Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Blog A633.4.3

Reflecting on the previous exercise and this week's 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?

 

The shift in leadership attributes may be attributed to vast amount of information/data/strategy that potentially occupies a leader’s scope or work statement.  As such, the outmoded idea of leadership as being an “expert in all fields” in such a rapidly changing environment may be too challenging for even the brightest and most talented.  

Instead, there’s a recognition that leadership in the current environment requires quick learning and an ability to synthesize vast information into coherent strategy and execution.  As such, the expertise or “brains” may reside with the technical specialists or others, depending on industry and organization structure.  The most effective leaders I have observed have been very forthright and upfront about how they are not the “experts” but how they rely upon their staff to provide the expertise.  This reliance upon expertise at a lower management level seems to align with a polyarchical assumptions and information flow, as stated by Obolensky (2014). 

While it was fun to “troll” the ‘son et lumiere’ (Obolensky, 2014) or vaudeville nature of trying to impress people with recital and performance skills, there is a legitimate need to have some competence in presenting, persuading, and ultimately inspiring a workforce to do their best. 

My main objection to emphasizing “performances” is that the content and message are mostly geared toward leadership to show command and skill, but not really created for the workforce to inform and persuade, it’s just recycled and recited.  In the case of presentations and public speaking, one must know their audience well to connect directly.  Otherwise, I’ll go to SeaWorld to see a clapping seal balance a beach ball on their nose.  Unfortunately, I don’t see this trend ending soon. 

Another trend that seems to be occurring more is the comparison exercise by some managers or leaders when pointing out our organizations deficiencies.  An example that’s resonated recently has been the complaint that we don’t seem to utilize our own products or that we’re not sympathetic to our customers because – We don’t eat our own dog food – meant to characterize that our products or processes may not be as commercially viable as we think.

Beyond the sometimes incongruent examples, there is value in looking at other industries for problem solving ideas or methods to ensure process control.  However, immediately looking to other industries or to automatically “benchmark” may indicate a lack of understanding of one’s own core business or industry in general.  Any good idea must be translated into that specific language to bring meaning and value. 

The last item is one that will take considerable more discussion than is reasonable here, but I’d like to begin mention of it.  Although seemingly contradictory, the leadership selection process in my current environment emphasizes credentialing instead of actual leadership competence.  It seems that to be just considered for certain managerial positions, an MBA or advance degree is required even when the position doesn’t seem to demand it.    This is not meant to be hypocritical or sour grapes, but I’ve noticed the over-reliance on credentialing as a filter that may leave very capable leaders behind simply due to the lack of an advanced degree.  While it’s not absolute, there seems to be a number of leaders who simply have checked the boxes without actually putting it all together.  More to come on this topic. 

 

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership. (2nd edition.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate