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.
No comments:
Post a Comment