A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

A633.4.3.RB_Manglona, Matthew-Napu_ Changing Dynamics of Leadership 

I think the shift in leadership is occurring because of the time changes and the difference of generations. Oblensky (2010) stated “it is universally agreed that those at the top of the organizations only know a fraction of the solutions needed to overcome the problems faced by the organizations they lead.” (p.967) Cates, Cojanu, & Pettine (2013) describes the differences in generations. Baby boomers have respect to authority, Generation X produces hard work, and Millennials provide a more multi task and wanting and prefer immediate feedback and results at a quicker pace. (p. 1030) In my organization those in my generation come up with recommendations and solutions to our supervisors whether we are Officers or Enlisted service members. This provides a check and balance between powers, however, those above us are members of the Generation X members.

Obelensky (2010) states that those top executives or directorates do not have or they know the solutions to issues their organizations face. (p.967) in my organization this happens because those same directorates do not take the chance to “wanting” to know what the issue is. They seem to hide behind their rank and use that power entrusted in them to move forward with “my way or the highway” type of decision making or solution creation. As Oblensky (2010) discusses about the “I do not know” approach it seems that lack of ownership to not knowing an answer plays a factor. Leaving a lot of questions at the table which doesn’t provide production in the workplace. In addition, they fail to collaborate and jointly synchronize their team’s analysis for the issues at hand.

Three reasons why I think this is occurring? As Popa (2013) discusses is Involvement, Consistency, and Adaptability. (p. 2) Yes, although generation gaps and thought processes from each generation plays an important role these three factors of involvement, consistency, and adaptability are reasons why we my organization sees the inconsistency in the solution making as discussed in Chapter 4. Involvement, the lack of involvement from our directorates who portray Generation X inconsistent ways of not being around when things at the lower level are being conducted leaves them not knowing what is going on. How to Lead When You're Not the Boss (2009) states, “A high-performing team engages the efforts of every member, and effective team leaders seek out the best fit possible between members’ skills and the tasks that need doing.” (p. 3)

The second is consistency, lack of consistency from our organization leads to disgruntled soldiers. We are told to focus on administrative requirements and five seconds later told to focus on training requirements and get hammered when one requirement is not complete leaving us scratching our heads. Then finally adaptability, when changes occur panic ensues at the top. We need to establish a system where we need to accept and embrace change. When sudden changes occur (which occurs often) we need to establish our ability to adapt and move forward when the Army changes certain polices or agendas or our own internal organization due to external factors (i.e. state requirements).

Leadership dynamics that have to be implemented are the ones stated above. With less participation at the lowest level of our organization they (upper level leadership) will have no idea on how to come up with solutions for our organization or should I say the right solutions. At the top it is so political and bureaucratic that it seems near impossible to accomplish this vision. However, with the right push, and time on our side, it may just happen. Involvement, adaptability, and consistency is what’s needed for this to change and move forward. The implications for strategy is that even at the lowest level we can move our organization to vision our mission statement and organizational goals of teaching and empowerment.

References:

Cates, S. V., Cojanu, K. A., & Pettine, S. (2013). Can you lead effectively? an analysis of the leadership styles of four generations of american employees. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(4), 1025-1041. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1497172449?accountid=27203

How to Lead When You're Not the Boss (2009). Harvard Management Update, 14(3), 1-2. 

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (20nd edition.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate

POPA, B. (2013). METHODS, TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES TO MAXIMIZE THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MILITARY LEADERSHIP. Paper presented at the Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1477769391?accountid=27203

A633.3.4.RB - Complexity Science

A633.3.4.RB_Manglona, Matthew-Napu_Complexity Science

My organization originated in 1981 about seven years before I was born and started with only thirteen original pioneers. The Guam Army National Guard today has over one thousand soldiers to include Airmen who share the Guam National Guard organization. From thirteen people in 1981 to over a thousand today the growth of my organization has come a long way. We started with only half an acre of land for the headquarters unit in 1981 to over 4 acres of land for growth and development for our new and incoming units. The strategy in expanding the organization to a self-sustaining entity came through visions from leaders from the past to present. The vision in expanding our infrastructure, our personnel, training capabilities, and forward deployments abroad. Hamel (1998) discusses five preconditions for the emergence of strategy, which are, “new voices, new perspectives, new passions, new conversations, and new experiments.” (p. 14) All five preconditions in some way took part in where my organization is at today. 

The one thing that I believe for the evolvement in my organization is continuity. The continuity of the ideas of where my leaders in the past and present had instilled a vision to see our organization grow from 1981 to 2016 and beyond where we will be able to be a force multiplier (meaning we can sustain our own units with resources and training) and having our own infrastructure like our sister units in active duty. Porter (1996) states that “Continuity fosters improvements in individual activities and the fit across activities, allowing an organization to build unique capabilities and skills tailored to its strategy.” (p. 74)

When my organization first started it began with an active duty general officer giving guidance to our pioneers. So the feedback began as Oblensky (2010) shared about a “Transition to bubble/bubble.” So in a way we went in reverse going from a Transition to bubble/bubble to a Matrix transition. Because we were such a young organization outside advisors were given to us at the beginning. Today, we self-sustain ourselves to a Functional feedback system at a 90 degree.

Our strategy development evolved as Oblensky (2010) stated into the “traditional view that those from the top formulate strategy and direct those below.” (p.820) Our hierarchy structure in the military has remained the same for years. It is a one dimensional type of organization with “recommendations” from those at the bottom as the closest involvement in the decision making process. However, I believe that we are entering (at least my organization) into a “transition towards matrix.”

In 10 years I will most likely be at the mid-range of ranking to possibly at the top of our organization. I see my organization moving to a more complete unit. What I mean by that we are self-sustaining our training, our resources, our personnel, communication, and all other requirements needed to act as an active duty unit. That to me will be the ultimate goal, it will save us money and pump more money in our organization as it will put us on the map as a training ground for other units to use. I look forward to this day as this is the ultimate goal for my organization and I definitely would want to take part in the strategic output of it all.

References:

Hamel, G. (1998, Winter98). Strategy Innovation and the Quest for Value. (Links to an external site.) Sloan Management Review. pp. 7-14.  

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (20nd edition.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate

Porter, M. E. (1996). What Is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78.

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems

A633.3.3.RB _Manglona, Matthew-Napu_ Complex Adaptive Systems

A company that I found that reflects both Morning Star and St. Luke’s image is a company called Triple Canopy Inc. Entertainment Close-up (2014) states that Triple Canopy Inc. is a global provider for security, mission support, advising, and training services. They had just recently went into an employee stocked ownership plan (ESOP) in which employees shared stock and ownership of the company. Professional Services Close-up (2014) state that 80% of their employees are former military members who bring back grounds of special operations, law enforcement, program management, and security force management. (p.1) Morning star does away with managers controlling the organization’s progress of production. Hamel (2011) discusses there is nothing wrong with the management process, however, “The problem isn't the occasional control freak; it's the hierarchical structure that systematically disempowers lower-level employees.” (p.49) which is pretty much how I see management in my organization.

In my organization there is a standard structure that has been around since the Army was first established. With a top head structure leading all the way to the bottom. Being able to freely do what you need to do as a leader is something I wish I can experience at least once in my organization. There are too many political and bureaucratic decisions being made which trickles down to the lowest level. If we were to adopt the concepts of Morning Star and St.Lukes I believe that we capable of controlling things at our level. Of course it may be different in a time of war because of restrictions on a global scale but what we can do at home will definitely allow freedom of movement to meeting the intentions of the overall mission given to us taking away the micromanaging of some leaders we experience today. Hamel (2011) states that the employees from Morning star differentiate what it was like working with other employers and comparing it to Morning Star. They discussed that they are able to take the initiative, more expertise, more flexibility, and more loyalty. (p. 56)

The one thing I know my organization can use moving forward is unlocking potential of its employees. Coutu (2000) states in reference to St. Lukes, “But here, we repeatedly ask people to go where they have never been. Our employees must take nothing for granted; they must peel away all the levels of their personalities to become who they really are. That's frightening.” (p.144) That is a (good) scary thing to have in your arsenal for your organization because of the output that comes from the employees. Some encounters I have experienced within my organization is that some superiors, peers, and even subordinates try to undercut and sabotage an individual for their personal benefit which eventually leaves negative performance ratings from the individual. Having freedom to move around and experience different avenues in the workplace will be another thing I would like to take with me to my organization. Hamel (2011) states “If people are free, they will be drawn to what they really like as opposed to being pushed toward what they have been told to like," says Rufer. "So they will personally do better; they'll be more enthused to do things." (p. 53) I know that this will be a difficult feat to produce in my organization especially with the history it strongly carries, but these examples that I have presented is what I believe will make my organization run more fluid and smooth.

References:

Coutu, D. L. (2000). Creating the Most Frightening Company on Earth. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 142-150.

Hamel, G. (2011). First, Let's Fire all the Managers  (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48-60.

Triple canopy introduces employee-owned company. (2014). Entertainment Close-Up,

Triple canopy tapped for military times' best for vets: Employers 2014 rankings. (2014). Professional Services Close-Up,