A641.1.3.RB_DavisCarl What is Great Leadership?

                                          "16 of the 18"^©                             C.S.Davis

                                             

Hello, readers! Welcome to our next class along the way to Educated Leadership: Resonant Leadership – Leading Change. This course will help us to develop and understand the ways we can inspire others as we grow our understanding of emotional intelligence and solidifying our own beliefs and principles.

This week we were asked to describe two people with whom we had interacted in the past. One was to be a person we felt was an exceptional leader. The other was to be a person who we felt was a poor leader. We were asked to put the name of each person at the top left and right, respectively, of a sheet of paper. Beneath each person’s name we were to list the way each leader made us feel and then to list some of the things they said that enhanced the emotions we felt.

The leader I picked to represent a leader of substance was an executive that oversaw all flight test programs at Boeing some years ago. He had been a fighter pilot and test pilot in the military and graduated from the USAFA. His style was very laid back. He was the definition of confident. When he spoke, it was never in a loud tone. Yet, there was an underlying feeling of confidence and a touch of “what could be” that seemed ever-present. One of the characteristics of his that I admired most was that he was a good listener. Against the consensus of his peers, he spent quite a bit of budget on educating all the employees of his division about systems thinking and the ways the actions of an individual can impact an entire program. His communication was clear and consistent. He started a blog and invited anyone to write and ask questions. He didn’t threaten or even really urge. He presented the situation as he saw it and asked for help in ensuring Boeing Flight Test succeeded in its future missions. We had an unprecedented amount of work looming ahead and we were going to have to do things differently to get it accomplished. Under this leader’s name, I wrote that he made his team feel excited, empowered, educated, like they were ‘in the know’ and, practically visionary themselves. He used the terms “we”, “together”, “future”, and “success”. I remember him saying, “You can’t MAKE anyone do anything. You can, however, present them with the situation and give them tools. That’s how a leader gets things done.” I knew he was a person for whom I could work and that I would seek out if he changed jobs. I stayed in touch with him until he retired. I was very sad to see him go. He led us through a critical part of our company’s history and gave many people opportunities they may not have had otherwise.

 The other leader I nominated was a direct supervisor of mine for the better part of five years. She had been a test pilot and was moved into executive leadership with very little background as a supervisor or leader of a group larger than three or four people. Her training was in engineering and in flight test programs. She came into our group during a time of high stress due to several new aircraft types being introduced into service. Initially, she listened intently and considered the impact of her decisions on her team and others. However, within twelve months, she had stopped listening to her lieutenants and made decisions on her own. She also became more and more of a micromanager. No one who worked for her could make a decision without her approval. The feelings that I had regularly while working for her were those of being held back, on edge, misled, and at times I even felt distraught and embarrassed. Early on, the embarrassment was mostly for her and some of the ways she handled situations. Later, I was just embarrassed to be associated with her. The times I was distraught were when she would make decisions that had the effect of countering the actions of her lieutenants without understanding the situation or repercussions. Time and again, she would make decisions that would undermine any leadership power her direct reports may have had with their employees. By the end of her tenure as an executive, much of her team would not make a decision about anything, leaving it all up to her. The rest of her leadership team simply quit following her and found other ways to get things done while they searched for other jobs. I recall her using the pronouns “me, “I”, and “my” almost exclusively. I remember one time she had one of her direct reports write down all the times she turned the topic back on herself and the number of times she used the aforementioned pronouns for one meeting. He filled a notebook page with notes. When he handed it to her, she glanced at it and threw it in the trash. He was never asked to do that again and she didn’t change her meeting style.

The author of our textbook for this class, Dr. Richard Boyatzis, noted in the video (Case Western Reserve, unknown) we watched for this assignment that part of the lesson is the fact we all know good leadership when we see it. The exercise was to provide a point of proof to support that assertion. I agree with Dr. Boyaztis. We know it when we see it. We all wish we could stick with those leaders. Here’s the twist: We are now being looked to by our followers to provide them the kind of leadership they want to follow. As we continue through the next nine weeks, we’ll hone our leadership skills further and work on maximizing the way we can open the supply of energy and enthusiasm for which our followers thirst! It’s going to be great!

See you next week!

Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

University, C. W. R. (Producer). (unknown). What is Leadership?  with Dr. Richard Boyatzis. [Online lecture] Retrieved from https://erau.instructure.com/courses/61334/assignments/997512

A634.9.4.RB_DavisCarl A Reflection of Our Learning

It’s that time again, readers! We’re wrapping up another course along the way to being an educated leader. This week, I’ll discuss three key takeaways from this course on ethics and the value of taking a course like this.

I think my first big moment in class was learning about deontology and consequentialism. These two fundamental ideas about ethics really helped me understand the structure of many ethical arguments.

Deontologists believe that we should follow the rules, no matter what the result. They believe the rules are in place for a reason and therefore should be followed, no matter the consequences. I think about the “third-strike” rule in some courts of law. If a perpetrator appears is found guilty of a third crime, there are very prescriptive rules about how a judge must sentence the individual. There are cases where the sentence seemed far too harsh for the crime that was the person’s “third-strike”. Deontologists do not take issue with the apparent dissonance. The rules are the rules.

Consequentialists look at how things could or will turn out and determine the justice of the issue. Will the result be just? Will the best answer be the outcome? Consequentialists will examine the possible results and then decide if something is ethical. In the “third-strike” legal scenario above, consequentialists did not find the law ethical. The ends did not always justify the means.

My takeaway from studying these two perspectives was an understanding that we can move between the two as we investigate the ethics of an argument or situation. We do not have to pick one side or the other. Recognizing that fact was a keystone to my understanding of ethics.

My second takeaway was a reinforcement of how important being an ethical leader is to building unity. My term paper for the class was a study of two leaders that approached ethics in different manners. One was adamant that he and his people would act in an ethical manner at all times. His legacy is one of building teams that took on seemingly unwinnable situations and succeeding. The other leader did not demonstrate a propensity for acting ethically or expecting the people who worked for him to act in an ethical manner. His legacy has been one of divisiveness and controversy. The example set by the ultimate leader has a strong possibility that it will pervade their entire organization. Keep that in mind as you move up the ranks.

The third takeaway I have from the class was from our study of the ethics around the farming and eating of animals. I had not taken much time to truly examine the issues surrounding the topic. After researching the farming industry and learning more about the ethical issues I was, frankly, shocked. We have to come up with better ways to get protein to people. The system is not only unethical in the way it treats the animals, it is too inefficient to fulfill the needs of the planet in the long run. I am going to decrease the amount of meat that I consume and hope, someday, I can stop eating meat.

I found this course very valuable. I wasn’t sure I would when I signed up for it. The class gave me tools for understanding other people’s perspectives, or at least a way to try and see other people’s perspectives. As a tool for enhancing my critical thinking skills, this class filled the bill. Looking at how or why something, someone, or some idea may be ethical requires one to investigate multiple perspectives. I feel this class dovetails well with the other classes in the curriculum because I could feel the act of critical thinking becoming more natural. I didn’t have to think about it, it just happened. I appreciated the Professor’s inputs as he steered our on-line conversations to make sure we were seeing the applicability of the class, too. I’m very glad to have had the class and recommend all aspiring leaders do the same.

See you in a few weeks for Resonant Leadership – Leading through Change!

A634.8.3.RB_DavisCarl - Gun Control: What is the Answer?

Welcome to week eight of our class on ethics! Our topic is gun control and we’ll discuss two sides of the question: Do citizens have the right to bear arms?

I believe citizens have a right to bear arms. I believe the owners should have to attend a class on firearm safety and pass a background check before they can own a weapon, though. I also believe that owners should have to register their firearms. Lastly, I believe assault weapons should be highly regulated and not available without the justification of need and capability of care that is approved by law enforcement. The infrastructure to oversee the registration and control of the vast number of firearms will be expensive and require technology and human capital to develop and maintain. The amount of distrust between the citizens and the government will make completing such a task nearly impossible. I submit the issues the government faces in taking a census as an example of the difficulties that would ensue.

I know that is a controversial stance. I also know all sides of the gun control argument are controversial in the United States. Boylan, et al, (2013) debated the topic of gun control and provided arguments both for and against. Regarding the right to bear arms, it was noted that Russia banned owning handguns in the 1920s and yet has a murder rate four times that of the United States (2013, p. 3935). It was also noted that England started restricting ownership of handguns in the 1920s and made them completely illegal in 1997, and now they have the highest murder rate in Europe and are second to Russia in violent crime rate (2013, p. 3935). The connection between less legal handguns and the crime rate was not explained, merely noted. The economies of the countries, education rates, immigration rates, etc., were not discussed and all would have had impacts.

On the pro-ownership side, Boylan, et al, noted that firearms are used half a million times a year to in response to home invasion robberies and that ‘usually’ the burglar fled upon finding the homeowner was armed (2013, p. 3935). On a more somber note, the fact that criminals face the difficult choice if they get shot, of having to choose to bleed out or go to a doctor and risk being turned in. So, they tend to fare less well. Meanwhile, if the robber inflicts harm in the commission of a crime, “Their victims are hospitalized with an 85% recovery rate” (Boylan, et al, 2013, p. 3935). Last, but not least, information was cited that, “found that for those attacked by criminals ‘’resistance with a gun appears to be the most effective [response] in preventing serious injury [to victims, and] for preventing property (loss)’” (Boylan, et al, 2013, p. 3935).

For those that are for the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the right to bear arms an expectation. A valid question raised by Boylan, et al, is exactly what arms are guaranteed? Sticks? Stones? Bows and arrows? Howitzers? They point to the amount of damage a weapon can inflict and the minimum force required to produce a result as ways to measure what is appropriate for self-defense (2013). Where in the “how much and how hard” graph the weapon falls could be tracked and a determination made as to its appropriateness. Some legal body would need to draw the line, but the question of who and where is a question for further debate. This point coincides with my contention that assault weapons are too much firepower for ordinary citizens to own without a valid reason.

This is not an easy ethical dilemma to tackle and will remain an open question for years to come. However, the discussion must continue due to the seriousness of the issue. Only through open discourse will any viable solution be found.

Boylan, M., PhD., Kates, D. B., J.D., Lindsey, R. W., M.D., & Gugala, Zbigniew,M.D., PhD. (2013). Debate: Gun control in the united states. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 471(12), 3934-6. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1007/s11999-013-3300-4

A634.7.4.RB_DavisCarl Ethics and Behaviors

Hello readers, and welcome back to another week at The Educated Leadership Blog.

This week we’ll be looking at ethical, and possibly unethical, behavior in the workplace. As part of our assignment this we were to review videos of two keynote speeches about ethics. One speaker, Chuck Gallagher, talked about the pathway from treating customers unethically to eventually acting in a manner that broke laws. The other speaker, Dr. Bruce Weinstein, discussed the reasons we should act ethically. Both gentlemen made good points on ethics and had polished deliveries. The difference in the perspective of discussing the subject was notable in that one, Weinstein, looked at the positive side while Gallagher approached from the perspective of being a warning sign. The links to each will be cited below if you wish to watch. Total running time for both is approximately 20 minutes.

We are going to look at some examples of which I am familiar where people acted in ethical and unethical manners in the workplace. After over 20 years of being employed, there are plenty of examples upon which I can draw. The first example is an employee I had that worked as a line technician at a small airport services operation. Our business was where private and corporate pilots would park to get fuel, drop off or pick up passengers, get rent cars, and park the aircraft for the night. Our customers ranged from student pilots to aviation hobbyists to senior executives of major corporations. One afternoon, a regular customer from out of town flew in with his family. They were always friendly and, given the value of the plane they flew and the style they traveled, very well off. On this visit, their car, which they normally left at our place of business, had been in the shop. My employee put the family in our ‘courtesy car’ and took them to the auto shop so they could go on their way. That was a standard practice for us. After he returned from dropping them off, he noticed an unsealed envelope in the back seat. Upon opening it, he found ten $100 bills. He immediately brought it to me and we called the customer. They hadn’t noticed the missing envelope yet and were deeply gratified we had found it. They drove back out to the airport to get it and, as a gesture of gratitude to my employee, left him a $100 tip. I was very proud of him.

I was privileged to watch one of my leaders while dealing with a customer in a situation that less than optimum news had to be presented. It would have been easy to tell the customer what they wanted to hear and there were some on our team that wanted my supervisor to do just that. The problem was that my boss and I knew that we couldn’t meet that deadline the customer was demanding. Instead of taking the low road, my boss laid out the issues for the customer and presented them with a timeline we felt while challenging, to which we could adhere. Because of his forthrightness, the customer allowed that they had been worried about the previously agreed to date and were glad to adjust with us. By the end of the meeting, the room was full of smiles and another level of trust had been built.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, I recall an employee that was using company assets to run a small business of their own while at work. The employee was confronted and denied they were acting unethically. It didn’t take long to audit their computer usage and interview co-workers to gather the evidence needed to bring about their dismissal from a very well-paying job. It was disappointing to see, but the unethical practice had to be dealt with swiftly. The message to other employees, if it had been handled in any other way, would have been contrary to standard ethical practice and expectation.

Ethical habits and practice are not just a good idea. They are a necessary and POSITIVE part of everyday life. As you go through this week, I challenge you to look for examples that have occurred close to you that define both sides of acting ethically.

See you next week!

Gallagher, C. (Producer). (2013). Business Ethics Keynote Speaker - Chuck Gallager - shares Straight Talk about Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE

Weinstein, D. B. (Producer). (2012). Keynote Speech Excerpts from The Ethics Guy. TheEthicsGuy. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxbHBpilJQ