A633.9.2.RB- Polyarchy Reflections

The traditionally held concept of leadership is that of an oligarchical approach, leadership done by a few over the many. Polyarchy could be considered the antithesis to the former and represents a dynamic approach more complex than models of oligarchy. According to Obolensky (2013), “leadership in any form cannot produce results without context” (p. 5). Unfortunately the traditional ‘by few to many’ approach of oligarchy has limitations primarily due to fasting changing times and organizational contexts (Obolensky, 2013). Contributing factors stem from the fact structures are becoming more fluid and boundaries within organizations are becoming more expansive. In addition, information is abundant and as knowledge and wisdom are more prevalent leadership must become more transparent and dynamic. So what does this mean for all of the models and theories that exist today? Are they becoming redundant and what does this mean for future leaders?

To run more productive businesses in pursuit of high performance standards and satiate the needs of the people who make up a company new methods are being explored. If Tony Hsieh of Zappos has a say organizations will reshape for both the health of the company and to the benefit of the people. It can be a win-win for both sides. Zappos decided they would drastically reshape their organizational context and are one of the companies pioneering successful transitions from standardly known hierarchy to a more complex adaptive system. Zappos is engaged in what they are calling Holacracy (Feloni, 2015). They understand this is not for everyone and members of their organization self-selected to leave the company. Not necessarily an attack on managers there simply is not a place for the few leading the many at Zappos and these positions were eliminated allowing a bottom-up approach. In self-managing organizations leadership becomes more free-flowing and open-ended.

It is likely that the models that were applied to models oligarchy will need to be recycled and forgotten. Like a house plagued with the stylings of decades past a renovation upgrading the structure can rework the models in an effort to keep good ideas and relevant research thriving. Though organizations are changing this does not mean it will happen overnight. Just like the fashion world or anything innovative (read: different) it will take time for the ways of larger companies and geographically areas to permeate the rest of the world. “Whether we like it or not, oligarchy and its sister hierarchy exist all around us and will continue to do so for some time, despite the stresses and strains” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 5). If you take the law of diffusion of innovation into consideration there will be the innovators and early adopters on one end of the spectrum and the laggards will be left behind clinging to the well-worn “this is how it has always been done routine”.  Those uncomfortable with change will end up working there.

I think what this means for myself and others is that we need to become more comfortable with being and not get hung up on titles and labels. Leadership probably won’t translate into where your name falls on the organizational chart for much longer. Instead influence and merit will be determining factors of true leadership potential. If you can hold up these ideals followers will come to you for advice and will want to work with you to meet goals and get things done. Everyone within the workplace will be held to high levels of accountability and will be leaders of the task and not necessarily others. Though it sounds chaotic, it turns out the nature of chaos is the incredible ability of organizing itself. If you still want to be a leader, just remember that you can have everything you want, it just might not look the way you thought it would.

References:

Feloni, R. (2015, May 16). Inside Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh's radical management experiment that prompted 14% of employees to quit. Retrieved July 31, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/tony-hsieh-zappos-holacracy-management-experiment-2015-5

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2nd. Ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower

A511.4.3.RB- Leadership Traits

If building leaders was like baking a cake what ingredients should be used? I suppose each creator would have different preferences, and there is more than one recipe in existence. Just like there are many cakes, there is more than one “right way” for what an ideal leadership candidate. Trait approach includes traits, skills, and values of individual leaders (Yukl, 2013). Managerial motivation, traits and skills have been examined about leadership effectiveness to determine not only efficacy but also the potential for advancement. Many types of skills are needed to fulfill role requirements.

The importance depends on the situation and contingency theory describes aspects of such that can alter a leader’s influence and effectiveness (Yukl, 2013). Furthermore “relevant situational moderator variables include managerial level, type of organization, and the nature of the external environment" (Yukl, 2013, p. 153).  It is worth noting that while specific traits have been noted for relevance for potential effectiveness that two leaders with differing traits are both able to be equally effective.

 The specific traits related to leadership effectiveness are:

•    High energy level and stress tolerance

•    Internal locus of control orientation

•    Emotional maturity

•    Personal integrity

•    Power motivation

•    Achievement orientation

•    High self-confidence

•    Low need for affiliation

Yukl contends that research was conducted over multiple decades through four methodologies to examine personality traits. Other skills associated with effective leadership are technical skills, conceptual skills, and interpersonal skills. Emotional intelligence is another facet of sought after competencies; in addition to social intelligence and the ability to learn. “A leader with high emotional intelligence will have more insight about the type of rational or emotional appeal that is most likely to be effective in a particular situation” (Yukl, 2013, p. 152).

If I were to throw myself on the leadership trait operating table for a grand experiment, I recognize some of my strengths and weaknesses. I do not match the ideal list perfectly. I would score myself within the moderate category for areas such as achievement orientation, need for affiliation, power motivation, and high energy and stress tolerance.

Another model was developed called the Big Five model:

•    Surgency

•    Conscientiousness,

•    Agreeableness,

•    Adjustment

•    Intellectance

The Big Five is a newer model of broadly defined traits, which I identify with better than the previous list and are more accurate for my personality. Surgency, or extroversion, is a weaker area for me; while the other areas are much higher. Appearances suggest I am extroverted and have high energy. As an introvert that masquerades as an extrovert this is true sometimes, not all the time and I require time to recharge and other times, I prefer to observe and be reserved. However, I feel agreeableness and intellectance are two of my best strengths that I can leverage to bring value to my organization. Some specific traits of agreeableness are cheerfulness, optimism, nurturance and need for affiliation. Intellectance (a new term to me) entails open-mindedness, being learning oriented, curious, and inquisitive.

What many organizations are finding is that when working with anyone whether internally or externally being service minded, which I am. When I was on the National Champion Dance Team at NSBHS, the “Showdolls”, our coach reminded us of the importance of our actions. Teachers, students, and community members may have never interacted with a Showdoll before, and we may be the only point of contact that will set the perception of our team. We learned the importance of upholding our team’s standards and representing the organization in a way that we would all be proud to be associated with, an incredible lesson to learn especially at an early age.

I have carried this with me since that time, and it has served me well and surely something my organization appreciates. Sometimes this means the use of emotional stability when dealing with someone upset and knowing that personal attacks in the heat of the moment are not about me. A cross exchange never solves anything and might be the last impression. As Yukl notes through situation relevance of skills, the importance is determined contingently. Real leadership competency means possessing a balance of positive traits and having an understanding how to shift focus as necessary between technical, interpersonal, and conceptual skills. Much like an engine working in synchronicity all of the skills, traits, and values must be, too.

Reference:

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson

A633.8.3.RB- How Do Coaches Help?

I came across this idea about coaching and I wondered to what end I felt this was true and also the kind of value that coaches are able to provide.

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.

 It takes a certain level of skill and will for someone to decide they want to take the next step in seeking improvement and reach a goal through coaching. Perhaps someone has tried everything and not found their ideal success. But what if it was not a matter of trying, but coming to a giant fork in the road. What if there are two or more possible directions one could go, seeking a coach to work out an expert strategy in order to yield the best possible outcome would surely be better than trial and error.

While deep down we probably do know the best way to solve problems and achieve our ambitions sometimes it takes collaboration to tap into those parts of us, our potential. Considering the Johari Window model momentarily, it is impossible to have a full sense of self-awareness. A coach can assist with minimizing our blind spots, areas known to others but not known to ourselves. “A coach helps people understand what they need to change in order to attain their professional goals” (von Hoffamn, 1999, para. 5).

Coaching is a vital part of leadership and has a significant impact on strategy. How can you expect someone to have the behaviors and tools you desire if they are not developed? “Coaching can have a positive impact on performance, but it is not a short-term process. Coaching prospects should be people you think can be even greater assets to the organization than they already are” (von Hoffman, 1999, para. 11). As coaching is an action-oriented process it enables individuals to grow through each stage of the process to reach increased levels of accountability and problem-solving capacities.

In many organizations coaching adds value. “While some employees who achieve new goals will leave, far more will feel greater loyalty to an organization that is interested in their professional development” (von Hoffman, 1999, para. 10). In my own organization this makes a difference in retaining quality employees. While my department has seen a handful of colleagues leave within the past year none have left for another organization; their positions changed to different departments or areas of the university. This is like our own feedback loop of development and can only strengthen us as an organization as so many individuals have a vast working knowledge of multiple areas of the university.

Reference:

von Hoffman, C. (1999). Coaching: The ten killer myths. Harvard Management Update, 4(1), 4

A511.3.3.RB- Power and Influence

I once felt that understanding the theory of power was quite complicated, though I was reading Noam Chomsky’s Understanding Power at the time. I was not ready for that at the time I read it. Personally I find stripping down the ideas of power, authority, and influence to basic forms provides a better foundation for proficiency. “Influence is the essence of leadership. To be an effective leader, it is a necessary to influence people to carry out requests, support proposals and implement decisions” (Yukl, 2013, p. 185).

Everyone possesses and exercises "power" of some kind, and there are many types. Power can be classified by position power and personal power.  Position power often comes from legitimate authority or control. Whether it is POTUS or a CEO, this is the easiest type of power to identify. Personal power is derived from influence and relationships typically though the two types of power can become interwoven and difficult to distinguish (Yukl, 2013). Furthermore, power is not static and is apt to shift and change.

Margaret Thatcher said, “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people that you are, you aren’t”. My sources of power are not usually positional but stem from personal sources, especially referent power. I am powerful because of the relationships I build and how I can communicate ideas for change with my peers. Referent power develops through relationships building from feelings of admiration and loyalty. Influence flows through the character and integrity shown and is more than merely being charming. My general acceptance of others and positive regard allows me to be open with others. I tend to share my thoughts and ideas enthusiastically and find it to be contagious. Typically I influence others in an informal, one-on-one manner. Luckily I use my power for good and not evil.

My signature power style is that of the Inspirer and is something I value. “Inspirers tend to be innovative thinkers and operate with a consistent commitment to the greater good” (Craddock, 2011, para. 8). I feel I am a natural leader regardless of appointment or title and also effectuate a high degree of followership. I do not prefer to pressure others as it makes me feel uncomfortable though success can be gleaned from making personal and inspirational appeals in addition to apprising (Yukl, 2013). At work, I am equally bubbly in the aisles of our cubicles as I am effervescent in our team meetings. If I believe in something and am moved by it, I am undoubtedly a terrific asset to have which results in a high-exchange relationship between my leaders and myself as a member.

Fortunately possessing charisma and spirit are part of who I am. I am the de facto cheerleader for our team. My director and other members of the team have shared how my attitude has transformed and reshaped our team. For me, this is one of the highest forms of leadership that can be achieved, and I am proud to be the influence I wish to see in the world. 

References:

Craddock, M. (2011, May 9). What's Your Power Style? Retrieved July 19, 2015, from https://hbr.org/2011/05/whats-your-power.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson

A633.7.3.RB- Leader Follower Relationship

What type of leader are you and how do you relate to followers? Do you push or pull? Are you focused on people or are you focused on goals? Is one better than the other? Upon examining the Hersey Blanchard Situation Leadership model and completing a questionnaire I have learned where I fall within the scale.

Various scenarios are put forth such as: “Challenging targets are being met with hard work and morale is high. Your team seem happy but you are worried that one of your subordinates might need more help” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 166). Out of four possible responses I landed upon “Ask her how performance can be improved further and what needs to be put in place” (p. 167). I suppose I could have told her how she could best meet the targets and how to improve. Maybe I could remind her of the benefits when the targets are met and suggest improvements. I also could have left her alone to continue her good work, which is something I considered.

Using the Hersey Blanchard model there are four strategies: Tell (S1), Sell (S2), Involve (S3), and Devolve (S4). I scored highest with Involve with Devolve a close second. My Sell was much higher than my Tell style. My highest scores fell within S3 and S4 which are considered a more Yin approach to leadership that is ascribed to be more female and a pull style (Obolensky, 2014).

 I cannot say I am that surprised where I stand. The “Involve” strategy is high people and low goal. This strategy is used when there is enough time to develop and educate others. This could be due to how much time I have spent on stage and also choreographing. Every person on stage is visible to the audience and working with them to do their best work that will be displayed in plain view means that everyone must be developed. Obolensky comments that this can be used when the leader does not know or if they are choosing to hold back. I have never seen myself much as a dictator but more of a teacher. Apparently since I do not like being told what to do and prefer having a hand in decisions that affect me that I gravitate toward these strategies for working with others. At least I am upholding the Golden Rule and doing onto others as I would have done unto myself.

What is a surprise is that the strategies need to be balanced upon various situations that could be encountered and layered overtop other factors such as levels of followership. It would be imprudent to try to do a one size fits all routine all the time. If there is an emergency situation there is not enough time to stop and ask what everyone thinks. Sometimes it is reactive and you have to use the Tell strategy. Sometimes using the Tell strategy is as simple as training someone to know how to learn a new skill or answering a question. Luckily my scores do not indicate that I face one of the more typical challenges of not being able to let go and have faith in others. I also do not overestimate my own impact and my approach is not too direct. However, apparently my combined high S2 and S3 scores indicate that I can become too emotionally invested and tend to work too hard. That sounds like me and it is part of the process learning that working hard does not mean doing things better.

Over the last several weeks I have been surprised about some of my basic assumptions. I have never thought about followers in terms of levels. I conjured images of a lazy, non-invested employee riding the clock until the end of the shift to see how long they can go without being noticed and told what to do. I also imagined capable go getters who know what to do and how to do it and are a force to be reckoned with and these are pretty ideal people to have on a team. I also assumed a good follower was being compliant and doing what was needed. My lack of consideration on the matter was pretty shortsighted. I have become a lot more open to both leadership and followership traits.

Everything I learned can be summed up with one giant food analogy. There are a lot of ingredients that determine how the recipe will turn out: culture, strategy, organizational hierarchy, control, leadership, and followership. It is a wonder what type of things actually end up in the stewpot. If it isn’t savory why use it? Do you think it will be hidden or it won’t contribute to the flavor? Cutting corners never adds up to a good product. Not everyone who ends up in the kitchen is a very good chef; it takes study and practice just like anything else. The real test is asking would want to take a bite of the mystery stew. If the answer is no, chances are no one else does either.

Reference:

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2nd. Ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower

A511.2.3.RB- Supportive Behavior

I am passionate about supporting others and feel that it is my calling, which is why I am an Academic Advisor. Years ago when I decided how I wanted to spend my life, I was trying to come up with a field of work. What I ended up vowing to myself is being a person that is there for others, a bit of sunshine in someone’s day. My study of leadership has become a natural extension of this mission. Supportive leadership encompasses behaviors that consider, accept and have concern for the needs and feelings of others (Yukl, 2013).

Upon further examination of the Yukl text supporting allows a foundation in which to build a relationship. In the context of an organizational setting, wouldn’t it be better to work with someone you enjoyed instead of someone who made you feel uncomfortable? Supportive leadership not only increases the self-confidence in others but also lends a hand in reducing stress (Yukl, 2013).  Kindness and consideration also to reaching out to mentor or coach others can create an atmosphere that bonds your relationship with loyalty, as well as cooperation (Yukl, 2013).

Though I am not necessarily a manager, I am an academic advisor that entails management aspects. Yukl (2013) provides guidelines for supporting which include: showing acceptance and positive regard to others, providing sympathy when someone is anxious or upset, bolstering self-esteem and confidence, and demonstrating a willingness to help with personal problems. To me, this is what it means to be a human being; though sometimes we forget why supporting others is important.

As an advisor, I play a large role in the student life cycle. I am assigned to a population of roughly four hundred fifty students currently and work with them from admission through graduation. Through knowledge sharing and supporting the aim is to help students avoid distress. I remember how much I had to learn during training, so I am empathetic to how tricky the details can be! I also know how much learning and education mean to me and how emotionally driven the desire to succeed can cause intense emotions. I always make sure to let my students know that I am their sounding board. I am not here just for registrations or what to do next if you end up outside good academic standing, but I am also available to brainstorm solutions for some possible scenarios.

 

I understand that I am part of a selective group of individuals that students interact with at the University. How I represent myself may color the experience and perspective of that student. It would break my heart if a student felt that their learning institution did not care about their success and development. I do care, and I want it to show through my actions. I advise for an online campus so imagine the barriers of trying to develop a relationship when a computer screen divides you. I have students that happen to be colleagues that sit one cubicle away from me to students on a different continent. I care about each one just as if they were sitting in front of me. If the time comes where we need to have difficult conversations having a supportive relationship in place lessens the difficulty. The bottom line is that if my students dread speaking with me, they are going to avoid me. It would become impossible for me to help or support if I do not know what is going on, which rings true to most relationships. Supportive leadership truly promotes a healthy working relationship filled with best aspects of working with other people.

Reference:

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson

A633.6.5.RB- Circle of Leadership

An office employee goes to work and while working on an assignment asks for advice and through the questions asked shows a low skill level to his boss. The boss gets concerned and decides to take a more hand on approach with the employee. The employee realizes this and their confidence is lowered and they start to believe they have to defer more to the boss. That is one cycle of what can become a vicious circle. Does it ever stop and if it does, do you think it ends well?  When the employee defers more to the boss and asks more advice are they further demonstrating less skill or possibly less will. How much more concerned does the boss become? Do they become so hands on with them start job duties start being taken away? How long can this go on?

These five small exchanges between subordinate and superior can create a circle of unwanted behavior. Followership and leadership are equally important in organizations. Human resources are a company’s best asset and not growing them to be the best followers and also the best leaders possible is a missed opportunity. So how does this happen? Two things are really important factors which are skill and will. Together these form a skill/will matrix. Skill can be measured based upon technical content and operational process (Obolensky, 2014). “Skill is the knowledge needed to do the job (technical content) as well as how to about it (operational process)” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 162). “Will is the motivation to do the work, as well as the motivation to do it without supervision” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 162). When high skill meets high will this is an indication of someone who is a performer. The goal is to move those not performing toward this state. Obolensky is quick to point out that there are four states within a skill/will matrix and not four types of people. Someone who is highly motivated and capable can become demotivated for any number of reasons and move out of the performer state. Think of performance burn out here, among other possibilities.

Followership is not necessarily how good you are at following, taking direction, and doing as you are told. It is the extent followers are prepared to take the lead (Obolensky, 2014). There are five levels of followership, again these are states and not types:

Level 1: Wait to be told

Level 2: Ask to be told

Level 3: Seek approval for a recommendation

Level 4: Seek approval for action undertaken

Level 5: Get on and inform in a routine way

(Obolensky, 2014)

Level 1 is the lowers level and describes someone who waits around to be told what to do. This is not a very productive state. Level 2 is a bit better they are looking for direction and asking for it, but this is only slightly more proactive. Level 3 describes someone is unsure what to do, has an idea, but seeks approval before doing anything. Level 4 followership describes someone who has taken action but is not sure if it is the right thing to do so they look for confirmation. Level 5 are capable and accountable for actively doing without needing direction. Periodically there is reporting between the follower and leader, but a level 5 follower is independent and able to lead themselves.

According to Obolensky behavior breeds behavior. I have been in a previous situation like the diagram above. I worked for an attorney and when I started as his paralegal I had some experience but was relatively pretty new out of college. He went to his office closed the door every day when he was in the office. I wondered why we never worked together as an initial training period for me to get to know his preferences and so we could become a cohesive team. I would email work to him and he would sign it and leave it on my desk or tell me to come get it. Sometimes he would obliterate the work and redo it himself. I could tell there were certain things he did not like so I tried not to do them and he would just end up doing these things himself. There was growing fear within this cycle that lead to paranoia for the thirteen months I worked at this office.

My confidence became super low and I had a felt sense something was wrong. The attorney came over from a very large firm to this small office of two attorneys. I always wondered why he would leave such an atmosphere. We were never in the position to chat with each other and honestly it was a really strange arrangement. His paralegal from his previous firm showed up a couple times for what looked like a social visit. One day I was called into his office and he let me go. It turned out that he made an agreement before I was hired that he had to have enough billable hours to be able to bring on his former paralegal at her previous rate. In a way I never had a real chance if that was the plan all along. He never wanted to know me or to train me. But for those thirteen months we were caught up in this awful cycle. No one should have to feel like that at work. So how do you break free?

Not everyone in a position of power is a leader and not everyone at the top of the business food chain knows how to coach or mentor followers. Those will low skill need to be helped in a way where they are grown level by level. Those with low will might be more difficult but need to be motivated. When looking up skill/will matrixes there were terrible terms filled in such as “fire them”, “whip them (into shape?)”, “train them”, or “promote them”. That sounds more like breaking mustangs and horse training than what you should say about human beings. When a follower asks for advice and is showing low skill this is a signal for an opportunity. Yes, it is okay to be concerned. But what you do next sets up the board like a chess game of continuous moves and countermoves. Determine where that person’s state falls within the levels of followership and try to move them up one level. Wait to see that they have gotten the hang of it and then work with them to grow one more level. Obolensky warns that you cannot take someone from Level 1 to Level 5 overnight.

Empowerment, encouragement, and motivation go further than making someone feel bad they shrink away. All that accomplishes is frustration for the leader and misery and shame for the follower. For many organizations hiring and letting go of employees is a high cost on an organization. For cost purposes alone is a reason to try to make it work. Beyond that and looking at more humanistic aspects doing this will all employees promotes strong followership, strengthens the organization, and can create a high performance team. If behavior breeds behavior which would be better: an epidemic of those leaving the organization and those who stay to have low skill and low will or energized people who want to be a part of the organization and make contributions and watch it prosper? I know which one sounds better to me. So what are you going to do to be a part of it? Don’t give up on people, they are worth it.

Reference:

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2nd. Ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing 

A511.1.3.RB- Leadership v. Management

Batman versus Superman reminds me of what it is like to compare and contrast management versus leadership. To be clear, management is Batman in this scenario. One has an innate ability free from any gadgets to accomplish a task and influence others. It would be great to have either one around, but even more powerful if you could merge them into a more super-superhero. Perhaps to be fair maybe management and leadership are more like perpendicular roads each with their own purpose and traveling in their own direction that cross paths and overlap creating an intersection. Some would say that managers are the leaders, though a disagreement is possible as one can exist without the other. As traditional hierarchy goes there are very few at the top and not everyone gets to be a manager. Everyone has the ability to be a leader, or at least that is what I believe.

Pure management would be task-oriented and concerned with counting value, focusing on systems and structures, measuring the bottom line, and requiring others to report on their progress while completing duties. Leadership is difficult concept as there is no single correct definition (Yukl, 2013).  Leaders can have a formal title, but it is not a requirement in order to be influential, to develop others, create value, articulate a vision, and focuses on people. “Influence and inspiration separate leaders from managers, not power and control” (Nayar, 2013, para. 7).

Simon Sinek is responsible for one of my favorite TED talks “How Great Leaders Inspire Action” which I watched for the first time about a year and a half ago. Since that time I have watched the video at least five times and have made others watch it. Each time I finish I feel invigorated and desire to sing its praises from the rooftop! At work I am part of a team which includes eight, soon to be nine, advisors and our Director. Lately things have been a little off balance. We are lost, but we do not have to be. We will find our way. We have seen a lot of changes in a concentrated amount of time and although it is strongly agreeable amongst all members that the changes are for the better it is too easy to be bogged down by process while trying to find our sea legs and we need to find our “why” again for ourselves and for our students.

I am a person that is driven by passion and inspiration and feel a good use of time is searching for these ingredients to life and am someone who will readily tell anyone I meet that I believe that hard times requires furious dancing and that I wish to leave a little sparkle wherever I go. I want to bring magic to everything I do because if you are like me, you know that old ways do not open new doors. That is who I am and not what I do and is my purpose as a leader.

My current Director is someone who inspires me because she is the total package of both hard and soft skills in the realms of management and leadership. She does what she says she will do, is incredibly knowledgeable, and is someone who is genuinely kind and caring. I respect her because of her quiet leadership; she is powerful without demanding control. Something that shocked me and subsequently impressed me was that when I was a brand new employee she wanted to hear my ideas and my input and whenever possible was open to trying not only my suggestions but all of our ideas. We were not locked in a “this is how it has always been done” routine. Previously I had been told no for sharing something new and that I needed to wait my turn to have ideas. Our cause is to make the team better and be the best we can be.

Revisiting Sinek’s TED talk sparked an idea to share this with our team and first thing tomorrow I am going to chat with my Director to see when we can do this. It comes at a perfect time to remind us of our cause and to rejuvenate our why and then brainstorm how we can articulate the why to others.

 Management is incredibly important and necessary, but sticking to only dotting i’s and crossing t’s of daily business activities makes it difficult for innovation. As an example, I am a big fan of Southwest Airlines because I feel connected with their identity as an organization. If I can increase the number of opportunities to laugh then I want to do that always. The flight attendants that make hilarious announcements eases the tension in the cabin and makes the safety reminders fun. It also pushes the status quo and shows leadership sensibilities by empowering their employees, inspiring those within the organization and the passengers, and gives a head nod to knowing that different is not bad. Different can be fun and it can be good.

 If you are leader then be a leader and if you can be a manager, too, then be both. While management is apt to fade out, leadership is a renewable resource. Let us not forget that while neither comes easy and when the forces are combined it creates a super, superhero. I retract my comparison of Batman versus Superman and management versus leadership. Be both. There is no need for competition, just combination.

References:

Nayar, V. (2013, August 2). Three Differences Between Managers and Leaders. Retrieved July 5, 2015, from https://hbr.org/2013/08/tests-of-a-leadership-transiti

Sinek, S. (2009) How Great Leaders Inspire Action. TEDxPuget Sound.

Retrieved July 5, 2015, from: http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

A633.5.3.RB- Reflections on Chaos

Obolensky introduces a game that has unknown origins that he calls a ‘working experiment’ that demonstrates how simple complexity can be and some implications on leadership within complex tasks (2014). The further I read the instructions the more my anxiety was heightened. The exercise requires at least 8 people but can be played with up to 80 with the ideal number being around 25 or so. It seems like this would take hours! I have included a video of this exercise directed by Nick Obolensky.  What seems like it would take hours takes mere minutes. The most telling part is when the question is asked: What would happen if one of you were in charge? The participants knowingly laugh in a nonverbal acknowledgment of how differently the exercise would have turned out.

According to Obolensky the more complex a task, the less directive traditional leadership is needed. So why is this and what does that mean for what we think we know about leadership? Obolensky continues to inform on eight principles some of which were explained and some of which guide what instructions are given in this exercise.

Clear individual objective

A few simple rules

Continuous feedback

Direction and freedom of action

Skill/will of participants   

Underlying purpose

Clear boundary

A tolerance of the players for uncertainty and ambiguity

If someone was put in charge to achieve the results of the exercise it would mirror oligarchic leadership which forms our traditional hierarchical leadership as we understand it today. For an organization or any group of people to become self-organizing would require a move toward polyarchy. This would look like a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) where everyone was interrelated and was relatively self-managed, just like the exercise. While traditional leadership is well meant it often constricts progress rather than lets it happen much like chaos within complexity science.

Yesterday I was driving through my town during a severe storm and noticed several blocks of electricity that was knocked out. This included traffic lights. It was the middle of the day and there were hundreds of cars come from all directions. To make matters worse this intersection was in the middle of where two bridges meet. Despite what could be dangerous conditions because of chaos everyone differed to acting like it was a four way stop, which is a traffic rule. The boundaries were clear of where to stop. Everyone had an underlying purpose to move safely beyond this intersection. The principles were present and were working. Usually I spend a lot more time at this intersection when the lights were operational no matter what direction I am traveling. I marveled momentarily how this was like the exercise. Complete strangers were operating in a self-organizing fashion. No leaders were needed because everyone became a leader.

If this can happen with strangers of all ages driving on the road this can happen in organizations. There are not many doing this right now, but it is happening. This is really inspirational because it means that we should be telling others. If more people learned about this and understood it they could embrace it. Instead of a division between followers and leaders everyone could be a follower and everyone could be a leader at the same time. Chaos does not have to be feared nor does it have to be scary. I am reaffirmed that there is a true self-organizing nature to chaos. I know I read it in a book, but when I realized that is what I was seeing in real life it changed how I felt about this idea. I had been through lights being out several times, but the application of this knowledge allowed for an experience and an understanding I had not had before. I urge anyone interested in productivity to watch the video and start watching for real examples, it could change everything.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2008, April 12). Who needs leaders? Retrieved July 3, 2015 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). Gower