Never Stop Learning
Once again, Obolensky (2010)
challenges future leaders to develop an open mind by critiquing possible
responses to possible leadership circumstances. A set of sixteen questions,
designed to be completed twice, once prior to reading the chapter’s text and
again upon finishing the reading, allows future leaders to identify where he or
she falls with regards to “People Focus and Goal Focus” and to chart the
various strategies: tell, sell involve, and devolve a leader may employ in
order to transition from oligarchic ways to a path toward polyarchy (Obolensky,
2010, p. 160). Yet, this is exactly what has been taking place over the past
six weeks.
Reflective
exercises provide opportunities to discern emerging viewpoints of leadership
spanning several generations. The concept of working smarter not harder can be
achieved through the simplicity of chaos. In order for a leader to begin to
understand the basics of Complex Adaptive Leadership, according to Coutu
(2000), one must be willing to peel back the levels of individual personality
in order to then peel away the levels of the organization’s personality.
Leaders must stop the charade that has been perpetuated since the time of
Egyptian Pharaohs, “those at the top do not know the solutions to the problems
faced by the organisations they lead” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 35). In order to do
this, leaders must align, adapt, encourage, improve, locate and embrace the
notion that while chaos initially provides for a worsening of conditions, the
complicated becomes better, simplicity emerges, and an organization grows from
one run like a machine to one that “runs itself” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 27).
Understanding how a leader would normally approach a situation, along with an
understanding of how followers see their role within the organization, is the
basis of the exercise at the beginning of “Complex Adaptive Leadership in
Action” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 155).
Just as
Stayer’s (1990) “attitude survey” was designed to identify “what people thought
about their jobs and the company” (p. 67), Obolensky’s (2010) exercise is meant
to show its participant the strategies most often relied upon, identify those
not tapped as often, and provide a cause and effect when certain strategies are
used more consistently than others. Initial responses revealed a balance such
that “the sum of S1 and S3 is greater than the sum of S2 and S4”, indicating “too
direct an approach” is being employed by the leader (Obolensky, 2010, p. 166).
After reading the text, second responses still provide a balance; however, the approach
becomes less direct. The implications are directly linked to that which
Obolensky (2010) describes as “a steady state, a particular point - … attractor”
(p. 64). Regardless of the type: point, period, or strange attractor, the flow
of strategy begins with: sell, tell, devolve, and involve. A leadership
approach that is too direct indicates selling needs to be improved upon in
order to align with rule one, “First work on the will – so the person wants to
do it” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 164). Stayer (1990) sold plant managers with the
opportunity to end the practice of working weekends by allowing them to
identify the efficiency problem and offer a solution. Teams, once sold on the
idea of eliminating weekend work, could then be told, become involved, and Stayer
(1990) could eventually step back and allow the workers to realize the cause
and effect of machine downtime, their role with the operation of the machinery,
find a solution, and do away with working weekends.
Stayer’s
(1990) first person, personal story provides a succinct summary for that which
has been gleamed from the past six weeks. Think before you act. Ask yourself,
do my actions support or undermine the vision? Yukl (2013) concludes, “Effective
leadership at all levels of society and in all of our organizations is essential
for coping with the growing social, economic, and environmental problems confronting
the world. Learning to cope… is not a luxury but a necessity” (p. 422). “Nevertheless,
much more remains to be learned”; therefore, leaders can never stop learning
(Yukl, 2013, p. 422). Leadership is a constant work in progress and requires
constant reflection.
References
Coutu, D.L. (2000, Sept. – Oct.). Creating the Most
Frightening Company on Earth: An
Interview
with Andy Law of St. Luke’s. Harvard
Business Review, 143-150.
Obolensky,
N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. (2nd
ed.). London, UK: Gower/
Ashgate.
Stayer, R. (1990). How I Learned
to Let My Workers Lead. Harvard Business
Review, 68(6),
66-83.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. (8th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment