A633.9.3.RB_BrianneGowens_Polyarchy Reflections

Leadership and the need for people to step up as leaders has been around long before the days of corporate America. Centuries ago, the act of progressing into a leadership role was based much more on a “survival of the fittest” concept than it is today, but in many ways it still feels like a daily fight to keep your head! Over time, leadership has morphed from anarchy – where there is no leader and complete chaos – to oligarchy, where people behave in a much more structured, organized and hierarchical way (Obolensky, 2014). Organizations have operated in an oligarchy for so long now that it has become the standard referred to as “traditional leadership.” In fact, they’ve operated in this way long enough for others to begin noticing the faults of the traditional leadership style and to begin contemplating whether or not we are really choosing the most effective ways to lead.

Traditional leadership has worked for a long time. To those operating in anarchy, the stiff structure and bright lines between leader and follower were a welcome change. Leaders took a position of dictator, directing followers on actions to take (and not to take) all the way down to the most minute details. Followers respected the individuals selected to fill leadership roles and trusted them to make decisions that benefited both the individuals and the organization as a cohesive system. However, as time passed and traditional leaders continued to separate themselves from the people who follow them, the divide between those who lead and those who do became too big. As a result, organizations are suffering from a lack of diversity and miscommunication.  

  

Sure, business environments have changed significantly over the past two or three decades as a result of economic instability, political and social unrest, and an incredible rate of advancing technology. But something else has also been changing– the people filling each of the roles that make these businesses prosper. People are spending more time than they ever have at work and they have started to demand that this time is spent making an impact. Longer hours at work contribute to greater risk of stroke, high blood pressure, and even premature mortality (Hinslif, 2014). With those kinds of risks, people don’t want to feel as if they are coming to work for nothing but a paycheck. People want to be valued, they want to contribute, and they want their ideas to be heard. Unfortunately, traditional leadership doesn’t allow for such follower satisfaction because it prevents followers from providing upwards leadership and feedback. The idea that certain people in an organization are born to be natural leaders doesn’t hold water like it used to. Individuals have realized that super heroes are a fallacy and that they themselves might be just as qualified as the next guy to fill an important leadership role (Obolensky, 2014, p. 5).

As a result of the complicated business environment and the changing dynamic between followers and traditional leaders, the concept of polyarchy was invented. Although it is intended to simplify and improve organizational leadership, polyarchy is much more complex than anarchy or oligarchy – in a good way. Polyarchy creates complex adaptive leaders, who recognize the importance of chaos and understand how it can be used to improve an organizational system. Complex adaptive leaders believe in using all resources available, including the people at the lowest levels of the organization, to establish the greatest number of ideas on how to move forward. At the same time, complex adaptive leaders are masters at avoiding the over-collection of data and exercising people unnecessarily. A polyarchy facilitates frequent and interactive communication and rewards openness with positive feedback and praise. In the end, companies benefit just as much as individuals because their strategies are stronger and their competitive advantage grows.

With all of that said, I believe there is still a need for traditional leadership today. Traditional leadership provides a level of security and familiarity that many followers need. Although followers are beginning to demand complex adaptive leaders more and more, there is still a large group of followers who thrive under traditional leaders. If I’ve learned anything from the MSLD 633 course this year, it’s that there is no “right” way to lead. Instead, leaders “should use whatever combination of traditional and adaptive approaches are required in a particular situation or context” (Auspos & Cabaj, 2014).

Implications of Complex Adaptive Leadership

People are realizing that just because things are complex, it doesn’t need we need more leaders. In fact, according to Obolensky (2014), “the counter-intuitive (and for some disturbing) conclusion is: the more complex things are, the less traditional leadership one needs” (p. 101). Instead people need complex adaptive leaders who feel comfortable with change and teach their followers how to better anticipate the unexpected. They need leaders who communicate both up and down, and who know when to take the reins and when to step out of the way and become a follower of their own people.

Complex adaptive leaders place greater value on the input they get from people in all levels of the organization, which allows the organization to turn into a complex adaptive system instead of a collection of teams operating in silos. “In a complex adaptive system, agents interact with each other in dynamic, evolving, and unpredictable ways” (Auspos & Cabaj, 2014). When organizations act as complex adaptive systems, the elements of those systems learn how to constantly adapt to change, which is a critical and often hard to find organizational attribute in today’s unstable business environment. Additional implications of complex adaptive leadership include greater collaboration, more innovative ideas, stronger strategies, and more diversity of thought when it comes time to solve complex organizational problems.

Personal Development Plans & Future Strategy

The 70-20-10 approach is an approach mastered by Google focused on carefully allocating an individual’s time to certain activities that facilitate their personal development as well as their effectiveness on the job. Under this model, the first 70 percent of the individual’s time is spent working to grow their core competency (Groth, 2012). The next 20 percent of time is spent on projects that are related to the employee’s main task, but are a spin-off of what was originally stated as the work assignment. Finally, the last 10 percent of time is spent learning something totally new (Groth, 2012).

If I had 10 percent of time to learn something new, then I would consider a job shadow outside of my organization. The organization I would target is revenue management because I find the financial side of  our sales business to be very intriguing and much more complex than I have time to focus on during the other ninety percent of my time. I also think that building my skills in this area would make me more comfortable in my job and more marketable in the event I ever decide to leave.

The 70-20-10 approach is a very interesting idea, but it is one that I believe my current organization would struggle to get comfortable with. Before I can begin to push Google’s innovative idea within my team, I need to do some work on myself. If I had to place myself into one of Griffin’s (2003) four leadership types, I would consider myself a reluctant leader. Reluctant leaders’ “deeply ingrained insecurities manifest themselves in a variety of ways – indecisiveness, risk aversion, and the tendency to avoid conflict” (Griffin, 2003). I am very knowledgeable on the organizational processes, the people, and the technical aspects of the job. I have great social skills and get along with anyone and everyone. I am extremely collaborative and am always willing to go above and beyond to get the work done. The problem is that in my current organization, I am losing my self-confidence. Today, I am experiencing an unfamiliar level of nervousness and a hesitancy to speak up and make a decision (Griffin, 2003).

In order to break free from this position over the next 1-3 years, I need help from the leaders and the other followers in my organization. I need to be reassured that my decisions are right and my instincts can be trusted. Encouragement from all levels is critical to my ability to regain my confidence and learn to ignore the self-doubt that my current leaders have engrained in me (Griffin, 2002). I need to feel like my leaders perceive me as a valuable asset and my opinions matter. In order to make this happen, I need to take responsibility for being in charge of making my voice heard. I am going to work on speaking up when I believe I have something valuable to add and becoming more assertive when others won’t listen.

If I change my own behavior and I work with leaders and peers to help me break out of my reluctant leadership style, then this may show others that they can speak up and be heard as well. Collectively, I believe we can have a strong impact on the future strategy of the organization. What’s important is that I don’t try to follow a development approach that doesn’t truly address the areas where I need to grow. “If you’re a leader, authenticity is your most precious commodity and you’ll lose it if you attempt techniques that don’t fit your strengths” (Buckingham, 2012). People may be tempted to be attracted to the most popular leadership style at the moment and start taking steps to emulate that style in their own careers. It’s critical to remember that every leader needs a unique leadership style because we are unique people interacting with other unique people in this complex adaptive system we call life.

Resources

Auspos, P. & Cabaj, M. (2014). Complexity and Community Change. The Aspen Institute. Retrieved from https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/pubs/Complexity_and_Community_Change.pdf

Buckingham, M. (2012). Leadership Development in the Age of the Algorithm. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 86-94

Griffin, N. (2003). Personalize Your Management Development. Harvard Business Review, 81(3), 113-119.

Groth, A. (2012, Nov. 27). Everyone Should Use Google's Original '70-20-10 Model' to Map Out Their Career. Retrieved from Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/kyle-westaway-how-to-manage-your-career-2012-1

Hinslif, G. (2014). We are working harder than ever and it’s killing us. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/27/working-harder-more-chill-time-long-hours

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

  

A633.8.3.RB_BrianneGowens_How To Better Enable Leadership

Enabling Leadership at all Levels

According to George Mason University (2017), the term “Action Research” is defined as “inquiry or research in the context of focused efforts to improve the quality of an organization and its performance.” In other words, the type of research defined by teams at George Mason University is aimed at fixing a problem. One of the greats problems faced by organizations today is a lack of communication and collaborating throughout different layers of leadership. This problem becomes quite interesting when the perspectives of people at different levels within the organization are shared, which is exactly what I explored within my own team.

Interview with Superiors

Upon completion of three informal interviews of supervisors in my organization, I was somewhat shocked to hear how consistently they shared a perception of organizational harmony and thriving employee-manager relationships. One superior commented “we have great collaboration in this organization between managers and employees” (M. Basil, personal communications, 2017). When I asked the second leader how well they think our organization embraces upward leadership, this leader responded “very well!” (Andrews, A, Personal Communications, 2017). The final leader said that in this organization, they are proud of how quickly followers step up and take the leadership role both inside the team and outside of the team (T. Rozario, personal communications, 2017).

Interview with Subordinates

I couldn’t help but ask (to myself of course) – am I working in the same organization as these people?! At first I feared that my feelings were just an outlier, but the perspective of the followers was proven to be quite different upon my continued interviews. Compared to the responses of the management team in my organization, subordinates were generally much more hesitant to open-up during our informal interview/correspondence. When asked what the greatest challenge in the group was today, the consistent answer I received was an intimidation factor from leadership. As a result of this intimidation factor, many subordinates don’t feel comfortable offering their experiences or opinions.

This feedback is clear to see in team meetings, such as the weekly staff meeting. Employees sit stiffly around the conference room table with their pens and notebooks ready to go, but they all look towards the head of the table while the manager speaks for almost the entire hour. During this interview, on subordinate used strategy sessions as another example of a time his voice is not heard. Once a month our team meets to discuss negotiation strategy, and people are encouraged to share their own experiences so we can learn from each other. The problem with this, explained the interviewee, is that the manager typically does most of the talking. Also, since the manager attends, the employees don’t feel as comfortable talking about areas where they struggled in a specific negotiation. This means the employees are attempting to highlight their strengths in front of the manager instead of sharing helpful experiences with their peers.

Implications of the Interviews: Building a Better Organization

The initial implication of this interview is that we have a serious disconnect in the perceptions of leaders and followers. I will say, however, that there does seem to be a clear alignment within the leadership community and within the follower community – the two groups just don’t meet anywhere near the middle. In a way, I was comforted to receive the confirmation that most employees are seeing the same opportunities for change as I am. This didn’t comfort me because I wanted to know that my feelings are “popular” or “right.” Instead, this comforted me because it gave me hope that truly impactful change can be made in my organization.

I believe the key to building a better organization at my company is to help people understand the criticality of leadership at all levels. When organizations practice leadership at all levels, employees across the enterprise understand exactly what the organization is trying to accomplish, what they need to achieve as an individual contributor, and how to prepare for the unexpected (Obolensky, 2014). According to Lanng (2014):

Establishing an environment which offers employees in various levels with leadership opportunities opens the floor for a much more collaborative workspace resulting in a place where employees aren’t afraid to discuss ideas with each other, and in doing so present stronger, more well-thought-out ideas to higher-level management. This collaboration can prove critical when informed business decisions need to be made, increasing the likelihood of feedback and input from employees at all levels.

One of the easiest ways to help business leaders understand how critical two-way communication and complex adaptive leadership is to the company is to explain the correlation between skilled leaders, passionate followers, and a strong competitive advantage. According to Yates (2017), “skilled leaders are the driving force of successful businesses. They set and communicate the vision, motivate people and determine the tone for the culture. The difference they make can’t be underestimated.” Complex, adaptive leaders manage organizations with clear processes, flexible strategies, and advanced systems, which enables people to act quicker and more effectively (Obolensky, 2014).

Understanding My Role as a Change Agent

I am currently at a level within my organization that might just enable a better chance at having an impact. I am not a manager, so my ideas may be received better at the worker level. At the same time, I am progressing into a strong leadership role and have been given high visibility assignments, so I have the attention of some managers that I don’t normally have access to. I plan to use this unique position to promote leadership at every level within my organization.

First, I must be better about challenging mandated approaches if and when I believe they could be supplemented by strategic ideas from the rest of the team. I have to make these challenges around my peers with the hope that doing so will help them gain the courage to speak up as well. In addition, I plan to introduce the coaching style to managers in my organization because I do not believe this concept has ever been understood or practiced up to this point. To accomplish this, I will make a conscious effort to follow the grow model, which uses questioning to enable others to find their own way through the issues they are faced with (Obolensky, 2014).

Resources

George Mason University. Retrieved August 23, 2017 from https://gse.gmu.edu/research/tr/tr-action

Lanng, C. (2015). Here's how to foster leadership on all levels. Entrepreneur. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/233947

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

Yates, J. (2017). The leadership manifesto: developing leaders at all levels in 2017. HR Zone. Retrieved from https://www.hrzone.com/talent/development/the-leadership-manifesto-developing-leaders-at-all-levels-in-2017