A633.6.4.RB - Circle of Leadership

Critically think about how strategy is formulated in your organization and include both upward and downward leadership. Now, considering all of the readings in this module and the learning exercises regarding upward and downward leadership; reflect on the diagram (figure 9.5; p.152) "the vicious circle for leaders". Does this happen in your organization? What are the effects on the organization? Create a new circle that would promote strong followership and even leadership at the lower levels of the organization. Ensure that this reflects the actions and involvements of all significant functions such as; Sales, Marketing, Finance, Accounting, Operations, Marketing, and Distribution.

Strategy within my organization relies heavily on downward leadership as well as upward leadership. I will analyze the question as it pertains to my squadron of 500 maintenance personnel.

The 509th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron maintains 20 B-2 Stealth Bombers. "Aircraft and equipment readiness is the maintenance mission" (AFI 21-101, 2015, para 1.5). Our strategy is simple; train the people we have to meet the skill level needed to maintain our aircraft. Squadron and Group leadership "ensures manning resources are strategically distributed to provide the greatest possibility for mission success" (AFI 21-101, 2015, para 2.6.1). The manning situation in any given day changes depending on several factors such as medical, training, appointments, leave, and deployments. For example, today we had two aircraft scheduled to fly. There were 7 Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO) and 6 Airmen (Amn) scheduled to work dayshift. However, two of the NCOs were out-processing for deployments, one was assigned for a special task, one had several appointments and one was not fully qualified. That left me two fully-qualified NCOs. Also, out of the 6 Airmen, 1 was assigned a special task and another had the day off so I only had four Airmen available to work. As the production superintendent, it is my responsibility to direct the overall maintenance effort (AFI 21-101, 2015). I had to strategically manage my NCOs and Airmen in order to fly the aircraft as scheduled while also allowing time for lunch and appointments. That would not be possible without upward communication from the NCOs and Amn. Nor would it be possible to successfully accomplish the mission without sideways communication from the Section Chiefs letting me know about qualifications, appointments and special taskings for the Airmen. Also, I cannot effectively do my job without receiving downward communication from my bosses about the flying schedule for the day and any deviations or changes that may arise.


Reflecting on the diagram (Obolensky, 2014, figure 9.5; p.162) "the vicious circle for leaders", I realize that I have seen this in my organization. If I am truly honest, in the past I have been the leader that gets concerned and takes a more hands-on approach. For example, when I held the role of the Support Section Chief I had a open-door policy, eager to help in any way I could and eventually found myself in a similar situation as the investment banker on page 160 of the text. Looking back, I was often too helpful and possibly (probably) drove my followers and myself into the vicious circle. After considering the readings in this module, I understand "behaviour breeds behaviour" (Obolensky, 2014, p. 161). My willingness to help my team lessened my follower's confidence which drove them to come to me more often with problems and led to me getting more involved. 

As the Production Superintendent (Pro Super) I am in an office with other Senior NCOs who all, in my opinion, operate at Level 5 followership. I would venture to guess that is why we were chosen for this position. Pro Supers have to make quick decisions about aircraft status and must manage, control and direct resources effectively to accomplish the mission (AFI 21-101, 2015). My job requires me to, as Obolensky states, get on and inform supervision in a routine way such as during turn-over and daily production meetings (2014). Maintenance supervision rely on Production Superintendents to manage the aircraft and personnel on a daily basis and figure out the best course of action in hazardous and sometimes emergency situations (i.e. an in-flight emergency landing).

While my office operates at a Level 5 followership, I manage NCOs and Amn who operate at different levels of followership. Therefore, it is important to know that how a leader behaves will dictate the level of followership maturity (Obolensky 2014). A new Airman may wait to be told what maintenance to be done and tools needed whereas an qualified NCO may seek approval and ask for suggestions. Conversely, there may be a new Amn who asks for suggestions and some NCOs who wait to be told what to do. There are a myriad of situations which will require 'situational' consideration to advance their followership 'skills'. "The key point is to start where the observed behavior is (rather than where you want to see it) and go step by step" (Oboloensky, 2014, p. 161).



I designed a new circle; one that would promotes strong followership and leadership at any level with my organization. My cycle starts out with the follower asking for advice on how to accomplish, or approach a new task. The leader leads realizes the followers potential and takes on a coaching or mentoring approach, thus building confidence in the followers ability to take charge of tasks. As this cycle happens, the follower will continue to grow as a follower, and will continue to build more and more confidence in his or her own abilities. Eventually, they will reach the Level 5 followership needed to be a highly productive employee. Leadership has a huge role in helping the employee reach this level. Yet, organizations stand or fall partly on the basis of how well their followers follow (Kelly, 1988). An follower’s confidence is important, but having confidence in your follower’s abilities is immeasurableI designed a new circle; one that would promotes strong followership and leadership at any level with my organization.  My cycle starts out with the follower asking for advice on how to accomplish, or approach a new task. The leader leads realizes the followers potential and takes on a coaching or mentoring approach, thus building confidence in the followers ability to take charge of tasks. As this cycle happens, the follower will continue to grow as a follower, and will continue to build more and more confidence in his or her own abilities. Eventually, they will reach the Level 5 followership needed to be a highly productive employee. Leadership has a huge role in helping the employee reach this level. Yet, organizations stand or fall partly on the basis of how well their followers follow (Kelly, 1988). An follower’s confidence is important, but having confidence in your follower’s abilities is immeasurable. 

References:
AFI 21-101. (2015, May 21). Washington, D.C.: Dept. of the Air Force. Retrieved March 18, 2018, from http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication/afi21-101/afi21-101.pdf

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership (2nd ed..). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148. 

A633.5.3.RB - Reflections on Chaos

For this task, I was asked to watch the below video and reflect on what the exercise meant to me. I will describe how it impacts my understanding of chaos theory. Finally, I will discuss the implications that this understanding has on strategy.

The video "Who needs leaders" (2008) was a perfect 3 minute representation of chaos theory. To be honest, I watched the video before reading the assigned chapters this week but I am glad I did. The "Who needs leaders?" exercise helped me visualize Obolensky's 8 key principles on how to lead complex tasks.

Complexity works well when you have:

Underlying, implicit & unifying common purpose ↔ Clear, explicit & individual objectives
Discretion and freedom to act ↔ Boundaries enclosing the action
Skill/will of the individual people ↔ A few simple rules of the organization
Ambiguity, randomness far from equilibrium ↔ Continuous & unambiguous feedback

(Obolensky, 2014, p. 105).

The exercise demonstrates how polyarchy and chaos/complexity can be used effectively through a simple exercise, letting members figure out and navigate the chaos and complexity for themselves while also in relation to others. The members eventually begin to recognize and observe the decisions of others and subconsciously work together to solve the task. The exercise, at first, seems impossible. Yet with a clear objective, a few simple rule, clear boundaries, freedom to act and continuous feedback, the task is quickly solved. Members need to have a clear vision or starting point, a clear idea of the objectives to be reached, and as few rules as possible within the operating boundaries of the organization in order to meet the demands of a complex, changing environment.

While there was a degree of chaos I enjoyed that there was also order. There definitely was an underlying order even though the people did not move in a predictable path. Leaders need to have the awareness to embrace the chaos and lead by 'wu-wei' or 'the art of inaction' (Obolensky, 2014, p 8). Furthermore, "the more complex things are, the less traditional leadership one needs" (Obolensky, 2014, p 101). The video demonstrates that although it seems contradictory, there is order in chaos and simplicity in complexity.

The implications this exercise can have on strategy and chaos theory exemplify the need for tolerance of ambiguity and chaos. The balance is embracing uncertainty while realizing that leaders should not abandon order and control (Obolensky, 2014, p. 105). Ambiguity seems chaotic but can be a good thing, allowing members the freedom to act and show that they have the skill to do their job. Another implication on strategy is that making near or future plans is difficult to predict. The illusion of control that management has leads them to assume that they have complete control over the outcome of a situation in an instance where they do not (2017). Leaders cannot control everything no matter how hard they may try.

The video "Who needs leaders" perfectly demonstrated Obolensky's 8 key principles of leading complexity. The exercise shows how chaos and complexity can be used effectively. The video also exemplified that there is order in chaos and simplicity in complexity. Lastly, the exercise exhibits that ambiguity and uncertainty should be embraced as not everything can be planned or predicted.

References:
Obolensky, N. (2008). Who Needs Leaders. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Gower Publishing.
The Illusion of Control – You Are Your Worst Enemy. (2017). Retrieved March 18, 2018, from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/the-illusion-of-control-you-are-your-worst-enemy

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Reflecting on the previous exercise and this week's 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?

For this task, I was asked to reflect on the shift in leadership and if I think it is indicative of what is happening in my organization.  I will go over how leadership dynamics in my organization have promoted these changes and the implications on strategy.  In order to fulfill the requirements of this assignment, lets first discuss why the shift is occurring.

The opening thought experiment and question in Chapter 4 had me guessing a value of 20% to the percentage of solutions that I think originally come from the top of an organization. In reflecting on why the shift in leadership is occurring, I realized that it is due to survival.

Chapter 2 of the text showed us that technology, human awareness and knowledge have experienced a rapid rate of change. Obolensky (2014) states "the old way of leading... does not really stack up any more, as increasingly better educated followers know faster than leaders what is happening and often what needs to be done" (p. 18). Combined with the fact that power concentration is atomized, makes leadership survival dependent on solutions and input from the bottom of the organization rather than just the top.

What worked (leadership styles) decades ago, may not work today. "Complexity and rapid change characterize today’s strategic environment, driven by globalization, the diffusion of technology, and demographic shifts" (The National Military Strategy, 2015). The ability of leadership to adapt to changes in technology, demographics and globalization is increasingly crucial to an organization’s survival.

The Air Force, in my opinion, has realized the shift in leadership and is trying to adapt. For example, the Air Force vision statement is The World’s Greatest Air Force—Powered by Airmen, Fueled by Innovation. Hamel (2011) stated that the most powerful managers, who are furthest away from the daily activities, tend to have the worst solutions. The Air Force recognizes that it must rely on all Airmen (not just upper level leadership) and innovation in order to survive and grow in today's society.

Leadership dynamics throughout the military have shifted to accommodate these changes. Gone are the days where young Airmen and new recruits are treated like peons (as portrayed in movies such as Full Metal Jacket). Equality and fairness have replaced ridicule and disrespect. Nowadays, the Air Force empower, inspire and motivate Airmen.

General Rand, the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) Commander states, "We remain committed to our Airmen by empowering them to perform as an elite, highly disciplined team" (2016). In the 2016 AFGSC Strategic Plan, General Rand outlines focus areas such as professional development, training, mentorship, communication and partnership. "I call upon all Airmen to leverage the strengths of our diversity of thought and ideas leading to innovative solutions" (Rand, 2016). Although the Air Force still follows a hierarchical structure, our leaders embrace the changing dynamic and invite bottom-up leadership.

The most important implications of this strategy are survival. In order for an organization to survive, its leaders must share their goals and visions with all level of the organization. Making sure everyone understands the goals and vision, all members can work toward achieving success.  Other implications may include increased communication, collaboration and innovation, thus closing the leadership gap.  "Behaviour breeds behavior" (Obolensky, 2014, p. 38).  

Due to technological advances, demographic shifts and globalization, leadership and power has shifted. In order to survive this shift, organizations have adapted their leadership strategy.  Rather than knowledge and power being concentrated at the top of an organization, solutions now flow from the bottom up.  The Air Force is no exception.  Although  it still follows a hierarchical structure, Air Force leaders encourage empowerment and innovation from all Airmen.  

Hamel, G. (2011). First, let's fire all the managers. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-manager

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Rand, R. (2016). Air Force Global Strike Command Strategic Plan. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from http://www.afgsc.af.mil/Portals/51/Docs/AFGSC%20Strategic%20Plan_2016_CC%20Signed.pdf?ver=2016-05-06-144801-403

The National Military Strategy. (2015, June). Retrieved March 11, 2018, from http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/2015_National_Military_Strategy.pdf

A633.3.4.RB_Complexity Science

This year marks my 14th year in the Air Force. Though my time has gone by quickly and a lot has changed, one thing remains the same...that airpower is an essential component of national security. Our purpose is to provide Global Vigilance—Global Reach—Global Power. For this task, I was asked to reflect on my organization's strategy, how it has evolved over time and describe what it will look like in 10 years. I will go over each stage of development and how feedback and strategy formulation have changed over time. In order to fulfill the requirements of this assignment, lets first discuss the current strategy.

The Air Force released the Strategic Master Plan (SMP) in 2015, which was a 20-year timeline to guide the organizing, training and equipping of the force. The SMP advances the imperatives set by America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future (2014), United States Air Force’s latest 30-year strategy. The two documents aim to provide a strategic framework and prepare the Air Force for success in the uncertain, rapidly changing environment of the future. The focus is on building an agile and inclusive force. Air Force Future Operating Concept: A View of the Air Force in 2035, also released in 2015, described a future for force development and focused on operational agility (Cohen, 2017). The plan intends to build a strategically agile force who display diverse ways of thinking for a more innovative Air Force.

While reading the Strategic Master Plan and 30-year strategy, I recognized an on-going Both/And approach. For example, the focus should not discount or diminish many of the successful ongoing efforts of today’s Airmen. Rather the SMP will provide the basis for determining what to continue doing and what should change (Strategic Master Plan, 2015). In fact, the SMP claims to be an iterative document to be revised every two years based on progress and changes to the defense strategy (2015). General Mark Welsh comments in the Forward (America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future, 2014), "This is an aspirational document, providing an 'over the horizon' sight picture ...that describe how the Air Force needs to look and act as we move towards a dynamic future". The set of documents released in 2014 and 2015 set general paths for our future; complementing past strategies instead of replacing them.

When I first joined in 2004, much of the Air Force attention seemed to be on fighting the global war on terrorism, developing airmen, and modernizing the force. In 2008, General Moseley released a new version of the U.S. Air Force Roadmap aimed at “recapitalization and modernization of its aging Air Force fleet” and outlined priorities for next-generation aircraft (Cohen, 2017). The Air Force Strategic Plan 2008 emphasized priorities such as strengthening the nuclear enterprise and caring for airmen and their families. The World’s Greatest Air Force—Powered by Airmen, Fueled by Innovation released in 2013 outlined general principles of the Air Force and charged Airman to look for smarter ways to do business. Eight months later, General Welsh issued Global Vigilance, Global Reach, Global Power for America. The document presented how core missions contribute to the defense of the nation (Cohen, 2017).

Over the past 10 (or so) years the Air Force has seen several strategy revisions depending on the Chief of Staff and the Service Secretary at the time. Strategic leadership shapes strategy and policy. Civilian leaders, Air Staff and top-level leadership meet periodically to discuss long-range strategies. Though ideas are encouraged from the bottom as well. Air Force vision, mission, strategy and doctrine are approved and published by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) through official channels.

In recent years our leaders have sent strategic documents through email, social media such as Notes to Airmen or CSAF Vector. "They now incorporate more photographs and inspirational quotes and are often rolled out with an accompanying public relations campaign, complete with press releases and YouTube videos" (Cohen, 2017). The documents help define and shape our mission and identity as well as create a dialogue about the direction of the service.

Hamel states, "the annual strategic planning process in most companies has changed hardly at all during the past decade or TWO" (1998). The same is true for the Air Force strategy. While the forms of distributing the strategy has evolved, the planning process has not. We need strategy innovation. However, challenging accepted norms is not easy in a hierarchical organization such as the Air Force. "As a large organization designed to operate under confusing, dangerous, and risky circumstances, the military needs discipline, rewards conservatism, and admires orthodoxy, but these are precisely the opposite traits needed to encourage innovation" (Cohen, 2017). Therefore, I do not believe our organization will evolve much in the next 10 years. I foresee the same strategies being slightly revised and updated every few years but nothing extraordinary.

Reflecting on my organization's strategy over the past 10 years, the Air Force has experienced several revisions but still focuses on the mission and airpower. The current strategy revolves around building an agile and inclusive force. Different strategic documents have been released and renamed multiple times from the Air Force Roadmap in 2008 to America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future (2014). However, the strategy formulation has not changed as CSAFs and Service Secretaries still update and publish the strategy. Unfortunately, due to the strict hierarchical nature of the military the process will not change and I do not believe it will evolve much in the next 10 years.

America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future. (2014, July). Retrieved March 5, 2018, from http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/2014_AF_30_Year_Strategy_2.pdf

Cohen, R. S. (2017, February 28). Air Force Strategic Planning. Retrieved March 04, 2018, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1765.html

Hamel, G. (1998, Winter98). Strategy Innovation and the Quest for Value. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Sloan Management Review. pp. 7-14.

Strategic Master Plan. (2015, May). Retrieved March 5, 2018, from http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/Force%20Management/Strategic_Master_Plan.pdf?timestamp=1434024300378

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems

According to Obolensky (2014), a complex adaptive system is an organizational construct with a flat hierarchy, dynamic process and policies focused on team members, effective communication, transparency, and a flexible strategy development process. For this task, I was asked to find a company that reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and reflect on how it applies to my organization. In order to fulfill the requirements of this assignment, lets first take a look of what a Complex Adaptive System is, and how it is employed at Morning Star and St Luke.

Traditional companies are structured based on specialty (function) and hierarchy (rank). However, we have seen an evolution from functional silos or departments within a hierarchical organization functioning independently of each other to a cross-functional matrix (Obolensky, 2014). In the CAS system, traditional management levels have been removed, flattening the organization’s hierarchy. Employees, at all levels, now have increased responsibility and greater control over how they perform their job.

Employee's at Morning Star contribute personal mission statements to the company rather than following the traditional top down constructed mission. Additionally, "Morning Star has no centrally defined roles, so employees get the opportunity to take on bigger responsibilities as they develop their skills and gain experience" (Hamel, 2011). Self-managing professionals at Morning Star use internal motivation and competition to develop their skills. There is no hierarchy, titles or promotions; colleagues are recognized by competency.

Another company that uses the CAS model is St. Luke communications. Like Morning Star, St. Luke's goal is to revolutionize the way business is done. The advertising agency pushes people to their limits and "encourage creativity by literally destabilizing the workplace" (Coutu, 2000). Rather than empowerment, St Luke's focus is on ownership. Everyone receives the same amount of shares at the end of the year, there are no titles or assigned desks, and there is no hierarchy.

The non-traditional structure seen in St Luke's and Morning Star is also seen at W.L. Gore, a successful manufacturing enterprise. Instead of the traditional ideas of bosses and employees, Gore has leaders, diverse teams that work together, and depend on personal commitments that each Associate makes -to help the enterprise grow (Working at Gore, n.d.). Similar to Morning Star's personal mission statement, Associates at W.L. Gore focus on "core commitments". However, the structure in not necessarily flat, it is considered a "lattice structure". The different approach to strategy, based on interconnection among Associates where direct communication, is seen as critical to Gore's success (Working at Gore, n.d.).

Martin Reeves (2014) discusses how companies need to have great strategies now more than ever before when considering the rapidly changing and complex markets. He describes strategy as getting a job done and winning competitively in a particular situation (TED, 2014). Reeves goes on to say there is no such thing as the best strategy but the approach to strategy needs to match the situation. According to Reeves' presentation, my organization might be considered an adaptive environment.

The United States Air Force, although driven by a turbulent technology industry, follows the extreme hierarchical structure. The military is still structured by function and rank. The 'CAS' type organization would not work in the Air Force or military. We are in the business of defending our Nation’s interests around the world; thus, the environment in which we operate, while complex, is dealt with through standardization and doctrine.

The government could, however, learn from this evolving strategy. As things become more complex, strategy formulation needs to evolve and embrace not only the traditional approach but also the more dynamic approach (Obolensky, 2014, p. 33). Furthermore, the military has expanded their focus on feedback and need to continue to do so.  It has moved towards a more fluid and inclusive 360-degree approach rather than the traditional top down type feedback.

Organizations are evolving from the traditional hierarchical types to more flexible, flat hierarchies. Complex adaptive systems are emerging. Morning Star and St. Luke's exemplify how informal structures are successful. W.L. Gore is a prominent model for CAS although they use a "lattice" structure. All three organizations rely heavily on personal responsibility and commitments while not concerned about titles or promotions. The Air Force is organized by function and rank. Due to the inherent nature of the military, the non-hierarchical type of structure would not work though certain ideas such as flexibility and feedback could be beneficial.

Coutu, D. L. (2000). Creating the Most Frightening Company on Earth. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 142-150.
Hamel, G. (2011). First, Let's Fire all the Managers (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48-60.
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
TED Institute. (2014, December 22). Martin Reeves: Your strategy needs a strategy. Retrieved January 28, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE_ETgaFVo8&feature=youtu.be
Working at Gore. (n.d.). Retrieved March 03, 2018, from https://www.gore.com/about/working-at-gore