Most leadership models have the assumption of oligarchy – leadership is done by a few leaders over many followers. If polyarchy is fast replacing the old oligarchy assumptions does this make these old leadership models redundant? Reflecting on traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership, address the implications and how they will affect you as a leader in the future.
The VA, like many organizations, measure their effectiveness using metrics. This method essentially quantifies how well or how poorly the organization is performing in a specific area. One such area is patient wait times or how long it takes for a veteran to be seen by a provider. Some medical centers accel in this area whereas others struggle to meet the required metrics. Not all medical centers are created equal and different variables contribute to each facility’s challenges. For example, staffing numbers, local veteran population, and post-war environments are just some components affecting patient wait times. With that said, would it make sense to measure all VA medical centers equally? I don’t think so. The metrics should be adjusted accordingly. This ensures adaptability occurs appropriate to fluctuating variables. Just as it is necessary to make adjustments and be adaptable on an organizational level, the same holds true on a leadership level.
Times are changing. Markets are evolving and environments are becoming more complex. Therefore, leadership strategy and principles also need to adjust accordingly to be effective. Despite an increased emergence of polyarchy seen in organizational settings I don’t believe traditional leadership models will ever completely be obsolete. Tweaked, yes. Extinct, no. Traditional leadership models have been poked and prodded by the leadership probe for years. The strengths and weaknesses of each have been thoroughly investigated and leadership guru’s have exhaustively suggested improvements. Polyarchy is another way to adjust such traditional leadership models to be more effective in that environment. Obolensky (2014) discusses how there are older, more traditional models that are well known and have stood the test of time. He also suggests by looking differently at traditional leadership models, newer models such as Collin’s Level 5 Leadership and Badaracco’s Quiet Leadership are emerging by their “new ways of looking at leadership” (p. 201). From a complex adaptive leadership perspective, I think traditional leadership models have their place with polyarchy and will sometimes serve as a solid leadership foundation to be adapted appropriately. For example, Obolensky (2010) states, “An understanding of how polyarchy can work will differ in each organization as each one has its own experience and unique perspective. But as has been shown, traditional leadership models and practices can be seen in a new light” (p. 206). This impacts how I move forward on becoming a better leader. I must never become so focused on approaching leadership in a singular manner that I lose sight of other strategies that may be more effective. Additionally, knowing that polyarchy can be applied to traditional leadership models, I can better facilitate personal leadership by understanding “the key difference is that under a polyarchy the leader ensures the process rather than doing the process which is implied under an oligarchic assumption” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 203).
Include a discussion of your leadership development needs over the next 3 years and identify the resources that will help you achieve such a development. Use all you have learned as well as the 70–20–10 approach. What impact will all of this have on your future strategy?
I recently began a new career as a contracting specialist. Therefore, I feel like I am sort of starting over. A kind of blank slate so to speak. Granted, I have learned valuable skills through formal training and experiences throughout my career which will help me towards a successful path. However, I am also now in a highly complex field where those close to my age already have years of contracting experience. I feel like this puts me at a disadvantage when having to compete for a promotion and will take quite some time to get to a point of proficiency and comfort in my abilities to perform effectively. I know this will take time but I am up for the challenge. Throughout learning my new position I know I also have to maintain a focus on my leadership development. I can establish a plan to help achieve this development by using the 70-20-10 approach. According to Kyle Westway, a Harvard lecturer, attorney and thought leader, “everyone should use this chart as a career roadmap, devoting 70 percent of their time to their core competency, 20 percent on related projects, and 10 percent to learning new skills and working on side projects” (Groth, 2012, para. 3). Devoting 70 percent of my time towards my core competency will be the most difficult obstacle since it already feels like I am devoting 100 percent of my time to this area. I should clarify this is 100 percent of my work hours, not 24 hours. As I become more proficient in my core competency I will be able to branch out and pursue other projects within my organization to satisfy the 20 segment. As far as the 10, I am already fulfilling it by taking leadership related courses for my Master’s degree. Even after I obtain this degree, there are a plethora of options available. For instance, I can step out of my comfort zone and volunteer for a program within my organization that will strengthen personal networks and collaboration.
References:
Groth, A. (2012, Nov. 27). Everyone Should Use Google's Original '70-20-10 Model' to Map Out Their Career. Retrieved from Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/kyle-westaway-how-to-manage-your-career-2012-11
Jennings, C. (n.d.). 70-20-10 Forum. Retrieved from 70-20-10 Forum: http://www.702010forum.com/
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Gower.
No comments:
Post a Comment