Running head: ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT 1

Adaptive Leadership Assessment

Cherlyn Akiens

The University of Memphis

ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP 2

Adaptive Leadership Assessment

In my organization, I am a graduate assistant where my job title is a scheduler for a

department in the College of Education. In this position, I interact with several faculty members

of which one member holds the title of Program Coordinator per area of study. Outside of

instruction, one of the roles of the program coordinator is to determine what courses should be

offered to students that is in their subject area for each semester. The program coordinators and

other faculty members within their groups make the decision on which instructor will teach a

course(s) making sure that they align their courses that is comparable to students’ schedules. My

job is to make sure that all information concerning each course is entered into the banner system

so that it is updated in time for students to register for their required courses.

During this process, sometimes my assistantship entails being exposed to various

conversations and decision-making between my supervisor who is the Scheduling Coordinator,

and the program coordinator which sometimes involve concerns from other faculty members. To

explain, faculty members are responsible for teaching at least three courses each semester unless

they are a program coordinator, or if they have what is called a “buyout” such as a grant

program, or if they have special approval from the dean’s office. Without this, instructors are

required to reach the minimal number of three courses each semester. Nevertheless, for reasons

unknown, some program coordinators were allowing full-time faculty members to place adjunct

instructors in various courses to supplement what was thought to be courses that did not have

full-time instructors. This misconception presented a problem with the budget within the

department and raised serious concerns with administration.

Many questions from administration were surfacing as to why full-time faculty were not

adhering to their workload responsibilities which apparently had been occurring for quite some
ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP 3

time. Immediately administration made it clear that no part-time faculty would be approved until

all full-time faculty were committed to their required course load. This misconception lowered

the morale of the department as a whole because full-time faculty had to commit to teaching

additional courses along with other responsibilities such as research, and if adjuncts were

needed, detailed rationales would have to be submitted by the faculty member to administration.

Also, faculty members did not have a guarantee if their request for an adjunct instructor would

be approved which seemed to stir up conflict and emotions due to the added courses that faculty

members were required to take on. With this in mind, this challenge would require changes in

the faculty member’s priorities, roles, and attitudes as they learn new ways of coping with the

situation. According to Northouse (2018), a requirement of the leader is to determine whether or

not the challenge strikes at the core feelings and thoughts of others, and make sure that they

make themselves available to support followers to help them do what they are required to do.

To shed more light about this challenge, faculty members must learn not to be

comfortable with the “status quo,” but be open to new ways of coping during change such as

taking on more courses. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) points out that when the status quo is upset,

followers feel a sense of loss and dashed expectations which causes them to feel incompetent and

not supportive of leadership. Nevertheless, the goal here is for leaders to encourage people to

change so that they may grow during the process.

As a leader, my specific role would be to oversee other program coordinators within the

department, and work with faculty members concerning scheduling procedures to ensure that the

implementation of their courses is accurate. Also, focusing on this challenge, I would step back

and take a closer look at the situation to see what has caused the resistance from the faculty

members. This line of thinking is referred to as “getting off the dance floor and going to the
ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP 4

balcony” which is a metaphor from our readings for “stepping out of the fray and finding

perspective in the midst of a challenging situation” (Northfield, 2018). To add, this will enable

me to see what is going on regarding the situation looking back to how the miscommunication

began and determine if the change creates challenges that are technical or adaptive in nature.

Hence, in this case this challenge calls for adaptive leadership in which I would engage in

several adaptive behaviors. In “A Survival Guide for Leaders,” Heifetz and Linsky (2002) points

out that during a difficult situation, leaders need to take a step back in order to see the big picture

and asked themselves what is actually happening.

While taking a look at the big picture, my vision would involve accurately interpreting

“what I see and hear.” In order for me to be successful in this, I would take the role of observer

and participant as Northouse (2018) suggested, so that I can clearly understand what faculty

members are experiencing with expectations of faculty members defending their beliefs,

attitudes, and perceptions. Although this seems like a difficult task, analyzing the situation

would allow me to determine the conflicts among faculty members, reasons why work might

have been avoided, and negative reactions concerning the changes to their course schedules.

Thus, as a change agent, I would articulate the importance of this change, but allow faculty to see

that I empathize with them concerning the task that they must take on.

The task that faculty members are reluctantly assuming does not just start with them. As a

leader, I cannot expect faculty members to adapt to new ideas that might make them feel

frightened or uncomfortable. Immediately, I would create a holding environment to help address

any issues that may need to be discussed. The intent here is to foster an environment where

faculty members can speak freely between other faculty members about difficult problems in

order to help regulate distress and bring clarity to the situation. Northouse (2018) points out that
ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP 5

all people have a need for consistency to keep their beliefs, attitudes, and values the same, but

when it comes to adaptive challenges, this creates an uncertainty that brings on distress.

In addition to regulating distress, as a leader, I must “practice what I preach,” and be

willing to face my own adaptive challenges. This would involve changing my own priorities,

beliefs, and values. In order to do this, I must “adopt the behavior I expect from others.”

According to Heifetz and Linsky (2002), this can be crucial to getting others to agree with your

initiatives. This too, does not come easily because it is natural for people to resist change as the

faculty members did concerning their added responsibilities. Northouse (2018), explains that

people naturally do not want to face change, especially if it is related to their beliefs, values, or

behaviors. This causes people to feel “unbalanced” because their sense of balance has been

disrupted by the need for change.

To illustrate, these new challenges presented problems with faculty members as it

lowered morale, caused conflict, and stirred emotions which cannot be resolved solely by a

leader’s authority or expertise (Northouse, 2018). Although these challenges affected faculty

members in a negative way, these challenges can be used to mobilize them to confront the

decisions that they need to make. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) explained that conflict is a

necessary tool for the change process if it is handled properly as it can be used as the “engine of

progress.” Thus, creating a holding environment will help members manage their passionate

differences in a place where they feel comfortable, but not to the point where they avoid

“tackling difficult problems.”

In the adaptive leadership literature, the holding environment will play a major role in my

vision for change. I find that I continue to refer back to this behavior as I believe that this will

make a significant impact on followers as they learn how to cope with recognizing the need for
ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP 6

change. In creating the holding environment, tackling difficult problems such as emerging

conflicts with the additional workload of the faculty members, low morale, and regulating

emotional distress does not necessarily mean that this transpires in a physical place and solved

overnight. Northouse (2018) expressed that this type of environment can be procedural, or in a

virtual space that is formed by “cohesive relationships between people.” Nevertheless, this will

take some time to implement as one has to be able to respond to issues as they happen which

goes to say moving back and forth from the balcony to the dance floor. From this perspective,

distributing leadership responsibilities to assist in seeing the big picture could be essential in

encouraging others to adapt to change.

Distributing leadership responsibilities would involve internal stakeholders such as the

scheduling coordinator, scheduler, academic advisor, program coordinators, and faculty

members. For example, change would not only involve faculty members’ shift in their

responsibilities, but it would require getting others across the entire department to adapt. Getting

feedback from stakeholders can contribute to more new ideas from people “working in diverse

functions” to challenging situations. According to Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky (2009),

individuals that are in executive or other leadership roles simply do not have the personal

capacity to take on problems on their own but need to distribute leadership responsibility. With

this in mind, as a leader, I would give direction on what changes are going to take place to rectify

the faculty members course load as well as allow individuals to take the responsibility of

problem-solving by “giving the work back to the people” (Northouse, 2018).

Giving the work back to the people would mean that people would be empowered to

make decisions on their own where they feel that they have some control about the world around

them rather than depending on leadership to make all of the decisions for them. Overly protective
ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP 7

leadership can cause people to depend on their leaders which can interfere with learning in new

ways (Northouse, 2018). Thus, stakeholders would feel secure in collaborating with one another

where they can assist each other in areas where they feel uncertain. The idea here is to allow the

challenges that everyone is working toward an opportunity to get use to new ideas, digest it,

discuss it, and modify it if needed. Lastly, leaders would need to be willing to listen to the

people who this may affect the most, such as the students who would be registering for classes.

Northouse (2018) refers to this as giving credence to the outgroup members’ ideas and actions.

In turn, this could create allies for leaders so that the burden does not totally fall on them

(Heifetz & Linsky, 2002).

Overall, this adaptive leadership assessment cautions against being comfortable with the

status quo but encourages people to be open to new ideas and new ways of thinking which builds

confidence so that adaptation can occur. Although this is not an easy task and it takes time, if

leadership rises to the occasion by fostering several leadership behaviors such as implementing a

holding environment where units can collaborate and problem solve, regulate distress, see the big

picture with the help from stakeholders, and distribute or generate leadership by pushing

responsibilities for adaptive work down to other people in the department or organization, then

leaders will be able to get a clear sense of thinking about the next challenge that lies ahead.

Taking all of this into consideration, adaptive leadership will successfully mobilize people to do

adaptive work where they can thrive.

ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP 8

References

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). Leadership in a (permanent) crisis. Harvard

Business Review, 87(7/8), 62-69.

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). A survival guide for leaders. Harvard business

review, 80(6), 65-74.

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications,

Inc.