A633.4.3.RB_DavisCarl Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Kusunoki Masashige statue - downtown Tokyo - CSD

Welcome back, Readers! This week on the Educated Leadership Blog we’ll look at the situation Obolensky (2016) describes as “charades” conducted by leadership and employees. As part of that discussion, we’ll look at how breaking down that charade is occurring in situations I face.

The “charade” that Obolensky (2016) discussed in his book occurs when management pretends to know far more than they actually do because they believe it is what their employees expect while at the same time, the employees pretend to know far less than they actually do, because they expect the leaders to already know the information. The reality is that leaders do not know everything and the employees know it. The employees know quite a bit and the leaders know it. However, in many organizations, the charade Is alive and well.

Leaders will greatly increase their possibility of success if they can break down this charade and open up the lines of information and communication on their teams. Why? A study noted in Obolensky’s book (2016, p. 35-37) indicated that the frontline employees in an organization generate approximately 60% of the ideas that are applicable to implementing enduring change. Top management is generally credited with about 10% of the ideas that work. Now we can see why the charade must be broken. The ideas must be allowed to flow!

Obolensky (2016) also provides some practices that leaders can employ to help the process begin. The first being that leaders can start saying “I don’t know” when they do not have an answer! The second involves asking questions of the employees and supporting the needs of the employees as they are identified. The third is to have the leader and the employees engage in a real conversation where both sides ask and answer questions. Honesty must be the basis of the conversations in all three versions of breaking through.

I believe there is a shift in leadership to try and break down the charade. The biggest driver, in my opinion, is the access to information that the employees has, especially as technology improves access to data. If a leader is disingenuous, the employees often know instantly, because they have the answer! Now, if they don’t know they answer immediately, they usually can access the information via a computer almost as quickly. It behooves a leader to admit to not knowing something. They will build trust if they do.

There are leaders with whom I interact that work toward breaking the charade. They will admit to not knowing information and they will actively seek the information from their employees via challenge and support or a dynamic conversation. They openly credit the employees that provide answers. They realize that they must engage all the employees and the managers to succeed in the dynamic environment in which we operate. I, too, have chosen to lead in this manner. Inclusion and open communication are my standards, as are accountability and recognition. At the same time, there are still examples of leaders that appear to be perpetuating the charade. There are groups of employees that also appear to perpetuate the behavior. However, the Millennials joining our company are bringing a desire to be open and contribute and to quickly be a part of the team. Their impact helps to break down the charade for both employees and leaders.

Lastly, our company just created a new organization and has striven to educate all employees and leaders about the need for operating in a manner that precludes the perpetuation of the charade! They have been proactive in communication and training that opens the doors for leaders to say they do not know it all and for employees to step forward with ideas and information.

It will take a dedicated effort by all the leaders and employees to obliterate the charade. Trust is a fragile commodity and must be handled carefully by all sides for us to gain the benefits of open communication and trust.

See you next week!

Obolensky, N. (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2nd ed.). London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

A633.3.4.RB_DavisCarl Complexity Science

Hello, again, readers! We have two blog entries this week. This one will be about the company for which I work and the strategies it has employed through the years.

Last summer, my company celebrated its 100^th anniversary. Its history is well documented and the number of times it has been near bankruptcy, only to go on to greatness is more than a handful. As world economies have changed and breakthroughs in technology have occurred the company has changed the way it operated.

Recently, the organization that I am assigned to was reorganized in a manner that Obolensky described in Chapter 3 (2016). We moved from a very silo-like structure to a matrix organization. The change occurred very recently and therefore, the jury is out as to whether it will remain, or we will snap back into silos and have to try again. However, given the environment in which we find ourselves, changing to a matrix organization will be essential to becoming far more capable of reacting to market changes.

Will we be able to move toward a Complex Adaptive System (CAS)? (Obolensky, 2016) The cards are stacked against us on a few fronts. The first being that we operate in highly regulated industries. There is a myriad of rules within which we must operate and often have little ability to influence. Because of the regulations, we are often required to have a built-in hierarchy and that inhibits the ability to evolve into a CAS. We are also a company steeped in chains of command and responsibilities. We work with the militaries of the world and tend to reflect their structure, at times. Our size is detrimental to evolving into a CAS, too. Changing the culture of a company of over 130,000 employees would take years (Wartzman, 2012, p. 2).

I believe, because many of the players in the new organization structure came from the silo-based structure, it will be difficult for the matrix to remain in shape this go-around. However, the demands of the market and the capabilities of our competitors, many who are smaller, will require us to make the shift. We can’t react at the speed our competitors appear to be able. We can bring to bear a very capable research and development team and knowledge of years of production that smaller competitors may not have.

When it comes to strategy, Boeing has changed their plans many times. Sometimes the changes were painful and sometimes they have been examples of strategic excellence. Our strategy is influenced by so many forces over which we have no control, we spend many hours on forecasts and reviews of historical averages. We spend a lot of time in the traditional area of Reeves’ strategic chart (2014). We look for opportunities based upon what we know and what our customers are asking for us to build. Where we have made a name for ourselves is when we venture into the visionary and shaping areas of Reeves’ chart (2014, 08:30). Whether it was the Bombers we have built that changed the advantage to the allies in battle, the amazing gamble that was the B747, the move to large twin-engine airliners (the 767 and the 777) and the re-writing of the rules of long-distance air travel, or the decision to change how we build airliners, the material we use, while changing the main systems to make the 787 we have had to change our strategy. In doing so, we have watched our competitors change their strategy to keep up. Recently, Boeing has found itself in the uncomfortable spot of reacting to its competitors. The change in the organization structure is part of the way we have decided to move and regain the position as a leader in the aerospace field.

Looking ahead 10 years, I believe Boeing will look different. There are several new competitors entering the field of building airliners and we will have to adapt our form and strategy to maintain our position of leadership. We will have to expand our fields of expertise and take on new challenges to build market share and revenue. We are expanding our products to help the USA get astronauts to Mars and will be at the forefront of the move toward pilotless aircraft. I hope to be playing a major part in one, or more of those programs as a Vice President leading a high performing team into the future!

Institute, TED. (Producer). (2014). Martin Reeves: Your Strategy Needs a Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE_ETgaFVo8

Obolensky, N. (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2nd ed.). London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Wartzman, R. (2012, September 25, 2012). If Self-Management Is Such a Great Idea, Why Aren't More Companies Doing It? Forbes.

A633.3.3.RB_DavisCarl - Complex Adaptive Systems

Looking up at the bow of the Cutty Sark - Greenwich, UK
Strategies of shipping have changed since this was the fastest ship on the sea...
CSD 2015

Hello, Readers! This week at The Educated Leadership blog we’re going to look at companies that have moved from away from silos and matrices as organizational forms and adapted a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) (Obolensky, 2016, p. 22-27). CAS companies are unlike the other two styles in that there are few if any, designated leaders. Employees are expected to hold themselves and their peers to a high level of performance. The employees are expected to know and understand their business, their competitors, the business environment, and the capabilities of themselves and their co-workers. Instead of a centralized leadership directing the employees, the employees confer and act in the manner needed to move the company forward.

There are few examples of companies that truly operate in CAS fashion. Rick Wartzman noted, “” A recent survey of more than 36,000 employees in 18 countries, by the consulting firm LRN, found that only 3% of companies can be characterized as substantially self-governing” (Forbes, 2012). The style is complex and requires time and attention to detail that many companies simply cannot spare. Many executives that have visited Morning Star, a company in California famous for using CAS, attempt to take the ideas they learn home and get bogged down trying to implement them. “An advantage for Morning Star is that its founder, Chris Rufer, started with a clean slate some 40 years ago. Trying to retrofit an existing business with Morning Star-like principles is far from easy” (Wartzman, 2012).

Another issue that impedes companies trying to make a shift to less/little designated management is the time required to adjust. With shareholders and others looking for short term returns on investment, the time to shift culture and structure is often too steep a price to pay.

However, there are positives to take away from the stories of Morning Star (Hamel, 2011) St. Luke’s (Coutu, 2000) and their use of CAS. Both companies have driven the expectation of accountability and performance down through all members of the organization. They have made their workplaces safe for people to call out others’ performance, both good and bad. They have provided comprehensive training for all employees (even contract labor). Installing these cultural mores into my organization would be challenging, but wonderful, I believe. The way CAS organizations operate allows the company to see and react to changes in the market and the economy with better foresight and capability because all employees are looking for ways to help the company succeed, not just themselves. I wonder if the Titanic would have made it to New York if everybody on board had been looking out for danger that night…or in the design stage…or the build stage…or the “How many lifeboats should we have?” stage.

Applying strategy and reviewing strategic plans are difficult because the return on the time invested is rarely apparent. I enjoyed Martin Reeves TED Talk (2014) about changing the way one designs and applies strategy depending upon the situation one is in. I believe it ties into the reading on CAS we have done because it highlights the fact that not all companies can be as dynamic as others. The reasons for this lack of flexibility can vary, but include, regulatory constraints, labor constraints, and the competitive landscape. Reeves compares the malleability of the company and predictability of the market in which they operate to divine the style of strategic thinking that may work best. The graph he produces reminds me of the Cynefin Framework (Cognitive Edge, 2010) of situational complexity decision making that we have talked about in other lessons. The four quadrants moving clockwise from the bottom-left, are Classical, Adaptive, Shaping, and Visionary. Classical is the standard mode of making predictions, making plans and moving forward.  Adaptive is where the plans are built but are reactive to the unpredictability of the market or the competitors. Shaping is the “Wild-West” of strategy. In this area, the plans are so new as to define the market and be relatively free of competitors…for at least a little while. Visionary is where the plans go in ways that few others have seen and the begin to change the paradigm in which you operate. The area of chaos on the Cynefin chart is reflected by Reeves as an area of renewal where the company’s near-term survival is so doubtful the plans need to be all but scrapped and recreated to allow the company another day of life.

Moving strategic thinking around Reeves graph won’t occur at the same level of dynamics that a leader may move around a Cynefin graph. That’s a great lesson for me. The other lesson is that strategies will need to move as the environment in which they are created morphs into new levels of predictability, no matter the malleability of the company. My company is usually quite rigid and classical in its strategy. I see now how different teams have made dramatic achievements in that environment by moving toward the other three zones, depending on the opportunities and challenges their leaders have identified. We can all use the examples from Reeves to contemplate the strategy of our strategy.

Cognitive Edge, P. D. S. (Producer). (2010). The Cynefin Framework. [Film short] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8&feature=youtu.be

Coutu, D. L. (2000). Creating the Most Frightening Company on Earth (Vol. 78, pp. 142-150): Harvard Business School Publication Corp.

Hamel, G. (2011). FIRST, LET'S FIRE ALL THE MANAGERS. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48-60.

Institute, T. (Producer). (2014). Martin Reeves: Your Strategy Needs a Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE_ETgaFVo8

Wartzman, R. (2012, September 25). If Self-Management Is Such a Great Idea, Why Aren't More Companies Doing It? Forbes.

A633.2.3.RB_DavisCarl Butterfly Effect

Hello, readers! It’s great to have you back at the Educated Leadership blog for another week!

This week, we learned about complexity theory. The first question to ask is: Is complexity a problem or an opportunity? (Obolensky, 2016) There is imposed complexity, like that created by laws and regulations. Inherent complexity comes from the operation of the business or activity. Designed complexity that derives from choices about where the business operates and/or what it is manufacturing or selling. Lastly, unnecessary complexity comes from the divergence of what the business or activity is and the way it is accomplished (Obolensky, 2016, p. 53).

Science has made great strides toward understanding complexity and chaos (complexity’s moody brother). Be it through chaos theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, or the field of complexity science, new ways of looking at seeming random actions and results are being uncovered. As leaders, we can utilize these theories to help understand the complex situations in which we find ourselves more and more often. One idea that has come from chaos theory that has been found to be very applicable to business and leadership is Edward Lorenz’s proposal of “The Butterfly Effect”. He originally proposed the idea in 1963 and then refined it over the next decade (Obolensky, 2016, p. 70).

Lorenz was attempting to model weather patterns on a computer. The numbers involved carried to five and six decimal places and the data entry was tedious. He was entering in the numbers a second time and decided to round off some of the numbers, expecting the result to be inconsequential. What he saw, after the simulation ran for a number of hours, was that the rounded numbers had caused a vastly different result from his first run of the simulation. Ergo, seemingly microscopic (rounding of the ten-thousandths places in some of the data) changes in a complex system had eventually driven large changes in the result. The graph produced looked like a butterfly’s wings and the phenomenon got its name (pictured above).

Can seemingly inconsequential changes in a business practice eventually drive large, unexpected results? Undoubtedly. I remember a senior manager that refused to stand behind one of his direct reports (a manager, as well) when that employee made a very difficult, well-founded decision regarding a policy. Not only did the employees start to test other managers and other rules, the direct reports of the senior manager all lost respect for the manager. Additionally, the direct reports were far less likely to hold the employees accountable because they knew there was a good chance they would be overridden. All the sudden, the senior manager had many more decisions to make because they were not being made at lower levels. Performance in the unit decreased, as did quality. Personnel began leaving and morale sank further. It took about a year, and the loss of many good people, but the senior manager was eventually replaced. The organization is still digging out of the hole that was created by one decision not to act.

Another example occurred when an employee for the same manager kept asking for a transfer to another base of operations. There was very little compelling evidence that the employee should be moved from the headquarters city and the business case only got worse when the cost of a relocation package was added. The employee was incredibly persistent. Making requests for a transfer at least once a week and lobbying the senior manager whenever he got the chance. The employee’s direct manager was not in favor of the move but was unable to stop the employee from continuing to make requests. Eventually, to rid himself of the constant nagging, the senior manager approved the move. The employee quickly worked his way up to manager in the new organization and began changing policies that had been set by the senior manager. Little communication was shared back to the headquarters and management until so many changes had been made, trying to revert the group back would have taken more money and time than headquarters wanted to spend. Additionally, doing so would have made the employee’s managers back at headquarters culpable for approving his move…why shine a light on that? The divide between the two operations still causes problems. The act of “just saying yes” to get someone to go away has been very detrimental to the overall group’s unity and operation.

So, how do we apply the ideas of complexity theory to our daily life as leaders? The first way is to understand the idea that a very small change now can lead to unexpected drastic changes later. I think a great example of that can be seen when observing a golfer driving a golf ball. A misalignment of the clubface at the time of impact with the ball of one-tenth of a degree can lead to the ball being tens to hundreds of feet off course down the fairway…a little means a lot!

Another great tool for our leadership kit comes from the fact that these theories are proving that order can be found in chaos. Additionally, these theories can help us to see that there are often just a few places in the seeming chaos that need to be addressed that can lead to big results! They can help us peer through the fog to find the right touch points. Eric Berlow illustrates this point in a TED Talk, very well (2010). Give it a watch! I would recommend reading Nick Obolensky’s book, too. It’s been very enlightening!

See you next week!

Obolensky, N. (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2nd ed.). London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

TED Talks. (Producer). (2010). Eric Berlow: Simplifying complexity. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2iYzKeej8

A633.1.2.RB_DavisCarl Leadership Gap

Hello, readers! We’ve rolled right into the next class in our program, Strategic Leadership.

This week, we are going to work through a reflective exercise about leadership as it has changed through the years (Obolensky, 2016, p. 3). We’ll also look at why there is an apparent gap in the quality of leadership even though there is an abundance of leadership training available.

The first question to ponder is whether my attitude toward leadership has changed in my life and if so, how?

Undoubtedly, my attitude has changed. The initial reason would be that early in my life I was a follower in most of my endeavors. My parents were my leaders, as were my teachers, coaches, Cub Scout Den Mothers, and clergy. I listened (usually), learned (usually), and obeyed (mostly). I remember the first time I was handed a position of leadership. I was named Captain on my hockey team when I was 12. I can still remember the feeling that more was expected of me and I needed to be aware of my teammate's needs. I thought that leaders, in that role, basically set an example for others to model.

My next opportunity to lead came in high school. I was becoming an accomplished athlete and the coaches started working with me on how I needed to handle the new responsibility. One coach, Larry Richter, took the time to guide me on the expectations I would be facing. I have never forgotten his generosity and demeanor. I started to see that people listened more when I spoke, so I needed to consider what I was going to say. I still believed that leadership came from athletic prowess or from popularity and that it was mostly modeling behavior.

My freshman year in college was spent at the US Naval Academy. This is where my feelings on leadership were dipped in accelerant and ignited. I realized there were different styles and that I resonated with some and didn’t with others. I learned that the feeling of disappointing a leader I admired was far more scarring than any tirade I faced from leaders I did not admire. I started to ask myself how I could engender that feeling from my future followers and set out to learn how.

The remainder of college and first few years of being employed all provided data points for my personal feelings on leadership and for my leadership toolkit. My feeling about the importance of good leadership and the fact that I needed to broaden my perspectives continued to mature.

Flying for Delta gave me more opportunities to observe and work with all types of leaders. My feeling on leadership continued to be refined and defined. I realized that not everyone can be a leader. Let me put a qualification on that, not everyone has the desire or drive to be a successful leader. They may have the skills, but the desire needs to be present to generate the behavior.

My years at Boeing have proven the most formative, if only because I have been given so many opportunities to grow and refine my leadership. I have developed a great respect for successful leaders because I have a far better appreciation for the effort and commitment it takes.

My experiences in Diversity and Inclusion, along with my structured leadership educational endeavors, have changed my feeling and attitude about leadership in a marked way. I see the nuances and, more importantly, see the vast system within which I live and work. Leadership cannot be happenstance. It must be considered and applied with skill.

The next question involves us looking at the way leaders were expected to operate at the time of our grandparents (very directive), in the time of our parents (still directive with shades of team contributions), and in the time in which we now operate (more inputs solicited and a broader consideration by some leaders). The question is if there is a changing trend. I believe there is, at least in academia and in many of the tech firms in the world. The idea that the leader is all-knowing and infallible has, for the most part, gone the way of the dodo. There are, no doubt, pockets of that mentality around. However, there is a discernable move toward leaders that are more inclusive and organizations that need the agility of multiple perspectives upon which to draw. As Obolensky (2016) noted, the markets are moving too fast for any one person to believe they can see and handle their entire business. The market leader last year has no guarantee of keeping that title unless their organization can see opportunity and handle change deftly. Why? Handling those types of dynamics requires a leader that can provide a vision that the followers are excited to create. Dictatorial styles of leadership fail when faced with non-static environments over time

.

The number of articles, tweets, Instagrams™, YouTube™ videos, classes, symposiums, seminars, and degree programs regarding leadership available to managers today is such that one can hardly keep from seeing them. Most of these tools are literally as far away as one’s smartphone. However, there is an apparent gap in the number of successful leaders, given the availability of the educational material.

I believe that gap is apparent because most situations that involve human relationships require time, effort, and commitment to be successful. The situations a leader faces daily may be similar in nature, but they are rarely the same. The information available to those in the leader’s charge is remarkably more than in the past and instantaneously available. However, the commitment to seeing improving oneself and to seeing others be successful requires levels of effort many do not have the wherewithal to expend. As the educated leaders we all hope to become, we can take the time to teach our craft to the next group of leaders and model the commitment required. We can mentor high school students and talk to them about ways they can learn about and model leadership techniques as they go through school. We can give those in our charge opportunities to expand their skills by giving them more responsibility in areas they can succeed with some effort. In short, we need to provide opportunities for others to grow and succeed.

These next nine weeks will be an excellent learning experience for all of us. Please follow along.

See you next week!

Obelensky, N. (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2nd ed.). London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group.