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
Griffin, N. (2003). Personalize Your Management Development
Groth, A. (2012, Nov. 27). Everyone Should Use Google's Original
'70-20-10 Model' to Map Out Their Career
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment