A520.8.2.RB - Polyarchic Principles

A520.8.2.RB - Polyarchic Principles

Your Chapter 7 reading from Obolensky digs into the "four + four principles" that Obolensky believes enable an organization to thrive and adapt to change. The application of the 8 principles form the basis for complex adaptive leadership. How can you apply each of these principles in your workplace? How might applying these principles help your organization work more effectively? Discuss any takeaways you gained from your reading of polyarchic principles this week.

The ideas that Obolensky writes about are relevant to corporate America on many levels. Of course, the only levels I can speak intelligently about are those of which I have been involved. My current organization is dysfunctional at best and we succeed despite ourselves…a lot.  While I was reading this article, so much of it resonated. The ‘four + four principles” that work together to become the ‘8 principles of adaptive leadership’ really make sense…if applied well. The Underlying Purpose- “Purpose is what lends an underlying meaning to day-to-day activities. It's what unites people. It's the fundamental reason for being, and taps into people's motivation.” (Obolesky, 2010) When people understand the “Why” about what their jobs mean systemically and personally, they want to be there, they want to do the work. They understand what their part means and it makes a difference to them. Even if your job is to make sure that the next work station has enough chemical solvent, you understand what your job is and why it’s important. When you aren’t there to do the job, the people don’t get the solvents they need and things come to a halt. People like to feel as though they have a purpose. When we, as workers, are just told to accept a new process without any explanation or clear purpose, it is difficult for them to get on board or ‘buy-in’ and the process implementation will not be successful. At. All.

This brings me to how important it is to have explicit and unambiguous objectives and defined boundaries.   “Having clear objectives for each individual is not just about having a clear target. It also means that the objectives have to make sense, and allow the individual to see how his targets fit into the greater whole.” (Obolesky, 2010) Ambiguous objectives can lead to frustration, systems breakdowns, and quality issues…to name a few. Giving people clear expectations but allowing them to perform the tasks the way they know will work is empowerment and trust building. But that all starts with setting clear objectives and having well defined boundaries such as metrics and quantifiable goals.

When it comes to skill vs. will, Obolesky notes that there are four zones: Performance, Parking, Stress, and Depression. I have been on teams that were totally in the Performance zone, we were engaged and there was a productive and positive synergy in the team – even when there was a disagreement, it was an opportunity to validate the objectives and have a healthy, and again, productive discussion. The current situation at my organization falls somewhere between Parking and Depression. People are no longer even stressed about the work because they have been driven to the point of apathy. People clock in, do their job, and go home. They have no desire anymore to collaborate or problem solve and that makes me extremely sad. We need to get people back to the Performance zone and that is going to take time and patience because the foundation of that zone is trust. The foundation of Obolesky’s ‘four + four’ ideas are all about building a trusting, meaningful, and productive workforce. The trick though, is that when applying these theories on broken workforces, the trust is what needs to be rebuilt first. Nothing will be bought into or truly change until that happens. A more literal scope of the skill vs. will is that, “If people do not have the skill or the will to do the job, then it will not be done to the best effect.” (Obolesky, 2010)  If someone has the skill set required to do a job and are in the performance zone, we have a happy workforce. However, if we have workers who need a skill set to perform a task but are only given unclear expectations and are lacking the right tools for the job, we end up with a very stressed and unproductive workforce.

We do understand that in most environments, ambiguity is a reality. We try but cannot possibly predict every single variable. However, understanding this and planning as best as we can based on historical metrics will help a workforce and management to set themselves up for success. Unplanned downtime or roadblocks will happen, it’s making sure that each area has a mitigation plan that is clear and comprehensive. “It is easier to tolerate that which we understand, rather than that which we do not. And at the same time, we can understand that ambiguity and complexity are both natural and have some underlying laws. This makes it easier to embrace uncertainty.” (Obolesky, 2010)

Another empowering aspect that Obolesky talks about is the Freedom to Act. When senior leaders give their managers the freedom to make decisions about the areas they run it can be very successful…if there are clear expectations and consequences that the managers are held accountable to. The expectation aspect is covered with ‘A Few Simple Rules’ such as an area’s operations or documented standard work and the expected etiquette and cultural norms of the area (Which can change from work center to work center and shift to shift – it is a very multi-dimensional and organic thing.) “These measures allow people to see how they are contributing to the whole and the extent to which they are achieving objectives. It also gives them a systemic view of how their team/department/unit is doing within the context of the whole organization.” (Obolesky, 2010) In my organization, we are implementing a Fabrication Process System (FPS) that is being based on another business unit’s success. This FPS was rolled out last year as tact-time boards and other obtrusive things that really only meant more work for the area leads and managers. Every day the senior leaders would walk around in a group and nod their heads at the boards (Because they are in the shop and no one can really hear anything, even with a P.A. System.) and continue on. These boards were rolled out as belonging to the area, but the area was never involved in what these boards should have on them that would be a meaningful measurement of their success much less any other input. These boards were actually for the seniors and everyone knew/knows it. Currently, our leadership is trying to a do-over for this process having one model area that they are going to take the time to really document the standard work in the area, then standardize that across all shifts. Then, and only then, when they have standard work, can they start discovering and solving true problems. “There is a 'yin/yang' element to these principles. Having an inspiring purpose, giving people freedom to act whilst relying on their skill/will and having a high tolerance for ambiguity is a very 'yin' way of leading.” (Obolesky, 2010) I have high hopes, although I’m leaving to another business unit in less than a week. I am hoping to take these lessons learned with me though and do my best to not repeat mistakes I’ve seen take place at this organizations.

Reference:

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Burlington, VT; Gower Publishing Company.