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.
No comments:
Post a Comment