First off, we have a wiki for Systemic Leadership. We are still filling out the initial content. This is a place for you to read, and possibly engage directly in the development of this systemic leadership concept we've been talking about on this blog. The wiki contains links to our publications so far. We've loaded those onto Google Docs, so that you can see the various routes we have taken.
Now, we introduce our draft systemic leadership model. After spending much time looking on relational factors of a model, and specifically avoiding reduction, we have seen a simple pattern emerge. In this model, we consider the relationship between a leader and a team as core element operating to achieve some endeavor (project, program, etc) in an environment. While relating leaders and teams to do a project is normal in most leadership constructs, we add in the notion of a battle rhythm.
The US Army uses battle rhythms extensively and is generally concerned if a rhythm is lacking (See section I-66 of RM 4-02.2 for examples of what may happen if the rhythm isn't known). For the systemic model, the decisions needed for the endeavor are presented through the team to the leaders in accordance with the battle rhythm. Good battle rhythms ensure that the leader is present at the right time, with the right supporting information, to make the right decisions. Poor rhythms interfere with the right information getting to the leader at the right time in some fashion. For example, insisting on defining an interface with an external user that may not be needed by either party for several years may take attention away from other critical decisions that the leader must make.
Now, this is a draft model, we welcome comments or thoughts on how you think this model may help leaders take a more systemic view at leading their programs.
Read More......
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Book Review: A Book of Five Rings
Written by Shinmen Musashi circa 1645, "A book of Five Rings" is an interesting set of lessons on learning the warrior path. What strikes me most about the work is the systemic nature of Musashi's observations on how to best learn to be a warrior.
The main premise of the book is to teach a military commander on the tactics of war. For example, in the "Fire Book", the three methods of forestalling the enemy apply equally to the 1-on-1 duelist and the 1,000's-on-1,000's and can be equated to what I have recently learned on strategy at the USAF's Squadron Officer School. This mindset taken, of the interrelation between building of character, self-discipline, building on basics of swordsmanship/combat-arms, and the commander, is similar to what we are discussing here in the Systemic Leadership blog.
In Systemic Leadership, we do advocate that the basic training (such as DAU for young acquisition professionals) should end up producing qualified program directors and program executive officers. In a true systemic sense, like Musashi, this training is best if it builds on itself and we teach the young professionals what will be useful as seniors.
Overall, I recommend this book for its classic take on integrating multiple disciplines together into a systemic whole. Ultimately, many readings are needed to fully appreciate the subtleties of the book. A book, which by the way, is very short - my version (Translated by Vicor Harris in 1974) is only 95 pages, and over half of that are notes, background, and translation points. Read More......
The main premise of the book is to teach a military commander on the tactics of war. For example, in the "Fire Book", the three methods of forestalling the enemy apply equally to the 1-on-1 duelist and the 1,000's-on-1,000's and can be equated to what I have recently learned on strategy at the USAF's Squadron Officer School. This mindset taken, of the interrelation between building of character, self-discipline, building on basics of swordsmanship/combat-arms, and the commander, is similar to what we are discussing here in the Systemic Leadership blog.
In Systemic Leadership, we do advocate that the basic training (such as DAU for young acquisition professionals) should end up producing qualified program directors and program executive officers. In a true systemic sense, like Musashi, this training is best if it builds on itself and we teach the young professionals what will be useful as seniors.
Overall, I recommend this book for its classic take on integrating multiple disciplines together into a systemic whole. Ultimately, many readings are needed to fully appreciate the subtleties of the book. A book, which by the way, is very short - my version (Translated by Vicor Harris in 1974) is only 95 pages, and over half of that are notes, background, and translation points. Read More......
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Transformational AF SOS?
I recently graduated from the US Air Force's second Basic Developmental Education (BDE) course, which is better known as Squadron Officer School (SOS). The curriculum of SOS is undergoing a revision (as indicated here). One aspect I noticed was the retirement of Ken Blanchard's Situational Leadership Theory in favor of the Full Range of Leadership Model (FRLM) as the model of choice to mid-career AF Captains. Of course, the AF added its own spin on FRLM.
One aspect that was taught by my flight commander and the main lecturer was that both transformational and transactional leadership preferences have their place at different times. The claim boils down to that being a master "Management by Exception" (MBE) leader could be preferred over "Inspirational Motivation" in some circumstances. One example discussed was the under-fire scenario. In this scenario, the effective AF leader would use MBE to direct their troops, relying on the base relationship and training that the leader set with inspirational motivation to prepare the forces for battle. Transactional and transformational, under this theory, are now viewed as equal - the traditional "up and to the right" from laissez-faire up through transactional and up to transformational is replaced with a model in which laissez-fair is discounted and transactional and transformational are put on an equal horizontal footing.
This issue was debated at a fevered pitch in my flight room. A special forces officer commenting that transactional leadership is essentially dead and that he get the best results in the field using idealized influence and inspirational motivation. Other officers commented that sometimes the leader's attention may be over too many issues, so that using a more transactional approach can ensure a critical, single operation succeeds.
SOS did help prepare young officers to use the FRLM. SOS used several different methods: a lecture on FRLM, some discussion classes that attempts to build strategies for using FRLM in our home units, and a self assessment for each officer against the FRLM. Unfortunately, we used a different model to assess each other later in the course, which may be an artifact of being in the middle of the curriculum revision.
So, does this view hold? What issues do you see in advocating transactional preferences as being equal to transformational preferences? Read More......
One aspect that was taught by my flight commander and the main lecturer was that both transformational and transactional leadership preferences have their place at different times. The claim boils down to that being a master "Management by Exception" (MBE) leader could be preferred over "Inspirational Motivation" in some circumstances. One example discussed was the under-fire scenario. In this scenario, the effective AF leader would use MBE to direct their troops, relying on the base relationship and training that the leader set with inspirational motivation to prepare the forces for battle. Transactional and transformational, under this theory, are now viewed as equal - the traditional "up and to the right" from laissez-faire up through transactional and up to transformational is replaced with a model in which laissez-fair is discounted and transactional and transformational are put on an equal horizontal footing.
This issue was debated at a fevered pitch in my flight room. A special forces officer commenting that transactional leadership is essentially dead and that he get the best results in the field using idealized influence and inspirational motivation. Other officers commented that sometimes the leader's attention may be over too many issues, so that using a more transactional approach can ensure a critical, single operation succeeds.
SOS did help prepare young officers to use the FRLM. SOS used several different methods: a lecture on FRLM, some discussion classes that attempts to build strategies for using FRLM in our home units, and a self assessment for each officer against the FRLM. Unfortunately, we used a different model to assess each other later in the course, which may be an artifact of being in the middle of the curriculum revision.
So, does this view hold? What issues do you see in advocating transactional preferences as being equal to transformational preferences? Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)