The biggest takeaway from this course is that
organizations are changing. As we evolve as a society, the organizations to
which we belong also change. In Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS), the traditional
structures of oligarchy leadership are breaking down and ployarchies are
emerging (Obolensky, 2014). Reading these blogs, you have no doubt seen that
theme over and over. However, most leadership structures still assume the
structure of oligarchy. The Army is a perfect example of that. Though it is
clear that we actually are now operating within complexity – where the “multiple
agents involved are interconnected with feedback loops that affect each other
in a complex network that is hard to predict” (p. 54-55) – our leadership
structure has remained virtually unchanged since our establishment in 1775.
(The date of our establishment makes us the oldest established still functioning
organization in the United States.) I have been kind of scratching my head
asking myself how we still make it work using outdated models of leadership
which begs an excellent question – are old leadership models outdated and
redundant? Do they still serve a purpose? The answer to that is - YES,
traditional models of leadership still serve a purpose. Obolensky shares with
us that what we have learned about Complex Adaptive Systems is not absolute.
There is no cookie cutter approach to leadership. “It is not so much the truth
it proposes that is important as the encouragement it can give to venture
beyond a horizon, and to go further than one would normally feel comfortable…and
when you corss that horizon you will be in a new place and see things
differently and further than you have ever before” (p. 200). So the bottom line
– the ultimate learning objective for this class was to understand that
organizations are changing and it is often hard to see the difference between
cause and effect. Minor differences – sometimes unnoticeable differences – can mean
that what works today may not work tomorrow. What works in my organization may
not work in yours. Therefore, there are times where a more traditional approach
to leadership may still be beneficial. In a case such as the Army, that makes
sense because we are heavily bound by rules and regulations (it would be the government
without those regulations!) and there has to be a unified front in the
battlespace. We can’t have a polyarchical approach to leadership and destroy
our enemies in close combat are our creed calls us to do.
As I have probably mentioned in the past in my blogs,
I am pretty close to retirement from the Army. Basically, I have until next
summer to finish my degree then I will begin my transition from Army to
civilian. I fully intend to participate in a program called FourBlock which is
a veterans transition program where you learn networking skills and complete an
internship (hopefully at Bloomberg or at the Stock Exchange, ::fingers crossed::).
Upon completion of that, I will start a new career at the bottom. However,
another thing that I have learned in this course is how to follow a bottom-up
leadership approach where followership can actually encourage empowerment and
can influence strategy (Obolensky, 2014). The bottom line, though, is that I
will be flexible in my approaches to leadership to adjust to my environment. “The
future of work is changing, and only those who adapt will survive” (Groth,
2012). One way to ensure adaptability is through application of the 70-20-10
model which, as Groth explains, means that we all devote 70% of our time on our
core competencies, 20% on related projects, and 10% on learning new skills. It
is in this small 10% where I think we can change the most. The 70-20-10 model
is primarily used to describe the development of actual projects. For example,
developing new products or software. However, this is where we can self-develop
as well. It is where we dedicate 10% of our time to attending leadership
seminars or just trying something different. Actually, I have seen this in
practice already at work. I operate primarily the same way that I did a year
ago. I can’t put an actual percentage on how exact I am to how I used to
operate but 70% sounds about right. 20% has been something similar to what I
have done but 10% is completely different. For example, I through schedules out
the window entirely. That’s right – there is no work schedule in my office.
That’s a pretty radical new approach but it seems to be working out pretty well
as my team is performing better now that they have over the past 6 months.
I am very excited about what the future holds. I know
I haven’t learned everything that there is to learn. Even if I had, due to
chaos and complexity, it would still be different. What I do know is that I am
going to tackle it head on. It’s time. Let’s go.
Groth, A. (2012, November 27). Everyone Should Use
Google's Original '70-20-10 Model' To Map Out Their Career. Retrieved May 16,
2017, from
http://www.businessinsider.com/kyle-westaway-how-to-manage-your-career-2012-11
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd
ed.). Farnham: Gower.
No comments:
Post a Comment