Obolensky starts chapter 10 of his book on complex adaptive leadership with a quiz to help leaders understand where their mind is mapped in terms of leadership strategy. In this quiz, readers can score as a strategy 1, 2, 3, or 4 leader based on how they say they’d address certain teams and individual followers within the organization. The intent of the quiz is to help readers assess the direction their leadership style is going as a result of Obolensky’s text. The number of different types of leadership styles can be overwhelming at times, but Obolensky (2014) broke it down into four different strategies, as follows:
Strategies 1-4
- Strategy 1 leaders tell people how to accomplish a task, which might include simply giving them the information needed to accomplish it.
- Strategy 2 leaders practice selling skills, which means that they to explain the benefits associated with certain organizational changes and they ask for followers to share concerns about factors that could get in the way of success.
- Strategy 3 leaders like to involve followers in the decision-making process, often soliciting team members opinions of what they think is the best approach to solving problems, even if the leader already has an idea of how to move forward.
- Strategy 4 leaders prefer to devolve, meaning they let things play out naturally and hold back the urge to get involved until absolutely necessary.
Obolensky (2014) grouped strategy 1 and 2 leaders together and explained them as strategies that are needed when a leader has pre-determined the solution and choses to either tell it or sell it to followers. Strategy 3 and 4 leaders, on the other hand, are described by Obolensky (2014) as those who do not know the solution (or chooses not to offer it) and follow or support followers instead.
Changes to My Leadership Style
Several weeks ago, I would have rated myself as a strategy 2 leader, which meant that I tended to sell the reasons for change to followers. I might even take this a step further and say I liked to convince followers that they should embrace organizational actions and/or new ideas. I behaved this way because I wanted followers and peers to feel the same way I did about an upcoming change. Over the past several weeks, as a result of Obolensky and others, my perspective on leadership has changed. Upon completing the quiz on leadership strategy and compiling my scores, I discovered my current leadership style leans heavily towards strategy 3: Involve. In fact, 10 out of only 16 possible points were assigned to the strategy 2 category, with the other 5 and 1 points falling under strategy 1 and strategy 2, respectively. Rather than trying to sell or persuade followers to buy into my approach, I am learning to let the followers sell me.
So what does this changing style mean for me as a leader? First, it means I am becoming more inclusive, by “taking account of the needs and expectations of followers” (Hollander, 2008, p. 47). It also means that I have recognized the shift in leadership from traditional leaders who take control of all decision making and complex adaptive leaders who practice open communication and decision making at all levels. I strive to find a solid balance between maintaining a reputation as someone who has the knowledge and skills to direct followers towards a path and someone who stands back and lets followers take the reigns. More simply, I want to be a leader who trusts the employees and feel that the employees trust me in return.
Future Leadership Objectives
Strong leaders recognize their dependency on responsive followers who welcome the opportunity to play a role in setting organizational strategy (Hollander, 2008). My future objectives are to build up my current progression from a strategy 2 leader to a strategy 3 leader and continue making employees feel valued. I plan to do this by taking each of the following steps, as suggested by Stark (2010):
Obolensky’s (2014) quiz reminded us that strong leaders may take different approaches depending on the situation in front of them, which aligns with Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model. Situational leaders assess organizational factors along with the willingness of followers to get involved in necessary action. In some cases, leaders asses their role to be that of a teller and seller (strategy 1 and 2 leaders) and in other cases the leader involves or devolves (strategy 3 and 4 leaders). One strategy is not necessarily better or more effective than the other. The best strategy for leaders depends on the situation leaders and followers face at any given moment. The key for becoming a strong leader in my own right is to remember the criticality of embracing and displaying qualities like flexibility and adaptability.
Application to Strategy
The benefits associated with increasing involvement of followers in the development and execution of strategy are clear. Involved employees become invested in the organizational direction and are more motivated to see the strategy succeed. According to Heifetz and Laurie (1997), one of the best things leaders can do during strategy development is to “frame the key questions and issues,” and then let followers make decisions. This is what strategy 3 leadership is all about. Although leaders are seen by many as the most knowledgeable and qualified person in the room, many people (including me!) argue that a robust strategy can only be built through collaboration and teamwork. The best strategic ideas “reside not in the executive suite, but in the collective intelligence of employees at all levels, who need to use one another as resources” (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997).
I can apply these ideas to strategy in my own organization by becoming more thoughtful about the questions I ask in strategy sessions. Strategy 3 leaders are skilled at reaching out to members of the team and gathering opinions/suggestions/ideas on what approach to take. Through this process, people are given a voice who might not normally speak up. Some employees are hesitant to offer their recommendations, but may feel open to doing so if they are asked directly during the strategy session. By applying strategy 3 leadership qualities to the process of developing strategies and solving organizational problems, my organization is more likely to find innovative, creative, and efficient ways of moving forward.
Resources
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The Work of Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124-134.
Hollander, E. (2008). Inclusive Leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=LHiak0kfQTwC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=involving+followers&source=bl&ots=vjondRKyPm&sig=99FqA9W2iMOLeX0MrT03lN6V2ns&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM55mS7dvVAhUrsVQKHXoLCqoQ6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=involving%20followers&f=false
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). New York, New York: Gower Publishing.
Stark, P.B. (2010). 6 Reasons to Involve Employees in Decision Making. Peter Baron Stark Companies. Retrieved from https://www.peterstark.com/key-to-engagement/
No comments:
Post a Comment