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.