A633.9.3.RB- Polyarchy Reflections- Trey McNeil

The traditional concept of leadership is one of an oligarchical approach where many followers are in the hands of a few leaders. Nothing ever remains constant and like all things leadership is beginning to transform into something new. Obolensky (2014) stated that leadership models such as the Servant and Situational leadership models have stood the test of time and remained successful, but new models including Level 5 leadership are “beginning to show that a new type of leadership is needed” (p. 201).  With the influx of information employees have available now, knowledge has become much more abundant. This knowledge has caused companies to reshape their boundaries and become more transparent. As Obolensky (2014) stated, oligarchy must evolve or face the risk of death. So, as more companies transition into a polyarchic structure, do the successful leadership models of the past become redundant? If so, how will this affect leadership in the future?

In an oligarchical organization, such as a functional silo, the situational leadership model is a great tool. This model allows for the leader to change their style based on the follower or situation. This is an effective approach because successful leadership must be altered based on the situation. A leader who sticks to the same approach at all times will be unsuccessful and cause trust, morale, and production to decline. But, what happens in an organization that does not live by an oligarchy?  Can this method still be successful? At Zappos, this form of leadership would fail because no middle managers exist. Recently CEO Tony Heisch implemented Holacracy which is a bottom ups approach that allows leadership to be more free-flowing and shared throughout the organization (Feloni, 2015). With no middle managers and a more open-ended management structure, Situational Leadership would become a bit redundant and outdated. Obolensky (2014) discussed a company named Cygnet in Scotland where employees are allowed to choose their own bosses. A self-managed team who has the ability to choose their own leader would also be unfazed by an oligarchical leadership model.

The idea of oligarchy is a top down approach. All information is formed at the top and flows down to the other portions of the organization. In a time where the input of lower level employees is so valuable to a company, the idea and structure of leadership must be changed. According to Obolensky (2014), John Adair’s leadership model views “leadership as a dynamic that can be a concern for all” (p. 202). This is an outstanding concept! Instead of leadership being the pinnacle of the company and the top of the triangle it can now be the centerpiece of the company and all employees can be involved in leadership. Organizations, leaders, and even followers of the future need to work to develop a culture that follows Adair’s model. Organizations will be stronger and more successful if leadership is shared throughout all areas and individuals of a company instead of a selected group. The company will eventually begin to fail if leadership is not allowed to be embraced by all employees. 

Over the next three years, there are several approaches that could be followed to increase my leadership development.  One concept I need to try to apply more frequently is the art of wu-wei Obolensky (2014) described wu-wei as the art of doing nothing or just going with the flow and not disturbing the natural progression. As a preparer, I often try too hard to make sure everything is where it is supposed to be. The leadership program has taught me that leadership does not always follow a list of directions so sometimes things can get out of line. In these instances, I must remember the art of wu-wei. Another concept along the same lines is that I must understand complexity science. Complexity science states that complexity will eventually simplify itself in a self-organizing nature.

Another helpful resource for leadership development could be the 70-20-10 approach. According to Groth (2012), the 70-20-10 rule states that an employee should spend 70 percent of their time working on their core job, 20 percent working on something related to their core job, and the final 10 percent learning a new skill. I read about Google’s 80/20 rule earlier this year and have believed it was a good idea, both personally and professionally, ever since. If employees are allowed to spend a portion of their working time developing new skills and knowledge then the organization will benefit. An employee who is able to spend thirty percent of their time working on something other than their main duties while at work can see an increase in attitude, knowledge, morale, trust, and production. That sounds like a great recipe to add to the success of an organization.

The final approach I need to strengthen is speaking out when I feel like my leader may be wrong. Kelly (2013) stated that level 5 followers find the need to disagree with their leaders for the good of the organization. Speaking out, if done correctly, could also be a way to build trust with the supervisor.  If I am able to muster the courage to speak out then I can become a leader even without the title. Showing other employees that a platform and voice does exist could help others speak out too. Also, speaking out will begin to eliminate the leadership charade mentioned by Obolensky (2014).

If I am able to use the above-mentioned resources to become a stronger leader then I may be able to influence organizational strategy. Wu-wei will help me to avoid the need to step in that comes from my over-prepared personality. Understanding chaos theory will help me learn the act of patience. Abiding by the 70-20-10 rule will increase my overall knowledge of the organization. All of these factors will lead to a more knowledgeable, motivated, and trusting employee who can have an impact on the organizational strategy.

References

Feloni, R. (2015) Inside Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh's radical management experiment that prompted 14% of employees to quit. Retrieved  from http://www.businessinsider.com/tony-hsieh-zappos-holacracy-management-experiment-2015-5

Groth, A. (2012, Nov. 27).  Everyone should use Google’s original ’70-20-10 model’ to map out their career. Retrieved from Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/kyle-westaway-how-to-manage-your-career-2012-11

Kelley, R.E. (2013). Rethink followership. Retrieved from http://www.asme.org.uk/images/pdfs/2013/8.rethinking_followership.pdf

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

A633.8.3.RB-How do coaches help- Trey McNeil

When most people think of a coach their mind probably wanders to sports. They think about an old t-ball coach, high school basketball coach, high school football coach, or maybe even Vince Lombardi. When you think about a sports coach, what do you think is their number one priority? I believe that the job of a coach is to help an individual (player) increase their skills while defining and reaching their goals as they guide the team to victory. Why isn’t coaching used more often to help organizations succeed? The same concept could be used in an organization. The coach is there to help individuals reach their goals while they guide the organizations to success.

I recently came across the following idea about coaching and began to wonder how coaches can bring value to an organization, how coaching can affect strategy, and what this means to my organization.

To be an executive coach, it is necessary to know that clients are the first and best expert capable of solving their own problems and achieving their own ambitions, that is precisely the main reason why clients are motivated to call on a coach. When clients bring important issues to a coach, they already made a complete inventory of their personal or professional issues and of all possible options. Clients have already tried working out their issues alone, and have not succeeded.

So, what is it that coaches do to provide value to their clients? According to von Hoffman (1999), coaching assists clients in developing clear goals and set a time frame as to when the goals are reached. The purpose of a coach is not to tell the individual what to do but ask the right questions to learn what they are trying to accomplish. They are able to help the client understand what actions need to be altered to be successful and accomplish set goals. According to Frankovelgia (2010) the purpose of coaching “is to increase effectiveness, broaden thinking, identify strengths and development needs and set and achieve challenging goals” (para. 5). A client that has a broadened sense of thinking, increased effectiveness, and a clear path to reach their goals has a value that has dramatically increased. The client should feel a renewed sense of confidence, morale, and accomplishment.

Coaching can become a pivotal part of leadership because if done correctly, it should lead to stronger follower and leaders. As a client is coached they begin to learn more about themselves. They begin to see that they can accomplish that goal, make the sell, or learn the new computer system. As they learn more about themselves their confidence and joy for their work can start to grow. According to von Hoffman (1999) employees usually have many resources that have yet to be tapped and as a coach is able to open up the resources the employee begins to understand how they can apply the resources to the job. If coaching is successful it could create a culture of followers coaching other followers leading to higher-level followers that could become leaders.

From a leadership standpoint, the same rules of coaching could apply to leaders. Leaders could also be a client that needs to call on a coach. The leader may not understand why the company is losing revenue or why sales are down. As a coach guides them to reach their goals their confidence increases and leadership capabilities increase.

Coaching can also be useful in the development of an organizational strategy. Effective coaching increases an individual’s confidence, morale, productivity, and performance. Obolensky (2014) stated that approximately sixty percent of strategic ideas should come from the bottom of an organization. Followers who are more confident and understand their work in a new light may bring up stronger ideas that can be implemented into strategy. Buytendijk (2010) stated that strategy should be looked at as a group of options instead of choices and commitments. It is insane to think a coach will be able to predict the future, which is the idea a strategy is based upon. But an effective coach can help leadership better understand their options to put together a successful strategy.

Coaching can make a huge difference in the organization. As mentioned previously, coaching can increase confidence and productivity. The increased morale and skills can lead to stronger employees. As employees are the main focus of any organization (at least in my opinion) more efficient employees can only benefit the organization. According to von Hoffman, “Coaching produces more consistent, replicable results than a lot of other management approaches. It encourages them to be more flexible and adaptable. That kind of response from employees can have a substantial effect on the bottom line” (para. 24).

As I learned more about what coaching could mean to an organization, I began to contemplate what it could mean to not only myself but my organization as well. Looking at myself as a leader, I think coaching could be very beneficial. I personally tend to care more about the people than the goals in all aspects of business. I always chose a strategy that involves other people. But according to Obolensky (2014), coaching is a mix of selling and involving. I could use coaching to be more balanced in my methods. As a follower, I believe that coaching could help me tap some of the hidden resources that could impact my work in a positive way.  

My organization could benefit from coaching as well. Though there is a mixture of leadership methods in my department, the majority rely on telling or pushing strategies. According to Frankvelgia (2010), coaching relies on asking rather than telling and promotes thought rather than ordering directions. I believe if the leaders relied more on coaching than telling or demanding, the trust and morale in the department would increase which would be a benefit.

References

Buytenddijk, F. (2010). Dealing with dilemmas: Redefining strategies. Retrieved from http://www.frankbuytendijk.com/Balanced_Scorecard_Report_B1009A.pdf

Frankovelgia, C. (2010). The key To effective coaching. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/28/coaching-talent-development-leadership-managing-ccl.html

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

von Hoffman, C. (1999). Coaching: The ten killer myths (Links to an external site.). Harvard Management Update, 4(1), 4

A633.7.3.RB-Leader Follower Relationship- Trey McNeil

One thing that has become obvious to me throughout my venture in the leadership program is that the world is made up of many different types of leaders and there is no cookie cutter recipe on how to become a successful leader. What type of leader do you consider yourself in relation to your followers?  Are you more focused on the goals or the people of the organization? Are you more apt to push information and ideas onto your followers or pull information from your followers? Is one action better than the other or does the situation drive the action? Utilizing exercise 10.1 in the Obolensky (2014) text, I was able to determine the area I fall within the leadership scale.

The funny thing is that before I began the leadership program I did not see myself as a leader in any form or fashion. I did not think I had the confidence to be successful in the leadership program let alone see myself as a leader.  I had false a perception of what leadership actually was.  I now realize that leadership can come from each and every position in an organization. Obolensky (2014) stated that there are four styles of situational leadership styles including Telling (S1), Selling (S2), Involving (S3) and Devolving (S4). After completing the exercise, I discovered that I follow the involving (S3) style of situational leadership.

Obolensky (2014) offered various scenarios including “Your subordinates are highly qualified and are well capable of doing a good job. But they have not performed as well as they could and do not seem keen to do so” (p. 168). I chose the answer that allowed the subordinates to be most involved. I would ask why performance seems to be declining and pursue recommendations on how to increase performance. Other choices included reiterating to them about the targets (tell), monitor the situation but take no action at this point in time (devolve), and remind them of benefits reached by hitting the targets (sell). How do you think you would handle this situation?

My decision of asking the followers to become involved in solving the performance issue is one example of why I fit into the (S3) style of leadership. I have always felt that knowledge should be shared with all who are willing to accept. The pull approach of the (S3) style of management allows me to educate followers while helping them develop additional skills. Heifetz and Laurie (1997) stated that leaders must alter their thinking in adaptive situations. The traditional way to handle issues was relying on leadership through solutions, but in adaptive situations leaders must begin to rely on their employees to be the catalyst for the solution. (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). This altered point of view of relying on the followers and not the solutions is in line with the (S3) leadership style which is more concentrated on people than on goals.

I am not surprised by where I ranked in the leadership matrix. I have always valued people and believe that teaching someone to understand is more valuable than telling them what to do. What I did find surprising was the volume in which my answers related to (S3) leadership. The answer I chose was linked to (S3) leadership in nine of the sixteen questions. According to Obolensky (2014), my score indicated that I could become too emotionally invested and work too hard. This also does not surprise me because according to Rath and Conchie (2008), I ranked as an achiever. “People strong in the Achiever theme have a great deal of stamina and hard work. They take great satisfaction from being busy and productive” (Rath & Conchie, 2008, p. 103). I would not agree 100% with taking pride in being productive, but I have always seen myself as a dedicated worker when attempting to complete a goal.

As I previously mentioned, I have learned a lot about myself and the type of leader I am over the course of the leadership program. The learning process and reformed line of thinking have continued in this class. One important bit of information discussed in this class was chaos theory. As I have discussed in previous assignments, I am a preparer and like to have an answer for every issue or problem. Chaos theory made me change my thinking for the better. Sometimes things will seem chaotic and complex but I must continue to trust the process.  

My thinking regarding followers has also changed throughout this class. I had the short-sighted thought process that there were three types of followers. One follower spent their day riding out the clock and trying to unnoticeably do as little as possible until it was time to go home and do it all over again. Another follower spent their day doing everything possible to be noticed and maybe have a chance to move up the proverbial ladder. The final follower was somewhere between the other two types of followers. They possessed a mid-level skill and will. They did not want to do so much that they were noticed and labeled the star student, but also did not want to be put at the back of the class. It was interesting to learn about the levels of followership and discover that high-level followers exist with no intention of becoming a leader.

One goal I have developed after taking part in this exercise is that my style of leadership may need to be slightly altered. Obolensky (2014) stated that a leader should ideally hold a combination of the four styles of leadership. The fact that I lean very heavily toward the (S3) style could at some point become a bad thing. In certain situations, I may need to venture from my pull strategy and adapt a push strategy. If the situation warrants a different method then I must be willing to come out of the comforts of my (S3) style to acclimate the correct style temporarily. Becoming too one dimensional could lead to bad leadership methods and potentially cause harm to the department or organization.

Reference

Heifetz, R. & Laurie, D. (1997).The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e44b3498-3149-4e4e-8b4f-5d716551ce54%40sessionmgr4009&vid=1&hid=4206

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

Rath, T. & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths based leadership. New York, NY: Gallup Press

A633.6.4.RB-Circle of Leadership- Trey McNeil

Imagine going to work and having a question for your supervisor about a specific assignment or project. The question that you have for your leader makes them believe that you demonstrate a lower level of followership, so they begin to get more involved in that particular project. As the leader gets more involved, the confidence and demeanor of the follower start to decline, so they have the opinion that they are to defer to the supervisor more often. According to Obolensky (2014), these actions begin to create a vicious circle of leadership that can become harmful to an organization. This vicious circle can begin to affect both the follower and leader negatively. But how can the circle be approved upon or even eliminated?

How would you feel if you believed that all decisions must be approved by your supervisor before going forward? How would this affect your relationship with your supervisor and the culture of the organization? The first area that this circle affects in an organization is trust, which is very important. If supervisors do not feel like they can trust their followers and vice versa then the relationship is going to be damaged. According to Horsager (2012), “Trust affects a leader’s impact and the company’s bottom line more than any other single thing” (para. 1). If a leader is not able to trust that the follower can do their assignments correctly then they will not allow the follower to be empowered. Another negative of this vicious circle from the eyes of the leader is the wasted time and effort it takes to babysit your followers. If a supervisor is taking time away from their job duties to double check the work of the followers then both time and money are lost.

This circle can also have a looming effect on the follower. If the follower begins to believe that their supervisor must be informed before each decision then their confidence begins to weaken. Obolensky (2014) described five levels of followership including wait to be told, ask to be told, seek approval for a recommendation, seek approval for action undertaken, and get on and inform in a routine way. When the confidence of a follower is shaken, they will never be more than a level three follower. They will never exceed the seek approval for a recommendation level. The effects on a company range from mistrust, lack of empowerment, decline in morale, and possible decline of skills and attitude in the eyes of the follower. If they feel like their actions and decisions are moot then they will eventually stop offering.

If I would have addressed this topic several months ago, I would have incorrectly responded that this circle was not present in my organization, or at least not in my department. Most of the accountants in my department are seasoned and have been in the department for numerous years. Also, I had worked in the same area of the department under the same leader for several years so the trust between us and my level of followership was fairly high. I saw myself as a level-four follower where I would take action before seeking approval. But two things have recently happened that changed my opinion. First, we got a new computer system that changed nearly every process in the department. When norms and processes are altered even the seasoned veterans begin to rely more on their leaders. I would not go as far to say that the circle was created, but it was evident that followers began to ask advice at an escalated pace.

The second event that occurred over the last couple of months was that I was transferred to a different area in the department. Obolensky (2014) warned that the level of followership or level or skill/will can change in accordance with events at an organization. Being asked to transfer to a new area affected both my level of followership and skill. I no longer knew the processes and what to do on a daily basis, which caused me to ask more questions. This has created a circle where my new leader has been forced to take a more hands-on approach lowering my confidence. Over the six years I was in my prior position, I had been exposed to nearly everything that could happen and had a response and process to handle the event. Also, the individual that I recently replaced had been in the position for several years and had built a rapport with the supervisor, creating a less hands-on approach. The transfer has been difficult for both of us, but we must trust the process and understand it will work itself out. With time I will begin to ask for less advice and the trust and confidence will begin to escalate.

So, if the vicious circle of leadership is common but also harmful to organizations how can it be stopped?  What can an organization do to promote stronger followership or even leadership at the lower levels of the organization? I believe leadership begins with trust and confidence, so the organization must begin to build the confidence of the followers. No matter the department, sales, engineering, marketing, accounting, all departments must have confident followers to promote leaders. If the followers do not believe they will succeed then they will never succeed. Confidence is created through training. The followers must be trained properly to make sure they know all aspects of the job. Also, knowledge must flow from top to bottom. I have worked in organizations where knowledge is kept by leaders creating a trust issue. Some leaders feel as they should keep certain knowledge hidden away in a secret chest in order to gain power over their followers. In my experience, this does not work out well for the leader or follower.

Another element to creating greater followers is open communication at all levels of the organization. The followers are the individuals on the front lines so allowing their input on strategy and processes should be welcomed in the culture of the organizations. Organizations who rely only on top level management to make all decisions could be leading the organization to emanate death. Empowerment should also be welcomed by leadership. Followers who are allowed to have decisions about how their work can be done are more confident and have a greater sense of morale.

If I were to recreate the circle of leadership, I actually would not change many of the steps but the impact of each step would be different. Obolensky (2014) stated that “behavior breeds behavior” (p. 161). So I believe that increased followership begins at the top. In honoring open communication and knowledge flowing from top down, the follower should still ask for advice. But instead of the leader getting concerned about the level of followership exhibited and taking a more hands-on approach leading to a decline of confidence for the follower, the leader and follower could then discuss together the options that could be taken to correct the issue. If the follower and leader were able to work together as a team then the follower does not have to lose their confidence. If the leader and follower worked as equals and open communication is utilized, the confidence of the follower should increase instead of decrease. My altered circle of leadership would be: follower asks for advice, the leader takes an opportunity to share knowledge with the follower, the follower’s confidence increases, trust between the follower and the leader becomes stronger and the follower’s level of followership begins to increase.

References

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership (2nd. Ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing

Horsager, D. (2012). You can't be a great leader without trust. Here's how you build It. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/10/24/you-cant-be-a-great-leader-without-trust-heres-how-you-build-it/