Changing Dynamics of Leadership
I truly
believe the shift in leadership is caused by the technological environment
leaders are competing in today. Over the
last few decades, advancements in the areas of military, communication, and
transportation technologies occurred at a pace never seen before. Tomes of information became available to everyone which almost instantly increased knowledge and human awareness at a rate
that when graphed, it is represented by a near vertical line (Obolensky, 2014). These advancements connected people, places,
and things that had been isolated and static.
Suddenly competition on a global level was real and it was dynamic. These changes took place so quickly, many of
the senior leaders simply could not keep up.
At the same time, the environment in which senior leaders operated made
the art of leadership harder to practice than before. To remain viable major changes are needed at
a time Obolensky (2014) tells us that “leaders are more stressed, challenged,
and confused today more than ever before” (p. 37).
Leaders
that once understood and thrived in their business markets now found them
unpredictable and uncertain. According
to Obolensky (2014), “we have changed the context of leadership faster than we
have changed our assumptions about what leadership actually is” (p. 20). This uncertain and unpredictable context is
driving a shift in leadership style from one of top-down command and control to
one Obolensky named Complex Adaptive Leadership (CAL). In this environment leaders take a hands off,
go with the flow approach acknowledging that the people closest to the work are
better suited to making smart decisions.
The leader shares information openly and with the exception of providing
a few simple rules, people manage themselves.
The leadership role is more involved with stakeholder expectations than
running the company. Teams form and
dissolve as necessary. Teams hold members
personally responsible for their work and poor performance is not tolerated
(Obolensky, 2014). This leadership role
is so counterintuitive to me, I am not sure that I could adapt.
I
absolutely believe the rapid changes in technology changed some markets
drastically. The uncertain and
unpredictable context created by these changes rendered the traditional
leadership style ineffective and forced leaders to find new approaches. But, not all markets or industries were
affected the same. The technology
markets and other markets sensitive to the constantly changing technology
industry were affected the most. The
information explosion had an effect on everyone. Those companies that held the competitive
advantage by getting decision making information before the competition suddenly
operated in an industry where everyone had the same information at the same
time. This effected strategy within
those industries, but did not drive a shift in leadership style. I still consider my organization to be the
Air Force. Many things changed in the
Air Force, but leadership style and organizational structure remained strictly
hierarchical.
I was in
the Air Force when the changes started effecting the wing-level
organizations. There were certain
military functions that were involved from the beginning and they were
prepared. But, the rest of us
experienced the confusion and chaos of a surprise that marked a significant and
permanent change in the way we would conduct day to day business. Equipment started showing up that we could
not identify one day and we were expected to be using it the next day. Incorporating the new technology was a slow
process. Some of us were a little
resistant and a little slower to come around.
Our senior leaders had one-on-one trainers to make the transition quicker
and easier. I cannot say from my vantage
point that what the business community experienced was indicative of what the
Air Force experienced. Some areas in the
Air Force were caught unaware, but in general technology advancements were not
uncommon in the Air Force.
One
reason the Air Force was not caught unaware or left behind is the military departments
were the genesis for enhancements in technology (Obolensky, 2014). The Air Force has seen improvements in
technology on a regular basis since its inception in 1947. Change is discussed, planned, and
scheduled. When the time to implement
the newest improvement comes up, teams are trained to operate, troubleshoot, and
maintain the new systems. They are shown
what to expect and how to react. Another
reason is that the Air Force specifically recruits young men and women that
have high aptitude scores in the technology fields and places them in career
fields that best match their aptitude.
Then the Air Force provides specific and detailed training to those
people on a continuing basis. Based on
these reasons, I would argue that the military and its members are among the
most adaptive groups of people that exist.
However, adaptive also applies to organizations, in that category the
military ranks last. According to Obolensky (2014) adaptive “suggests
something which can make itself more suitable to a changing environment. It assumes a process which can measure and
use feedback to change and be fit for the environment which is changing around
it” (p. xix). By this definition,
complex adaptation is a naturally occurring evolution allowing real time
adjustments to the unpredictable environment changing around it. Military organizations do not meet this definition. The military achieves adaptation primarily
through planning. For any operation, be
it training or real world the Air Force has a plan and at least one backup
plan. If neither will work
communications to coordinate and execute a plan that will work are always
available. And yes back up
communications are also available.
There are different levels of strategy in an
organization. What we have discussed
primarily is high level organizational strategy. Strategic planning did not change in the military
departments. Units that required a shift
in leadership similarly had to employ a shift in their strategy processes. As complexity increases in an organization, “strategy
formulation needs to evolve and embrace not only the traditional analytical
approach but also the dynamic dialectic approach” (Obolensky, 2014, p.
33). To be effective strategy will
created by dynamic bottom up and top down methods. The resultant strategy will be clear, fluid,
and owned by the entire organization (Obolensky, 2014, fig.3.4).
Although leadership style did not shift
in the Air Force, there were things that could have been done better for those
of us not directly involved in the technology boom of the 1990s. Town hall meetings explaining the arrival, placement,
and functions of new equipment before it showed up on our doorstep would have
eliminated a great deal of confusion and wasted time. Admittedly, leadership was uncertain of the
capability and application in the line operations. They could have simply told us what they did
and did not know and prepared us for what was to come. I am not sure why that meeting did not occur,
but it would have helped. That said, in
my time in the Air Force, I did not meet a single senior leader that I
perceived to be playing the charade game.
Reference;
Obolensky,
N.,(2014). Complex adaptive leadership:
Embracing paradox and uncertainty, (2nd ed). Farnham Surrey, England. Gowan
PublishingLimited.
No comments:
Post a Comment