2 Diagnose the System Name OBLD 633 Adaptive Leadership in Complex Environments

2

Diagnose the System

Name

OBLD 633 Adaptive Leadership in Complex Environments

School

Professor

Date

Diagnose The System

This discussion relates to a previous leadership transition at an organization I was employed with for close to eight years which dealt with the retail distribution of fast-moving consumer goods. A new manager was appointed to be head of operations and came up with radical changes that shaped the everyday work routines and service delivery affecting most of the departments at the organization. The first step was to evaluate the problem within the organization (Heifetz et al., 2009). After several meetings with stakeholders, including the representatives of the workers’ union.

Stakeholder meetings concluded the issue and termed it a wastage of time because of too much bureaucracy. The leader then identified ways to address the issue while creating changes to inform the corporate culture and allow the changes to persist. The capability to work with the employees to design and implement a relatable work culture and foster fast communication across teams while breaking down department barriers are the things that led to the success of the organization’s transition. However, the approach was not provocation outright. Nevertheless, there was a resemblance with the case of St. Luke’s Communications explained in Coutu (2000), as the questioning of how things were done resulted in an eye-opening moment that allowed a shift in the perspective of the organization members.

The approach to the changes demonstrated best practices for complex adaptive leadership (Obolensky, 2014). As the organization grew, its independently styled department also increased their isolation from each other, resulting in more bureaucracy. A shared vision from a peer-to-peer exchange during the stakeholder meetings was the needed intervention to unlock collective reasoning. It allowed the open sharing of information and evaluation alternative solutions quickly (Obolensky, 2014).

Like the simplicity of markets alluded to in Hamel (2011), the administration at the organization opted for revoking all hierarchical levels of government in favor of a flatter organizational structure. The reason was the team’s challenges in the research and development (R&D) department to get help. The departments at the firm were operating as silos. It was not easy to get a response to any inter-departmental work-collaboration request within a day. Instead, requests had to go to a department communication center, which would then coordinate with various levels of governance, including accounts and ethics, because the request would be evaluated. Thus, there was lost time. In the new perspective, the breakdown of the structures and the systems necessitated a relook at the purpose of each office or unit in the respective departments (Hamel, 2011). Decisions could be shared on a common dashboard, allowing real-time awareness of the activities and requests of each department.

Furthermore, there could be input from staff from other departments even if they were not the subject of the initial communication. Consequently, insights such as inventory location or field agents on the side could be determined with little additional effort. Sometimes, a staff would indicate they are in the field, and another would point out that they can access their computer at work remotely, which then allowed subsequent attendance to respective activity or information requests. The transformation was akin to making the mission the boss. The requests and the need to fulfill them to ensure no loss of time or resources become the motivator across all departments and teams in the organization.

There might be problems in the organization concerning adaptive change despite the changes implemented in the organization and the adoption of a flat structure. For instance, improvements in self-management might be lacking. Even though there are fewer obstacles to inter-team communication, the ability of teams to self-manage and the organization’s members to do so after years of working with a strict bureaucratic structure may be problematic. If the organization is to succeed, it must ensure empowerment across all levels, allowing for power in decision-making and influencing organizational culture without necessarily relying on the executive. Lowering the need for traditional leadership will be the way forward for the highly complex organizational relationships among teams and roles.

References

Coutu, D. (2000). Creating the most frightening company on earth. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 142–150.

Hamel, G. (2011). First, let’s fire all the managers. Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48–60.

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linksy, M. (2009, May 18). Diagnose the system: The first step in leading adaptive change. Harvard Business Publishing.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Gower Publishing Limited.