edge. I believe change starts with the leadership and trickles down to the lower lever. If strategy planning is not properly enforced and communicates to subordinate then there might be hesitance toward change so proper planning and execution is imperative.

Reference:

Hyatt, M. (n.d.). Shift: The Essence of Leadership. Retrieved February 06, 2016, from http://michaelhyatt.com/shift-the-essence-of-leadership.html

Change. (n.d.). Retrieved February 6, 2016, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change

Denning, S. (2013, May 30). The Management Revolution That's Already Happening. Retrieved February 06, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/05/30/the-management-revolution-thats-already-happening/#6d092d673d6e

Organization change. BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved February 06, 2016, from BusinessDictionary.com website: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organization-change.html