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.