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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment