As this course
begins to wind down, we are left with one final blog entry. This one is proving
to be the hardest that I have had to complete yet. That is for two reasons that
I will address momentarily. First, let me present the topic. We have been asked
to discuss what was presented to us as the “four + four principles” which form
the basis of the organization level of complex adaptive leadership. We were
given a supplemental reading guide which outlined what these principles are. According
to Obolensky (2010), they are:
·
Implicit
purpose < ------ > Explicit objectives
·
Freedom
to act <
------ > Boundaries to confine
·
People’s
skill/will < ------ > Few simple rules
·
Ambiguity/chaos <
------ > Unambiguous feedback
Recently, I
completed some fairly in-depth training on how to navigate our library at
Embry-Riddle. We have instant access to thousands of databases, journals,
books, videos, etc. If you know how to properly search and navigate the
resources, research at the Hunt Library is a snap. However, one of the reasons
that I am having a difficult time with this assignment is that it appears that
this four + four model is a unique framework. I can research and support the
individual elements of it but it has proven difficult to find research that
supports the overall model as a whole. (With that being said, the model that
Obolensky provides is brilliantly supported and I have no doubt as to its
validity.) The second and more pressing issue is that I am finding that this is
hitting a little bit closer to home than some of the other topics that we have
discussed. I can see each of the shortfalls within the structure of my own team
at work and I am having to swallow a serious pride pill and admit that my
organization has not – or more like I have not – been properly applying these
principles.
What I want to do
here is first define what each of these principles mean and then I will tie
them all together with how I can apply them within my own organization.
Let’s begin with
the first two principles – implicit purpose and explicit objectives. “Purpose
is what lends an underlying meaning to day-to-day activities” (Obolensky, 2010,
p. 104). Identifying the purpose of an organization is a very “personal”
question and one that can be very difficult but necessary to answer. The
purpose cannot just be to produce revenue or contracts as there is no motivator
for sustained engagement with that. “'What's your purpose?' is a tough question
to answer, but one that, I believe, is essential if you want your [organization]
to have any emotional relationship with its own people and, more importantly,
its customers” (Earle, 2015, np). I somewhat alluded to it already but that
ties directly to a clear and explicit objective. The objective must support the
purpose of the organization. “The objectives have to make sense, and allow the
individual to see how his targets fit into the greater whole” (Obolensky, 2010,
p. 107). Objectives must be SMART (Specific, Measureable, Action-oriented,
Realistic, and Time-oriented).
Next we have
freedom to act and boundaries to confine. The easiest way to define freedom to
act is empowerment which requires a leader’s willingness to let go. I know that
I have already discussed empowerment in a previous blog. However, I think it is
important that we continue to be reminded of the potential devastation that
awaits an organization that will not empower its people. A leader/manager that
does not trust his/her employees to act without constant supervision is a
micromanager. However, “the micromanager is the true incompetent: the one bad
apple that spoils the whole bunch” (Stack, 2013, p. 102). According to
Obolensky (2010), there are three main barriers to managers letting go. First
are good intentions taken to excess. A manager usually has the most experience
and expertise. When they see something being done incorrectly, they often will
step in and try to take control. Second, there is the fear of poor performance
which leads to a lack of trust. Leaders are often the first to be blamed when something
goes awry so it can be harder to let go and be responsible for the work of
another. Third is the overall lack of awareness and understanding of
empowerment. It may be a foreign concept to many leaders so they don’t know how
to implement it. However, at the other end of the empowerment spectrum, there
are boundaries to consider. Every organization with have different boundaries
but some boundaries must clearly be set for a hierarchy to exist within the
organization. Think of a young adult that still lives at home. The adult has
freedoms that a child does not. However, they are still bound by the rules of
guidance of their parents until they move out on their own. They may have
freedom to come and go as they choose and live their life how they please but
they still have limits on consumption of energy and entering into legally
binding contracts within the home.
The next
principles are workers’ skill/will and being grounded with a few simple rules.
This seems to me to be something that falls heavily upon the shoulders of the
HR department of an organization as they need to identify and hire those with
the skill and will to work with an organization but that doesn’t mean that we,
as managers will have no part in helping guide these areas. Skill falls into
two broad areas: technical (referring to the ability to complete a given task)
and operational (referring to how the task is completed) (Obolensky, 2010).
Though we can help train on a skill, we can do extreme damage to the will of
those within our organization. “The biggest barrier to people’s motivation in
an emerging polyarchy is the tendency for leaders/managers to demotivate by
using inappropriate oligarchic behaviours” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 118). So what
are leaders doing that demotivate their teams? “The most significant
demotivators identified are lack of praise and recognition, a demotivating
management style and managers not dealing with underperformance in others”
(McCarthy, 2015, np). (I will address this just a little more in my follow up
momentarily.) Similar to empowerment, boundaries must be set. When your team
has both the skill and the will, they must still be grounded with a few simple
rules. These can be broken into two areas with which we are most likely all
familiar within our own organizations- operational rules (standard operating
procedures) and behavior rules (core values) (Obolensky, 2010).
The final two
principles are tolerance of ambiguity and chaos and unambiguous feedback. This actually
reminds me a little of “Jurassic Park” where Dr. Malcom is discussing chaos
theory. The bottom line is that we strive for predictability but we accept that
there are some gray areas in the operation of an organization. Not everything
is going to go as planned and we must learn to accept and expect a little bit
of chaos. At the same time, we need clear and concise feedback within the
organization. When there is chaos, the reports on the chaos need to be
specific. Though we can’t hope to eliminate future chaos, we can understand how
to react when similar situations arise.
So now for the
most relevant part – how this all ties into my organization right now. First, I
believe that my team has forgotten our purpose and part of that is due to
unobtainable objectives given to us that don’t match what our purpose actually
is. This morning, I actually shared a video with my team, though, by a
leadership coach by the name of Simon Sinek. In his video, Sinek talks about
focusing on “why” instead of “what” within an organization (2009). (I actually
have the link posted in my references below. I HIGHLY encourage you to watch
the video. I used the same video as a reference in my weekly discussion forum
as well. It will change the way that you view your role within your
organization.) As an Army recruiter center leader, I need to remember why we do
what we do. I don’t want to get into a philosophical debate over the morality
of being a Soldier as I know that there are those that disagree with it and
that is fine but the fact is that our nation does require a strong Army to
maintain our way of life. As recruiters, if we do not find quality applicants
to join us, those that are already in the Army are unable to have relief. That
means more time away from home and their lives. That means more exposure to
hazardous conditions. We recruit because there are people in the world that
wish to do our nation harm and we stand ready to defend the people. It is so
easy for us to lose focus of that when our upper leadership can only see
numbers on a computer screen and place unrealistic goals on us for making a
specific number of appointments for the week with no focus on quality. Our
objective is six appointments each regardless of the conditions of the week. For
whatever reason, the human side of everything is removed from that number. It
doesn’t matter if you are tasked out for two days that week or if the weather
forces the office to be close. We MUST make six appointments. When people start
documenting in the system that Wal Mart or Duane Reade agreed to an appointment,
that proves that we have lost our focus. The objective needs to shift to
quality over quantity. We have voiced that complaint and it has fallen on deaf
ears it seems.
The next two
principles of freedom to act and the boundaries to confine are so closely
related to the skill/will of the team and the simple rules that I am just going
to lump them together here for how they should be applied within my center.
Right now, I have 10 members on my team (including myself). Sadly, I do not
trust all 10 of them. The fact is that they do not all possess the technical
skill or the will but some of them do. Where I have failed as a leader is by
not treating them all as individuals. What I mean by that is that I have
perhaps empowered those that should be trained a bit more first. But do you remember
that quote that I said that I would address a little more? This is it. The
worst part is that I believe that I have allowed myself to demotivate my team
at times by not dealing with underperformance properly. I allow myself to judge
intentions instead of just actions. I used to be at the other extreme of this
spectrum. As a military instructor, we were almost required to micromanage. I
was required to scream and yell to motivate. I hated that aspect. I felt like a
monster so I have perhaps now allowed myself to be too much of a nice guy and
not properly address underperformance. Though I still enforce barriers and rules,
I perhaps have set too wide of a limit. In other words, the line is pretty far
out there. If you cross it, though, I will whip you back within the boundaries.
However, I think that I set the boundaries so wide to where it would be
difficult and intentional to cross them.
Lastly, the
principles of chaos and unambiguous feedback – this may be the area where I
have the least experience. Or maybe it is where I have the most experience. As paradoxical
as that may seem, I believe that we always seem to operate right on the edge of
controlled chaos. That has been the case through my entire career. I think it
is just some common place that I simply don’t recognize it anymore. It still happens
every day at work for me. We make projections for processing and I just expect
half of them to not stick. I operate expecting every waiver to be denied and
every test to be a failure. Perhaps it saves me from disappointment but it also
protects me from giving my leadership inaccurate data. When a waiver is
approved, I just know that I have to produce that much less for the following
phase line.
Again, this was
one of the hardest blogs for me to write. I believe that it is forcing me to
recognize where I am failing as a manager and a leader. But it isn’t all doom
and gloom. I also see where I can improve and inspire my team to improve. I
also can see where I have been successful.
Earle, J. (2015). Frontline: What's your purpose?. London:
Haymarket Media Group.
McCarthy, K.
(2015). Leadership secrets. Dublin:
Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland.
Obolensky
(2010). Getting Chaos and Complexity to
Work. Chapter 7, p. 101-129
Sinek, S. (2009,
September). Simon Sinek: How great
leaders inspire action. [Video file]. Retrieved
from http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action#t-25805
Stack, L. (2013). Managing effectively without micromanaging.
Alexandria: Association for Talent
Development.
No comments:
Post a Comment