A633.9.3.RB - Polyarchy Reflections

"Most leadership models have the assumption of oligarchy – leadership is done by a few leaders over many followers. If polyarchy is fast replacing the old oligarchy assumptions does this make these old leadership models redundant? Reflecting on traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership, address the implications and how they will affect you as a leader in the future. What impact will they have on your future strategy?"

I am realist. I understand that polyarchic principles are most-likely some of the best forms of leadership out there. However, most organizations are not equipped to fully implement such leadership styles. Of course this is personal opinion but I think in addition to not being equipped, many organizations understand they need to change but are unable to implement such changes. Once again, this is all strictly opinion. I do think that as newer leaders mature this will start to change with a few caveats. Not all organizations require management degrees to move into management positions. Do you really think polyarchy is being taught in finance degrees? Or in criminal justice degrees? I will wager they aren't. So when bankers are being hired for finance degrees and promoted with such, they are not trained in polyarchy. This isn't to say that they are bad managers but they are trained to lead in whatever culture in which they exist. Even in organizations that are attempting to replace oligarchic structures, depending on the size of the organization, there are hosts of managers that are comfortable siloed in there little fiefdoms. If tomorrow Coca-Cola decided to go strictly polyarchic in style it would still take years to train new stables of managers. Do I think that oligarchy is redundant? No...oddly enough it will take oligarchic directives to establish polyarchic principles.

For me this means that I must be aware of the culture in which I am working. Only so much can be expected, the world will not change overnight. I can, however, begin to quietly lead by example. I've touched on this in a few class exercises but by controlling the things within my circle of influence I can begin to initiate small changes. If my programs get results than others may start to take notice. If I am noticed in a positive light, I will be given more and more programs. With that greater circle I can create greater change. Of course, some organizations embrace polyarchy more than others. It comes down to awareness of corporate culture and having support of other leadership. In an honest reflection I will admit to not wanting to shoot my career in the foot just because I think polyarchic leadership is a great model; and I do. I want to see this form of leadership percolate throughout my organization but it won't happen just because I want it. I have to demonstrate where I can and move up!

Therein lies the trap, you can't change the beast from outside you must be within. In order to change the beast from the inside, you must first look like something the beast wants to eat. As you increase in power and influence it becomes important to cultivate friendships and that may mean that office politics takes a role. To avoid this, I will have to be aware of my emotional intelligence and biases. Power and influence can be used to affect change for the better but it requires a great deal of self-awareness.

A633.8.3.RB - How Do Coaches Help?

"To be an executive coach, it is necessary to know that clients are the first and best expert capable of solving their own problems and achieving their own ambitions, that is precisely the main reason why clients are motivated to call on a coach. When clients bring important issues to a coach, they already made a complete inventory of their personal or professional issues and of all possible options. Clients have already tried working out their issues alone, and have not succeeded." 

Given the statement above what is it that coaches do to provide value to their clients?

I should first mention that I disagree with the above statement. I do agree that clients are the first and foremost experts; I don't agree that they have already tried working out their problems on their own. This is assuming a great deal of motivation on the part of the client and that coaching only takes one form. In strategic leadership we focus on executive coaching, and in executive coaching this model may hold true, but coaching as whole does not fit one mold. Many of my clients lack the motivation, for whatever reason, to have tried solutions on their own. However I think I can answer the question and satisfy both ends of the spectrum.

Coaches provide motivation, feedback, framework, goals, and can help build confidence. This has value for anyone seeking coaching. Those five things provide value across any number of relationship types; coaching being one of them. Using those tools a coach can help a client either learn more about themselves and their capabilities or to see problems from new dimensions. 

Why is coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy? 

Coaching is vital to the creation of new leaders in that coaching helps a person explore conflict, difficulties, or challenges in new ways. Leadership is about the development of people. People drive strategy, people create vision, people implement visions, and people both create and solve problems. It makes sense to develop people in the best possible way. Leadership is about knowing yourself . In many places this is called emotional intelligence. In order to develop emotional intelligence a leader has to challenge the way they view the world. Coaches can provide that challenging viewpoint; be a Devil's Advocate. It is important for leaders to have confidence in their actions but to not always assume their actions are correct. Learning to take the extra time to challenge a viewpoint, accept new information, and work through biases is a skill that needs learning; coaches provide that skill. 

How can it make a difference in an organization?

How can it not? It only makes sense that developing confident, thoughtful, well-trained leaders will create huge differences in an organization. Those differences won't be obvious within the organization as the members are all well-trained, confident, and thoughtful. That being said, I think that organizations can plot success as they learn to employ coaching techniques. 

What does this mean to you and your organization?

My organization is fairly well-run. This is a funny time to ask this question as I am in the process of changing organizations! I will say that since my undergraduate studies I've had a greater appreciation for coaching. It sounds horrible but I think it speaks well of my school that this week's studies didn't add to my appreciation of coaching as I already knew it was vital. I take these lessons with me into any role I take. I will provide, seek, and accept coaching and mentoring where I am able. I hope that through my actions and the effect I can have on others, that a culture of coaching is developed around me. As I move into greater leadership roles I want to be able to create a much broader cultural impact where coaching and mentoring are the norm.

A633.7.3.RB - Leader Follower Relationship

This week offers a few questions regarding my development as a leader in reference to the learning material over the past six weeks. It's fairly straightforward so let's jump right in.

1. Has your thinking changed over the course of the past six weeks, if so; why, and, if not; why?

I would have to say both yes and no. I will explain both in turn.

Yes is has changed in that I have a better understanding of self-organization in chaos theory. I was particularly impressed with the video displaying a group of people self-organizing with only a few simple directions. Learning to embrace a certain amount of messy chaos up front led to the best possible solution in the shortest amount of time. I found that to be a pretty fascinating. I've always appreciated a hands-off style of management but I never quite saw how the theory works in practice. Coming from a military leadership background there were always quiet a few barriers to true flat management.

Where I can say it hasn't changed was mostly academic. Complexity theory in management, seems to me, to be placing scientific underpinnings to what has been called flat management in the past. Other terms are empowerment or even parts of transformational leadership. Embry-Riddle teaches these concepts in their BS of Technical Management courses. I know this as that is the exact BS I hold. So this course has built on steady concepts to which I had already had exposure. In short, this course demonstrated some amazing science that I hadn't thought to apply to management though I had been taught a great deal of it in other courses. If that makes any sense you are ready for chaos theory.

2. What is the significance of this in the context of your future leadership goals and objectives?


My biggest take-away has been the leader that leads the least, leads the most. This doesn't mean be lazy, I think knowing when to get out of the way is very difficult. Cultivating and developing followers that trust themselves and their work isn't easy either. The trick is to do these things without appearing to do these things. I want to be able to develop into a leader that can be confused for a follower at any given time. To be honest I enjoy success and career advancement. I like knowing I can make a difference or manage programs to the effective. However, this class has demonstrated that groups of people can, with minimal guidance, produce great results. It isn't as simple as "don't micromanage" though that is part of it. I view it as more the role of a gardener, sorting good ideas from bad ideas and providing an environment for development. I feel that if I am being a positive influence rather than a direct manipulator the team will produce greater results. Of course, things are never cut and dry and I've seen great leaders step in and assume a firm control. I still think this is warranted on occasion; eventually leaders need to make choices. Sometimes those are tough choices, but if that leader has a strong team the information needed to make tough choices will be of better quality.

A633.6.5.RB - Circle of Leadership

There is a vicious circle of leadership where a follower demonstrates a weak skill to a leader, the leader feel he or she needs to take a stronger approach, the follower loses self-confidence, refers to leader again, and so on and so forth. I've been asked if this occurs in my organization. I can say that yes it does but only with certain followers.

The leader/follower relationship is largely symbiotic. They both need each other in order to be successful, though I wager leaders need followers more than followers need leaders. In the end a group of leaderless people with begin to self-organize and while they will most likely choose a leader (formally or informally) they will get on with whatever task at hand. Even in a Lord of the Flies scenario leaders, of a sort, came forth. This just means that leaders will be found. However, leaders can be quickly replaced or rebelled against. This may not always be a clean or even civil process but followers, when pushed too far, will remove leaders. A leader without a follower is pretty useless.

However, not all followers are capable of such independent thought. This is where I differ slightly from the principle that says it is the leader's responsibility to be aware of this cycle and break it. If the relationship is symbiotic than both parties need to be aware and take steps to change the cycle. To be fair, I don't think the text Complex Adaptive Leadership is stating that it is all on the shoulders of the leader but I do think students of leadership begin to see things from the leadership standpoint (Obolensky, 2010). This perspective can be hard to shift.

Getting back to my organization, there is one person in particular that stands out as a perfect example of the cycle. This person lacks self-confidence and while the heart is always in the right place his/her execution is often poor. This leads to the manager stepping in more often than the manager cares to do. I've seen the manager give projects (not overly complex tasks) to this person only to see the project go awry and then, though the manager had attempted to stay out of the process, the manager has to step back in. I see this happening more and more. So in this case the follower lacks the skill to break out of the cycle. The manager is trying to break it, but keeps getting drawn back. This cycle cannot be broken by one person alone. I think leadership training needs to be aware that there in not a magic solution to this problem. This employee isn't a bad employee but lacks the skills to move into a high level of followership. The assumption that all followers can be moved into a high level of followership is a dangerous fallacy.

However, a new cycle that attempts to break the vicious cycle only needs an additional step. That step is analyziation of the problem with a will to empower. Once a skill set has determined to be weak, leaders can train or otherwise focus on the skill, and ways to build this skill. This will take honest feedback and a willingness to actively engage with the follower in a constructive manner. This demands that the leader have a great deal of emotional intelligence. The leader must be aware, and this is where I think the leadership role is most crucial, of their own tendencies to over-reach or react in an emotional manner. If after all the retraining is offered the follower is still struggling it may be that the follower is in an incorrect role. Termination should be the ultimate last resort and re-assignment into other roles should be explored.