The Leader
Follower Relationship
I completed the Complex Adaptive Leadership (CAL) in Action self-assessment
before reading the material in the chapter.
When I plotted my answers on the scoring sheet, I ended up with four
answers in the Strategy 1 column, four answers in the Strategy 2 column, five
answers in the Strategy 3 column, and 3 answers in the Strategy 4 column. I was happy with the result because it means
that I assessed the situation presented and chose the correct approach fifteen
out of sixteen times. Further, on the
one I missed, instead of delegating the task I chose the participative
leadership style and involved myself in the situation.
This course has been informative and so far I have enjoyed it,
I have learned from it, and I have re-thought how I would work with a follower today.
I suppose the course has changed the way
I think about leadership and the leader’s role in the organization. I worked my entire career within the strict hierarchical
structure of the military organization. I understood the structure, I was comfortable
in that environment, and I thrived in it.
This course exposed me to polyarchy. It took me five weeks to reach the point that
I was willing to admit the possibility that polyarchy could work. I did not have any problem understanding Chaos
Theory or Complexity Science while I was looking at it from the scientific
disciplines, but as soon as I had to apply the concepts to the leadership
discipline, I was lost. It was not until
I read about the Morning Star Company that I could see how polyarchic
operations took place. It moved quickly
from there. I believe I understand polyarchy
and CAL now, but I am far from being an expert.
So, my newly found understanding of Obolensky’s (2014) organization
is that more is placed on the shoulders of the workers. As a result, my thinking has changed on a
couple of issues. First, new hires/followers
will need to reach a significantly higher level of capability than in traditional
organizations. They are expected to be
self-managed and fully capable. Second, followers
will be evaluated in terms of skill, will (motivation), and maturity (pp.
157-161). Measuring skill is cut and
dry, measuring motivation is quite a bit more subjective, and measuring
maturity is harder yet. Leader and
follower interaction will be far more involved than I have ever known. It will be a challenge for the even the brightest
leaders. This represents a significant departure
from any initial skills training in which I have ever been involved.
If I were to go back in to an organizational leadership role,
followership development would be a good match for me and would be in line with
my goals of helping young people to become leaders. I would prefer that my work in the leadership
field from this point be voluntary and to the benefit the leadership community
by influencing high school students to consider a career in leadership. I believe the majority of the students have
heard the bad things, amplified. I also
believe no one has ever taken the time to explain the good side, the options, and
opportunities. With that said, I never
say never, anything could happen.
So if I came back to work, I would still be in line with my
goals. The implications of this
assessment are significant in terms of cost, time in training, training
structure. Initial skills training is
accomplished in traditional organization using a mix of techniques to include
skills development courses, on-the-job-training, and independent study. The polyarchic organization will require
those skills plus additional efforts for self-management techniques. Daily sessions with the leader that focus on
motivation and maturity is also a requirement (Obolensky, 2014, pp. 157-163).
Followership development consists of Skill/Will and Level 5 Followership. Level 5 Followership is primarily dependent
on leadership behavior. Leadership
behavior to some extent also affects Skill/Will development. Motivation is dependent on leadership behavior,
internal and external factors, and the 4+ 4 principles. Each of the components can affect the others. Therefore, looking at one component in
isolation of the others is not recommended (p. 159). It is for these reasons followers would be dedicated
to training full time each day. While
there are followers in training, leader(s) as necessary need to be dedicated
full-time to make sure followers continue to make progress. Motivation is the fragile component. If motivation drops and is undetected, it
could put the follower back in every component.
Having daily interaction is important. Obolensky (2014) describes the optimal output of the
followership development program will be a follower with high skill and high
will who has reached the highest level in Level 5 followership. This individual will integrate into the
operational team transparently and will function as part of the team
immediately (p. 163). Having completed
followership development, the individual is now ready for leadership development
(p. 158).
The process of developing followership is dynamic. It is affected by the environment, and it
changes, what it does not do is adapt to the environment. Adjustments are made by the leader. Therefore followership development is not
complex. However, the follower will have
all the principles in place and will become part the complex adaptive system or
team.
Final thoughts on the leader follower relationship:
The leader follower relationship would definitely be different
in this context than in the traditional leadership role. In the complex organization, followership
development is achieved by making small adjustments on a frequent basis to
ensure progress continues and the follower maintains performance at the highest
levels. To accomplish this, the leader
and the follower interact every day and discuss some relatively personal topics
like motivation and maturity and the reasons they change. A trust is developed and a better
understanding of each other at deeper levels is expected. The relationship must remain professional with
each role in tact although it will gravitate towards friendship. From the perspective of the organization it
would be inappropriate and unacceptable.
But the what-if side creates an interesting twist. After a while, the relationship pull toward
friendship. If the relationship is
allowed to turn into friendship, that friendship would almost immediately cause
irreparable damage because friends cannot communicate on that level for very
long. And the leader would lose the
ability to affect change because the leader role was sacrificed. Progress would stop and the follower would
have to start over with a new leader. The
boss-subordinate relationship is the only one sustainable. Incidentally, the boss-subordinate relationship
would be more comprehensive and understanding. Which is why I would try to include parts of
followership development into the traditional organization.
What I have learned in this exercise is that some things grow
and improve through the use of an iterative process. It is true in followership development. A human can only process a certain amount of
information at one time, but they can add infinite amounts of information over
time. The process takes so long because
information is being developed on many subjects. During the iterative process it is easier to interfere
with the process and corrupt the information, so to speak. This is why the process cannot be rushed. Once the process is complete, everything is
locked in and is not likely to change. I
can apply this very concept to strategy. In an environment that is changing, addressing
strategy on a more regular basis and applying the changes that occurred since
the last iteration keeps is developing strategy that is more accurate and current than if strategy were
addressed only once in a year. I
determined that the followership development process was not complex, but it is
dynamic and changes regularly. An
iterative process is really the only way to capture the changes the leader uses
to make individual program adjustments. This may not be the only way to formulate strategy
but given the circumstances, it is probably the best.
~Pete
Reference:
Obolensky, N.
(2014). Complex adaptive leadership. (2nd edition.).
London, UK: Gower/Ashgate
No comments:
Post a Comment