Authentic leadership failure in the Orange Korea case study

Women\\\\\\\'s Authentic Leadership in Cognitive Developmental Stage Analysis of the case study The author discusses her failure to effectively perform her management role at Orange Korea. She was tasked with the role of foreseeing the “Being Orange” initiative for the ORANGE Korea region which to her, was to be performed to success – as defined by the headquarters. The case narrator was from the banking sector, where she was successful, but ORANGE in Korea deals with fashion, which is a completely different field. In addition, she was inadequately experienced for the management work needed for the success of the Being Orange initiative. However, she overlooked all these limitations as she made success subjective to her. Successful implementation of the Being Orange initiative was a make or break undertaking for her, so she donkey-drove everyone disregarding the prevailing conditions of the Korean workforce. According to Sheryl Sandberg (Stanford eCorner, 2010), authenticity is a crucial element for success. In the case study, the narrator completely ignored her limitations and placed the burden for the success of the initiative to those below her. As a result of this ignored authenticity, the narrator ended up overlooking some of the essentials of successful leadership e.g. socialization. For an effective leader, socialization is important for it provides an avenue for understanding staff members, getting alternative opinions and advice which all help to build the final decisions taken. However, held up in the cocoon of fear to be seen as incapable to lead, she could not open up to my colleagues and more importantly, to those at ORANGE headquarters in Rome. This essentially is curtailed communication and with it, brought the negative effects of miscommunication and lack of communication, which is basically the root cause of her failure in the management role. When the narrator came to ORANGE Korea, she practically brought with her all the experiences and skills she had learned at the American Investment Banking - in a textbook format. The banking industry is highly evolutionary and driven by high speed. In this case, her previous success was subjective to her. As argued by Helsing (2010) and McCauley et al. (2006), these experiences functioned as a holding environment for her. Moreover, given the fact that the leadership experiences used in banking were working, they formed a suitable and comfortable operating platform, thus an assurance for achieving the highly needed success. According to Bauer (2017), the holding environment acts as a fall back when under pressure, and even though a person is able to abandon this environment, departure is only possible as long as stressing conditions are not in existence. When the stressing conditions are present, the holding environment operates as an assurance. Throughout the period the narrator was the Korean ambassador for ORANGE, she was subjective to the desire to succeed. She was under intense pressure to deliver positive results. These positive results and the sense of success to her were meeting the goals and deliverables set by the management at ORANGE headquarters in Rome. As a result, she exerted pressure on herself, pressure which made she was subjective to these deliverable and goals. To achieve these goals and deliverables was my primary priority. This is considered to be level three of the cognitive development theory where she is not making choice, but simply following what has been set by the headquarters in Rome. Her operations in the office, the way she organized the operations the entire Korean region was therefore done to deliver as per the region’s terms and conditions but to deliver to the unique requirements of the headquarters. As a matter of fact, to her, achieving these set goals was a make or break situation. Having come from the banking sector where she was successful, she had set for herself a target to be successful in the new position. The new initiative “Being Orange” was to her the perfect opportunity to showcase her skills and assert her position on the ORANGE Korean subsidiary. Mark you, for the narrator, attaining success was the only way she could prove herself – at least as per her thinking. This is level four of the Cognitive Development Theory where she is subjective to her own ideology. As a result, she could not critique the ideas and governing theories that she attached to leadership and self. For her, attaining the goals as set by the headquarters was supreme. Even though she was able to prioritize, she could not critically analyze and compare the objectives set by headquarters against the situation and the relevancy of the Korean Subsidiary to deliver. Exploration of order of mind The narrator acknowledges and states that she is at the third order of mind – the socialized stage. As described by Kegan (1994), at this stage an individual leader focuses on the needs of other and their personal needs. It is evident in the presented case that the author is driven by the desire to meet the goals set in the headquarters and by her desire for success. As the author states, “Once the directions were given from the headquarters to lead the regional workshops, I took great care to complete my task successfully.” To deliver on the goals set by the headquarters, which determine the success of her goals, the author has to hold both interests simultaneously. However, the analysis done in this paper prominently points to the fact that the narrator is a stage four order of mind – the self-authoring mind. Kegan (1994) argues that leaders in this stage have attained consistency in their area and they have developed an identity. It is evident that the author has established herself in the management profession based on her success in the American Investment Banking. Note: it is based on her success in banking that she qualified for the ORANGE Korea job post. Leaders in stage four order of consciousness, self- authoring, are characterized by their reliance on individually set standards and principals. The narrator in the analyzed case study established personal standards for success, which, unfortunately, are misaligned and do not put into consideration the relevant and prevailing conditions of the Korean subsidiary. Additionally, the narrator is driven by the end values. According to her, she needed to meet the goals established in Rome, and this determined how she managed are position and the entire staff under her. According to Kegan and Lahey (1984), a leader in this stage is able to reflect and change their values, therefore, modify their modes of operations. For the case of the narrator, she came to this reflection and states that “I realize I was completely self-ignorant: my values and purposes, my honesty and integrity, and my authentic self.” However, it may seem that the realization and reflection was a little too late has the initiative she was managing had already fallen behind as compared to other regions. In comparison and based on the arguments passed for each of the two orders of mind, stage four is considered to be more suited. The narrator fits better in stage four – self-authoring – as compared to stage three. Moreover, stage three considers some of the key transactions for a leader to be obligations and rewards, expectations, mutual support, and working to improve trust, commitment, and connectedness with others. For this case study, the narrator doesn’t satisfy these key transactions, thus stage three is rejected and stage four adopted as being appropriate for the narrator. Limits of cognitive development theory Kegan’s theory addresses only a single fraction of what makes a human. According to Berger (2003), this fraction could be referred to as the self-complexity. Self-complexity doesn’t address the other elements of humanity that contribute to cognitive functioning, for example, human internal experiences, morality, intelligence, and psychological wellness among others. In addition, cognitive development theory doesn’t incorporate the elements of class, the environment, and culture in general which influence or affect constructive development. While cognitive development theory is a useful tool in making meaning of the hidden, it relegates to the background what makes humans interestingly complex. Second, Kegan categorizes the complexity of humans in a hierarchical model based on numbers, unfortunately, it is not as simple. The model purports to describe a journey that is followed by every individual, and that some of the journeys are complex and different than other. Even on a real journey, some travel faster than other, but then, human development is not a race, but a process (Berger, 2003). In addition, a journey has costs, but so does stillness. The place a person is developmentally is dependent on the opportunities availed and the cost that such a person has had to pay. Lastly, cognitive development theory holds that individuals attain more complex stages with time, but essentially, there is no order that is better than the other. These hierarchies are based on ideologies, and it is common knowledge that a complex idea doesn’t mean it is more valuable than a simple idea. In real life, a person can be kind or unkind, caring or uncaring, just or unjust, and still qualify for one of the orders of mind. To understand the cognitive development theory, all that’s needed is the examination of self-complexity of humanity not for the purpose of classifying them in limiting hierarchies, but to establish how they might support a system for making meaning based on their growth. This understanding would, therefore, be useful in determining an individual’s capability to meet the demands placed on them.