What's interesting, and quite nerve wracking, is when a business owner can rule tyrannically (where employees appease owner out of fear, not respect) with little to no negative response from employees, clients, etc. Though I do not agree that this is successful leadership, it does work for some (generally those who may have brought themselves to their position out of good leadership but have become disillusioned). Does anyone have any insight, other than reading another Ayn Rand (philosophized self-interest as the truth), that might bring light to if these people are truly successful?

Last semester I took the course Radical Behaviorism and in that class we learned a lot about shaping behavior "co-workers" through positive reinforcement/rewards or through punishment/"tyrannical leadership." We learned that shaping through punishment usually showed results faster but in the long run was not successful as it usually involved rebellion/aggression from the subject, where shaping through rewarding may take a little longer at the beginning but showed long term success. Lorna, you can correct me on any of this if I am explaining it wrong (she was in the class with me).

Back to some of the other questions relating to this reading…. I was an assistant manager in the woman’s shoe department at Nordstrom’s in Portland, OR and had to take leadership classes etc… A lot of what Kouzes and Posner said was used in the Nordstrom management/leadership classes that I had to attend, and was visible though the various leaders/managers at the store and in the company. At the time I “did not believe in the message� so on the inside I was unhappy with my job etc… but as an assistant manager I had to be convincing to my co-workers that I “did believe in the message� in order to run a successful department. I eventually ended up quitting which would be expected since I did not “believe in the message.�

The one aspect I wonder about is honesty. I was an honest assistant manager in the sense that my ethics were honest and I was open to/with all my employees, but I was not honest in the sense that I never let them know that I did not believe in the message being delivered. It sounds bad to say that I was a good actor/liar? but I did run a successful and happy department and was highly respected by my co-workers. Is honesty important in this circumstance or is it better to keep the employees positive and motivated. Maybe it only affected me since I eventually quit?

This is a question I've asked myself as well. I've come to the conclusion, at least at this time, that the answer is no, not entirely. I also don't think the end "product" will be one and the same for every organization. I don't think the absence of any hierarchy entirely is necessary for accessibility and engagement across the board. I think the end result for many organizations will be varying hybrids - combinations of hierarchies and heterarchies subject to change - that work best to meet the needs and purposes of each individual mission/goal.

To tie this in with your specific question - I think my former manager would say: "if you don't agree with the message, you probably shouldn't be the one delivering it."

My answer is - in the end I think it is better for more people to be involved in the decision making process. As we move toward a more engaged workforce, especially considering the younger generation, people are going to tolerate a lack of connectivity less and less. I think managers - even mid-level managers - are hired for their skills and expertise. If you disagree with a decision, it may be your job to implement it, but you can still be honest about your role and opinion. "Well, the decision was made to do ___. While I don't agree that this is necessarily the best path for us to take, we'll give it our best shot together and see what happens." Maybe a part of leadership is willing to listen to other people's ideas and try them out, even when they aren't exactly the way you think things should go? I suppose that part goes along with the benefits if one is a pessimist. Either your pleasantly surprised, or proven correct. This of course gets more weighted if the decision is entirely unethical in which case, I think I agree that it would be better for the middle-managers to remove themselves from the process entirely. (Enron comes to mind.)

I think this goes back to what we were discussing in class in response to the question "Can there be too many leaders?" I think the answer is - no. I think in a situation where everyone understands and assumes collective responsibility, thinking rationally as they move forward, each has their own component of 'leadership.'

I think Plato would support this type of leadership. It isn't anarchy in the absence of structure entirely, or "no-power." More along the lines of "all-power," possibly?

Also, I would like to understand more about "paradigm cognition" (p.48) and how to manage the challenges of shifting behavior according the most useful paradigm. This sounds simple but changing behaviors is complex and often not rapid.

Although in principle I like the idea of "organic change" and see how in the right circumstances it would be beneficial to organizations, I cannot get behind supporting it as the ideal change approach for all organizations. Each organization has their own unique circumstances and require one or combinations of all three methods of change. In most organizations there is a bottom line that must be met, a product delivered, or a service rendered. If that bottom line is not met by nudging the network, organizations must be able to adapt quickly to crisis management or top down directives of "get it fixed'. The key here is possessing the knowledge and flexibility to change from one system to the next when needed.

The most significant part of this article is in its title, but was not addressed directly in the article. That is that in order to have impact, change must be systemic. It cannot thrive in silos, but instead must rely on people who can see and act across the silos, across the organization. This is where we see the network of relationships and influence.

Although I didn't know it at the time, as manger, I was striving to meet these four characteristics of good leaders: honest, forward-looking, inspiring and competent. I tried to be as honest as possible with my employees and was open about the changes taking place. But then I encountered the same problem as Michael: I could not badmouth upper management, although I thought the disorganization was killing our store. So was I really being honest with the employees by taking it all in stride? Jamie suggests using the phrase "Well, the decision has been made to..." This conveys a neutral attitude, but still has the underlying message of "This wasn't my idea!" But it is hard to come to work every day and tell brand new employees "We're changing again!" Believability of sources of information, according to p. 37, is based on trustworthiness, expertise and dynamism. I certainly had the expertise, and I tried, despite our many setbacks, for the dynamism. But it was difficult to be a trustworthy source of information, if they felt that the next day would contradict what I had just taught them.

I think subconsciously we all aspire to have the four characteristics of good leadership- whether we are leaders or not. Not only are these imperative for being a strong leader, they are important for being a good human being. The first and second chapters laid out the foundations for being a good leader, but what struck me was that most of these principles are also necessary for a sense of personal pride and integrity.

If nothing else, polarity mapping is just an interesting investigation. I think it is a good tool for understanding how an individual, or an organization, can better understand what is keeping them from succeeding in something. Food for thought...

I work in a company that is organized in a traditional hierarchy though I believe that much of the work is completed through networks. Over the last few years, these networks have been recognized by the hierarchical leaders, and in many cases they are even encouraged and celebrated as a new way to work more efficiently and fuel growth. However, as the company works to respond to the marketplace changes triggered by the growing economic crisis, the hierarchy is once again begin reinforced.

Organizational design experts are searching for ways to restructure the hierarchy into a more efficient model, and seem unwilling to acknowledge the effectiveness of networks to complete work. I believe this is an understandable response because it is difficult and time consuming to analyze how work is completed in a networked environment, and even more so to identify inefficiencies. When speed is of the essence, we return to what we know.

I offer this as anecdotal evidence that hierarchies are deeply ingrained in most companies, if not society as a whole. The structure itself seems resistant to change.