A633.9.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Polyarchy Reflections

     As an emerging leader, I now look at organizational hierarchies in a very different light than I had in the past. More so, I see polyarchy as the evolutionary convergence of anarchy and oligarchy giving the resultant paradox a meaningful and functional place within this evolutionary system. While the previous system worked to gain control and influence over itself, polyarchy gently integrates attributes of anarchy and oligarchy into the mix creating a more flattened and transparent culture of communication, collaboration, leadership development, and strategy development. However, the elements of complexity and uncertainty can be used in our favor if we know how to leverage and engage these dynamics. A polyarchy, while complex and uncertain, does have an underlying order. Obolensky (2010), through comparison with chaos mathematics and quantum mechanics, realized that a polyarchy would benefit greatly from both deterministic as well as non-deterministic approaches.

     Working with the mindset of where and how best to implement polyarchy-type elements into an organization, I must keep in mind the type of system and context I am currently working with in order to help decide what deterministic and non-deterministic approaches would be best to use. Looking at traditional leadership from the lens of complex adaptive leadership implies there will require a 'buy-in' from these traditional leaders in the incorporation of a polyarchy. It also implies that there may be limitations, and perhaps even a degree of resistance along this evolutionary process, as well as numerous, non-deterministic decision points that will need to be addressed as they are encountered. As each organization encounters a 'tug' towards polyarchy, some may be too 'set in their ways' and comfortable to allow such a shift to occur, while others may require a great deal of time to move through strategic-, organizational-, and self-awareness, organizational buy-in, and the implementation process of leadership development. Finally, it implies that an understanding of the dynamics of anarchy as it relates chaos and complexity will be required. As an understatement, this may also imply that this perception would probably require action for such a shift to be initiated from a complex adaptive leadership position, and not from the traditional leadership (Obolensky, 2010).

     In the future, as I embrace the full spectrum of complex adaptive leadership, and intimately manipulate the alchemy of its elements, I will forevermore look to identify traditional leadership within organizations and determine how a polyarchy would best be implemented. Addressing leadership to enable followership would be one of my first tasks. Obolensky (2010) eluded to, if leadership is not willing to cross-functionalize leadership-followership, the organization may not be able to move forward towards a polyarchy. Getting buy-in from leadership to raise their employees to the same leadership levels as themselves, while developing their followership levels, will initiate and facilitate this shift. Even if a shift only partially took root, the organization would be better off than if it had not.

     Over the next three years, I assess that I would require some 'self-coaching' to raise my followership level to a 5, all the while finding a way to accomplish my job position tasks and gain a broader, wider and more inclusive understanding of the organizational and strategic context. More often than not, leadership is privy of many focuses within an organization that others are not, and for good reason; each person has a role to play. In addition, for myself as well as for the organization's sake, coaching sessions from 'outside' consulting would also help assist with an all inclusive internal growth towards an organizational common goal. I would require an outline, beginning with topics to address as it relates to any internal and external limitations, and how best to either remove, or work with them. In addition, I would require documentation of progress over time as a form of feedback in addition to subordinate, peer and leadership 'reviews.' I also feel observation of the environment around me within the organizational context would also provide feedback in seeing what kind of leadership I am offering and imparting. In addition, I would require an annual assessment of the organization of which I am leading to determine if these developments are on track and taking hold, and if not, to determine why.

     In the process of leadership/followership development, I would continue to learn about leadership styles, embracing and understanding the benefits of each. I would learn how and when to recognize the times and places in which to employ any given style to facilitate a desired personal, or organizational response. I would often reflect on the Four + Four model as it relates to the inter-dynamics and interdependence between them. Identifying where and how much of "unnecessary leadership stress (fear of letting go, working too hard and playing a charade)" as a result from an analysis done using the Situational Leadership model that was adapted from Goleman (2000) would provide great context in light of a polyarchy (Obolensky, 2010). Engaging followers to enable leadership through the 5 levels of followership utilizing the skill/will matrix will enable me to identify behaviors conducive to a polyarchy construct. Taking advantage of the GROW (goal, reality, options and will) model and employing the 70%, 20% and 10% rule, maturity, alongside organizational behaviors can be further assessed to determine how leadership will spend their time, and support how and when, if at all, leadership will devolve and let go (Groth, 2012).

     I am hopeful and excited about the emergence of this type of leadership, and the challenges it presents given a particular organizational environment. Looking forward to opportunities with an open mind to leadership development approaches, I feel as I continue to learn about different ways of implementing polyarchy among traditional leadership, I will favor much from tactical patience and personal, as well as professional, self-reflection, and introspection. Thank you for a wonderful, enlightening learning experience.

    

References:

Goleman, D. (2000, April). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results

Groth, A. (2012, November 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?IR=T

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham Surrey, EN: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.



A633.8.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

How To Better Enable Leadership

     As a senior enlisted member of my military organization, a joint special operations group, as an action researcher, I can say that there is a great deal of potential for individual leadership development from a coaching perspective, as well as improvement to the organizational strategy. The enlightening material here is the discovery of leadership perspective on leadership development, as well as organizational strategy development through a coaching effort. I never would have known otherwise, had I not approached leadership in the manner I had, how much buy-in I received, and the positive support from my subordinates. Sometimes, it just takes engaging. Laying out a vision, personalizing tasks, following up, attending to resistance, and making adjustments as needed suggested by employees, will help take their buy-in and effectively allow for an organizational shift in culture (Broder, 2013).

     From an organizational perspective, it appears the suggested enablement to leadership would be as a supervisor would counsel, mentor and eventually, effectively coach, so as to raise the self and organizational-awareness, capabilities and accountabilities of subordinates. This leadership behavior occurs on a regular basis in the military, as it provides a picture of progression for individuals throughout their career. Typically, an evaluation report is provided annually spelling out strengths, as well as areas that could use more improvement. In addition, a counseling occurs at the six month mark to ensure, or steer the individual back on track. However, while this will not change within the ranks of the military for purposes of timely promotions as needed in order to place up and coming senior ranked personnel in those places where the former has recently retired, or left the military.

     From an individual perspective, enabling leadership does not come from these evaluation reports, nor will it come from the six month mark counseling. Instead, both superiors and subordinates in my command feel the best way to enable leadership is to set the example (be the change you want to see, consistently), and coach each other on a daily basis. In time, as we take the initiative to learn how to be better coaches, we will be enabling leadership at all levels at the same time over time. The key here is to own the process according the my superiors. Providing courses of instruction to learn how to become coaches to all individuals of the organization, raises the awareness of the organization to the benefits of this enablement at the individual level. As goals of leadership enablement is developed, daily dialogue towards this endeavor will build in organizational culture that continuously supports enabling leadership, thus growing leaders from within, rather than merely waiting to see what leaders may emerge. Goleman (2000), stated, "...it requires constant dialogue, and that dialogue has a way of pushing up every driver of climate."

     As an action researcher, I often ask myself, "what can I do, and how best can I do it?" These questions are often me taking initiative. My obstacle is usually identified as focusing so much of my energy on a given task, that other tasks may fall off my plate. I continuously make lists with these tasks prioritized, so as to not forget what needs to be done in a timely manner. As far as promoting leadership at every level, I can improve as a mentor and coach to my subordinates by developing approach strategies that allows the individual to develop as a good follower, discover solution sets for themselves and to take responsibility and accountability for the decisions they make. Stevenson (n.d.), shares,

                    the more an individual is involved in identifying problems, in working

                    out and applying solutions for them and in reviewing the results, the

                    more complete and the more long-lasting the learning is. This form of

                    self learning tends to bring about learning with a deeper understanding

                    than learning that is taught,”(as cited by Redshaw, 2000, p. 106).

    

     At my peer level, I can set the example of what leadership is, and coach where it is welcomed. At my superior level, I can promote leadership by growing in leadership myself, and becoming a Level 5 follower supported by my own skill and will, so that I may support them (Obolensky, 2010).

References:

Broder, L. (2013, August 22). Change is good. Now, how to get employees to buy in. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227920

Goleman, D. (2000, April). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), p. 78-90. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=24eab2c2-630f-445f-96bf-fc3783108172%40sessionmgr4007&vid=0&hid=4204&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=2839618&db=bth

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham Surrey, EN: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Stevenson, H. (n.d.). What you need to know about coaching services. Retrieved from http://www.clevelandconsultinggroup.com/articles/coaching-services.php

A633.7.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

How Do Coaches Help?

     Coaching, at first, sounds like a pretty broad term in general. As a gymnastics coach for 13 years, I remember teaching progressive skills, basic and advanced techniques as well as how to think about certain skills to assist in overcoming fears. As a certified personal trainer for three years, again I coached on how to execute safe and effective techniques for exercising, motivate to establish commitment and routine, as well as assist in changing to a healthier lifestyle, such as diet. In the future, I have considered becoming a Life Coach, where I would help individuals and families make healthier and wiser choices during and throughout the different phases of their lives personally, professionally, spiritually, economically and socially. In the corporate arena, what Executive Coaches do to help executives, how this progress is measured and how it is reported is somewhat of an elusive process.

     In an attempt to define the term coach, Ralph Stayer (1990), owner of Johnsonville Sausage, explained in a nutshell that coaching is "...communicating a vision and then getting people to see their own behavior, harness their own frustrations, and own their own problems" (para. 24). After a number of failures in trying to redesign the way his company did business, Stayer discovered that he really did not have any control over his employees in how they felt, behaved, expected, and perceived. However he did discover he had control over a couple contextual things he had created - the systems and structures.

     What Stayer learned along the way was first, just get started in making a system change instead of waiting for more information, and second, start the change with the most visible system that you have control over (Stayer, 1990). Structurally, Stayer created teams where individuals once managed, flattening the company's hierarchy from six tiers to three. In the end, Stayer dropped terms like employee and subordinate and replaced them with member, and managers came be known as coaches. In Stayer's new business model, he had incorporated 'coaches' into his structure "...who could build problem-solving capacities in others rather than solve their problems for them" (1990).

     In most corporate environments, however, coaches are typically hired to help executives make improvements and progress within the context of business, however, it proves that personal issues typically arise and get addressed as part of the overall coaching purpose (Coutu, 2009). In fact, Coutu (2009), found through an academic study, "...that between 25% and 50% of those seeking coaching have clinically significant levels of anxiety, stress, or depression." Coutu doe not state that executives with coaches have metal health problems, but that it is noteworthy to understand that using an executive coach under these circumstances could be dangerous and counterproductive (2009).

                       

According to Coutu (2009), most coaches say they "are hired primarily to work with executives on  the positive side of coaching – developing high-potential talent and facilitating a transition in or up", while a lesser amount claim "that they are most often called in to act as a sounding board on organizational dynamics or strategic matters", and that "relatively few coaches said that organizations most often hire them to address a derailing behavior."

Furthermore,, Coutu shares that ...[coaches] "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. These coaches will be retired CEOs or other experts from universities, think tanks, and government"

     It appears that while there is a caution and concern in hiring an executive coach, it proves valuable to ensure that proper and appropriate credentials are established, as well as a well-laid out plan developed related to the reasons as to why the executive coach is being hired in the first place. I find this a very interesting arena, and will continue research to discover today's ground truth in today's corporate environment as it relates to executive coaching.

References:

Stayer, R. (1990, December). How I learned to let my workers lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), p. 66-83. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=4f69943d-bad1-4ec1-8212-a2e11968a222%40sessionmgr4007&vid=0&hid=4206&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=9012241290&db=bth

Coutu, D. (2009, January). What can coaches do for you? Harvard Business Review, 87(1), p. 91-97. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=55b8da69-1efd-467e-9691-796e2a92ca17%40sessionmgr4006&vid=0&hid=4206&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=35820714&anchor=AN0035820714-38

    

A633.7.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Leader Follower Relationship

     Traditionally, as a leader, or at least being in a position of leadership, I typically would gather as much information as possible, evaluate what my options are, and consider the best way to approach a problem set in order to gain the buy-in of followers and other leaders alike.  At times, I would find myself, as self-aware as I am, not engaging as often as I think others believe I should. At other times, when experience has been the vehicle of information for me, I would engage shortly after hearing where a discussion is going, presenting my case with supporting experience as it relates. Our working environment in special operations is so dynamic, it literally requires a day to day update on current operations in order to be well informed enough to make a minimum of a sound decision. If I do not have all the current information when discussions and decisions are being had, I could easily be a leader that has been seen as disengaged, unknowing, and has no place in a leadership role.
     Over the past six weeks, reading, assessments, and reflection has shown me that I am not currently the leader that I want to be, but I have begun walking the path with a great sense of awareness about it inside the working environment, as well as within my personal environment. Pfohl (2007), states, "Our followers are changing, within this context, and leaders need to seize the opportunity to lead differently. Leading differently means understanding how to approach the changing context affecting our followers." During this time, I have seen a shift in my intention to be a more autonomous leader when in the presence of my leadership, instead of letting them lead alone. When, in their absence, leadership is required, I step up to the plate, and desire the same initiative when my leadership is around. I no longer want to just follow my leaders, but lead alongside them at times, while following along at other times. My thinking has changed not so much in the way of self-awareness, but in recognizing how I am leading vice following. I understand now how I want to be perceived as a leader, and that being well informed is, in part, the way ahead in being able to take initiative and make decisions without higher leadership involvement. The other part consists of utilizing techniques more consciously where I can productively engage my followers, as well as my leaders, in getting them to think critically and collaboratively, understanding that 'others' may offer a complimentary solution to their own.
     The significance of this assessment is knowing that I had scored a 49 out of a possible 64, and believing a more hands-off, and letting go strategy correlates with a higher number, I feel that I am on my way to being just that type of leader. Having that kind of trust, and peace of mind knowing my followers and leaders alike can take care of what is coming at them in a well thought out, timely and innovative manner. This new concept of leadership for me is motivation to pursue it until it is embodied and employed at all levels, no matter the environment. As a potential E8 (next pay grade), or CWO2 (a commission as a Chief Warrant Officer), I feel these leadership skills will help enable my community, as well as myself, to engage in a more collaborative setting more often in attempt to power share, Leader Member Exchange (LMX), info share, and develop better working relationships creating a more efficient and productive working environment. In this context, I can see myself providing rich opportunities to followers and lower leadership to integrate themselves with confidence, and humility (Payne, 2015)
     The assessment taken at the end of chapter 10 of Obolensky's Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty, shows me that while I am open to giving my followers time and opportunities to work out issues and problem sets on their own, I tend not to be a completely hands-off / let-go leader, engaging in order to correct, fix, or assist in the problem solving. In becoming much more self-aware of this, I can and will be more attentive when it comes to both my strategy in letting go within the contexts of command strategy development, as well as its employment. When command strategy is being considered, a series of high level meetings take place, where my position is typically centered around operational concerns, and so much on strategic. However, the strategy of employing standard operating procedures, as well as operational directives within my scope of work, does provide me the opportunities to seek collaborations where relationship development can prove valuable in exercising letting go (Obolensky, 2010).


References:


Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham Surrey, EN: Gower Publishing, Inc.


Payne, P. A. (2015, May 9). The leader-follower relationship and how it relates to employees' perception of their own leadership. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=edd_diss


Pfohl, R. (2007). Leadership: What followers want from their leaders. Retrieved from https://www.leader-values.com/article.php?aid=357


A633.6.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

Circle of Leadership

   

     In my organization, a military joint special operations command group, it appears through attentive observation that the relationships between higher leadership and lower personnel involve a myriad of nuances based on numerous factors. Hamlin (2016), explains,

               "...our goal is to understand our relationship with others, to engage

               appropriately with them, and to fulfill our followership role in a way

               that will be well-intentioned, well executed and well received no matter

               the mix of cultures, perspectives and expectations."

     For example, the youngest employee (pay grade of E6), comes from a particular training background with a particular history, personality, expectations, and social behaviors that determine how their relationship with our commanding officer (pay grade of O6, a difference of 9 pay grades), will begin, and develop. In this case, the E6 pretty much keeps to themselves, hardly ever approaching, or interacting with the O6, except when the O6 approaches them to initiate small talk. Otherwise, both parties will work through our E8 and O4 (middle management). In addition, it is worth taking note that the leader's behavior among the lower personnel will create a slight expectation that will effect the command atmosphere, but will do little against the long standing, institutionalized expectation of due respect and appropriate behavior towards a senior ranking individual.

     Within our organization, as the title states, we are an operations command, following explicit  and implicit tasks, as well as creating our own that supports higher commands' strategy. Strategy is typically devised at national levels (eg. Combined Joint Chiefs of Staff) and combatant commands. How we, as a command, go about answering those requirements from higher commands, is a strategy we do create. These lower level internal strategies get filtered down to the tactical platforms on the African continent for execution and reporting. While these strategies are often a product of everyone at all levels of the command, they are typically approved by higher, or are approved methods by doctrine, and thus supported and enforced by our personnel at our lower levels (Vego, 2015).

     While each member of the command interacts with each other, up and down to varying degrees, each member creates, supports and reinforces the personal and professional relationships that are had between higher and lower for differing reasons. In Obolensky's (2010), "Vicious Cycle for leaders", there appears to be some assumptions made when it comes to why the follower is asking for advice (figure 9.5; p. 152). I believe this cycle happens in my organization, but at different paces and for different reasons, I would suppose. When it comes down to it, it is based in intra-personal relationships precipitated for reasons only known to those involved. I could only presume the effects on my organization, if these relationships followed a similar cycle, would be a slowing of production, and some frustration on the part of leadership. Being highly self-aware, I am now extremely cautious as to why I am approaching my leadership, constantly managing my behavior, so as to appear as a self-starter looking for feedback, or asking for amplifying information that has yet to be provided, and necessary to my decision-making process.
     At the lower levels of my organization, I would promote a cycle where followers exuded a sense of confidence and engaged leadership for purposes of informing, or reporting. If the followers know their job, understand the organization's goals and mission, then initiative and timeliness will be their focus on accomplishments, with an aim at unit cohesion and flattened, transparent communications. For lower leadership, this same cycle will promote their behavior of communicating intent, building and sharing trust, and letting go. The new cycle would look something like this... Follower takes initiative and reports...leader provides positive feedback...follower takes new information for action...leader trusts followers judgment...follower makes decisions commensurate with the next higher rank with confidence...leader takes initiative to completely let go, keeping follower informed. In this cycle, both the lower level follower and leader are working together once trust is established and mutual organizational objectives are understood. In my organization, this 'splendid cycle' could be promoted in every directorate - operations, intelligence, logistics and supply, administrative, communications, and finance.
     In my command, it seems Obolensky's (2010), Leadership vs. Management - Take 3, best represents how we as a whole approach each other in respect to the people and goal needs. However, our responsibilities are slightly different (figure 8.3; p. 137). While followers are typically the doers in the sense of accomplishing tasks, the leaders will track progress, inform higher leadership, and report to lower of any updates to vital information, or the way-ahead that would aid in the day-to-day efforts of the followers' accomplishments.


References:


Hamlin, A. (2016). Embracing followership: How to thrive in a leader-centric culture. Bellingham, WA: Kirkdale Press.


Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham Surrey, EN: Gower Publishing, Inc.


Vego, M. (2015, April 1). On operational leadership. Joint Force Quarterly, 77. Retrieved from http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/581882/jfq-77-on-operational-leadership/


A633.5.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Reflections on Chaos

     Obolensky's (2008), Who Needs Leaders? was a phenomenal exercise in showing how complexity can be seen as a chaotic dance of indeterminate inter-activities of agents at one level. The individuals took Obolensky's direction to select two other individuals as reference points without ever letting on who they are while moving about within the confines of the space provided, keeping equidistant from each others' selected reference points until all agents have settled into a balance of meeting their objective in relation to everyone else. Then, my thoughts went down a rabbit hole when Obolensky asked what would happen if he had selected one person to be in charge! Everyone began laughing, at what I could only imagine be for the same reason I was laughing. It would have been a messy and near impossible task for any one person to control all agents as they moved, attempting to control each three-agent group as they constantly shift and move, being affected by other three-agent groups.

     Considering how the dynamic, complex and unpredictable behavior of Obolensky's  (2008), groups may appear at varying levels, I can see how each three agent group creates an ever-changing series of geometrical shapes that intertwine with all other three agent groups moving about within and without these other elements placing forces on one another which in turn will determine the course of all the other three agent groups. At one level, the groups may simply represent people milling about where their location affects everybody elses schedules in time and space. At another level, these individuals could represent decisions made within an organization and understanding that each decision has an affect upon many other agents and decision being made by them that would render unpredictable results. In the ways of chaos, in a complex system, each part has the potential to randomly shift between order and disorder, rendering a forecast unpredictable (Mulder, 2016).

     Trying to picture how these three agent groups would fare when attempting to accomplish their objective; to find themselves individually equidistant from one another, while being controlled and micromanaged by a single leader seemed as if it would make a beautiful and fluid complex environment into a truly chaotic dynamic with little to no fractal representation. Mason stated, "By allowing people and groups within an organization some autonomy, businesses encourage the organization to organize itself, enacting multiple iterations of its own functioning until the various pieces of the organization can work together most effectively" (n.d.). A single leader cannot be everywhere at the same time, and in fact, would benefit by having 'other' leaders steer the course of their own piece of the organization, by focusing on accomplishing objectives in relation to all other potential stakeholders, obstacles, and opportunities in support of the overall organization's vision.

     This brings me to another consideration; the perception of the existence of chaos in a dynamic complex environment. If these environments are proven to show mathematical order of sorts, then how chaotic can it be? If chaos lacks order by definition, and order is discovered to be an underlying phenomenon within these environments over time, then perhaps chaos actually does not exist in these environments, and is only used to vaguely describe an unpredictable environment. In contrast, the Fractal Foundation (n.d.), claims that chaos is not simply disorder, but rather investigates the changes between order and disorder, and can occur in very surprising ways.

     If leadership can understand the value of the underlying order found in many of these nonlinear, dynamic, complex environments, it would only seem to make sense that they would adjust their approach on strategy using the concept that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. If an organization is looked at only from a single reference point (oligarchical leadership), how can all the sub-systems of an organization ever truly grow over time? Levy (1994), explains, "The notion that long-term planning for chaotic systems is not only difficult but essentially impossible has profound implications for organizations trying to set strategy based on their anticipation of the future" (p. 170). However, on the other hand, he states, "Short-term forecasting is possible because in a deterministic system, given the condition at time 't,' we can calculate the conditions at time 't+1' " (Levy, 1994, p. 171). While some implications on strategy may be tough to derive, others can play vital roles during times of uncertainty and in need of resiliency. In the end, I feel the greatest takeaway is to understand that small events initially within the dynamics of a nonlinear complex environment can render very big results over time that cannot easily be forecasted, and that strategies based on this understanding can help mitigate large losses.


References:


Obolensky, N. (2008, April 12). Who needs leaders? Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E&feature=youtu.be


Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Surrey, EN: Ashgate Publishing Inc.


Fractal Foundation (n.d.). What is chaos theory? Retrieved from http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/


Levy, D. (1994). Chaos theory and strategy: Theory application and managerial implications. Strategic Management Journal, 15. 167-178. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c5db/10f69cf4a47101620905d1dcca43bb7d329a.pdf


Mason, W. H. (n.d.). Chaos theory. Retrieved from http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Bun-Comp/Chaos-Theory.html


Mulder, P. (2016, June 21). Chaos theory. Retrieved from https://www.toolshero.com/strategy/chaos-theory/

     

A633.4.3.RG_SiegmundWayne

Changing Dynamics of Leadership

    
     There is a shift in leadership that is occurring for very specific reasons. Obolensky (2014), explains that changes in organizations have been backtracked to determine what decisions led to these changes, and who made them. The results showed that the sources of the solutions were spread throughout the organization with less than 10% of all the solutions on average coming from the top, approximately 30% from middle management, and approximately 60% from the bottom. This clearly shows that those most involved in the work on the ground contribute the most to effective solutions.
     In my organization, the United States military, at the highest levels, the hierarch type is an oligarchy for purposes of command and control to be implemented and adhered to. However, at the lowest level, it will depend what type of unit one is attached to, its environment, and the nature of the interpersonal relationships in that particular environment that will determine how, if at all, leadership change occurs as it relates to a shift towards a polyarchy. Believing the military failing to exist is not an option, as an organization and business, the military must find a way to adapt to the ever-changing technological,  geopolitical and socioeconomic environments. Hermann (2009) shared, "Multidimensional thinking and acting in military decision-making and applying new learning models to build up a climate of change and innovation on all levels of the armed forces is necessary."
     Within my current specific organizational unit, I believe there exists elements of a polyarchy where each member of the team contributes to the overall discussions, all the while receiving genuine and authentic questions from leadership on a regular basis. "...small sub-entities form small sub-groups within the system, and develop certain behaviors and interconnections activating a local mindset" (Ergen, 2012, p. 4). However, due to the nature of the military, I currently do not see this organization ever getting any closer to a polyarchy than what it is now. A few reasons to support my position: 1) I believe aspects of the military at these smaller units will provide valuable insight and problem-solving opportunities to support the larger military objectives without interrupting, or breaking the national military construct of command and control;  2) there is an inherent requirement to adhere to the understanding and practice of leadership taking responsibility for the perception of command and control and the respective behavior reflecting that of a subordinate towards a superior; and 3) I feel that allowing such a polyarchy into the culture of such an institution would invite scrutiny at all levels, questioning if leaders did in fact have control over their subordinates, which, if ever came to fruition, could ruin that leader's potential for further promotion.
     If I was to get creative, think outside the box, and assume that the United States military would approve such a shift to take place and put it on me to figure out how to initiate the process, I suppose I would start somewhere along the same line that we are doing so now, at the lowest unit levels. Incorporating a polyarchy at the small unit allows for progress reports to be evaluated and assessed for purposes of adjustments, discussions, funding of supporting technologies, etc., all without interrupting the 'big green machine' at large. Over time, as the benefits were becoming apparent, and outweighing cost, minimizing loss of personnel, or respect for leadership, and each directorate to each command makes the shift to a ployarchy, the final step would be to have the Commanding Officer authentically participate. Darley (2016), states, "As you start working on a few small authentic changes in your leadership approach, the ripple effect will touch all areas of your group, sparking more shifts and changes." If this transition was deemed successful, a blueprint with a detailed explanation of how to shift to a ployarchy, and get it employed at each command under the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it would require an Executive Order.
     As this relates to organizational strategy, I do not believe this shift would alter, or require a change in any of the military's strategies. I believe if any of their strategies would be effected and identified early on, such a shift would not be allowed to occur. If this organization was any other corporate type, I would imagine that the leadership would re-evaluate their organizational objectives, mission statement, as wells their vision statement in preparation to becoming more productive due to their unification, team work, increased technological capabilities, social interdepartmental interactions, peer to peer reviews and communication, feedback, top to bottom and bottom to top interaction, as well as new external socio-economic dynamics.


References:


Darley, L. (2016, June 7). Making an authentic shift in your leadership approach. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2016/06/07/making-an-authentic-shift-in-your-leadership-approach/#2d5ed31b57d6


Ergen, E. (2012, February 3). The monograph of Greece: Exploring complex adaptive leadership in a European country. Retrieved from http://ergen.gr/files/ExploringCALinGreece.pdf


Hermann, J. (2009). New ways of military thinking and acting for a better world: New models-preparing forces to master unavoidable transitions. Advances in Military Sociology: Essays in Honor of Charles C. Moskos, 12(1), p. 353-393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1572-8323(2009)000012A025


Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Furnham, Surrey: EN. Gower Publishing Limited.

A633.3.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

Complexity Science

 

      Strategy based within my organization is derived from a couple of command echelons above my own. In this case, my command’s strategy is nested within Special Operations Command Africa’s (SOCAFRICA) Supporting Plan to United States Africa Command’s (USAFRICOM) Theatre Campaign Plan, which is considered to be one of five major combatant commands across the globe. This command and control construct is inherent within the United States military’s oligarchy structure, and ensures top down orders are followed in support of national and international interests that may not be seen, or fully comprehended at the company, or platoon level, yet nevertheless, needs to be followed in a timely manner.

     As far back as Roman times up until the Vietnam War, Guerilla warfare has been the traditional means of defeating our nation’s enemy. However, as early as World War II, special operations was created out of the necessity to accomplish a particular mission, which in turn was part of a larger strategy that entailed future concerns such as political stray voltage, the American people’s perceptions, international perceptions, financial blowback, and future strategic planning and lessons learned.

     Porter (1996), offered, “Competitive strategy is about being different. It means deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value.” When Afghanistan and Iraq began, SOCAFRICA employed skillsets that enabled the soldiers on the ground to acquire time-sensitive information in support of current U.S. military objectives. This strategy significantly changed the way SOCAFRICA does business in the Middle East, as well as in the current area of operations, Africa.

     Nowadays, this skillset is by far leveraged as the primary strategy, coupled with other methods, of getting ahead of our nation’s and partner nation’s enemies in fighting the war against terrorism and Violent Extremist Organizations (VEO). What makes the use of this skillset so valuable is the flexibility and adaptability to a wide range of environments, cultures where military presence may, or may not be accepted. Being certified in this skillset, as well as a manager of those with the same, or similar skillset, allows me the unique perspective of understand the value, and wide potential usage of it for multiple purposes in multiple locations, laterally, or bi-laterally (with other forces).

     By with and through lessons learned and after action reports, SOCAFRICA has been able to take past experiences, evaluate what has brought value added events to SOCAFRICA, and what has not. Through this analysis and evaluation, it has been determined that certifying and updating this skillset’s Course of Instruction (COI) has been a special operations necessity in order to provide expertise in this area with a flexible and adaptable Course of Action (COA) should the environment change again, as it will. It turns out that this skillset has been a long-time emerging strategy that was not realized for its true value until just recently. Hamel (1998) shared, “the most fundamental insight of complexity theory is that ‘complex behavior need not have complex roots,’” (as cited by Langton).    

     Currently, SOCAFRICA is in the approval process of a five year strategic plan that primarily focuses on the employment of this skillset as it relates to the U.S. AFRICOM Area of Responsibility (AOR). With that said, adjustments to this skillset includes modifications of platforms from which it is employed, partner nations in which to leverage, emerging Concept of Operations (CONOPs), and authorizations allowing such activities to occur legally. As in-house sustainment training gets implemented here at SOCAFRICA, understanding the purpose and employment of this skillset by all the command’s directorates will ensure a greater unified synchronization of effort from SOCAFRICA as a whole improving over effectiveness in the future as the environment changes. While assisting in this shift of strategic development and employment, I will be departing for a new command, bringing with me the experience of staff related perceptions to a most likely a lower echelon command, enhancing their understanding, and hopefully, their capability.

 

References:

 

 Hamel, G. (1998). Strategy innovation and the quest for value. Sloan Management Review, 39(2). P. 7-14. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=7917c1f6-334a-44fd-95a4-653b41a3b89e%40sessionmgr102&vid=0&hid=118&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=159467&db=bth

 

Porter, M. E. (1996, December). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6). P.61-78. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=8ff13b03-9c3a-4649-a245-9cec9e94da90%40sessionmgr4009&vid=0&hid=4201&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=9611187954&db=bth

 

Sullivan, T. (2011, September). Communication: Embracing Complexity. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/09/embracing-complexity

A633.3.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Complex Adaptive Systems

     Much like Morningstar and St. Luke's profile of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS), Valve Corporation takes it a bit further in the sense that "it consists of no explicit hierarchy.  It’s based on what several members of the company have described ... as the principles of anarcho-syndicalism. Effectively, free association of employees with one another" (Wagreich, 2013). In fact, it is a company of no bosses where decisions such as hiring, firing and bonuses are decided upon by peer consensus. This anarcho-syndicalism refers to Valve's self-organized groups that work together to accomplish goals and meet objectives. Perhaps the most unique aspect to the company on top of its internal mobility concept, it provides their employees 100% free time to roam around from project to project offering their expertise to where it may help most (Wagreich, 2013).

     Implications for my organization, the United States Military, would be to see the polyarchy grow within the oligarchy. That is to say, see the elements of the CAS from within Valve get applied at the 06 command level where the politics of decision making are not so influenced by Washington D.C. directly. Providing this kind of environment to these levels within the United States Military, offers each command opportunities for growth, maintain integrity, inspire initiative behavior, and improve the teamwork concept, to name a few. For myself, these concepts I will introduce incrementally within my own personal spheres of influence within my organization, so as to sensitize others I work with to the concept of CAS, their elements and benefits (Obolensky, 2014).

     Identifying my organization as a type II Matrix, it appears that the transition from type II to a type III CAS organization may require process consultants and cross-functional teams to aid in the transition as precursors in the evolution from a type II to type III. Obolensky (2014) states, "...key boundaries and few simple rules are put in place by top management, and the organization's overarching purpose is clarified, understood and shared by all" (p. 26). For the military, a series of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), policies and directives would need to be drafted and approved through the chain of command showing implementation of explicit key tasks that would enable the evolution to a Complex Adaptive System (Obolensky, 2014).

     Strategy within my organization has evolved greatly since the days of Afghanistan and Iraq. Our fight against terrorism in Africa is not so much any particular regional threat rooted within a particular country. Rather, a trans-regional threat that is mobile, global, and destroying governments from within. The United States' strategy in Africa is not to defeat a country, but to partner with them, realign with them, train, equip and support them in their fight against these mobile, global trans-regional threats. This strategy's implications overall is such that we are not at war with these African countries, but creating and building partner nation capacity and alliances with those that are at a time that is greatly needed.

References:

Collins, R. (2016, December 3). Organizations are not machines. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/great-work-cultures/organizations-are-not-mac_b_8710462.html

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd Ed.). Burlington:VT, Gower Publishing Company.

Reeves, M. (2014, December 22). Martin reeves: Your strategy needs a strategy [YouTube file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE_ETgaFVo8

Wagreich, S. (2013, March 3). A billion dollar company with no bosses? Yes it exists. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/samuel-wagreich/the-4-billion-company-with-no-bosses.html



A633.2.3.RB_SIegmundWayne

Butterfly Effect

     Simple things can, and have yielded big results. For example, a simple note passing in class can turn into two strangers fighting in the parking lot after school; making a culturally sensitive gesture to another colleague can turn into a long, drawn-out lawsuit; and accidentally shooting an innocent bystander in a foreign country can thrust an already politically sensitive environment into conflict.

     Complexity Science is a study of how general and basic pre-existing rules and laws can be discovered to explain and even control that of which creates a complex environment (Phelan, 2001), and ..."shows an inherent and underlying simplicity of a self-organizing nature" (Obolensky, 2014, p. 54). Science uses formulas and equations to help explain mathematics and physics, are quantifiable and provable. Why not utilize this behavior to explain a complex organizational environment. From a distance, becoming aware of all activity and their interactivity with other associated elements throughout an organization can be determined to be overwhelmingly complex, and even complicated. However, is it feasible to consider where decision points are located, can, up close, be adjusted so as to alter the second and third order effects, if the results from a macro perspective are undesirable? Ultimately, Obolensky proposes that even though older, more traditionally accepted theories of leadership may be suitable for certain environments, must give way to more polyarchal types in order to explain, clarify, understand and control more complex organizational environments and their contextual domains  whose results of uncertainty, paradoxes and non-deterministic results find themselves on the other end of the equal sign (Obolensky, 2014).

     In my organization, currently a joint military special forces environment, numerous occurrences display a butterfly effect, a phenomenon by Lorenz known as 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions', (Bradley, 2010). Under a similar dynamic, people in my environment often uses policies, guideline, standard operating procedures, operational directives, executive orders, concepts of operations, memorandums of agreement, and so on, throughout the day. Unfortunately, there has never been a repository for all these references, leaving people at their own behest to search and locate, if possible, the relative reference needed, wasting tens to hundreds of man hours. Approximately four months ago, our knowledge manager, simply collected in a very organized and accessible format, all the references for operations in a single location without ever telling anyone. When one person discovered this, they told another person who had asked about how to go about locating a particular reference. This passing of information over time change the way business was conducted at our command due to all the time saved.

     In another example, when I arrived at my command, people tend to dress the same way everyday, in casual civilian clothing. New to me, I arrived in business casual clothing. Knowing that I could never go wrong looking professional, I remained dressing as such even though everyone else dressed in their 'street clothes'. Over a period of eight months, members of my directorate slowly added collared shirts, sweaters, khaki pants and dress shoes. Today 85% of my directorate dresses in business casual on a regular basis. It appears that the introduction of a flutter of casual wear sparked a small change over time creating a whole new, unforeseen change in our dress code. Since then, we have increased our inter-agency partner relationship 200-fold since May of 2016, which in turn is reporting positive brief-backs to our Commanding General once a week on operational developments.

     Where I am concerned with respect to my organization, complexity theory can be utilized where multiple leadership styles and strategies intermingle generating uncertain results on multiple levels. Understanding who all the stakeholders are, their interests and strategies in a complex domain, provides location inside the complex perspective where self-organizing and evolving mechanisms can be modified over time in order to provide rudder steerage towards an organization's vision. Anderson (1999), offers, "Strategic direction of complex organizations consists of establishing and modifying environments within which effective, improvised, self-organized solutions can evolve". Where my organization exists at the higher echelon levels of the military, these self-corrected measures can be established at identified system nodes at each directorate level (gateway) that has a given effect as decisions move forward up and down the chain of command, as well as laterally and across interagency domains clarifying what once was a complex environment without known nodes of influence.

References:

Anderson, P. (1999, June 1). Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.3.216

Bradley, L. (2010). Chaos and fractals: The butterfly effect. Retrieved from http://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/butterfly.html

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd Ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

Phelan, S. E. (2001). What is complexity science, really? Emergence, 3(1), 120-136. Retrieved from https://faculty.unlv.edu/phelan/Phelan_What%20is%20complexity%20science.pdf

A633.1.2.RB_SiegmundWayne

Leadership Gap

     Through reflection, I find it amazing how different the leaders I have had in my life were. When I was a child, I began gymnastics classes with an old high school recreation coach. He often began our class with a warm-up of running, a few minutes of stretching, and then skill development with drills. We often finished the classes with the strength conditioning and stretching. For the next 10 years of my life, I would experience similar behavior from other leaders in fitness that carried with them vast amounts of experience and degrees in Human performance, kinesiology and physiology. It was not until I went to college and competed for Southern Connecticut State University's Varsity Men's Gymnastics Team. The head coach was not only a world renowned Olympic gymnast and coach, but was a pioneer of the sport, carrying multiple degrees in biomechanics, and physical fitness, on top of major international recognition. Ten years later, I discovered a whole new approach to physical fitness from those who were seen as leaders in the field.

     After enlisting in the Navy, I volunteered for Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training where the instructors had a holistic approach to physical fitness and skill development. Instead of telling you what you need to do to accomplish certain tasks, they left it upon each service member to take the initiative to prepare themselves physically, and mentally. With little guidance, many failed due to ill-preparation. Soon, the program's leaders developed informative and assisted classes that would become the transformative turn in increasing recruitment numbers, as well as graduates.

     Through this reflection, while there is value in experience and credentials, there are other traits and beliefs of leadership that come into play. Unfortunately, without something to initiate a change in leadership style, leadership will, for the most part, remain the same. The old saying of 'if it is not broke, don't fix it', I have seen taught from generations prior to mine. However, I feel up and coming leaders, and perhaps even leaders of old, can become more self-aware of their leadership style and make adjustments to their approaches, setting a new example to the rest of the team.

     Listening, and watching the leadership approaches of my grandmother's generation, as well as those of my parents and my own, showed a great difference in their ability to consider a new way of doing things. It seems as time went by, it became more acceptable to try something new. Back then, there was the way that worked, despite any blocks, or potential gains. Nowadays, it seems to be the norm, from my perspective, that there is a treasure trove of effective ways to lead out there, depending on one's environment, the team that is being led, and the goals, mission and vision being held. I feel the future holds more of this behavior, a desire to seek a more effective way, as society offers up the awareness that there are better, and more effective ways of leading.

     I believe this trend of change has occurred out of necessity; the need to reach goals that are not being accomplished; the need to accomplish the mission that has been changing due to environmental factors, and the need to stay on track with a vision. When market and organizational evaluations are conducted, and it shows that progress is not occurring over time, it would only make sense to me that a change is needed, and perhaps that change comes in the way leaders lead. In a review of Gary Yukl's, Leadership in Organizations (2001), the National College for School Leadership (2003) shares that "Transformational leaders make followers aware of the importance and value of the work as well as encouraging them to think beyond self-interest". I feel the primary gaps in leadership effectiveness exist due to our innate tendency to repeat behaviors that have been taught to us from the generation before us, as well as having a fear of change and even some being risk averse. However, it seems this gap would be temporal as we move forward as a global society in competition and a drive to improve performance as a whole.

     As a global society, I believe there will always be gaps as we transition from one generation to another due to knew ideas, and new technologies that will aid and assist us in bridging these gaps, flattening communications, willingness to share through mutual benefit, and becoming more transparent in the way we all do business, inspiring one another (Canwell, Dongerie, Neveras & Stockton, 2014). Brining these new innovative ideas of complex adaptive leadership styles, and the benefits that come with them, to the venues in need of them via the cutting edge technologies that awaits to show them of a new way, is one of many to help bridge this gap (Tessman-Keys, 2015). In the Academic Medicine Journal, Blumenthal, Bernard, Bohnen & Bohmer (2012), explains that in order to develop the requisite skills for tomorrows leaders today, providers must be prepared to take on the complimentary roles of 'clinician' and 'leader' through deliberate, systematic and interdisciplinary efforts.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd Ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

National College for School Leadership (2003). What leaders read 1: Leadership in organizations. [Review of the book Leadership in Organizations]. National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/26015119/media-f7b-97-randd-leaders-business-yukl.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1490529745&Signature=MQELL18kzUUw%2Fuhj62alEi85dzQ%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DLeadership_in_organizations.pdf


Prive, T. (2012, December, 19). Top ten qualities that make a great leader. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyaprive/2012/12/19/top-10-qualities-that-make-a-great-leader/#15db45987754


Tessmann-Keys, D. (2015, October 31). Leadership: Bridging the leadership 'gap.' Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/252350


Canwell, A., Dongerie, V, Neveras, N. & Stockton, H. (2014, March 7). Leaders at all levels: Close the gap between hype and readiness. Retrieved from https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/focus/human-capital-trends/2014/hc-trends-2014-leaders-at-all-levels.html



A632.9.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Role of Emotion in Decision Making

     I can not say that I have always been the most confident decision maker with respect to subjects I was even quite familiar with. Areas of in-depth knowledge in my life include gymnastics, personal training, Newtonian physics, billiards, drafting and special operations. However, depending on the environment, persons involved, and the circumstances in which decisions would be made, an element of emotion may directly, or indirectly effect those decisions. Emotional decisions can have far reaching consequences unknown to the decision maker at the time who is 'blinded' by the emotions in the first place.

     While conducting a team navigation exercise during Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL (BUD/S) training, five of us were working together finding our way through mountainous terrain back to base camp. Although we all knew how to conduct basic orienteering, I was quite confident in my own abilities to navigate under most circumstances. Throughout the day, I typically determined where we were supposed to be heading and watched the others take lead and decide. For the most part everyone agreed, thus followed the lead navigator. For some reason, I felt a couple of the team members were not quite sure, yet agreed anyway.

     As the day progressed, we were preparing to depart stake number six out of eight. After the team discussed the our current location on the map, the location where stake number seven was on the map, and the path we were going take to get there, I had confidently interjected requesting a second look at our presumed current location, resection, and heading. As with most type A personalities, two of the team members concurred, defending their original assessment. I had asked them to show the rest of us what point they were using to conduct a resection in determining our current location. It turned out, after carefully pointing out their misidentification of a resection point, that they were incorrect, and after showing what I believed to be a resection point, put the team back on target and schedule again. Knowing we all agreed on my resection point, boosted my confidence even further. While walking, I continuously conducted map studies en route to our next way point, and already knew we would get back without any further miscalculations. Thankfully, I enjoyed the challenge that land navigation offered me.

     At another time, as a new Navy Chief, I was asked, along with my peers, to grade and rank the First Class Petty Officers for their first soft ranking prior to their final breakout amongst their peers. While sitting around with the other Chiefs with the E6 evaluations in hand, I did not know exactly what I was looking for. While I was getting an idea from each evaluation as to how each E6 compared to each other, the Chiefs began taking votes for rankings. Still confused a bit, I decided to raise my hand along with the majority who raised theirs. As each member was getting ranked by our votes, I was placing their evaluations accordingly in my hand. I continued to vote as such until the session was over.

     Although I took the evaluations and read through them again to make sense of their new ranking, I felt bad that some of these E6s may not make Chief because of my lack of understanding, as well as those making Chief that may not yet deserve it. My disposition that led me to deciding to vote with the majority rather than not voting at all, was one of doubt and fear; doubt from lack of confidence in understanding the criteria in ranking, and fear that the other Chiefs would find me unprepared, uncaring and unmotivated.

     The emotions I was able to recognize and acknowledge from the team land navigation decision making was confidence, pride and appreciation. As for the E6 soft ranking, guilt, fear and embarrassment. However, in both situations, the feelings I experienced served their purpose throughout the decision making process, both for myself and those around me. Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther (2001), states that "emotions can become dysfunctional when they persist indefinitely, or when they are situational inappropriate" (p. 32). Not knowing whether or not keeping my ignorance a secret was going to bode well for me, but if I remained 'lost in the crowd', then I should be able to safely 'move with the crowd', so to speak.

     "There is now a growing body of evidence that affect and emotions play an important role in people’s decision processes for choices when there are uncertain outcomes" (Hoch et al, 2001, Ch. 15).

References:

Hoch, S., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton on making decisions (1^st Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Shiv, B. (2011). Brain research at Stanford: Decision making [YouTube Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRKfl4owWKc

A632.8.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

Cynefin Framework Reflection

     Applying the Cynefin Framework model, I feel, can be thought of as a very malleable, ever-shifting decision-making tool that can be influenced by the most subtle changes in any given domain that one may find them self. Keeping in mind that one's environment can shift ever-so subtly and quickly, will require an appropriate, and corresponding domain to be applied for an effective resultant to appear. The ability to timely identify this potential environmental shift, and apply the appropriate, corresponding domain in the moment is the hopes that I have for myself and my organizational peers (Snowden, 2010).

     In the simple domain, where I can predictably, and quickly sense, categorize and respond, I find a few tasks on a daily basis that I apply best practice (Snowden, 2010). At the office, I am tasked to take all of the outstations' weekly input for their daily situation report (SITREP), and compile them into a particular format, and sent out to specific individuals via email for their notification by a certain time every morning. Applying the simple domain here occurs automatically. I have elements that get copy and pasted to particular sections of the SITREP. When this is complete, I add a preset email distribution group address, and hit send. The same occurs for me at home with organization that I require the night before, so in the morning, when I am still waking up, I can collect all the items that I will require at work from one location, such as my security clearance badge, wallet, car keys, coffee, and phone, instead of having to look for these items, or forgetting them completely. In addition, time management, based on that day's schedule, forces me to see what requires my attention, where, when, and for how long, and determine with these factors in mind, along with priority of urgency, how to organize my schedule for the day. However, when an unforeseen event occurs, this schedule can quickly shift into a complicated, complex, or even chaotic domain. Generally, deliberately applying the simple domain to all three examples would provide me with a greater sense of situational, as well as self-awareness within the domain allowing a third party view, rather than a feeling of being within the problem, reacting off habitual behavioral patterns (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

     Approaching a complicated environment, such as that of experiencing a plumbing clog and leak from my kitchen sink, left me analyzing the full extent of the issue and determining whether or not the leak was due to a clog, poor fittings, or both. Using logical deduction, I systematically approached the issue from a couple angles; testing the tightness of all fittings to determine potential sources of leaking, and disassembling the plumbing to look for clogs that may be contributing to the problem. I had a similar approach to a problem that I encountered with my computer while working on homework. In this case, I was experiencing a malfunction in a typical download scenario. The download was not occurring, and I had to troubleshoot it to determine if it was a software issue, or hardware compatibility issue. After not resolving this issue on my own, I had it professionally looked at, and fixed. Deliberately applying the complicated domain would have, again, provided the insight and awareness of a system that allowed for a good practice to be exercised while minimizing wasted time (Snowden, 2010). The same applied to an expensive Omega watch I own whose time was too fast. After replacing the battery, resetting the time, and comparing its pace to another watch that functioned properly, it still ran fast. The only logical thing to do was to send it off to Omega for a functional check. After it was returned, it was working fine. The basic checks, followed by a more analytical assessment by Omega in my opinion was a good practice to adhere to.
     One Saturday morning I went outside to find my car missing from where I left it parked and locked up. Not knowing what happened, or how, or why my car was not where I left it, was beyond me. Not knowing what to do in Germany, I continued to look around the place I lived to no avail. Shortly after, I decided to call the police to file a report. I figured, if I do what I would have done in the states, how can I go wrong? Not knowing how the police would help, I spoke with them, and waited for their response. After a police officer searched the area, they found it parked on the street around the corner. Confused, I took receipt of my car, and thanked the police officers, and drove my car back into the driveway. To this day, we do not know how, or why it was moved. Deliberately applying the complex domain, again would have brought a greater sense of organization and awareness to the situation for me. During a recent military Sensitive Activities conference, a discussion ensued where multiple members brought forth information that was received by 3rd and 4th parties that was quite different than what the actual facts were. In addition, others had made a number of assumptions, further confusing the discussion. Not being clear as to where people were 'coming from', we all had to wait for certain conversations to shift that would eventually provoke questions bringing forth the assumptions made and false information that had been relied upon. Never deliberately deciding to use the complex domain framework, most likely kept me from truly hearing what was being said, acting as a block to a more objective perspective with a plan. Another example where the complexity framework would had facilitated the decision-making process was when I had arrived late to a team training evolution that was fairly new. Arriving without knowing where in the evolution the team was at, or my place within it, left me a bit confused on the sidelines attempting what to decide next. Interjecting a question here, and there to some of my team mates, and supporting the answers with those from the training cadre, as well as the current place the evolution was in, my decision became clear as the environment developed around, along with the information I had gathered (Snowden, 2010).
     It is not often I find myself experiencing a chaotic environment, where I have to take intuition and my gut instinct to quickly act in hopes it does not turn out badly for those involved. However, more often than not, my choices basically reflect the process of applying the chaotic framework domain in such an environment that calls for an immediate decision be made prior to reassessing. One evening, while on the phone with a friend, I had heard my wife's voice reach a tone of panic. As I turned around to look in her direction, she was facing my daughter who was apparently choking on something. As I turned, jumped over the back of the couch, I grabbed my daughter to discover the look on her face that expressed panic and choking. Quickly applying the Heimlich maneuver, the hotdog piece was dislodged from her throat, allowing her to breathe again. At another time while deployed in Iraq at the height of the war, my unit was engaged with small arms fire. Immediately, I looked to take cover, determine where the small arms fire was coming from, and engage. The obvious problem of not getting yourself and the situation stabilized immediately is that you and you teammates can die. Thankfully, we all made it home. However, applying the chaotic domain would have probably provided me with a little more tactical patience in the moment - a very valuable asset to have in the heat of battle. In a final instance, I received a knock on my door at home to discover a women who was begging for help with her child who was apparently epileptic and was having a seizure. As I ran out of the house to the road where she was parked, I opened the door to find the child choking on her own tongue, and biting down with great force. Asking my wife to grab me a wooden spoon, I had immediately put my finger in the little girl's mouth to prevent her from biting off her own tongue. Once my wife returned with a wooden spoon, I laid it across inside the girl's mouth, removed my bloody finger, and had my wife call for an ambulance. With the girl breathing again, I gently whispered in the girl's ear to relax and reassured her that she is okay. Shortly after, her body's tension gave way to relax just prior to the ambulance arriving. In this situation, I felt I was applying the chaotic domain throughout the event, making decisions to stabilize the situation before reassessing and sensing the domain, which eventually turned to what appeared to be a simple domain in the end (Snowden & Boone, 2007).






References:




Snowden, D. J. (2010, July 11). The Cynefin Framework. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8&feature=youtu.be


Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A leader’s framework for decision making. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/3459515/A_Leader_s_Framework_for_Decision_Making_-_HBR.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1488655914&Signature=Ke2GuPAsTzsxCs1WHzmw2qdfZQI%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DA_leaders_framework_for_decision_making.pdf


A632.8.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

    

In today’s complex business environment, most leaders typically rely upon their intuition and gut instincts when it comes to unordered environments, such as complex and complicated contexts. Unfortunately, it not enough to depend solely on these natural capabilities. Leaders will need to depend on external guides and cues informing them of the contexts of their surrounding environment and how best to integrate their organizations into the appropriate approach for the given contexts (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

In dealing with multiple contexts across the five domains; simple, complicated, complex, chaotic and disorder, leaders will be required to learn how to identify multiple contexts occurring at the same time, and be able to shift their decision making processes as well as the relative behavior in order to successfully manage a collaborative environment in each of the domains. Likewise, leaders must be open-minded during these shifts to keep themselves from controlling a particular environment at any given time, remaining neutral, all the while assessing and partaking in the decision-making process with the group (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

Within my working environment, a Joint Special Operations military command, I have had to shift contextual environments two to three times a day. In these cases, they were all separate, giving me time to reset and get organized and mentally cleared to approach the next domain without expectations, so that I may be able to more readily be able to identify the next context. Typically, I would say it would be easy to carry over the same contextual mindset from one environment to the next being in the military environment as long as I have been. However, getting entrained in this line of thinking does not help myself, or my organization approach the respective domain from a more effective collaborative decision-making perspective.

I was asked to take over an ‘Operations and Intelligence’ (O&I) meeting as an adhoc request. While I did not have the experience of running this meeting before, I had relied on what I had witnessed, and well as any relative experience I was able to bring to bear. My approach to this complicated process included a slow, methodical, yet authoritative disposition that allowed me to direct the meeting, yet remain approachable for others to chime in and offer matter of value. Focusing on running the meeting by topic, and issues for discussion, left me with less than normal time to listen and process external input from the group.

Immediately following this meeting that felt empowering, I was again asked to join in on a Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Video Teleconference pertaining to Global Force Manpower concerns. However, under these circumstances, I was to be a fly-on-the-wall more-less, for the sake of situational awareness, and learning the concerns of the JCS on this particular issue. Shifting from a complex domain (probe, sense, respond) where the answer to successfully running the meeting was being divulged as it emerged from the meeting itself, to a complicated domain (sense, analyze, respond), was a rather easy and enjoyable experience for me. While there was not much collaboration occurring for me during the JCS VTC, there was much internal dialogue and planning for responding to my Non-Commissioned Officer-in-Charge (NCOIC) with relative questions.

Another example of cross-domain interaction was while I was at home discussing how to plan out a trip with a male counterpart over the phone, all the while emotionally sharing in my wife’s frustration with how she was feeling and how the children were behaving, as well as relating to my children as they were interrupting my phone conversation. While possibly seen as a mundane shift in focus from one group to another, there can most certainly be some formidable consequences if handled inappropriately. It was quite easily identifiable as to which approach to use with my male friend over the phone; sense, organize, respond (simple domain), my wife; sense, analyze, respond (complicated), and my children as they dropped and broke a glass around their bare feet; act, sense, respond (chaotic) (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

In all cases, I relied on my intuition and gut instinct based on experience, and what I had learned from that. Had I known about, and learned to integrate the Cynefin Framework, I may have been more deliberate in identifying and approaching the O&I meeting with an intention to probe. While I have yet to approach an environment to identify the context deliberately for the sole purpose of sensing, and integrating decision-making, I have begun to become aware of the framework, and self-aware in the need and benefits of employing it intentionally and deliberately as an optional tool to align behaviors and decisions with the environmental context (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

In critically analyzing the Cynefin framework to show how it can provide an improved context for decision making, I offer the following:

1)      Each domain offers an opportunity to make sense of the leader’s contextual environment by understanding what the context consists of, how to approach it, and other domains from which to shift to/from if appropriate.

2)      Each of the domains provide the leader with opportunities to explore an environment without assumptions by removing entrained thinking and focusing on an identifiable domain for behavior and decision making processes.

3)      Offers the leader a framework from which to share contextual nuances with their organization if effort to collaboratively decide how best to work with one another in the decision-making process.

4)      Can assist in Operational Risk Management by offering control elements in which leaders can systematically assess the framework’s context of a given environment.

5)      Provides the leader with another tool within systems thinking to prevent organizational, cultural, political, and personal bias from entering into negotiations, storytelling, and decision making.

References:

Snowden, D. J., Boone, M. E. (2007, November). Decision making: A leader’s framework for decision making. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making

Stout-Rostron, S. (n.d.). Coaching leaders: Understanding complex environments-by dr. sunny stout-rostron. Retrieved by http://www.wabccoaches.com/blog/coaching-leaders-understanding-complex-environments-dr-sunny-stoutrostron/

Norton, D. (2016, February 2). What’s the “best” leadership style? Retrieved from http://www.wearecto2.com/blog/2016/1/1/contextual-leadership