A633.4.3.RB
Changing
Dynamic Leadership
I
chose the picture above because it resonates with me. I am reminded that truly dynamic leaders are
always (or should be) at the tip of the spear.
It also reminds of a saying we would use in the Army…”Lead, follow, or
get out of the way”.
In
this reflective blog I am asked to reflect on the opening exercise at the
beginning of Chapter 4 of the of Obolensky text and other readings, and answer
the following questions: 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
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT TO OPEN UP YOUR MIND TO WHAT MANY ARE FACING
Research looked at organizations which had achieved
‘step-change’. These changes were
sweeping and included strategy, culture and re-organization, and delivered
great results. Such changes do not happen overnight and the typical period of
time to achieve such change would be between two to five years. So we are
talking about big organizational changes, and a myriad of solutions achieved
the changes. The study looked at organizations that had gone through large
changes. The original research was backed up by some action research of some
2,500 executives from over 50 different countries and hundreds of different
organizations. They went through the exercise you are about to do. What was
studied was where the actual solutions came from that made the changes happen.
The original research looked at the solutions that made a difference on the
ground (the actual action) and then backtracked these solutions over time to
who had actually first thought of them – some solutions came from the top of
the organization (the top being the top levels rather than the very top), some
came from middle management and some came from the bottom. Of 100 per cent of
the solutions that actually make specific changes happen on the ground to get
positive results, what percentage of solutions do you think originally come
from/are first thought of at the top? (Obolensky, 2014)
I had
to ponder this for a while. I tried to
approach this activity as a school teacher and could not, in all honesty, come
up with anything. One small exception is
the fact that school teachers do 100% of the work or at least it seems like
that.
I had
to settle on my past military experiences for this exercise.
Obolensky
explains the exercise with a pyramid graphic and the following:
“The
number you choose for the percentage of solutions from the top can also reflect
both the background/context within which you operate and also the assumptions
you have about leadership. In very general terms:
• The higher the number is, the more formal and
traditional you may see leadership. In general terms the more junior and
inexperienced the person is, the higher the number will be (except for the very
old/retired who often have a traditional view).
The higher number owes more to the traditions of the
past than the realities of the present and trend of the future.
• The lower the number is, the more informal and also
perhaps more senior the person is. In general terms senior executives will give
a low number as they live the bitter reality. They also realize their job is
not about knowing and disseminating solutions, but creating the context where
solutions can flow naturally. So the number you give will depend in some ways
on the mix of age, culture and experience you have. However, some general
trends exist:
• The more formal and structured organizations tended
to give a higher number, but the assignation of higher numbers was not so much
done by senior management but more often done by middle management. This always
engendered a good debate about what roles and responsibilities were.
• There were some cultural trends – more formal
European countries (such as Italy and Germany) tended to give a higher number
than the more informal countries (such as Denmark and the UK). Asian countries,
who tend to be more deferential towards authority and more hierarchical, as
well as countries who have a legacy on strong top-down leadership (for example,
Soviet military industrial companies), also scored on average slightly higher.
• There were some age differences – in general terms
the more junior the level, the higher the number, and the more senior the
executives the lower the number. In fact one main board all gave a figure of 0
per cent – the CEO explained, ‘We all understand that is not our job any
longer.’ It is worth noting that the organization was in a transitional phase
from matrix towards CAS.” (Obolensky, 2014)
Obolensky’s
description speak directly to military leadership. Here is my take: The junior Soldiers (Privates through
Corporals) are at the base of the pyramid and have the opinion that middle
managers and senior leaders make all of the decisions about what must be
done. These young Soldiers understand
that those with more rank will be in-charge and they strive to climb the ladder
so that they will become the ones who give orders. Out of one hundred percent, this easily comes
in at 60 or 70 percent.
At
the center of the pyramid is the middle managers or junior leaders (Sergeants
and Staff Sergeants) and the upper managers (Sergeants First Class, Master
Sergeants, First Sergeants, Sergeants Major and Command Sergeants Major). These are the ones who receive orders from the
senior leaders and direct the junior Soldiers on how to fulfill the orders and
accomplish the mission. The more junior
the leader is such as a Sergeant, the more accepting the junior Soldiers are to
follow the direction. These leaders come
in at 30 percent. Not to formal but they
are understood to be in-charge.
At
the top of the pyramid is the senior leaders.
There is a caveat to this however.
The most junior of these senior leaders are the Second Lieutenants and
First Lieutenants. There orders and
directions are generally frowned upon but followed. These young leaders have very little
experience and are often required to use an experienced Noncommissioned Officer
as a sounding board and mentor. More
often than not, Soldiers look at the Captains, Majors, Lieutenant Colonels,
Colonels and General Officers as senior leaders. At the General Officer level, their orders
are tantamount to law and followed to the “T”.
The orders that come from the top are very formal. They are often written in formal
memorandums. These are at ten percent. Even though they do not perform any of the
work, the junior Soldiers and leaders would probably assign 60 percent or more
giving the appearance of top down leadership.
This
is military leadership and it has developed over centuries and is not subject
to change. I came up through the ranks
and started at the bottom of the pyramid and climbed to the highest tier of the
middle. I have seen how it works. Sometimes I wasn’t happy being squished in
the middle but it helped me develop into the leader that I am today.
This
leadership method and strategies have been tried and are effective. Once I left the Army, I took these methods
with me. In the six years that I have
been retired, I have used these practices and methods in the private sector and
in secondary education for the past five years.
It required some adaptation and tweaking but it works well for me with
my students and school administrators.
Reference
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. (2d
Ed). http://reader.chegg.com/book.php?id=ac6967ef3270567b9a1a8af2dc0258ee
No comments:
Post a Comment