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.
No comments:
Post a Comment