A633.9.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien

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.  What impact will they have on your future strategy?

Redundancy is not something you can have in leadership it seems, unless of course you take the literal meaning and sack your manger, CEO or boss!  Leadership is something that should be constantly evolving, and because of this, there are no real right or wrong answers.  Old leadership styles, born of oligarchy's still have their place - even in a polyarchic workplace.  There are times when a leader really has to lead by example - to take the bull by the horns and shout "follow me", and these times are not exclusive to a crisis situation or one that needs results really quickly.  The key however, is to make sure that each style that a manager has in his 'quiver' is used to full effect and at the appropriate time.

If you think about the history of leadership development in the post world war era, much of what was achieved in the world war 2 was through the military, and though a highly organized labor movement that was set on a common goal of production at massive rates regardless of cost of efficiency.  Because the government was buying, nobody was specifically out to compete with each other, the free market economy was let loose and everyone was united behind a common goal.  In the army, tactics were devised at headquarters and plans drawn up.  The soldiers did what they were told to do - all the way down the command chain and then acted upon those instructions.  In the majority of cases, where armies from different countries collaborated with each other, there were successes.  Is it surprising therefore that the leadership styles that came after the war were based upon this highly successful model?  Oligarchy defeated the most powerful nation on earth at the time, and so it made sense to transfer this to the workplace throughout the 50's and 60's.

As time moved on, other ideas about how to lead became popular, as well as office design and a myriad of strategy and consulting ideas and companies - as corporations found it difficult to continue to lead on their own.  Much of today's structure within a modern organization is based on this old oligarchic structure for two major reasons in my opinion.  The first reason is habit.  As we essentially are brought up by parents in an oligarchy, it makes sense that transference of this to a workplace would be no big step.  There is after all a certain order with having a boss. The second reason is one of comfort.  People tend to feel more comfortable knowing that they have their own little fiefdom, knowing exactly what they are responsible for - can take pride in doing it well, and rest assured that someone else is thinking of the hard stuff!  Shareholders also have traditionally been happier it seems when there is one person to blame, as as shareholders seem to have become the oxygen that a company needs, the shareholders had better be comfortable.

Polyarchy's turn this all on it's head.  For a start there seems to be too much chaos.  Suddenly, everyone is in charge, and in order to progress, every individual needs to innovate, to make suggestions, to not just turn up and clock in and out, but to think about ways to improve the very job you are in, to make efficiencies and to suggest ways to further the overall goals of the company.  Wow!, that's got to be way off most people's comfort zones.

But as a leader, one must try to fully understand that complex adaptive leadership recognizes the modern workplace for what it is, and addresses these issues, so that essentially, order is brought out of that chaos (at least in the eyes of the leader and his/her followers).  The essence of understanding these leadership styles, and keeping in place the 4+4 principles, and utilizing all the tools that come with it will mean that as the marketplace changes, so too will the company be in a position to change with it.  Instead of all the major decisions being with just one person at the top, decisions can be made quickly at ground level .  Instead of outside help being required to make strategy decisions, the company of thousands of employees can all share ideas themselves.  After all, just because you work for a company, doesn't mean you are not a consumer of that companies goods too, so why wouldn't you know what is needed?

As I become a leader in the future, it is these principles that I will have to constantly remind myself of. This course and Nick Obolensky's book will be a valuable resource.  As I develop and get to use all of the styles, I'll gradually fill up my "quiver" with everything I need for a true leader, in the sense that I can carefully and skillfully combine the traits of an oligarchy and polyarchy whenever they are needed to be employed.  I guess this is how my future strategy will be shaped; gaining a new style and getting the opportunities to use them.  Then looking for new opportunities to practice each style until I am adept at just pulling out a new arrow and firing from the hip!