A633.7.3.RB_SharpJosh

Leader Follower Relationship

     The quiz at the beginning of chapter 10 (Obolensky, 2014) tests your response to a variety of scenarios.  Four options are given for each scenario, each reflecting a method of leaders interacting with their followers.  'Telling' and 'selling' are the most direct interactions.  'Involving' is a hands-on supportive interaction and 'devolving' is a hands-off supportive approach.  My answers to the quiz suggest that I tend to favor devolving and involving more than the other two approaches.

     Looking at Heifetz's (2009) description of an adaptive culture is an organization that embraces conflict and chaos.  It exploits these uncertain occurrences as opportunities to learn and grow.  Occasionally, my own organization is willing to experiment and debate, but certainly not to the extent that it causes noticeable growth or success.  Part of this could be due to the cynical "old guard" or the fact that it's heavily laden with quasi-governmental bureaucracy.  In either case, it will likely take a generational change of management to bring these newer ideas of adaptive leadership to bear.

References

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). 

New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.


Heifetz, R. (2009) The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Review Press. Kindle Edition.

A633.4.4.RB_SharpJosh

Should the "Boss" Always Know the Answer?

The Harvard Management Update (2009) article on leading when you're not in charge, has five great tips.  One that I use pretty frequently is providing feedback.  I don't have direct subordinates at the moment.  When I did, I made sure to give praise publicly and provide constructive criticism privately.  Being specific and telling a mechanic how their efforts contributed to the overall mission can have the dual effect of boosting morale and providing reinforcement of desired efforts.  When used with peers, I point out how their efforts have helped both our team and the organization overall.  In the long term, this results in being consulted on future efforts and a higher degree of collaboration on other endeavors.  I also provide feedback to my bosses.  After a series of meetings, I noticed that my boss made frequent references to how things were done at his previous organization.  When I had a chance, I mentioned to him that I noticed he makes the references, a lot.  He hadn't realized, it was a blind spot for him that was damaging his credibility.  He thanked me for the feedback and was genuinely appreciative of my bringing it to his attention.

I operate in a space within my organization that provides limited positional authority.  So, I utilize my rapport with individuals and reputation as a subject matter expert to exert leadership.  It results in my being used as a proofreader, a sounding board, and a collaborator.  This also enables me to have the "uncomfortable" conversations with people and attempt to disrupt the unproductive status quo.  Ultimately, the boss doesn't need to always know the answer.  Getting the right people in the room, and sometimes the wrong people, is what adaptive leaders do to get to the solutions their organizations need.

Reference

How to Lead When You’re Not the Boss. (2009). Harvard Management Update, 14(3), 1–2. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=36826490&site=ehost-live

A633.1.2.RB_SharpJosh

Leadership Gap

After spending the last 17 months concentrating on my major, project management, I'm back to my leadership courses.  With 12 years as an active duty airman, my perception of leadership started out with strong, assertive, and direct leaders.  There's no place for questioning direction or method, especially early on in a military career.  As I moved through the ranks and matured in my career, I discovered a wider variety of leadership styles.  I found leaders that still clung to the very direct style of leadership, but I was also starting to see a more inspirational style of leadership.  In the military, and perhaps other "emergent" career fields, directive leadership can be a necessity.  There are times when leaders in those situations need their people to hear them and then act immediately as trained.

When I left active duty and entered the civilian job market I knew things would be different.  Civilian leaders lack the legal backing that military leaders receive from the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47).  This forces civilian leaders to be more creative and find ways to appeal to their employee's various motivations.  I found these approaches to be more effective, producing better results, and I quickly sought to assimilate them into my own style.  So, my attitude toward leadership has certainly evolved over time.  On a larger scale, leadership styles have evolved over the generations.  Changes in laws, the economy, and what each generation values have been driving factors behind this evolution.  The change has been from authoritarian to a more collaborative perspective on leadership.

The leadership attitudes between the generations are evident in even the simple things like performance feedbacks, changes in standard policies, and how leaders interact with their subordinates.  Globalization and the integration of multiple different cultures have also had an impact (Friedman, 2006).  My Grandfather once told me a story of how he declined to hire a job candidate because he didn't like his shoes!  I couldn't believe it.  His explanation was that, in his mind, the man's choice of shoes reflected his judgment in other areas.  My generation may pass judgment on a person's fashion sense, but we wouldn't risk potentially passing up on a solid talent because of their choice of shoes.  Both my Father's and Grandfather's generations also put a lot of value in people who would be considered workaholics by my generation.  Where I might see someone struggling to properly delegate or manage their time, they would see dedication.  My generation places work-life balance as a higher priority than the previous generations.

The interesting thing is, despite knowing these differences and having increased knowledge on employee engagement, productivity, and leadership, all three generations are still struggling to effectively lead organizations.  In some cases, I think it's due to a lack of trust.  Leadership doesn't fully trust what they're learning and the employees.  The employees don't trust the leadership's ability or motives.  They've seen the erosion of long-term benefits (pensions and medical) which has signaled a lack of loyalty to the workforce.  The workforce has responded with more movement between jobs and methods of critiquing companies and their jobs (i.e., glassdoor.com).  The organizations that we hear about succeeding, like those mentioned by Linda Hill (2014), have recognized these shortcomings and have embraced corporate cultures that seek to bridge the divides and take advantage of the new found knowledge.

Reference

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47.

Friedman, T. (2006).  The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century.  New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Hill, L. (2014).  How to manage for collective creativity [Video File].  Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/linda_hill_how_to_manage_for_collective_creativity?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare