Obolensky (2016) provides a 16 question assessment to help readers assess the leadership strategy that they mostly gravitate towards. Below I describe four leadership strategies as outlined by Obolensky (2016).
Strategy I - Tell
You've probably used this strategy before. Telling someone what to do! This strategy is pretty straight forward, however, it requires the leader to know what to do. This prescriptive approach is a direct strategy that focuses attention on the goal/outcome rather than on the people. The tell strategy I only selected once in this assessment.
Strategy II - Sell
Sell strikes a balance between focusing leadership efforts on the goal and on the people executing the goal. Much like a salesperson, the sell strategy requires the leader to fully understand the situation and for them to describe the benefits and risks associated with the actions to be undertaken. A good sales person can make their client (or in this case employee) feel good about their purchase (their contribution to the goal). I chose the sell strategy thrice in the assessment.
Strategy III - Involve
The involve strategy has the greatest attention given to the people within the team and empowering them to solve their problems on their own. I chose the involve strategy eight times in the assessment, more than any other strategy.
Strategy IV - Devolve
The devolve strategy goes against the traditional views of leaders as the driving force for the organization, and places focus on the people doing the work. A leader using a devolving strategy must ensure that the four plus four principles are in balance. I chose the devolve strategy four times.
Obolensky (2016) suggests that the four strategies all have a place in organizations and should be in balance much like the four plus four principles and yin & yang. Seeing the imbalance here between the four strategies makes sense to me. I've always favored involvement when a part of a team, and group consensus when leading teams. Obolensky (2016) suggests that my scores indicate that I "might be working too hard" and perhaps have a hard time relinquishing control (p. 175). It is funny to me that I may want to consider adding more directive behaviors to my leadership toolbox. I wasn’t always so inclined toward supportive and otherwise more hands off strategies when put in charge of a team. The ways that I think about leader-follower relationships have not changed much over the course of the last six weeks since beginning this course; however, it has changed quite a bit over the last year. I no longer think of leaders as the ultimate source of knowledge and organizational power. I now understand their role is a bit more complex and involves balancing goals and people. My biggest takeaway is how the elements of Taoism are pervasive in leadership (Obolensky, 2016). Balance is everything.
Reflecting on my results, I believe that I will need to take a second look at the ways that interact with teams what I am in charge. In my professional life I am a trainer and spend a good amount of my time in didactics and discussion. I avoid the didactics because I am more interested in hearing from the class to understand how they are digesting the material. It could be because of this proclivity I avoided the telling strategy so severely. I believe, and it is supported by the literature, that student-led and guided discussion improves student's skill learning (Arias et al., 2016).
References
Arias, A., Scott, R., Peters, O. A., McClain, E., & Gluskin, A. H. (2016). Educational outcomes of Small‐Group discussion versus traditional lecture format in dental students’ learning and skills acquisition. Journal of Dental Education, 80(4), 459-465. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2016.80.4.tb06104.x
Obolensky, N. (2016). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Routledge.
Comments
Post a Comment