A633.9.3.RB - Polyarchy Reflections

The oligarchy leadership model, as much as I do not think it is right for most organizations today, may still prove to be effective for some organizations out there. I do not think that it is completely redundant and irrelevant yet, as some organizations are farther along in the process of handing over power and control to their employees and leaders, rather than a few key people in the organization having it. For example, an organization with few employees may have an easier time making the transition from oligarchy to polyarchy than a large organization would because of the dynamics involved in the process. This does not mean that the oligarchy leadership models are redundant, it simply means that they have yet to be phased out become they still may provide some value to the organizations that currently have them. They may use them because they are not ready for the transformation in leadership models, or because what they currently have it still useful and effective.

I am fortunate that I work for an organization that is making the transformation to the polyarchy leadership model where employees and lower level leaders have more control and responsibility of their daily job tasks and routines. However, this poses a challenge because the organization was not always like this, so there are still employees who are adapting to this new style of leadership. What this means for me and other managers is that we are having to bring employees along through this change because they have been subjected to a certain style for so long, and in some cases it is quite hard to do.

I do not foresee having to go back to the old leadership styles in the near future. However, there will be employees and managers alike that prefer that style over the new one, so it will be my job to ensure that they see the benefit of the new one and become accustomed to it. From a strategy standpoint, the old leadership style certainly makes it easier for leadership to control a situation and establish expectations because authority and power is very top down. I prefer the new way as it challenges me and forces me to think outside of the box to motivate employees, along with empowering them to own their development and success at work. I also believe the strategies involved with the new leadership model make employees happier as they feel as if they a part of something bigger because of their part in the processes at work. 

A633.8.3.RB - How do Coaches Help

Coaches in the workplace are focused on helping other find solutions to problems, development of their talents, and improvement in particular areas. The most effective way of doing this is by understanding the client and what their strengths and opportunities are, followed by asking open ended questions to allow the client to think critically about their development and how they can help themselves. These open ended questions, along with the approach of the coach, are what separate a coach from an ordinary leader or manager as they are focused more on helping the client through self-reflection and revelation. Coaches have a unique way of helping others understand what is lacking, what is needed, and the steps necessary to accomplish the goal.

Coaching is important in leadership because it helps both the coach and the person being coached in any situation. It allows the leader to hone skills needed to develop others, while the person being coached is benefiting from these conversations. In my experience, coaching is a much more effective tool for development and organizational growth than traditional disciplinary methods. If an employee is coached through an issue rather than just being told what they are doing wrong or being given the answer by a superior, it helps the employee improve in this area and equips them with additional knowledge that they did not have before, along with developing critical thinking skills through the coaching process. In addition, coaching helps to develop relationships between employees and their leaders as they feel more valued when they are invested in.

Throughout the Target network, coaching takes places on a daily basis and is engrained into the culture of the 350,000 team member strong organization. Leadership is taught the basics of coaching when they first start and are given the opportunity to improve on these skills throughout their career. Coaching dynamics are very interesting within Target, simply because not every employee is the same. For example, the way to coach a lower performing team member could be different than the approach taken with a high performing team member. The skill and will of an employee also affects the approach taken for a coaching conversation. It is all of these factors combined that make coaching a very fluid and trainable leadership skill. Having worked in an environment like this for nearly three years, I still have much to learn as the workforce is becoming more dynamic every day. Employee needs, wants, and motivational factors differ greatly in today’s workplace, which ultimately affect the coaching process. As organizations develop and the changing workforce becomes much more noticeable, I think coaching will become standard for large organizations.

A633.7.3.RB - Leader Follower Relationship

Overall, I feel that my relationship with my follower team is a strong one. The team that I manage has been open to change in the time that I have known them, even though there have been times where they were curious about the change and wanted to ask additional questions about it. The team also trusts me and my ability to lead them through change without impacting them beyond what they can handle, so that certainly helps my ability to get them bought in to change. I am still working on engaging them more and ensuring that they fully understand the process changes before they start, but I have been transparent about this and they understand it is an opportunity of mine.

My thinking has changed slightly, mostly in the area of identifying where my leadership style lies and my strategies surrounding change within my organization. After doing some of the activities that revolve around strategy, I came to the realization that I am more of a driver when it comes to change, focusing more on the end result than how people accept the change. This stems from my experience with my change and personal views toward it. I more very resilient and adaptable, so implementing and going through change in any capacity is not difficult. In fact, I enjoy it because change represents improvement for me. This course has helped me identify this and formulate ways to change it and improve upon it. In addition, this last module has helped me with my personal leadership style, as I believe myself to be involved in change. I am very results driven, and even though I have some opportunity with inspiring my team around change, I am very involved with processes and lead by example, as I have seen great success with showing others through visual interaction.

This is important to me in my developmental journey as a leader because it sheds some light on the opportunities within my leadership style, some opportunities that may not be as apparent in the workplace by those who are involved with me on a daily basis. The activities and assessments embedded this course, especially this module, have been helpful in my developmental. One of my short term goals in my organization is to get promoted to a senior level management position with our distribution network. Senior level managers deal more with the people side of the organization, coaching and mentoring, so being able to uncover these opportunities now will help me on my leadership journey in my professional life. 

A633.6.5.RB - Circle of Leadership

The “vicious circle for leaders” is something that is very familiar to me. I have seen it quite often in other organizations that I have worked for, not necessarily because employees were not skilled enough, it was because leadership was inconsistent with expectations and often had conflicting priorities. This forced employees to be unconfident in their decision making and competencies. In my current organization it has happened but with me in the leadership position. When I first arrived at the building I currently work in I found the skill and job knowledge levels of most managers as very low. Naturally, I found myself ‘in the weeds’ from day one at the building and have yet to come out. This may be acceptable for new managers, but the problem with this is that the managers have been in their positions for some time and they have false perceptions about their job knowledge and skills, so when I became heavily involved into their business they were not very open to it. Now, because of my involvement, they almost rely on me to help them with tasks they should be doing on their own. I started to re-educate all the managers, set expectations with them, and now I’m holding them accountable to be able to do their jobs without me interjecting.

The effects on an organization when this cycle takes place are negative. The intent of the manager may be good, but the employees loses confidence, loses empowerment and motivation, it hinders creativeness and ingenuity, and employees could lose respect for managers who micro manage too much. In addition, it could create a situation where employees become too dependent on a manager, so when they are not present for any reason the results are not the same. For example, if a team performs well when a manager is involved and does not produce the same results when they are gone, the employees become dependent on the manager and a sustainable plan is not present.

An ideal cycle for a leader and a follower could look like:

- Leader reiterates expectations (Recognition or feedback)

- Follower takes initiative to meet or exceed expectations

- Leader is afforded opportunity to give employee space

- Leader adopts a hands-off approach

- Follower’s confidence stays constant

I think that this cycle could last anywhere from a few months to a year. The expectations setting phase could serve as an annual or quarterly review where the employee is rewarded for performance or given feedback for not meeting expectation. This is assuming that if the employee does not meet expectations after that first phase, they will not be around to complete the other phases. 

A633.5.3.RB - Reflection on Chaos

The chaos game was very surprising, to say the least. Initially when I thought about it as the facilitator was explaining the instructions I couldn’t have imagined that the team would have been able to do it any faster than 5 minutes. The instructions were simple, but given the variables and how many people there were, it seemed impossible to do in the first place, much less in under a minute.

What this means to me and the impact that it has on my understanding of the chaos theory is that if teams are given clear instructions and parameters to work within, the outcome of their work may be quite surprising. However, I can relate to this chaos game and the results of it, as the manager that I have now leads using a very simple approach: educates, sets clear expectations, and holds people accountable. The educating and setting clear expectations part of his leadership approach is very similar to the facilitator giving the instructions to the members of his team and setting the parameters by which the game will be played. What makes this even more interesting is that my peers are given instructions and expectations, just as I am, but we are all driving business metrics and focus areas while working with one another and staying consistent with how we lead our teams. Much like the players in the chaos game have to adjust when their focus areas adjust, we also have to do the same with the multitude of variables in the workplace. The funny thing is we manage to work on our own, meet the goals, and do it in a timely manner without someone taking the role as the lead.

The implications that this game has on strategy is that is forces leaders to take a different approach with the way that we lead our teams, especially in today’s workplace where the dynamics are much different than they were just a decade ago. It also means that strategy on the lower levels of organization has been proven to be successful, and if left to figure something out, employees will tailor the strategy that they have based on the parameters and instructions given to them from their leadership. I am positive that not everyone in the game had the same strategy in mind when starting, and some of them took a different approach to ensure that they met the goals while following the parameters and instructions. I think that is why organizations are performing at a higher level now, because leaders are acting more as coaches and facilitators, rather than micro managing every little process and move made by an employee. The authoritative and direct approach to leadership is still present in today’s workplace, but the more cross-functional and flat organizations are slowly taking over. 

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Leadership is becoming more and more dynamic every day. In today’s workforce the role of a leader is much different than it was a few decades ago, mainly because of the changes organizations are going through to stay competitive and keep employees performing at a very high level. I believe the three biggest contributors of this revolve around change: change in organizational culture, change in industry competition, and change in the workforce.

Employees expect organizations to support them in different capacities today, and different motivational factors have to be used to keep employees performing. The change in the makeup and structure of the workforce, along with the need to support a healthy culture are helping to drive this change in leadership. Organizations are becoming diverse enough that leaders have to formulate strategies to satisfy the needs and wants of their employees while meeting the goals of the company. In addition, several industries are becoming competitive, forcing additional responsibilities and unique roles on leaders today. This places leaders in positions of constant change within their organizations. My organization is certainly going through changes like these right now. The retail industry is highly competitive, so leaders are being tasked to take on larger, more integrated teams, along with the entire organization going through constant change in processes and practices.

Leadership dynamics have to be altered to help facilitate and promote change within organizations. This change could come in the form of structure and leadership responsibilities, or it could be in the form of compliance practices for the USDA. Either way, leaders in any capacity will be tasked to help lead employees through this change, from the bottom up. In addition, the ideas generated to drive the strategies needed to help organizations stay competitive will come from lower level employees. This is because they have the continuity, consistency, and knowledge to drive the business forward, and do it in a time frame that the organization needs.

Strategy is going to be absolutely necessary for this change. For example, a change within an organization could represent something significant for employees, so the strategy needed for communication, processes, involvement, etc., could be different than what is was in the past, based on employee culture, tenure, and acceptance level. The ideas could be generated from the bottom level of the organizations, but the strategy behind the ideas has to come from the leadership level to be successful.

A633.2.3.RB - Butterfly Effect

The butterfly effect is something that has fascinated me since I started in a leadership position several years ago. I remember making a small change to my daily routine and seeing the impact it had on employee satisfaction and organizational culture. Because of this, I am a firm believer in testing small changes in the workplace to prove their overall effectiveness.

In a recent experience with the butterfly effect, the team that I work within posted a tracker on one of the organization’s folders to hold managers accountable to certain routines and practices. This was never posted to a public place before, and before it was posted the building was being scored “red” in several areas of operational effectiveness. Since posting it to a place where the results are pronounced and made public, performance has improved by 8% in the last 8 weeks and engagement and performance with the building’s compliance practices have improved by 5%. The small change will continue to help in these areas and also help with accountability.

In another recent example our team initiated a new process that would help with quality within our building. It represented a small change for those actually doing it, taking an extra 15-30 minutes of their time throughout the day to help complete the process with the help of someone else from another department. This small change has helped decrease the amount of defects per million by 9% in just one week, without the team members ever really thinking about the small amount of extra work put into it every day.

The complexity theory represents competition and progress within my organization. For example, the routines we build, the processes we establish, the culture we maintain, and the reputation that we have all stems from the complexity theory. What appears to be chaos and complexity to some is actually everything the company wants it to be with order to it. This complexity is what helps with strategy within our organization as it forces us to take necessary steps to stay competitive. The complexity of our industry and the customers we cater to causes us to think outside the box to maintain our success. If we use the complexity theory as a gauge of how to drive performance, we will constantly be looking to evolve and change into something better, through culture, processes, practices, and strategy.