A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

I have to believe that any idea that actually brings about change would have either come from the bottom or at least is a concept that the bottom can and does relate to.  While people want to believe that those who hold top positions in a company are actually in charge, the opposite seems to be true.  The bottom two-thirds of any company are the one who make things happen.  They are the ones on the front lines dealing with the day-to–day details to ensure the success of the company.  That being said I do believe the top one-third hold a very important role in the way the bottom two-thirds behaves.    The idea that leadership is all knowing is slowly fading away and in its place is the idea that if both parts work together then the solutions are not only more personal but also profitable. 

Obolensky (2014) addressed the idea that leaders were realizing their job was not to know everything or always have the solution but that they were to set up ways for the solution to flow either up or down.  I believe these changes are a result of a changing workforce and attitude among leaders.  The idea of being a leader is no longer about having power and control but about teaching and guiding.  It used to be that the most powerful leaders were those that had the most obedient and dependent followers.  Now it seems there is more pride and status in how much a leader can teach their followers and how well they perform in the absence of that leader.  The days of dictating are gone. 

Another factor that plays a part in the shift in leadership is what Obolensky (2014) described as “behavior breeds behavior” (p. 38).  This is the case with both positive and negative attributes.  When followers see their leader taking an interest in their thoughts and ideas then that behavior carries on down the line and across the board.  Unfortunately, the same goes for negative behaviors if the followers feel that their leader doesn’t care about what they think or feel then that is evident in their work and their attitudes.  When people are given a sense of worth the pride in their work grows and they are more apt to accept change. 

           

Another reason change may be occurring is the shift in thinking that the leader knows everything.  Gone are the days where leaders had to know the answers to every question, now it is acceptable for a leader to say they don’t have the answer but they will do their best to find it.  This creates a dynamic where leaders are viewed more as humans than robots, that they have feelings and make mistakes just like everyone else.  When the leader can admit he does not have an answer it can open up a dialogue with their followers in which an answer may emerge. 

As I am not with an organization at this time, I will address the idea of bottom-up leadership in regards to my former employer.  I would like to think that the ski area I worked for was capable of making the change to bottom-up leadership, I am sad to say it is not.  The leaders in the organization still subscribe to the old theories and ways of running a business.  They believe that leaders lead, or should I say dictate, and followers take directions.  There is no conversations going on between the two “factions”, in fact, there is very little communication at all.  This is all unfortunate as the followers are the ones who have the most face-to-face contact with the guests, and stand to make the best suggestions on how to improve the guest experience.  Unfortunately the leaders feel they know best and the followers are not important enough to even speak with.

In my own experience as a leader, I find that bottom-up leadership is extremely important and I have always been one to open a dialogue with my staff.  I understand and believe wholeheartedly that they do know the guests the best and have the most important feedback.  It is my job to interpret that feedback and make the best changes that will yield the most results.  I feel my way of looking at leadership is a direct result of my experience as a teacher.  I always based my success in the classroom on how well my students understood the material and how they could apply it to their own situations and lives.  The same goes for my followers.      

       

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and

uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham, England: Gower Publishing Limited.

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems

A company’s transition to Complex Adaptive System (CAS) can be a difficult one.  The mere thought of running a business without any managers or system in place can be frightening.  Luckily there were a few companies who were able to think outside the box and take a chance on a new type of leadership.  Obolensky (2014) described CAS as a dynamic organization where teams are formed, preform, and then disappear as the need arises (p. 26).  This type of leadership lets employees regulate themselves and is extremely flexible, however there needs to be some sort of foundation in place. 

Morningstar and St Luke’s are two companies that share the CAS style of leadership.  According to Obolensky (2014) the companies believe in sharing information openly, the hierarchy is informal and flat, emphasis is placed on personal responsibility and underperformance is not tolerated.  Personal I feel the implications of this type of leadership can be very powerful.  In todays world people are being praised so every tiny thing they do, kids are getting trophies for merely showing up, and employees are given multiple chances when they should probably be fired.  There is almost no accountability to anything or anyone and people take advantage of that routinely.  In a CAS there are expectations for each employee and when someone doesn’t follow through there are consequences. 

Zappos decided to go holacratic, which Groth (2013) defines as radical “self-governing” operating system where there are no job titles and no managers.  The idea behind this move was to distribute the power across a more people making the power structure more flat than tiered, given more accountability to each person.  With this responsibility comes leadership itself, leadership over your own actions as well as the potential to step up and lead others. 

As I am not currently employee outside of the house, I can only address these issues from a former company that I have worked for.  When I worked at the ski area there were a lot of issues that stemmed from the leadership structure, especially in our department.  There was a manager, two assistant managers, and five supervisors all within a department of twenty-five employees total during season.  This top-heavy system did not work well, mostly because no one really knew what they were expected to do as job descriptions are very vague and the manager was not an effective leader.  I would love to have applied some CAS tactics to this department and see what would happen.  I think there were many people there that would step up and be great and others would find themselves without a job.  I feel CAS has its place in business, but maybe not on its own.  There has to be some type of foundation or system in place to make sure people are actually held accountable.        

Groth, A. (2013, December 30). Zappos is going holacratic: No job titles, no

managers, no hierarchy. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from http://qz.com/161210/zappos-is-going-holacratic-no-job-titles-no-managers-no-hierarchy/

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and

Uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.      

A633.3.4.RB - Complexity Science

As I am not currently employed outside the home, I decided to write about how I have changed in terms of strategy in my quest to become a great leader.  I started my professional life as a teacher, and that is where I first discovered that changes in the way companies or classrooms were run were happening.  While pursuing my undergraduate degree I realized that the day of compartmentalized education were over.  The new was of teaching and thinking was more interdisciplinary and connected among all the subjects; math was no longer only talked about during math class, it was present in history and science across the board. 

When I think back to my days of schooling, I remember my classes being more inline with the Obolensky’s (2014) idea of the functional silo.  He defined the functional silo as “in the organization, work is strictly organized along functional specialisms” (p.23).  When applied to teaching, this concept implies that certain teachers taught certain subjects with no overlap or cooperative learning.  Inside each subject matter there were levels of hierarchy, such as department heads and chairs as well as committee leaders and liaisons to different boards within the school district.  This way of running a school program and teaching for that matter was exhausting.  It seemed every time I turned for help someone new was in power or held a different office.  This type of set up became very difficult to negotiate and even more difficult to control, the trend then moved from heads of departments and boards to having committees that multiple people sat on. 

With the implementation of committees, teachers were able to approach any member of the committee with an issue and that person would bring it up at the next meeting.  There was no need to search out a specific person to report problems to.  This made communication easier and more streamline, as Obolensky (2014) described in his cross-functional matrices “reporting and processes are efficient and centralized function are slimmed down” (p.25).  During this time, teacher were also realizing that working together across subject matter was a good idea, one that could lessen the workload of a classroom teacher and help expand the scope of teaching material.  This was the time when math/science and English/social studies teams started to emerge.  The subjects were paired of based on common aspects among them, math and science shared an underlying foundation of formulas and rules, English and social studies shared a basis in writing and literature.  This set up was most prominent in the middle and high school levels where there were students saw multiple teachers during the day.  While this did improve the level of education, there were still gaps in the system, these gaps would soon be filled.

The next step according to Obolensky (2014) was the creation of the CAS, which he described as having “clear people processes and polices, sound and flexible information and communication systems, and transparent, inclusive and flexible strategy development processes (p. 26).  This fit the next stage of middle school teaching perfectly, the idea of working in four teacher teams.  Each student was assigned to a “team” of teachers, one for each math, science, English, social studies.  These teachers all worked together to create an education based on teamwork and interdisciplinary studies.  The idea behind these teams was that the teachers would have the flexibility to work together but still cover the amount of content needed to achieve the standards, all while overlapping into other teachers subjects or bubbles as Obolensky (2014) described.    

While I have left the teaching profession, I take away a few lessons learned.  The idea that people (students) are best lead (taught) when the leader (teacher) guides rather than dictates still resonates with me.  When a leader dictates the followers have little to no input into their everyday lives.  When leaders provide guidance they instill an ability in their followers to solve problems on their own instead of relying on someone else.  This is the most important lesson for me.  As in teaching, leadership is about creating great people and giving them the tools they need to succeed.  If a leader believes that leadership is all about them then they are not an effect leader at all.   Another aspect of a great leader is their ability to except and learn from feedback.  As a leader and a teacher I have always been open to feedback as I find it to be the most beneficial way for learning.  I am not saying that I am always prepared to hear the feedback I have been given, as sometimes it is difficult to hear, but I do respect the process and I am respectful to hear how others perceived my actions.  As a mother I am the target of unsolicited feedback on a regular basis.  My children are always telling me how they feel, which sometimes I take with a grain of salt, however, there are times when I realize from their reactions that what I meant and what they heard or saw were completely different.  This to me is the most valuable learning experience.  I hold the same as true in my professional life, feedback is an important part of being a leader, not only expecting it but learning from it as well.  I hope to continue to learn and grow as a leader over the next few years and return to the workforce with the ability to be a great leader.                                  

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.       

A633.2.3.RB - Butterfly Effect

The butterfly effect was created from the theories of chaos mathematics.  Obolensky (2014) stated that chaos mathematics “shows how chaos has an underlying order and pattern which can be used to good effect (p. 58).  The term chaos creates an image in my mind of things that are not in place, out of order, or not following the rules.  When I look past that initial image I can begin to understand how the chaos started in the first place and generally there is a pattern that can explain it.  

The butterfly effect proves that a small change can have large results.  Obolensky (2014) explained “when a situation has a great sensitivity to initial conditions a small change can have a disproportionate effect (p. 70).  When we are trying to fix a problem we often overlook small actions because we think they won’t have as large of an impact, such as putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, when in fact the small change may be just what is needed.  In my experience employees react with less pushback when small changes are made, so if the answer to a large problem is a small change then the likelihood of all employees being on board with it is high.

While working for JetBlue, I had an experience of where a small change had a large impact for crewmembers.  In the airline industry, it is common practice for crewmembers to “bid” for their work schedules and this happens every time there is a flight schedule change.  In the past, the management team at my station had created the schedules, however, in other stations there were bid committee that would help to create the bid lines.  A bid committee was made up of crewmembers from the station that would get together and offer a bid to the management team to consider.  Our station fought to create a bid committee and won.  While our bids were not always the ones chosen, the fact we had the chance to create them improved morale and gave the crewmembers a sense of control over their schedule.  That small change had a large effect over the entire station. 

When I started working at the ski resort, the night audit process was a bit of a nightmare.  It was confusing, complicated and not well structured.  I didn’t think much about it as the night auditor at the time had been there for years and seemed to be handling it well.  When she left the company things began to slide downhill, as we were left with no one to run the night audit and as a supervisor I was asked to step in.  This is when I noticed just how difficult the process was and how a few small changes might improve it.  I started with the way the incoming arrivals were organized and printed.  This change took our IT department less than five minutes, however, saved over an hour of time during the night audit.  It was a huge improvement.  The other change I made was by ordering the legal-sized envelopes we used to hold guest information that opened in the portrait orientation rather than landscape.  This also saved much needed time during the night audit process when they had to insert keys into the packets.  The packets were stored in bins in the portrait position; therefore, it was much easier to insert items into the packets if they opened from the top rather than the side.  These two seemingly minor changes had a great impact on the night audit position and the time needed to complete it.  The changes did not add any cost for the company and very little time.  In the end, the changes were a huge success. 

Chaos is often seen as a negative entity; however, it can have many positive outcomes.  Even the smallest of changes can have large impacts, especially if the amount of resources needed for the changes is minimal.  The butterfly effect was accidentally discovered yet had a profound effect on the world even outside the realms of science and mathematics.  I will remember this when I am searching for solutions, as seemingly large problems may have small solutions.                     

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.