Take a moment to think about this before reading
ahead. Within your own organization, of all of the solutions that actually made a difference, what percentage of those
came from the top? How about from the middle? Finally, what percentage of the
actual solutions to problems came from the bottom (those actually doing the
work)?
We began our reading this week with the above
exercise. I realize that the Army is a very unique organization but I also
realize that it is a changing organization. We may never reach a state of
polyarchy and we will never be like any civilian corporation but I think we can
still be classified as a complex adaptive organization. I just collaborated
with my coworker here and asked him to give his take on the above question. Both
he and I seem to be of the same mind agreeing that, in the Army, about 25% of
solutions to problems come from the top echelons of leadership. This may seem a
lot higher than the number that you got for your own organization but it makes
sense because “the higher the number is, the more formal and traditional you
may see leadership” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 35). The Army is deeply rooted in
tradition and, as previously discussed, we are a little slow to change. This
exercise was actually given to 2,500 executives from 50 different countries
(yes, it was the executives and not just the workers answering) and the average
fell between 15 and 30% which means “it is universally agreed that those at the
top of the organizations only know a fraction of the solutions needed to
overcome the problems faced by the organization that they lead” (p. 37).
I would imagine that a couple of hundred years ago,
the vast majority of solutions in just about any organization came from the top
echelons of leadership. Advancement came through either experience or nepotism.
There was much more of a heavily flawed caste system at the time full of racism
and misogyny and there was no “American Dream”. Fortunately, we have moved well
beyond that and we have empowered and emboldened teams made of the most amazing
diverse people from varying backgrounds that come together and make greatness
happen! I am 100% confident that in the past growth and progression were
stifled because of that caste system and the expectation that organizational
leaders had the solutions when in reality the best solutions were present
elsewhere in the organization but unable to ever be communicated. The issue
that Obolensky (2014) points out now is this little game that we seem to play –
a charade – where leaders pretend to know the solutions and those at the bottom
pretend to not know the answers. It is like we are just hanging on to the ways
of the past for some reason when everybody knows that we have to all put our
heads together and work as a team. There is a real fear sometimes of three
little words – “I don’t know”. Why are we so afraid to admit that? Obolensky
points out three ways in which leaders can help end this charade. First, we can
just admit that we don’t know. (How easy is that?). Second, we can use a
challenge and support approach. This just means opening a dialogue about the
situation at hand. Third, we can use dynamic question and answer sessions (as
in a town hall style meeting) in which non-scripted questions are asked both of
leaders and of the group.
As I have said multiple times, the Army is, indeed,
changing. We are working to break this charade. Based on our hierarchical
structure and deeply rooted traditions, we may still have quite a way to go but
we are surely moving in that direction. But why? Why, with our hierarchy, would
we change to a system where solutions are brought forth from the lowest levels?
Taking a step back and looking at it from the outside, I can actually see how
that would threaten the hierarchy itself because those at the lowest levels
could see themselves as equals to leaders and that could post a danger in the
battlespace. I’ll get to that more in a moment, though. For now, I want to
focus in on three reasons why I believe we absolutely are ending this age-old
game of pretending that our leaders have all of the answers. First, technology
has changed everything. Modern leaders are embracing technology at an
accelerating rate through the use of everything from smartphones to social
media. Social media platforms display the authenticity and genuineness of those
in leadership roles (Phillip Tredgold, 2014). Furthermore, “It also allows the leader
to potentially increase their influence. Social channels provide a two way
structure, one which gives a much better feel for what is going on in
departments, as many people are happy to communicate and share things that they
might not through more formal channels” (p. 9). Second, subordinates today are
better educated. I am sure that we have all heard before that college is the
new high school. Since a larger percentage of the labor force holds a college
degree than in the past – in my case, a higher percentage of enlisted Soldiers
– a higher number of the working class has the ability to analyze and think
critically. I am not saying that you require a degree to be analytical but a
degree does require a certain level of mental development which, in turn, leads
to problem solving abilities. Third, the Army in particular is an all-volunteer
force now which is made of a cross-section of society. All-volunteer equals
motivated and a certain level of buy in. We are not here just because we have
to be in order to make a paycheck. We are here because we want to be here and we want
this to be the best organization it can be. We have a vested interest in
speaking up and providing solutions to make the organization better.
So we know that the charade is breaking down even in
the Army. Leaders are admitting that they don’t have all of the answers and are
involving lower echelons in the solution process. We have to ask, though – how
does this affect strategy? How do we maintain the chain of command when those
at the bottom are equally contributing as those at the top? The solution is
simple. I am sure that you have put together a puzzle before. Picture a large
puzzle that, as it comes together, is forming a great picture. However, you
realize at the end that you are missing a couple of pieces. What happens? The
entire thing is ruined without those pieces. We are all a piece of the puzzle
of the Army. We are all a member of the team and have our dedication functions.
Being involved in the process doesn’t make us challenge those in positions of
leadership and authority over us. Instead, it helps us respect their roles and
directives. Our strategies continue to evolve to incorporate input from all
levels to make us a better team. The traditional hierarchy will continue to
exist and will actually be fortified. What I mean by that is that we will still
follow our orders but now we will follow them knowing that they are given based
on the input of all involved. It all comes down to that buy-in.
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd
ed.). Farnham: Gower.
Phillip Tredgold, G. (2014). Are you connected?
leadership in the era of social media. Development
and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 28(6), 9-11.
doi:10.1108/DLO-05-2014-0032
No comments:
Post a Comment