Artifact Summary 4 – Shifting a Team to Shared Leadership
The artifact presented for this program outcome is an essay for course OL 614 – Leadership and Ethics. The program outcome my presented work represents is outcome number 4 “Collaborate in complex work teams utilizing effective motivational and coaching techniques” (Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, 2018). One of the course objectives this presentation addressed was “Evaluate personal leadership strengths and opportunities for leadership success.” (Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, 2018). The presentation, Shifting a Team Toward Shared Leadership, was a collaborative effort with members of my cohort.
This paper, written collectively, was a great example of how a team can come together even while working remotely. Each of the team members took part in writing portions of the paper and one of the cohort members synthesized the information together. The essay was, ironically, discussing how to be part of a collaborative team. As leaders, we may find ourselves in situations with a hierarchical structure of leadership. The artifact presented discusses how a team can still work toward a more shared leadership model regardless of how the leadership of the organization may be set up. People can be empowered to collaborate together, celebrating each other’s contributions and fulfilling a more desired outcome by collaborating.
The artifact is presented after the summary references.
References
Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. (2018, July). 2018-2019 SGPP catalog & student handbook, Organizational Leadership, M.A. Retrieved from http://catalog.smumn.edu/index.ph
Shifting a Team Towards Shared Leadership
OL 614, Fall 2017 Cohort, MAOL Rats
Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota
Schools of Graduate & Professional Programs
OL 614 – Leadership and Ethics
George Diaz & Joseph Linton
February 19, 2017
Shifting a Team Toward Shared Leadership
Introduction
Hierarchical models of leadership are the decision-making models most companies and organizations follow today. While shared leadership models have been found to have a positive effect on team performance (D’Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Kukenberger, 2016), they have not yet been widely adopted in the industry. This project serves to educate individuals on how shared leadership works and enable them to move from hierarchical models to shared leadership models of decision making.
Background
In most organizations, a decision is made by an individual or group of titled leaders and communicated down the chain of command to the teams affected. The teams are expected to adopt and support the change regardless of individual opinions about the change. This occurs because the decision-making process has concluded by the time the lower levels of the group have been informed. This model of leadership and decision making can leave individuals on the receiving end of decisions, often those who are most greatly impacted, feeling powerless. Powerless employees can allow fear to hold them back from offering the full potential of their thoughts and ideas to the team (Hagberg, 2003) which in turn can reduce productivity and team performance.
Shared leadership calls for participation in decision making at all levels of the organization. The group moves through the executive process together without regard for titles. This model can initially be threatening to those who have intitled power positions and requires them to set aside feelings to enable the shared responsibility for decisions. Sharing power seamlessly amongst the team allows each individual to bring forth his or her creative ideas to solve the issue and share in the responsibilities for accomplishing goals.
An individual leader is still necessary for the shared leadership model for facilitation and direction (Friedrich, Griffith, & Mumford, 2016). Building trust and open, accepting communication amongst the team is an important role. In order for shared leadership to be effective, you must enable participants to feel safe sharing their ideas. Title leaders still belong in this new leadership model, though with a different focus, so they need not be threatened by the change in organizational dynamics. In some ways, the shared responsibility and participation in the process empowers title leaders to implement the final decision with less resistance from the team and overall greater chance of success.
Literature Review
Proactive and intentional listening in a work environment will create stronger relationships within the team. Wheatley (2005) describes how listening will move us closer to one another while not listening can create disconnection (p.206). This feeling of being ignored can generate a lack of appreciation and disengagement among the team. Palmer (2009) goes into much more detail when he describes receptive listening. This is when a leader consciously allows for brief and intentional silence which allows for reflection to occur. This also provides the occasion for others to speak, to ensure one or two teammates do not dominate the discussion. It is through this reflective listening that leaders provide the space for everyone to respond with thoughtful and open questions and not with commentary alone, which might discourage those who are trying to express themselves.
Hagberg (2003) suggests leaders, particularly those who are in stage four of her model of personal power, to harness the “Power by Reflection”. This reflection encourages leaders to listen to both those who they work for and those who work for them. It is through this active listening which leads to reflection where leaders discover they can learn from others much more than can teach themselves.
In the book the “The Prince” (2011) Machiavelli explains the need to hire a skilled and talented mercenary, however, by hiring someone excellent could potentially be a threat to overtake the prince (pp 31-32). Leaders who have this mindset are setting the team up to fail. Being on a team when the majority of the team is not contributing can be very frustrating. No one is adding the knowledge or experiences to bring the project together. Not having the top skilled, knowledgeable members will only hurt the outcome. The team needs to have the diversity of thought to broaden the learning experiences. Wheatly (2005) describes having a team in a chaotic situation who would not share their intellectual information can be the fine line between life and death (pp 144-145). If teams are open to sharing knowledge (Wheatley, 2005, p 150) they more efficient, but it has to be supported by the participates and the organization. As Wheatly describes, it is the knowledge that we need to contribute as we all have different ideas or information to bring the overall contribution (pp 149-150).
Curiosity killed the cat, and if curiosity is not nurtured in the workplace it can kill a multitude of other things. Curiosity is a characteristic that many business owners desire, however, it also the trait that is most suppressed (Hvisdos, 2016). Being curious is about having that ability to ask questions, to seek additional knowledge, and to be the devil’s advocate while supporting the organization. Being curious leads to many positive outcomes, which in turn assist the organization with its efforts.
Curiosity leads to engagement. When an employee is curious, they will want to find an answer to their curiosity (Paul, 2013). The answer that the employee is looking for provides gratification both intellectually and emotionally (Paul, 2013). The intellectual and emotional impact promotes growth for the employee and also the organization. From this growth arises innovation, creativity, and high engagement.
In order to have this type of employee, leaders must first examine their own actions to see how curiosity is being hindered in the workplace. This can take many forms and include but is not limited to; lack of collaboration, no environment to foster curiosity, and a rigid organizational structure (Hvisdos, 2016). These restrictions have detrimental impacts on groups when considering optimal learning and the opportunity to participate in shared leadership.
If this is the culture that leaders embrace, then analysis and critical thinking of what processes and policies are in place need to be examined (Hvisdos, 2016). This is a common point that leaders miss, and one that will allow the leader to objectively see what has possibly hindered the organization (Hvisdos, 2016). These processes and policies may come in the form of a hierarchal leadership model rather than a shared leadership model. Lower level employees may not feel empowered to express their curiosity or question senior level leadership. It may also come from direct leaders who do not display curiosity themselves (Hvisdos, 2016).
Shared leadership is critical to group success. According to Hildebrand, Droge, and Marsick (2015), shared leadership is one of the most important factors for team effectiveness. In organizations, teams can resolve complex problems and provide innovative solutions if shared leadership is recognized and utilized. As a result, efficient and effective learning is achieved by each group member. This is also recognized by Hildebrand et. al (2015), as teams are a catalyst for learning. It is that learning that encourages and environment for curiosity and shared leadership, which is seen amongst all team members throughout tasks.
The success of transitioning from a vertical leadership paradigm to shared leadership is dependent on a few characteristics. Seemingly, communication is one key component. Through interacting, sharing knowledge, skills, abilities and creating a shared vision; relationships are built, trust is established and a successful cohesive team thrives (Mattessich, Murray-Close, Monsey, 2001). Shared leadership encourages the leader to influence, empower and engage staff while listening and implementing the ideas and decisions made together.
We are all interconnected and interdependent of each other. With the complexity of today’s world, global interdependence and technology; there is evidence to create collaborative leaders and followers who are engaged as stakeholders (Crosby, 2010, pp. 572-573). Research indicates that shared leadership is reliant upon team member abilities, task characteristics, and the environment (Serban, Roberts, 2016). Based on the findings by Wood and Fields (2007), it seems possible shared leadership can lead to personal and team satisfaction (Serban, Roberts, 2016).
Coaching is another characteristic that can assist a leader to accomplish the goals of the organization yet develop and foster individual needs (Sweeney, 2007, pp. 170). Coaching can be a powerful, career-enhancing experience. Outlining personal aspirations, setting expectations, practicing the learning in the workplace, and celebrating successes will lead to self-satisfaction (Sweeney, 2007, p. 173). Furthermore, when individuals feel motivated, driven, having a sense of accomplishment and professional achievement; this transcends to the successes of the team.
Action Research
Research collaborators will be asked to discuss the level of interest of their teammates in changing to a more collaborative working environment, specifically related to team meetings. Assuming team members agree to be a part of the research, they will all be debriefed on the four characteristics of shared leadership highlighted in this paper: (a) listen intently to the meeting participants to on the dialogue rather than responding immediately; (b) share their intellectual capital when they can contribute as a content expert; (c) be curious about comments made by meeting participants with the intent of asking thought-provoking questions to learn more about the topic, and (d) celebrate the successes of a meeting participant or the entire team when an accomplishment can be noted.
Research participants will be asked if they feel comfortable implementing those suggestions. These brief qualitative interviews will indicate the level of shared leadership currently occurring. Additionally, a scale of 1-5 will be used to judge the satisfaction of the team member regarding the level of collaboration and sharing within the team. Responses offered to team members will be: Very Satisfied = 5, Satisfied = 4, Neutral =3, Dissatisfied = 2, Very Dissatisfied = 1, N/A = Void Response. For instance, a score of 5 will indicate the team member is very satisfied with the amount of sharing or collaboration on their team and a score of 1 will reflect a team member who is very unhappy with the level of collaboration and sharing in the team.
When the study begins, the roles of meeting attendants and the type of meeting, either mundane or complex, will be recorded by the research collaborator. A complex issue, for this research, will be a problem or situation brought up during the meeting which requires input by many of the meeting participants. The collaborator will note when shared leadership characteristics as described in this paper are implemented. When complex issues arise, meeting participants will be observed to record whether or not they are utilizing the recommended tactics.
Meetings will be observed by research collaborators for six months. Upon completion of the research period, team members will be given the same satisfaction scale used at the start of the research. Statistical analyses of the quantitative data set will be done to note any significant change in satisfaction. The questions asked at the start of the research will be repeated with the research participants. These qualitative data will enhance the quantitative results to indicate whether significant change toward shared leadership conditions occurred.
Predicted Results
We predict that a team can begin to work more collaboratively without a specific directive from management. Often, teams frustrated with a vertical management style will communicate their annoyances to one another. Team members desire the opportunity to add value to the organizational decisions, yet feel powerless to do so. In these situations, where a portion of the team feels as though they would like to adjust the leadership dynamic, they gain confidence together and can decide to affect change. We posit that this change will occur when team members begin to implement the characteristics of shared leadership outlined in this research. If the team is in agreement that this type of collaborative atmosphere is desirable, then the shift can occur (Block, 2009, p.74).
Limitations
Leadership can often be reverted to a leadership style that administration was attempting to move away from by others with their own agenda. An example in, The Faces of Danger (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002) four dangerous forms of diversion are discussed, however, the two forms which might be most prevalent regarding reluctance toward shared leadership may be diversion and seduction. Diversion is the way in which others collectively find ways to keep the attention on their issues and not of the issues of the change agent. (p. 10) This is referred to in Heifetz & Linsky (2002), as the “Unconscious Conspiracy to take you off your game plan” (p. 10). Attempts to move from a vertical to shared leadership, the diversion would be a relatively easy way of putting off the changes while appearing to want to move forward. Unfortunately, these other things just seem to get in the way.
In seduction, you are indirectly taken away from one focus and led to another that is more appealing. This being done by your constituents who claim they want to change and are behind the change, however, their sacrifice needs to be minimal. Even though their claims of support for you and the needed changes the results usually sustain no change just disappointment for you, your supporters leaving you alone and less credible (Heifetz & Linsky, pp. 14-15). As discussed by Kocolowski (2010) shared leadership is when a single person is no longer the one in charge and the responsibility shifts to the team (p. 24). Individuals who have a specific agenda or need could find it for more productive to keep away from shared leadership as there is no vertical hierarchy that could easily be seduced from making the uncomfortable sacrifices their individual agendas would face. Additional consideration related to limitations moving toward shared leadership is the lack of studies available regarding this leadership model as discussed by Kocolowski (2010).
Kellerman’s book discussed issues relevant to bad leaders and bad followers. She talks about Marion Barry, former Mayor of Washington D.C. was allowed to act unbefitting of a mayor, the voters, his followers, family, and friends enabled him to do so. (Kellerman, 2004, p. 227) Could it be a limitation to a shared leadership model if the same type of enabling provided to Marion Barry, be somehow embedded allowing the potential for some of the individuals in the organization to engage in bad or unethical behavior?
Conclusion
We conclude a shift from a traditional hierarchical leadership approach to a collaborative shared leadership approach in a team setting where more complex issues are being discussed will benefit both the employees and the leadership within an organization. This shift can be achieved when each of the team members actively participate by (a) intently listening to others and create an open and respectful dialogue; (b) share their intellectual capital or collective knowledge; (c) evoke their curiosity into the discussion by asking thought-provoking questions to learn more about the topic, and (d) taking time to recognize and celebrate the successes of the team. While we identify there are limitations to this approach to shared leadership, we believe the benefits of creating a more collaborative atmosphere will solve the more complex problems through a setting that fosters further respect, knowledge, and creativity. Most individuals want to positively contribute to the success of their organization in a meaningful and fulfilling way. This collaborative approach provides the leadership the opportunity to share the responsibility and to strategically move the organization on a path to success.
References
Block, P. (2009). Community: The structure of belonging. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Crosby, B. C. (2010). Leading in the Shared-Power World of 2020. Public Administration Review, 70. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02248.x
D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership-team performance relations. Journal of Management, (7). 1964.
Droge, H., Hildebrand, D., & Marsick, V. (2015). Shared leadership and its role in team learning. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228692390_SHARED_LEADERSHIP_AND_ITS_ROLE_IN_TEAM_LEARNING
Friedrich, T. L., Griffith, J. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2016). Collective leadership behaviors: Evaluating the leader, team network, and problem situation characteristics that influence their use. Leadership Quarterly, 27(2), 312-333. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.004
Hagberg, J. O. (2003). Real power: Stages of personal power in organizations (3rd ed.). Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Co.
Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). The faces of danger. In Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading (pp. 31-48). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Hvisdos, M. (2016). How to foster curiosity and creativity in the workplace. Retrieved from
https://trainingmag.com/how-foster-curiosity-and-creativity-workplace
Kellerman, B. (2004). Costs and benefits. In Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters (leadership for the common good) (pp. 219-228). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Kocolowski, M. (2010). Shared leadership: Is it time for a change?. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 3(1), 22-32.
Machiavelli, N. (2011). The Prince. New York, NY: Simon & Brown
Mattessich, P. W., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. R. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it work (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Wilder Publishing Center.
Paul, A. M. (2013). How to stimulate curiosity. Retrieved from
Serban, A., & Roberts, A. J. (2016). Exploring antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership in a creative context: A mixed-methods approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(Special Issue: Collective and Network Approaches to Leadership), 181-199. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.009
Sweeney, T. (2007). Coaching your way to the top. Industrial & Commercial Training, 39(3), 170-173. doi:10.1108/00197850710742270
Wheatley, M. J. (2005). Listening. In Finding our way: Leadership for an uncertain time. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers.
Laura's Leadership Portfolio 