When examining the data in Joiner and Josephs (2007, p. 194) we see that 3% of executives sampled (n = 104) are at a pre-expert level of agility. This means they have not even achieved the lowest level of agility, Expert. There are several reasons these executives could still be at the pre-expert level of agility. First is the Peter principle: these executives have simply been promoted to a level of their incompetence (Peter & Hull, 1969). They are in over their heads, and they will not remain at the helm longer than it takes to find someone with more leadership agility and ability. A second possibility is that the company is not facing a complex or challenging industry, and higher levels of agility are not required for the executive position. If it is a small company with a single product in a limited, local market there may not be the need for high levels of leadership agility. And finally, related to the first reason, it is possible the executives were promoted due to nepotism or favoritism. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. became the head of the Rockefeller Foundation simply due to his birth and gender. He had to learn on the job. At the beginning, he was definitely in a pre-expert mode, trying to find his way with little to no guidance from his father. Through trial and error, he improved his agility and that of the Rockefeller Foundation (Chernow, 1998). Some could argue that Mr. Jared Kushner, son-in-law of President Trump, has received a similar nepotism-based promotion as he plays a leading role in foreign affairs (Harris, Leonnig, Jaffe, & Dawsey, 2018). 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are 2.5% of junior and middle level managers (n = 177) who have post-heroic agility levels (Joiner & Josephs, 2007, p. 194). It is possible that these managers have recently developed their post-heroic agility levels and are now awaiting their turn to climb the corporate ladder. But perhaps Joiner and Josephs (2007) have the simplest and best explanation of all: “In recent decades, change and complexity have penetrated organizations to such an extent that higher levels of agility are now required for effective leadership at all levels of responsibility” (p. 195). It is possible that these lower level managers are in industries or companies that are facing challenging and complex situations requiring personal leadership growth in the area of agility. These leaders have risen to meet the challenge, and are ready to continue their climb into higher levels of leadership. 

The business and industry determine the level of agility needed in each position of leadership (Joiner & Josephs, 2007). To the extent that a pre-expert level executive can survive in a top position is truly dependent upon the change the company faces on a daily basis. The pre-expert executive can either swim in a simple situation or be drowned in waves of complexity. The converse applies, where a rising tide of complexity can lift post-heroic agile leaders from lower levels of management to higher levels of leadership in short order. 

 

References:

 

Chernow, R. (1998). Titan: The life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. New York: Random House.

 

Joiner, B., & Josephs, S. (2007). Leadership agility: Five levels of mastery for anticipating and initiating change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

 

Peter, L. J., & Hull, R. (1969). The Peter principle: Why things always go wrong. New York: Morrow.

 

Harris, S., Leonnig, C. D., Jaffe, G., & Dawsey, J. (2018, February 27). Kushner’s overseas contacts raise concerns as foreign officials seek leverage. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/

There are probably a number of reasons for why some executives display pre-expert levels of agility, and why lower-level managers may display post-heroic levels in certain cases.  Based on survey results, there is a correlation between leadership agility and high performing organizations (Horney, Pasmore, & O'Shea, 2010).  Therefore, executives in lower-performing companies with expert and pre-expert agility levels may be better able to ascend the ranks than in higher-performing cultures.  It may also be the case that certain leaders are placed into a situation beyond their capacity due to fortunate circumstances, such as turnover, buyouts, tenure, etc.  The latter point is particularly salient when considering the question of whether agility is required for leadership effectiveness at higher ranks.  The text shows some evidence for this (Joiner & Josephs, 2007).  These non-agile leaders may be in power, but they may also be less than effective.  

            There is no one to one correlation between agility level and rank, and the text is replete with examples of leaders developing their agility outside the formal bounds of promotion or company-sponsored training (Joiner & Josephs, 2007).  Therefore, it is not wholly surprising to find lower-level managers with well-developed leadership agility.  High-performing organizational cultures may encourage and demand these skills from leaders at various levels.  In general, as the pace and interconnectedness of the world increases, agile leadership traits are required more and more even from junior or middle managers (Horney et al., 2010).  These lower-level managers may have high levels of leadership agility, but may not have received official recognition yet.  Alternatively, they may feel that their current station fulfills their own inner sense of purpose and drive, as post-heroic leaders are motivated to find (Joiner & Josephs, 2007).  Consequently, they do not seek to climb the ladder.

            This disparity might be encouraged by the overall tone of the industry, which may be less dynamic or competitive than others.  This can allow less agile leaders to ascend to the top.  Conversely, other industries may force organizations to become more responsive and learning-based.  Fast-paced, competitive environments may cause managers to engage in more adaptive behaviors to keep up, which would allow lower-level leaders to become more agile (Meyer & Meijers, 2017).  It would be odd to see an organization with less-agile executives and highly agile lower-level managers and supervisors.  This might be an example of a generational gap between managerial levels, or of senior-level leadership becoming calcified in their approach due to past success.  

            

Horney, N., Pasmore, B., & O'Shea, T. (2010). Leadership agility: A business imperative for a VUCA world. People & Strategy, 32-38. Available at http://agilityconsulting-com.secure37.ezhostingserver.com/resources/Agility%20Leader/Leadership%20Agility%20HRPS%20Reprint%20Revised.pdf

Joiner, B., & Josephs, S. (2007). Leadership agility: Five levels of mastery for anticipating and initiating change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, R., & Meijers, R. (2017, November). Developing leadership agility: Different projects, different approaches. PM World Journal, 6(11), 1-15. Available at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/pmwj64-Nov2017-Meyer-Meijers-Developing-Leadership-Agility.pdf  

 

My opinion as to why this reversion occurred is that executives felt more comfortable operating as they had historically, in a non-agile manner.  After all, the COO and CEO had both been with the company for over 20 years and had managed most of those years using command and control leadership.  

 

According to research by Korn Ferry, the average age for c-suite executives is today about 54 (Nanji, 2017). Paradoxically, 

 

The way high-performing organizations operate today is radically different from how they operated 10 years ago…many other organizations continue to operate according to industrial-age models that are 100 years old or more, weighed down by legacy practices, systems, and behaviors that must be confronted and discarded before true change can take hold” (Schmidt, 2012).

 

The research highlighted this week in our Joiner and Josephs textbook (2007) successfully demonstrated that agility is more dominant in senior leadership, but is almost as prevalent with middle/senior managers.  This is not surprising to me.  Younger leaders have grown up with agility in mind.  From the dotcom burst, to a recession, to recovery in an era of technology driven production, the younger generation has learned to adapt.  For industries where change is widespread, managers must be skilled in agility.  As the textbook research suggests, agility is typically learned by c-suite executives as it is likely more commonly required to be successful.  

 

I truly believe however, we as a society are in a transition phase from old methods of management to new, specifically with respect to agility.  Just like at TMC Design, in some organizations where non-agile behavior is built into culture, executives are empowered to behave as they have historically.  As middle managers become more senior, these legacy, non-agile behaviors will become less and less prevalent.  “It is important to remember that learning agility is less than two decades old” (De Meuse, 2017, p. 290).

 

References

 

De Meuse, K. (2017). Learning agility: Its evolution as a psychological construct and its empirical relationship to leader success. Consulting Psychology Journal, 69(4), 267-295. doi:10.1037/cpb0000100    

 

Joiner, B., Josephs, S. (2007). Leadership agility: Five levels of mastery for anticipating and initiating change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Nanji, A. (2017, March 9). The average age and tenure of c-suite executives. Marketing Profs. Available from https://www.marketingprofs.com/charts/2017/31713/the-average-age-and-tenure-of-c-suite-executives 

 

Schmidt, D. (2012, July 30). Applying agility to common operating platform environment initiatives [Blog post]. Available from https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/sei_blog/2012/07/applying-agility-to-common-operating-platform-environment-initiatives.html  

 

Zak  

I think the same goes for the second question, there will always be leaders who may spend their careers at lower levels of responsibility but still exhibit many traits of exceptional leadership.  There are many factors for this; organizational dynamics, political structure and culture within the company, personal decisions to pass on promotions or opportunism, etc. There may be no correlation between the researcher’s levels of agility and a leader’s success and success in organizations maybe tied more closely to relationships, networks, personal connections, and more soft aspects.

I do feel however, that all organizations will benefit from leadership development in whatever form it takes.  This could be professional skills, technical skills, leadership skills, or as the researchers advocate: leadership agility. 

 

References

Joiner, B., & Josephs, S. (2007). Leadership agility: Five levels of mastery for anticipating and initiating change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

                I would also have to agree with Justin and John’s points on underappreciated agile managers fleeing for greener pastures.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see statistics on employee turnover in hostile environments.  Leaders who are stuck in their ways or are low on the agility scale will be, as a rule, less empathetic and less able to see growing discontent amongst their staff.  Managers who are higher on the scale will have more rounded people skills and will be able to work with different personality types.  I think the text had a few examples of this- more agile managers were better able to handle HR concerns, and were better able to maneuver around difficult situations and place employees in better circumstances where they would have a greater chance of flourishing. 

 

Zak      

 I firmly believe that no matter how skilled someone is, if they will not mesh with the team it’s a recipe for disaster and you will spend most of your time dealing with the drama and baggage.

I still go back to my core belief that leading effectively is a true skill and it requires leaders to constantly seek personal and professional development, which naturally includes how the leaders works and operates and how the challenge their own mindsets and tendencies.  Even at the start of the 20^th century there was still dramatic change and technology shifts that affected leadership.  Henry Ford assembly line and the notion of scientific management changed the game and it caused folks to reconsider how they operated.  Today is really no different and there will always be change, our challenge as leaders is how we respond to it and how we can leverage change to be the true opportunity it is

 

Most senior military personnel I know are astute in history.  The common reason why is that there is nothing new under the sun.  Although weapons and technologies change, people remain consistent in behavior. By learning history, we as leaders can be better at agility by recognizing similar behaviors and applying lessons learned to similar situations.  It’s no wonder why I like the textbook so much; it’s filled with many historical, first-hand examples.  

 

In regards to an earlier post, I disagree that Trump lacks in leadership agility.  To give a relevant example this week, we as a nation clearly have had 20 years of failed policy in North Korea.  Trump’s Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis, has been described as a great historian by those that know him in my military circles.  My guess is that he has had significant influence with Trump’s decision to partake in the summit this week.  The fact that he is disbanding previous policy with North Korea and holding bilateral talks, he is actively demonstrating an ability to adapt. Whether or not the negotiations turn out ok, it is a far better option than war, and proves Trumps willingness to adapt to a changing world.  Whether or not you agree with Trump in general is really beside the point.  Saying that he lacks in leadership agility I believe is unfair.  History will one day be the judge of whether or not he was unnecessarily too agile.  For the sake of our nation and the world, I hope he is able to find balance and strike a deal that that is mutually beneficial so that it lasts.  

-Justin