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.