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no middle managers and a more open-ended management structure, Situational Leadership would become a bit redundant and outdated.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.
No comments:
Post a Comment