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.