A633.9.3.RB_FogartyShawn

If polyarchy is fast replacing the old oligarchy assumptions does this mean old oligarch leadership strategy models are now redundant? Maybe. Even though polyarchy leadership is emerging and more transparent today than previously; the traditional oligarchic models still retain much value. They provide a vantage point to compare and contrast and allow leaders additional framework with which to evaluate their leadership strategies. As organizations transition from point A to B they have understand point A first, and know who, what, where and more importantly why and how they are getting to point B (polyarchic leadership).

            I operate in a highly complex organization but under traditional leadership strategies. There is only a minimal amount of complex adaptive leadership principles applied which draws upon several implications and has a slightly ominous future for me as a leader. Being able to see the other side of the coin has allowed to me think outside the box, and if it wasn’t for the rigid requirement for absolute command and control the “oligarchic traditional pyramid” would collapse within itself. My organization can be rather humorous at times; they make up rules about other rules.

            The eight principles with their interconnections have a flexible nature which is highly desirable in a complex organization. The common mistake within the complexities of my operations is the tendency for leaders to overload the system. They try to implement too many control measures to safeguard the system. This tends to actually hinder operations, primarily by way of the people, as they filter through echelons of rules, regulations, standard operating procedures, and leader’s guidance. The basis of this process is to streamline and make the system more efficient, however the various levels of products often makes the system convoluted and confusing.

            Further, I would prefer to default my leadership style to a more polyarchic strategy however I foresee myself being trapped within the confines of my organization. Even if I was to bring forth the golden goose in way of polyarchic leadership strategy it would take tremendous effort and at the cost of much time and energy to shift the organization. To make sizeable adjustments the leadership from the highest most echelons would have to jump on board, my current position does not allow me to generate a conservative effort towards this plan.

            However, not all is lost. I think the complex adaptive leadership principles will come in handy at the lower levels that I operate. I can interject them into our traditional oligarchic strategies and the future will see more of the eight complex adaptive leadership principles. I also plan to forecast these principles with the individuals I coach and mentor, not necessarily to change their styles but to give them a wider perspective and more skill sets. I also plan to incorporate a demonstration, utilizing the exercise of people moving about two reference points at an upcoming leadership development brief. This will transition into the eight principles with a brief synopsis. I surely won’t go as deep as out course and text but enough to get the gears turning within the audience. My aim is capitulation to polyarchy though small victories.

A633.8.3.RB_FogartyShawn

            Coaches provide value to their clients in several ways. The first is they serve as a means to provide accountability to the individual. They may not have to draw up a contract, but a certain level of prestige is carried between an executive and executive coach. Next, the executive coach acts as a ground to the situation. The executive is already successful, however sometime it helps to have a checks and balance, or simply a sanity check. This can be mindful of both professional and personal goals. Lastly, a coach will provide an outside opinion, someone removed from the situation that generally should not have a vested interest in the outcome. This will therefore provide an unbiased opinion.

            Coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy as it serves as a significant enabler. Further, “executives must play their leadership styles like pros – using the right one at the just the right time and in the right measure” (Goleman, 2000). Executive coaching provides leaders with goals, motivation, and even inspiration to meet the organizations strategy. However, “there is a paradox in coaching’s positive effect on business performance because coaching focuses primarily on personal development, not on immediate work-related tasks” (Goleman, 2000).

            Since coaching is focused on the individual, it is often difficult to link the progress of coaching to having made a difference in an organization. With that said coaching can’t take place with an individual and have the expectation to be a game changer for the masses. However, if coaching is part of the organizations standard operating procedures and is done on a collective level, whether that involves everyone or key positions, the results would be outstanding. If the whole system is engaged by a coaching strategy there is an increased likelihood that the organization as a hole will grow.

            My organization practices counseling similar to coaching that would take place in an organization. Superiors should provide their subordinates with an initial counseling outlining their expectation and performance objectives. This is followed up by quarterly counseling ending with an annual evaluation or review. The sad aspect, although this is mandatory, it generally doesn’t take place. Counseling’s have a negative connotation, and many “leaders” use them more for  punitive purposes than balancing between positive and negative elements. Executive level or senior leaders generally have more of an unofficial mentor, being a previous superior officer they would like to emulate. Overall, if counseling protocol were followed more attentively it would address the issue of accountability while improving productivity.  

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that Gets Results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.

A633.7.3.RB_FogartyShawn

           The assessment was a good indicator for me as a leader as I’m able to identify with what I would have chosen six months ago or a year ago. However, given the skills and awareness I’ve obtained over this graduate program so far I move less hastily as a leader. I no longer think I have to save the world let alone my organization today, all by myself. Further, I no longer seek to be the person with the answer but look to my team to come up with the best answer. The assessment indicated that I’ve learned and applied some of the skills outlined both in this course or others.

            Regarding the questionnaire, some of the answers I would have chosen previously would have been to “step in and solve the problem.” Now, I think more about the second or third order effects but also about the individual involved. By me stepping in does the organization win? By me stepping in does the organization win no or in the long run? Have I motivated this employee or given them an additional skill set or have I simply solved this problem? I feel more confident as a leader backed by the finding from the assessment but it also proves I still have more to learn.  

            I now operate on a reformed view of my relationship with my team, followers and subordinates. I think more on if they understand the strategic messages; understand the vision, and what makes the organization successful. This is not just in today’s operations but long term, with the big picture in mind. I think more how to empower and motivate my followers. At times I try to classify them based off the matrices from Complex Adaptive Leadership (Obolensky, 2010). Lastly, I think of if I was my own follower, would I listen to me, why?

            My thought process has changed over this course; I think more of a polyarchic style of leadership. As being a military officer I’ve seen the traditional hierarchical pyramid approach time and time again. I think it’s useful for the military however at the tactical level there is also use for polyarchic approaches within certain lanes. I think more can be done in a complex system with boundaries, a few simple rules, and individuals with a purpose. In today’s markets, my organization like many “face adaptive challenges” (Heifetz, Laurie, 1997). The mainstream leaders in the Army may not be fully equipped to counter these challenges with traditional leadership styles. The concept of asymmetrical leadership which has emerged from concepts of asymmetrical warfare is the best the current leaders have in order to think outside the box. The most difficult thing my organization faces is change, but more so at the higher levels. Jan Charlzon pointed out best, “One of the most interesting missions of leadership is getting people on the executive team to listen to and learn from one another” (Heifetz, Laurie, 1997).  I can imagine he two, three, four star Generals would fall into this trap which further makes change more complicated, especially if we where to try and change leaders style of leadership.

            The significance of this in the content is directly related to my future leadership goals and objectives. I want to change the world of course, so every little bit helps. In retrospect, I’ve not always been a good leader, I’ve made foolish decisions but I’ve been smart enough to learn from them. Of course there are a few exceptions which took two times to prove that point. I had previously discovered similar to a situation outlined by Ralph Stayer, Head of Johnsonville Sausage, whereas I was my own obstacle (Stayer, 1990). My goals are to an effective leader, in whatever position I fill. If that entails staying in the military then I want to breed the younger generation of leaders to be more effective than mine. If I depart the military and work in the civilian sector I want to leader there too. Where I make each day better than the last and bring out the best in those who work with me.

 Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The Work of Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124-134.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.
Stayer, R. (1990). How I Learned to Let My Workers Lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 66-83.

A633.7.3.RB_FogartyShawn

           The assessment was a good indicator for me as a leader as I’m able to identify with what I would have chosen six months ago or a year ago. However, given the skills and awareness I’ve obtained over this graduate program so far I move less hastily as a leader. I no longer think I have to save the world let alone my organization today, all by myself. Further, I no longer seek to be the person with the answer but look to my team to come up with the best answer. The assessment indicated that I’ve learned and applied some of the skills outlined both in this course or others.

            Regarding the questionnaire, some of the answers I would have chosen previously would have been to “step in and solve the problem.” Now, I think more about the second or third order effects but also about the individual involved. By me stepping in does the organization win? By me stepping in does the organization win no or in the long run? Have I motivated this employee or given them an additional skill set or have I simply solved this problem? I feel more confident as a leader backed by the finding from the assessment but it also proves I still have more to learn.  

            I now operate on a reformed view of my relationship with my team, followers and subordinates. I think more on if they understand the strategic messages; understand the vision, and what makes the organization successful. This is not just in today’s operations but long term, with the big picture in mind. I think more how to empower and motivate my followers. At times I try to classify them based off the matrices from Complex Adaptive Leadership (Obolensky, 2010). Lastly, I think of if I was my own follower, would I listen to me, why?

            My thought process has changed over this course; I think more of a polyarchic style of leadership. As being a military officer I’ve seen the traditional hierarchical pyramid approach time and time again. I think it’s useful for the military however at the tactical level there is also use for polyarchic approaches within certain lanes. I think more can be done in a complex system with boundaries, a few simple rules, and individuals with a purpose. In today’s markets, my organization like many “face adaptive challenges” (Heifetz, Laurie, 1997). The mainstream leaders in the Army may not be fully equipped to counter these challenges with traditional leadership styles. The concept of asymmetrical leadership which has emerged from concepts of asymmetrical warfare is the best the current leaders have in order to think outside the box. The most difficult thing my organization faces is change, but more so at the higher levels. Jan Charlzon pointed out best, “One of the most interesting missions of leadership is getting people on the executive team to listen to and learn from one another” (Heifetz, Laurie, 1997).  I can imagine he two, three, four star Generals would fall into this trap which further makes change more complicated, especially if we where to try and change leaders style of leadership.

            The significance of this in the content is directly related to my future leadership goals and objectives. I want to change the world of course, so every little bit helps. In retrospect, I’ve not always been a good leader, I’ve made foolish decisions but I’ve been smart enough to learn from them. Of course there are a few exceptions which took two times to prove that point. I had previously discovered similar to a situation outlined by Ralph Stayer, Head of Johnsonville Sausage, whereas I was my own obstacle (Stayer, 1990). My goals are to an effective leader, in whatever position I fill. If that entails staying in the military then I want to breed the younger generation of leaders to be more effective than mine. If I depart the military and work in the civilian sector I want to leader there too. Where I make each day better than the last and bring out the best in those who work with me.

 Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The Work of Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124-134.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.
Stayer, R. (1990). How I Learned to Let My Workers Lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 66-83.

A633.6.5.RB_FogartyShawn

            My organization is incredible guilty for our own version of "the vicious circle for leaders" (Obolensky, 2010). I would argue that the model for my organization takes on a more a composite of two balancing loops with an abridge side effect. The balancing loop at the bottom would be comprised of the junior officer’s abilities or capabilities. The balancing loop at the top would be senior officer oversight. There would be a side effect or injection consisting of senior officer intervention on critical or serious situation where they felt the junior officer may not be capable to handle.  

            The overall effects are a decreased morale and productivity along with an increase in frustration from the junior officer personnel as a whole. It’s essentially like getting bench in the playoffs due to a few last minute players coming on the team. The fact the senior officer spearhead the critical elements or situation obviously entails there is importance but should not be at the cost of junior officer’s experience.

            In order to promote strong followership and even leadership at the lower levels of the organization the balancing loops would have be shattered and a system of positive reinforcement implemented. The senior officers would have to develop both the skill set they deem necessary in their junior officer such that they do not feel the need to jump in and further trust their subordinate or junior officers to do the right things. The emphasis on this system is that the junior officers must maintain that skill set and the motivation to enact to the demands placed upon them.

 

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