Changing Dynamic of Leadership

A633.4.3.RB – Changing Dynamics of Leadership

The exercise in the Obolensky text (2014) discusses how solutions to issues which actually made change within the organization.  The research looked into specific areas where “step-change” had occurred.  This change was a sweeping change throughout the organization which included areas such as strategy, culture, and re-organization.  All of the changes looked into delivered great results into the organizations they affected.  I have discusses during this module a lot of how I think this approach to ward leadership works within the military rank structure.  I think this shift in leadership and the results of the study conducted in chapter four have to deal at lengths with what I have stated in other posts.  I believe the shift in leadership is due to the increase in education that all personnel are entering the workforce.  I also feel that there has been a tremendous shift in the way leaders are empowering and providing feedback to those who they lead.  The text discusses how more dynamic approach to leadership is not for the leader to just stand in front of their personnel and answer questions but to have an in depth discussion and have questions and answers flow both ways.  I think this is one way good leaders can empower those to think outside the box and feel comfortable questioning their leaders on thing they do not think are going well.  This dynamic approach also empowers the work force because if they see the things they discuss with their leaders come to fruition then they will feel as if they have a voice and that their leaders genuinely care for them and their concerns. 

Another way I think this change in leadership is happening is because of the amount of feedback personnel receive.  The Kelley article In Praise of Followers (1988) discusses the importance of performance evaluations and feedback for followers.  I believe this stressed importance of these items shows those who are not in leadership positions what it takes to be a leader.  I also believe that through evaluation and feedback you are mentoring and growing your replacement.  As a 17 year member of the United States Air Force I always used to hate when those who out ranked me would say “you just don’t see the whole picture”.  I felt this statement was not what a good leader should be telling those below.  My view was always well what will happen the day you are not here?  Who will know the whole picture then?  If you are not growing and mentoring your replacement than you are failing as a leader.  The Kelley article discusses rating personnel on both their ability to lead and to follow on the same scale (1988).  By doing this you can show those who are receiving the feedback how they shift between roles and the importance of the ability to do so.  Once again the levels of education plays an important role in this empowerment of individuals.  Due to higher levels of education and understanding personnel have when they enter the job the leader can levy much more on their followers than previously.    

If a truly bottom-up style of leadership was to be successful within the military the whole concept of rank and precedence would have to be altered.  When one enters the military they go in knowing that it is a highly structured hierarchy which authority stems from the rank and position one holds.  The military would have to adjust to a more corporate style of operating and not base all decisions on strictly rank and position. 

If this style system was incorporated there would be some changes in the way strategy is developed.  For one the use of the more dynamic question and answer sessions between leaders and followers discussed in the Obolensky text would help the thoughts and ideas of those who are on the ground doing the work have some say in the development of strategy.  It would not just be forced from the senior leaders down the chain.  This style of leadership would also warrant a more emergent strategy development process.  The emergent development process is one which is the cumulative effect of the day to day decisions made by middle managers, engineers, salespeople, as well as other lower level staff personnel (Christensen &Donovan, n.d.).  By basing the decision on strategy by what those within the workforce want or see you are using a bottom-up approach to leadership.

Within many organizations there is a shift in the style and approach to leadership that is taking place.  This shift has the leader of the organization using a bottom-up approach.  They are using this approach to engage those who work for them and having them be part of the decision making process.  There are a few reasons why this shift is transpiring one of which is the amount of education people are entering organizations with now.  People are more educated and smarter than ever before and these people bring with them a wealth of knowledge and ideas.  This new knowledge base is giving leaders the ability to empower their personnel to do much more than leaders used to be able to.  With this new empowerment personnel within the organization are much more apt question leaders and bring new ideas and issues to the forefront.  Another link to this new leadership approach is the amount of feedback and personal evaluations that take place within organizations.  People are grooming their replacements much more than what used to happen.  Training those they work with to do their job and mentoring them which builds their confidence and leads to more productive and innovative workers.  This new motivation and innovation will also help with the development and implementation of strategy within the organization.  Leaders who utilize this approach have more options and inputs to help them with the development of strategy.  This also helps by giving the workers by in because they feel they are part of the organization and more apt to help carry out the strategy. 

Christensen, C. M., & Donovan, T. (n.d.). The Process of Strategy Development and

Implementation. Innosight. Retrieved from:  http://www.innosight.com/documents/The%20Processes%20of%20Strategy%20Development%20and%20%20Implementation.pdf

Kelley, R. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. New

York, NY. Taylor & Francis Group.

Complex Adaptive Systems

At Johnsonville Food Inc. they have a very interesting way of doing business.  They have created a culture within their organization that makes people want to be there.  They call this the “The Johnsonville Way” (Johnsonville, 2014).  Within this culture they treat their employees as members of a team and not as just an employee.  They also put their members first.  Within Johnsonville they work toward using the business to build employees and not using employees to build the company.  Within the organization they base their culture on five guiding principles.  These principles help them create this team environment.  The five guiding principles are: We work as a team, we win as a team, we coach because we care, we live up to our promises, we learn for life, and we help our customers become great.  They are striving to become the best company in the world.  They hope to achieve this excelling in defining and then serving the best interests of those who have a stake in the company.  A complex adaptive system (CAS) is a system which develops teams who perform tasks as there is a need (Obolensky, 2014). The main cornerstone of this type system are clear people processes and policies, sound flexible information and communication system as well as a transparent, inclusive or flexible strategy development process.   These types of systems share information openly, have very informal hierarchy, if there is a formal hierarchy it is quite flat, and focuses more on meeting the needs and expectations of external stakeholders than actually running the company.  In the Johnsonville culture statement it states that they actually recognize that their culture is not the right fit for everyone, but the members truly see the value and benefit it provides (Johnsonville, 2014).  Sometimes a CAS is not the nicest place to work (Obolensky, 2014).  These types of business may contain a greater emphasis on personal responsibility while not tolerating underperformance.  These types of organizations may contain stricter policies or processes. 

            Within the United States Air Force (USAF) this type of CAS would not work.  The USAF has a long standing tradition of rank and hierarchy.  Along with this there is a no fail mission.  The USAF may meet some concepts of the CAS but not all.  There is a strong team formation concept within the USAF.  Within many different career fields throughout the USAF this team concept is key.  However, within this concept there is still ranks and with these ranks comes leadership.  The top down hierarchical approach is what suits the USAF.  While encouraging better communication from the lower ranks is becoming more prevalent within the USAF have a CAS approach would not work.  With the way the younger generation is today however, the USAF should move to a more open organization with communication.  While within the military there is a very rigid rank structure this does not mean that someone with low rank cannot contribute to the unit.  People are more educated and are coming up with innovative and improved ways to accomplish things.  As higher level leaders within the military you need to be more willing to listen to those who are younger and junior in rank because the next big idea just might be that idea from the young airman or solider.  While a completely CAS organization would be detrimental to the mission of the military certain aspects of it could be incorporated which would help with adapting and evolving with the changes in environments.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2nd ed).  New York, NY: Taylor &

Francis Group.

Johnsonville.com. (2014). Our Culture. Retrieved from:

            http://jobs.johnsonville.com/why-johnsonville/our-culture.html

 

             

Complexity Science

My current organization has undergone a rather large change in strategy within the last 3 years.  I am currently assigned to the Inspector General office at my duty location.  This office was originally charged with investigating when there was accusations of restriction or reprisal (AFI 90-301, 2015).  They also would process and investigate any congressional inquiries which were levied against the installation.  Another part of the Inspector General duties was the fraud, waste and abuse program for the installation.  This program looks into gross misuse of funds or wasteful spending or fraud within the organization.  In 2013 the United States Air Force took a massive shift in the way it inspected its own.  The normal process was the Major Command would schedule an inspection, bring hundreds of inspectors using thousands of dollars to ensure the installation was complying with all its required directives and instructions.  With the changes in the financial situation within the Department of Defense the Air Force needed to change the way it accomplished these inspections.  In comes the new Air Force Inspection System (AFIS).  The new AFIS was going to change the way these compliance inspections would be accomplished (AFI 90-201, 2015).  It would take a majority of the inspection process and place them at the wing level and in the office of Inspector General.  This change would create a brand new department within the IG office and completely change the inspection processes.  With this new system the shift in strategy is to make the installations mission ready as opposed to inspection ready which was what the old system had created.  Installations knew when they would have their inspections and a few months prior to the Major Commands coming in to inspect the installations would start a massive prep time.  Units would work 12 or more hours a day sometimes 7 days a week getting thing ready for the inspection team arriving on the installation.  When the Air Force implemented the new AFIS the goal was to encourage installations to focus on being mission ready all the time and not preparing and getting things back in order a few months prior to the big inspection team coming to the installation.  The new system would encourage units to self-identifying areas where they are not complying with instructions.  Then the installation IG office with the help from personnel on the installation would inspect themselves and also identify areas of non-compliance.  This non-compliance would all be reported via and internet based reporting program giving the Major Command oversight of these areas.  The installations are still subject to the 2 year inspection however, now with the new philosophy the Major Command can do virtual looks at the areas already identified with non-compliance and tailor the inspection to the areas they had concerns with.  Now after the virtual look the team can be minimized and the inspection can be more focused.  This allows for massive cost savings when a team of 20 or 25 can now come to an installation and inspect in a few days as opposed to hundreds of inspectors and a week or more of inspection.  This new process has had some road blocks in its implementation.  It is a drastic shift in the culture for the Air Force and with that you are asking many of the top level leaders to change the way they operate and have operated over the course of their entire career.  However, the new AFIS is gain ground and many commanders and key senior leaders are now embracing the culture and shift in inspection strategy.  This is helping the Air Force focus more on the accomplishment of the mission and less on preparing for big inspections.  Giving the personnel the ability to self-identify areas they are not complying with and having no fear of trouble for this is shifting the perception and way we conduct our business. As of today we are currently almost 4 years into the change and things are going well.  Ten years from now (I will be retired) I foresee the AFIS completely revitalizing the Air Force and with many of the people ho will be leaders then growing up under AFIS the Air Force should be more focused on mission accomplishment and no matter what the challenges (financial, manpower) should ensure mission completion.

AFI 90-301. (2015). Inspector General Complaints Resolution. Retrieved from:

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_ig/publication/afi90-301/afi90-301.pdf

AFI 90-201. (2015). The Air Force Inspection System. Retrieved from:

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_ig/publication/afi90-201/afi90-201.pdf

The Butterfly Effeect

A633.2.3.RB – Butterfly Effect

Complexity science (theory) is different than chaos theory.  Many personnel who study this area tend to use the terms complexity and chaos interchangeably however, there are two distinctly different concepts (Obolensky, 2014).  Where chaos theory shows how a simple system exhibits complex behavior, complexity deals with complex systems which tend to display certain emergent behaviors.  Nobel Prize winner Murray Gell-Mann a particle physicist defines a complex system as “neither ordered or random, but combine both kinds of behavior in a very elusive but striking manner”.

The butterfly effect in the world of chaos and complexity is quite interesting.  Identified by Edward Lorenz in the 1960’s it is a simple theory in definition however, it has massive impacts.  While performing a weather simulation on a machine he had developed he noticed that as small deviations in the parameters of the simulation would change it created massive differences later.  He came to the conclusion that “a very small change within a complex system can produce very large difference to what would have otherwise happened.”  In other words his discovery led scientist to observe that when a situation has great sensitivity to an initial condition any small changes to that can in turn have disproportionate effects.  When I think of the butterfly effect I think of the scene from the movie Jurassic Park (1993) where Jeff Goldblum’s character is explaining the theory to another character.  He explains it by saying that chaos theory and the butterfly effect is when a butterfly flaps its wings in Peking and then you get rain in Central Park.  Are these two things related?  Who knows, but this theory is a pretty good representation of how small changes can have massive effects.

Within my current organization I have experience things which could be summarized by this effect.  The Unites States Air Force is a very complex organization with many moving parts and pieces.  Within this organization there have been several things which have changed both big and small over the course of 17 years.  One such change which in essences seemed small but ended up having massive ramifications was when the USAF decided to make it mandatory for personnel who fail a physical fitness test to receive a referral performance report.  While this is not a massive concept to visualize, if you fail to meet a standard it should reflect on your performance report.  The long run effects of this simple concept were massive.  While failing your fitness test is obviously undesirable it should not be the end of your career.  However, once a person receives a referral performance report several other things happen.  Depending on how long this person has been in they may be denied reenlistment, will not be able to change stations, are not eligible for promotion, if they have been selected for promotion they will lose their selection, and could face other disciplinary and administrative actions.  Simply adding this one requirement for mandatory referral reports cost many personnel within the USAF many different actions and many of them were discharged due to this.  After a few years the USAF went back and changed this from a mandatory requirement and made it the commander’s discretion.   

Another small change within my organization which yielded large results was the move to all paperless system.  While constantly printing out regulations and publications is expensive there are several benefits to this process.  By moving everything to digital it has created problems with the availability of these products.  As any person who has ever done anything with a computer or electronics knows they are not always reliable.  However, when it comes time to go do a job and you need the required publications and regulations and they are not available due to the system being down or the internet not working properly it really hampers things.  In the USAF if an aircraft maintainer goes out to perform a task without the required guidance there are several issues that can arise.  For one if the maintainer does not perform the task correctly there could be catastrophic consequences.  The person could perform the task incorrectly thus leading to injuries or aircraft damage.  This could lead to delays in take offs and in complete mission failure.  If this happens during a high priority mission or a rescue mission this could have second and third line affects which would be greatly detrimental.  While I understand the cost consciences approach to doing business I feel there are better ways the USAF can try to save than by cutting out paper regulations and other important guidance. 

Change is an inevitable part of life.  Whether it is at work or at home there will be things that change.  Whether the change is big or small it will affect how you operate in your current situation.  The butterfly effect is a theory developed by Edward Lorenz in the 1960’s (Obolensky, 2014).  His idea was based on a meteorological simulator he had developed.  During his experiment he noticed that as the parameters of the simulation changed minutely there was vast differences in the outcomes.  The idea that a small change in any application that can warrant large outcomes became known as the butterfly effect.  This name was based on a paper Lorenz wrote titled “Predictability – Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?”  As a current United States Air Force personnel I have experienced several changes during my 17 year career.  Some have been large changes and some have been small changes.  I believe I have seen first-hand the concept of butterfly effect with the examples listed.  What seems to be small changes such as one line in a regulation and paperless regulations yielded large and undesired outcomes down the road.  The essence of Lorenz’s butterfly effect.

 

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. New

York, NY. Taylor & Francis Group.

Kennedy, K. & Molen, G. (producers) & Spielberg, S. (Director). (1993). Jurassic Park (Motion

Picture). United States. Universal Pictures.  

 

Leadership Gap

A633.1.2.RB – Leadership Gap

Leadership is one of those things that everyone strives to be good at however, there is massive amounts of misconception on what a good leader is and how to be a good leader.  Over the course of my life my views of leadership have changed drastically.  When we look at who we all see as our first leader (our parents) we think of the traditional hierarchal system.  What mom and dad says goes!  We go through life continually bucking the system but a majority of the time the parents win.  This of course gives us a poor idea of leadership because as kids and teenagers we knew everything and our parents were always wrong so of course leaders suck.  Fast forward to when we become adults and we now have a slightly different view on leaders.  Many people start to see teachers and coaches as leaders and begin to respect and look up to these people as leaders.  Keep going and now you have a job and your view of leaders changes again.  Now you are working for someone who actually holds a position of leadership over you.  Now I have been in the USAF for 17 years and I am the leader.  Things have also come full circle now because I am a father of two and am seeing first hand just how challenging it is to be the “leader” of children.  So I would say that my attitude has changed greatly in that at first I had no respect for leadership because I did not view my parents as leaders.  Then I moved into school and sought teachers and coaches as leaders and respected and admired them.  Next joined the work force and had an actual person who held a position of power over me.  So I had to respect them and do what they told me to do.  Now I am the leader both at work and at home always searching for new and improved ways to lead and motivate people at accomplishing the mission. 

            Starting with your grandparents and moving forward to the younger generations there most certainly has been changed in the views of leadership.  I agree with the Obolensky text (2014) when it discusses the younger generation having much less respect toward authority now than what would be expected 100 years ago.  I am sure this has been the same complaint since our grandparents however, with the change in technology and the access to information that people have today the younger generations I believe feel they already know or can get the answers to anything and thus do not need leadership.  The Obolensky text (2014) also give a good quote which I believe also is a good description of why this shift in respect for authority has taken place.  The quote from Socrates talks about children who have luxury, bad manners, and contempt for authority.  It states that they show disrespect for authority and also enjoy gossiping.  I believe this sums up why if we look at attitudes toward leadership over time there has been a shift.  Parents are afraid to discipline their children when they misbehave however, still feel the need to spoil them with all the latest and greatest gadgets.  All the while not teaching them about hard work and respect then question why they struggle with leadership. 

 

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2^nd ed).  New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.