Being a Leader
Discussion Question
In the modern business world, successful leaders are capable of responding and shifting swiftly to traumatic events while determining a new course of action in given emerging realities. Such leaders understand the scope and range of crisis and the levels of impact and control they have in a particular situation. In reference to articles by Conklin and Weill (1997), Margolis and Stoltz (2010), and Pye (2005), this article guide CE on the best approach of dealing with emerging issues in an organization in a resilient manner. It provides a reflexive strategy of addressing hardships while maximizing organizational outcomes.
Resilience questioning by Margolis and Stoltz
Margolis and Stoltz provide a strategy formulated with an aim of shifting mindset from cause oriented thinking. This thinking is essentially focused on the wrong way. To response oriented thinking, the orientation leans forward. Their plan is founded on four pillars namely duration, breath, control and impact. The four pillars are specific, visual and collaborative in the context in which they seek to inquire about personal questions.
Control is one of the pillars four pillars. Rather than visualizing on a key solution at the international level with the Executive Operations Group, the CE should have assumed an observer position after identification of various stakeholders. Such an approach would enable the CE to visualize the stakeholder’s role and their impact on his performance (Vogus 2012). After adopting this approach, the CE will be at a position of viewing the definitive control level incorporated by local firms. Such a move makes the CE to limit his own control level and possible fears associated with middle level managerial jobs.
Using visualization, the CE should have understood that several factors are far beyond his direct control. For instance, the happenings within the middle management level are far beyond his control space. This understanding would have prompted him to lean towards a collaborative approach.
Of course, it is hard to specify what is likely to increase admiration towards the manager by the organization. However, the underlying assumption basis of the perception that the approach employed in this section should have been specific while being repeated to an outside command. In order to ensure that the context are particular, added words should include “how particularly”, “what particularly” and “who particularly”.
The initial implementation phase failed in essence due to lack of involvement of everyone occupying the middle and lower level managerial positions and their subordinated. This means that the initiative of implementing global change failed to embrace the changing realistic description (Whitehorn 2011). The second attempt this indicates that emphasizing on collaboration from the framework adapted by Margolis and Stoltz could have been effective in avoiding the emerging limitations (Conklin & Weil 1997).
Conklin and Weil (1997) emphasizes that although there is need to consider the framework of Wicked Problems, there is need to avoid impulsive action. As highlighted on Note 4 of page 7, the CE should have portrayed more decisive action as essentially needed by the stakeholders through a better communication of his approach and increasing responsiveness of to the issue of organizational change against context of regional dissimilarities. Though this clear communication, the CE would have been able to venture on tangible change execution while considering the shareholders that demanded an increase in their returns. In this particular case, the CE should have made effort of identifying the regions with the highest potential that concentrates on issues instead of making effort to design an international solution that are in compliance with all the regions.
According to Margolis and Stoltz (2010), emphasizing in this question involves delivery of a meaningful management. The only way through which people are capable of buying into this plan is through comprehending and buying into greater story. This CE failed to employ the link developed through communication with regions and managers that were prone to redundancy. After addressing these issues through an open communication, bringing them on board would have been possible (Margolis & Stoltz 2010, p. 42).
This section entails transformational management. This is a shared framework that emphasizes on solutions as opposed the problem when pinpointing opportunities and developing choice. It entails assisting individuals to view what they are unable to view because their fear may be inhibiting factors. Therefore, this question particularly emphasizes on reframing and organizing efforts with an aim of achieving goals that were previously invisible. The underlying concept in this case involves shifting attention from “how” to the brighter “future”. This is mainly due to the fact that energy flows in the direction of attention. This assists individuals in working while remaining motivated as the CE. In order to establish a story worth telling, the CE should make attempts in identifying what the future is particularly going to appear from a different stakeholder perspective as clearly explained in page 2.
Adjustments to deal with this situation as the CE
The ADQ instituted by Stoltz provides a logical framework formulated with an aim of analyzing the readers’ flexibility. This flexibility is based on the four control pillars namely endurance, reachability, ownership and control. Stoltz perception is different from the resilience framework formulated by Margolis and Stoltz that emphasizes on need for change agent in social context. The question raised by Scoltz assists a CE to differentiate between what he is capable of changing and what remains unchangeable. It also assists the CE to take accountability for his decision, define his limit and develop a particular strategy to reach a desirable solution.
What the CE required to do was to put this framework into application while targeting different stakeholders. However, evaluating the effect of regional organizations could not have been an appropriate move (Conklin & Weil 1997). Moreover, the CE should have utilized this framework in supporting every organizational key player with an aim of bringing endurance required in reaching an appropriate end result.
The key problem in Stoltz ADQ questionnaire is based on the fact that the question can easily be second guessed even though surfed in various sequence across several pillars. This is one of the key criticisms highlighted by Brooks in relation to personality testing. It is apparent that some candidates are likely to “second guess” the tests while giving responses that are pleasant to them rather than being appropriate for everyone (Margolis & Stoltz 2010). Moreover, the questions are closed in the effort of making them quantitative. Therefore, there is a high likelihood of reducing choice. On the other side, the tough questions remain open. Therefore, they have a high likelihood of stimulating methods to trigger more options for guesswork. Based on the fact that ADQ emphasizes on personal traits as opposed to combined process that are more applicable in the presence of wicked problems, it emerges apparent that Margolis and Stoltz framework has more applicability in this particular situation.
References
Adversity Quotient: Peak Learning. Retrieved from http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articl es/501-550/article517_body.html (Accessed 8 September 2011
Conklin, E & Weil, W 1997, ‘Wicked problems: naming the pain in organizations’. Available from http://www.leanconstruction.dk/media/17537/Wicked_Problems__Na ming_the_Pain_in_Organizations_.pdf
Margolis, J & Stoltz, P 2010, ‘How to bounce back from adversity’, Harvard Business Review, 88 (½), pp.86–92. Retrieved from http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=Ha rvard+Business+Review&volume=88&issue=1&spage=86&date=20 10
Pye, A 2005, ‘Leadership and organizing: sensemaking in action’, Leadership, 1 (1), pp.31–49. Available from: http://lea.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/content/1/1/31.full.pdf+html
Vogus, T 2012, Organizational Mindfulness and Mindful Organizing: A Reconciliation and Path Forward, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (4): 722-735.
Whitehorn, G 2011, Building business resilience, Keeping Good Companies, 63 (7): 402-405.
