A633.7.4.RB - How Do Coaches Help?

Based on the readings reflect upon the statement below.

To be an executive coach, it is necessary to know that clients are the first and best experts capable of solving their own problems and achieving their own ambitions; that is precisely the main reason why clients are motivated to call on a coach. When clients bring important issues to a coach, often they already made a complete inventory of their personal or professional issues and identified all possible (known) options. Clients have already tried working out their issues alone, and have not succeeded.

This statement suggests clients already have answers to their problems within themselves, however, they are unable to bring those solutions to the surface on their own.  This is when they turn to an executive coach for guidance.  However, this is not limited to executive coaches since great leaders often find themselves serving a coaching role often.  For example, executive coach can be changed to leader and client can be changed to follower in the statement above to illustrate the leader/coach and follower relationship.  

The Situational Leadership model consists of four styles (S1-S4) with levels of leadership behavior all relating to tasks (goals) and relationships (people).  S2 is a “Selling” strategy with a high people focus and a high goal focus.  This is typically associated with leaders needing followers to ‘buy-in’ to the strategy and increase ownership.  S3 is an “Involving” strategy with a high people focus and a low goal focus.  The leader may not have the answer in these situations or may want the followers to discover the solution on their own.  Going back a few weeks when we discussed chaos theory, I remember an attractor is a plot of action on a phase space diagram.  Period attractors are “where the action revolves around a specific part of a phase space diagram” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 175).  This is relevant because pairing strategies create paired periodic attractors, one being the coaching attractor.  This attractor is created from pairing the S2 (Sell) and the S3 (Involve) strategies together.  Obolensky (2014) suggests the coaching attractor is the “most powerful and also demands the greatest skill” (p. 179).  Coaching also bridges the gap between S1/2 (Selling/Telling) where the leader is being the leader and S3/4 (Involving/Devolving) where the leader encourages the follower to lead.  Furthermore, coaching facilitates moving the individual towards level 5 followership.  

So how does a leader successfully perform as a coach?  Obolensky (2014) suggests the most effective approach is to use the “GROW model coupled with a questioning technique which makes use of a mix of open/closed and suggestive/non-suggestive questions” (p. 179).  GROW stands for the type of questions asked: Goal, Reality, Options, and Will.  Since clients/followers are the best experts at solving their problems and achieving their ambitions, GROW enables them to find their way.  We typically associate the coaching process with leaders coaching followers, or executive coaches coaching their clients.  However, it is important to note that everyone can be coached, including leaders.  As a matter of fact, “there’s no question that future leaders will need constant coaching. As the business environment becomes more complex, they will increasingly turn to coaches for help in understanding how to act” (Coutu, Kauffman, Charan, Peterson, Mccoby, Scoular, & Grant, 2009).  Would it make sense to think that some of the sports greats such as Brett Favre, Derek Jeter, or Michael Jordan didn’t have coaches until the day they retired?  No.  They received coaching throughout their entire career to make them the exceptional players the were.  Leadership is no different.  Great leaders can become better leaders as there will always be areas to improve and coaches can help facilitate these improvements.  

References:

Coutu, D., Kauffman, C., Charan, R., Peterson, D. B., Maccoby, M., Scoular, P. A., & Grant, A. M. (2009). What Can Coaches Do for You?. Harvard Business Review, 87(1), 91-97.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Gower.

A633.7.3.RB - Leader Follower Relationship

Complete the exercise at the beginning of Chapter 10 and use the scoring table at the end to assess your responses.  Reflect on what this assessment means in terms of you as a leader and your relationship to your followers.

Has your thinking changed over the course of the past six weeks, if so; why, and, if not; why?

What is the significance of this assessment in the context of your future leadership goals and objectives?

How can you apply what you learned in your assessment to strategy?

The assessment consisted of 16 situations in which I was the leader of a team of followers and I had to select how I would approach each situation.  ‘Would’ being the key word in this exercise.  I had to mentally eliminate the temptation of answering the assessment with how a leader ‘could’ or ‘should’ react.  I envisioned how I would honestly respond if these were real-world scenarios.  My scores of the assessment were:

Strategy 1 (S1): 0

Strategy 2 (S2): 2

Strategy 3 (S3): 8

Strategy 4 (S4): 6

S1 is a “Telling” strategy with a low people focus and a high goal focus.  This strategy is just that, telling followers what to do.  This doesn’t necessarily equate to being mean and unpleasant, but may be done in such forms as showing or training people.  S2 is a “Selling” strategy with a high people focus and a high goal focus.  This is typically associated with leaders needing followers to ‘buy-in’ to the strategy and increase ownership.  S3 is an “Involving” strategy with a high people focus and a low goal focus.  The leader may not have the answer in these situations or may want the followers to discover the solution on their own.  S4 is a “Devolving” strategy with a low people focus and a low goal focus.  The strategy is used when followers have the skill and will to perform the job and the leader may choose to take a step back and observe before taking action.

I wouldn’t say my thinking has changed over the past six weeks towards being a leader and follower relationships.  It would be more accurate to say my thinking has been strengthened by the many subject areas of this course.  Strategy, complexity, and balance (Wu Wei and Ying/Yang) and their connection to leadership and followership have specifically been beneficial.  For example, scoring highest in the S3 and S4 areas, this assessment was very helpful in validating what I already thought about myself in terms of my personal leader/follower relationship.  I’ve known for quite some time that I am a very non-confrontational person who chooses to involve others in decision-making processes when possible.  My personality fits nicely with S3 and S4 strategies.  Obolensky (2014) even suggests the S3 and S4 approaches together can be “applied to upward leadership and in today’s complex world, where solutions are more at the bottom than the top, upward leadership is becoming increasingly important” (p. 172).  However, there are both strengths and weaknesses to unintentionally limiting myself to these strategies as a leader.  

There are times when my natural reaction to situations is to involve everyone around me.  I tend to think that it is highly doubtful I have the best and only answer.  Therefore, I would rather involve others to increase the chances they have can offer the best solution for all involved.  Odds are usually pretty good that someone has an idea or suggestion in which I hadn’t yet thought of.  Not always the case, but I like being more safe than sorry if time is not an issue.  I used to be very proactive towards everything.  I learned fairly recently that being proactive is not always the best approach.  A perfect example is when I would communicate information to others as soon as I received it.  This information was vital to how employees performed their jobs.  The problem was that I would receive changes to this information, sometimes multiple changes, after I already communicated it to employees.  This created an issue with my credibility and taught me to wait until all changes occurred and let the dust settle so to speak before communicating information.  It was an important lesson and one I began to apply to other areas, such as leadership and strategy.  The most significant takeaway of this assessment is how I can apply it towards strategy and my future leadership goals.  I will be the first to tell anyone that balance is essential in life and leadership is no different.  Yet, I struggle stepping out of my comfort zone of the S3/S4 strategies and into the S1/S2 strategies when situations may demand them.  I am very aware this is an area I need to improve. I must find a way to strengthen my “Telling” and “Selling” abilities if I want to become a well-rounded leader ready for any situation.  

References:

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Gower.

A633.6.4.RB - Circle of Leadership

The majority of my organization’s strategy cascades downward considering it is a large governmental agency consisting of a rigid top-down hierarchy.  However, it is not uncommon for employee feedback to flow upward, which in turn plays a part in strategy development at the highest levels of the organization.  This flow of upward and downward information is similar to how upward and downward leadership occurs within my organization.  It is not a “vicious circle for leaders” as displayed in the diagram below, yet a healthy circle of balanced relationships doing their part equally.

Some employees are officially designated leaders, whereas others in followership roles step up to take the lead when the situation necessitates.  This upward leadership can be viewed as the “process of consciously working with your superior to obtain the best possible results for you, your boss, and the company” (Gabarro & Kotter, 2005, p. 92).  This also demonstrates a strong level of upward and downward leadership working together in my organization.  I have yet to witness employees, whether manager/subordinate or leader/follower, display the “typical vicious circle for leaders” behavior. Quite the opposite.  Although followers may ask for advice, leaders are not immediately concerned, but more than willing to provide assistance and guidance.  Our leaders would rather provide employees advice and take a step back as opposed to taking a more hands-on approach.  This not only improves followership knowledge and confidence but also instills trust that they can come to leaders for advice when necessary.  However, I understand a leader becoming concerned if a follower is continually seeking guidance and approval.  In this case, I believe the “typical vicious circle for leaders” will occur until the followership behavior is addressed.  For me, personally, I have never witnessed it in my organization.

The best way to create a new circle which promotes strong followership and leadership is to change the response at the beginning of the circle.  This starts when a follower asks for advice.  I am not referring to someone asking for the same repeated advice over and over.  I am talking more to followers having the confidence to confide in their leaders and fellow peers.  For example, a leader and even other followers should not be concerned when a follower asks for advice as the “vicious circle” suggests. Yet, they should be responsive in helping the follower increase confidence in their abilities by assisting them. Sometimes a leader does not know the right advice to give and sometimes peers may be seeking the same advice but are too embarrassed or afraid to ask.  This is when other followers need to step up and demonstrate upward leadership.  Obolensky (2014) discusses followership ‘maturity’ or the capability of one taking the lead to get the job done without input from a leader. This upward leadership capability is usually dependent upon the state of the individual’s skill/will.  According to the skill/will matrix, a follower will be in one of the following states at any point in time.

It is important to note that the matrix does not represent types of people, but various states they may find themselves in depending on the situation.  Therefore, we should not fault individuals for being brave enough to want to improve by asking for advice.  Personally, especially when learning a new role or task, I ask a lot of questions.  I used to be afraid to ask questions because I cared what others thought about me.  However, once I overcame that unnecessary fear, I quickly learned asking questions lead to improved knowledge and resources.  Asking questions actually increased my confidence, skills, and gave me the tools to find answers myself if needed.  Where I once found myself asking many questions, I now found myself being asked questions. I never associated asking for advice as someone lacking skills, but a willingness to improve skills.  If a leader wants to fault a subordinate/follower for seeking advice, I see this as more of a leadership deficiency, not a follower flaw.  The newly proposed circle is not limited to specific departments and should be exercised throughout the entire organization to strengthen followership and upward leadership.

References:

Gabarro, J. J., & Kotter, J. P. (2005). Managing Your Boss. Harvard Business Review, 83(1), 92-99.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Gower.

A633.5.3.RB - Reflections on Chaos

I will never forget the management job I hated.  Hating it is putting it lightly, but it taught me many lessons.  I still look back and have no regrets about moving on to another organization and career field.  Yet, I do not regret that job because of the invaluable experience I gained from dealing with people and processes.  The main reason I despised that job was the high level of chaos involved in every aspect.  I never felt a sense of progress.  It was within a manufacturing organization where the priority was to meet production schedules.  This meant that there was no time for delays no matter what the scenario.  Parts shortages, equipment failures, safety issues, absent employees; it did not matter because my job was to keep things moving.  Each day posed brand new challenges I never dealt with before and there were no procedures or experts to conveniently reference.  No two days were the same and there was always an emergency (some genuine, some false).  I was mostly on my own and simply had to figure things out.  Combine the fact the organization was in the process of laying off some management employees; needless to say, it was extremely stressful.  Organized chaos at its finest.  

Thinking back now, as chaotic and stressful as that job was, progress was still occurring.  The business usually met its production goals and everything flowed just as the day before.  Complex? Yes.  Chaotic?  Absolutely!  Nonetheless, things just found a way of working out.  This is similar to the results of Obolensky’s (2012) game/experiment where roughly a dozen participants are randomly placed throughout a large room.  Obolensky then provides instructions by first identifying the boundaries of the area and for participants to pick two people as reference points.  When the game begins, players move very slowly within the boundaries to try and achieve an equal distance to each of their reference points.  Players can only stop once the equal distance is achieved and the game is over when all players have achieved this distance.  I was fairly pessimistic as to whether or not players would be able to overcome such complexity.  However, to my surprise, it only took players around 45 seconds to complete the exercise.  After the exercise, Obolensky asked, “what would have happened if we had put one of you in charge?” (2012) and everyone laughed because they knew it would have taken much longer to complete.  This game revealed a significant relationship between complexity, chaos, and leadership strategy.

Obolensky (2014) suggests “the counter-intuitive and intriguing conclusion is that the more complex the situation and task, the less directive traditional leadership is needed” (p. 101).  This statement makes a connection I have recognized throughout the course in how self-leading can occur through wu-wei.  According to chaos theory, there are patterns and repetitions associated with complexity.  They may not be evident at first, but become clearer after further investigation.  For example, the butterfly effect suggests small changes can produce big results, there are universal laws within chaotic systems according to Fiegenbaum’s Delta, and there are fundamental patterns or fractals in leadership theories and scientific development (Obolensky, 2014).  A leader must implement certain principles and release some control if they want a self-leading organization.  Many leaders within a traditionally structured organization may have an illusion of control where they believe they can control every aspect of the organization.  It truly is an illusion and they must shift their way of thinking if they want the organization to succeed.  Obolensky (2014) discusses 8 principles that organizations must utilize to become more self-leading and more effective when dealing with complexity.  These principles are used to create the Four + Four model.  Together, they “form the basis of the organizational level of Complex Adaptive Leadership” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 110).  The Four + Four model composed of the 8 principles is Implicit purpose vs. Explicit Objectives, Freedom to act vs. boundaries to confine, People’s skill/will vs. Few simple rules, and Ambiguity/chaos vs. Unambiguous feedback.  The 8 principles were each present in Obolensky’s experiment and played a part in the successful accomplishment.  The Four + Four model has a Yin/Yang relationship in the way they complement and yet are paradoxical to each other.  

The biggest implication the exercise had on strategy is the impact on a leader’s level of control.  For example, as an instructor (not a leader), Obolensky communicated some simple rules and the objective participants were trying to accomplish and then he stepped back.  If he would have tried to direct each person on exactly how to accomplish the objective, just as with traditional leadership, the exercise would have been frustrating and took incredibly longer.  This would have contradicted the eight principles by being too restrictive, decreasing the will of the participants, and increasing chaos.  A leader with a traditional approach just needs to let go sometimes because when “one lets go, things tend to sort themselves out often faster and better than if one tried to control” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 118).  In doing this, I think it allows an organization to act more like an organism that is fluid in they way it performs.  Bonchek (2016) makes a similar comparison of how murmurations or coordinated movements, as seen in flocks of birds or schools of fish, occur without a leader.  They follow a few simple rules to become a cohesive group.  The same can be applied to an organization when the eight principles are embedded so “leaders have an opportunity to let go without losing control, and to add structure without losing speed” (Bonchek, 2016).

References:

Bonchek, M. (2016, June 2).  How leaders can let go without losing control.  Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/06/how-leaders-can-let-go-without-losing-control

Obolensky, N. (2012). Who needs leaders? Retrieved  from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Gower.

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Every week throughout this course there has been a recurring theme and this week is no different.  The theme is change.  Environments change.  Markets change.  Organizations change.  And, with these changes, leadership must change.  There was once a simplicity in leadership within an organization because doing business was more straightforward.  A leader could rely on their functional expertise and experiences as their leadership foundation.  Now, mix together all the complex elements of a current organization and it can become a leadership nightmare.  Leaders today are being faced with challenges they have never experienced and often situations they could never have prepared for.  Complexity has melded into today’s organization and leaders are having to deal with it.  For example, “in a Robert Half Management Resources survey, 66 percent of chief financial officers (CFOs) said it’s more challenging to be a company leader today than it was five years ago” (Manciagli, 2016).

One reason leadership dynamics have changed is because of the technology explosion.  Yet some organizations continue to apply leadership theory based on an industrial revolution way of thinking (“Changing Nature,” 2015).  The pace at which technology has and continues to advance is remarkable.  Like anyone, organizations want the latest and greatest technology to increase efficiency and maintain their competitive edge.  However, constant technology upgrades can leave an organization trying to catch their breath and search for continuity.  This can place a great deal of stress on the employees and have them looking to their leader for direction.  The problem is the leader may also be trying to keep up with the pace of change.  Additionally, “it’s crucial for managers to stay on top of industry trends and remain open and adaptable to change. Successful leaders regularly read the top industry blogs, subscribe to newsletters, follow industry leaders on Twitter, and join relevant groups on LinkedIn” (Manciagli, 2016).  This aspect of leadership was nonexistent a decade ago, but now it is a necessity if a leader wants the organization to be relevant.

I think another reason there is a shift in leadership is because of the largest multigenerational workforce in history.  We currently have four generations each with their own values, beliefs, and motivations in our workforce and in a few years there will be five.  To say it is a challenge to effectively lead so many different types of people is a gross understatement.  For example, Boss (2016) suggests “the challenge for leaders, then, is in translating what they know and how they’ve been raised in an organization into a language that Millenials speak and that resonates with them” (para. 4).  The third reason I believe leadership dynamics are changing is the fact that leaders have to deal with the pace of change.  Trying to convince an organization to maintain or increase the pace must be approached with a precise delivery.  For example, if a leader demands the organization increases their traditional pace, it may be “met with reactions ranging from incredulity to outright cynicism and cannot be dished out by executives like some form of real-life motivational poster” (Petty, 2016).  

The bottom line is that whether dealing with technology, diversity, or pace of change, leaders cannot single-handedly provide solutions for their organization.  A leader must rely on the entire organization because “those at the top do not know the solutions to the problems faced by the organizations they lead” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 37).  It is important for any leader to accept and communicate to the organization that they do not have all the answers.  Although most leaders know they do not have all the solutions, they simply want to avoid losing credibility and continue to play charades.  Obolensky (2014) mentions three ways to put an end to these charades by employing three approaches: the ‘I do not know’ approach, the challenge and support approach, and the dynamic approach to Q&A.  Like most organizations, I believe leadership has to face these elements every day in my organization.  However, I think the best way leadership can get the entire organization to buy-in to how solutions to these challenges are implemented is through communication.  Leadership must share the vision as to why any change is necessary and how it can be accomplished for the organization to successfully follow the strategy.

References:

Boss, J. (2016, February 2).  The top leadership challenges for 2016.  Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffboss/2016/02/02/the-top-leadership-challenges-for-2016/#72d43b401cf3

Manciagli, D. (2016, April 13).  4 biggest challenges facing business leaders today.  Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/growth-strategies/2016/04/4-biggest-challenges-facing-business-leaders-today.html

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Gower.

Petty, A. (2016, June 13).  Leading a change of pace: moving faster when your firm is on the clock.  Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/leading-change-of-pace-4053158

Twentyone. (2015).  Changing nature of leadership.  Retrieved from http://www.twentyoneleadership.com/resources/changing-nature-of-leadership/