Leadership From The Cubicle to the Corner Office
In The End of Leadership Barbara Kellerman (2012) said, “Leadership
has a long history and a clear trajectory. More than anything else it is about the
devolution of power—from those up top to those down below” (p. 3). The sweatshops have closed (at least in the
West) and bosses like Donald Trump and Montgomery Burns are fading from front
offices.
The past two decades have produced
a seismic shift in leadership; more specifically, the core characteristics
originally defining leaders—power, authority, and influence—are now rising up
from the cubicles rather than the corner offices. Kellerman (2012) echoes this swing when she
writes, “It was presumed until only recently that leaders should dominate and
followers defer. Leaders were generally
expected to tell followers what to do, and followers were generally expected to
do as they were told. No longer. Now followers are sturdier than they used to
be, stronger and more independent” (p. xvi).
The accessibility of knowledge via
the Internet has ushered in a new dawn of understanding and accountability. Corporate leaders are finding it harder to
hide poor decisions and as a result, careers are ending before they get
started. Moreover, the speed of
technology, the explosion of innovation, and the nanosecond gap between a want
and a met need has made every citizen a CEO and every CEO replaceable.
In 2012, Lockheed Martin’s CEO-elect
Chris Kubasik was set to replace Robert Stevens at the helm. However, an internal investigation revealed
Kubasik was having an improper relationship with a female employee. The board asked and received Kubasik’s
immediate resignation. Previous CEO Stevens
said, ““While I am deeply
disappointed and saddened by Chris’ actions, which have been inconsistent with
our values and standards, our swift response to his improper conduct
demonstrates our unyielding commitment to holding every employee accountable
for their actions.”
While Lockheed Martin operates under a strong hierarchical
organizational structure, they recognize that every employee is responsible to
demonstrate the values of the company. They
explain by stating, “Ultimately, every one of us is a leader, because we all
control the attitudes and behaviors of at least one person - ourself - and we
set an example for our colleagues. Lockheed Martin is striving to establish the
tools and reinforce the values that provide everyone with rewarding work in a
safe and supportive environment. But it’s up to each one of us as individuals
to embrace the culture we’re creating.”
List three reasons that support or refute
this position.
Lockheed Martin understands the
success of the company lies in the hands of their employees. As a result, they have created a number of
programs designed to facilitate employee growth and leadership development. For starters, Lockheed Martin created the
Institute for Leadership Excellence (ILE).
The ILE offers leadership development and business-based functional
seminars which provide opportunities for participants to refresh their
leadership skills. It also creates an
avenue for employees and functional leaders to connect and discuss current and
future solutions.
In addition to the larger, more
formal programs, Lockheed also initiated a strong mentoring path to develop
meaningful relationship and facilitate the transfer of valuable knowledge and
understanding from one person to another.
Mentoring at Lockheed Martin empowers employees to manage their own
careers, develop their skills, maximize their potential, and improve their
performance (http://training.lmaero.lmco.com).
Lastly, Lockheed promotes Operating
Excellence; a site that welcomes and encourages suggestions and ideas through
Structured Improvement Activities (SIA).
The OE “provides the roadmap and tools to help the company compete and
win in the rapidly changing aerospace and defense industry” (http://business.lmaero.lmco.com). SIA’s are team-based approaches to solving
organizational-wide problems through a number of different deliverables.
In addition to the three programs
mentioned above—ILE, mentoring, and SIAs—Lockheed has an online employee
suggestion program that “Provides a formal and organized approach for
developing, evaluating and implementing ideas that will improve the workplace environment.” Moreover, Lockheed “believes employees are an
excellent source of creative ideas because they are in a position to observe
and evaluate opportunities for improvement in their departments and throughout
the company” (http://home.lmaero.lmco.com).
If so, how would leadership dynamics have
to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes?
While Lockheed has strong policies and
programs in-place to facilitate employee ideas and suggestions, there still
remains a strong corporate feel that rewards and insulates senior leaders. In an engineering company of over 100,000,
creating a climate similar to Google or Amazon would require a white collar
earthquake. And, based on Lockheed’s
mission and future, an open culture may not be the best route for Lockheed’s
bottom line. Nevertheless, program
managers must recognize that some of the best ideas and solutions may lay
dormant in the cubicle of the unknown employee.
What are the implications on strategy?
Lockheed has a strong Strategic
Planning department built as an integrated, multi-disciplinary team working in
collaboration with other departments to conduct strategic assessments and
provide strategic direction. As I
understand it, the Strategic Planning teams collect the information from the
three-to-four programs mentioned above and consider the suggestions and
innovative solutions when preparing and building strategic plans. Lockheed has a tremendous amount of data
points that are pulled regularly from external competitors, global companies,
and market demands. Focusing on internal
leaders and innovative solutions at every level is the best way to remain on
top. According to business analyst David
Lieck (2013), “Lockheed is far and away
the largest defense contractor in the world with
total sales of $36.27 billion.” Even
with their success, Lockheed continues to seek solutions from every level of
leadership.
Steve
References:
Fontevecchia, A. (2012). Lockheed
CEO-Elect Kubasik Fired Over Improper
Relationship With
Female Subordinate. Retrieved from
kubasik-fired-over-relationship-with-subordinate/
Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York: NY:
HarperCollins Publishers.
Lieck, J. (2013). The Ten Largest
Defense Contractors In The World. Retrieved from
contractors-in-the-world/
Lockheed Martin. (2014).
Leadership. Retrieved from
No comments:
Post a Comment