Looking Good!

Introduction

 

This week’s MSLD633 blog centers on an assessment presented at the beginning of Obolensky (2014), Chapter 10. The assessment is designed to provide feedback on your leadership tendencies and tell you if they are well – balanced when compared to the Situational Leadership model described in figure 8.4.

Having completed the assessment, the results have been compared to the Situational Leadership model (figure 8.4) and my leadership strengths and weaknesses and what it may mean to my followers is discussed. Additionally, how and why my thinking has changed over the course of the past weeks and what the significance in these changes means to my future leadership goals and objectives is provided.

The Assessment

 The assessment contains 16 leadership decision scenarios with four choices on how to handle each scenario. Each choice represents one of the four leadership styles (S1 – telling, S2 – selling, S3 – involving, and S4 – devolving). The point of the assessment is to record what leadership style you would use to handle each of the 16 scenarios. 16 scenarios is important in that there are four questions each targeted for each of the four leadership styles.

The Results

The optimal result would be four responses for each of the leadership styles, i.e.; S1 – telling = four responses, S2 – selling = four responses, etc. My scores indicated a good balance with S1 – telling and S4 – devolving (four responses in each of those areas). S3 – involving and S2 – selling was not balanced. S3 – involving had 6 responses and S2 – selling only two.

Consideration: Assessing which questions are designed to illicit a particular leadership style response is somewhat ambiguous. S1 – telling and S4 – devolving are the easiest to identify and S2 – selling and S3 – involving are the most difficult and may explain why my answers were spot on with S1 / S4 and a little ‘fuzzy’ with S2 / S3.

 

What the Results Mean

These results, while by no means scientific or definitive, communicate that my skills on selecting a leadership style represents an accepted pattern in most cases. In cases where there were differences (selected S3 – involving instead of S2 – selling in two cases), this is an indication that my followers are lacking the motivational influence (push) they may need from me. This result is really not surprising. Throughout my professional career the primary area of improvement identified has been the need to do recognize when to push instead of pull.  The results of this survey indicate this continues to be an area for improvement.

Having spent the last few weeks learning completely new concepts in leadership [primarily about Complex Adaptive Leadership (CAL)] and dedicated my professional life to becoming a better leader, my followers will benefit from the lessons learned. This particular lesson has highlighted the need to pay more attention when to motivate.

How and Why My Thinking has Changed Over the Past Few Weeks

CAL, polyarchy, complexity and chaos theories, four + four principles, and the ancient Yin/Yang principles have all had a tremendous impact on not only my approach to leadership, but how I view the world around me. For example, learning more about chaos and complexity has given me the ability to remain relaxed and more patient when chaos seems to be approaching. Living on the edge of chaos is to be expected in high performing organizations and has brought a level of confidence for the first time in my professional career when things are not happening as expected “Complex systems seem to be on the edge of chaos – that means that they are able to balance order and chaos.” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 89). Additionally, when managing complex or complicated systems, there is an understanding that was not present before in that there are very distinct need to understand what type of solutions to expect. Complicated systems typically will have determinate solutions and complex systems indeterminate solutions (Obolensky, 2014, pp 54-55). The need for storytelling was also reignited when analyzing the purpose of S3 – involving and of S2 – selling and the buffalo story that illustrates why it is important to distribute power presented in Stayer (1990), page 67 is going into my personal leadership story library.

Why have I allowed my thinking to be influenced by Obolensky (2014) and other authors / scholars in the ERAU MSLD program? The answer is very simple. The personal experience of living all of the above, finding a rational explanations, and implementing courses of actions (in many, but not all situations) has made a believer out of me of CAL and polyarchy. A believer that as the world continues on a path of increasing complexity, the need for CAL and polyarchy will increase and I want to be part of helping organizations transform into healthy polyarchies. This is my chance to help others realize their full potential and be part a movement (towards CAL and polyarchy) that will have a place in history. Perhaps one day I can fulfill my dream of leading a classroom full of CAL students. If I do, you can be sure I will be telling the story of why the buffalo faced extinction.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

Stayer, R. (1990). How I learned to let my workers lead. Harvard Business Review, 

             68(6), 66-83.