Reflecting on the
opening exercise at the beginning of Chapter 4 of the of Obolensky text and
other readings, why do you think the shift in leadership is occurring and do
you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization.
List three reasons that support or refute this position. If so, how would
leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types
of changes? What are the implications on strategy?
The reading and exercise were interesting to say the least.
The shift in leadership is happening because there has to be more fluidity in
the organization and communication has to flow through the organization to each
member without breakdowns occurring. For the exercise portion, I selected 40%
as the number of ideas that came from the top. To be honest, I was giving them
more credit then I though I should but I assumed that there was a lot more
interaction taking place then there actually is. I interpret that to mean that
I’m somewhere in the middle management think process and not entirely seasoned.
The reading states “generally speaking, they know that they do not know.
However they cannot say that they do not know” (Obolensky, 2014). That in and
of itself is an issue. In the more fluid flowing organizations, openness and
transparency allow for assistance and problem solving to occur instantaneously.
When the higher ups in a hierarchal structure do not know and don’t disclose
they do not know, they are preventing any type of progressions from happening
through arrogance.
In my organization, this is not happening although I don’t
think that is intentional. Ideas can and do flow from the bottom upward and
there are new systems in place that allow lower level employees to share
insights on procedures and organizational policy. I however am not a huge fan
of that because you never know if YOUR idea was heard. There are a few reasons
that are preventing this from happening in our organization.
1. The FAA dictates what procedures we follow and sets
precedent for any scheduling and hours employees can work. Their oversight puts
limitations on our leaders and prevents them from implementing new and creative
ideas that might help solve some safety issues.
2. There hasn’t been a need for major changes from
controller to the upper echelon. What I mean is, the company perceives that
each individual facility is operating as required and things are okay if they
don’t hear from them. If there isn’t any issues, why should they change? The
communication lines are not open from bottom to top in that regard which
creates the issue.
3. The people who are in charge now, like being in charge
and they have a slight God perception of themselves. It seems that anytime
anyone wants to achieve anything at the ground floor, it has to go to
corporate. When that happens, there needs to be some sort of “need” for the
change other than some idea someone had. Ideas and insight are often not heard
because they weren’t thought of at the top level; that ties into point number
two.
As far as strategy goes, we are in a quarterly fight right
now to try and keep our budgeting and funding in place from the government.
During the sequester, one of the major things that was considered was
de-funding the private control towers. The idea was absurd, they politicians
were playing soccer with us and using us as a bargaining chip. It is hard to
form a strategy for a long term plan when there are short term issues. One
source states “Scenarios facilitated dialogue in
which managers’ assumptions could safely be revealed and challenged. They
enabled consideration of unexpected developments” (Wilikingston, 2013). I reference that because there are multiple
scenarios that could be affecting the strategic direction our organization
takes in the next couple of years. We have to plan a strategy on the unexpected
and try and formulate different agendas determined by financial oversight
committees.
Conclusively, I feel that
ideas taken from the ground floor levels can really make a large impact through
the organization. I think that is why early unions were so effective. They were
the voice of the lower level employees. One source states however that “Government
data show that labor unions have become less of a factor in the overall U.S.
economy in recent decades – most notably in the private sector” (Labor, 2011))”.
What I take that to mean is that more and more companies are becoming fluid and
dynamic to meet employee needs and market necessity.
References
Labor Unions Seen as Good for Workers, Not U.S.
Competitiveness. (2011, February 17). Retrieved September 3, 2015, from
http://www.people-press.org/2011/02/17/labor-unions-seen-as-good-for-workers-not-u-s-competitiveness/
Obolensky,
N. (2014). Complex adaptive
leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington , VT
Wilikingston, A. (2013, May 1). Living in the Futures.
Retrieved September 3, 2015, from https://hbr.org/2013/05/living-in-the-futures
No comments:
Post a Comment