EMBRACING CREATIVE DESTRUCTION
FIGURE 2
communication channels and open-door policies, but what is the open-door policy? Where is the door? Do you trust your lead- ers enough to communicate a problem? Do you feel like your leaders have already made a decision before you even knocked on their door?
HOW TO MOVE FORWARD How do we tackle these interrelated prob- lems? For starters, I believe that leaders should talk to their followers and under- stand what is important to them. Ten, rotate their employees internally to roles where they can grow. Tis way, they can align their organization’s objectives with their employees’ objectives. Put your table of distribution and allowances aside and think “employees.” As a result, people will feel motivated to go above and beyond for their organizations. Tis is because instead of being stuck in one position, they get the opportunity to prove their skills in other positions within a different branch or divi- sion in their organizations.
THE TRIFECTA
The components of emotional intelligence fall into three categories: skills, style and relationship. Navigating change requires skills in all three areas and can be the difference between an engaged, motivated workforce and an alienated, underperforming one. (Graphic by USAASC and the author)
When communication is lacking, employees don’t view the leaders as worthy of following.
70 Army AL&T Magazine Spring 2020
Also, by doing so, leaders show that they rely more on discovering their existing assets because they try to minimize the disruptive component of creative destruc- tion. For example, when the Army Futures Command stood up cross-func- tional teams, leaders suddenly reorganized priorities. What was a top priority before became secondary now. Tere was chaos. Urgent efforts were no longer urgent, and people started to question trust. Te hard work of many seemed no longer impor- tant. Organizations had to compete for additional funding to support often unrea- sonable and unachievable goals.
For these reasons, leaders should eval- uate whether change is really necessary. It is possible that someone intention- ally promotes the development of a new technology to encroach on a compet- ing company’s mission or to give the
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
