A520.8.2.RB_BorutyAlan - Polyarchic Principles

Polyarchic Principles

The sum total of my experience with the way organizations are structured and operate comes from a career in the U. S. Air Force followed by a few years of  defense contract work supporting the military.  It is safe to assume that anything outside of a strict hierarchical layout with management, leadership, and control applied from the top-down, would be foreign to me.  Such is the case of polyarchy.  My first look at the concept at any level of detail occurred as a graduate student enrolled in the MSLD Program at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University less than a year ago.  

In an attempt to gain insight and perspective from a different source, I did an on-line search of the internet.  Surprisingly, I found very little information on the subject and most of what I did find was based in politics, not business  organization. Fortunately, it occurred to me that this blog really is not about polyarchy, at least not completely.

The rate at which technology improves, changes , or evolves difficult to grasp.  Thirty years ago a computer system took up the space roughly equivalent to that of a house and no one I knew had one. There was no internet available to the public; it simply did not exist.  The mobile phone was a brand new idea and prototypes weighed about 50 pounds, had multiple components and had to be carried in a container about the size of a suitcase.  The technology many people take for granted today, is less than thirty years old and has morphed into  what we have today through nonstop advances in technology over that time with no end in sight.  I believe that anyone who is thirty years old can say the world changed significantly in their lifetime. 

Unfortunately, the changes that have made our lives easier, created a monster for companies to understand much less keep up with.  Seemingly overnight, the business world went from nothing changes fast to everything changes fast.  As a result, traditional organizations with one CEO having all the answers, sole access to the strategic plan, and a firm grip on the reigns guiding the organization to success has been stressed to the point of failure (Obolensky,2014).  Aligning the organization as a polyarchic entity has the necessary design and potential to resolve the problem, but that alignment is more than just redrawing the organization chart and moving a few people to new offices.  The only system most employees have ever known would be replaced by one most have never heard about.  Obolensky refers to this as a VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous) environment.  His Complex Adaptive Leadership approach helps leaders to cope with and and overcome VUCA in their organizations (Obolensky, 2014).

Complex Adaptive Leadership at the organizational level consists of applying eight principles using  the  Four + Four model.  The principles are underlying meaningful purpose; clear, explicit and individual objectives; discretion and freedom to act; boundaries enclosing the action; skill/will of people; a few simple rules; tolerance of ambiguity and chaos; and unambiguous feedback.  These principles are intended to help organizations evolve from traditional oligarchical structures to complex adaptive system structures (Obolensky, 2014), but I believe they could be effectively applied to any leadership relationship.  Applying them in an organization requires that the leader understand that some roles change as a result of applying the principles.  Defining the organizations underlying meaningful purpose is  important.  The purpose needs to answer the question, why does this organization exist?  It should be meaningful in a way that the organization can understand it, identify with it,  and make it their own.  Further Obolensky,(2014) added,  "Purpose is often implicit and stays constant in a sea of change.  Organizations that last have purpose" (p. 112).

The principles are not new concepts.  Followers in the organization will think they understand what the principles are because they have seen them and used them before. But that is an illusion. Each principle is applied differently than they have seen. Implementing the principles changes roles, responsibilities and authority. The Four + Four model is used to apply the principles  in seemingly contradictory pairs working together, creating harmony.  The   Four + Four  model should be taught  and understood.  According to Obolensky (2014) the principles are presented separately, but "their power is in their totality rather than individual parts and the multiplicity of relationships between them..." (p. 131). 

Implementing each of the principles will require that people change the way they view  and think about how the organization operates.  I would expect some people will have difficulty transitioning, but training will help.  Trying to implement this in phases might work, but not optimally. Complex Adaptive Leadership completely changes the way the organization operates and will be uncomfortable for some, patience and consistency will be important. in other words implementation of each principle should be deliberately planned and implemented as a result of training.  However if implemented correctly, the polyarchic principles will have a positive effect on the organization.

The organization will be more efficient on many levels.  Decision making will rest in the hands of those most qualified to make them.  Problems can be resolved directly and, in most cases, without leader intervention.  Strategic planning will be shared  with people most familiar with the operational environment.  From measuring performance to communicating, processes will become more efficient as a result of polyarchic principles. Employees will benefit as well.   They will be more in tune with the organization and take pride knowing how what they do  helps achieve the underlying purpose. They will operate with the authority to act within established boundaries.  They will clearly understand how they contribute to organizational outcomes.  Commitment to objectives that are focused on performance and tied to strategy give helps the follower  grow with the organization and encourages improved performance (Obolensky, 2014).  Indeed, the benefits will be apparent throughout the organization improving both efficiency and effectivity.

Polyarchy may or may not be the future of organizational structure, but the principles it encompasses are well thought and should be the standard for every leader/follower relationship. They assume expertise, expect success and respect the individual.  I am sure the MSLD Program will have more to say about Complex Adaptive Leadership in future courses and I look forward to it.

Reference:

Obolenesky, N., (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (Second Edition). Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited. ISBN: 978-1-4724-4791-3

A520.7.3.RB_BorutyAlan

The Importance of Having a Coach and Mentor

I have had a mentor in my life since the Air Force introduced me to the concept.  I recall that I could not figure out how someone else selecting my mentor for me, forcing scheduled appointments on us and requiring that I be able to provide proof of attendance at those meetings upon request was going to help me personally or professionally.  It did not help at all.  In fairness though, it did not hurt me either.  That was a long time ago and coaching and mentoring has come a long way since then.

I learned a lot about the mentor/mentee roles as well as the relationship etiquette in meetings. What I remember most though was how I felt when I realized I was no longer frustrated, stressed or angry anymore.  Things were going better at work too.  These changes did not happen overnight either, But, I knew then and I know now that having that mentor made the difference for me.  I did not say much and some days I did not say a word.  I still do not know how or why it worked but, I never questioned it. I have had a mentor ever since.

I also kept blind mentors while I was in the Air Force. When I first entered, I was eager, ambitious, energetic and ready to soak up everything I could .I wanted to learn my job and I was getting nothing. It took almost two years, but I was beginning to behave just like them.  As soon as I realized it, I got angry, with myself.   I decided they could catch up with me, I was not falling to them.  I did not have a boss but everyone out ranked me. None of them stepped up. Long story shortened...I decided to make changes for myself. One of the things I started, was picking two people. One I admired and emulated. The other was the person I absolutely did not want to work for.

The one I admired kept me focused on how and what I should be doing.  The other person was the person above all I wanted to outrank.  That person kept me motivated.  The process served me well for over 20 years.  At each new work center, selections were my first order of business.  I am pretty sure none of that was healthy but, it is exactly what I did...I never worked for the motivators but many of them eventually worked for me...I never told any of those  people of their role in my career.  If you ever doubted that anyone was watching...now you know.

But, I digress.  My relationship with my mentor is just as important to me as ever, but it is different today.  We meet when we can but once a month is probably our average.  Our meetings now are spent having coffee or breakfast and catching up, but I welcome the company just the same. 

~Pete 

A520.6.4.RB_BorutyAlan – Team Roles

Team Roles

As teams mature fully into the performing stage of development and have become highly effective or even high-performing, how do they continue to grow and improve upon their already high level of performance?  If they still have not accomplished their primary goal at their current level of performance, without continued improvement it is possible that the team could begin to stagnate and eventually fail.  It So how do you squeeze more performance out of a team that is already performing above the norm?  Turns out the answer is peer pressure, sort of.

Highly effective and high-performing team members generally have high mutual trust within the team, are unconditionally committed to the team, feel responsible to train and further develop each other, seek ways to continuously improve the team and its processes (Whetten & Cameron, 2016).  In a way they have become so connected that their behavior and comments have a profound effect on the behavior.  This effect can be positive or negative on goal accomplishment.  The individual members of the team take on roles based on their personality and natural tendencies.  Two types of positive or advantageous roles that members take on are task-facilitating roles and relationship building roles.

Task-facilitating roles as one might expect are focused on task completion. There are many task facilitating roles to include direction giving, information seeking, information giving, elaborating, urging, monitoring, process analyzing, reality testing, enforcing, and summarizing.  Even if the team only has one member performing these roles, they work more efficiently.  Without someone performing as a task facilitator, the team loses focus and is slower to achieve their goals (Whetten & Cameron, 2016).

As I stated earlier, teams at this level of performance are highly connected and committed to each other as well as the team.  Relationship-building roles improve the interpersonal side of the team.  The relationship builders support, harmonize, relieve tension, confront, energize, develop, build consensus and empathize.  They are all about helping team members to feel good about each other and the work they do.  It is ideal to have a balance of task and relationship roles: too much of either can be counterproductive (Whetten & Cameron, 2016).  

People tend to lean toward either task or relationship roles, but can overlap between the two.  I am definitely a task facilitator.  As a team member, I am much more comfortable solving problems, analyzing data, looking for options and alternatives.  As I progressed in rank, I had to learn to do both.  I was and still am uncomfortable with the feel good role, but understand the importance of attending to both roles.  

As a leader in an organization though, I am more relationship oriented.  I am not sure why that is exactly, but I believe it is the environment.  On a team of peers focused on a goal, I  want to be part of the solution.  In the organization, my task is to develop the people assigned to me and prepare them for increased responsibility.  Providing guidance, support, encouragement and praise in this role is what feels right. 

Reference:

Whetten, D. A., Cameron, K. S. (2016), Developing management skills (Ninth edition). Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN: 978-0-13-312747-8. (student edition)

Just an afterthought:

I had some difficulty with this module.  I did not expect to at all.  I was in the Air Force.  Teams and meetings are an everyday occurrence.  From the beginning, this material conflicted with what I thought I knew and it effected my learning.  At first, I read the material and somehow made it match what I expected to be in the reading.  As discussions started, I realized I was not on the same level with my class mates, much like I had not even read the same material.  I went back to the reading with a more open mind which helped, but it still left a few holes in high-performing teams.  As a result, I will continue my studies in this area.

~Pete

A520.5.3.RB_BorutyAlan - Forrester's Empowerment

Forrester’s Empowerment

After reading “Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea” and Chapter 8 in the textbook, I was not certain they were even written on the same subject.  Then I realized Forrester’s article is actually a sales pitch.  The article attempts to explain what went wrong with empowerment before, what changes would be necessary to make it successful today, and present empowerment as an important tool when effectively applied.  The article is sort of a ‘don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater’ plea.  But even then it is focused differently than the textbook.

Both works acknowledge the difficulty some managers have with empowering employees.  Giving up control is threatening to most managers.  Control is seen as the most significant skill managers can possess and is a critical part of their evaluation scores.  However, to effectively empower subordinates, managers must give up control, let others make decisions, achieve success, and be recognized for those successes (Whetten & Cameron, 2016; Forrester, 2000).  Many managers feel like empowering others comes at a direct cost to their evaluation.  Whetten and Cameron argue that the manager sacrifices nothing because through empowerment the manager’s effectiveness is multiplied and their organizations become much more successful (2016).

Both authors also agree that empowerment is a skill that does not come natural to most managers.  This skill must be taught, developed and practiced.  Having not met with great success when applied in real organizations, empowerment is simply not common practice in management today (Whetten & Cameron, 2016; Forrester, 2000).  Whetten and Cameron present it as a process that can be earned and employed within the organization.  Forrester presents it as a complex process that results insignificant organizational change that should be implemented externally by trained experts.

There are five dimensions of empowerment according to Whetten and Cameron.  If the manager can help the employees to develop each of these dimensions, the employees will likely empower themselves.  If any of the five dimensions are not present, empowerment is not possible.  The dimensions are self-efficacy, self-determination, personal consequence, meaning, and trust.  An empowered person is competent, can choose the necessary action to take…they have choices, believe they have an impact on the whole…their work is integral to the end product, if they do not perform, the entire job is affected, empowered people value the result of their work, and finally empowered people trust that they will be treated fairly and equitably which gives them a sense of personal security (Whetten & Cameron, 2016).

Whetten and Cameron provide a detailed process to develop empowerment in employees as well.  There are called ‘prescriptions’ and they are not rocket science.  Actually they are the same concepts I have seen in other courses, they are just called something different here.  Whatever they are called, they are the things that build positive work environments.  Managers can create this environment by providing clear goals, foster personal mastery over a task or problem, model correct behaviors (also known as lead by example), provide support/praise/encouragement, provide emotional arousal (replace negative with positive), and provide information (as much as possible)(2016).

 

The text book treats empowerment like an assisted self-help program for the employees, but the benefits of fostering an environment that encourages and achieves empowerment extend well beyond individual workers.  Teams, managers, executives, and the organization can benefit from workers that are empowered.  While the process may increase certain types of power in the empowered employees, it took none from anyone else.  The text clearly separates empowerment from power.  I did not get this feeling from Forrester’s article.

Forrester implies that some employees are not ready and should be passed over until they are ready.  I respectfully disagree.  I think some people are more ready than others, but everyone can benefit from the five dimensions and the prescriptions of empowerment.  As I am sure Forrester would agree.  I oversimplified to make the point that empowering people is not the same as giving people more power.  In a few places in his article he speaks of increasing power specifically.  For example, a quote from someone else that he used in his article to make a point.  “Feelings of self-efficacy come from having real power, they don’t produce it”.  The point he was making is “most critical to the success of the empowerment process is that it result in the increase of real power in employees” (Forrester, 2000).  I believe I understand what he means.  If you spend all the time and effort to empower an employee and they still will not make a decision, the time and effort is wasted.  Again I disagree.  If the employee made personal progress but is still uncomfortable with decisions, the process did not fail.  More time or focused time is what is needed.  The process is just that a process; people are different.  I argue the process should be adjusted versus discarding the employee.  Forrester would most likely agree with that too.

The purpose of the two documents is so different that it is hard to do a legitimate compare and contrast.  I looked so hard to find the differences, I did not see the similarities.  There are many.  Reading the textbook, I am learning the concept from an expert in the field.  It is presented systematically in a way that enhances my learning.  Reading Forrester’s article which clearly shows me that he is a subject matter expert as well, illustrates the passion that he has for a concept that CEOs are discounting and discontinuing because it was poorly executed across the board and therefor produced poor results across the board.  He is trying to convince CEOs that the benefits are real, but empowerment must be implemented properly to realize the benefits.

The textbook does a very good job presenting the concept and emphasizing its importance.  I enjoyed Forrester’s article and agree that empowering employees as described in the textbook is the right approach to leadership.  Empowerment is not about power at all.  It is about employees achieving their full potential.  If that provides benefit to the organization, and it does, it is a win-win situation and those do not happen every day.

References:

Forrester, R. (2000). Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005),14(3), 67-80. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165660

Whetten, D. A., Cameron, K. S. (2016), Developing management skills (Ninth edition). Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN: 978-0-13-312747-8. (student edition)