Hierarchal and oligarchy systems of leadership have their reason and purpose for implementation. In some cases, these types of leadership are logical like war or primary education. This type of system has been around since man starting to organize (Obolensky, 2016). These systems mean that a few or one person leads the organization or institution. One could even argue that there are systems that exist in markets or in top companies that dominate over the Fortune 500 (Melville, 2011). These companies are so massive and so large that other companies struggle to compete without the capital needed to overcome. When the conditions are right to drive an organization to use these type of systems, there is usually a demand for more directive leadership and trust and empowerment is restricted to a few instead of the whole.
While these systems could be logical depending on the situation, the world is increasingly complex, and companies are so large that these systems cannot be sustained by the few. These conditional and redundant systems need a fresh look on leadership and development of the organization. Good modern leaders recognize the need to adapt, to empower, to entrust and to allow the complex to grow. These leaders set the conditions instead of the conditions setting the company. They create the boundaries and set the limits rather than the environment establishing the norms. Leaders recognize a need to "let go" and prevent micromanagement. Large organizations should consider looking at the whole and ensure that the processes are complete rather than doing (Obolesky, 2016). Companies can now centralize management into just one of many nodes throughout the chaos.
Throughout the last few weeks there has been extensive study in poligarchy system applied to complex adaptive systems. In this model, I have learned how to react to nodes throughout the complex. I absorbed the idea that leaders establish the conditions and allow the forces to execute. This is a long time coming in my leadership development. I have recently, changed my lexicon from I to We in my organization. Learning how to use those nodes that help me lead such as my family node, my problem-solving node, my peer group node, and my team nodes, all provide guidance when I need it. Over the past two decades, my definition of leadership has changed. This realization has enabled me to understand what my position of leadership means. I am not alone, and leadership is not done in a vacuum. This class is the first of many in complex adaptive systems. I hope that this program will help me understand the nodes in my complex and rely on them when the organization needs their help. Over the next three years, I will retire from the Air Force, the relationships that I establish today will matter tomorrow. Today is a new start in my development.
My strategy going forward is to establish my own molecules of influence to pull from. To establish my own conditions of leadership and bounds for my team to operate in. I hope that I can inspire, motivate and mentor those around me in the CAS model. Leadership is not a solo project and is not restricted to the few. As I enter the next phase of my life, my complex will grow and my leadership in uniform will dwindle. It is up to me to figure out how to change the balance.
References
Melville, A. (2011). Oligarchy. In B. BadieD. Berg-Schlosser & L. Morlino (Eds.), International encyclopedia of political science (pp. 1739-1742). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412959636.n399
Obolensky, N. (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Ramos, J. (2017). Oligarchy. In F. Moghaddam (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of political behavior (pp. 555-558). Thousand Oaks,, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781483391144.n250
No comments:
Post a Comment