How do Coaches Help?

A633.8.3

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.

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

Coaches provide valuable support by enhancing current skills, new skills development, and work to close the gaps in known weakness, while capitalizing on strengths. Furthermore, they assist in making informed career decisions while serving as a “sounding board” for innovative ideas. Coaches ensure accountability by tracking agreed upon goals and provide feedback throughout the process, thus building positive learning habits and confidence. “Therefore, a career coach will be there to motivate you, track your progress, and check in on you to ensure that you’re doing what you should be doing to get where you want and need to be in your career” (Arnold-Smeets, 2016). 

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

Enhancing one’s skills and abilities are a result of clarity of thought, developing creative solutions, and a commitment to the progressive improvement (self-awareness/feedback). Through this process (coaching), accompanied with experience, one begins to build vital leadership styles and characteristics typical of success. Moreover, with continued skills and leadership development, one may find themselves in a position where they are more likely to exercise situational leadership and how to move between each strategies (Tell, Sell, Involve, Devolve). According to Obolensky (2014), The key point is that a crucial skill is to be able to move effortlessly between each leadership strategy. It is not about which style is better or worse. It is about which strategy has the best chance for success” (p. 173). Thus, with such skills and leadership effectiveness and influence, organizational strategy also benefits.

3.    How can it make a difference in an organization?

An organization of learning (coaching) is one that is in constant self-evaluation and enlightenment. One of the significant factors with coaching is that it is designed to draw the best out of others by focusing on potential. When organizations have team members operating at optimal levels, the organization is better suited to adapt in complex environments, capitalize on innovative ideas, and enhance team cohesion.

4.    What does this mean to you and your organization?

Coming from a military background, the ability to learn new skills is important for individual and collective tasks. In fact, training, evaluation, and feedback are quite regular in certain fields. As a leader, they are expected to properly train and prepare junior level Soldiers for their current skill level and sometime beyond. In some cases, if a senior leader wished to evaluate a middle level leader coaching/training abilities, they would examine the proficiency of those the middle leader trained.

Reference

Arnold-Smeets, L. (2016). 5 Benefits of Career Coaching That You Need to Know. Payscale. Retrieved from http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2016/04/5-benefits-of-career-coaching-that-you-need-to-know.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2^nd edition): Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Leader Follower Relationship

A633.7.3.RB

Complete the exercise at the beginning of chapter 10 and use the scoring table at the end to assess your responses.

Reflect on what this assessment means in terms of you as a leader and your relationship to your followers.

• Has your thinking changed over the course of the past six weeks, if so; why, and, if not; why?
• What is the significance of this in the context of your future leadership goals and objectives?

After completing the exercise at the beginning of chapter 10, the results revealed that I favored strategy 3 (S3) with a score of 7. According to Obolensky (2014), “This is used either when the leader does not know or chooses to hold back to allow others to discover the solution” (p. 171). The other scores were as follows: S1 – 3, S2 – 4, and S4 – 2. Overall, I believe this is an accuracy representation of my leadership style. With a military background, I understand the value of allowing others to work through challenges in order to seek a favorable outcome. From my point of view, it is my responsibility to properly train my subordinates (build them up) and allow them to practice their trade craft, while remaining involve in the form of support or guidance. In other words, we all are expected to be able to perform our duties and address skill gaps when the situation requires. The other scores also indicate that depending of the situation and the context, I am capable of moving from one strategy to the other; mostly S1 – Tell & S2 – Sell. The one area that was lacking was is S4 – Devolve, which may be indicative of the highly structured and hierarchical organization I spent many years working in (military). With this insight, I plan to expand my knowledge, skill, and comfortability within S4 to achieve a higher level of leadership that Obolensky (2014) notes, “S4 is equal to the concept of ‘wu wei’ – the art of inaction – and inaction here does not mean doing nothing! Someone needs to keep an eye across the boundaries and into the future, and in an oligarchic assumed organisation (as most are) the leaders are in the best place for this role” (p. 171).

I have always held the relationship of leader and follower as a sacred bond because trust and respect are at the foundation for producing highly effective teams. Although my thinking of my leadership style and the relationship between followers and leaders have not necessary changed, it has however, has evolved over the course of the MSLD program and this particular course. For example, in the military, leaders are expected to be visible and make timely decisions. Yet Obolensky (2014) tell us that many of the organizational fixes develop at the lower levels, while senior leaders typically have the solutions 10% of the time. As I have transitioned into the civilian workforce, this point becomes more and more clear. Thus, I have been forced to relook and weigh my own leadership styles and practices to better support an organization and my team members. Moreover, as I progress through the MSLD program and become exposed to Complex Adaptive Leadership (CAL) and the principals involved, it’s getting easier for me to view the leader/follower relationship on an even plane oppose to the traditional oligarchical structure.

I remain committed to developing and embracing the leader/follower relationship. As I go forward, I will continue to reevaluate my future goals and objectives as my understanding and comfortability with CAL increases. The implication is that these insights, strategies, and theories are applicable on the career field I will eventually pursue. Nevertheless, I can say with certainty, that regardless of which career field I choose, my leadership abilities will undoubtedly enhance the organizations culture and my team’s effectiveness.

Reference

Obolensky, N. (2014) Complex Adaptive Leadership (2^nd edition): Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Circle of Leadership

A633.6.4.RB

Critically think about how strategy is formulated in your organization and include both upward and downward leadership. Now, considering all of the readings in this module and the learning exercises regarding upward and downward leadership; reflect on the diagram (figure 9.5; p.152) "the vicious circle for leaders".  Does this happen in your organization?  What are the effects on the organization? Create a new circle that would promote strong followership and even leadership at the lower levels of the organization.  Ensure that this reflects the actions and involvements of all significant departments such as; Sales, Marketing, Finance, Accounting, Operations, Marketing, and Distribution.

In my previous organization (military) strategy is formulated in a structured manner so that everyone involved is capable of performing their task(s) in a coordinated fashion; which contributes to a much larger objective. In other words, there are standard formats which provide essential information that directs actions at various levels with specified timelines and desired results. Two such formats are the operations order (OPORD) and tasking. Each method generally provides an overview of the situation with each level of command’s intent. Furthermore, they assigned responsibility of action to a specific organization/department. Within these formats, everyone involved is can review their purpose, endstate, and coordinating instructions.

Leaders (who are also followers) must conduct a thorough review, known as mission analyst, so they understand what is required of them and their organization/team. Through this analyst, they incorporate input from their followers (team members) and begin planning and allocating resources. Moreover, the leader (also a follower) must remain in contact with their supervisor in order to get clarification (when needed) and request additional necessary assets. One important element of this process is conducting a back-brief (feedback) with their supervisor which serves two essential purposes. First, this confirms that the leader (follower) responsible fully understands what is required of them and their organization; usually demonstrated through some form of walkthrough (diagram). Second, it allows the supervisor of the leader (follower) to identify any issues or concerns with their subordinate’s plan as it relates to the overall objective (in-line with the bigger picture).  This process highlights what Obolensky (2014) notes as having the skill (technical content) and how (operational process) to execute the plan (p. 162).

Through this process, supervisors are able to evaluate a subordinate’s competency. Specifically, how the vicious circle of leadership is applied. For example, if a subordinate is unable to task prioritize or does not comprehend “what: and “how” to do certain tasks, it will become blatantly obvious to the seasoned leader. In such cases, the supervisor would typically be required to get more involved with the subordinate and their plan. In the event where a supervisor is forced to get more hands-on, it can begin to produce further doubt and lack of confidence in the subordinate depending of the severity of the deficiencies. In fact, this process is widely used in the military to test one’s skills and abilities. For instance, if you want to learn a subordinate’s level of followership and comfort level, give them a difficult task with short timelines to see how they perform.

When subordinates demonstrate their inability to problem solve, the supervisor is forced to either retrain their subordinate(s) or limit their involvement by placing another knowledgeable leader with them or assign the subordinate to a position more fitting of their abilities. Needless to say, this could have dire results for the subordinate’s future opportunities and career path. On the other hand, followers that demonstrate their ability to maneuver effectively and negotiate complex challenges, the supervisor is able to identify their level 5 followers more clearly as noted by Obolensky (2014), “Get on and inform in a routine way” (p. 159).    

The implications of having ill trained and poorly competent followers/subordinates can have serious consequences for an organization and those within it. Potentially even life or death consequences. In the profession of arms, leaders must be able to process information and situations quickly in order to exercise good judgement. Indeed, this is one primary reason for the military’s highly structured organization and why it has specific training standards; all of which ensure competencies and policies which ensure the most capable leader/followers progress. One way the Army at large has mitigated these consequences and create a new circle promoting stronger followership is by means of indoctrination and leadership training. For example, when a Soldier is promoted, they must attend Professional Military Education (PME) that is commensurate to their level of responsibility. Such training reinforces organizational values, leadership characteristics, and technical skills. Another way to strengthen followership and improve organizational upward/downward leadership is done at the unit/department level. For instance, senior leaders that seek to improve team cohesion and leadership/followership skills, take part in the Leadership Development Program (LPD). LPD is designed to improve critical thinking, problem solving, and teamwork. This method usually allows the senior leader to calibrate their subordinate’s skills and abilities, which contributes to its unity of effort. In addition, these supports what Obolensky (2014) identifies as necessary to address “High Will/Low Skill” (p. 158).

Creating a new circle of leadership is important to improving strong followership in an organization. Moreover, the relationship and interaction between the leader and the follower should not only be seen as a top-down process. Therefore, it is also important that followers actively contribute to this process by understanding their supervisor’s perspective and the demands that they face. In other words, the follower must gain an understanding of how their supervisor/boss prefers information, their style of leadership, and level of involvement. According to Gabarro and Kotter (1993), “Without this information, a manager is flying blind when dealing with the boss, and unnecessary conflicts, misunderstandings, and problems are inevitable. Indeed, one of the best practices I developed with my bosses was to send them an email update at the end of each week highlighting events/accomplishments during the past week and noting any upcoming major events for the following week. More times than not, many of my supervisors/bosses would appreciate the reminder of the good work my Soldiers were doing, as well as staying informed with upcoming highly visible events. Furthermore, I made an effort to follow my update with a personal visit in order to discuss any of the information I provided or any new business. I learned that when leaders are kept updated without having to ask, they typically allowed more latitude for me to operate oppose to always having to “pull” information. In turn, I expected much of the same from my subordinates. In my case, when I continuously had to seek basic information or updates from my folks, this was one indication of the vicious circle for leaders that initially was a “red flag.”

References

Gabarro, J. J., & Kotter, J. P. (1993). Managing Your Boss (Links to an external site.). Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 150-157.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2^nd edition): Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Reflections on Chaos

A633.5.3.RB

Create a reflection blog on what this exercise meant to you and how it impacts your understanding of chaos theory, include the implications that this has on strategy.

After first reading about this exercise at the beginning of chapter 6 (Obolensky, 2014), it was initially difficult to visualize the exercise play out as described. Although the exercise is designed to show how chaos and complexity have an underlying order, my personal experiences dealing with the human factor led me to believe that this exercise would take longer than stated by Oblolensky (2014) and that the chaos would eventually lead to further disorder. Actually watching this exercise play out in Obolensky (2008) Who needs leaders?, the video provided a surprising result. After Obolensky explained the task everyone was to complete and the boundaries in which they would operate in, each person although working individually, yet still with a shared goal set out purposefully and accomplished the task in under a minute. According to Obolensky (2014), “The counter-intuitive and intriguing conclusion is that the more complex the situation and task, the less directive traditional leadership is needed” (p. 101).

As I am exposed more to complexity science and theory, I am starting to understand and embrace what I previously attempted to prevent, chaos and disorder. Obolensky (2014) has presented valuable insight to some of the leadership challenges I believed to have been pure obstacles. Understanding that there is underlying order in chaos and complexity has shed light on another aspects of leadership for me. Rather than using traditional leadership methods or structures, Obelensky (2014) recommends, “Instead a leader needs to put in place certain key principles so that the organisation being led can become self-leading, and the leader can then practice what is recognised in Chinese philosophy as the highest form of leadership – wu wei” (p. 101). The implication this has on strategy is that leaders (to include myself) must relook how we shape teams/organizations, ensure the appropriate level of leadership for simple and complex tasks, and embrace the unknown and the complexities it brings. Understanding and practicing wu wei when appropriate could enhance a leader’s effectiveness. As noted by Lani Refiti (2014):

Within the context of leadership, Wu Wei means leading without trying to lead, inspiring and motivating rather than coercing or forcing. A leader who practices Wu Wei authentically leads by being who he/she is naturally, by setting authentic examples rather than manipulative rules or regulations. 

References

Obolensky, N. (2008). Who needs leader? Youtube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2^nd edition): Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Refiti, L. (2014). Authentic leadership & Wu wei..action by non-action..the best leaders leads least? LinkedIn.com. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140522070225-36017205-authentic-leadership-wu-wei-action-by-non-action-the-best-leader-leads-least. 

Changing Dynamics of Leadership

A633.4.3.RB

Why do you think the shift in leadership is occurring and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization?  

I believe the primary cause of the shift in leadership is evolution. The evolution of technology, communication, and society at large which ultimately shapes how we think, act, and influence each other – giving birth to globalization. Globalization, according to Marshall Goldsmith (2009), “It has proliferated into our daily lives. It is not only organizations that are going global; it is individuals, families, and friends.” Indeed, the days of isolation in organizational business and economy have long past. As organizations are forced to branch out and operate beyond boarders, relationships and partnerships have become essential. With this development (or evolution) leaders have had to adjust their skill sets and incorporate new and innovative methods of leading others in order to work through the inevitable complexities. Obolensky (2014) notes, “What we witness are the stresses and strains of the tensions between an organisation clinging onto the certainties and comforts of oligarchy and certainty, whilst the uncomfortable realities of polyarchy and complexity are fast emerging” (p.38).

The military I belonged to was not exempt from these factors as well. In fact, it wasn’t until after the first Gulf War, the Army truly understood that the days of the “war of attrition” no longer applied. With technology increasing the speed of communications and “dumb bomb” getting smarter, the military evolved into a more agile force relaying on smaller units/teams that possessed even greater capabilities. Thus, as the force structure evolved, so too did the need for better trained and educated leaders to lead these units. Leadership, although retaining the fundamentals, required more autonomy and the need for increased delegation as leaders had to do more with less. Furthermore, with the emphasis of “liberating” the oppressed (still debatable), leaders not only had to be competent in warfare, but they also had to be capable of working through the complexity of cultural, political, and the economical dynamics that accompanied austere environments; which extended beyond traditional leadership expectations and training.  

List three reasons that support or refute this position.

Real-time Information: With broader communication capabilities held by news agencies and anyone with a phone (for that matter), information is quickly circulated worldwide; which has the potential to influence governments, industries, and social groups. Furthermore, companies have invested in real-time resources to help their organizations make better informed decisions and create opportunities as events unfold in real-time.

Bottom-up Influence: Todays workforce is better informed and more suited to handle complex situations. Yesterday’s organizational model typically involved leaders guiding and directing the majority (if not all) of the organizational solutions to complex challenges. However, with a better informed workforce, to include knowledge management systems, employees (subordinates) are positioned in such a way that increases their understanding of the dynamics that contribute to these challenges and thus capable of providing valuable input/perspective. According to Obolensky (2014), “The assumption (which was fair enough 100 years ago) was that the leader actually knew the answers! As we have seen this is becoming a strained assumption. So, traditionally, questions would flow up and answers would flow down” (p. 41). Moreover, as Obolensky (2014) reports in Figure 4.2. Where do the solutions come from? (part 2), the top levels of leadership accounts for 10%, the middle 30%, and the bottom 60% of potential solutions (p. 36). By downplaying or ignoring this factor, leader’s place themselves and the organization at a disadvantage. Thus, incorporating more bottom-up communication and influence, an organization enhances its ability to identify and utilize the wealth of knowledge from those that deal with complexity on a daily basis.

Challenging the Status Quo: With evolution changing the way organizations and the workforce understand and deal with complexity, leaders and subordinates must be prepared to live outside of their comfort zones and develop new ways of fostering communications and innovation. Leaders must be able to accept that instead of having all the answers, they have the ability to create an environment to challenge others to find the solutions. Likewise, subordinates must be willing to take ownership of their knowledge and experiences to provide vital insight throughout their organizations in order to spark growth and capabilities. By challenging the status quo instead of managing it, an organization creates fluidity and adaptability as the landscape changes.

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

The dynamics that must be altered has to begin at the level with the most organizational influence – leaders. By demonstrating their value of those with intimate knowledge of complexity, they encourage the exchange of ideas and innovation. This is also done on an individual basis as leaders must be willing to relinquish the flawed perception that they are all knowing. Obolensky (2014) reinforces this point by stating, “This is because there is an expectation (both by themselves and others) that they should know. So they often pretend to know. It is a charade and those at the top get stuck like the Red Queen – running hard to keep informed because they feel they should know when in fact they realise they do not” (p. 37). Furthermore, leaders must possess the fortitude of taking advise or accepting input from those they lead. This also solidifies their commitment for the unique perspective their subordinates have, thus creating an environment of trust, empowerment, and respect.

The most significant implication is understanding that organizational change is necessary. In many cases, only when organizations are in a “do or die” situation, they see the need and embrace change. Whereas, being proactive in adapting to a dynamic environment requires a commitment in thought and practice. Furthermore, organizational change efforts and resources must be invested throughout the organization and not solely at the leadership level(s).

References

Goldsmith, M. (2009). Being an Effective Global Leader. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2009/07/being-an-effective-global-lead.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2^nd edition): Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Kindle Edition.