I believe that the shift in leadership to a more bottom-up
structure is happening because the traditional top-bottom model can no longer
support organizations in this dynamic and complex environment that we live
in. As I have been learning in this
course, globalization and technology has changed how business is done (Obolensky,
2014). I believe that the whole of
humanity is making a shift to a more holistic way of viewing the world. Whether it be in the practices of science,
medicine or business, humanity is moving towards a more integrated system of
working with our environment. Holism is
the concept “that everything exists in relationship, in a context of connection
and meaning -- and that any change or event causes a realignment, however
slight, throughout the entire pattern” (Holistic Education Network website,
n.d.). In fact, we see something
similar called Systems Thinking or Systems Approach that has been applied to
both science and even business (Holistic
Education Network website, n.d.). In
business for example, Senge (n.d.) describes systems thinking as a way of
looking at the world or society as a complex system of interrelated parts. Senge (n.d.) explains:
In a systems approach to a problem, you start by realizing that there is no inherent end to a system. There is no such thing as a complete theory. The quest is to look at a problem more comprehensively. The resolutions come from rethinking how we deal with complexity.
Obolensky (2014) points out this visible shift as well when he
talks about the flow towards polyarchy and away from oligarchy. Obolensky’s comparison to the Taoist
philosophy further strengthens the idea that leadership strategy is naturally
moving towards these holistic traditions because we live in a very complex environment
(Obolensky, 2014). He explains that
there is a “swing towards Yin” (p. 7 of 249) thinking and gives the examples of
the birth of quantum mechanics which he describes as a “sign of this deeper
change” (p.7 of 249). How this translates into the business world is
the understanding that organizations are not just a machine with a bunch of
moving parts working independently, instead it is an organic system with many
parts or “organs” that rely on each other to make the entire organism
survive. The idea that all parts are
equally important and contribute equally as much is something that many senior
executive directors in companies are starting to realize (Obolensky,
2014). There is a growing realization
that the structure or foundation of an organization (the employees), are many
times closer to the problem, and therefore can offer the best solutions
(Obolensky, 2014). Therefore, the trend
towards a bottom-up strategy is an inevitable progression that mirrors this
natural evolution that we are seeing in society.
I believe that this is indicative of what is happening in my
organization as well, because I have seen at least on my regional level a shift
towards more bottom-up practices. For
example, in the last three or four years we have begun regional and campus
level town hall meetings. These meetings
are held at regular intervals, and staff, faculty and leadership attend these
meetings. Sometimes they are simply open
forums where employees can question leadership about things that are happening
throughout the organization or platforms
where they can offer feedback and propose solutions. I have actually seen changes come from these
meetings and conference. I personally
feel that our organization values our expertise in the field and they
understand that there must be a platform where we can express and offer our
knowledge for the betterment of the organization. On some occasions they have also requested
staff members to volunteer for temporary teams for certain projects. Team members are selected based on the skills
and knowledge that the individual has and can contribute to particular tasks. This is another visible example of how our organization
recognizes the importance of bottom up strategic practices.
Three reasons that I feel our organization is supportive of a
bottom-up structure and sensitive to the need to encourage interactive dialogue
between top and bottom members of the organization, is first of all, that we are geographically spread out. We have three major campuses, two in the U.S.
and our Worldwide campus that encompasses both our online programs and campuses
in over 150 locations in the world. We
also have a campus in Singapore and Berlin.
All these separate entities belong to the same organization, yet due to
logistics, military politics and resources, each campus is somewhat unique. We cannot use identical strategies across the
board and our leadership team is not familiar with the nuances of each campus. The best resources for solving problems are
the people who work at each campus. The
second reason that our organization supports a bottom-up perspective to
problem-solving is the diversity within our institution. Again, we have people from many different
cultures, religions, and beliefs working together. Even our leadership team is diverse. For this reason, the bottom-up approach
allows for a broader spectrum of ideas and solutions that can respect all these
differences. Lastly, the rate of
technological change that happens just within our organization makes it
difficult to adhere to a traditional top-bottom approach to business. First of all, not all of our leaders have an
engineering education, or experience in computer software, or even a military background.
With changes happening so rapidly, the organization
relies heavily on the expertise of employees in these sectors to provide the solutions
to complex problems that are beyond the scope of our leadership team. According
to Obolensky (2014) the scale and pace of change has been extremely rapid in
just the last 100 years. It makes sense
to pool the resources from the bottom of the pyramid where they are more
plentiful.
My organization still has a long way to go if it is going to
embrace and evolve into a CAS business model.
There is the deep rooted military influence at the foundation of my
organization that will make evolution a slow process. Yet, I do see our younger leaders, believe it
or not, taking a more dynamic approach to leadership. Also, at the bottom level of the organization,
many of my co-workers take a more aggressive approach to change by being very
verbal about their issues and openly providing feedback. Some of the things discussed in the article How To Lead When You’re Not the Boss such
as establish goals, providing feedback, engaging others and especially,
learning from experience, are characteristics that I have seen from some of our
more engaged employees (How to Lead, 2009). I think that a step in the right direction
towards incorporating a more bottom-up approach is going to have to be
influenced and implemented from the bottom-up as well.
References
How to Lead When You're Not the Boss. (2009). Harvard
Management Update, 14(3), 1-2.
No comments:
Post a Comment