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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment