Reflections on Polyarchy and Complex Adaptive Leadership
It is possible that I was asleep or skipped the day it was
discussed in a previous course, but polyarchy is a word that I had never heard
before this course. It is true that most
leadership models have oligarchic assumptions.
It is also true that most organizations that utilize leadership in their
operations have oligarchic or hierarchical structures. If polyarchy is fast replacing the old
oligarchy assumptions, it does not make the old leadership models
redundant. Polyarchic and oligarchic
assumptions are quite different, contradictory in fact. As long as oligarchic organizations exist
oligarchic assumptions are necessary, likewise, the same is true for
polyarchy. Therefore, if polyarchy
actually replaced oligarchy, the old leadership models would still not be
redundant, they would be obsolete.
From the Complex Adaptive Leadership (CAL) perspective, it is
difficult to reflect on traditional leadership.
Both roles are people focused and that is where the similarities
end. And, the similarities of people
only loosely translates. The traditional
leader is active and uses available resources to get things done. The CAL approach recognizes that complex
issues require less leader involvement and is aimed at going with the flow or
achieving the Taoist state of ‘wu-wei’, action through inaction (Obolensky,
2014, pp. 6-9). Traditional leadership
has compassion and empathy. CAL
understands behavior and applies a different approach. Traditional leaders train their replacements
where CAL is aimed at devolving leadership as much as possible. Traditional leaders influence, inspire, and
motivate where CAL leaders coach. Traditional
leadership produces leaders who rely on leadership to provide direction and
focus to their leadership activities.
CAL produces workers that are self-led, know what needs to be done and
take the lead to get it done with little or no supervisory instruction. Traditional leadership is an art and CAL is
science.
All of my leadership experience comes from the strict hierarchic
structure of the Air Force, a place where neither CAL nor polyarchy is
suited. Naturally I am biased toward
traditional leadership. I understand it
and I am comfortable with it. Regardless
of how impersonal, cold, or mechanical I view CAL, I can clearly see that the
environment has changed over the last few decades. The issues that business must resolve to
remain competitive are no longer simple or even complicated, they are complex
and becoming more so each day. Issues
cannot be predicted by running a few cause and effect exercises because those
issues now present themselves as effect, then cause. Markets are in line with technology and
change faster than the traditional hierarchy can effectively respond. Businesses that are forced to react to
changes in their market cannot do so for very long before they collapse.
Organizations that operate under polyarchic assumptions to
include CAL have the advantage of speed and innovation by putting authority to
act and decision making at the expertise level on the front line, closest to
the customer. I studied several
companies that were either founded on or driven to polyarchic assumptions. While I questioned the methods and processes
they employ, I cannot question the results.
From profit to productivity to efficiency to worker experience to
processes across the board, significant improvements were realized. Companies that were successful by every
standard measurement but had reached their maximum capability were able to blow
past the barriers that held them back and achieve success beyond their wildest
imagination. Too good to be true,
perhaps, but I believe the results are real and the concepts behind the model
are valid. The transformation to
polyarchy however, is neither quick nor easy.
It can take years to get past oligarchic thinking, expectations, and
behaviors which must be done before polyarchic assumptions can be applied.
I have given the subject a lot of thought over the last nine
weeks. Many of the CAL processes can be
used in traditional organizations and I would certainly do so. However, CAL strips the leadership experience
of the things I value most. Obolensky
(2014) said it himself (about Complex Adaptive System organizations), “Information
is shared openly. Hierarchy is informal,
and the formal hierarchy is rather flat, dynamic and more to do with meeting
the needs and expectations of the external stakeholders than actually ‘running’
the organization. There is great
emphasis on personal responsibility and underperformance is not tolerated for
long – they are not necessarily ‘nice’ places to work! There are some clear and strictly followed
processes, especially around recruitment, retention, as well as selecting new
innovations and getting them to market” (pp. 26 – 27). There are many lessons I have learned from
Complex Adaptive Leadership and polyarchy.
The first is I would not like to work in that organization. It has all the markings of an efficient and
effective organization which is good for the organization and its investors,
but is very mechanical and matter of fact for the employees. It lacks interpersonal relationships,
celebrations of work well done, and personality. I want work to be fun. I want to enjoy the people I work with. I am sure some of this exists in these organizations,
I just did not find it in the lessons. I
do not want my reason for getting up in the morning to be aligned with the
underlying purpose of the company I work for.
I want the company I work for to support my purpose for getting up every
morning.
Complex Adaptive Leadership and polyarchy helped me see a
couple of areas that as a leader, I may be deficient. I retired from the Air Force in 2005 and from
post Air Force employment in 2013. I do
not intend to return to the workforce in any capacity, but if I did, I would
make adjustments to my leadership approach based on lessons learned from CAL. I have no desire to be a CEO. Enduring that stress and pressure cannot be
mitigated by any amount of money. My
place in an organization is with its people and helping them grow and develop
into whatever their place in the organization they wish to be. To do that, I would need to further develop
in the areas of skill/will evaluation, Level 5 followership, and coaching. It is too easy to bypass the individual that
is skilled but not motivated. It is too
easy to just tell an individual what to do.
Yes the objective gets accomplished, but at what cost? I could easily spend three years mastering
theses skills. The resources I would
need would be minimal. I would need to
attend two or three performance workshops focused on these areas. And of course, I would need to practice. It is more important to lead in a way that
encourages people to think on their own, answer their own questions, and solve
their own problems than it is to find the fastest way to way to get the job
done. This concept is extremely
important, but for me, it is not intuitive.
The trend is clear.
Advancements in technology, information, and communication are forcing
traditional organizations to flatten out and change the way they operate to
remain competitive. The flattened
structures fit polyarchic assumptions well.
The concepts of less formal leadership, self-managed people, and bottom
up leadership are key to polyarchy working.
They can seem counter-intuitive, but drive faster and better decisions,
higher performance, and increased profit.
The time will come when it will no longer make sense to organize any
other way. A paradigm shift some simply
will not be able to make.
~Pete
Reference:
Obolensky, N.
(2014). Complex adaptive leadership. (2nd edition.).
London, UK: Gower/Ashgate
