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/
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/
No comments:
Post a Comment