A633.5.3.RB_FogartyShawn

            This exercise was a colorful illustration of how complexity and chaos can appear daunting to the organization and their masses but in reality once individuals are cut loose to operate the simplistic nature of how everything plays out is demonstrated to have been counter-intuitive. The exercise shows that even complex and chaotic tasks can be accomplished without excessive controls. Further, the exercise paves the way for the eight principles to shine. The exercise clearly demonstrates that an individual with a clear objective in a complex system works well with only a few simple rules and clear boundaries along with being granted the freedom to maneuver based on continuous feedback can easily achieve their underlying purpose.

            My understanding of chaos theory was rather text-book at first. It took a while to adapt the various models and outlines within Chapter 5 of Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (Obolensky, 2010), to my own organization and daily operations. I certainly have a better understanding and the reflection this week has made me realize sometimes less it more. In truly complex and chaotic environments the leader with an absolute plan is surely setting themselves up for failure.    

            This exercise and reflection has included the following implications on my organizational strategy. Standard Operating Procedures need to be reviewed and amended appropriately to maintain within the current operational window. This is mostly to enable those who can operate independently towards a clear objective rather than limit individuals. Second, excessive boundaries will not allow individuals to focus any more clearly on their target, but perhaps place blinders on the big picture. Third, ensure feedback loops are established to promote a continuous cycle and not one-way reporting. If subordinates are able to report critical issues to operations ensure they know those issues are received and being resolved and further when resolved.

            Closing, a recent discussion with a company commander, having explained the exercise left her assumption like many that the task was overly complicated. She was further perplexed that the natural order evolved quite easily despite minimal inputs. The rationale that a need did not exist for a specific leader further left her deeply puzzled. I gauged her understanding and exposure to the polyarchy style of leadership to be very minimal but I imagine the next time she has a complex or chaotic day she’ll think twice about how to make it smooth out.

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

A633.4.3.RB_FogartyShawn

            Many organizations evolve and as a result go through “step change” as outlined as the transition to include strategy, culture, and re-organization (Obolensky, 2010). I fully support the concept of the traditional hierarchical leadership pyramid flattening out. I think a flatter profile has many benefits such as a shared sense of power and decision making which solicits information in a broader sources resulting in better decision making. Additionally this concept provides for less power struggle issues or power hungry supreme leaders and more of a focus on high performance teams’ where productivity, creativity, and potential remained limitless.

            My organization, a unit within the US military unfortunately will not be wavering much from the oligarchic leadership model. My organization is very much nested with the demand for hierarchy, orders, and strict discipline. The need for absolute command and control is also the main reason we’re unable to flatter our organization.

            Secondly, the bulk of experience and skills sets are nested with senior elements at all levels of the organization. Case in point the promotion system is primarily based on past performance and future potential. Those in the middle are still climbing the ladder and those at the bottom are earthier new and inexperienced or lack initiative and motivation to succeed.

            The third reason to refute the ability or idea that our organization could shift from a hierarchical structure to a flatter profile within leadership is that varying echelons are required to achieve command and control. Decisions making authoritative in nature and although I prefer decisions made at the lowest level sometime the tactical situation has overarching strategic impacts. An example is the Abu Ghraib prison incident highlighting detainee abuse or the burning of Korans outside the Bagram Air Base. Both incidents were oversights made at the tactical level that had strategic level impacts.

            In order to obtain a flatter profile the leadership dynamics would have to be altered significantly to accommodate this new style of leadership. In order to shift to this style, which I do not think is practical given the dynamics; military leaders would need to humble themselves and their “power” to the organization. This would be primarily shifting power and decision making to junior leaders. Leaders would also have to educate and increase junior leader’s responsibilities while motivating and encouraging initiative. Currently, initiative is constrained as the left and right limits are generally tight. Equally important is that followers need to respectfully vocalize creativity and embrace more individual responsibility. These would enable to military to have a flatter or broader profile.

            Due to the compartmentalize fashion between units the overall implication on strategy is not necessarily compromised. Although, I do not foresee the structure changing as it’s rather nested against history. I still believe leaders at all levels can symbolically flatter their organization by empowering junior leaders and increase their responsibility.

 

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

A633.3.3.RB_FogartyShawn

            Morning Star, Inc. started as a small tomato trucking company and has evolved over time to multiple facets of tomato production that produce over 700 million dollars a year in revenue. The organization however does so without any bosses. They have taken a tree-hugger community garden idea to an out of this world level. Morning Star, Inc. outlined that many organizations attribute almost one third of the organization to management. For an organization of 100,000 employees you have managers to manage other managers that tie up 33% of the organizational payroll (Hamel, 2011). This is a poor allocation of resources.

             St Luke’s organization is primarily in the advertisement business but does so with a unique approach similar to Morning Star, Inc. The principles of St Luke are that the company is a co-share where all employees receive an equal distribution of the proceeds. Employees work on what they are best suited for and not necessarily a specific hiring position. Individuals are held to standards established collectively and conduct an open monthly review of individual progress (Coutu, 2000). This is ironically like working and living in a glass house.

            Both companies take on a self-management model which encapsulates several principles in order to be effective.  First and foremost they make the mission the boss by letting the employees forge agreements which empower everyone thus eliminating the title “the boss.” Morning Star, Inc. doesn’t believe in trying to force people into boxes or cubicles for that matter while St Luke’s relatively works in a glass office with no predetermined offices, labels or positions. There is encouragement for impact, not necessarily for promotion which allows everyone an opportunity to succeed. Through peer to peer agreements individuals outline clear targets while progress is available through transparent data.

            The advantages of these self-management style range from individuals that have a higher degree of imitative, expertise, flexibility, collegiality, better judgment, and lastly loyalty. Loyalty is important because it takes a special breed to adapt to a self or peer-managed system which makes the hiring process more robust and lengthy. Some disadvantages are comprised of a tougher adjustment from traditional management styles to a self-managed style. Also, a longer induction periods or hiring process along with adjustments to different accountability systems challenges organizational growth.

            In contrast, my organization is traditional as it’s built on the 3-to-5 Principle. My Operations Officer who developed the campaign plan for our organization outlined five tenets that would best correlate to a traditional business strategy. The concept however doesn’t intertwine much the evolution of organizational change. Our organization is outlined having a superior or “manager” for every three to five people in the traditional hierarchal pyramid structure. This leads all the way from a private up to the executive and chief. As the military is more on the rank and file with a focus on discipline the self-managed organizational ideas such as Morning Star, Inc. or St Luke will not work as a whole.

            However, within smaller elements it has started to shine. Although I manage and provide oversight over several programs within my unit I seldom have to give “orders” or “tasks” to be completed. I hold a working group once a month to bring everyone together. Each subordinate unit has one or two representatives within the programs I oversee totaling 15 personnel. I consider this my team and these people fall within my “bubble” as I call it. I chair the working group but I allow them to drive the train or conversation. Generally we come up with a few good ideas, sometimes some not so good ideas. The intent is that everyone gets a chance to put their two-cents in before we agree on a course of action.

            This is not the natural template for military decision making however I prefer to chart my own path. The best aspect to this approach is that I offer opportunities for others to shine rather than hand out tasks or orders. I’m in a solid position where I don’t have to earn “gold stars” anymore so through coaching and mentorship to those within my “bubble” I present each new idea as an opportunity for them to shine. I don’t think we are in full swing as a self-managed organization but within my “bubble” we certainly operate on a hybrid system.

            I plan to continue this movement as it has been productive and supportive to my team. The advantages outlined above for self-managed organizations are relevant and I have a high degree of loyalty and appreciation as they are allowed to “shine.” I do not imagine the US Army as a whole could support this ideology. In part, those within my “bubble” are highly trained and very capable on the individual level. Although collectively the US Army is a superior fighting force a fellow officer, CPT Nicole Protz, best summarized the capabilities of individuals as “Not everyone can be the brightest crayon in the box.” Overall, self-managed teams would likely be more productive however too many people depend on the traditional hierarchical organizational architecture.  

Coutu, D. L. (2000). Creating the Most Frightening Company on Earth. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 142-150.

Hamel, G. (2011). First, Let's Fire all the Managers (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48-60.

A633.2.3.RB_FogartyShawn

            The following example of where a “small change yielded large results” in my organization was a simple modification to my office and a second to my schedule that has since yielded two separate but overlapping effects over the last three months. Although these are separate examples they are interconnected within my strategy. The results are even larger than I initially imagined.

            At our main operations center our offices and billets are not collocated and further require transportation that can take upwards of two and one half hours commute each day. There are a small number of billets available but primarily acquired by senior leaders a notch or two above my level. I determined my daily requirements had far exceeded my ability to operate, commute, and sleep. I needed 28-30 hours in a given day to make everything work. My position requires a lot of interpersonal relationships and customer service at times but those times never comply with the traditional nine-to-five. The times I was able to slip away and sleep I’d received phone calls or wake up runners and have to head back to work.
             I had kept track of my schedule and hours and it was rather ridiculous. I didn’t average much sleep. I started to sleep on a cot in my office for a few days at a time. It only marginally improved productivity because I had to travel to my billet for clothes or supplies every few days. The customer service aspect improved as a result but there were still gaps. I mapped out my schedule and identified the commute as the biggest waste of time and developed some plans. I sought to accomplish both my professional and personal strategic objectives by increasing productivity and developing efficiencies.
            I determined the layout of my office to be ineffective. Automations were not arrayed appropriately and in an effort to modernize the office I would be more efficient. Efficiencies meant better use of my time but were not calculated against my schedule. In the office modernization process I also incorporated a lifted bed over the storage area and map plotter making use of underutilized space. Incorporating living quarters in my office would then allow the time wasted during daily commutes to be redistributed. I allocated half of that time towards work tasks, but also allowed time for me to continue my graduate studies with an hour per day allocated to studies. If studies exceeded that hour I could reduced my personal time, multitask during meal times or would have to conduct physical training faster than the allotted hour.
            My calculated productivity was based on daily averages for time spent on work tasks to include physical training. Productivity calculations also included pursuit of education goals in post office renovation and modernization models. My productivity was calculated to be approximately 59% daily before any changes were implemented. After office renovations and modernization along with an alteration to my schedule I was able to increase my productivity by over 10% per week which also allowed time for graduate studies.
            With respect to the butterfly effect and how complexity theory can drive improvements I’ll address the additional considerations and impacts these small changes yielded. The command post now had immediate access to my depth of knowledge 24/7. The senior and intermediate leaders of the organization have heavily relied on my expertise, and having it readily available has proved invaluable to them. Further, our operations take place around the clock, if there are ever any issues pilots within my organization can stop by for assistance. I’ve received many thanks and tokens of appreciation as they don’t waste hours chasing their tail. I can often help resolve their issues in a timely manner where they would have previously wasted their shift waiting around.
            I continually outline that my section “TACOPS” which is short for tactical operations is 100% customer service oriented and will always support the mission and our team above all else. This has transcended into a small cultural change as other sections have observed the level of satisfaction and appreciation those within our organization have for my section. I have been asked for ways to help improve other sections areas for efficiencies and assess their schedules to increase productivity for them as well. Overall, our subordinate units have a higher degree of trust and confidence than our counter parts in other task forces or at higher echelons. Who’d think installing a bed in your office can impact the culture of an organization with over seven hundred personnel?

*Reference Excel spread sheet: TACOPS Office Modernization and Schedule Calculations.