The Tyrant Versus the Liberator and the Know-It-All Versus the Challenger Before implementing any change, effective leaders take the time to carefully consider exactly what types of change are necessary to bring about the desired end

Subject:BusinessPrice: Bought3

Share With

The Tyrant Versus the Liberator and the Know-It-All Versus the Challenger

Before implementing any change, effective leaders take the time to carefully consider exactly what types of change are necessary to bring about the desired end. You should identify those areas where change would be most beneficial, as well as any potential obstacles. When combined with an understanding of the system that you hope to influence, these are all critical steps and each increases the likelihood that meaningful and long-lasting changes can transpire.

 

Based on your readings in Wiseman (2017), respond to the following and be sure to note the relationship to your Capstone Project and include relevant examples from your life’s

 

 

To prepare for this Discussion:

Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially:

Wiseman, L. (2017). Multipliers: How the best leaders make everyone smarter (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.

· Chapter 3, “The Liberator

· Chapter 4, “The Challenger

 

Assignment:

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

 

Respond to two of your colleagues’ postings that contain a perspective other than yours.

 

Your response will typically be 2–3 paragraphs in length, as a general expectation.

 

· Share an insight about what you learned from having read your colleagues’ postings and discuss how and why your colleague’s posting resonated with you professionally and personally. (Note: This may be a great opportunity to help you think about passions you share with your colleagues who could become part of your Walden network.)

· Offer an example from your experience or observation that validates what your colleague discussed.

· Offer specific suggestions that will help your colleague build upon his or her perceptions as a leader.

· Offer further assessment from having read your colleague’s post that could impact a leader’s effectiveness.

· Share how something your colleague discussed changed the way you consider your own leadership qualities.

· NO Plagiarism

 

1st Colleague - Natasha Mills 

The Tyrant Versus the Liberator and the Know-It-All Versus the Challenger

Top of Form

 

The contemporary work environment is fast-paced. As a result, leaders are anticipated to be agile and adapt to change in the most effective way. Technological shifts present some of the factors that make change necessary and inevitable. At the same time, social and demographic changes are also commonplace due to globalization and increased diversity in the workplace (McCrindle & Fell, 2019). Despite leaders’ knowledge of these dynamics and the need to pay attention to them, most are still struggling with keeping up, particularly in the diversity and inclusion spectrum. My research project will investigate this element by focusing on the issues Gen Z employees face in the workplace as a result of the ineffectiveness of leaders in keeping up with the changes involving this group.

The type of leaders in the workplace is one facet that can help explain the ineffectiveness of leaders in embracing the diverse members of their teams. For instance, the categorization of leaders as Tyrants and Liberators provides a more in-depth understanding of the inability of leaders to embrace Gen Z. Wiseman (2017) describes Tyrants as leaders who create a tense environment that makes it impossible for employees to voice their ideas and maximize their capabilities. Hence, followers led by Tyrants tend to suppress their thinking. Liberators are the exact opposite. Such leaders encourage best and bold thinking through the creation of an intense environment that allows followers to give their best effort and use their best thinking (Wiseman, 2017).

The three best practices of a Liberator include creating space, demanding the best work, and generating rapid learning cycles (Wiseman, 2017). I incorporate these practices in my professional life by restraining myself from bailing out my employees whenever they make mistakes, or when they are working on a project that requires the generation of ideas. Instead of proposing my ideas for them to use, I force them to come up with their own and pick the best ones for the project at hand. Further, I often encourage constructive feedback amongst the team members regarding their performance on certain tasks, which they use to create the best work. The feedback is usually coupled with a lot of collaboration to generate rapid learning cycles.

There is also the categorization of leaders as Know-It-Alls and Challengers. Know-It-Alls tell their organizations what to do by assuming they know the most (Wiseman, 2017). This leads to wasted cycles since people are always focused on how to execute actions accordingly and what the boss thinks. The result is the artificial limit to the accomplishments of the organization (Wiseman, 2017). The steps Challengers take, on the other hand, are linked to the stretching of the organization’s limits. This stems from the Challengers’ quest for the right opportunities using their smarts, as well as pushing their teams beyond their own knowledge (Wiseman, 2017).

The three practices of a challenger include seeding the opportunity, laying down a challenge, and generating belief in what is possible (Wiseman, 2017). These practices significantly affect my professional choices because I have to constantly remind myself to restrain from imposing my ideas on my team, especially when we hit roadblocks, and in times of a crisis. However, the thought of compromising my leadership effectiveness causes me to present the roadblocks as challenges the team should work together in addressing. Simply, the practices of a Challenger force me to make hard professional choices instead of opting for what is easy.

Understanding the differences between Tyrants and Liberators, as well as Know-It-Alls and Challengers, is fundamental to the change practice I want to deploy. Currently, the leaders in the workplace mostly qualify as Tyrants and Know-It-Alls in their dealings with Gen Z. For instance, current leaders create a tense environment by forcing them to conform to their ideas of how Gen Z should work, a factor that impedes best thinking among Gen Z employees, making such leaders Tyrants (Wiseman, 2017). They also act as Know-It-Alls by assuming to understand Gen Z and what is best for them instead of letting these employees think beyond their knowledge as Challengers do. Therefore, my intention is to help Tyrants transform into Liberators, and Know-It-Alls transform into Challengers, for a more conducive work environment that favors Gen Z.

References

McCrindle, M., & Fell, A. (2019). Understanding Generation Z: Recruiting, training and leading the next generation. McCrindle Research Pty Ltd.

Wiseman, L. (2017). Multipliers: how the best leaders make everyone smarter.

Bottom of Form

2nd Colleague – Previous Posted Micheal

 

Leaders that invoke empowerment for their teams often find that people deliver exponentially greater things than expected. Creating opportunities for others to showcase their creativity and competency has the power to not only produce exceptional results, but it also creates leverage for the leader to focus on areas of importance for them. Liz Wiseman emphasizes that unfortunately, corporate frameworks are designed to enable the behaviors of a Diminisher (2017). The traditional hierarchy model present in most organizations unevenly distributes power to the top of the organizational chain (Wiseman, 2017, p.66). For all else, it is considered acceptable – and sometimes preferable – to stifle attempts to engage in idea creation or participation. A Multiplier defies the tendencies of hierarchy and becomes a Liberator of their teams by promoting open exchange of ideas and work risks (Wiseman, 2017).

The Tyrant vs. the Liberator

The Tyrant and the Liberator both hold strong ideas, are results focused, and have a desire for exceptional performance. The difference between them lies in how they achieve these objectives.

Focus of Attention

The Tyrant focuses on themselves. They are unrelenting about their own ideas and how they should be implemented. They spend little time or attention on the ideas and work of others and consequently smother the genius, creativity, and motivation of others. The Liberator possesses an outward focus toward others. They deliberately create space and opportunity to experiment, share, and learn. A Liberator’s focus is not passive nor accidental. It is an intentional pressure for others to perform at their highest level. Others are motivated by the opportunity being granted them as well as by the level of respect they feel for their leader.

Problem Solving

When a Tyrant moves into problem solving mode, they are controlling and demanding of all energy. They bring a tension to the environment that leaves people on edge and results in wasted productivity as others attempt to avoid upsetting the leader (p. 89).  The tyrant becomes unpredictable and in pursuit of perfection. Problem solving with a Liberator is a learning opportunity. The Liberator seeks to teach through storytelling, vulnerability sharing, and fail-fast opportunities. They remain focused on achieving organizational success but align to a culture of admitting and sharing lessons from mistakes.

Developing Others

A Tyrant believes that people perform best under pressure.  They make demands on their teams’ creativity and intelligence and cause high anxiety when the team doesn’t deliver. They deliver feedback in the form of criticism and judgment and yield mediocre performance from their people. A Liberator develops their people through continuous learning cycles and an open sharing of ideas. Instead of imparting their beliefs on others, they distinguish between “hard” and “soft” opinions (p.66) to ensure that their teams feel empowered to collaborate on an idea with their leader.

Incorporating the Practices of a Liberator

 I have incorporated the following practices that promote the behaviors of a Liberator

· Create Space: Each week, I protect 4-6 hours of my calendar for Open Office Hours time. My team is invited to join me during Office Hours to share ideas, problem solve together, or request development recommendations from me. I have also begun to use the “hard” and “soft” opinion distinction to help them realize my position on any topic.

· Demand Best Work: Anytime I assign a project or consult with a team member on work they are delivering for me, I always ask what they are hoping to achieve from the project. I encourage them to distinguish it from the project’s objectives and rather define what they hope to get out of it themselves. Regardless of their response, I always ask, “Is that everything you hope to achieve?” I ask this question, not to have them feel inferior about their expectations but rather to second guess whether they could do more. This often results in them pushing themselves harder and delivering better, higher quality results.

· Generate Rapid Learning Cycles: My leadership team and I spend every weekly meeting sharing one accomplishment, one mistake, and one learning from that mistake. Each person has an opportunity to share, and no one is judged or criticized for their mistake. The exercise is meant to share learnings with others and has created an environment of open and honest dialogue and growth.

These behaviors, some new and some in place for a while, are a starting point to my journey to becoming more of a Liberator for my team. I commit to continuing to monitor and assess this opportunity throughout my leadership career.

The Challenger vs. the Know-it-All

When I accepted my current role as the leader of a large production team, I knew nothing about the work that they did, the requirements that applied to it, nor the complexity of the tasks. However, I knew that I would be accountable for a talented group of individuals who would look to me to provide guidance, leadership, and support. Several years later, I still rely on their expertise and talent to know the details of the work that we do. I will never know as much as they do about our work but yet, together we can be effective partners in achieving our goals.

One of my earliest leadership roles involved working for a Challenger who taught me how to lead by asking questions. As the recipient of his leadership style, I remember first feeling intimidated by all his questions – as if I had missed the mark when I presented to him. But it soon became clear that he was using his questions to develop my own curiosity and to help me think about problems in a different way. I soon adopted his style for myself and use it in how I lead every day. Sometimes I know the answer to the question I am asking but want to give my team a new way to think about things. Other times, I ask rhetorical questions to spark creativity or provocative trains of thought. And there are times when I ask questions out of curiosity or learning for myself. In all cases, the goal is to ignite learning and create an environment for open, shared discussion.

Between these two experiences – allowing my team to be the subject matter experts and being trained as a leader who leads through questions – I believe I am a Challenger. I have the vantage point of seeing the big picture for our organization and with my team, create a vision for our customers and shareholders (Seed the Opportunity). I am successful by clearing a path for them to do what they do best, asking enough questions to gain a level of assurance and validation that are customers and shareholders are cared for, and then stepping out of their way to let them do their best work. Along the way, I push each of them to feel uncomfortable as they stretch into more challenging opportunities (Lay Down the Challenge) and let them know that I believe in their abilities and the team’s abilities to deliver (Generate Belief in What is Possible).

A Know-it-All has the need for all of the answers and all of the information. They insist on setting and giving direction vs. collaborating with their teams. They do not invite new ideas or new information which subsequently, limits the organization to only that information the leader has knowledge of (p. 120). Unlike the rapid testing, fail-fast, celebrate mistakes tendencies of a Multiplier, the Know-it-All makes unilateral decisions which requires time and waiting on the part of the team.