A633.9.3.RB - Shuck, Allison

Polyarchy Reflections

The approach of Complex Adaptive Leadership, when considered in the light of polyarchy, recognizes various leadership issues, such as: not letting go, working too hard and playing a bit of a charade. Although these issues are present in most organizations, leaders have begun to break free from of such unnecessary stressors and have started embracing the emergence of polyarchy. Polyarchy is seen as a positive force that breaks traditional oligarchy assumptions of knowing everything. Leaders today need to understand that being a leader no longer requires knowing the solutions and passing then on; it requires having the ability to listen well, in order to spot solutions and support those who proposed them. According to Obolensky (2010)” the ability to follow, and know when to do so, is as important as the ability to lead” (Pg. 143).  In addition, knowing when to act is just as important as knowing when not to act. Leaders need to recognize when to hold back and allow others take the lead.

Moreover, the assumption of polyarchy signifies that the role of a leader in no longer about creating a vital link between task-team-individual, it is about attending to the needs of the task-team-Individual. A leader needs to have the technical knowledge to accomplish the task at hand; an understanding of team dynamics and how the team functions as a whole; and, the ability to connect with and motivate different people. In this new found dynamic, a leader is more concerned for all members of the organization and thus, ensures that each member obtains the skills and knowledge required to perform day-to-day practices.

Although the use of polyarchy differs significantly in each organization, the concept is the same. The key is to understand that the traditional dynamic between leader and follower has changed. Leaders today needs to start encouraging followers to take the lead and the follower needs to learn how to lead. 

A633.8.3.RB - Shuck, Allison

How Do Coaches Help? 

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 clients?

Coaching is the learning relationship at the heart of change.

Coaching is not just about two people meeting and sharing ideas, it is more complex than that. Coaching involves building a relationship where both parties (the client and the coach) engage, connect and relate to one another. Coaching is necessary for determining a client’s present and future experiences, problems, opportunities and developments. The relationship between a client and a coach is seemingly important for developing new ideas. “The coach acts as a facilitator not an instructor. They support and challenge the client to learn and develop.” (Connor & Pokora, 2007, Pg.9).

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

Coaching is used by many organizations to promote a learning culture. In a learning culture, leaders are required to participate in the coaching process and promote coaching throughout the organization. For most organizations coaching is a tool used to maintain performance; its focus it on achieving specific, immediate goals and correcting development issues.

·         How can it make a difference in an organization?

Since coaching involves the evaluation of task performance, many leaders use coaching to promote and encourage team work within a new or existing group. Team coaching helps to align individual, team and business goals.” (Connor & Pokora, 2007, Pg.18).  

·         What does this mean to you and your organization?

Simply put, coaching can help Embry Riddle to promote/increase: organizational development, teamwork and learning relationships. 

Reference

Connor, M., & Pokora, J. (2007). Coaching and mentoring at work: Principles for effective practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Pg. 4-22. Retrived from
http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/9780335221769.pdf

A633.7.3.RB - Shuck, Allison

Leader Follower Relationship

After completing the assessment at the beginning of chapter 10, I found that I scored highest in quadrant S1 and S3; S1 receiving a score of 8 and S3 receiving a score of 6. Obolensky (2010) states that “if the sum of S1 and S3 is greater than the sum of S2 and S4 then you may be taking too direct an approach”. I am not shocked to discover how true of a statement that is! I am a very direct person! I prefer to show, train or tell someone how to do something rather than letting go an allowing the other person to discover the solution themselves. I guess I assume that their solution is not as good a mine or they are incapable of completing the task successfully without my help. But the reality is, is that I am making them incapable because I am enabling them.

Take my sisters for example; I try to micromanage every aspect of their lives. I guess it is hard for me to sit back and watch them fall flat on their face; I want them to succeed; however, I am not giving them the skill/will to succeed on their own. It like the saying, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”.  If only I could stop worrying and let them figure things out on their own.

After reading this chapter, I know understand the importance of letting go and allowing other to take the lead, that is why my future goal will be to implement each of the Four + Four principles (Tell, Sell, Involve, and Devolve) into my daily life. I am going to start by outline the benefits of completing the task at hand and then allow the other person to take on the responsibility as I stand on the sideline providing support.

It is better to create leaders rather than create followers!

A633.6.5.RB - Shuck, Allison

Circle of Leadership

Reflection

"The vicious circle for leaders"(Obolensky, 2010, Figure 9.5; p.152) show below illustrates two different types of behaviors responses within an organization, (1) how a leader’s behavior dictates the degree of followership maturity (maturity is determined by the followers degree of skill and will) and (2) how a follower’s behavior dictates type of leadership response. In addition, the vicious circle provides an example of the different actions / reactions between a manager and a follower as a manager leads a follower through the 5 levels of followership.

Figure 9.5 – In this example, the follows skill/will is very low; the follower does not know how to do his or her job without being told what to do.

Does this happen in your organization? 

Yes, the concept of the vicious circle does exist within my organization! There have been times when my direct supervisor has had to stop everything he is doing just to explain a process or procedure to myself or one of my team members. It is not to say the any of my team members, including myself are incapable of or lack the skill/will to perform our jobs but, sometimes we disagree or have trouble interpreting some of the federal regulations. Because each student’s situation is different and the federal regulations are not very specific, it can be very difficult to understand the meaning of the regulation and how to apply it to the situation at hand. However, I can recall a few instances when my supervisor refused to tell us the direct answer, and decided to challenge the team by asking each of us to review the regulations and report our findings. What we found that we call came up with the same answer. So we learned that instead of seeking approval or waiting to be told what to do, we can work together as a team to come up with an answer. In doing so, I think we have become more efficient.  

What are the effects on the organization?

By teaching followers to lead instead of follow, the organization will be able to move towards self-organization allowing polyarchy to thrive, and remove the stress and strains of traditional oligarchy assumptions.

Create a new circle that represents strong followership.

A633.5.3.RB - Shuck, Allison

Reflections on Chaos

The video “Who Needs Leaders” provides an example of the exercise/game Obolensky (2010) describes in chapter six. The object of the game is for 25 or more people to scatter themselves within the boundaries of a room. Then, one person (the leader) tells each person to pick two reference points (two other people) within the room; specifically stating that one cannot indicate who they have picked. Then the leader asks everyone to move around the room until he or she has space his or herself within equal distance from each reference point. Initially the room is in constant flux until order was created. The overall purpose of the game is to show that “the more complex things are, the less traditional leadership one needs” (Obolensky, 2010, pg. 96). This just goes to show that the underlying reality of chaos is order.

Due to the complexity of the game, the number of possible solutions and the way to get to those solutions is huge. It was interesting to see how the game played out. At first, I thought that the people within the room would not be able to position themselves equally in between their reference points. I simply assumed that everyone would remain in constant movement. However, that was not the case, within a two minutes time everyone had stop and order was created.

The key here is to understand the dynamics of chaos and complexity; as well as, the 8 key principles of Complex Adaptive Leadership. In doing so, a leader can become more effective as he or she transitions from oligarchy leadership to polyarchy leadership.  Obolensky (2010), states that “it is the dynamic which exists between these principles that is important, and enables each organization to find their own unique way of applying them.” 

A633.4.3.RB - Shuck, Allison

Changing Dynamics of Leadership

The question was asked, in my opinion what percentage of solutions (0 - 100 percent) actually come from top.

Personally, I believe that only 20 percent of solutions suggested come from the top. Most, if not all solutions come from the bottom. Why do I believe this you might ask? Because top managers/executives know very little about the day-to-day processes/procedures performed within the organization; and, what they do know usually comes from the bottom. Therefore, I believe that only those who know and understand the day-to-day processes/procedures (bottom employees) can build and create strategies to improve them. Thus, I believe that it is important for top management to listen and seek out information from bottom employees. By creating a dynamic flow of information (shifting from top-down to bottom-up) top management can gain insight on the day-to-day processes performed by bottom employee and bottom employees can provide top management with viable information on those processes; reporting to top management what processes are working and what processes are not. Because bottom employees know and understand the day-to-day processes/procedures, they are more likely to suggest alternatives in order to make those processes/procedures more efficient.

Over the years, more and more organizations are being impacted by this dynamic shift in leadership. The transitioning from top-down to bottom-up occurred as result of the stress and strains faced by top management. What we witness is top management clinging onto certainties and comforts of oligarchy while refusing to face the uncomfortable, uncertain realities of polyarchy. As top management begins to accept the natural flow towards polyarchy, structures become more fluid and traditional boundaries began to dwindle. This in turn creates a more dynamic flow of information, allowing transparency to be obtained within the organization. Once transparency has been obtained, top management can began focusing on meeting the needs of bottom employees rather than micromanaging them. 

A633.3.3.RB - Shuck, Allison

Complex Adaptive Systems

Evolutionary companies like Morning Star and St. Luke have established what seems to be an effect cornerstone for flexible strategy development. By instilling clear people processes and policies; as well as, effective communication system technology, both Morning Star and St. Luke’s have captured the essence of organizational effectiveness.   Although the two companies differ in many ways, both Morning Star and St Luke were one of the first companies to implement the self – management model; places emphasis on personal responsibility and personal authority. The self-management model is used to develop and maintain an informal management structure, where hierarchy is flat and information is shared openly.

Due to the success of the self-management model, many companies have started using it. For example, Northrop Grumman Corporation has created dynamic management approach that encompasses a network of agents who act and react in parallel with one another; essentially, creating a self-motivated, self-organized workplace. This type of management approach encourages managers to empower their employees to make decisions that fulfill the team’s commitment to the business/ mission value. I personally think that this approach is a very constructive, because it takes away inner competition and encourages collaboration; in order to succeed; the team must lead and empower one another.

Although, the self-management model works great for Morning Star, St. Luke and Northrop, it is not a common method practiced by many organizations. Embry Riddle for example, has not introduce the self-management model yet, but various departments within the university have taken upon themselves use it. Personally, I prefer the self-management model because it holds the employee to be accountable for his or her actions, good or bad. And, it allows the employee to expand on his or her leadership skills. I feel that the best way to manage people is to let them manage themselves.

Johnson, S. S. (2009). Leadership of management for complex adaptive systems: Agile Practices and Leadership. Northrop Grumman. INCOSE: Chesapeake Chapter, p. 1-27.