The Vicious Circle of Leadership

November 30, 2016

The Vicious Circle of Leadership

The vicious circle for leaders per Obolensky is:

1.      Follower asks for advice – demonstrates low skill to the leader

2.      Leader gets concerned

3.      Leader takes a more hands on approach

4.      Follower’s confidence lowers

5.      Follower thinks he has to defer more

These steps are illustrated as a vicious circle on page 162 of Obolensky’s book (Obolensky, 2016). 

This vicious circle happens at the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD).  Part of the reason that this happens is because CCAD in the past did not typically promote employees that would make good supervisors.  CCAD tended to promote the best artisans into management positions.  This was, and still is, a tendency to confuse good mechanical skills and knowledge with leadership ability.  Many shops have suffered with poor leadership in which supervisors promoted beyond their capabilities end up getting into the vicious circle and do not have a clue on how to break the cycle.

The effects on the organization is poor morale and a great distrust of upper management.  Upper management makes the selections for supervisors.  Therefore, if their selections are poor, then the artisans suffering under the “rule” of upper management’s choice, they blame upper management for their short-sightedness.  This leads to an un-necessary migration of capable employees into the unacceptable level of I & II followership (Obolensky page 159, 2016). 

To break this vicious circle, a new circle needs to be created.  Since CCAD doesn’t have a sales, marketing, or distribution departments, the new circle would encompass Finance/Accounting and operations.  Here is an alternate circle:

1.      Follower asks for advice and is asked for his opinion on how to solve the issue

2.      Leader feels less burdened by answering questions that he feels subordinates should know

3.      Leader continues to empower his employees and actively solicit their input on decisions

4.      Follower’s confidence and morale climb to new heights

5.      Follower’s productivity and job satisfaction reach record levels

Some may feel that this is an overly optimistic scenario.  It may well be.  However, the longest journey begins with the first step.  Communication and the ability for supervisors to develop their subordinates seems like a good place to start.

John H2O

Reference:

Obolensky, Nick. (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge

Reflections on Chaos

November 16, 2016

Complex Problem Resolution Theory

I just read about an exercise called the chaos game.  It is at the beginning of Nick Obolensky’s book, “Complex Adaptive Strategy”.  The exercise is posted at the beginning of chapter 6.  The purpose of the game is to give a complex task with a few simple rules to the players, and see if they can come up with a solution.  The game has been played in many different training scenarios.  The game needs between 8-50 players with an area large enough to accommodate the players so that they do not touch each other.  The rules are as follows:

1.      Stay within the boundaries.

2.      Use the space when you start and continue – you will want to gravitate towards each other, but this will make it harder – so keep your distance from others and use the space.

3.      Move slowly and make the minimum needed minor adjustments to your position.  Cover the least possible ground – if you make big and/or fast movements across the area you will be unpopular and be breaking the rules.

4.      You can only stand still when your objective is achieved.

5.      Objective:  What you need to do is to adjust your position slowly and gradually so that you are at an equal distance from each person you have chosen as your reference points – equal distance does NOT necessarily mean in between.  You could be at a point such as an equidistant triangle to position yourself.

6.      You cannot let the other two people know that they are your reference points.  It is supposed to be only known to you.

7.      The monitor of the game will start a time hack when the game begins.

The facilitator tells them to begin.  The facilitator needs to be patient and not try to give direction or instructions.  He must also remind the players of the rule not to communicate in any way with the other players.

The lesson learned is that the more complex the situation and task, the less directive traditional leadership is needed.  It is a counter-intuitive concept, but one that I feel has been proven accurate.

The implication of this game on organizational strategy is that it demonstrates the need for complex organizations to evolve towards a polyarchy structure in which leaders empower the workers to accomplish complex tasks efficiently.

It also synchronizes with my point that an oligarchy system has a hard time accepting solutions and feedback from the artisans performing the work.  Perhaps if these organizations consisted of visionary leaders who would recognize the counter-intuitiveness of communication feedback from the bottom to the top, that they would be strong enough to implement such a process.

I will attempt to use this strategy as I attempt to solve one of my wildly important goals (WIGs) at work.  I believe the key to the strategy will be to give out very general guidelines and not try to direct the process.  This WIG has been a thorn in the side of CCAD for a long time.  I am interested in finding out if this tactic can resolve the issue.  If it can, then CCAD will be able to use the template of resolution to enact a long-term strategy with one of its stakeholders.

John H2O

Reference:

Obolensky, Nick (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership 2nd Edition. New York: Taylor and

            Francis 

Changing Dynamics of Leadership

November 9, 2016

The Changing Nature of Leadership

 

The leadership charade as described in Obolensky’s book can only be broken by developing strong, secure, and humble leaders who are able to take input from the lower echelon workers within an organization.  It takes strength and courage for a leader to say “I don’t know”.  Full Disclosure:  My guess for the exercise at the beginning of Chapter 4 was close.  I estimated: Top management = 10%, Middle management = 20%, and Lower echelon workers = 70%.  This was to represent the actual breakdown of ideas and solutions to organizational challenges.  I was close, but no cigar!  The actual breakdown was: Top = 10%, Middle = 30%, and Lower = 60%.  I was off by 10% between the lower and middle management levels.  I know that within the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD), which employs a plethora of MBA graduates, has senior managers that have heard about this concept.  However, it doesn’t appear as if our new initiative, the “Art of the Possible” is actively soliciting input from the bottom up.

 

If the charade were to be effectively broken, then mandatory town hall meetings with upper/middle management and the lower echelon of workers would become mandatory.  This would provide the best feedback loop to generate the ideas needed to drive improved processes.  It would also require experienced facilitators that would have to break through resentment, anger, and the charade game of “knowing but pretending not to know” (Obolensky, 2016). 

 

This change format alone allowing the feedback loop from the bottom to the top to be complete would represent radical change for our organization.  As others have probably read on my previous posts, CCAD is a classic oligarchy.  It has a surprisingly small military presence and a very large civilian workforce presence.  The civilian supervisory chain mirrors that of the military.  This structure alone makes it difficult to evolve an organization in a needed direction.  When you throw in complexity of the organization, personalities, history, and culture, it is nearly impossible to foresee CCAD ever moving into a polyarchy type structure that solicits ideas from the bottom up.

 

While the static nature of CCAD doesn’t directly affect my position, nor would it if the evolution were to take place, I feel as if I am working against the trend.  Many of the concepts described in Obolensky’s book were ideas and processes that I was already utilizing.  For example, in an effort to solicit information from the bottom up, I work that into my programs when I am conducting safety training of any type.  I ask for problems, complaints, useful suggestions, and process improvements from the lower echelon of artisans that are doing the work.  One idea they had ended up saving CCAD $350k - $500k in past fiscal year.  I am in a unique position to move freely through all echelons of the organization due to my senior rank and position.  In an effort to ensure that initiatives that I have begun don’t become a “cult of personality” where a concept dies when I move on, I actively solicit strong teams that will be capable of carrying on the process when I am gone.

 

John Hescott

 

Reference:

Obolensky, Nick. (2016). “Complex Adaptive Leadership Second Edition”. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group

Complex Adaptive Sytems

November 5, 2016

Complex Adaptive Systems

Complex adaptive systems are hard to find because it goes against most of what corporate managers have been taught in the past 100 years.  It is a frightening prospect to venture into the unknown.  Taking calculated risks are one thing.  Attempting to change an organization from a current structure that requires evolving and different ways of thinking is challenging. 

In my organization, a current crop of MBA graduates hold the highest civilian spots in management.  Some of the ideas that they are implementing have merit.  For instance, one of our competitors in the helicopter overhaul industry was trying to show that a modulated cockpit would be faster, stronger, and easier to install than the way that the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD) did it.  They were pitching the idea to the decision makers at the Department of Defense (DOD).  One of our supervisors approached them and in a classic jujitsu move, he not only acknowledged what they were saying about a process improvement, but he wanted to buy their entire inventory on the spot!  They were speechless and didn’t know how to respond.  We executed a tactic that defeated part of their long-term strategy with that simple maneuver.  I think it was brilliant.  This was an example of not letting boundaries or restrictions be imposed upon an organization from the outside.  It may happen sometimes, but being flexible and able to adapt to the changes is key.

Our organization severely lacks continuous feedback from the employees.  The workers usually produce the best ideas for innovation and change.  These ideas are not formally solicited and acted upon.  I have tried to mitigate that deficiency by doing that in my role as the aviation safety officer.  As I tour the industrial complex, I learn things from the workers that I did not know.  For instance, we developed a liquid metal technique that can refurbish the inside of a turbine engine.  It may not seem like a big concept, but I believe it is one of the reasons that are engines receive high marks for quality and performance from the users of the product.  In that aspect, we have been successful with several examples that could be attributed to the positive side of the ledger labeled the “Butterfly Effect”.

John H2O

Reference:  Obolensky, Nick (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership 2nd Edition. New York: Taylor and Francis

Complexity Science & CCAD

Posted: November 3, 2016

Complexity Science

 

The Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD) has two main missions.  They are repairing damaged aircraft and upgrading older models of aircraft into an updated configuration.   These missions have not changed much throughout the years.  As the introduction to new technology has accelerated, CCAD has seen its own strategy evolve throughout the years.  This has happened with personnel staffing, industrial processes, and recently, an influx of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) projects to eliminate waste and cost overruns. 

 

Personnel staffing has evolved over time in key positions.  The Deputy Commander of the Depot used to be a Lieutenant Colonel from the Army.  It is now a civilian GS-15 position.  That transition is one that I agree with because it provides a stable long-term civilian occupying the Deputy slot, rather than a military officer who would only be in the position for a couple of years.  This provides the Depot with long-term continuity and a knowledge base that contains more depth and breadth than would be possible with a military officer.  The flip side of this coin is that leaders can sometimes stagnate.  They are resistant to new ideas or changes that happen within the environment.  This can lead to a mentality when questioned to: “We have always done it that way”.  Obviously, that is not the optimal answer.  There have been other switches between military personnel and civilian personnel.  Many of them in the Flight Test section of CCAD seem to fluctuate back and forth over time.  That being said, the Deputy Commander position is the one that I find the most significant in the realm of personnel changes.  I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that CCAD used to employ nearly 7,000 people.  Of that one half of them were private contractors.  CCAD now employs 3,500 people.  The work load is not the same as it was when the 7,000 employee peak was reached, but there is a significant cost savings realized through the reduction.  Additionally, reductions in workload were a result of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns winding down.  This lead to a decreased demand for aircraft and a longer lead time in repairing them and returning them to service.

 

CCAD has come up with cutting edge industrial processes covering a variety of skilled trades.  These processes have exceeded the processes of companies such as Sikorsky and Boeing.  There remains much more that can be done.  A limiting factor is where Sikorsky and Boeing draw the line on approving CCAD processes for installation on the aircraft.  As astute observer might note that both Sikorsky and Boeing compete for some of the same contracts for aircraft that CCAD does!  Therefore, they are a supplier and partner to CCAD, while at the same time they are functioning as business rivals!  It reminds me of the Yin Yang model where polar opposites are shown to coexist.  Further, they are shown to be dependent on each other.  That is how the situation between CCAD and its private enterprise competitors compares.

 

LSS has been the rage for a few years now and have provided tangible benefits to many private organizations as well as governmental organizations.  LSS seeks to maximize efficiencies, save money, incorporate ergonomics into a scientific formula.  The problem with LSS is that they operate from a deterministic viewpoint where they feel they can control outcomes and prevent chaotic outcomes arising from complex systems.  They also ignore Edward Lorenz’s butterfly effect.  As a result of a weather modeling system, Lorenz dropped the last three digits in a six digit decimal calculation during the second iteration of his weather experiment.  He didn’t think it would be significant.  It was.  Over time, the simulations varied apart from each other as possible.  This became known as the butterfly effect.  Small changes can induce large (even unintended) changes to a process or an organization over time.  For example, our LSS experts did a project in which their bottom line was that all product defects had to be processed the same way.  That is good except for all of them shouldn’t be processed the same way!  Some of them required executing warranties.  Some were taken care of by certain organizations, while other parts were the responsibility of some other different organization.  The one size fits all scenario developed into serious challenge for CCAD as they struggled to execute product warranties on defective items, only to find out that because they processed them uniformly, they were unable to collect on the warranty work!

 

A hybrid system of LSS, complexity/adaptability thinking, and the “Art of the Possible” is now emerging at CCAD.  With proper guidance of the senior leadership, this could be successful.  An effort needs to be made to solicit ideas from the bottom up and gain the buy in of the employees.  Otherwise, the new venture will be viewed cynically at just another attempt to institute changes because of a crisis.  Older employees have seen these new initiatives come and go.  I will be long retired from military and civilian service 10 years from now.  My hope is that this hybrid system is successful and 10 years down the road, CCAD is still operating and turning out high quality, cutting edge, and aircraft for our armed forces.

 

John H2O