In last week’s posting, I discussed the Four + Four
Model (Obolensky, 2014) and how that applied to team leadership in complex
environments. When we think about leadership, our minds probably automatically
frame it from a top-down view. The Four + Four Model perfectly describes what
an effective leader should do. Since for everything that exists there is an
opposite, this week we are considering leadership in a different frame –
bottom-up leadership. That means that the focus this week is on effective
followership and how we can influence our organizations’ strategies and climate
without being in leadership roles. I am looking at bottom-up leadership in two
different ways. First, I am considering how I can be an effective follower.
Second, I am considering how I can encourage subordinates to be effective
followers.
At the beginning of the week, I asked a couple of the
guys on my team to take a little survey that was presented in our readings for
the week. The results graded the organization little lower than I was hoping to
see but it was good to know how they feel about their ability to perform within
the unit. The questions included topics such as the ability to work without
oversight, flexibility in working hours, the ability to self-assign tasks, etc.
What the results really showed me what that the members of my team feel that
they could prioritize and complete objectives on their own but perhaps they
feel like leadership has held them back in the past. I surely didn’t take any
of that personally as I have only been in the office for a matter of weeks.
However, I has asked them to consider the survey from the perspective of the
Company as a whole and not just our center so it gave me an idea of what I will
be dealing with for the next couple of years.
Followers can be categorized in levels of readiness. “This
could be described as followership ‘maturity’ – the extent to which they are
capable of taking the lead themselves and getting on with what needs to be done
with minimum input needed from an ascribed leader” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 157).
Obolensky explains that there are two factors that go into this – skill and
will. Low skill/low will = needs attention. Low skill/high will = needs
educating (training). High skill/low will = needs motivating. High skill/high
will = performer. So we can look at this in terms of training and motivation in
order to encourage followers to become effective performers within the
organization. Based on the survey that I had my team conduct, it seems that
they are motivated but feel that they are being held back by an overabundance
of management. In fact, I have heard them speak often of feeling micromanaged.
(If you are concerned that I am saying this about my leadership, don’t worry. I
am not stirring the pot with this. I am finding my new Captain to be very
approachable and receptive. I feel that I do have a voice here.)
In addition to skill/will, we also have to consider
levels of followership. There are five levels and the goal is to have
performers operating at level five (Obolensky, 2014). Level 1 has followers
waiting around to be told what to do. Level 2 is a slight step up in which
followers will begin to engage in the process by asking what they need to do.
Level 3 is where followers begin to generate their own ideas but seek
recommendations and approval before action. Level 4 has followers acting on
their own and then seeking confirmation. The top level, Level 5, has followers
acting completely on their own and just informing leadership in a routine way.
The goal is to have performers working at Level 5.
So training and motivation and coaching/encouraging to
autonomy can lead to performance and autonomy. The problem is that a vicious
cycle can often occur. Sometimes, a follower may take a step back and ask for
advice which demonstrates a lower level of skill to a leader. This causes the
leader to become concerned. When the leader is concerned, he/she may take a
more hands on approach. This in turn lowers the confidence of the follower.
With lowered confidence, the follower believes that they must defer more to the
leader so asks for advice thus restarting the cycle. I honestly have no idea if
this has been happening in my organization (Bronx Recruiting Company). I am
fairly certain that it was happening in my center before, though. To me, it
seems that the easiest place to have a break in this cycle is right at the
beginning with asking for advice. Let’s look at this from two different points
of view. First, let’s consider it from a traditional top-down view. Why are we
concerned when subordinates ask for advice? If they had all of the answers,
what would be the point of leadership even existing? We can break this cycle by
encouraging followers to come to us without fear of reprisal or repercussions.
Now let’s look at this chain from the point of view of the follower. Where can
we break the cycle here? I don’t think it is in the same place because we can’t
affect the thoughts and actions of others. We can only control our own actions
and thoughts. Therefore, why are we allowing our confidence to lower when
leadership becomes involved? We have to view it as a learning experience and
bear in mind that objectives are being met as a team.
I have said so many times that my organization is so
different from others that it can be difficult to see how some of this applies.
We have traditional leadership hierarchies with most of the power resting at
the top. However, in recruiting, we work in small teams with minimum
supervision so it is very easy to see the application of this here. As a Center
Leader, I can encourage my own team (of seven) to levels of performance that
they didn’t even know they could achieve. But more important, there are seven
other centers in my Company. As a peer, all I can do is my best to set the
example.
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd
ed.). Farnham: Gower.
No comments:
Post a Comment