A633.9.3.RB_Polyarchy Reflections_Wathen_Reece_Sandra

A633.9.3.RB_Polyarchy Reflections_Wathen_Reece_Sandra

First, I am writing this blog exclusively from my personal thoughts based on my past learning experiences in MSLD 633.  Although, much of my thinking has been influenced by Obolensky (2010) and many other journals and documentaries, these are my thoughts.

In the modern approach for leadership it focuses on the transition of oligarchy to polyarchy which is a significant change in organizational strategy; fewer leaders and more followers.  The world in which we live has given us fewer choices other than to grasp change - and grasp it quickly.  Not only in our business and professional worlds, but also our personal lives' as well.  It means getting things done but not necessarily doing them myself.  It means providing those the skills and tools to allow others to accomplish their task.  It means communicating both upward and downward.  It means letting go of things that I typically felt I had to do myself; concentrating on more important things.  It means teaching others to transition their mind-set to do the same.  It makes me now a disciple for change.

So then what does this mean to the assumptions of oligarchy style versus the transition to polyarchy such as the former leadership models and the possibility of redundancy in these models?  From an organizational perspective, it means changing the way you think.  It isn't a redundancy in models, it is using the content of the models in a different way.  In fact, polyarchy isn't really a new concept, Yin/Yang go back in history - it is the fact that the world is changing so quickly that now is the time to really start grasping, engaging, and implementing the approach. 

As a reflection on traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership, what are the implications and how will they affect me as a leader in the future?  Traditional style leaders became complacent and it is easy for leaders to become status quo.  However, the dynamics of our global world is forcing transition.  Many have engaged, some are struggling, others resisting the change.  Those that have engaged will prosper, those that don't may diminish.

What impact will they have on my future strategy?  I feel very confident, especially after participating in MSLD 633 that I understand what needs to be part of the future strategy in that the framework must include adaptiveness.   I have a greater awareness of all the key factors required to include in the strategy as well as depth and breadth of the whole.  The future strategy must consider all the components for complex adaptive systems; not just a few elements.  It requires thinking outside the box, focusing on emergence while managing chaos as simplicity.  It requires looking deep into the future and building a plan that can adapt to complexity; emerge from complexity and find opportunities from chaos.  It means building the strategy to optimize on all these factors so that the organization can achieve innovation and creativity - even in the midst of chaos and complexity.

Obolensky, N. (2010); Chapter 10. Complex Adaptive Leadership. Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Grower Publishing Company, Surrey, England

 

A633.8.3.RB_How Do Coaches Help?_Wathen_Reece_Sandra

A633.8.3.RB_How Do Coaches Help?_Wathen_Reece_Sandra

Coaches bring a synergy to finding solutions in a natural way. 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.

Given the statement above what is it that coaches do to provide value to their clients?

Coaches use their skills, abilities, and charisma to assist organizations  in transitioning their skills, talents, ideas into a method by which the outcome includes personal development and empowerment of the individuals.  It develops key communication channels which includes effective feedback.   Confidence is also increased as the capabilities are increased, self-motivation is energized, team-work incentivized, etc.  As a result it builds positive attitudes and personal energy.  Coaches add value in that they assist an organization to evolve to its highest level capability of the Level 5 maturity model.

Why is coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy?   

Coaching is a vital aspect of leadership in that it assists them to engage in adaptive leadership by just the nature of coaching.  It also encourages the "pull" technique when using the GROW model.  As a separate note, the GROW model is one of the most effective models for natural coaching through questioning techniques.  It is also vital to strategy as it provides a method to move the organization toward a high maturity level and allows leaders to let go.

How can it make a difference in an organization? 

Coaching makes a difference in an organization because it invokes intuitive techniques that resolve problems.  It can be vital for creating a bottoms-up approach since ideas and solutions are rising from the bottom of the organization.

What does this mean to you and your organization? 

It means that coaching has a dual purpose as it is an effective method to use for resolving problems, obtaining ideas, etc. and it also is a way to move the organization toward higher levels of followership and encouraging followers to take the lead.  What it really means is that coaches need to be pulled in more frequently as a tool for assisting the organization to emerge.

As far as my organization, I see it as a wonderful opportunity to leverage on a coach to help our organization move from the predominant traditional approached company to one that shows signs of an adaptive transition through coaching.  Using those ideas and creativity captured during the coaching sessions to push them to the top of the company for possible solutions, or at least recognize the power that is coming up from the bottom of the organization.

Obolensky, N. (2010); Chapter 10. Complex Adaptive Leadership. Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Grower Publishing Company, Surrey, England

A633.7.3.RB_Leader Follower Relationship_Wathen Reece Sandra

A reflection of my "Quick Test" and what this assessment means in terms of me being a leader and

my relationship to my followers.   This test provided me with an opportunity to evaluate myself on

how I respond to situations as a leader based on certain scenarios.  It is a situational leadership

awareness in that it allowed me to see what types of strategies I employ to solve each of the

leadership questions. 

 

There are four strategies that can determine which are being used based on the situation.  These are: S(1) which is Telling; S(2) which is to Sell; S(3) which is to Involve; S(4) which is to Devolve.  Each of these provide an insight to what leadership strategy is being employed.  The results of the test had my rankings highest in S1, next highest in S4, then S2 and then the lowest being S3.

S(1) is a category of telling someone how to do a task. It doesn't mean it is wrong It is important
before telling someone how to do something it is important to know what level followership they are.  If they are a level 5 then they don't need to know why (as that is part of S(2)).

S(2) is a category of when the workforce needs to own part of the solution along with the leader.  It is
considered a "buy-in" in which the people know the benefits. There is more listening and asking questions before determining solutions.

S(3) is a category in which the leader encourages solutions from the people.  This is considered a

"pull" strategy because in situations when time is not constrained it allows for knowledge sharing and

skills development.

S(4) is a category in which the 4 + 4 principles are being used and the leader is just watching; keeping a eye on things, plus looking ahead into the future goals.  Leaders are performing a support role primarily. 

This is considered the best strategy for a leader.  This lets me recognize the thinking behind the

strategies I employ when dealing with a situation and where I may need to change, or maybe readjust

my way of thinking when dealing under certain circumstances.  Although S(4) was my next highest

rating from the "Quick Test", I need to strive to be primarily an S(4).

It is amazing how much this course has changed my thinking about gaining followers.  I have for the

most part thought I needed to be an officially recognized leader to gain followers.  I since have

realized that all I need is to have the ability to lead.  It is about understanding people, knowing where

they are with skill/will, recognizing their ranges within the followership maturity model.  In addition,

understanding the two-way mutual communication required to be effective with upward/downward

leadership.  It is also about understanding complex adaptive systems and that I am only a node;

connected to the rest of the network - and the network and understanding the network is as important

as the nodes.

This course has provided me the framework with respect to my future leadership goals and

objectives. I am very confident that the learning experiences from this course has provided me with

invaluable information that will guide me to make the best of choices when making key and critical

leadership decisions as well as the application of upward/downward leadership.

A633.6.5.RB_Circle of Leadership_Wathen_Reece_Sandra

A633.6.5.RB_Circle of Leadership _Wathen Reece Sandra

The vicious circle for leaders happens in every organization; including mine.  The key is that leadership recognize that it is happening and take the necessary steps to either avoid it, or correct it when it forms.  When a leader finds himself in a vicious circle, it will drive a negative influence on the effective application of upward leadership; causing an adverse relationship for positive "team" capability.

Many times it can be the fault of leadership due to ineffective behavior or attitude, or possibly their lack of providing essential "tools" for the individuals such as processes, knowledge share, training, etc.  Or, it can be that it is a situational effect on the individual for not performing at a satisfactory level.  Either way, it is the responsibility of leadership to know the signs and respond accordingly; taking the necessary steps to get progress back on track.

Leadership behavior is a key factor for success; along with "skill/will" and striving to achieve "Level V followership" to fully optimize on gaining organizational upward leadership.  Without the successful combination of all three, the likelihood of  the people to assume full capability for leading themselves will be almost impossible; creating somewhat of a charade . 

 In addition, it is important for leadership to understand the interdependencies of these factors, as well as, to some extent each of these drives the other and vice versa.  There are situations where "Skill/will" and "Level V followership" is more effective than others and that is due to the fact that people react and perform differently depending on the circumstances.     

 
Leaders must also understand that all these factors combined represent a state of readiness for followership to assume level of responsibility, based on their skills (knowledge and capabilities) and their will (willingness to do the job) which includes motivation level; combined with where one is with their level of followership (levels one through five). 

Leadership must establish tactics to develop ways to move a person toward a Level V followership within the organization.  It often requires some commitment for change in behavior from leadership.  It also requires understanding and application of the five levels of the followership maturity model and the ability for leadership to know the dangers signs of when they are becoming part of the vicious circle.  This can become concerning for a leader in that at that point the follower has started to dictate the spiral downward rather than emerging to the next higher followership level. 

In an effort to show how the vicious circle can transition to a more positive approach to promote strong followership, I have provided the model below:

A633.5.3.RB_Reflections on Chaos_Wathe_Reece_Sandra

A633.5.3.RB_Reflections on Chaos_Wathen Reece Sandra

Based on the chaos game video, create a 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.

This video represents a real life example of what Obolensky also described in his book called Complex Adaptive Leadership in which it indicates how complexity and chaos can work and that there is an underlying order of complexity and simplicity.  This video provides a real-life example that complexity and or chaos can be simple.  As Obolesky (2010) describes it, "the more complex things are, the less traditional leadership one needs". 

The other interesting thing is that you only need a few simple basic rules to accomplish a task.   Some things are just too complex to manage in the traditional style of leadership.  It may often be deemed better not to have too much oversight in that it can cause even more chaos or adverse impacts. 

Being that the world has become so complex, there is a need to use less traditional leadership practices and concentrate on understanding and engaging with at least 8 indentified principles necessary for ensuring that the organization can manage complexity.  8 key principles that Obolensky recognizes - 5 are considered more obvious of the eight which are: Clear Individual Objectives; A Few Simple Rules; Continuous Feedback; Discretion and Freedom of Action; and Skill/Will of Participants. The other 3 less obvious of the 8 key principles are: Underlying Purpose; Clear Boundary; A Tolerance of the Players for Uncertainty and Ambiguity.

Defined strategy by Obolenksy is that it "can be seen as defining what is delivered to whom and how it is delivered.  In many ways once this is clear then self-organization can operate".  The implications it has on strategy is that it has created a broader and wider boundary; allowing larger participants of strategy within the organization - not just those at the top.  Mass intervention techniques are often used to permit larger number of people to be part of evolving strategies.  Basically, what this means is that strategy is open to most of the members of the organization and not limited to an elite few.

In comparison, the example by Obolenksy of Larry Hirschhorn and Thomas Gilore of Whartorn stated: "As organizations become more flexible, the boundaries that matter are in the minds of managers and employees...The traditional organizational map describes a world that no longer exists."

This is continued with the statement that they propose that the "new" organizational boundaries which need to be managed are the Authority boundary; the Task boundary; the Political boundary and the Identity boundaries.  The boundaries are interactive in nature and are not meant to stand-alone.

Then to add the dynamics of the four +four principles which really means to ensure that power is viewed from a totality perspective vice all of the parts and the relationship of those to the whole.  It is a way to represent the importance of consistency, reinforcing nature, need for balanced relationship/interdependencies of the principles while concurrently providing clear objectives, boundaries, rules and feedback with the goal of the organization to find its own innovative way to apply them.

So as to try and interpret this information, it is coming to realization that as our world becomes more complex, the meaning and power of these boundaries from when we once knew them also take a stronger form.  These are the ways in which we must embrace paradox and uncertainty as we move toward finding ways to manage in this world of complex adaptive leadership.

Obolensky, N. (2010); Chapter's 6 & 7. Complex Adaptive Leadership. Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Grower Publishing Company, Surrey, England

Obolensky, N (2008); Nick Obolensky presents "Who needs leaders?".  A 3.32 minute UTube; Uploaded April 12, 2008.

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Reflecting on the opening exercise at the beginning of Chapter 4 of the Obolensky text and other readings, 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?

A dramatic shift in leadership is occurring and is due to the transition from oligarchy to polyarchy which is causing a shift in leadership approach.  Like any transition there are bumps in the road, learning curves and the need for change in mind-sets, embracing uncertainty, being authentic ; but most of all it takes time and very open-minded leadership.  It is all about transitioning ourselves to be humbled, think differently, and be honest when we tread on areas of uncertainty.  Oh, and let's not forget it requires an attitude change.

In comparison of the company I am employed with respect to this shift in leadership it is quite confusing and is still being analyzed.  I have been trying to determine at what stage our company is in with respect to oligarchy and polyarchy, or, even if it is at all.  If it is in transition, it is in its infancy state or possible initial emergence.  It is still a very top heavy, centralized organization operating with the mentality of that solutions come from the top.   Every once in a while, you will see or feel a glimpse of polyarchy - but it seems to go right back into hiding.

There are very little signs of polyarchy.  Not many questions get asked down for answers to flow upward.  Not very often will the top indicate that they do not know the answer; rather they will continue to move forward applying oligarchic approach rather than admit they do not know. 

I do believe it can be applied and work rather effectively; however, it must be embraced by the CEO and senior leadership and they are the ones’ that are the worst offenders.  The company needs to take steps to encourage and develop good followership among their employees, to include redefining followership and leadership roles as equal, but different activities and to do so by training and by example.

So what this means is that it takes time and patience to break the charade; plus perseverance.  Although, changing leadership mind-set is one of the biggest challenges.  Leaders lose creditability with the people over time if they do not show that they are authentic and that they do what they say they will do, that they are not just a figure head; but someone that will make a difference.

In essence, it is not really about altering leadership dynamics to accommodate and promote these type changes; rather, it is about understanding and embracement of the modern approach to leadership.  Things are changing, therefore we must adapt.  Another important thing to remember is that the key rule is honesty over bluffing.  It is about using uncertainty in a positive way and understanding that honesty gets better results.  It is about using a high degree of finesse that is required with approach and that this can be an effective method for breaking the charade.  And lastly, it is important to use an honest approach that generates good dialogue for fielding questions and be sincere about finding the answers.

The implications of not emerging and adapting to the modern approach to leadership is possible death to the company.  At a minimun, it stifles the company and minimizes the ability to optimize on creativity, innovation, self-worth and empowerment.  It continues to allow leaders to live in an artificial world today by living and operating in the past.

A633.3.3.RB_Complex Adaptive Systems_Reece_Wathen_Sandra

A633.3.3.RB_Complex Adaptive Systems_Reece_Wathen_Sandra

Find a company which reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and reflect in your blog what the implications are for you and your present organization (or any organization you are familiar with). Add your insights from your interview of the company executive responsible for strategy formulation in your company. Identify what you believe are appropriate actions to move your organization forward.

 

First, let's take a quick look at two Complex Adaptive System (CAS) type companies; St. Luke and Morning Star.  Both of these companies share very similar business strategies.

St. Luke which is a 115 employee strong company in the United Kingdom (UK) is based on open information sharing; informal hierarchy for the most part, and what is formal is rather decentralized , very dynamic with focus on meeting the stakeholder needs than focusing on running the company

St. Luke has a corporate culture that is focused on personal responsibility and accountable; extremely important with high performance expectations.   This is a company that has no bosses and owned by the employees, as well as, a low turnover rate.  They work hard to find talent and are often seen as a very hard company to get employed with. There corporate goals were to be revolutionized and strategies for employee ownership, innovation and collaboration and have the competitive advantage.  They are very determined not to be a stove piped organization, but more diverse with the company skill base and encourage workers to be cross-functional.     St. Luke's puts extra emphasis on importance of recording successes as well as failures as it is an important tool for envisioning the future.  They have a name brand of their own that has fostered a creative company.

More specifically in the Harvard Business Reviews it is one of the fastest growing companies in the UK.  Diane Coutu describes  the success of St. Luke's as being "driven by the firm's determination to continuously reinvent itself in a world populated by dotcoms and mega-ad agencies".  Their goal is to revolutionize the way business is done.  St. Luke's pursues its goal by carefully managing a paradox and does this by encouraging employees to take risks, yet it still provides a safe feeling environment for employees.  In summary, this company is taking full advantage of living in a time that allows for open creativity.

In comparison, Morning Star, Inc. is one of the world's largest tomato processing companies in the United States and the company is very profitable in that it funds its own internal sources.  It is considered a very unusual company because of how it is managed.    

Morning Star, Inc. recognizes that there is a high cost to the business as a result of unnecessary hierarchy at the management level.  Their strategy is to allow the employees to be empowered, self-managed and have their own personal mission statement that defines what they will do for the company to help meet its goals.  They believe in allowing their people freedom in seeking challenges and accepting increased roles and responsibilities, as well as encourage people to do what they do good.

In summarization of Morning Star, Inc., it is a global market company that has become a global market leader where the people manage themselves.  Pretty much the working people do it all themselves; initiating their own procurements, hiring, etc.  This is an example of success by freedom versus control.  They are about reducing hierarchy in the organization and promoting freedom of management to the working level.    They feel that those that are not in the front line really don't understand the underlying problem, they also think that layers of management impede on the process.  In addition, they also allow the employee to have freedom with requisitions - the thinking is that if they can purchase something at that level at home and be responsible then why couldn't that apply at work. 

So as to compare Google to St. Luke's and Morning Star, Inc. to that of the style of leadership that has brought Google to the top.  As a comparison - Google operates using a smart, innovative and somewhat risky business model that has worked well.   Although the type of business is much different that the other two mentioned earlier, Google is a CAS.  They worked hard at brand building and built their brand in such a way that seemed to most almost unbelievable.  Google believed in unlocking company potential and allowing freedom for workers to be creative and forward thinkers. 

Their corporate leadership had the ability to think outside-the-box. As described on http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/ - there are ten things about Google to be true:  (1)  Focus on the user and all else will follow; (2) It is best to do one thing really, really well; (3) Fast is better than slow; (4) Democracy on the Web works; (5) You don't need to be at your desk to need an answer; (6) You can make money without doing evil; (7) There's always more info out there; (8) The need for information crosses all borders; (9) You can be serious without a suit; and (10) Great just isn't good enough. 

Google's mission statement "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" and their corporate culture is that the people make the company.  They are known to hire people who are smart and determined and the characteristics they look for in people is not always experience but instead their abilities.  They have an open culture and everyone's ideas are welcomed - and the people are comfortable providing their ideas.  Their infrastructure offers and encourages interaction at all levels.

First of all, I cannot say that I have been affiliated with any organizations like that of that to Morning Star and St. Luke’s, nor of Google.  Most of my career was working as a civil servant, supporting the Department of the Navy (Don) then retired and now working as a contractor, for a small business company still supporting DoN.

As a civil servant supporting DoN,  I basically supporting “a system”; a very “complex system” composed of much hierarchy, oligarchy, and centralized.  There was not much opportunity of CAS while I was employed at DoN.  You see, when you work for the government, it is governed by many rules, policies, authorities, etc.  Right before I retired, they were moving to high-performance teams, Lean Six Sigma, etc.  However, were still functional under the more moderate, traditional method of leadership; hierarchical.

I am now a contractor, 12 years after retiring from the government and still supporting DoN.  One thing that I have noticed as I reflect, the government is also starting to transition – but it takes a long time for such a complex system known as the “government” to transition to anything; typically being behind the curve in any complete change.  It is like moving an elephant.  Unfortunately, by the time they can convert to something they are already behind the curve.

To focus on where I am today, I support a small business, minority, female owned company that is in its 14^th year of existence; still supporting DoN. 

From the time I started here, I continually talk with the regional Vice President (VP) with respect to ideas.  I have learned from my career past that you have to find ways to try to get your ideas across and also across to the right person(s).  So, in my recent journey of finding an individual that I could acquire a mutual professional relationship was VP, Steve.  It was quite obvious that he was a person that had great insight to the company, also has a report with CEO and a most noteworthy modern day approach to leadership.

I also knew that he also recently pursued additional Master’s in Leadership and was very savvy on the modern day approach to leadership.  I recently spoke with him for a few minutes to talk about the company and also see his perspective for strategy formulation from our company perspective, and as to compare and contrast.

 
VP Steve has been with the company for eight of the 14 years of its existence.  He has been a tremendous asset to the CEO in that he has been successful at influencing CEO and more Senior VPs to trust in him and have adopted many of his ideas for changes to the company.  Unfortunately, our company is very hierarchical and still hiring middle managers.

Our current CEO was a local female “home girl” that decided to start-up a contracting business predominantly supporting the government business.   She is very savvy, business smart; but has limited formal education on leadership.  However, we have been slowly moving to a more cross functional way in which we do business. 

I scheduled a meeting with VP Steve.  He really is a people person; genuine and cares both about the company and about the people.  One of the inherent problems that plagues our company is that all the leadership and managers have been forced to engage and devote a large percentage of their time on new business and future work captures; leaving little time to make qualitative/quantitative changes for the people or current organizational changes.  VP, Steve has just recently been diagnosed with Lymphoma cancer and going through treatments.  So this is my lead in on how my discussions went with him:

First, I never go in to meet with him without some ideas written down that I have had in mind that I would like to share; never want to miss an opportunity to get in some of those while I have a few minutes with him.

As usual, always cordial and open-door policy.  He provided me his thoughts on how he has tried on numerous occasions to promote ideas of change to the CEO with no prevail.  Most of these ideas are to instill a corporate culture that fosters a working environment that promotes productivity, creativity, freedom, innovation, etc.  He has also been trying to find ways to develop career-tracks, mentoring and shadowing programs.  He too has seen a low morale and dysfunctional areas in our organization; including stove-pipe functional areas that need changed to the more modern approach; polyarchy.  As a result of our meeting, he has asked me to put a brief to together that he can present to the CEO.   

In summary, it is obvious that most of the current companies that are on the top or are on the leading edge of technology, are those that have grasped and embraced CAS.  This is another reason as to why it is so critical for all current and future leaders of the world to also embrace the modern approach to leadership and to clearly understand the implications by not adopting the newly proven approach.  It also has made me realize that the system in which I am integrated called the "government" has lesser chances of really adopting this methodology.  This is very concerning when you really think deep into the implications of the government over time.  Especially when current scholars in the field make the comments that you need to "adapt or die".