A633.9.3.RB_RuggerioSteven

Changing Leaders and Leaving Legacies

Most leadership models have the assumption of oligarchy – leadership is done by a few leaders over many followers. If polyarchy is fast replacing the old oligarchy assumptions does this make these old leadership models redundant? 

Barbara Kellerman (2012), Harvard professor, author, Forbes top 50 business thinker, and one of the best leadership minds of our day, wrote in her book The End of Leadership, “Everything is vulnerable to the vicissitudes of change—a general rule to which leadership is no exception” (p. xv).  With that said, she continued, “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 far sturdier than they used to be, stronger and more independent” (p. xvii).

In explaining the growth of polyarchy and confirming Kellerman’s words, Obolensky (2010) said, “The ‘death of deference’ seems sharper today than ever before.  We hold our leaders to account more now than we have done” (p. 4).  He explains this is a result of, “structures becoming more fluid and traditional boundaries becoming more dynamic.” Moreover, “knowledge and wisdom are becoming wider spread, and this means that leadership needs to be more dynamic and honest” (p. 6).

With leadership being redefined and becoming more personal than corporate, this shift does not negate or eliminate the traditional models of leadership.  Rather, it recognizes and respects their insights and builds upon them instead of replacing them.  Obolensky (2010) agrees and stated, “Traditional leadership models can be seen in a new light using different assumptions” (p. 195).

Reflecting on traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership, address the implications and how they will affect you as a leader in the future. 

One of my favorite books is Alan Deutschman’s (2007) Change or Die in which he said, “Experts identified the odds of people changing are nine to one” (p. 2).  In other words, only one person out of ten actually changes.  The other 9 (or 90 percent) choose to remain on the same course while ignoring the facts around them.  Deutschman discusses change in the area of health care, the criminal justice system, and autoworkers.  Three areas ripe with leaders and followers.  And though most of the statistics showed people couldn’t change, there were leaders within each industry that showed people can change—and would change—with the right leaders in place.

By studying complex adaptive leadership, the reality of complexity and adaptability was enforced, then reinforced, and then reinforced again.  Comfortable is easy.  Change is hard.  Obolensky’s text and the Strategic Leadership course has encouraged and inspired me to learn the traditional models of leadership theory while adding and building upon them with a polyarchic perspective.

I entered this program 9-weeks ago with a view of leadership that generally had a hierarchical and oligarchic concept but still believed in the power of the people.  Being raised in the military will do that to a person.  However, like Kellerman, Deutschman, and Obolensky have stated, times have changed and leadership has changed with it.  By understanding the shift, I have been positioned to empower others in a more pronounced fashion and recognized that the process is the point and path of leadership influence.

What impact will they have on your future strategy?

Being equipped and empowered as a complex adaptive leader, my actions and strategy going forward will be more fluid and flexible.  Rigidity stifles creativity and in the process, a leaders potential as well.  By flowing rather than directing, my leadership has become more guide than director; more coach than title. 

Marcus Buckingham (2012), in Leadership Development In the Age of The Algorithm said, “Virtually every corporate and academic leadership development program is founded on the same formulaic model.  It tries to collect all the various approaches to leadership, shaves off the weird outliers, and packages the rest into a formula” (p. 88).  My strategy will not only be flexible but more personal.  Rather than fitting people into processes, I believe we can build processes from the people. 

We are in the age of individualism.  And while that can carry some social and moral challenges, it also brings with it a spirit of innovation and creativity as the world has never seen.  Technological breakthroughs, cross-cultural relationships, and a global marketplace have created a virtual playground of possibilities.  My strategy will open the door for people to explore and create opportunities for them to connect with a larger crowd.

I use a lot of quotes from other people as I have great respect for those whose words I repeat.  

So, with that, I’ll finish my last Embry Riddle blog with an excerpt from Seth Godin’s book, Tribes.

Godin (2008) said all you need to know is two things (p. 71).

1. Individuals have far more power than ever before in history.  One person can change an industry.  One person can declare a war.  One person can reinvent science or politics or technology.
2. The only thing holding you back from becoming the kind of person who changes things is this: lack of faith.  Faith that you can do it.  Faith that it’s worth doing.  Faith that failure won’t destroy you.

Change without faith is scary.  Change without knowledge is deadly.  Fortunately, I have grown in faith and knowledge over the past two years.  I am leaving this course and this program with a desire to be better.  To make a difference.  To leave a legacy. And for that I am eternally grateful. 

Steve

References:

Buckingham, M. (2012). Leadership Development in the Age of the Algorithm. Harvard

            Business Review, 90(6), 86-94.

Deutschman, A. (2007). Change or die. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Godin, S. (2008). Tribes. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing.

A633.8.3.RB_RuggerioSteven

                                       Coaching: Success on the Ground and in the Air

 “In the future, people who are not coaches will not be promoted.”

                 --Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric

In the 1950s, the word coach described a horse-drawn vehicle that would get people from where they were to where they wanted to be.  Many years later, big buses with rows of seats were called coaches, and their purpose was the same: to get people to where they wanted to go.  As time rolled by, the term “coaching” made its way into the sport’s arena where it became known for people who help athletes move from one place to another.

Today, as businesses are faced with the unsettling impact of sweeping changes, rapid technological advances, and tidal waves of information, leaders are beginning to see that no one person can keep abreast of everything (Collins, 2002, p.12).  Therefore, having a consultant—or in this case, a coach—can be the difference between overcoming present-day hurdles and fading into obscurity or becoming a thriving organization that shapes the future.

We all get stuck at one time or another.  There are times when we need fresh eyes on a situation, encouragement when the road gets tough, and someone to help us unearth a solution clouded by the fog of uncertainty.  And, even though coaching programs are gaining momentum in the world of nutrition, fitness, finance, business, and even “life” coaches, it is still relatively unknown and underutilized due to a lack of quantitative data.

In complex situations, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and even slightly disoriented.  In those moments, leadership coaches come alongside decision makers to keep hope alive. Dr. Gary Collins (2002) said, “The coach does not impart wisdom or give direction. Instead, the coach’s job is to help clients articulate their dreams, desires, and aspirations, help them clarify their mission, purpose, and goals, and help them achieve that outcome” (p. 84).

What is it that coaches do to provide value to their clients?

Constantine von Hoffman (1999), in dispelling coaching myths, defined coaching as, “helping people define clear goals and set a specific time frame in which to meet them” (p. 4).  Along those same lines, Dr. Collins (2002) said, “Coaching is the art and practice of enabling individuals and groups to move from where they are to where they want to be.  Coaching helps people expand their visions, build their confidence, unlock their potential, increase their skills, and take practical steps toward their goal” (p. 14).

One of the key values of coaching is that it places the responsibility for growth on the individual.  The coach may guide, lead, and enlighten; but, the coachee is in the driver’s seat and will move forward only as far as they are willing to pursue change or overcome an obstacle.  James Flaherty (1998) said, “Coaching is a way of working with people that leaves them more competent and more fulfilled so that they are able to contribute to their organizations and find meaning in what they do” (p. 1).

Moreover, von Hoffman (1999) said, “Coaching produces more consistent, replicable results than a lot of other management approaches.  Coaching taps people’s creativity.  It encourages them to be more flexible and adaptable.  That kind of response from employees can have a substantial effect on the bottom line” (p. 5).  Better employees produce better results.  Value flows from several tributaries.  Focused employees, clear directives, and overcoming challenges are just a few of the values resulting from effective coaching techniques.

 Why is coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy? 

Alan Nelson (2007), coach and editor of Rev! Magazine said, “One might think with the plethora of leadership resources available, these would be sufficient to create more and better leaders.  If literature were enough to ‘unstick’ leaders, we’d be in great shape but no book contains the silver bullet.  The primary reason is that books and conferences tend to be impersonal and one-way communication.  However, when a coach comes into the picture, that person helps the leader translate the salient points in a book, conference, or consultation into the language of his or her specific context and skills” (. 30).  In a whirlwind of organizational complexity, leaders can be caught blind and unaware.  Coaches help leaders maintain momentum and increase situational awareness.

Whetten & Cameron (2011) said, “In coaching, managers pass along advice and information, or they set standards to help others improve their work skills.  Skillful coaching is especially important when (1) rewarding positive performance and (2) correcting problem behaviors or attitudes” (p. 244).  Proper coaching helps leaders maintain proper priorities while sustaining a competitive edge.

 

How can it make a difference in an organization?

Diane Coutu (2009) said, “The reasons companies engage coaches have changed.  Ten years ago, most companies engaged a coach to help fix toxic behavior at the top.  Today, most coaching is about developing the capabilities of high-potential performers” (p. 1).  Organizations and their leaders are learning and experiencing the long-term benefits of developing their employees.  Rather than push for profits, they invest in their people and as a result, the people commit to the vision and invest in the organization. 

As noted above, coaching techniques have proven to be useful tools in developing people. Obolensky (2010) said, “Coaching is a good technique to bridge the divide, as well as move an individual toward Level 5 Followership which entails followers getting-on with their tasks and reporting progress to leaders in routine ways” (p 171).

What does this mean to you and your organization?

The Air Force has a rich tradition of leading and developing young men and women.  Though they have not fully implemented a “coaching” culture by way of an Air Force regulation, they have created a mentoring policy for their enlisted force.  From imparting pride and patriotism to ensuring adherence to customs and courtesies, Air Force non-commissioned officers (NCOs) are known as “the backbone” of the Air Force. 

These men and women are trained and qualified to lead, develop, and mentor new, junior, or career NCOs.  The Air Force defines a mentor as “a trusted counselor or guide.”  Mentoring is slightly different than coaching and usually carries a longer commitment.  However, there are some similarities in that another person acts as a guide to lead another to develop both personally and professionally.  Over the years, mentoring has broadened to look more and more like coaching.  A major difference, however, is that the mentor works as an expert, while the coach assumes that the client is the one best able and most likely to find direction and move forward” (Collins, 2002).  In the Air Force, coaching could benefit both the enlisted and the officer corps by allowing skilled men and women to help military leaders find elusive solutions and goals hidden within themselves.

Steve

References

Collins, G. (2002). Christian coaching. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

Coutu, D. (2009). What Can Coaches Do For You? Retrieved from

http://hbr.org/2009/01/what-can-coaches-do-for-you/ar/1

Flaherty, J. (1998). Coaching: Evoking Excellence in Others. Retrieved from

www.frumi.com

Nelson, A. (2007). Rev! Magazine’s Bathroom Guide to Leadership. Loveland, CO:

            Group Publishing.

von Hoffman, C. (1999). Coaching: The ten killer myths. Harvard Management Update,

 4(1), 4.

Whetton, D.A., & Cameron, K.S. (2011). Developing management skills. Upper Saddle

            River, NJ: Pearson.

A633.5.3.RB_RuggerioSteven

Tell Them and Turn Them Loose...

The unlimited and unquestionable authority leaders and power-hungry rulers was significantly (and historically) challenged in 1215 when King John of England was obliged to sign the Magna Carta.  This document forced him to accept that his authority was not absolute.  It was a turning point in the history of leadership—and a turning point in the history of followership (Kellerman, 2012, p. 8).  By limiting the king’s power, the subjects were emboldened with authority and rights.

Since that time, many events have unfolded that continued to empower followers and citizens alike.  From Martin Luther King, Jr. to women’s rights all the way to today’s push for same-sex privileges; followers have been challenging leaders for change.  All of these events highlight the power of people.  Whether it is equal rights or basic human freedoms, the truth remains:  Progress rises from the masses.  Leaders must learn to let go and followers must find the courage to take the initiative. 

Leadership experts Jim Kouzes & Barry Posner (2007) said, "Your task as a leader is to help other people reach mutual goals, not your goals, and to get there with a sense that we did it together.  As the leader, your job is to make sure everyone sees themselves as a part of the larger mission, and your language needs to reflect that sense of being part of the team” (p. 245).  I’ve taken those words to heart and as a result, every other Saturday, I facilitate a group of twenty to thirty men who gather to discuss the challenges men face every day.  Topics include integrity, character, marriage, finances, anger, and love.  The group consists of leaders from NASA, active-duty military, education, and IT.  Last Saturday, in an attempt to demonstrate the power of individual decisions, teamwork, and perspectives, I conducted the “Who Needs Leaders” experiment with 24 men.

 

What did this exercise mean to you and how did it impact your understanding of chaos theory.

From the beginning of the experiment, I realized three immediate lessons.  First, the directions had to be clear and specific.  Secondly, the less I told them the better they responded.  And lastly, people want to succeed more than my desire to see them succeed.  Looking at each of these lessons in detail helped me understand chaos theory, its implications on leadership, and how “leaders strengthen others when they make it possible for constituents to exercise choices and discretion” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p, 270). 

First, in the early stages of explaining my desires, I realized that the directions had to be clear and specific.  As stated in the instructions, I watched each person’s nonverbal behavior and knew that above everything else, I needed to be clear.  Already upsetting the normal routine of our bimonthly meeting, the men were not going to respond favorable to a misdirected and confusing assignment.  By clearly articulating the instructions, and after answering a few minor questions, the men were ready to move.  While this morning would be different than years past, they were motivated to get underway once the directions were finished.  

Another insight gained through the experiment was that I needed to keep my instructions short.  It was immediately clear that the men were not interested in listening to a lecture.  If there was an assignment—in this case, an experiment—they wanted to “get busy” and complete their task.  Going on-and-on about my class assignment and my school schedule was not only boring to them, but was frustrating them as they stood poised and ready to begin.

Lastly, and most importantly, I realized that the men—feeling competitive and empowered—wanted to figure out the task.  They were more interested in ensuring their individual choices were quick, accurate, and allowed for ease of maneuverability.  Sliding, dodging, laughing, and a few mumbles of frustration as their designated man moved, caused them to flow almost in concert to an overarching goal.  Though each man focused only on himself and two others, it seemed from my elevated vantage point (standing on a stage) that there was a systematic synchronicity happening among the men.

With just under three minutes of elapsed time, they all settled into their positions and agreed equilibrium had been met.  Taking their word for it, we sat back down and I began to explain a few things that this exercise demonstrated to us as men.  First, it was a visual representation of the teamwork they possess.  Each man kept eyes on two other men while they moved in-and-between one other. I challenged them with this insight in the area of accountability.  I used it as an example to keep an eye out for one another while maintaining a good proximity for relationship.

I also told them that this experiment demonstrated that they have the ability within them to figure out difficult problems without being provided detailed information.  It gave each man an extra boost of confidence and increased awareness.

Include the implications that this has on strategy.

Whether it’s hockey or health care, education or financial services, the public or private sector, for a team of people to have a positive experience together, they must have shared goals that provide specific reason for being together (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 233).  Historically, strategy development was seen as an ability of C-suite personnel while lower level employees merely executed.  This experiment and further readings within Obolensky’s (2010) Complex Adaptaive Leadership demonstrates that the ability to construct strategy lies within each person.  Rather than developing strategy in a tight-fisted environment, senior leaders should learn to develop strategy form the bottom-up.

When leaders allow the workers to build the strategy along with them, implementation is a smoother process as those who helped develop the path forward already have buy-in and understanding.  By providing a few simple rules, some boundaries, ensuring the purpose is clear, and providing feedback, leaders can create an integrated strategy that encompasses every level of performance.

Steve

References: 

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York, N: HarperCollins Publishers.

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (2007). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing.