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? 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.
Include a discussion of your leadership development
needs over the next 3 years and identify the resources that will help you
achieve such a development. Use all you have learned as well as the
70–20–10 approach. What impact will all of this have on your future
strategy?
There
are several old saying about resisting change.
One example is “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. Change is difficult for many especially those
that have been in an organization for a significant period of time. This was very prevalent I the Army when I
first joined. Many of the Soldiers in
our ranks were veterans of the Vietnam War and they resisted change with all of
their might. We often referred to them
as “Old Heads” but they like to refer to themselves as “Old School”. They would resist things like uniform
changes, changes to tactics, vehicle changes, Soldier living conditions, food
changes in the dining facility or field and many more. However, the Army as an organization was
changing with or without them.
Eventually the Old Heads retired and change occurred more smoothly.
I don’t
believe that old leadership models are becoming redundant. I just believe they need to be adaptive to
the changing landscape and tweaked.
Traditional
leadership, or oligarchy involves fewer leaders supervising an entire
organization which is almost tantamount to a dictatorship. This was indeed the type of leadership I
faced with the Old Heads when I first joined the Army. Conversely, polyarchy has many leaders
supervising fewer individuals.
I
found the old “my way or the highway” leadership off-putting when I first
became a Soldier. Although the Army is
still mostly oligarchy it does implement polyarchy into its leadership
model. An example of this is the make-up
of a military unit. A Company size
element has approximately 30 leaders from Company Commander to Squad
Leader. They are responsible for leading
approximately 100 Soldiers which is a ratio of 3.33:1 which is more
polyarchical. However, if you dissect
the Company down to its smallest element known as a Platoon you will find that
the ratio is 24:1 which is more oligarchical.
These ratios increase as the hierarchal ladder is climbed. An example of this is the Commanding General
of an installation. He or she is
responsible thousands of Soldiers. The ratio
can be 10,000:1 or even higher.
So,
does the General personally lead each and every individual Soldier? No.
However he or she is ultimately responsible. An example of this is the Walter Reed scandal
that occurred in 2007. I was assigned to
the United States Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) at the time and remember the
incident well. The Commanding General,
Lieutenant General Kevin Kiley, was held ultimately responsible and was
relieved of his duties and ultimately forced to retire.
In my
current occupation as a school teacher, there are very few leaders. The Principal, like the General, is
ultimately in-charge. He has five Assistant Principals (APs) who are
responsible for certain individuals and there is five Department Chairs. That is a grand total of eleven individuals
in leadership positions with 167 teachers.
The Principal has a ratio of 167:1. If the APs are responsible for an
equal amount of teachers then their ratio would be 33.4:1. This is definitely oligarchical. Sadly, unless I, myself, become a Principal
or Assist Principal this has no implications on my future as a leader. The only individuals I will be able to affect
are my Cadets.
As I
develop as a leader in secondary education, I need the opportunity to
advance. However I do not endeavor to
become a High School administrator. (Beldotti, 2016)
Until
I wrote this blog, I had never heard of the 70:20:10 Model. According to TrainingIndustry.com, “The
70:20:10 Model for Learning and Development is a commonly used formula within
the training profession to describe the optimal sources of learning by
successful managers. It holds that individuals obtain 70 percent of their knowledge
from job-related experiences (experiential/experience), 20 percent from
interactions with others (social/exposure), and 10 percent from formal
educational events (formal/education). The
70:20:10 model is considered to be of greatest value as a general guideline for
organizations seeking to maximize the effectiveness of their learning, and
development programs through other activities and inputs. The model continues
to be widely employed by organizations throughout the world.
The
model’s creators hold that hands-on experience (the 70 percent) is the most
beneficial for employees because it enables them to discover and refine their
job-related skills, make decisions, address challenges and interact with
influential people such as bosses and mentors within work settings. They also
learn from their mistakes and receive immediate feedback on their performance.
Employees
learn from others (the 20 percent) through a variety of activities that include
social learning, coaching, mentoring, collaborative learning and other methods
of interaction with peers. Encouragement and feedback are prime benefits of
this valuable learning approach.
The
formula holds that only 10 percent of professional development optimally comes
from formal traditional courseware instruction and other educational events, a
position that typically surprises practitioners from academic backgrounds.” (TrainingIndustry.com,
2016)
Once
this degree is conferred, I will couple it with my MBA and military leadership
experience and seek employment where I can put this knowledge to use.
This
model makes perfect sense and I will start implementing it immediately as I
start me future job search.
References
70:20:10 Forum. (n.d.). The 70:20:10 Framework. Retrieved
from https://www.702010forum.com/about-702010-framework
TrainingIndustry.com. (2016). The 70:20:10 model for learning and development. Retrieved from https://www.trainingindustry.com/wiki/entries/the-702010-model-for-learning-and-development.aspx
Beldotti, L. J. (2016) Personal experience.
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership. (2d
Ed.). Gower Publishing: Burlington, VT.
No comments:
Post a Comment