A640.9.2.RB_DavisCarl Final Project Reflection Blog

Welcome to the end of another term, Readers! It’s been nine weeks, but we’ve learned a lot along the way (at least I did!).

A cornerstone of the class for this term was an assignment that required us to volunteer time working with a charity or on a service project that was meaningful to us. We were to observe how the leaders operated and then report back on what we saw and what lessons we learned from the experience. To ensure we paid attention, the eight to ten-page paper we had to turn in during week eight counted as 25% of our grade.

The purpose of the task was to give us an opportunity to step out of our respective comfort zones and to observe the complexities in leading a group of volunteer workers that come together to work on a task and then go home. The motivation, ability, and make-up of each group was largely unknown until the event started, giving the leaders a huge challenge…and us a great opportunity to learn.

The question at issue was what leadership theories and practices we would see being used by those in charge of the event. A secondary question was whether we could find lessons we could take and apply to our personal lives.

The information would include a background on the organization, the event, some data about the leadership, and the general make-up of the volunteer staff. Additionally, the situations the leaders faced and how they handled them would provide important points. Self-reflection upon my motivation for choosing the particular charity and event did come into play.

Some of the conclusions I was able to draw were that the leadership for the event I attended was basically non-existent. I believe they were just ill-prepared to handle the dynamics of the event and the weather that impacted the volunteers and participants. Safety of the participants did not appear to be a priority with safety of the volunteers given little thought, as well. The motivation of the participants and volunteers was high because the event was being held to support cancer research. Most involved had a friend or family member that had been impacted by the disease.

The concept that applied was that of laissez-faire leadership. Other leadership principles that applied were those of communication, relationship building, oversight, guidance, and empathy. I am sorry to say that it was a lack of the application of those theories that stood out on the day I was present.

The assumptions I had going in were that the organizers would have communication and safety plans that would be communicated to the volunteers. I also assumed and was told via email prior to the event, that the jobs we would be doing would be explained to us in enough detail that an average person would be comfortable doing their assigned job. I was wrong to assume those things. The organizers appeared to have assumed the volunteers would all be veterans of this particular event and would be able to do their job by being pointed toward a particular area. The organizers appeared to have also assumed that all the participants would be in shape and capable of navigating an obstacle course meant for people of an athletic ilk that stretched for five kilometers. They were incorrect to assume those things.

The implications and consequences were that many participants were put in danger unnecessarily, the volunteers struggled to be helpful, and the whole event was not as successful as it could have been. I have high hopes the organizers took the comments made by volunteers to heart and will make improvements for next year.

The point of view I was able to come at this project from was that of an impartial observer and volunteer. It was enjoyable to be involved with a charity that was raising money for a cause that was near to my heart, as well. The chance to observe the leadership from the perspective of a “follower” gave me a great way to examine how I would like the leaders to have actually acted.

From that perspective, I had some concrete learning points about the importance of communication and the importance of taking care of the people that are in my charge. COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE and THINK ABOUT THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE TRYING TO DO GREAT THINGS FOR YOU AND YOUR CAUSE. BE EMPATHETIC AND BE INVOLVED. VOLUNTEER WORKFORCES NEED EVEN MORE LEADERSHIP THAN OTHER TEAMS BECAUSE OF THE OFTEN SHORT AND DYNAMIC LIFE-CYCLE OF THE GROUP.

This was not my first time to work at a charity event or to volunteer. It was the first time I went into the event with an eye on how it was being run and how the leaders were doing their jobs. I took some solid learning points away from this experience and have already applied them to my work and home-life.

I hope you have a wonderful end-of-year break and I hope you’ll catch up with me again in January!

A640.8.2.RB_DavisCarl Women in Leadership

Welcome back to the Educated Leadership blog! This week our topic is self-talk and how the words we use can affect our self-esteem and how others see us.

We were asked to watch a TED Talk given by Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook (2010). Mrs. Sandberg noted that, when compared to society, the number of women in positions of political or corporate powers positions was extremely low. She presented the statistic that out of 190 countries, only nine are women. Additionally, of all the people in parliaments in the world, only 13 percent were women in 2010.

A very interesting point made by Mrs. Sandberg was about the statistics pointing out that women will habitually underestimate their performance while men do the opposite. Susan Krauss Whitbourne, Ph.D. wrote, “Unlike that sports commentary, which athletes never hear while they're competing, you can actually “hear” what your own self-talk is saying.  When this is upbeat and self-validating, the results can boost your productivity. However, when the voice is critical and harsh, the effect can be emotionally crippling” (Whitbourne, 2013).

I catch myself using degrading self-talk from time to time. I have tried diligently to stop doing so, but it is difficult to keep from beating myself up. However, when I realize I have been saying less-than-constructive things to myself, I take time to identify the accomplishments I have made and the people who trust and count on me. It’s my attempt to put gauze on the emotional wounds I may have caused myself.

Culturally, assertive women are at a disadvantage in the workplace. Mrs. Sandberg discussed a study done that illustrated society’s slant toward assertive males and not females. A professor took a paper that described the career of an assertive woman, Heidi Roizen. He changed one word on the paper, the name of the subject. Heidi was changed to Howard and student groups were given separate versions of the paper and asked about their impressions of the people described. Most of the students wanted to work with and for Henry and thought Heidi was pushy and a “climber” (TED Talks, 2010). What an illustration of gender bias at work!

I have worked for two different female leaders. One was my direct supervisor for over five years. I observed her overcompensating more and more as she got closer to retirement. I knew she had faced years of having to justify her position in a very male-oriented profession. She had reached a very high level in the organization but felt she had to continue the habit. I attempted to coach her, but knew it was a difficult topic for her to broach. I witnessed male workers reacting negatively to her when she showed any emotion other than a smile or a frown. If a male manager yelled with the same gentlemen in the room, they chalked it up to the male being passionate about their job. Gender bias is real.

Knowing that it is happening, still, is part of working toward equality in the workplace. I use self-reflection to see if I am reacting differently to someone because of their gender or culture. The ‘Golden Rule’ is a well-known axiom. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In Diversity and Inclusion, there is a version of that rule known as the ‘Platinum Rule’: “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” I want to treat people in a way that makes them feel respected and comfortable.  

I will be showing this video to my family. Yes, it will be important for my wife and daughters to see it, but my sons need to see it, too. All of us need to work together to break down gender bias and increase opportunities for all.

Take care, and I’ll see you next week!

Talks, TED. (Producer). (2010). TEDWomen 2010 - Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders

Whitbourne, S. K., Ph.D. (2013). Make Your Self-Talk Work for You - Learn from the pros how to use constructive, not dysfunctional, self-talk. Fulfillment at Any Age.  Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201309/make-your-self-talk-work-you

A640.7.3.RB_DavisCarl How to Answer Case Study Questions

Hello, Readers and welcome to the latest installment of the Educated Leadership Blog!

Our discussion this week involves a web page on eHow.com (King, 2012) that provided information on ways to answer case study questions. In the Master’s degree program for Leadership that I am enrolled, we are faced with answering questions about case studies in many of our classes. As noted by King, “Case study examinations can be used in business, technology, medicine, psychology, advertising, law, consulting, and science. The questions are ideal for testing the knowledge of an individual who must prove his grasp of the subject matter in a particular field, i.e., the legal professional” (2012, p.1).

King’s discussion was aimed at oral case study examinations, but the techniques are applicable to any variation of the archetype. She was, in my opinion, somewhat elementary in her views. She noted, “On the day of the case study test, relax and allow yourself to remember what you have learned from previous readings on the subject. You should possess a wealth of knowledge in this area from classes you have taken or work experience” (King, 2012, p. 1). There are some seriously broad expectations in that statement.

Further along in her article, King did provide some good nuggets of information. She pointed out that it is good practice to read the question, or questions, in their entirety before reading the case. Knowing what you should be solving or resolving helps focus the mind as one is reading the case. Additionally, she suggests visualizing the situation posed by the case as a way of looking for answers. As she mentioned, it could well be that one has experiences in their life that would apply in the case they are studying. The brevity of her article does not leave King much room to delve into many techniques for solving case studies but provides some basic places to start.

In my experience, understanding the learning points from the lesson is the primary tool for working with case studies. The situation faced by the characters in the story will relate back to the reading or information provided to be studied for the week or weeks prior. I ask myself, “How am I going to apply the theories and techniques I have been learning about in a way that will solve or mitigate the issues the protagonists and antagonists face in the story?”

Additionally, I draw upon my years of experience in the workforce and in school to look for tools I can apply to the described situation. I like to look for ways to intertwine my experience and the learning points for the lesson to apply what I have learned and cement it in my memory.

For someone facing case studies for the first time, Ms. King’s article is not a bad place to start. While she presents valid points, the lack of depth in the article leaves it far from comprehensive in utility. I would not recommend it to someone who has faced case studies already, as they have probably developed a technique for analyzing and commenting on the information.

King, J. (2012). How to Answer Case Study Questions.   Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/how_8342765_answer-case-study-questions.html

A640.6.4.RB_DavisCarl Authentic Leadership

                                                The mermaid in Copenhagen - CSD 2016

It’s time for another entry at the Educated Leadership blog! This week we’re looking at Authentic Leadership Theory and two perspectives about that theory.

In our text, Rowe and Guerrero cited a definition of authentic leadership style as that “which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development. The authentic leader is confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, transparent, moral/ethical, future-oriented, and gives priority to developing associates to be leaders” (2013, p. 295-296). Northouse (2016) pointed out that very few studies on authentic leadership explain the moral component and how it serves as a motivating factor for the leader and that the theory of authentic leadership is still early in development.

Martin and Sims (1956) and Bailey (1988) wrote that all leaders must be manipulative to succeed. This point opens the idea that leadership is inherently negative and requires a type of coercion that may be less than savory. Bass & Steidlmeier countered that “in fact, it is pseudo-transformational leaders who are deceptive and manipulative” (1999, p. 196).

So, where does this leave us, the leaders in today’s world, as we look to be the best we can be? Let’s utilize critical thinking tools to analyze the situation.

The purpose of the two perspectives is defined in the roles they are playing. The critics are looking to poke holes in the theory while those attempting to adapt the theory are apt to expound on the positive aspects. Both sides, in this argument, appear to have been remiss in addressing the opposing points of integrity and ethics or the lack thereof. As we have learned along our journey, leadership that is implemented to enhance the success of only the leader will not continue in perpetuity. The leader needs to have the success of the followers, the organization, and the overall community as motivation and strive for that through values and morals that are acceptable and agreeable to those groups.

The question at issue is whether leadership is manipulation of the followers. The litmus test would be the ethics and integrity of the goals and in the way, the leader energizes the followers to assist in achieving those goals. The US political arena has provided some excellent examples of leaders claiming to be authentic while demonstrating qualities of charismatic leadership that skews toward being more self-serving in nature. Bass & Steidlmeier’s (1999) point above is applicable here.

Northouse (2016) noted that Authentic Leadership theory is still in its relatively early stages. Information may be less available than we would like, but there are studies available on the subject. As we are doing here, each study should be reviewed using critical thinking tools to enhance understanding of the overall theory. In the case of the two statements we are reviewing, the ethics and integrity of the leader are where we should concentrate our data mining. As we have striven to define leadership, integrity, trust, honesty, and ethics have become our cornerstones. Any questions about authentic leadership need to address those cornerstones and their application. That which is proper in some cultures may not be in others.

Interpreting the Martin & Sims (1956) and Bailey (1988) statement is clear cut. They were attempting to note that manipulation in any form is bad. The inference is negative. Wong & Cummings (2009) took the purely positive interpretation of authentic leadership and infer that by providing a positive atmosphere based on honesty and integrity, the change in behavior induced in the followers is good.

The concepts utilized by the two perspectives revolve around leadership and followership. Wong looked at the aspect of being genuine and Martin looked at the less altruistic concepts of power and influence. Both concepts are important and examining multiple facets of an argument is vital to both understanding and application of the theories we study.

The assumptions by Wong & Cummings (2009) are that authentic leadership is inherently positive because it stresses ethical leadership. The perspective assumes the opposite is often the case and authentic leaders need to be watched carefully.

As we learned when reviewing Charismatic leadership theory, blind followership leads to negative results. The implication of looking at only the positive, or only the negative, side of authentic leadership is having a gap in one’s perspective. As leaders, we all have gaps in our perspective. One of our fiduciary duties to our organization and our followers if to attempt to minimize our gaps in performance and perspective.

We need to be authentic leaders. We need to be transformational leaders. We need to be servant leaders. As I have studied Authentic Leadership, I have begun to believe that Authentic Leadership Theory is an underpinning for transformational and servant leadership. Being less than authentic would hamper any attempts to build the trust needed to implement those important leadership styles.

Have a great week!

Bailey, F. G. (1988). Humbuggery and manipulation: The art of leadership. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Carol A. Wong, G. A. Cummings. (2009). The Influence of Authentic Leadership Behaviors on Trust and Work Outcomes of Health Care Staff. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 18. doi:10.1002/jls.20104

Martin, N. H., & Sims, J.H. (1956). Thinking Ahead: Power Tactics. Harvard Business Review, 6, 12.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership - Theory and Practice (M. Masson Ed. Seventh ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

W. Glenn Rowe, L. Guerrero. (2013). Cases in Leadership (L. Todorovic-Arndt Ed. 3rd ed.).

A640.5.2.RB_DavisCarl Leader-Member Exchange Theory of Leadership

                      Source:  http://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/lead/lmx-vdl.html

Readers, welcome back to another week of the Educated Leadership Blog! We are looking at the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership, the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL), in-group, out-group and their impact on performance.

 First, let’s review the basics of LMX. Rowe and Guerrero stated, “Whether we view the LMX theory of leadership as descriptive or prescriptive, it works by emphasizing the dyadic relationship that both leaders and followers see as special and unique” (2013, p. 203). “From a descriptive sense, LMX theory implies that we need to understand that in-groups and out-groups exist in groups and organizations and that as leaders, we participate in their development” 2013, p. 202).

Looking at the prescriptive perspective, Rowe and Guerrero noted a leader should attempt to, “develop relationships with all subordinates who are similar to those described for in-group members” (2013, p. 203). Northouse commented that LMX has several positive features. “First, LMX theory is a strong descriptive approach that explains how leaders use some followers (in-group members) more than others (out-group members) to accomplish organizational goals effectively” (2016, p.157). The second feature is that it focuses on the leader-member relationship (Northouse,2016). Conversely, LMX theory does run counter to principles of fairness normally expected from leaders and the theory does not prescribe the manner of building the deep relationships with in-groups (Northouse, 2016).

As we can see in the diagram above (Swenson), the probability for higher performance increases with the in-groups and faces distinct challenges with the out-group. The interaction and the relationship that encompasses the leader and the in-group acts as a catalyst, increasing performance. Given that humans will generally be more apt to work harder for people with whom they have a relationship than for those they do not. I have also heard this phenomenon compared to a gas tank or bank account of loyalty. The leader employs the techniques indicated on the downward arrow to make deposits that are repaid to the leader in loyalty, commitment, and assistance at a rate that may exceed the amount deposited by the leader. In practice, there is a risk that the in-group becomes the “go-to” team that eventually suffers burn-out or the leader overdraws the account and resentment begins to build in the in-group.

I have quite a bit of experience in the LMX theory. The dynamic in my organization sets up in many places in the manner of LMX with in-groups and out-groups along with the need to build special relationships with work groups on the periphery. I can also attest to the admonishment with which Rowe and Guerrero close their chapter on LMX, “We encourage each of you to be willing to lead others but to also understand the responsibility you take on for developing special, unique relationships with each of your subordinates” (2013, p. 203). Given the possibility of those in the out-groups to perceive the special relationships as biased or unfair, the repercussions could be destructive. Additionally, some cultures have expectations from closer relationships that may lead to disappointment for some in-group participants.

I have worked for managers that built dyadic linkages with the members of their team. I was compelled to work harder because the repayment of the effort via increased opportunity and responsibility was very addictive. Over time, though, the leader failed to be able to maintain the level of reciprocal input and I felt overworked and underappreciated. Interestingly, when I throttled back my performance to rebuild my desire and commitment I was quickly rebuked for the change by the leader. It was apparent to me that I was being taken for granted and I began to look for another leader for whom to work. I relate this story to act as a warning to those looking at the LMX theory. It takes work and dedicated monitoring of the relationships. Make sure to make deposits in the loyalty tank of those reporting to you. Lastly, look for opportunities to place in-group members into leadership positions, that an excellent gift of trust.

There are implications for the members of the in-group and out-group. The in-group, as stated above will expect more opportunities and responsibilities, as time moves on. They may also expect other “quid pro quo” types of gifts and opportunities. Signs of burn-out and alienation must be looked for regularly by the leader so they can be counteracted as soon as they begin to appear. The out-group will likely struggle with the detrimental effects mentioned in the graphic above. There is an out-group in my organization and the exhibit the characteristics of alienation, apathy, and low performance. I have also seen higher turn-over rates, more health issues, and antagonistic behavior manifested in that group. Last, but by no means least, the out-group is regularly filing complaints with Human Resources citing perceived slights or preferential treatment of others by management. Northouse’s point mentioned earlier that striving to eventually treat all employees as in-group members stands out as excellent advice for some of my leaders, given what I have seen.

Thanks for stopping by and I’ll see you next week!

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership - Theory and Practice (M. Masson Ed. Seventh ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

W. Glenn Rowe, L. Guerrero. (2013). Cases in Leadership (L. Todorovic-Arndt Ed. 3rd ed.).

A640.4.4RB_DavisCarl Developing a Case (Post Event Analysis)

Hello, readers! It’s been quite some time since I have posted and it’s good to be back.

This entry will focus on an assignment that asked us to create a case study for a leadership class. We were given some examples from which to work and had the benefit of having read numerous case studies during the classes in our leadership program. Frankly, I feel like I have lived some of the studies I have been assigned to read and someone is getting credit for documenting my travails!

As I am a believer in the adage, “If you want to learn something, teach it”, I found this exercise beneficial. Initially, I thought the difficult part would be coming up with a story. Not so. The difficult part was coming up with a story that required the application of the leadership theories we are currently focusing on in class. That perspective gave me new insight to the development of the case studies I have studied to date. Like any other lesson plan, the learning points must be defined at the outset. With the clarity of the goal in mind, the story could be tailored accordingly. A second point is creating the questions that offer the student an opportunity to demonstrate the level of mastery for which the teacher/professor needs to see. Through this exercise, I realize these two points are critical in creating cases.

I found myself needing to refer to textbooks to ensure I was capturing the essence of the theories we had been learning about in the previous weeks. My examination of the theories now included my perceptions after having learned the material versus the time prior to my first exposure. What did I learn and how would I demonstrate understanding to somebody else? What was the delta in my knowledge base of leadership theory?

Some of the issues pertinent to case study development include:

-Providing enough detail to allow the student to build an adequate picture of the situation.

There needs to be enough to paint a picture, but not so much as to distract from the learning points to be conveyed.

-Describing a situation that may lend itself to applying what the students have learned.

Instructions and references can be used to assist in guiding the student in a direction. However, the directions need to be broad enough to allow the student range to expand their thinking or connect other ideas that may have been learned elsewhere.

-Creating questions that allow the student to demonstrate their level of knowledge.

The questions should not be leading, but also not so vague as to blur the focus on the learning points. The level of student the lesson is directed at must also be considered.

-Creating a situation that had was based in fact so the student can see themselves in the situation.

If the student cannot see themselves facing the situation, they may not be as enthusiastic or committed to solving the problem. As I said before, many times I see myself in the case studies I have read and the emotions created as I re-live the situations are sometimes very powerful. Taking time to review the experience has provided me with opportunities to grow and to find a bit of catharsis in the exercise.

What did I learn by doing the case study creation exercise?

I learned creating a case study of substance is a complicated task that requires planning and concentration. I learned that the story needs to be believable and relatable for the student to be able to see themselves in the situation. Creating questions that address the level of understanding and application capability of the student takes planning and understanding of the learning points.

The biggest learning point I took away from this assignment was that building high-quality case studies is not an easy task. From this experience, I would expect grading replies to case studies to require an even higher level of understanding and communication skills. Guiding students back toward where their comprehension and application needs to be while not demoralizing them would require skill and adroitness. A tangent to that thought would be that teachers/professors/instructors need to vet the case studies they select for students to analyze. A case study of poor quality could induce students to draw incorrect conclusions from the lesson and, given the law of primacy (FAA, 2008), create issues for the class and its leader that are very difficult to counteract.

See you next week!

Administration, Federal Aviation. (2008). Aviation Instructor's Handbook: U.S. Department of Transportation.

A635.8.3.RB_DavisCarl Transformational Strategies

                                                CN Tower, Toronto, ON July 2016 - CSD

Welcome back, readers! We’re to the last week of blogging for our Organizational Change class and the topic is strategies for transforming teams. The situations involving this kind of change that we may encounter as leaders may very well be some of the most daunting we could face.

As part of the lesson this week, we watched two videos. One, a TED Talk, was a lecture by General Stanley McChrystal (TED Talks, 2011). The other was a YouTube™ presentation of an interview with Jim “Mattress Mack” McIngvale (VitalSmarts, 2012). Both leaders faced dynamic situations in which their teams needed to make cultural and operational changes quickly in order to survive. It should also be noted that McIngvale cited the book, Influencer (Grenny, et al, 2013) as the major guide to the changes he made in his company’s culture. Some other information that will be helpful this week came from our class textbook, An Experiential Approach to Organizational Development (Brown, 2011).

Ok, back to discussing culture change. McChrystal and McIngvale faced different challenges and decided to deal with them in appropriately different ways. McIngvale faced a sudden and dramatic downturn in the economy that dropped his customer base approximately 70% in less than a year. Shortly after the downturn, his main furniture warehouse caught fire and he lost $30 million in inventory overnight. McIngvale faced two situations that put his company in dire jeopardy. He knew he had to change the way his business operated. In the book Influencer, which McIngvale read, Grenny, et al (2013) describe a plan they espouse for leaders to influence change. They teach leaders to Focus and Measure, Find Vital Behaviors, and Engage All Six Sources of Influence (2013, p. 13-14). McChrystal was charged with commanding an army from long distance via means he had never tried.

Focus and Measure means leaders need to be completely clear on what they want to accomplish and measure their progress relentlessly. Find Vital behaviors relates to identifying the behaviors that need to change to drive the most impact. Engaging the six sources of influence covers personal motivation, personal ability, social motivation, social ability, structural motivation, and structural ability (Grenny, et al, 2013, p. 14-34). Personal ability and motivation are fairly self-explanatory. Social motivation and ability relate to the encouragement that workers and managers provide each other and whether or not the behavior is then enabled. Structural motivation involves reward programs that are available to be used. Structural ability relates to the quality of the surroundings and tools available for the leaders and workers to use. Without a doubt, engaging all six sources of influence is a very complex and difficult task.

Coinciding with the techniques from Influencer (2013), are some considerations about corporate culture that Brown discussed and illustrated in his book (2011, p. 405-408). Describing the relative strength of the current culture is valuable information for a leader. Figure 15.4 (Brown, 2011, p. 406) illustrates a way to classify the culture of the organization and will provide a leader with a relative idea of the amount of force that will be needed to drive change. A strong culture may be resistant to change. Figure 15.5 (Brown, 2011, p. 407) illustrates the Strategy-Culture matrix and can be used to understand the relationship between strategy and culture in the particular organization. The various quadrants define the relation of strategy and culture and can be used to optimize the tools and techniques to affect change.

So, Mattress Mack had an economic disaster followed shortly by a gigantic fire. He knew he had to change, defined his new goals, and applied the techniques from the book. He began measuring his progress, communicated the goals religiously to the managers and workers, made changes to the social motivation and ability of the team, added training to affect the personal motivation and abilities of the team, and made changes to the structural (reward) motivation and abilities of the team. It took a couple of years, but the company is making money again and McIngvale notes multiple other benefits to the company and its employees from making the changes.

McChrystal faced a different situation with the consequences of failure being far more severe for those involved. The war in Afghanistan was conducted in a manner unlike any other before it. McChrystal had to manage a force that was spread across half the globe. His team ran the gamut of ages from teenagers to fifty-somethings. Many of his youngest employees (as it were) were skilled in technology with which he was unfamiliar. Maybe most importantly, he had to lead them through electronic media instead of face-to-face. McChrystal and his leadership team had to learn how to give and receive trust across long distances. They had to adapt to being able to see situations happening over which they had little to no direct influence. They had to succeed because failure cost more than money, it cost lives and could impact the future of human civilization. No pressure, right? McChrystal managed around the culture (Brown, 2011, p. 407 and Fig. 15.5). He reinforced the value system, which is strong in military cultures. He reshuffled power and used any available lever he could find to influence change. He learned to listen harder and to accept reverse mentoring, as he called it (Ted Talks, 2011).

As you go forward in your leadership career and continuing education, remember these two situations. They are very good examples of leadership and impacting cultural change. The Brown text provides more information that can become part of your leadership toolkit as well. A visit to your favorite brick-and-mortar or on-line library will provide you with a multitude of other examples and great information.

Thank you for following my blog through this term. I look forward to posting again for my next class and hope you will join me then!

Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organizational Development (E. Svendsen Ed. 8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Joseph Grenny, K. P., David Maxfield, Ron McMillan, Al Switzler. (2013). Influencer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Talks, TED. (Producer). (2011). Stanley McChrystal -- Listen, learn...then lead. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal

Video, VitalSmarts. (Producer). (2012). Influencer -- Gallery Furniture Video Case Study. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E20RW75Fhu4{,  #166@@hidden}

A635.7.3.RB_DavisCarl INSEAD Reflection

                                    Ceiling of the Naval Chapel at Greenwich  (CSD 2015)

We’re back again, readers and let’s get right into another entry of the Educated Leadership Blog!

This week’s topic is self-managed teams and how leaders interact and manage those teams. At first, saying a self-managed team needs leadership may sound almost oxymoronic. However, even teams that are self-sufficient need to have an idea what they are supposed to accomplish and how it fits into the big picture.

Brown, in his text, stated that “A self-managed work team is an autonomous group whose members decide how to handle their task” (2011, p. 349). The team needs to have a defined task, service, or product. They may be a permanent fixture or a one-time team or variations in between. The teams may be called by different names. I have participated on a cross-functional team, which is a type of self-managed team. There are also self-regulating work groups, autonomous work groups, high-performance work teams, and sociotechnical systems (Brown, 2011).

The teams are often made up of personnel from across the organization. The team is given authority to manage their processes by upper management so the group may accomplish its objectives. In short, a diverse group of people is brought together, given a task, given authority to act, and then senior management gets out of the way so they can work. It is up to the group to determine a plan and then to execute that plan to meet the goals and deadlines senior management has set.

As self-managed teams are a version of high-performance teams, their characteristics are nearly identical. It should be a small team of no more than 15 members. It should be diverse in make-up. The team members need to be skilled, knowledgeable and capable. The team and management need to have a strong sense of partnership and desire to achieve the goal. They should have a physical site and be able to procure the tools and materials they deem necessary for success. (Brown, 2011)

Self-managed work teams have benefits and drawbacks, as do most any management processes. The advantages include a strong sense of accomplishment for the team members, the ability to work at a pace and in the style the members find most advantageous, the opportunity for team members to stretch themselves and grow, and a chance for the team members to learn about other parts of the company from people with whom they do not usually interact. Management gets the rewards from all the opportunities afforded the workers and the learning they accomplish. Management will also get to see their people operate in new ways which may open new doors for the employee. Last, but not least, management gets a situation handled that requires less oversight than normal which allows them to focus their energies elsewhere. The drawbacks, in my opinion, center around the change in leadership that is required to lead these groups. Those who struggle with delegating authority will find working with self-managed teams distasteful.

It is incumbent on management to set the goals and deadlines for the team, as well as defining the restraints. They also need to monitor the team with periodic check-ins to look for possible issues that are negatively impacting the group. Anytime a new group is put together, there will be growing pains and sometimes the pains are bigger that the self-managed team can handle on its own. Also, at the check-ins, there needs to be feedback provided to the group so they have an understanding of how they are progressing. The teams are not purely on auto-pilot, but it is close. However, there may be times when the external leader needs to get more ‘hands-on’ with the team. The leader needs to pay close enough attention to see if there are major disruptions that are impacting the team’s ability to perform. At that point, the leader intervenes to get the team back on track and then steps back again (INSEAD, 2008).

If the team is not set up properly, there will be issues. The characteristics and needs of the team need to be carefully considered by management. There needs to be training and cross-training for the members. There needs to be recognition and compensation for success. As Professor Paul Tesluk mentioned in his interview with INSEAD (2008), as companies flatten their management structure, there is more need for teams that can self-manage. There just aren’t going to be enough managers to pay full-time attention to the teams.

Professor Tesluk also notes that the leadership style for “external leaders” of self-managed teams is different from the style of a leader that is in charge of a team (INSEAD, 2008). The leader must move away from a directive style and move toward a transformational type of leadership where the development of the team members is at the forefront. The members must learn and become proficient at setting schedules, defining processes, and managing the diverse perspectives the team will have within it. Those are learned skills that are not prevalent across most companies. They will need to be nurtured in the self-managed team.

I have had the pleasure of having a high-performance team work for me. I love it and am always on the lookout for opportunities to put together another group like that one. I was also a participant on a cross-functional team a few years ago. That experience was not as gratifying because the leader that set up the team was not able to step back and let the team work, he was always giving direction. The team didn’t meet the tasks it was set up to accomplish and most participants left with a bad taste in their mouth. To this day, the mention of a cross-functional team being considered will cause numerous eye-rolls in meetings.

In order to be able to lead a self-managed team, one needs trust and confidence in the team and in oneself. The leader needs to know what needs to be accomplished and be able to communicate that goal clearly. An understanding of the skills the people being invited to join the team will bring is a necessity. A commitment to getting the people on the team opportunities to expand their skill-sets and giving them the space to learn and even to make mistakes (yes, make mistakes) will go far toward providing the team opportunity to succeed. Professor Tesluk also points out that external leaders of self-managed teams need to convey the goals for the team in an inspiring manner (INSEAD, 2008). Therefore, the ability to communicate goals through storytelling may be a very important skill. One other skill will be the ability to pay attention without getting in the way. As mentioned above, the leader needs to be ready to step in and help when truly necessary.

I believe we will see more and more of these types of teams, especially in larger companies. I look forward to working with and on those teams!

Until next time…

Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organizational Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

INSEAD (2008). Self-managing teams: debunking the leadership paradox, YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM

A635.6.3.RB_DavisCarl EcoSeagate

                                                                London - June 2016                     CSD

Hello and welcome to week six of Organizational Change class!

We were asked to review two YouTube™ videos about Eco Seagate, a team building outdoor lab that the Seagate Technology company puts on each year. Seagate is a computer hardware manufacturer that builds hard drives. The cost of the lab is quoted at approximately $2 million per year (Brown, 2011, p. 274). 200 Seagate employees are selected to participate each year out of 2000 applying to go.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCOfOFMiLtE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etwuap-_Azk

The CEO of Seagate has been unable to quantitatively prove the value of the investment he is making in the company’s people (Brown, 2011, p.274). In the two videos, the examples of team members helping each other and coming together after a challenge are apparent. Since the videos were shot by Seagate, I would expect them to illustrate those points. Team-building is the underlying theme for the entire lab. The participants are thrown into new and stressful situations where they have to rely on each other to succeed. Many of the lecture topics in part two of the video were about conflict and conflict management. That would seem to indicate that Seagate management feels their people are under-equipped to deal with conflict situations at work. This model is used by the military and other organizations who are looking to build bonds of trust and a sense of accomplishment for their teams.

There is value in the process Seagate uses. There is also risk in putting people in these situations. Those that succeed will find benefit in the program. There may be those that fail or get injured. Those people may not find the benefit of the experience nearly as useful. For some, the opportunity to travel to faraway lands may be reward enough for going. Others are probably looking for the chance to test themselves and see how far they can push against their comfort zones. Some are hoping to get noticed by the company leadership for their performance in the stressful situations. Others will have their own reasons for applying and why it would be meaningful to them. As noted above, the issue really lies in attempting to quantify the benefits to the company that are received for the $2 million price tag. The training is slanted toward building high-performance teams and illustrating the habits those teams need to operate. If Seagate could point to a greater number of high-performance teams, the critics may be quieted.

However, high-performance teams are not the workplace norm at any organization. They have a life-cycle and naturally disband when their task is complete, much like the teams do at the end of the EcoSeagate week (Whetten & Cameron, 2011). As described by Tuckman (1965), teams go through the stages of forming, norming, storming, and performing. Many teams do not make it through the cycle. Those teams are apt to perform at a lower level that teams who make it through all the steps. EcoSeagate is an attempt to push 200 employees through all the stages so they can see what the process is and, more importantly, what it feels like to go through the process and succeed. As noted by Whetten & Cameron, “Once a person experiences this kind of excellence, team performance stuck in the first three stages of development will never be satisfactory again” (2011, p. 506). Again, the CEO of Seagate needs to quantify the results if he wishes to get the shareholders and other critics to quiet down. Can he point to a higher number of teams that are performing at a high level?

My company has a Leadership Center that is utilized as a University setting for employees to attend. Various classes are held there and team-building exercises are sometimes carried out. I do not know the budget for maintaining the Leadership Center, but I would suspect that it is at least as much as Seagate spends on EcoSeagate. I have not heard of groups doing outdoor labs to improve performance. I have participated in group testing where leaders are trying to define the personalities, learning styles, and leadership styles in their groups. Very little follow-up accompanied the tests and they became examples of stories that start, “Remember that day we wasted doing that test…?” Simply taking the tests doesn’t do much unless the data is collected and put to use.

My organization could definitely benefit from a team-building outdoor lab experience. The group is not co-located, so we rarely get to see each other. We are usually tasked with numerous projects that have high visibility and relatively high risk. The need for high-performance is definitely present a majority of the time. It would be beneficial to have members from organizations that support the work my team accomplishes, so a level of trust could be built. The trust is low amongst most groups right now. Finding the money would be difficult, but not insurmountable. The asset that would be almost impossible to find is the time. We have too few people doing too many things to be able to dedicate three to five days to really bond. Creative thinking would need to be applied to find a way.

See you next week!

Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organizational Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

               

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). "Developmental sequence in small groups." Psychological Bulleting 63(6): 16.

               

Whetten, D. A. and K. S. Cameron (2011). Developing Management Skills. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.

A635.5.3.RB_DavisCarl Video Debrief of Team MA

                                  Buckingham Palace from St. James Park - CSD June 2016

Hello, readers! Week five finds us looking at a management assessment Embry-Riddle provided the students in the Organizational Change class I am in. To have an opportunity to discuss the assessment in a blog format, we were also asked to view a YouTube™ video about Steve Jobs and the start-up days of NeXT. We are going to discuss how the management characteristics the assessment identified would have (or not have) fit in the start-up days of a dynamic company.

We can start with a quick review of the situation Steve Jobs was in during the video (Petrenko, 2012). He had just removed himself from the company he had created, Apple, after battling the Apple Board for control. He decided the best way to move on was to start a new company, NeXT™, and build the computer he dreamed of building. Jobs had to finance the start-up of NeXT™ on his own. Many of his colleagues from Apple left to come with him, so the initial brain-trust knew each other and had worked for Jobs in a similar situation before.

The management assessment I participated in utilized personality defining questions to attempt to identify the work environment in which a person would be happiest. The scale of companies includes Start-up Company, Rapid Growth Small Company, Mid-Sized Dynamic Company, Conservative Company, Large Dynamic Company, and Large Company. NeXT™ would definitely fall into the Start-up Company category. They were going to be a Rapid Growth Small Company shortly, but they were only 90 days old when the video begins!

The company I currently work for is a Large Dynamic Company. Large because it has over 160,000 employees and dynamic because it is in the aerospace industry. Interestingly, the assessment tool indicated that the organization I would be happiest in would be a Large Dynamic Company. My first question for the analyst who walked me through my results was if they were just a product of the environment I had been operating in for the last 10 years. She insisted that the test results change only slightly over time and that they indicate the way a person is basically “hard-wired”. I am either lucky or there is an interesting force that pushed me to where I ended up working. That’s a story for another day.

The first characteristic that I indicated a preference for was achievement. Jobs had a strong drive for achievement and NeXT™ was his second attempt to make a positive mark on the world. In my job I often talk to my team about the altruistic benefits of the job our team does and the impact it can have on travel safety. Jobs wanted to make an impact on higher education that would impart a giant leap forward for years to come. On a daily basis, Jobs needed his team to achieve and he worked hard to keep them focused. I also have to keep my team focused on the daily hurdles we face and enjoy seeing them accomplish the tasks.

The second characteristic was innovation. The definition in the assessment said, “A balanced mix of the three key innovation attributes: problem solving, process creativity, and inventiveness, are essential in the leadership team of a large dynamic venture (Next Steps, 2016).” Jobs needed innovation and innovators in droves to get his company up and running on the timeline they faced. I have been involved with a group that is trying to transform a part of our company’s business and I have needed people who could be innovative to do it.

Independence was the third characteristic on the list. There are plenty of times that I am breaking new ground for my company and I need the ability to think on my own. I have been the provider of vision for my group. Jobs was not known for being a fan of those who did not follow his vision. His teams were regularly being called to meetings to hear the vision and to prove to Jobs they were on the way to making his vision a reality.

Number four was financial metric usage. I know this characteristic has developed over time, but I do feel it is important. Jobs was struggling with the financials of his start-up and had to have a lieutenant crack the whip for keeping people on budget. Jobs was primarily interested in getting the product out on time. In a very competitive environment, like aerospace, the dollars have to be tracked.

A tolerance for and the ability to assess risk were also identified as a characteristic of mine. I think Jobs team was probably doing risk assessments all the time, but Jobs rarely did. NeXT was a total high-risk proposition that Jobs bet $7 million of his own money building. My job directly involves situations in which people can be injured or killed. If one cannot tolerate risk mitigation, this is not the job for you.

Need for recognition was pointed out as a characteristic of mine. Specifically, the fact I would like others to see me as a role model. This characteristic is noted to be something that early stage venture leaders usually do not have. That would indicate to me that I would not have fit in as well as I could have if I was at NeXT™. Again, Jobs was, and needed to be, the one person driving the way for the company to go and grow. Others trying to take any of the limelight would not have gone well. Only Jobs closest confidant, Joanna Hoffmann, could truly call him out and she was very politically smart about how she did it.

The last characteristic identified was that of multi-tasking. For a person in a large dynamic company, this takes the form of juggling multiple projects and having the metrics available to see performance. For a start-up, Jobs described the very hands-on needs that he had to handle to get NeXT™ off the ground. The maturity level of the company dictates the type of multi-tasking and these two situations are quite diverse in type. While I know I could do it, I don’t know that I would enjoy the hands-on multi-tasking that NeXT would’ve required.

Overall, many of the characteristics the assessment identified for me are compatible in both situations. The more extreme dynamics of the start-up would be less enjoyable for me as I do like have at least a broad set of rules or standards within which to operate. I like pushing the edges of those standards, though. I am glad to be where I am and, as I said before, will continue to ponder how I moved from my past career to the one that agrees with my “wiring” so well.

See you next week!

Petrenko, S. (2012). Steve Jobs Brainstorms with NeXT Team, YouTube.
Next Steps Research (2016). Management Assessment for Carl Davis

A635.4.3.RB_DavisCarl Build a Tower, Build a Team

                                      Crossing from China into Kazakhstan in a B747-400F

Thanks for joining me again for another week on the Educated Leadership Blog. This week we’re looking at teams that are handed a problem and given a limited amount of time to deal with it. The way the teams are put into this situation is through a simulation. If you have a moment, you can go to this website http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower to see the logistics involved.

In case you cannot go to the site, what you would have seen was a TED Talk™ given by Mr. Tom Wujec about a team exercise called The Spaghetti Challenge™. In the exercise, teams of four people are given 20 sticks of dry spaghetti, a one-yard-long strip of paper tape, a one-yard-long piece of string or twine, and one standard size marshmallow. The teams are given 18 minutes to plan and build a tower out of the spaghetti tape and twine that will support the marshmallow. The goal is to have the tallest tower. The marshmallow must be at the top.

In what may be a surprising point, the logistical challenge of doing that is not the interesting part of the video. The data compiled by Mr. Wujec tells a very interesting story. The average height of the towers is around 20 inches high. The worst group at building the towers is recent business school graduates. The best groups at building towers are kindergarteners! The youngsters regularly build towers that surpass the 20-inch mark. The second best groups are made up of CEOs and their executive assistants. If the CEOs are in a group without an executive assistant, their performance falls off dramatically!

Mr. Wujec’s hypothesis for why the kindergarteners do so well is that they don’t waste a lot of time planning or posturing, they just start building prototypes and seeing what works. Conversely, the business people in the room spend a lot of the allotted time trying to make a plan for what should work and then are unable to make adjustments when their design fails to hold up the marshmallow. While I can see this is a big part of why the kids do so much better, I do not think it is the complete answer. A point that is not talked about is that kindergarteners do not necessarily worry about hurting someone’s feelings if they have an opinion. In other words, if they think what someone is doing is wrong, they will tell them. It may be done politely, or it may be done with a, “That’s stupid.” That cuts down on the time spent on designs that may not be as sturdy as needed. The kids also are not as likely to defer to a peer, so they will feel more free to speak up and more free to contribute ideas. CEOs may worry about the politics of saying something to a peer that runs a bigger company than they do, or who is older, or who is younger, or for some other reason. The fact that CEOs perform better with their executive assistants on the team points to the possibility that when CEOs do not have someone keeping them focused on the task, they are at a disadvantage.

One of the topics being covered this week in class is the subject of process interventions. Process interventions are when Organizational Development practitioners assist groups or teams in becoming more aware of the way they operate and the dynamics of how the group interacts (Brown, 2011, p. 199). The TED Talk video could be a good ice breaker for helping managers to see that standard business practices don’t always lead to the best results. Brown discussed group norms and growth as part of process interventions (2011). He noted that the norms of a group will drive what members of a team will or will not do (2011, p. 202). The kindergarteners appear to illustrate what operating outside of business norms may allow.

I will be showing this video to my team at a staff meeting in the very near future. I believe it will be a good conversation generator and will provide my team with data they could use in the future. Our overarching organization is discussing a structural and behavioral redesign and I believe information about process intervention could come in handy for them. Of course, it will ruin the surprise for them if they ever go to a workshop where this is the technique used to illustrate team dynamics!

Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organizational Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Talks, TED. (2010). Build a tower, build a team - Tom Wujec, www.ted.com.

A635.3.3.RB_DavisCarl 50 Reasons NOT to Change / The Tribes We Lead

Hello, readers! Welcome back to the Educated Leadership blog for another week of learning about Organizational Change.

This week we watched a TED2009™ talk by Seth Godin (2009) about the new world of tribes and reviewed a presentation created by Dr. Daryl Watkins (2011) on 50 of the best reasons for a company or department not to change their status quo. Both presentations provided plenty of material on the topic of change and some of the big issues that will hamper efforts to do so.

Dr. Watkins’ presentation (2011) compiled 50 of the most often heard reasons why making a change is a bad idea. Statements included, “It’s not my job,” “We’ve tried it before,” “It can’t be done,” and one of my favorites, “The competition won’t like it.” I am sorry to say that I have heard those comments and the 46 other statements at some point in my career. I am also guilty of having used some of these statements in my past. As I have gained in age and experience, I have attempted to refrain from using any of the statements because they are basically excuses.

As a senior manager, I cringe at hearing any of the statements in a business environment. I qualify that statement with a locale because I know that versions of all 50 reasons not to change are in the reference handbook most teenagers receive upon reaching their 13^th birthday. As part of asserting their independence, they are going to provide multiple reasons why something cannot be done. In a business environment, attitudes exemplified by the statements are great ways to stifle progress and success.

When I hear colleagues or employees make comments like, “The sales team says it can’t be done,” or “It won’t work in a large company,” I think back to a quote by Andy Grove, CEO of Intel, “Ask why, and ask it again five more times, until all of the artifice is stripped away and you end up with an intellectually honest answer.” (Brown, 2011, p. 118) This technique drives at finding the root cause of why the proposed change would be bad or impossible. The questions are an initial diagnostic tool and can serve as a way to illuminate the start of the path to change. There are a plethora of other diagnostic tools and techniques that can be applied to follow-up on the reasons for resistance to change. Surveys, observations, and interviews can all be brought to bear on the issue of change and provide Organizational Development (OD) practitioners with data and information. Overcoming the resistance that serves as the genesis for the 50 statements is where OD practitioners earn their keep.

In my experience, the greatest antidotes to change resistance are the articulation of a vision of the future and providing those impacted by change the information they need to see the benefits they will receive by participating in the change. The change efforts I have seen fail provided no way for the participants to see one or both of those ingredients of change. People are not going to, and shouldn’t be asked to, change just for the sake of change. They need to know it is going to lead somewhere. They need to know it is going to benefit them in some way. Leading change and overcoming the resistance typified by the 50 statements is why we are taking an Organizational Change class. The issues are complicated and intertwined with multitudes of intricacies. Educated leaders will examine the reason for the resistance from multiple perspectives and provide the vision to move ahead. I have utilized these techniques with success in my career. I also know I have much more to learn about. I have seen people I admire as leaders struggle, as have I. This is not easy work. It is rewarding work.

Seth Godin TED Talk™ from 2009 focused on the idea that the internet has allowed the human race to find subgroups, or tribes, to which they would have not previously had exposure. He proposes that this ability to find groups to belong to has created tribes that can each be lead. Godin postulated that each tribe needs a leader and permission is not required to take that role. In fact, Godin believes that these tribes are waiting for someone to point the way for their future (Ted Talk, 2009, 15:44). Another foundational point Godin made was that the leaders of these new tribes have an ability to provide the narrative that illustrates the vision for the tribe. His premise reminded me of another TED Talk™ by Nancy Duarte (2011) that discussed the format of speeches that have changed the world. It’s not just the story that needs to be told, it’s how the story is told. I applied Nancy’s techniques to a speech I gave last year to my organization and I was very pleased by the feedback I received. In fact, the impact of the talk I gave is still providing impact for my team because they all see the vision of our future.

Mr. Godin’s premise that change can be driven by tribes is one I can ascribe to, but change management is not as simple as just finding a group and providing them a vision or narrative. I would recommend watching his talk because it provides yet another perspective on the ways leaders can impact the groups they are privileged to be direct.

My takeaways from this week’s lesson are that communicating a vision is absolutely vital and that most groups are looking for that vision. My life experiences bolster that premise as I have been involved with many groups that are meandering through each day and have little idea what the future will look like for them. I have seen what great things can happen when a leader steps in and provides direction.

There have been a couple of cases where I had to step up and lead when the direction was non-existent from my managers. It was not an easy task, politically or physically. However, the resulting positive outcomes in team performance, overall satisfaction, and personal growth made the stress and strain all worthwhile. You, too, may need to step up and take the reins sometime. Keep studying and keep testing yourself. I wish I knew then what I know now and I will continue to work on my personal growth. The responsibility of leading people is enormous and cannot be taken lightly. You can do it.

See you next week!

Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organizational Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

             

Duarte, N. (2011). You Have the Power to Change the World - Nancy Duarte talks at TED, YouTube.

             

Talks, T. (2009). The tribes we lead - Seth Godin.

             

Watkins, D. D. (2011). 50 Reasons Not to Change, Prezi.