Module 7 Leader Follower Relationship

Complete the exercise at the beginning of Obolensky’s Chapter 10 and use the scoring table at the end to assess your responses. Also consider Heifetz et al’s vision of adaptive culture.

In your submission, reflect on what this assessment means in terms of your leadership and your relationship to your followers. Respond to the questions below:

  • 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?

Leader Follower Relationship

Figure 1

Leadership Strategy Questionnaire (Obolensky, 2014, p. 168)


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?

    Over the course of the past six weeks, I feel that my thinking has most certainly changed on leadership, however, the changes in my behavior will take time to implement. Performing this assessment really helped me come to this realization because I was starting to fall in a mindset where people-leadership focused relies upon very heavy involvement as a leader. However, this is not always the case. I always wondered if me being exhausted at the end of my days was a sign of me being a good leader. The problem with giving so much and pouring so much of myself out is that I often do not have time to recuperate and recharge. 

    Chapter 10 of Obolensky's (2014) book is very intriguing and eye-opening for me. In particular, I learned that I am very heavy on the Strategy 2 side of the house which is High People and High Goal. This is where "the leader needs to know, but there is a need for the people to own the solution, rather than just accept and follow it" (Obolensky, 2014, p. 170). I had been under the premonition that this was a good aspect of my leadership because I always would seek follower buy-in, which in this case requires the "sell" to happen first (Obolensky, 2014, p. 170). 

    Often times, when I lead I aim to get the follower to understand why the outcomes have a silver lining and why they could be better than the status quo. I also aim to get followers opinions and feedback frequently. Without feedback and discussing with followers as touch points during change, especially, I feel that I am doing them a disservice as a leader. Due to this mindset, I've really focused on becoming better at active listening and asking questions rather than directing. Another reason for this is that as a young leader (junior military member), I feel that I have less influence and underlying strength behind what I say, especially for some civilian or military members who are much older and experienced than I am. Therefore, I feel selling is a good strategy, however, I am discovering that this strategy relies on consistently have great questioning ability. One interesting point Obolensky (2014) brings up is that Strategy 2 is one where typically "the leader knows the solution," however this is certainly not always the case (p. 170). Knowing this, I was curious to know where I could improve. According to Obolensky (2014), with my Strategy 2 score being the highest and me having a low Strategy 4 (Low People, Low Goal) score, I have a fairly normal and typical problem which is that I need to "let go more and have faith in [my] subordinates" - this is something I can certainly agree with (p. 171). Moreover, with my Strategy 2 and Strategy 3 (High People, Low Goal) scores summing higher that my Strategy 1 (Low People, High Goal) and Strategy 4 sum, then I am demonstrating even more indication that I "find it hard to let go and be separated" (Obolensky, 2014, p. 171). 

Figure 2

People Focus vs. Goal Focus (Obolensky, 2014, p. 170)


Figure 2

Figure 3

"Leadership roadmap and Yin/Yang (Obolensky, 2014, p. 173)



What I've learned is that my future needs to be less involved. I need to learn to let go as a leader in order to be the most effective I can. According to Obolensky (2014), "the aim of Complex Adaptive Leadership is to enable the devolve style as much as possible" and "a few simple rules matching people’s (or indeed an organisation’s) skill and will to the four possible strategies help lay a foundation of how to move followers to take the lead, and enable polyarchy to thrive" (p. 185). Essentially, I am overworking myself to my own to detriment and really no greater benefit than I could achieve than if I altered my leadership strategy. I need to venture more toward the Devolve strategy. This is emphasized as well with Heifetz et al.'s (2009) take on adaptive culture, where these organizations should perform where "responsibilitiy for the organization is shared and independent judgement is expected...It is about investing in people’s independent judgment and resourcefulness, in addition to their technical skills."  Although leaders should make others "feel good about themselves" they should avoid doing things on their own and also aim to "lead by example" because the leader sets the tone for an organization in terms of habits and actions (Northwest, 2023). Kleynhans et al. (2021) describe leader/follower relations stating, "authentic leaders will increase the level of trust that their team have in them, thereby establishing a cooperative relationship between them and their followers to the benefit of the organization." Moreover, Losada-Vasquez (2022) states that “leadership is called to play an educational role that requires a manager’s maturity as an individual in order to produce idealized influence, personal concern, inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation.” Basically, I need to rely on others more and be less hovering and less of a micromanager even when I have the best for my followers in my heart and mind. I need to leverage their strengths and spend less time selling and telling as if I always know the right answer, and move toward an organization that is more of a polyarchy.

References:

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership. Cambridge Leadership Associates. 

Kleynhans, D. J., Heyns, M. M., & Stander, M. W. (2021). Authentic leadership and follower trust in the leader: The effect of precariousness. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 47. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v47i0.1904

Losada-Vazquez, A. (2022). Organizational learning at purpose-driven enterprise: Action–research model for leadership improvement. Sustainability, 14(3), 1301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031301

Northwest. (2023, August 8). Effective leadership – why leaders should let others lead. Northwest Executive Education. https://northwest.education/insights/careers/effective-leadership-why-leaders-should-let-others-lead/

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Gower Publishing Limited.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Module 6 Conflict Resolution

       “While conflict is inevitable, it is not always dangerous or damaging” (Sweetman, 2009). In the TED talk, William Ury (2010) states there with the world more interconnected than ever thanks to modern technology, the more the world is like a big family reunion which inevitably brings arguments. He argues that the majority of conflicts have two major sides and an additional third side, which is the side that reminds the parties what is really at stake in a facilitator and mediator type of role. Throughout his talk he speaks of personal experiences around the world and in discussions with world leaders where he served as the third side to bring the discussions back into perspective in order to refocus on the objective and tamper emotions. Ultimately, Ury (2010) claims that the third side is the secret to peace if everyone can learn to effectively serve in the role as a listener with empathy, to treat others with hospitality over hostility, and to diplomatically c...
Read more

Module 2 Authenticity, Morality, and Leadership

Module 2 Morality: Is There a Gray Area? Reflection Blog: Authenticity, Morality, and Leadership Prompt In the module reading,  Are Authentic Leaders Always Moral? The Role of Machiavellianism in the Relationship Between Authentic Leadership and Morality (EBSCO/Hunt Library),  the authors were surprised and concerned that there was not a direct relationship between authentic leadership and moral action. The authors hypothesized that this might explain why some leaders that are adept at moral reasoning still engage in unethical behavior. Reflect on authenticity, morality, and the leadership style of your leader. Address the following prompts: Is there a gap in moral action in your leader? How does that impact you in the workplace? If your leader does not have a gap in moral action, is there a link between moral action and your leader’s leadership style? What have you learned from your leader that you implement in your own views of morality and leadership? Authenticity, Morality...
Read more

Module 8 Team Roles

Any highly-successful team is comprised of members with clearly-defined roles and responsibilities in addition to the team’s overall common goals. The best time to establish roles is at the very beginning of team formation prior to any actual work getting done. Without team roles there would likely be chaos within the team. According to Whetton & Cameron (2016), common roles can range from the leader, to task-facilitator, to relationship-builder, and to unproductive (p. 428). Leaders should work to develop credibility and articulate a clear vision. Task-facilitators should provide direction, enforcement, and synthesis of information (p. 423). Relationship-builders should be supportive, energizing, harmonizing, and confronting while tension relieving (p. 424). An important note is that all team members can serve in multiple roles at once, but, in different facets. However, the leader is more of a special, singular position because a team cannot have too many “chiefs,” so to speak. W...
Read more