A633.4.3.RB- Changing Dynamics of Leadership

A633.4.3.RB- Changing Dynamics of Leadership

There is an obvious shift in leadership occurring in which leaders now recognize and accept the fact that most solutions come from the bottom and middle of the company—not the top (Obolensky, 2010). .  Leaders are beginning to understand that their job is to foster an environment that can produce the best solutions and strategies.  Leaders are no longer able or expected to be the “expert” on all company-related subjects, and leaders must turn to their subordinates to create the best solutions. This shift in leadership is occurring because of the better understanding of leadership and what works best, and because of the increased competency and capability of the lower level workers.  However, my organization is slow to adapt to the leadership shift.

The United States Air Force, and military in general, is slow to adapt to the shift in leadership strategies for three main reasons: the strict rank structure of the military, leaders thinking that not knowing answers is a sign of weakness, and the way in which the military promotes people.  The military’s strict adherence to using a chain of command hinders the organizations ability to function most effectively.  People at the middle or bottom of the organization are told to send their ideas or problems up through their chain of command.  The chain of command then filters down these problems and ideas until they reflect the same beliefs the leadership has, or until they are filtered so much that it won’t “displease” the General Officers.  This filtering of ideas is a great hindrance to the progression of the organization.  Also, many military leaders still think of themselves as military leaders did 100s of years ago.   They think that they are the people responsible for making the big decisions because they are the only people who are capable or have the knowledge to make decisions.  They do not need input from the bottom.  Finally, our military leaders are not necessarily the best leaders in the Air Force, and the organization should consider changing the outdated and ineffective promotion system used today.  In today’s Air Force, your leadership ability means absolutely nothing when it comes to promotion, and that is a real problem. 

            Leadership dynamics in the Air Force would have to be altered by changing the way people in the Air Force think.  People should not “fear” speaking truthfully to General Officers, and there should not be briefings given to ensure subordinates do not “say anything out of line” when speaking to leadership.  Additionally, the promotion system would need to be changed to place an emphasis on promoting good leaders, not just people who are good at writing their own performance reports.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. 

A633.3.3.RB- Complex Adaptive Systems

A633.3.3.RB- Complex Adaptive Systems

Johnsonville Foods Inc. reflects the image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and it shows by the tremendous success the company has attained.  Johnsonville president, Bill Morgan, leads the family-owned business as it emerges into the global scene.  Nick Obolensky (2010) discusses CAS organizations and how they are dynamic and flexible.  In today’s constantly changing world, it is essential for organizations to adapt.  Johnsonville Foods took the notion of adaptation seriously back in 1982 when the CEO, who made all of the decisions, called in an expert in leadership to help him change the company.  The expert said, “You’ve got to change YOU. Don’t worry about them, because if you act different, they’ll be different” (LeBrun, 2012, para. 2).

Johnsonville Foods took the consultant’s advice and completely changed their organization. What has emerged is a philosophy called the “Johnsonville Way.”  Everybody in the company is required to develop their God-given talents (para.2).  Johnsonville has committed to helping its employees grow through 24/7 access to computers in the company’s “member development center,” tuition assistance, and matching employees with “buddies” across the company (Lebrun, 2012). 

The implications of a complex adaptive system on my organization would be far-reaching.  In the United States Air Force, when it comes to military technology, we are on the leading edge.  However, when it comes to organizational leadership and strategies, we tend to lag behind.  This lag really hurts the organization because of how quickly the environment is changing.  If you look at how organizations were run 20 years ago, you’ll find a good idea of how the Air Force is run now.  Part of the problem with improving the military as an organization is that it is tough to walk the fine line between the discipline and rank structure required for war, and the free flow of information and bottom-up feedback required for efficient organizations.  Many leaders in the Air Force still act like leaders thousands of years ago. I have personally seen leaders who keep information to themselves because they believe that they are in charge of the organization, they should make the decisions, they do not need subordinates telling them what to do, and they are the only people who need to know the ins and outs of what is going on.  In this day and age, these types of leaders drive me mad!  That leadership style is terrible and inefficient because, nowadays, subordinates have just as much access to information, knowledge, and education as the leaders, so not including them in decision-making processes is wasting the talent of the organization. 

In order to move my organization forward, we need to appoint leaders who will make the shift away from the old ways of leading.  We need the highest leaders to implement policies that force other leaders to utilize the organization in the best way possible, as complex adaptive systems.  We do not need egos or the old fashioned leadership style of telling people to “shut up and color.”  We need leaders who encourage change, encourage growth among their subordinates, and encourage ideas, feedback, and knowledge to flow freely throughout the organization. 

References:

Lebrun, M. (2012). “Cover Story-Fun on a Bun.” Insight. Retrieved from < http://www.insightonbusiness.com/6240/cover-story-%E2%80%93-fun-on-a-bun-%E2%80%93-johnsonville-president-bill-morgan-leads-the-family-owned-business-as-it-sizzles-on-the-global-scene/>.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Ashgate. Burlington, VT. 

A633.2.3.RB- Butterfly Effect

A633.2.3.RB- Butterfly Effect

            Understanding complexity science and how complex systems work can have a huge impact on strategy and leadership.  Complexity science tells us that complex systems, or complex organizations, are so complex that the can actually adapt, evolve, and work as a network to solve problems themselves or, essentially, become “simple.”  Leaders must understand that sometimes the best decision a leader can make is to loosen the reins on their organization and allow the organization to work as a complex system to create strategy and solutions.  In addition to complex systems needing to operate with less restrictions and rules, another theory states that small changes or actions can have huge and powerful results. This theory is known as “The Butterfly Effect.” Working in the flying world, I have several examples where small changes have yielded large results in my organization. 

            As pilots we constantly attend classes and training on the importance of good crew resource management.  During these classes we study airplane crashes and learn from the investigations that take place after a crash.  These investigations usually point out the contributing factors of the accident, and many times the causal factor is some small detail.  A missed inspection or overlooked checklist step can be the “butterfly flapping its wings” that causes an airplane to crash and people to die.

            The first example of how a small change resulted in a large result was an airplane crash that resulted from a decision made two decades before the actual accident.  For this specific airplane, the airplane engineers realized that there was a structural problem with a component in the aircraft and, though not likely anytime soon, someday down the road this component could break at a critical time and cause trouble for the aircraft.  The engineers recommended that the organization pay for the component to be replaced, which would cost the organization money.  The decision-maker for the organization decided not to replace the part because he did not think it was worth the money for a problem that the engineers said “could happen years down the road.”  Well, two decades later that aircraft fell out of the sky bringing three people to their terrifying death.  What was the cause of the crash? The cause of the crash was determined to be the component that leadership in the organization decided not to replace in order to save money. 

            On a more positive not of how small changes can yield large results in my organization, I can talk about how little things can make a huge impact on people while they are deployed.  Being away from home, away from your country, working every day, and being in more dangerous situations wears on people.  Deployments are sometimes so rough that the smallest changes, for good or bad, can completely change the morale of the base.  While I was deployed, our commander made the smallest change and allowed us to wear regular clothes while we were in our living areas, instead of military uniforms.  This tiny policy change caused the whole base to celebrate and everybody to be much happier and more productive. 

            Understanding complex organizations and the huge results that can result from the smallest changes is very important to leaders.  It is important to understand that just because a leader thinks a policy change is “no big deal,” the change can have huge unintended consequences.  In my organization, I can use the second example I discussed to drive improvements.  As long as I remember that even the smallest changes, good or bad, can greatly affect morale, I should be able to more easily influence my subordinates and achieve better results. 

References:

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (1st edition.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate

A633.1.3.RB- Leadership Gap

A633.1.3.RB- Leadership Gap

            Nick Obolensky (2010) asks several questions for his exercise involving leadership.  He asks how your attitude to leaders has changed in your life, how you think attitudes toward leaders today compare to the attitudes generations ago, and why do you think this has occurred. There are several explanations for the shift in attitudes toward leadership, but the biggest reason for the change is the increase in knowledge.

            Looking back just two generations, one can see how leaders maintained respect and authority simply because of their knowledge.  In the past, leaders were far more knowledgeable than their subordinates, and leaders had access to information that nobody else could receive.  For this reason, subordinates were forced to trust and rely on leaders.  Actual leadership skills and traits were less important in past generations.

            Today, however, knowledge is readily available and the people in first world countries are far more educated.  This means that there is not a huge knowledge gap between leaders and subordinates, which means that leaders cannot get away with having poor leadership skills and making bad decisions.  Specific skills and study of leadership is necessary for successful managers and leaders today.

            A gap still exists between the quality of our leaders today, and part of the reason the gap exists is that leaders refuse to accept that old ways of leadership do not work.  Egos are getting in the way of progress in leadership.  Many leaders still think that they are far more intelligent or possess skills far superior to their subordinates, which is not the case anymore.  Leaders today must learn to harness the skills and knowledge their subordinates possess.  Today’s leaders need to focus on improving their own leadership skills so that they can get the best out of their people. 

References:

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (1st edition.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate