A633.9.3.RB_BuebyJames

A633.9.3.RB - Polyarchy Reflections

Most leadership models have the assumption of oligarchy – leadership is done by a few leaders over many followers. If polyarchy is fast replacing the old oligarchy assumptions does this make these old leadership models redundant? 

            I wouldn't necessarily classify them as being no longer needed because these models have been the foundation for leadership for many years. Oligarchy does in fact work, it's just no longer efficient in today's complex environment. To apply Polyarchy effectively, one must first understand the necessity for its creation. Traditional models are generally accepted in broader terms, and are probably easier to initially understand. Therefore, if an organization is in their conception phase then a traditional model initially might make it easier to get things going. Polarchy takes time to develop, and is constantly changing. There are facets of Polarchy and CAL that can be applied to any organizations style and have positive effects. The more you get to know your culture, the easier it is to push and pull when needed.   

Reflecting on traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership, address the implications and how they will affect you as a leader in the future. 

            I definitely know that I need to let-go more, and in fact I do, but it's painstakingly hard at times because of how inefficient some subordinates are. It does take time for coaching to start working and the process overall will streamline faster, it just takes a lot of effort from the collective to get up to the level of followership that is necessary for Polyarchy to thrive. Not only do I need to let go, but influencing other leaders to let go helps build a culture that really supports CAL. To get everybody on board and sell the concept, individuals at the strategic level need to help influence the masses in order to motivate the will of change. Without the proper motivation, morale will start to diminish and the transformation will be rather painful and hugely inefficient. I think another great way to get all parties involved is to have offsite work groups where Polyarchy can be practiced using curriculum that focuses on enjoyable activities. This removes the stress in business dynamics, and allows the focus to be on the process.   

Use all you have learned as well as the 70–20–10 approach.  What impact will all of this have on your future strategy?

            If my current job would allow time to explore tangential projects or something completely new, I'd be all in. This can happen at some points in time for military organizations, but since our current operational tempo is so rapid, unfortunately we are missing out on some of the creative processes that the 20-10 side of the picture could reveal. Segers (2012) states that "leadership development should move beyond the 70:20:10 rule, and into evidence based leadership development. It seems that individuals, organizations, and societies need it today more than ever." He's an advocate for the focus on formal leadership training as the primary means for learning. Another advocate for this view is Tacy M. Byham, PhD, CEO of Development Dimensions International (DDI) and states that

"Similarly, it is far better to set our new leaders up for success in their skill development (such as selling or coaching) with formal learning than to let them learn by trial-and-error. Indeed, as Alfred E. Neuman said, “The problem with learning from experience is that you always get the test before the lesson. Hence, DDI’s take on this development philosophy is that of 10:20:70."

I thought this to be an interesting side of the 70-20-10 perspective but not sure I'm all in for the process. I think the best mantra to have is to be adaptive and create a culture that is focal on what the situation demands.

References

Byham, T. (2015). Is 70:20:10 relevant today? Retrieved from https://www.td.org/insights/is-70-20-10-relevant-today-part-2

Obolensky, M. N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership, 2nd Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781472447937/

Segers, J. (2012). The problem with the 70:20:10 rule in leadership development. Retrieved from https://thefutureleadershipinitiative.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/the-problem-with-the-702010-rule-in-leadership-development/

A633.8.3.RB_BuebyJames

Interview both superiors and subordinates in your organization with questions focused on the central theme of how the organization can better enable leadership at all levels.

            When putting the results together to better foster the leadership climate as a whole, a few similar characteristics were found. The most predominate factor that allows leadership to better be enabled is communication. There seems to be a lack of 'effective' communication in my organization because too many times initiative is exercised but is continually perceived to be in the wrong direction. This inhibitor stifles both motivation and morale which causes the opposite effect initiative is intended. Subordinates feel as though they are afforded to opportunity to lead, but isn't given the proper mentorship that allows their practice to be effective, and seemingly a waste of time. In retrospect, leaders were unaware of the lack of mentorship, and up flow of communication is the culprit. Overall it's hard to judge how to better enable leadership when communication is lacking, but it is understood by all parties that the flow of information does need to be a two way street.

            Getting information flowing is the first step to getting the organization more streamlined with strategy. This enables everyone to be involved in the process of finding solutions and action through both individual and collective goals. I've seen many strategies work in the past, but the problem with the current organization is how fast our doctrine is transitioning. This then doesn't allow the individuals who process the techniques on a daily bases to understand the fundamental and powerful concept. It feels at times like going back to chaos all over again. No focus on the process of first understanding and then applying, but in-fact just going straight into action. This is killing motivation and morale, which can severely delay the necessary output for where support is needed most. 

            Probably the most viable role I can play is being an advocate for all facets that are lacking. Being a mediator allows me to push in one area, and pull form another based on what the individual groups can handle. I'm actually in a very rare position in an organization because I have a huge amount of influence on what actually happens, but am not directly responsible or accountable for the results. I operate with multiple chains of accountability, and am mentored and coached by both who can serve different agendas at times (if it seems strange, it's because in-fact it is). My door is always open and this allows me to gain perspectives from all operational sides. Not only do I have tacit knowledge because of experience, but am learning different perspectives of how individuals practice this differently. Generational behaviors are becoming exponentially different in a much shorter time nowadays, and knowing how to bridge these gaps with effective communication is probably where my organization can benefit most from me.

References

Eisenhauer, T. (2015). 14 foolproof tips for managing generational age gap in the workplace. Retrieved from https://axerosolutions.com/blogs/timeisenhauer/pulse/302/14-foolproof-tips-for-managing-generational-age-gap-in-the-workplace

Obolensky, M. N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership, 2nd Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781472447937/

 

A633.7.4.RB_BuebyJames

A633.7.4.RB - How Do Coaches Help?

To be an executive coach, it is necessary to know that clients are the first and best experts 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, often they already made a complete inventory of their personal or professional issues and identified all possible (known) options. Clients have already tried working out their issues alone, and have not succeeded.

            Indeed employees of all levels will call on external help in order to better guide them in a desired direction. For the lowest level employee their own peers typically employ these coaching methods frequently. If there is a further need for coaching/mentoring then a good majority of the time a manager or any form of leadership steps in and helps get the ball rolling again. The method of deliver is just as important as the content of the session, and must be managed very carefully. Tanner (2018) states that "the manager must avoid the urge to tell the employee what he must do to solve his performance issues. Instead, she should engage him in “owning the solution” for his performance issues." Hopefully this tactic allows for buy-in by the subordinate and helps self-motivate them in order to fast-track back to normal performance.

            Subordinate coaching and mentoring is usually not such a tricky venture because it's something that's expected to happen. Now when it comes to those in leadership positions, especially at a higher level, the problems they are trying to address can be very complicated. As stated above, these individuals usually have thought through their issues many times, and when trying to deal with complexity, the simple direction usually doesn't seem very plausible initially because it can be seem as almost elementary. Higher-level leaders view their own leadership as needing to have great vision, and their actions need to be highly regarded. This is all fine, but these pressures tend to lead individuals to over think things, thus creating the conundrum they think they are currently in. The job of the coach is to allow them to understand and accept an answer that the already know.

            Obolensky claims that of all the attractors mentioned, coaching requires a good amount of skill and is probably the most powerful (2014, figure 10). It's all about being able to the fill in the gaps between constantly being involved, and allowing a devolved strategy to work. This is where proper coaching can help mentor individuals in the allowing themselves to continually self-lead and essentially self-motivate. Obolensky (2014) claims that " the most effective one for Complex Adaptive Leadership is the GROW model coupled with a questioning technique which makes use of a mix of open/closed and suggestive/non-suggestive questions." This construct can help the coacher guide the individual through all available options for the them to self-generate alternatives. All you are doing is essentially opening a series of pathway options that the one being coach already has. Hopefully this series of doorway opening will arrange several options together creating a better vision for the way forward. If the individual who created the picture can really see it then boom, buy-in.

References

Alumw. (n.d.). Chaos theory and strange attractors. Retrieved from http://www.alunw.freeuk.com/chaos.html

Obolensky, M. N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership, 2nd Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781472447937/

Tanner, R. (2018). Motivation -  steps for coaching difficult employees. Retrieved from https://managementisajourney.com/motivation-7-steps-for-coaching-difficult-employees/

A633.7.3.RB_BuebyJames

A633.7.3.RB - Leader Follower Relationship

Reflect on what this assessment means in terms of you as a leader and your relationship to your followers. strat 1=3 strat 2=4 strat 3=6  strat 4=3

            Before this class, I would say I had some understanding of poly/oligarchic organizations and the basic leadership characteristics they behold, but never really knew just how much study went into these practices. I'd have to say that my current evaluation of an organization based on the questionaire in chapter 10 would probably be different before I started this course. Having a better understanding of complexity helps mentor the mind into being able to spot it quicker, and understand it more clearly and effectively. It's almost like applying a certain set of filters after critically thinking about any given piece of information. My organization scored mostly towards the middle of the chart with some recognizable outliers. For me this means we have some stark differences between the way certain matters are accomplished. I do however think this isn't very bad given the nature of my organization. We have leaders who possess all sorts of different leadership characteristics and variants of them individually.

            Just a couple weeks ago, some of the exercises we completed are actually linked to several experiments that I had been part of when I was a child or teenager. I thought I understood their principles then, but now I clearly can see that I did not. I'm not even completely convinced that my teachers who were leading the exercises even had a true understanding of what was transpiring. I can however see that through many tools this course has exposed, my level of critical thinking has gained a few new lenses that help shape me to identify, isolate, and understand complexity with respects to strategy. Why is shaping needed? Lumen (n.d.) states that 'in order for reinforcement to work, the organism must first display the behavior. Shaping is needed because it is extremely unlikely that an organism will display anything but the simplest of behaviors spontaneously." Therefore, when individuals start emerging with certain tactics, this is where good mentors can quickly idenftify, modify, and direct them into the most productive manner possible. There certainly is an art to understanding this new form of science, especially how it relates to organizational behaviors and processes. The problem where I can see most failing is the continued practice of the process. Change in behavior is usually linked to some form of experience, whether it be yours or shared. Therefore, having the right mindset to absorb the right amount of complexity, and realizing the true nature of simplicity better equips leaders with the right set of tools to put these conceptions into action.

            Change whether it be good or bad is ultimately a continued behavior until complexity has run out. The thought of that almost scares me initially, but if everything finally comes into balance, then I guess the practice might need to change in order to make chaos interesting again, who knows. Not only has this assessment (and others as well) allowed me to view complexity and strategic planning from a different focal point, but also has opened my eyes as to where I can personally self correct some of my behaviors in order to get a more efficient devolved process going in my organization. This process focuses on really knowing where individuals lay whether it be people or goal oriented. Overall, I'm starting to realize that my leadership focus in regards to strategy should focus more on setting a system in place that allows for my direct interaction to be minimized or even be required if that makes sense. Too many times, I've seen it in an organizations where when the figure heads are gone, productivity comes to a screeching halt because nobody is used to acting through disciplined initiative. I certainly don't want to be a contributor factor to that eventuality any further, so I'll no doubt think about my thinking a little further.

References

Lumen (n.d.) Operant conditioning. Retrieved from operant-conditioning


Obolensky, M. N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership, 2nd Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781472447937/

 

A633.6.4.RB_BuebyJames

A633.6.4.RB - Circle of Leadership

Does this happen in your organization?  What are the effects on the organization? Create a new circle that would promote strong followership and even leadership at the lower levels of the organization. Ensure that this reflects the actions and involvements of all significant functions such as; Sales, Marketing, Finance, Accounting, Operations, Marketing, and Distribution.

            Of course, a form of this "charade" happens in all organizations not just mine. The main problem stems from immaturity in leadership or business interactions alone. Immaturity might not classify everybody's behavior, but rather individuals early on in their social interactions with new members seem to be a bit more politically correct in order to feel out the individual. This my spark individuals to seem alerted if they haven't perceived the interaction as being polite. Of course, this isn't always the case, but for initial interactions, it usually is. Also with new members to the organization, they also fall victim into this trap because it's usually a safer practice to ask first versus doing something what's unbeknown to you . Once people start to gain a heightened sense of confidence in the "skill" zone, then they'd most likely feel comfortable displaying some disciplined initiative without direction. It certainly a two way street, and takes overt action to break this mundane cycle. Usually I find it best to sit an individual down and do some formal counseling, for which I focus on their positive performance, but now want to push them into the next category in order to progress them their career field.

            This can in-fact be a charade that's intended. I wouldn't necessary stamp this as negative interaction, especially if the organization is very young at all facets. For me, if initially an organization under communicates then chaos is usually unleashed fairly early, and then everybody looks at leadership as the culprit. I see that over communication usually happens when leadership positions are exercising parallel learning tactics in order to learn, mentor, coach, and evaluate all at the same time. This happens constantly for new lieutenants straight out of flight school in my formation. They have a good core concept of leadership as a general sense, but are "suppose" to be the leaders of the many who are in fact the ones responsible for training them, very awkward situation for many. I've found that the leaders who succeed at this venture really ask many questions, especially the ones like "where can I help you." This allows the individual to gain report in the formation as well as hyper-accelerating their position as both a functional member in the force, and as a leader.   

            I'm really a super fan of Obolensky's (2014) statement that "leaders get the followers they deserve" and "followers get the leaders they deserve." This really puts the onus on both individuals to bring their best to the table when it comes to serving the organization. We are way to politically correct in today's society and I think that is one of the contributors to all the charades that partake daily. Individuals use this as an excuse as to why they weren't acting in a manner that's more appropriate, far too many crutches out there.

            I don't think a hard in stone "circle for leaders" should ever be established because that style of thinking lacks critical thinking, and doesn't adopt a complex strategy for mentoring. As a critical thinker, when an employee comes to me improperly for direction, I simply ask them if they conferred with one of their piers initially. I'm a big fan of peer driven mentorship, because this is where I get to witness new leaders starting to emerge. This also allows me to identify my key players and the roles that others are accustomed too. As well, I get to observe and start to see where individuals start setting in as strict followers. I then pull them out of the game, unknowingly to the other members, counsel, coach, mentor, and motivate them, then get them back into the game.  The Military Leader states that "counseling your team is a lot like creating a leader development program…if you overthink it, it’ll never get done." The main point I'm trying to make is that cycles happen because both the leader and the subordinate don't take overt action to break it. It's very easy to get caught up in a repetitive cycle, because individuals feel as though they have found their lane and start feeling comfortable. You have to break the chain at the most opportune time in order to keep confidence in the individual and the tem rolling in the right direction. This of course takes time and mentorship from other leaders when new leaders don't know the best tactics to break the chain.

            I'd conclude that my proposed circle of leadership would look more like the Olympic Flag, with each intersection being a pit stop for counseling. This counseling's can serve a multitude of functions and can either get individuals back in track, transition them into totally different department based on a certain skill set, or get them positioned into a heightened level of responsibility. My biggest consideration is to have a program that allows many different options for leaders to utilize when dealing with the array of charades that they will indeed encounter.

References

Obolensky, M. N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership, 2nd Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781472447937/

The Military Leader. (2018). 12 tips for effectively counseling your subordinates. Retrieved from https://www.themilitaryleader.com/12-tips-for-effectively-counseling-your-subordinates/

 

A633.5.3.RB_BuebyJames

A633.5.3.RB - Reflections on Chaos

Create a reflection blog on what this exercise meant to you and how it impacts your understanding of chaos theory; include the implications that this has on strategy.

            It's nice to reenact this exercise some 20yrs later after the first time I did it back in High School. The results this time were actually a bit slower, even when working with high speed/disciplined Soldiers. In-fact, we did the exercise five separate times, and after the second time we conducted the experiment I noticed a very distinct change. I initially gave the group the very same set of rules as outlined in the original game, and the results were fairly similar to what I've seen in several videos, and what I experienced back in High School. The second time I decided to add an additional variable. Unknowingly, I made the game much more complicated based on such a tiny variable. I told the group that if they could beat their initial time, they would get the rest of the day off. Little did they know that they were in-fact already going to get the day of anyways, but that's not the point. Once I said go, my initial thoughts were that they indeed would get the task done faster, but actually it took them almost 3 times as much time to complete the task. Their movements were so chaotic, people running into each other and falling down all over the place. It was almost like watching the butterfly effect run its course right before my very eyes, indeed comical but rather puzzling.

            The objectives I set were still clear, explicit, and individual as Obolensky (2014) lays out during his explanation of the eight principles. So where did I go wrong I questioned? I figured this action must have been a fluke so I had them do it repeatedly. The results did get slightly better, but still nowhere close to the original time. Lastly, I had them run the simulation one more time but instructed them to move slowly and deliberately. Voila! The group was able to complete the task, and even beat their original time. The fact that I overly motivated the group and instructed them to move quickly in order to complete the task was the external pressure that caused complexity to transition into chaos.

            Lastly, I gave one of my of my soldiers the opportunity to lead the task in order to make things less chaotic. Operations were very calculated, but the process was painstakingly long. After just ten minutes, I had to call the exercise because I think it would have taken an hour to get it accomplished. What I was witnessing was in-fact a few different principles that embody chaos theory. Initially no one person could possibly predict what was happening because everything looked so radically chaotic. When you remove all the mass chaos, and evaluate processes individually, behaviors start to emerge as being very simplistic. Are behaviors deterministic in nature or by process alone? What external factors lead these behaviors in the direction they take? Would the outcome be any different if I completed this take on a Monday versus a Friday? I read an interesting opposition thesis about Chaos Theory and it doesn't necessarily refute Chaos Theory but identifies that the term is definitely being applied to broadly these days.

            "Misunderstandings about the nature of non-linear systems and the kinds of dynamics they generate, misunderstandings concerning the nature of feedback, and about conditions for the emergence of chaos, which in some cases is treated as a fact of life rather than a mode appearing under certain, usually rare, circumstances," Galbraith (2002).

I'm certainly no expert on Chaos Theory, but can relate to Galbraith's notion that we tend to find certainty out of misconception when failing to apply the necessary critical thinking process in order to understand the fundamental and powerful concept. Sometimes if you utilize the wrong lens, or bend the correct lens just enough, you might find the answer you were initially looking for which refutes the principal of critical thinking altogether.

References

Galbraith, P. (2002).  Organizational leadership and chaos theory. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a87e/0642e0aa07733c9cb5351990462ca6979cac.pdf

Obolensky, M. N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership, 2nd Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781472447937/

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Why do you think the shift in leadership is occurring and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization? List three reasons that support or refute this position. If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes? What are the implications on strategy?

            It's pretty clear that many organizations understand a shift in strategic planning is imminent, but don't agree that business in general has made or is currently shifting. I would say that there is definitely a lot of "talk" about the necessity for change, but so many work dynamics are changing right now, it's hard to stay current. I do have to acknowledge the successes at Zappos, Valve, and Morning Star. Their holacratic approach to managing business has gained a lot of attention, by providing a lack of management. Stewart (2018) raises a few good questions "do your managers enhance your work and enable your people? If so, great. Or do they take up huge amount of time and resources doing that management thing?" Holacracy certainly won't work for all organizations, but this practice has certainly brought light to an innovative way to strategize leadership structures.

            Anthony (2005) claims that "Conclusive, concrete evidence pointing to the need for a strategy shift rarely arrives early enough for the information to be acted on effectively." For me it's pretty clear that you really have to invest a full understanding of your company, know your competitive advantage, and constantly evaluate the market. Market demands are constantly changing, especially when economic pressures are so prevalent. This doesn't necessarily mean that leadership styles are shifting one way or the other. I think that leadership in a general sense will have certain attributes that are similar to what our culture is like at a given point in time. As our culture dynamics shift, then it's only natural to have morals and ethics align with them as well. These external pressures drive internal reflections that spark the need change.

            Losing your competitive advantage through product innovation is certainly a reality for many companies as they start to peak, so how do you find your next niche. Denning (2013) states that "competitive advantage is transient, not sustainable. To operate, we need a new set of assumptions about how the world works and “a new playbook to compete and win when competitive advantages are transient.” This is where I do in-fact see a good number of organizations taking heed and finding new advantage through restructuring their strategy process. The need is real, and for many legacy companies who won't restructure their strategy, they'll ultimately be at the demise of their own success.

            When it comes to strategy, fluid dynamics comes to mind. Establishing a playbook that allows a company to deal with change seamlessly supports this principle. Keeping complexity from becoming chaotic in practice, all while staying on the verge of innovation is such a key factor in today's economy. This is certainly not something that is going to be easy for a company. In fact, it will probably be almost as painful as taking on a new information system. For the transition to work, leadership from the top really has to admit the change needs to happen, and then really sell it. Only after buy-in has occurred, and the strategy has been practice many times is when the culture starts to catch up and allows harmony to set back in.

References

Anthony, S. (2005). Is it time to shift strategy. Retrieved from https://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/is-it-time-to-shift-strategy

Denning, S. (2013). It's official! the end of competitive advantage. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/06/02/its-official-the-end-of-competitive-advantage/#573a05b61565

Obolensky, M. N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership, 2nd Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781472447937/

Stewart, H. (2018). 8 companies that don't have managers. Retrieved from             https://www.happy.co.uk/5-companies-that-dont-have-managers/