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?

In the old workplace, the hierarchical isolation occurred in tiers. The manager was looked upon as a deity. They were supposed to see all and know all. Managers, then, could not ask questions to their employees about the on-the ground work; they were supposed to have all of the answers through supervision of labor. It is universally agreed that those at the top of the organisations only know a fraction of the solutions needed to overcome the problems faced by the organisations that they lead (Obolensky, 2014, p. 35). Therefore, the information given to those at the very top was the perception from the manager's perspective, not necessarily the workers' reality.

The manager told employees what to do. They evaluated work by whether it was right or wrong based on initial training. If it was consistently incorrect (according to the training), the person would be fired. It was as if workers were parts of a simple machine. If a part slowed down, sped up, or otherwise did something out of character, it was examined and, and if it made a product that was different from the rest, it needed to be replaced. But what if the "different" product was better?

It simply could not be, because changing the process to recreate a different product would be challenging - it would make the entire process more complex. There is a fear of complexity. However, businesses must face this with excitement. Is it better to stay the same, and fear complexity, or change in order to remain in existence? Things are changing, therefore we must adapt.

An organization with employees that take the initiative to get involved and find solutions will benefit over those who rely solely on the leadership. What happens where eager new employees get stamped out and poked as if to say, "fall in line"? It slows down progress and minimizes our ability to bank on creativity and innovation, and to empower and appreciate (Green, 2013). Remember that term "new blood"? I love it! I've been in Housing since 2007, and I try to make sure I am never doing things the same way I was back then. Technology is a factor in the shift in leadership. Our staff no longer just listens to us; they can hop online and find out how other resident assistants are programming, their responsibilities, their pay,.etc. They know they have rights; this should not scared middle management! In fact, the ideas and opinions workers receive from such information makes them wonderful resources for those of us who are office-dwellers.

Leadership has never been a static role. Society has changed over time, thus the expectations and key functions of leadership have also changed. One of the reasons for the change is the complexity with organizational structure and strategy within the market they operate. Managers that lead their organization are more stressed; challenged and confused today more than they have ever before (Obolensky, 2014, p. 37). I believe the biggest reason for the shift in leadership is the workforce population’s desire to be more involved with their organization. The problems entry-level employees see on a daily basis can directly affect their work performance. It is unrealistic to assume the leadership of an organization would know what problems are stressing everyone out in front of house operations. That is unless those problems are specifically brought to the leadership's attention, or of the leadership is keen enough, they will maintain a relationship with low-level employees in order to stay on top of the issues. As Obolensky notes, “subordinates need to challenge in order to follow, and superiors must listen in order to lead” (2014, p.38).

Not only does “servant leadership” play a huge role in the way I lead within my department, it also is displayed in the relationships that have been built between other University departments and the community. If there is a problem, concern, or question about the department or my coworkers, people may be intimidated of my director, but they tend to see me as approachable and effective at resolving issues. I am also adamant about connecting with my supervisees' supervisees - I enjoy having them come in my office and tell me about their residents, their programs and their ups and downs of being a student. Sometimes being an RA can feel like everyone's problems are on your shoulders - I want the student workers to know that they have a place to come to de-stress (Kelley, 1988). The environment constructed from such efforts has made employees feel heard and valued.

References

Green, Alison. (2013). 10 Ways You’re Annoying Your Employees. The Fast Track. Accessed at http://quickbase.intuit.com/blog/2013/03/12/10-ways-youre-annoying-your-employees/

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems

Find a company which reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and reflect in your blog what the implications are for you and your present organization (or any organization you are familiar with). Identify what you believe are appropriate actions to move your organization forward.

Obolensky (2014) notes that complex adaptive systems (CAS) feature flat hierarchies, open information sharing, great emphasis on personal responsibility, and Morning Star and St. Luke are two examples of companies that share this methodology (Hamel, 2011).

Another similar business is Zappos. Zappos is an online shoe and clothing shop based in Las Vegas, Nevada. The company was founded in 1999 by former Autoweb.com and Silicon Graphics worker. Like St Luke’s, there are no bosses at Zappos, a practice which the company has been practicing for a year. There is no explicit hierarchy; employees are self-governed, and team-inclusive (called "circles"). It is a "holocracy," a team working under the tenets of individual autonomy and self-governance (NOGUCHI, 2014). 

On the site, holacracy.org, the freedom from hierarchical organization is explained:

In traditional organizations, managers loosely delegate authority, but ultimately, their decisions always trump those they manage and everybody knows it. Any initiative outside the norm typically requires the boss’ approval, explicitly or implicitly. In Holacracy, authority is truly distributed and decisions are made locally by the individual closest to the front line. Teams are self-organized: they’re given a purpose, but they decide internally how to best reach it.

The whole is involved in hiring and firings which can be initiated by something as simple as a conversation between employees. Bonuses are based on peer reviews, and group meetings are lead by one person but based on a set of mutually agreed upon rules for order. Maverick enterprises rely to a large extent on individuals who actually believe in the tenets that govern their environment. Not all do: Fourteen percent of the employees took a buy-out instead of working in this new environment. Why would someone not want to work in such a seemingly free world? Brian Robertson, a serial entrepreneur and developer of the Holacracy process, says that people are essentially lazy.

Most organizations, including mine, have management (directors, deans, heads, etc.) to look up to for leadership and direction; someone has to be the “fall guy/girl” (NOGUCHI, 2014).

"There's something almost safe and comforting, even when we don't like it, about being in a system where there's somebody else whose job it is to protect us, take care of us, nurture us," Robertson says. "And when they don't do that well, we get to be angry with them and blame them and hide behind them."

As someone who is highly motivated and open about my strengths and weaknesses, I would enjoy working in a place like Zappo's. In my position, I do have some flexibility to my working hours, but at times I wish I could escape the eventual overbearing, micromanaging manger who thinks that stopping in encourages better work. I enjoy environments where I can go to my supervisor when I need advice, can share my opinions on how to solve problems, and become involved without limitation. When everyone feels that they have input into their work environment, people may take more initiative and take more personal pride in their job.

References

Hamel, G. (2011). First, Let's Fire all the Managers. Harvard Business Review.

Holacracy.org. (n/d). How It Works. Accessed at http://www.holacracy.org/how-it-works/

NOGUCHI, YUKI. (2014). Zappos: A Workplace Where No One And Everyone Is The Boss. NPR. Accessed at http://www.npr.org/2015/07/21/421148128/zappos-a-workplace-where-no-one-and-everyone-is-the-boss

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company

A633.2.3.RB - Butterfly Effect

Based on this week's reading, reflect on complexity science and theory in organizations and the butterfly effect (p.66). 

Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization.
What are the implication of complexity theory for you and your organization and how can you use this to drive improvements.

When I think of the terminology, I immediately recall a movie called The Butterfly Effect (2004), where Ashton Kutcher plays the main character, Eric, and has the ability to change past events. Eric can manipulate time periods and make changes; however, Eric soon notices that when he tries to go back to change just one minute detail, it changes the course of time completely. When he returns to the past to fix what manipulate in the past, once again, he made the future worse. The moral is clear: there is no such thing as a small change. Every small change can cause a ripple effect on larger issues, for better or for worse, or as Obolensky (2010) defines it, small changes result in large results.

In order to apply the butterfly effect, one must understand the complex and chaotic dynamics of their working and living environment.

Obolensky (2010) discusses how complex organizations contain features of self organization, inter-relatedness, adaptive nature, and emergence (p. 84). Some organizations can become complex beyond their capability; others do not discover the benefits to complexity and strive to keep the environment of old as simplistic as possible (and as I have said before, they will usually regret this mistake!). There are positive and negative traits in both situations. For example, complexity science exhibits an organizational understanding the importance of adaptability - when and where they need to adapt to be successful - which is a great benefit (p.88).

In my department at ERAU, we are set up in a very open-flow environment - we have guidelines and basic qualifications to perform each position, and we work off of each other like a machine; however, there is flexibility in terms of how one performs their job. In such environments,the autonomy can be positive to the overall attitude of the workers, making the institution stronger. I learn with my staff on how to make our department more efficient.

Classmate Ashley notes:

During my undergrad at Embry-Riddle, we were often forced to do our own version of a runaround that we named the Riddle Runaround. Whenever we needed to see someone about a class or fixing something on the academic side, we always faced conflicting stories.

In response to Ashley's circumstance, my position involves and encourages outreach to the campus community. I utilize this to get out of the office, visit other departments, meet with employees, and figure out what they do and how their work impacts our students. Therefore, instead of simply guessing what number to transfer a call to, I know when I am giving a resource that the person I am passing a question onto will be the end-all-be-all to the concern.

Another lesson I am learning presently is that everyone wants power, even if they have little say in the outcomes. Sometimes you have to just change a little bit to make people feel like they have "won". I  have another department we work with to run programs during the summer. We'd been setting up the structure for how things would be run in summer since March or April but last-minute things come up all of the time. I would charge her on the back end and she would get quite perturbed. I certainly did not understand the contention. The department would make immediate demands of us and not wish to pay for them. I realized the head of the other department did not realize the cost of the items she was asking for, or that we did not have the workers to do these requests at random times. I gave her the option of using her very large staff to fulfill her own needs while offering one or two knowledgeable hands on my staff, as long as the times were scheduled so I could give my people a heads up. This has reduced her costs and given her the opportunity to see how much effort her requests involve.

References
Bress, Eric; Gruber, J. Mackye. The Butterfly Effect. (2004). BenderSpink.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.

A633.1.2.RB - Leadership Gap

Chapter 1 of the Obolensky text begins with a reflective exercise. Create a reflection blog that responds to the questions asked in this exercise.

Has your own attitude to leaders changed in your life, and if so how?

If we take as a starting point in the attitude to those in authority/leaders as held by your grandparents, and then look at those attitudes held by your parents, and then by you, and then by the younger generation, is there a changing trend?  If so, what is it?

Why do you think that this has occurred? 

Additionally, while we live in a world with more information about leadership and leadership practices why is it that we have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders and how do you think we can close this gap?

Some of the people I look up to within the history books are Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Assata Shakur and Angela Davis. Their attitudes towards change for the sake of progress have always been very liberating to me. There are few of us who practice our rights (particularly the freedom of speech) as liberally as we should. I believe we should, as a nation, protest more often, taking our issues up to the courthouse or White House steps if necessary.
I gained this appreciation and understanding for my rights from my grandmother, who was quite an activist herself. Growing up in Philadelphia, she was involved in the progression of equality even as she provided for her six younger siblings without her father's aid. She was forced to drop out of high school to do so, but educated herself through voracious reading. Obolensky realizes that knowledge has increased, along with uncertainty. My grandmother's passion for societal change grew with the books she read by people with whom she completely disagreed with. As many of the writers of the forties and fifties came from different backgrounds and experiences than she did, she realized that some were completely disillusioned with the plight of people like her, and their reasoning for such differences was sometimes clouded in pseudoscience and ignorance. As Obolensky notes, what one knows is nearly irrelevant in comparison to what they do (2014). Strategies that leaders encompass, like teaching, coaching, involving, explaining and congratulating show that information sharing is far more valuable than mere information collection. While maintaining decent employment as a typist, she wrote lengthy manuscripts and speeches for others to present at progressive marches and gatherings in the sixties.
My mother, however, was more of a square. She was also a great writer, journaling for her high school paper and writing poetry. However, growing up within a stable (read: sheltered) middle-class household, she did not feel the pull of activism as much as her mother, who'd be raised in the post-WWII era which was unkind to minorities and conservatives of the roles of women. As Obolensky notes in Complex Adaptive Leadership, “the more we know, the less certain things become” (p. 16). My mother went on to join the military, which strengthened her conservative nature and lack of understanding towards the complexities of societal duress. The military lifestyle taught her a structure of listening to the person shouting, and because she never advanced to a relevant leadership position, she'd become accustomed to others telling her what to do instead of being creative and self-led (Snowden & Boone, 2007).
Obolensky refers to our society as living in a large period of discontinuity, saying, "we have changed the context within which we lead faster than we can change our assumptions about what leadership is" (p. 19). Sheltered from adversity, raised as an only child and prohibited from self-guidance, it was difficult for my mother to understand negotiation, compassion, creativity and determination. I believe the first time my mother faced adversity was being a mother. As a leader of the home, she exuded legitimate and coercive power. She was a "because I say so" type, and the use of explanation (and apology) was limited (Messina, 2008). However, my grandmother welded personal power more effectively. As someone who raised here siblings from her mother's death when she was twelve, and raising my mother, she had almost 40 years of experience as a caretaker, a budget planner and coach. She excelled at inspiring action. She was impressed by questioning and celebrated innovation. Even as a child, I felt a need to learn about the experiences of others, to protect their right to speak out (even against me) and celebrate them because sharing opinions, thoughts and experiences essentially makes everyone both a teacher and a learner.

This difference in strategy is much like the apparent gap in the quality of our leaders. Leaders of the past are expectant on order following, strict adherence to policy without questioning, and swift ramifications for anything seen as out of the ordinary. To bring attention to oneself, even by improving a process, is to be "showy," which also warrants consequence, even as informal as criticism. I believe there is a jealously in someone seen as an underling finding a better way to do things, particularly when the "leader" has not thought of it, which is why there is a dearth in true leaders. Since my childhood, I have been able to have leaders as well as managers, and I decided quite quickly after realizing the difference that I would prefer to be a leader, and a practitioner of wu-wei. Wu-wei is "active inaction," which essentially means to train, support, retrain, celebrate, and back off of supervisees. I allow my emerging leaders (not followers) to brainstorm and build effective ways of doing their work after I teach them the most effective way for me to do my own. As long as the work gets done well, I do not mind how it is done! In the global workplace, we have a lot of people who "manage" people but who cannot see themselves listening and considering the ideas of others.
Obolensky (2014) notes Lau Tzu’s definition of leadership:

The worst leader is one that lies and is despised; not much better is one that leads using oppression and fear; a little better is the leader who is visible, loved and respected; however, the best leader is one whom the people hardly knows exists, leaving them happy to say, once the aim is achieved, ‘We did it ourselves’ (p. 6).

References

Messina, James J. (2008). Eliminating Intimidation. Livestrong. Accessed at http://www.livestrong.com/article/14742-eliminating-intimidation/

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making (Links to an external site.)(cover story). Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.