A633.9.3.RB_CliffordMarc

Polyarchy Reflections

Over the last nine weeks we have studied and learned that advances in transportation and communication technology, an increased level of general understanding, and an explosion of knowledge have caused the context of leadership to change. Oligarchic assumptions, that leadership is done by the few over many, are giving way to polyarchy, leadership by many. No longer do leaders have a monopoly on information. As knowledge is power, it follows that the power has been distributed from those that lead to those that follow.  These factors have caused organizational structures to change, “The trend is towards more cross-functionallity and flatter hierarchies, with more informality and enablement” (Obolensky, 2016). As we understand the changing context of leadership we can more fully comprehend why the shift is taking place.  

Are Old Leadership Models Obsolete?

As we understand the changing context of leadership it is natural to consider whether or not old models of leadership, oligarchic models and strategies, are obsolete.  Obolensky (2016) suggested the seriousness of the consequences of failing to change leadership assumptions: “Evolve or die.” However, I believe it is beneficial to take another look at the situation.  

Throughout this course we have learned how the concept of yin and yang apply to leadership. “Opposites are a complementary dynamic rather than two antagonistic and static positions facing each other. . . . It is about going beyond opposites and realising that opposites combine to create something powerful” (Obolensky, 2016).  Perhaps that same reasoning should be applied to the concepts of oligarchy and polyarchy. Perhaps we need to consider that yet another paradox exists, and instead of thinking that we need to replace old styles of leadership with new styles, we need to understand when different styles can be best applied to “combine to create something powerful” (Obolensky, 2016).  Obolensky makes the comment that “Paradoxes are easier to grasp with a systemic view” (Obolensky, 2016).

As we take a look at the systems view of leadership, it seems to me that there are situation in which polyarchy will be nearly impossible to get off the ground.  The aviation industry, for example, is heavily regulated by the government; here is a need for continual oversight and compliance to ensure public safety. In this situation do we really want pilots who are allowed to creatively make their own decision about how to fly an approach?  I think a standard operating procedure that has been proven to be safe is the best practice. However, that does not mean that polyarchy and complex adaptive leadership need to be rejected wholesale. In industries such as aviation old oligarchic leadership models will be around for a long time. However, polyarchy can be applied in many ways.  Within specific departments (that is an oligarchic, hierarchic word) polyarchy and complex adaptive leadership can be applied by breaking up the leadership charade and implementing the Four + Four Principles discussed by Obolensky (2016).  Thus followers will be able to move to Level Five followership, and leaders will be able to move from tell-sell to involve-devolve strategies.

Personal Application

The question now becomes more personal.  How will I apply these paradoxes to my own leadership strategy in the future?  I believe one of the most valuable skills I can contribute to my organization is the ability to “take the pulse” of the environment and the company.  By having a deep understanding of the context of leadership in which I function I can better understand if oligarchic or polyarchic assumptions are most applicable.  In addition I can help move the organization along on the path to complex addaptive leadership. Kyle Westaway, a Harvard lecturer, and attorney indicated that leaders can benefit from the 70:20:10 model “devoting 70 percent of their time to their core competency, 20 percent on related projects, and 10 percent to learning new skills and working on side projects” (Groth, 2012).  In the future I need to open myself up to different leadership opportunities in order to benefit from experiential learning. As I complete my master’s degree I will continue to educate myself within my field and seek for opportunities to apply what I have learned.

References

Groth, A. (2012, Nov. 27). Everyone Should Use Google's Original '70-20-10 Model' to Map Out Their Career. Retrieved from  http://www.businessinsider.com/kyle-westaway-how-to-manage-your-career-2012-11

Obolensky, N. (2016). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Taylor & Francis

A633.8.3.RB_CliffordMarc

How to Better Enable Leadership

Obolensky (2016) indicated that business structure is changing: “The trend is toward more cross-functionality and flatter hierarchies, with more informality and enablement.”  This trend is the result of greater general awareness, the increased availability of technology, and the explosion of knowledge that has occured over the last few decades (Obolensky, 2016). Obolensky (2016) suggested the serious and lasting consequences of the trend, “those which do not evolve this way will most likely die, sooner or later.” What are the keys to survival according to Obolensky?  “More informality and enablement.” Organizational leaders need to be anxious to demolish functional silos and break the leadership charade by encouraging a flatter organizational structure and enabling leadership at all levels.  Papadopoulos (2016) indicated that leadership at all levels “creates an environment around self-expression, self-organization, self-management, and full accountability for the results.” He also explained that “Leadership at all levels is a paradigm in which, regardless of your title, tenure or compensation, you relate to your company as if ‘you own the joint’. . . . You generate ideas and make decisions from a place of ownership.”

As part of this assignment I asked the operations supervisor at Era Helicopters what his thoughts were regarding “how the organization can better enable leadership at all levels.”  His thoughts were insightful and right on track. He suggested that the most important component of enabling leadership at all levels is transparency. He suggested that transparency “from the top down” (Glynn, 2018) was essential to establish trust and mutual respect.  He also indicated that transparency enhances the ability of all levels of the organization to “see” and understand the strategic vision. If transparency is lacking it is difficult, if not impossible, for followers to know which way their leaders want them to go. In addition, transparency leads to clear policies and procedures.  When these are firmly in place people can “go to work and do their jobs” (Glynn, 2018). When they are able to do their jobs without management oversight then leadership can focus their resources and attention on “bigger picture issues” such as building and improving the team. Papadopoulos (2016) indicated that one key to developing a culture of leadership at all levels is to “Trust yourself and your team. . . .As Pat Riley, the successful basketball coach and executive, once said: ‘A leader’s responsibility is to create an environment where people and their talents can flourish.’”

Interestingly, when I asked a few pilots what they thought about “how the organization can better enable leadership at all levels” they gave me the same answers, but from a different perspective.  One pilot indicated that leadership needs to communicate better, and another simply said “they need to get out of the way.” What he was implying was that the policies and procedures are in place, and management now needs to allow people to do their jobs. Papadopulos (2016) said

This concept can sound scary to some, but under a trusting leader, people will step up in ways that matter.  Your team will do the right thing for you, the company and its clients because people want to make a difference, create an amazing experience for clients, be innovative, and above all, they want to leave behind a legacy.

I found it very interesting that both the operations supervisor and the pilots know what needs to be done to enable leadership at all levels; transparency needs to improve, and trust needs to increase.  However, because the vicious circle described by Obolensky (2016) exists, it appears that it is difficult for management to trust the employees to do the right thing and “get out of the way.”

In my position as lead pilot I can do my part to enable leadership at all levels by promoting transparency from the top down, and encouraging bilateral trust, both top-down, and bottom-up.  In addition, I can encourage upward leadership. Last week during a safety meeting a pilot suggested that flight crews should be required to use fire retardant clothing (FRC). He pointed out that nearly everybody that we work around and with uses FRC, and that we are constantly in an environment in which a potential for flash fires exists.  I told him that he should submit a suggestion via our internal reporting system. Later the operations supervisor mentioned to me that it was a great suggestion, and that the safety department is looking into the possibility. Maybe leadership is more prevalent at all levels of the organization than I initially thought.

References  

Glynn, J. (2018, May 7). Phone interview.

Obolensky, N. (2016). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Taylor & Francis

Papadopoulos, N. (2016). How a culture of leadership at ALL levels will help your team take gold. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/271411

A633.7.4.RB_CliffordMarc

How Do Coaches Help?

Based on the readings reflect upon the statement below.

To be an executive coach, it is necessary to know that clients are the first and best experts 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, often they already made a complete inventory of their personal or professional issues and identified all possible (known) options. Clients have already tried working out their issues alone, and have not succeeded.

Executives, for the most part, have demonstrated that they have a high level of skill.  Through years of experience they have increased their capability and knowledge to successfully accomplish their jobs.  In addition, executives have a high level of motivation to perform at a high level. They are high on the Skill/Will matrix.  Because executives are high performers, coaches should be aware that they are in the best position to solve their own issues and overcome their own problems.  Coaches simply help them walk the path that leads to the best decisions. “Today, most coaching is about developing the capabilities of high-potential performers” (Coutu & Kauffman, 2009).

There are numerous benefits that can be derived by engaging an executive coach.  Coaches can help leaders see themselves more clearly. Without the ability to see themselves clearly, and lead themselves, they will not be able to lead others.  “accurate self-awareness in leaders is highly correlated with organizational effectiveness and profitability, and employees prefer to follow leaders who see themselves clearly” (Anderson, 2017).  Once leaders have gained the ability to see themselves clearly thy will be in the position to see others as they really are. A coached executive will be able to recognize and assess the strengths and weaknesses of others more accurately.  Coaches can help leaders respond in new ways (Anderson, 2017). Oftentimes leaders have been promoted to management positions because of their strong work ethic and ability to tackle a tough project. However, when promoted to leadership, the context has changed.  No longer is the leader responsible for actually performing the work; he or she needs to learn to delegate, organize, and lead teams to get the job done. Coaching can add to the leadership toolbox. Coaches can help leaders “leverage your existing strengths” (Anderson, 2017).  On occasion leaders are unaware of their own strengths and abilities. “Having an effective and supportive coach can also help you see and leverage strengths that you already have but that you may be underestimating” (Anderson, 2017). Coaches can help leaders build more productive relationships (Anderson, 2017).  Oftentimes leaders build and foster the strongest relationships with those that are similar to them. However, building relationships with a wide variety of people has added benefit. One of the most important functions of a coach is to help leaders achieve what they want. “This is the bottom line for an effective coaching engagement. A good coach can help you get clearer about your goals and dreams, and about what you're capable of doing in order to achieve them” (Anderson, 2017).

Often when a leader has engaged the assistance of a coach he or she has already tried to resolve the issue alone, but without success.  Coaches can help leaders identify alternative solutions to issues that may not be apparent. Coaches help executive expand their abilities, come to conclusions, and resolve issues on their own.  They help them to see themselves and others more clearly, learn new ways of doing things, leverage their strengths, build relationships, and achieve their goals (Anderson, 2017). “The kind of coaches I am talking about will do more than influence behaviors; they will be an essential part of the leader’s learning process, providing knowledge, opinions, and judgment in critical areas” (Coutu & Kauffman, 2009).  

References

Anderson, E. (2017). 6 Ways an executive coach can make you more successful. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2017/11/20/6-ways-having-an-executive-coach-can-make-you-more-successful/#52cab33263d5

Coutu, D., & Kauffman, C. (2009). What can Coaches Do for You? Harvard Business Review, 87(1),91-97

A633.7.3.RB_CliffordMarc

Leader Follower Relationship

Over the last six weeks as I have been involved in this course I have learned many lessons regarding both leadership and followership.  I have always been a leader that believes in the will and skill of people. People want to produce the best possible results and seek to be successful in what they do.  I have always believed that there is a real risk that a leader can “get in the way” of success, and that the true role of a leader is to share a vision with the team, and then provide the training, resources, and motivation to go after the vision.  However, despite having a good foundation of thoughts and feelings I have never considered leadership outside of a traditional hierarchy; I have felt that the hierarchy is important so that each player knows how they fit into the system.

During this course I have learned of the importance of flattening out the leadership structure.  One particular lesson that I have learned is that the structure should not be flattened from above; the skill, ability, knowledge, and persuasiveness of the leaders should not be driven down, like hammering a nail, to the level of the rest of the organization.  The rest of the organization should be brought up to the level of the leader by empowering, listening, following, and waiting (Obolensky, 2016).

Given the complexities that are involved in leading an organization in today’s business environment, there are multiple leadership strategies that are effective in varying circumstances.  Obolensky (2016) narrowed them down to four: tell, sell, involve, and devolve. The tell strategy is not necessarily a command and direct method.  Tell can include teaching and showing someone how to do something or providing necessary information so they can accomplish a task.  Sell involves relaying the importance of the task and ensuring that their is awareness of the benefits.  The goal is for ownership to be transferred from leader to follower. Involve is a pull strategy used “either when the leader does not know or chooses to hold back to allow others to discover the solution” (Obolensky, 2016).  Devolve is the strategy to use when there is high skill and will, and the environment is established for people to “get on and inform in a routine way” (Obolensky, 2016).

Obolensky (2016) provided an assessment by which a leader can evaluate his or her use of the different leadership strategies.  After taking the leadership strategies assessment I calculated the percent of my responses for each of the four strategies; S1: Tell, S2 Sell, S3: Involve and S4: Devolve.  I then plotted the results in the skill/will matrix:

As can be seen in the matrix, I responded to the questions using the S1: Tell strategy the least, the S2: Sell and S4: Devolve strategies a bit more, and the S3: Involve strategy the most.  Obolensky (2016) noted that “If the sum of your S2 and S3 scores is higher than the sum of your S1 and S4 scores, then you might be working too hard!” However, he also indicated “The key point is that a crucial skill is to be able to move effortlessly between each leadership strategy.”   Based on my scores it appears that I may need to improve my ability to use the S1: Tell strategy. When I look at myself in the leadership mirror that is exactly what I see! I struggle when I have to tell people what to do. I prefer to involve myself in a task, show people how to do it, and then invite them to join me.  Once they are involved and have demonstrated their capability I fade away in the background. Obolensky (2016) noted “It is not about which style is better or worse. It is about which strategy has the best chance for success.” There are times that each strategy is appropriate and should be used; I need to recognize those times and ensure that the appropriate strategy is being employed to ensure “the best chance for success” (Obolensky, 2016).

Reference

Obolensky, N. (2016). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.)
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis

A633.6.4.RB_CliffordMarc

Reversing the Circle

“Leaders get the followers they deserve.  Followers get the leaders they deserve” (Obolensky, 2016).  As organizational leaders develop strategy it is important to consider how both upward and downward leadership influence each department and each employee.  The strategy that an organization adopts depends quite heavily on each employee and their individual willingness and ability to perform their job functions independently.  Followership is an individual’s ability and willingness to follow a leader.

Obolensky (2016) described five levels of followership:

1. Wait to be told
2. Ask to be told
3. Seek approval for a recommendation
4. Seek approval for action undertaken
5. Get on and inform in a routine way

A certain level of interdependence or codependency exists with every leader/follower relationship.  An employee’s behavior depends heavily on, and is influenced by the leader’s behavior.  “To consider . . . ‘Level 5 followership’ in isolation to leadership behavior would be a serious omission as the one will, to some extent drive the other, and vice versa” (Obolensky, 2016).  The confidence that a follower demonstrates can influence the trust that a leader places in him.  If a follower shows low confidence in his own skill, a leader may struggle to place trust in him.  Obolensky (2016) depicted the loss of confidence that leaders experience in what is described as “A typical vicious circle for leaders:”

The “vicious circle” can be especially vicious at times at Era Helicopters.  Although I will describe one example in fairly basic terms, it is really a complex issue involving federal regulations, liability, customer input, and operational control.  

Occasionally a helicopter will have a maintenance discrepancy while flying to or from an offshore oil platform.  In the eleven years I have been employed by Era Helicopters I have had a few minor discrepancies occur such as engine or transmission chip lights, oil temperature, or oil pressure lights.  A couple years ago management requested that pilots not make any decisions about maintenance issues and airworthiness of aircraft themselves.  The request was that any maintenance issue that occurred offshore, other than serious emergencies that require immediate action, needed to be brought to the attention of management so that they could make a decision what action to take.  This used to not be the case.  In the past a pilot held responsibility for determining the best way to proceed whether it was to land as soon as possible, continue to the destination, or return to the airport.  A couple years ago management began asking more and more questions, and requesting more and more details of any aircraft discrepancy that occurred offshore.  A few events were so heavily “armchair quarterbacked” by management that the pilots involved felt like they had no support of the decisions they had made.  As this began to happen more frequently, pilots began to worry they would be negatively critiqued if they made a decision, so they began to involve management in the process, calling any time they had a discrepancy.  As pilots involved management more in the decision making process, management began to feel that the pilots were less capable of making decisions independently.  They now have taken away the decision making ability from the pilots completely.  For many pilots this has been a source of frustration as they are forced to wait for management decisions before they can proceed.  On the other hand, taking the decision away from the pilots shields us from blame and disciplinary action.  I honestly do not believe that this has reduced the morale or followership at Era Helicopters very much.  I believe this to be the case because, in general, we operate at Level 1 or Level 2 followership; pilots are assigned to specific contracts, or specific charter flights.  We are essentially in the category of “wait to be told what to do,” or “ask to be told.” 

Lower level followership can be enhanced and raised to higher levels through action on the part of both pilots and management; the “vicious circle” can be reversed!  The level of followership that management expects from an individual pilot should be dependant on experience and the trust he or she has earned.  When a pilot calls in to report a maintenance discrepancies offshore, management should consider their level of experience with company policies and with the aircraft, as well as the trust they have earned.  As opposed to simply making the decision and telling the pilot what to do (Level 1) the manager should ask the pilot what he or she suggests (Level 2).  As greater trust and experience are developed the pilot could be conditioned to call, not only to report a discrepancy, but to be prepared with a proposed recommendation of how to proceed (Level 3).  As trust continues to grow, pilots would be enabled to make their own decisions and proceed with the action, however a report would be required after the event (Level 4).  The most trusted pilots would be asked to provide a periodic summary of any issues (Level 5).

In order for the “vicious circle” to be reversed, pilots would need to earn the trust of management by proving they possess the skill, knowledge, and experience to make important airworthiness decisions, and to know when to involve management or maintenance technicians to help make the decision.  Pilots can foster this environment by developing a professional relationship with their managers, by understanding the expectations and pressures that are placed on managers by senior management (Gabarro and Kotter, 1980), and by thinking systematically about the organization (How to lead, 2000).  Pilots need to understand how a maintenance discrepancy affects pilots, mechanics, billing, marketing, and operations.

References

Gabarro, J. J., & Kotter, J. P. (2005). Managing Your Boss. Harvard Business Review, 83(1), 92-99.

How to lead when you're not the boss. (cover story). (2000). Harvard Management Update, 5(3), 1.

Obolensky, N. (2016). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Taylor & Francis

A633.5.3.RB_CliffordMarc

Order Out of Chaos

Chaos theory refers to the idea that seemingly random, unorganized events are subject to a subtle underlying order.  “The term ‘chaos theory’ used in physics refers to: an apparent lack of order in a system that nevertheless obeys particular laws and rules” (Oldwolf, 2018).  A typical example of chaos theory is the billiard table. Regardless of how consistent the break shot seems to be, the result of how the pack of balls breaks will be different.  Minute variations in speed, angle, and other factors influence the way the balls move, how they collide with each other, and how they react, resulting in a drastically different break shot each time.  The smallest variation can cause large results.  However, even though the results appear to be different each time, underlying patterns emerge.  Stewart (as cited in Obolensky, 2016) said “Chaos behavior obeys deterministic laws, but it is so irregular that to an untrained eye it looks pretty much random. Chaos is not just complicated, patternless behavior; it is far more subtle.  Chaos is apparently complicated, apparently patternless behavior that actually has a simple deterministic explanation.”

In a video entitled Who Needs Leaders? Obolensky (2008) provides an example in which it is demonstrated that order emerges from a seemingly chaotic and unorganized situation.  There were two aspects of this demonstration that were fascinating to me.  First, there were no leaders in the group.  Despite participating in a chaotic exercise there was nobody that was assigned to lead and organize the group.  There was no hierarchy, and no managers.  In fact, it is plausible to suggest that it would have taken longer to get the group as organized with leaders than it took without leaders.  Second, order emerged by following a few simple rules. “The counter-intuitive and intriguing conclusion is that the more complex the situation and task, the less directive traditional leadership is needed” (Obolensky, 2016).  This concept is difficult for traditional leaders to grasp because the typical reaction of a manager is to try to get control of the chaos by commanding, ordering, and directing.

Organizational leaders should be aware of the implications that chaos theory has on strategy. In place of a strategy that implements artificial restrictions and forces unnatural order, leaders need to take a step back and allow the underlying order of chaos to emerge.  Leaders can stimulate the emergence of order by providing the right environment.  Leaders can ensure that team members are aware of the underlying purpose and objectives, that the limitations of the environment are commonly known, and by empowering (Obolensky, 2016).

I witnessed aspects of the chaos theory first hand last September.  Hurricane Harvey impacted the Texas coast the last week of August, 2017.  Fortunately for me the devastating rainfall stayed west of where I live.  However, Orange texas, which is just 25 miles away received over 50 inches of precipitation.  The scene was chaotic as the floodwaters receded and people tried to make sense of what had happened.  As the floodwaters went down, church and community groups went to work.  Volunteers were lined up to offer assistance before the water had come down enough to start working.  I spent every weekend in September mucking out homes, ripping out sheetrock, moving saturated possessions to the street, and offering words of encouragement.  The various church and community groups self-organized; there was no call from the government asking for assistance.  Although each work team of about six to ten people had a team leader, there was nobody that was ultimately “in charge.”  The different churches and groups worked together and established a few simple rules.  For example, it was determined that the homes of community leaders and first responders had highest priority, followed by the elderly and incapacitated.  By the end of September thousands of homes had been mucked out.  It was incredible to be a part of it all and fascinating to see the paradox of order come out of chaos.

References

Obolensky, N. (2008). Who needs leaders? [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/41QKeKQ2O3E

Obolensky, N. (2016). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Taylor & Francis

Oldwolf, B. (2018, February 13). Chaos theory: A starter guide. Retrieved from https://owlcation.com/stem/Chaos-Theory-A-Starter-Guide

A633.4.3.RB_CliffordMarc

Reflecting on the previous exercise and this week's readings, why do you think the shift in leadership is occurring and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization.  List three reasons that support or refute this position.

If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes? What are the implications on strategy?


Leadership is changing.  Today’s business climate evolves so quickly that oftentimes leaders today feel that they cannot keep up.  Strategies that are developed to cope with change are frequently obsolete before implementation.  “We have changed the context within which we lead faster than we can change our assumptions about what leadership is” (Obolensky, 2016).  Leaders today are dealing with more complexity and uncertainty than ever before, and “Leaders seem more cornered, confused, and defensive than ever before” (Obolensky, 2016).  Competitive advantage used to be obtained through superior products, quicker response time, or more efficient processes.  In the current environment in which information about virtually everything is available, trade secrets and proprietary processes are almost non-existent.  Nearly any product or process can be replicated.

In the past, a leader’s source of power and influence was knowledge.  Those that were “in the know” wielded power over subordinates.  What was it they knew?  Leaders had better and more current information regarding the industry, the product, the competitors, and the customers than subordinates did.  Leaders had a systems view; they understood better than others how the parts and pieces interacted with each other.  Today, with the endless source of information available, leaders frequently are not privy to any better or more current information than subordinates.  It is not the case that leaders are less knowledgeable than those of previous generations; the fact is that the general population is more aware and more knowledgeable today than any other time in history.  Obolensky stated “Power has really shifted and diffused more than ever before” and  “Power is more a dynamic than something to be exercised by a single entity” (Obolensky, 2016).  Power has been diffused from top management, and has been dispersed down the hierarchy to the lower levels.

I believe I have seen evidence of the shift in leadership at the organization where I am employed.  It takes time to turn a ship around; it has been a long, slow process, but change is evident.  Three reasons that I feel the shift has been happening are: first, traditional command and direct leaders have been replaced;  Second, upward communication has improved; and third, the leadership charade has started to break.

In the past we have had numerous chief pilots at different times that were very traditional “command and direct” leaders.  They thought it was important for their authority to be felt and for the pilot group to respect them and so they motivated through threats and fear.  They perpetuated the leadership charade by trying to make everyone believe that they had all the answers and all the solutions to every problem.  In the last few years those traditional leaders have been replaced.  We have currently a director of operations that is a fantastic leader.  He expresses concern for the individual, asks for suggestions, and is more willing to listen than to be heard.

With the aforementioned change in leaders over the last few years there has also come a change in leadership style.  Previously communication generally flowed down the hierarchy.  Management would implement policies and the workforce would have to comply with them.  Suggestions from the lower levels were rarely sought.  Today there is an open forum, and a system in place for improvement suggestions.  There have been occasions when bonuses have been offered for the best suggestions for improvement.  There are still many employees that are “old school” that are suspicious of management and the current reporting culture, but as mentioned above it takes time to turn a ship.

Obolensky (2016) describes the leadership charade: “those at the top do not know the solutions to the problems faced by the organisations they lead.  And generally speaking they know that they do not know.  However, they cannot say that they do not know.”  This is especially true as the leaders at the top become more disconnected and remote from those on the front lines.  “Meanwhile, those at the bottom of the organisation are just as culpable.  They know the solutions (or most of them).  And they often know that the people at the top know they do not know!  But they still expect the top to know” (Obolensky, 2016).  This leadership charade has started to break up over the last few years as changes to key leadership positions have been made and as upward communication has improved.

While I was writing this Reflection Blog this morning I had additional evidence of the shift in leadership at my place of work.  Last week I emailed some comments about the insufficiency and lack of organization of our company Emergency Response Plan to the director of safety.  This morning he came over to the department where I work to discuss some of the concerns and ask for my suggestions and input for future revisions.  This would not have happened even just a couple years ago.

Today’s leaders need to be aware that they may not be privy to the most current information.  Having a strategy that fosters a free flow of information is key to success.  This can be accomplished by ensuring that the right people are in place who value the input and suggestions of the people at the front lines.

References

Obolensky, N. (2016). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Taylor & Francis