disscuss paper

Unconventional Leadership: What does the shift look like?

Nadia Delanoy

MGMT 8420

Student ID- A00558400

July 26, 2016

Introduction

Humanism denotes the underpinnings of the very conditions to which humans behave. Throughout time, theorists have evaluated the nature of mankind by utilizing doctrine inherent in dichotomous definitions such as relationships to John Locke or Thomas Hobbes (Nirenburg, 2014). Humankind was either good or evil; in essence either they had to be ruled over or responsibility could be given to them in the form of a social contract (i.e. Rousseau) as a means to imbed civility and lead to individual as well as collective progress (Nirenburg, 2014). Historically, as civilization evolved, echelons in society were apparent and entrenched through centuries of pseudo imperialism and feudalism; regardless of the shifts politically or economically on the spectrum (Gopnik, 2010). For example, in Roman times, the higher levels of society attained advancement on the backs so to speak of the peoples they ruled over. Leaping ahead, the Enlightenment revealed the crux that French society faced as a result of tyranny, over taxation of the poor or working classes, and the seeming hypocrisy of the very institution (i.e. Church) which laid the foundation for humanity to function within (Nirenburg, 2014). Arguably, the system which has been framed hierarchically, has merely beget itself and continues to contribute to the widening gap between the haves and have not’s within developed nations or macro-economically from developing world’s onward (Gopnik, 2010).

This imperialist perspective that was birthed from the inception of civilization has molded a world that Korten (2006) would argue is more individualist than collectivist, more taking than giving, more narcissistic than altruistic, and as a result precipitates a need not only socially but politically and economically to shift the paradigm in order to preserve our earth for future generations. The latter needs to be engrained in a commitment to the common good and in many ways, community oriented (Korten, 2006). It is within this community approach that is unfettered from big business, solely a profit orientation, and orchestrated with a consciousness of an, “us versus them” mentality, that people can come together and work towards a more sustainable future (Korten, 2006). According to many scholars, this shift in terms of leadership and management is not only imperative organizationally but must transcend and is reflected in society as a whole (Adler, Forbes & Willmott, 2007). This paper will discuss the merits of shifting orthodox approaches of leadership and management to more emergent, unconventional, and self-organizing methods while weaving in a discussion of Korten’s (2006) main assertion related to collectivist practices.

Traditional Leadership: If it isn’t broken, why fix it?

Bureaucratic and hierarchically structured institutions have been mired by tradition, organizational lethargy, and as a result, a lack of trust and autonomy can be prevalent throughout (Harvey & Buckler, 2002). Additionally, Parmar, Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Purnell, and de Colle (2010) assert that as long as the profit motive and the old adages of stakeholders holds true, leaders and managers alike will have difficulty taking risks, supporting a more collective approach and in some ways will adhere to traditional means of social responsibility. This myopic nature serves to primarily benefit the upper echelons of the organization and at times can lead to disenchantment and a lack of growth orientation from within (Harvey & Buckler, 2002). Within the evolving business landscape resulting from globalization, knowledge sharing, information technology, and the implications of social media, a collectivist approach will serve the greater good more wholly than the status quo as it will allow for uppers, middles, and lowers to harness their strengths and buffer each other’s weaknesses in a bottom up context (Korten, 2006; Oshry, 2007). This level of systems functioning necessitates high degrees of trust, a well-articulated vision, and a common language (Romero, 2012). As a behavioral and subsequently cognitive overlay, Baker, Thorne, Gamson, and Blair (2006) assert that the implications in terms of leadership typology, cognition, default behaviors as well as relational factors are important facets to consider in unconventional environments.

Bell (2015) argues that leaders that apply seemingly unconventional methods such as taking time to be unscripted, support creativity and potentially unusual ways for employees to be celebrated or revamp the work day to include innovation time, will harness greater capacity in terms of depth and breadth of their human capital. Counter to the latter, even though many academics would argue that top CEO’s in business are likely to be more neurotic and present with some psychopathic behaviors, their emotional quotient, business acumen and ability to perform and leverage appropriate influence are highly attuned (Morgan, 2006; Robinson & Kerr, 2009; Guddmunsson & Southey, 2010; Bolman & Deal, 2013) Additionally, in either case, there is a balance point in that these leadership approaches can be strengths and arguably weaknesses. It is important to note that organizational climate, systems level effects, the topography of industry and the board can all either exacerbate or foster an equilibrium and in many ways, the strength, savvy, and political perspicuity of the leader will be a high determinant in this dynamic interplay (Baker et al., 2006; Guddmunsson & Southey, 2010; Mumford et al., 2010; Bolman & Deal, 2013).

Emergent leadership denotes the necessity for unconventional thinking in a way which leads to engaging in capacity building of lowers, middles, and uppers as well as opportunities to lead within their own right (Oshry, 2007; Morgan, 2006). For example, Steve Jobs allotted time for individuals to work on their own creations as a means to spur innovative thinking and support a level of cognition inherent in environments that can foster increased critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving (Romero, 2012). Additionally, McCaskey’s (1981) arguments transcend time in that creativity within organizations can be fostered through a common language and actionable dialogue to which the followership know they have levels of autonomy and opportunity to play within their work context. Unconventional leadership and creative thinking needs to go hand in hand in this era of unprecedented change and uncertainty as demographically and anthropologically, workers do not prescribe wholly to the industrial model and yearn for opportunities to engage in unscripted and creative ways in which they can showcase and harness their skills in an organizational context (Jaussi & Dionne, 2004; Bennett & Lemoine, 2014). If unconventional thinking is cultivated within organizations that are highly aligned and have invested in feedback mechanisms within subsystems and the larger system, the ability to trust and continue to model competencies such as creative problem solving, innovative schemas, and the ability to healthily question as a means to positively iterate, can serve the institution, well. (Meadows, 2008; Korten, 2007; Bligh, Kohles & Pillai, 2011; Hamel, 2014; Jaremczuk & Kaliszczak, 2015). Critics may dismiss the latter as rhetoric; however, businesses such as HCL which implements an reverse pyramid structure which places the followers at the core of institutional change, Google’s implementation of innovative time tied to personal or professional creativity, as well as Apple’s diversification methods which harness internal followership as main critique agents give stock to emergent, self-organizing, and unconventional leadership methods (Romero, 2012b; Hamel, 2014).

Self-organizing approaches as Morgan (2006) postulates can be highly effective because of the adaptive nature and responsiveness that can occur within and across departments. The shear premise that bureaucracies and hierarchical structures can suffer from institutional paralysis necessitates approaches which in contemporary times reflect the growing diversity of skills, intellect, perspective, and leadership approaches (Jaussi & Dionne, 2004; Morgan, 2006; Bolman & Deal, 2013). Moreover, as the diversity in workplaces evolve not just in regards to gender, ethnicity, or other elements of demography, it is essential that fluency in leadership transcends traditional structures and through practices such as learning through failure, trusting in ones’ human capital, as well as maintaining high expectations for all organizational members with the appropriate support systems, the climate for cognition, creativity, respect, and out of the box thinking can be harnessed (Jaussi & Dionne, 2004; Senge, 2006; Eng, 2009; Romero, 2012).

Overall, within a highly aligned system (i.e. vision, mission, and subsystems), dynamism and multidirectional approaches to leadership such as dyadic interactions actively engage and empower followers (Bolman & Deal, 2013). These facets foster adaptability and sustainability through positive redundancy, supporting a top down/bottom up inclusive leadership framework and a means that champion’s individual competencies towards collective goals (Oshry, 2007; Bolman & Deal, 2013). Additionally, an emergent leadership framework posits that traditional barriers to success which may include gender and culture could be mitigated as traditional leader-member exchange is not skewed by the biases and is inherently multifaceted (Judge & Bono, 2000; Ayman & Korabik, 2010). Moreover, the negative perceptions of leaders may be less of an impediment because dynamic and multidimensional interactions allow subsystems and self-organizing groups to thrive as active and moving parts of the transformational and transactional realms. (Hogan, Curphy & Hogan, 1994; Morgan, 2006; Markham, Markham & Smith, 2015).

Korten’s (2006) assertions fit well into the main premise of this paper in that in his address, the laws of thermodynamics results in constant change and a litany of choices to which the human condition naturally resolves whether rightly or wrongly. It is within this reality which leaders need to foster an environment where choice is to some degree built within the context of what is best for the organization and how individuals can leverage their own competencies to move the institution forward (Korten, 2006). Regardless of the ills that have plagued society which are embedded in the notion and subsequent actions of the empire, the reality is that globalization and all that is encompassed in this period of time necessitates a paradigm shift in leadership and management (Adler, Forbes & Willmott, 2007). Korten’s (2006) promulgations reaffirm Adler et al. (2007) narrative of management practices evolving with the time, technology, neurological advances, and the like. Even though Korten’s (2006) visceral railings against humanity for orchestrating such toxicities as the polarization between the rich and the poor, gender and ethnic inequality, imperialistic solutions which beget hegemony and geopolitical balkanization seems apocalyptic, the reality is that some aspects of conventional wisdom in leadership and management may be rendered obsolete in this era (Adler et al., 2007). As such, solutions such as what has been discussed in this paper should be at the very least part of the conversation for leaders and managers moving forward. This is not to say that applying emergent structures will be easy in an increasingly diverse economic or business landscape; however, it behooves scholars and practitioners alike to consider how to empower the existing human capital in organizations, what structures need to be applied in order to facilitate the latter, and what competencies will be needed for leaders to be as and even more effective moving forward (Korten, 2006; Adler et al., 2007; Baker et al., 2006).

The difficulty in Korten’s (2006) argumentation is the ubiquitous nature of the applications or adjustments in which he recommends. For example, shifting from the entrenched practices of empire orientation to collectivism denotes an abolition of stakeholder theory in it’s’ purist sense as well as the foundational principles that are still fervent in most corporations. Hence the reasoning around adjusting leadership and management practices to empower followers at every level of the organization and cultivate an environment of learning, iteration, and risk taking (Senge, 2006; Bell, 2015). As organization and societal practices are reflective of each other, perhaps these types of foci will permeate throughout both and create a level of positive redundancy to which Korten’s (2006) discussion of collectivist communities and political action can be realized. Moreover, in a global context, supranational organizations such as the United Nations need to be given more teeth not militarily speaking but in a way that leverages public opinion, the power of social media, and the clout of consumers as a means to help recalibrate rogue organizations through the lens of social justice and responsibility (Korten, 2006; Delanoy, 2015). The latter may seem unrealistic; however, agencies such as Amnesty International have seen success in freeing political prisoners or at the very least harnessing a higher degree of international awareness in the realm of social and political justice (Delanoy, 2016). Arguably, the influence of social media and the level of awareness of the populations that engage in technological and communication platforms as evident in the Arab Springs (Delanoy, 2016) reaffirms the logic that times are changing and social responsibility is not embedded in actions fashioned by a solid bottom line, but the increased awareness and microcosms within society which are not complacent with the status quo (George, 2015). To recapitulate, the traditionalist narrative embedded in grandeur of scale and influence is not a reality that can be embraced in terms of widespread change economically or politically speaking (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009). The reality of our era is the natural ebb and flow to which resources need to be utilized as efficiently and effectively as possible and where a sense of urgency or fear mongering does not trump prudency, patience, and a level headed approach to organizational development (Bell, 2015). Arguably, the power and natural resources of humanity whether in pockets throughout society or within organizations need to be paid the credence they deserve and if empowered in the right ways, can have profound effects on society as a whole (Bell, 2015).

There is no perfect economic system and whether capitalism breeds inequalities, it also provides choice, a level of freedom, and entrepreneurial spirit that thwarts most existing frameworks (Korten, 2006; Delanoy, 2016). As such, from a macro-perspective, “necessity is the mother of all invention”, and humankind has evolved akin to this adage (Delanoy, 2016). This is what makes us powerful and capable of great things whether in moderation or on mass, the pendulum is swinging and civilization will correct itself as it always has; not through hysteria but through measured change (Delanoy, 2016).

Conclusion

Throughout the body of work not only in this paper but in the research embedded in management, leadership, psychology, and education, there are some clear themes that surface. Firstly, the intention of leaders and their lens of being individualistic or collectivist impact their actions, perceptions and actions from the followers, as well as the climate and subsequent performance of the organization (Koslowski & Doherty, 1989; Maner & Mead, 2010). Additionally, businesses need to be agile and apply sustainable approaches to ensure in an era of globalization that leaders leverage diversity, collaborative methods, as well as more distributive or emergent type leadership frameworks (Eagly and Chin, 2010).

To reiterate, the evolutionary nature of the human condition in the workplace reflects increased empowerment, efficacy, and a shift that encompasses both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Hogan et al., 1994; Judge & Bono, 2000; Tangirala et al., 2007; Avolio et al., 2009; Lorinkova & Perry, 2014).). By virtue of the latter, effective and efficient leaders need to convey a level of resilience, business, cultural and emotional acumen, and relational competencies such as integrity, trustworthiness, supportiveness, openness and extraversion in order to positively engage all levels of the system (Hogan et al., 1994; Judge & Bono, 2000; Tangirala et al., 2007; Avolio et al., 2009; Hamel, 2014).

This theoretical and pragmatic approach exists contemporarily in organizations that have harnessed what worked from the past and innovated to encompass elements that optimize human and structural resources in a dynamic way (Lam et al., 2007; Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008; Agho, 2009; Hamel, 2014). Again, using examples such as Google’s innovation time that is built into the work day and HCL Industry’s inverted pyramid which focuses on innovation, collaboration, and systems feedback loops (i.e. me to we approach) all have a level of emergent leadership and unconventionality to their practices (Lam et al., 2007; Romero, 2012b; Hamel, 2014). These leader’s strengths are embedded in leveraging time, choice, opportunity, and an immense attribution of elements of the human condition such as acceptance and purpose (Evans, 2001; Lamel et al., 2007; Romero, 2012; Hamel, 2014).

References

Adler, P. S., Forbes, L. C., & Willmott, H. (2007). Critical management studies. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 119–179.

Agho, A. O. (2009). Perspectives of senior-level executives on effective followership and leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(2), 159-166. Retrieved from the SAGE Premier database.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.

Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65(3), 157–170.

Baker, D. P., Thorne, S., Gamson, D., & Blair, C. (2006, August 11).Cognition, culture, and institutions: Affinities within the social construction of reality.

Bell, C. R. (2015). Maverick Leadership. Leadership Excellence Essentials, 32(10), 19.

Bennett, B., and Lemoine, J. (2014). What VUCA Really Means for You. Harvard Business Review, January 2014 Issue. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2014/01/what-vuca-really-means-for-you

Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Pillai, R. (2011). Romancing leadership: Past, present, and future. Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1058-1077. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.003

Bolman, L. G. & Deal. T. E. (2013). Making sense of organizations. (5th ed.), Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Delanoy, N. (2016).  Application and Discussions for week 1, 3, and 5 of Leadership and Power. Unpublished manuscript, Walden University.

Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American Psychologist, 65(3), 216-224. Retrieved from the PsycARTICLES database.

Eng, P. (2009). The era of the bridge builder: Identifying the qualities of “fluent leaders”. National Civic Review, 98(3), 34-39.

Evans, Robert. (2001). The human side of school change. (1st ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

George, J. M. (2013). Compassion and capitalism implications for organizational studies.  Journal of Management. Retrieved from the Walden Databases

Gopnik, A. (2010). Market man: What did Adam Smith really believe? The New Yorker, 86(32), 82–87. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

Gudmundsson, A & Southey, G. (2011). Leadership and the rise of corporate psychopath: What can business schools do about the ‘snakes inside’?. Social & Behavioural Research in Business, 2(2), p. 18-27. Retrieved from Walden library databases.

Hamel, G. (2014) Management Innovation eXchange. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.managementexchange.com

Harvey, M. & Buckley, M.R. (2002). Assessing the "conventional wisdoms" of management for the 21st century organization.Organizational Dynamics, 30(4), 368-378. Retrieved from Science Direct.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493–504.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751–765.

Jaussi, K., & Dionne, S. (2004). Unconventional leader behavior, subordinate satisfaction, effort and perception of leader effectiveness. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(3), 15-26

Jaremczuk, K., & Kaliszczak, L. (2015). Conditions for creativity in an organization. Journal of Positive Management, 6(1), 42-55. doi:10.12775/JPM.2015.004

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Doherty, M. J. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 546-553. Retrieved from the Business Source Complete database.

Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2007). Feedback-seeking behavior and leader-member exchange: Do supervisor-attributed motives matter? Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 348-363.Retrieved from the Business Source Complete database.

Lorinkova, N.M., & Perry, S. J. (2014). When is Empowerment Effective? The Role of Leader-Leader Exchange in Empowering Leadership, Cynicism, and Time Theft. Journal Of Management Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX 1 –24.

Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 482-497. Retrieved from the PsycARTICLES database.

Markham, S. E., Markham, I. S., & Smith, J. W. (2015). At the crux of dyadic leadership: Self–other agreement of leaders and direct reports — Analyzing 360-degree feedback.Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 958-977. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.001

McCaskey, J. (1981). Language and Creative Leadership: Unconventional Convention. Issues & Observations, 1(1), 5.

Meadows, D.H. (2008) Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mumford, M., Friedrich, T., Caughron, J., & Byrne, C. (2007) Leader cognition in real-world settings: How do leaders think about crises? Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 515-543. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.002

Nirenberg, J. (n.d.). Theory X, Y, Z . Minneapolis, MN: Walden University

Oshry, B. (2007). Seeing systems: Unlocking the mysteries of organizational life. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E, Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010) Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403-445. Retrieved from Business Source Complete.

Robinson, S. K., & Kerr, R. (2009). The symbolic violence of leadership: A critical hermeneutic study of leadership and succession in a British organization in the post-Soviet context. Human Relations, 62(6), 875-903. Retrieved from the SAGE Premier 2010 database.

Romero, E. J. (2012). Lead unconventionally and beat the competition. Supervision, 73(3), 25-26.

Romero, E. J. (2012b). Unconventional Leaders. Leadership Excellence Essentials, 29(4), 13.

Scandura, T. A., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2008). Trust and leader-member exchange: A closer look at relational vulnerability. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 101-110. Retrieved from the SAGE Premier 2010 database.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Tangirala, S., Green, S. G., & Ramanujam, R. (2007). In the shadow of the boss's boss: Effects of supervisors' upward exchange relationships on employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 309-320. Retrieved from the Business Source Complete database.