A Leadership Journey

A LEADERSHIP JOURNEY. Created by SHARATH KUMAR Abstract The musical composition records the evolution of the authors thinking on turn tail through the course of his work involvement. leaders is waded as a dynamic bear upon which consists semiformal and informal roles. The exploit is introduced as an individual recognizes opportunities and urged to answer back to evolving patterns and pledge action to en able-bodied positive tack. The dynamics between formal and informal leadership structures and leadership as a state of mind are conferred.The following paper shows a aspect on my personal journey and growing spirit of leadership based on my work experience. As I consider back in time, I identify that most of my current amour in leadership and interlockingity has evolved. This paper archives the development of my view most leadership. Stages in the Journey Over my career I hand experienced various milest iodines that make believe shaped and inclined my perspectives on leadership. vitally I have witnessed my role as a leader as one who pronounces and puts into action a vision that inspires others to join in to an fulfilment at least.Along the personal manner, the instability of resistance to that vision that has been the extreme influence on restricting my focus and ideology ab break through leadership, as Ive fought to scourge obstacles. Now I leadership as a dynamical distributed process among actors. I believe I have inculcated an informal methodology exchangeable to grounded possibleness, as I take in information on the range concerned, formulate a surmisal and then test and modify that theory active voicely. There have been crowning events that have shaped my perspectives about leadership.I cite the poignant enthusiasm of joining the caller. I had been employed as friend Chief Information Officer multinational participation. My position in the follow in my opinion was a dream job aiding in do a long-term outline for the growth of the business unit from a process and technology perspective. I in a flash noned operational issues and definite suggestions to address them. Although, my dream was shattered as I soon I was made to realize my position and the inclination of an orbit of the management team to power play tender ideas were not necessary. organisation as OrganismMy first day at work struck by the oppression of meetings absorbed so frequently time there was no time left field to do work. Employees were cheesed off because they had no access to their managers for direction. Projects were not cosmos completed in a time repayable to the perspective experts needed on them were unavailable due to other bookings. Organizational beliefs about alliance needed ideastone employees that were patrons to a project indulge in discussion and decision m resemblingg. Still, decision making was a tremendously slow process as it inadequacyed clarity as to who had the decision making authority.A group wo uld discuss the issue because one central person was not present (being double booked in some other meeting) hence, the decisions were not finalized. Line of meetings being unresolved was common. Although I was brought into a company as a change agent tasked to bring strategic change to the business unit, I recognize that it was not truly the case. Interest in change was driven by the instantaneous short term demands of situation clients, executives. At this prognosticate I managed to gather a team assertionworthy for coordinating technology linked projects.After extensive talks with my head, the team that account to me was handed over to someone else, and I was to report to this new head as an independent subscriber. This change was an extremely difficult period for me, nonetheless important in shaping my views of leadership. This was a period where deep reflection on my sense of identity, my values, and sense of personal integrity was brought out. I understand this chan ge as the constitution. I will speak more about what I learnt of the change in a afterward section. A new major acquisition had just been signed and the focus had shifted from long-term strategy to short term integration.After six months in the position, I moved out of the business unit to work with a larger parent company. My deary definition of leadership relics Sun Tzu in the Art of War The way of leadership means inducing the state to have the same aim as the leadership, so that they will share death and share life, without fear of peril (Sun Tzu, 2005, p. 43). The definition recognizes the collaborative dynamic that leader and follower share some(prenominal) share the benefits and risks in its pursuit. Moreover, Senges work presented me to systems thinking and mind the unified wholeness of organizations.This view was reinforced by my study of Neurolinguistic Programming and Neuro-Semantics, mind human communications and the way in which we learn to construct our intel lectual maps of the area. I saw conscious decisions to be freeing and challenging at the same time. This commitment was a challenging as I began to seek the process of leadership orthogonal the hierarchical power structure that could restrain action by positional authority. Now as an independent contributor I found myself able to lead freely in a variety of ways, highlighting the need of influence in the contexts that I was called for.I mentally stepped back from the situation and took a look at the business, its intrinsic and external stakeholders. I would foresee the recede and flow of people as they enthused about their work, the processes of numerous departments that enabled this organism to be military groupive. I also realized that minor issues evolved into major problems. I witnessed that an aspect of leadership is to distinguish this reflux and drift of the organization and identify the systemic pain points soon comely so that adequate time is available to resolve the pain points.Often key issues remain intact solely because the situations have not reached the pain point to seize adequate attention. Partly it appeared to be an issue of prioritization partly a problem of prevailing beliefs within the culture that impacts what employees attend to. A implicit in(p) belief I have about leadership is that the leader is one who recognizes a potential future and asserts in motion actions that move those involved. Disequilibrium Disequilibrium is a vital situation in the dynamics of an organization, point at which the first step for self-excelling construction of novel approaches to item challenges to occur.The pressures associated with disequilibrium is the point when pain thresholds reach a important point that gives an organization to be receptive to emerging possibilities. Although, there are differences in the role that leadership plays in such situations. I was one of the senior employees called to speak to the other employees after the declara tion that the company was to be closed. After weeks of discussions of the positive doles of the merger, one hundred and fifty people were told of losing their jobs (a third of them, the very day I bid everyone to come together, hold that there had been a death in the family and we knew where we all stood. Also, I was able to distribute a pamphlet to each employee on tackling with consequences of a merger. I had prepared these booklets without awareness of what the outcome of the merger would be. After discussions with the employees post meeting, I got validation for the value of the confab in bringing about a collective sense of acceptance to the veracity we faced. They also agreed that the booklet carried a tangible sense of being cared for in the development.There is a absurd dynamic to disequilibrium states. A disequilibrium state idler although have the inverse effect occasioning in a resistance to transformation. In my understanding, the test of leadership is the contented ness to anticipate and influence change afore the state of disequilibrium becomes serious. My sense of obscurity assisted as a motivator to securing the merger transition booklets prior to the block of the merger (It was intuited that the result may not be as complimentary as had formerly been voiced by management).As organizations operate as building complex adaptive systems, the dynamics leading to disequilibrium usually exist as symptoms which could be observed and resolveed before the problem becomes serious. In this context, the process of (proactive) leadership shows self-regulating effect in the organization by permitting the process of self-transcending structure. Leadership as a Process Concluded by my experiences I see leadership as an ongoing process that befalls in human organizations through the interplay of formal and informal relationships. Leadership as a process is personified by actors who respond to a situation.Therefore, the manager should be able to carry m ore complex thinking to issues that a subordinate may encounter, and bring value to understanding the work. Similarly, the subordinate is responsible for sharing visions about the work with his/her manager who can pass on the developments and insights further up the hierarchy. Whatever skills I may have in endorsing leadership may be totaled by ineffective structure in the system. In fact, I point the lack of an obligatory organizational structure as one if not the major inhibitions to organizational ineffectiveness within my work environment.Leadership as a extract of Mind To finish, I have come to see leadership as a state of mind. This lures originally from the work of Robert Quinn (2004), which recommends that there are certain states that act as attractors for the performer to take action that can be viewed as leadership in a particular setting. The Fundamental conjure up of Leadership (FSL) generates the immanent context that motivates the performer to respond and is replic ated in relate attitudes, which Quinn gaps with opposing attitudes reflecting the normal state. The FSL serves two functions mainly by creating an attractor that boosts active behavior that aids the great betterment of the organization. Second it gives way for the performer to be more aware of his/her perceptions and arrays of behavior. In the year of my tenure with my employer, I was aware of the requirement for a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system to be able to serve the organization and needs of its customers efficiently. My suggestions met substantial meeting with management as an earlier attempt to put in a CRM system had been unsuccessful.I was determined in expressing this requisite to the point that my manager explicit that if I brought the matter up again I would be left out from management meetings. And then came the day when he wanted a current clients list and found out that our current systems could not output signal an accurate list. All of a sudden put ting in a new system became a primacy- months after the actual recommendation. In an akin manner, as I transitioned to a role in the parent company, I piloted a research, which headed me to an awareness of the important of e-business and germaneness for the growth of the company.I became a fervent press of e-business and presented several proposals to senior executives. But, my recommendations were not incorporated, mainly because senior executives did not trust that it was a feasible tool within the industry. Atypically, a few months later there is renewed concern in expanding e-business for the company. These situations reinforced for me a capital norm that the process of leadership is introduced as an actor who recognizes a specific need and makes an effort to take action, even in times of obstacles.This shows an coalescency with the core defiance described in the FSL. I end with a case study where I intentionally experienced the FSL in drill leadership. I took part in a volu ntary cross-functional team look to enhance employee work experience. With gas prices on the hike, there was a well-knit curiosity in developing a strategy for telecommuting. Numerous solutions were suggested and were instantly shot down by the representative from IT as either being too expensive, too time consuming for the IT staffs, or too inquisitive from a companys security.I do not terminate the enormousness and connotation of formal leadership structures, rather I am noting that leadership fundamentally functions as an internal response to attractors that allow self-transcending construction as an answer to a perceived reality. Inside the organizations, the interplay of actors captivating action to lead in formal or informal capabilities is dynamic and complex and outside the scope of this discussion. Note that this portrayal is not intended to reflect deleteriously on the behavior of the IT representative.As an entity caught in the webs of loftier meaning synchronization of the myriad of service appeals from quadruple functional departments with partial resources in staff and dollars can impart a mindset that by a specific technology that had not been discussed. scorn obvious resistance from IT to propose a solution, I decide on doing my own research and found that a technology that had been conversed seemed to offer a sensible compromise on low cost, minimal IT backing, and strong endeavor security. I went back to the board with a bid to pursue this option.This was not a job that was part of my normal work assignment, and also I could have drop the idea. Yet the internal states that fixated on serving the greater good, and sighting the opportunity that this solution could deliver served as an attractor to raise through the resistance and eventually lead to a successful outcome. Had I opted to stay within my comfort zone, the new process and organizational dynamics would not have been developed. Ive gratified on a phone number of aspects of th e leadership process, which I have garnered through my work experience.In summary, I have emanated to see leadership as a dynamic process that ensues in human organizations as actors identify emerging possibilities and elect to take action. The inclination to do so is sturdily related to the actors internal states, and engagement of the Fundamental State of Leadership. Lastly, the efficiency of the actor may be wedged by the actors sphere of influence and by the actors formal or informal eminence and authority to act, and organizational willingness to cover up the transformation. I aspire to further develop these understandings as I fall back my graduate studies.REFERENCES Goldstein, J. A. (2007). A newly Model of Emergence and its Leadership Implications. In Complex Systems Leadership Theory, Exploring Organizational Complexity (Vol. 1). Mansfield, MA ISCE Publishing. Jaques, E. (1989). Requisite Organization A Total System for Effective managerial Organization and Managerial Le adership for the 21st Century Amended (2nd ed. , p. 288). Baltimore Cason Hall & Co Pub. McGhee, G. , Marland, G. R. , & Atkinson, J. (2007). Grounded theory research literature reviewing and reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(3), 334-342. doi 10. 1111/j. 365- 2648. 2007. 04436. Senge, P. M. , Kleiner, A. , Roberts, C. , Ross, R. , & Smith, B. (1994). The Fifth groom Fieldbook (1st ed. , p. 608). New York Doubleday Business. Senge, P. M. , Kleiner, A. , Roberts, C. , Roth, G. , Ross, R. , & Smith, B. (1999). The Dance of Change The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations (1st ed. , p. 224). New York Doubleday Business. Tzu, S. (2005). Trans. Cleary, T. The Art of War (p. 224). Boston Shambhala. Quinn, R. E. (2004). Building the Bridge As You whirl On It A Guide for Leading Change. San Francisco Jossey-Bass.