A633.4.3.RB_MaceRoyce
Reflecting on the opening exercise at the beginning of Chapter 4 of the of Obolensky text and other readings, why do you think the shift in leadership is occurring and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization. List three reasons that support or refute this position.
If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes? What are the implications on strategy?
There is most definitely a shift in leadership occurring in today's rapidly changing world. According to Obolensky (2014), technology, demographics, social/political changes, environmental changes, and the pace at which all these things change has changed the leadership landscape completely. Additionally, the world has changed in regards to it's societal function. Anarchy has given way to oligarchy and polyarchy over time. This has significantly changed the dynamic of leadership and has required those in positions of leadership to change and adapt over time.
As the framework for polyarchy has expanded, the bottom and middle tiers of leadership have gained a voice within organizations everywhere. Many solutions and ideas in strategy have begun to emerge from these tiers due to a bottom-up, top-down transformation within the organizational structure. Obolensky (2014) reveals a Dale Carnegie Organizational study that revealed a landscape trend in which 60% of solutions come from the bottom of organizations, 30% come from the middle, and only 10% come from the top.
The Complex Adaptive Leadership (CAL) approach is slowly taking place within my organization. This is evidenced by the feedback sessions now regularly occurring between supervisors and subordinates, climate surveys, and the commander's openness and willingness to hear from members within every tier of the organization. I would like to specifically attribute some of this change to a "butterfly effect" in which recently hired members of the organization have sponsored these types of changes. The two-way leadership dynamic has caught the attention of more and more members thus leading to new ideas in strategy and solutions.
The implications of these strategies will allow our organization to flourish over time. While these changes have taken the better part of two years to develop and will continue doing so, they have already had a profound affect on all members of the organization. Harvard Management Update (2009) highlights that real leadership is not just a matter of rank (as it is within our military organization). Leaders are effective at every level by seriously listening to the ideas of others, valuing and following their calls to action, and turning to them for advice. In turn, morale has increased with members within the organization due to these types of actions. Additionally, a sense of ownership has begun to take hold of more and more members at the bottom, middle, and top tiers of the organization as a result.
Reference
If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes? What are the implications on strategy?
There is most definitely a shift in leadership occurring in today's rapidly changing world. According to Obolensky (2014), technology, demographics, social/political changes, environmental changes, and the pace at which all these things change has changed the leadership landscape completely. Additionally, the world has changed in regards to it's societal function. Anarchy has given way to oligarchy and polyarchy over time. This has significantly changed the dynamic of leadership and has required those in positions of leadership to change and adapt over time.
As the framework for polyarchy has expanded, the bottom and middle tiers of leadership have gained a voice within organizations everywhere. Many solutions and ideas in strategy have begun to emerge from these tiers due to a bottom-up, top-down transformation within the organizational structure. Obolensky (2014) reveals a Dale Carnegie Organizational study that revealed a landscape trend in which 60% of solutions come from the bottom of organizations, 30% come from the middle, and only 10% come from the top.
The Complex Adaptive Leadership (CAL) approach is slowly taking place within my organization. This is evidenced by the feedback sessions now regularly occurring between supervisors and subordinates, climate surveys, and the commander's openness and willingness to hear from members within every tier of the organization. I would like to specifically attribute some of this change to a "butterfly effect" in which recently hired members of the organization have sponsored these types of changes. The two-way leadership dynamic has caught the attention of more and more members thus leading to new ideas in strategy and solutions.
The implications of these strategies will allow our organization to flourish over time. While these changes have taken the better part of two years to develop and will continue doing so, they have already had a profound affect on all members of the organization. Harvard Management Update (2009) highlights that real leadership is not just a matter of rank (as it is within our military organization). Leaders are effective at every level by seriously listening to the ideas of others, valuing and following their calls to action, and turning to them for advice. In turn, morale has increased with members within the organization due to these types of actions. Additionally, a sense of ownership has begun to take hold of more and more members at the bottom, middle, and top tiers of the organization as a result.
Reference
How to Lead When You're Not the Boss. (2009). Harvard Management Update, 14(3), 1-2.
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty.
Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.
Comments
Post a Comment