Complexity Science
I am a product of the Air Force. I understand hierarchical organizations. From the time I entered until the day I
retired I knew every link in my chain of command from my immediate supervisor
to the Commander in Chief. Over the
years, I saw many organizational changes.
Some of them were very significant.
None of them changed the overall hierarchical structure. The military departments are all hierarchies
and that is exactly what they need to be.
That does not mean that hierarchical do not evolve. While it is true that they are still a strict
top down command and control hierarchy, they have made changes and improvements
in many areas. Those changes generally
follow improved processes, advancements in technology, and better understanding
of concepts. Strategy development has
indeed evolved since I first enlisted in 1982.
Back then strategy was developed at the top. The pieces of that development eventually trickled
down to the rank and file (usually via the read file), but it was not
completely clear, it was fixed and directive, and I felt no ownership at all. This falls in line with a Type 1 organization,
Functional Silo (Obolensky, 2014). Disclaimer: My impression of the process may be flawed for
several reasons. It was a long time ago
and more significantly my point of view truthfully did not include the Air
Force Strategy. As a new Airman many,
many subjects were simply above my paygrade.
I did however know the quickest way to wash, wax, and buff the shop
floor. I along with all of the other
Airmen with similar tenure and station performed that duty often.
A few years later, was a new
Staff Sergeant, a new supervisor, and a new non-commissioned officer. My point of view had expanded and the Air
Force expected more from me. I recall reading
the announcement for the Strategic Planning Conference. I was not invited of course. The wing commander would attend. What I saw was a tasking to the group
commanders for input. Eventually that
tasking was levied on the squadron commanders to provide input to their group
commanders. After all, it is a hierarchy. Which may be the genesis of the phrase misery
loves company. Things that involved work
flowed down freely. Golf tournaments and
happy hour could be handled at higher levels.
This is the first time I recall a request for strategy inputs or
realized that such a conference even existed.
The results of the conference took a long time to be released, but I did
read the document. It was not at all
what I expected and it was mind numbingly boring. However, I understood it, it was still fixed,
and for some reason I felt some ownership, perhaps even pride after reading
it. This manifestation actually falls in
line with the Type 2 organization, Cross-Functional Matrix (Obolensky, 2014). Near the end of my career, I was Chief Master
Sergeant and Group Superintendent. The process
had not changed. The announcement of the
conference came, the tasking rolled down hill, and the conference took
place. The document was released much faster
(everyone had computers). This time the
release was announced in conjunction with commander’s call. The wing commander actually held four
sessions to discuss the outcome of the conference. Everyone was invited (mandatory attendance)
and I found it informative. I was unsure
why he chose to conduct the briefings, but was glad that he did. It is important that everyone be aware of the
organizations strategy and path forward.
Strategy will not evolve into the bottom up categories or become fluid
due to the nature of the business. But
it can be clearly understood and at least partially owned. In May of 2015 the Air Force released its first
ever Strategic Master Plan. It is a
20-year plan that took nine months to write.
It will be updated every two years.
It is 65 pages long. I will
include a link to the document in the references for your reading pleasure.
Feedback in the Air Force has
completely evolved since I first enlisted.
Feedback was not required nor was it conducted for the first six years I
was in. Feedback only happened when someone
had done something wrong or was otherwise in trouble. It was the same for counseling. There were no positive connections to either
of those events. Feedback was a one-way
boss to subordinate feedback typical of Type 1 organizations(Obolensky, 2014).
I was in Leadership School the
first time anyone tried to explain how feedback and counseling were positive and
should be done regularly. All I could
think was, you do not know my boss. I
also thought, this will not work. I was
being introduced to Situational Leadership and I was wrong. It does work although my boss never gave in
to it to my knowledge. And the evolution
took off in the normal Air Force manner from there. Documented feedback sessions became mandatory for
everyone twice per reporting period.
This transition was very difficult and widely resisted because of the
way it was it was implemented. But, eventually
it took hold because actually talking to the people you supervise now and again
is indeed a good thing. It improved
morale. People knew what was expected of
them. Attitudes changed and performance
improved. People were happy…who knew? The Air Force invests in its leaders at all
levels. The latest leadership theories
are taught and explored. Supervisors
practice using e different techniques for providing feedback and conducting
effective counseling sessions. The evolution
moved fast. When I retired, 360 degree
feedback was being taught and utilized. This
feedback is two-way communication between the boss and subordinate, it includes
inputs from the subordinates peers and where it applies, inputs from outside
contacts are discussed. This is consistent
with Type 3 organizations, CAS (Obolensky, 2014). Evolution can and should occur within
organizations regardless of its structure.
Obolensky (2014) is not teaching us otherwise. His intent is to provide more than one way to
recognize an organization’s progression as it transitions to a CAS
organization.
Over the next 10 years the Air
Force will continue to evolve as it learns and applies lessons, Incorporates
technology advancements, and as its learns from its new members who are getting
smarter and more capable each year.
During all of this the Air Force will remain a strict hierarchy and I
will remain retired.
~Pete
References:
Link to USAF Strategic Master
Plan: http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/Force%20Management/Strategic_Master_Plan.pdf?timestamp=1434024300378
Obolenski,
N.,(2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty,
(2nd ed). Farnham Surrey, England. Gowan PublishingLimited.
No comments:
Post a Comment