A631.9.2.RB_SchreterPaul

After Steve Jobs lost his job at Apple during a power struggle, he created a new company called NeXT. After watching a video, I was able to get a sneak peek at how the company was run during its early stages of development. With my recently acquired Management Assessment (MA) profile, I will be able to explain how I would best fit into the company based on how my personality type handles resources, how it handles challenges, and finally what I would do as an introverted tactical leader.

In a new start up, efficient use of resources becomes vital. According to the MA, my characteristics with regards to the use of resources is primarily aimed at achieving goals as opposed to gaining additional power. Steve Jobs was known to have spent an abundance of resources on things like logo design, the gutting and rebuilding of the company’s offices, and the removal of imperfections their molds had left (Nicholson, 1993). My characteristics of trying to reach goals would have been keener on spending money to bring the company closer to the demanded $3,000 price point of the product. In this way, I may have been a devil’s advocate in the group.

My second characteristic would be on of how I deal with challenges. Nearly all challenges can be conquered is the attitude this report would suggest, it only takes the right mindset to do it. In the case of NeXT, the major challenge would have been to release a new product within 18 months at a price point less than $3000 (Nicholson, 1993). Admittedly, I don’t think this characteristic would have been unique in the company as I believe everyone would have had to share this characteristic. Or maybe perhaps not, considering they weren’t able to achieve their goals by the given deadline.

Finally, it’s been stated in my report that I am an introverted tactical leader. This type of leader is likely to “have good skills in blending tools and resources to accomplish goals and will negotiate and orchestrate resources and activities to achieve desired results. Tactical leaders have strengths in troubleshooting, acquiring, and delegating, and are capable of unifying people in an organization toward a concrete focus or goal” (NextSteps Research, 2015). While not seemingly fit for a Steve job’s strategic and visionary position, it does seem more fitting to be on the operational side of the house with trying to get results. Within the context of the NeXT retreats, I may try to orchestrate the various resources, tools, and personnel into solving very specific and smaller goals, before tying them together with achieving the bigger one (Nathan, 1989). Sometimes tackling very big challenges might be too much of a burden to take on all at once, so by breaking it down into smaller chunks, more progress might have been made.

Discussed was how the results of my MA would have tied into the NeXT organization: characteristics in relation to the use of resources, characteristics in relation to dealing with challenges, and finally the characteristics of an introverted tactical leader. Overall this assessment has been quite an interesting one and I hope to see where my future will take me and how it’ll relate to the results and predictions of this assessment.

References

Nathan, J. (1989, Mar 17). Entrepreneurs. Nathan/Tyler Productions. Retrieved November 26, 2012, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loQhufxiorM&feature=related
NextSteps Research. (2015). Management Assessment Profile.

Nicholson, D. (1993). Book World; How Steve Jobs Hexed NeXT. The Washington Post , B02.

A631.8.4.RB_SchreterPaul

There are many different personality types and there are many different leadership styles. The United States Air Force, at least at Royal Air Force Lakenheath, gives something similar to the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator (MBPI) to all new inbounds with what’s known as the True Colors Personality test (True Colors Inc., 2015). Through this test we were able to quickly determine different personality types and how we have to change how we communicate in order to most effectively get our points across to different people. The MBPI goes a little more in-depth with various personalities, however, the point is still the same within the business world. However, I’ll only comment on the first portion this week, extrovert’s vs introvert’s.

            Most people can easily classify themselves as either being extroverted or introverted; I myself am a rather introverted individual. Apparently, the two personality types do better at different types of leadership styles. Francesca Gino, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, mentioned that introverts tend to be better in teams where followers are more proactive (Harvard Business Review, 2010). In essence, followers will feel like they have more a say in the decisions that they make and leaders are more willing to listen. As the environment becomes more and more complex, introverted leaders may start to become more in demand.

            Throughout many different MSLD courses, it seems as if the trend is moving towards self-managed work teams, less bureaucracy, and fewer tiers in the hierarchy. This means leaders need to have a more hands-off approach and trust their followers to get the job done, perfect for those with more introverted tendencies and personalities. However, this is most certainly in the ideal situation where all followers are proactive anyways. In events that they are not, some sort of training may need to be provided.

            Some followers need to be lead, or taught, on how to become more proactive. Nick Obolensky perfectly outlines how to do this in his book, Complex Adaptive Leadership (Obolensky, 2010). In essence, you can’t expect a follower to become proactive right away. Depending on what stage they are at, you may need to slowly teach them the skills necessary to get the job done. This can take some time and results won’t be immediate, however, the payback can be well worth the investment.

            Discussed were some of the leadership style preferences associated between introverts and extroverts, where the trend seems to be moving as time goes on, and finally a comment on how we can set up an environment that is more suitable for not only proactive followers but for introverted leaders. I think there is a lot to learn, not only towards ourselves as leaders but of other people as well. One of the most important skills, I believe, is being able to determine and diagnose what type of person you’re interacting with and how best to communicate and get each others points across without any problems.

References

Harvard Business Review. (2010, November 12). Can Introverts Lead? Retrieved December 13, 2015, from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=filvlODRukw

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership (Second Edition ed.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

True Colors Inc. (2015, December 13). True Colors Intl. Retrieved from https://truecolorsintl.com/

A631.7.4.RB_SchreterPaul

            This week’s discussion is an interesting one because we’re looking at my personal views on the future of Organizational Development (OD). The problem with this is that I consider myself too new and inexperienced to really know any better. In fact, aren’t we all a bit new because in the overall span of human time OD is still a relatively new discipline? While I think OD is relevant to today's world, in the future it very well may become a fad.

            It’s mentioned in our text that “some executives like to latch on to almost any new concept that promises a quick fix for their problems” (Brown, 2011). I find this similar to how people react with stock investment and stock investment strategies. A lot of strategies can work, but only over the long term. As soon as one strategy fails, people abandon ship and look for the next. Take Total Quality Management (TQM) for example. The Air Force adopted it back in the 90’s and immediately discarded it as ineffective (McAneny, 2010). Instead, the Air Force created its own homebrew strategy it could call its own based on a number of other strategies.

            Another aspect that could make OD a fad is the changing environment that we live in. As aspects of our jobs become more and more automated, the types of strategies that we employ will have to adjust. It may even come to the point where strategy isn’t needed anymore as everything will be automated. Take WALL-E for example and the scene where every human is able to enjoy the luxury’s of life without ever lifting a finger (Juggler, 2013). I’m not sure I hope to ever see that happen, but it’s a very real possibility.

            While I do think OD has important and useful aspects to it in today's world, I can’t speak as for its future. Even if OD is improved upon and changes with the coming times, it wouldn’t be the same OD that we know today. It would simply be something different with the same name. I don’t think this is bad by any stretch of the imagination as we need to learn, adapt, and evolve. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if 50 years from now we have something completely different and brand new.

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (Eighth Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Juggler, F. (2013, December 24). Fitless Humans (WALL·E). Retrieved December 6, 2015, from YouTUbe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-kdRdzxdZQ

McAneny, P. (2010). Red Is Good: Transformational Changes for Air Force Aircraft Maintenance. Air Force Journal of Logistics, 120-133.

A631.6.4.RB_SchreterPaul

After watching two individuals talk about transformational change, I can see how a lot of it correlates with the information within our textbook. The two individuals I’ll be going over include Stanley McChrystal, who saw the need for strategic change within the military, and Jim McIngvale, who saw the need for strategic change within his furniture business.

Stanley McChrystal talked about the need to have a shared sense within the organization that you lead and with it the ability to adapt to change in an ever more increasing complex environment (McChrystal, 2011). When comparing his actions with that of the Strategy-Culture Matrix, Stanley McChrystal spoke of what Brown would call, Managing the Change. What this was, was “implementing a strategy change that is important to the firm, where the changes are compatible with the existing corporate culture” (Brown, 2011). Within the military, it’s important to maintain that trust with your troops and trust with your leadership. No longer are military leaders managing wars on a single battlefront, but more on a multi-national and global scale. This is where strategy has changed and leaders and troops are becoming more reliant on the ever-growing technology. With this increase in technology, it has enabled leaders to maintain the required culture and mutual trust to lead the battles of today and tomorrow.

Jim "Mattress Mack" McIngvale, on the other hand, had a different environment to work in. After going through the 2008 market crash and a 2009 multi-million dollar fire, huge strategic changes needed to be made in order to survive (VitalSmarts Video, 2012). Unfortunately, there was a lot of resistance amongst employees about trying to adopt changes and so Jack McIngvale needed to manage around the culture. However, by reinforcing the values and providing training, coaching, and an incredible support system that reinforced good behavior, they’ve been able to increase growth in an incredibly difficult market.

Sometimes it is an absolute necessity for an organization to evolve and implement some sort of transformational change. Here are two organizations, military, and furniture based, that underwent transformational change. However, as we saw, there is no one cookie-cutter type build with apply change, but rather the strategy to undertake is dependent on the environment that it’s being applied to.

References

Brown, D. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. New Jersey: Pearson.

McChrystal, S. (2011). Listen, learn ... then lead. Retrieved 2015, from TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal#t-785714

VitalSmarts Video. (2012). Influencer | Gallery Furniture Video Case Study. Retrieved 2015, from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E20RW75Fhu4

A631.5.4.RB_SchreterPaul

            I quickly realized that the higher a person goes the different skills required to be efficient and skillful at their jobs. Which does make me wonder if there are any benefits to starting at the very bottom and working my way. Regardless, though, being able to lead a system-wide change does require a few select skills in order to pull off successfully. While these aren’t the only things, they most certainly will help. The skills I’m talking about include the ability to articulate a vision, creating consistency with top leadership, and finally a familiarization of available tools and how to use them.

            The ability to articulate a shared vision amongst those in the organization is key. It is said that “the success of a major change will depend to a great extent on how well leaders communicate the reasons why proposed change is necessary and beneficial. Success is more likely if leaders articulate a vision of a better future that is attractive enough to justify the sacrifices and hardships the change will require” (Yukl, 2013, p. 89). Without this ability to articulate a vision, members of the organization will be unmotivated to support the change effort. This lack of motivation and willingness to change can be a change effort killer.

            Being able to create consistency amongst top leadership is also key. Fractal thinking calls for a unique view on leadership theory in the sense that “leadership behavior breed behavior – the way leaders behave will soon be repeated” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 81). If a leader at the top wants to change and encourages that positive change behavior amongst the next level, then the change effort is much more likely to succeed if those members at the next level take the same mindset and push it to levels below them. This is something that will take time but is important to ensuring success and consistency within the organization.

            Finally, a leader needs to be able to recognize what tools they have and know how to properly use them. For example, one of the many tools available to a leader includes survey research and feedback. This is a “widely used process in which the OD practitioner and members of the organization collaboratively collect data and use them as a basis for changing organizational relationships” (Brown, 2011, p. 374). While many leaders find the tool of data collection incredibly valuable in theory, there is the very real threat of low participatory rates if either the survey is too long or if members feel like their input will result in no change/outputs. I have seen leaders ask for information without stating what that information is for or how it will be used to make beneficial changes, which is a direct reflection of their inability to execute the use of these tools properly.

            Discussed includes information on how leaders should be able to articulate a vision, how there needs to be consistency between top leaders and the way down, and finally the ability to use and properly execute the tools required to create a change effort. The skills required as leaders rise through the ranks are drastically different than the skills required at the very bottom. As such, we as leaders need to be responsible for the education of those we put in charge or the education of ourselves so that we can be successful.

           

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (Eighth Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership (Second Edition ed.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (Eighth Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, United States of America: Prentice Hall.

A631.4.4.RB_SchreterPaul

            This week’s discussion is all about the idea of self-managed teams. Obolensky brings on the idea that organizations should shoot for the goal of becoming what’s known as the CAS organization, one “where teams are formed, perform and then disappear as the need arises.” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 26). Self-managed teams are a small part of what’s compatible with this goal. This week I will discuss my ideas on self-managed teams by discussing benefits/drawbacks, my personal thoughts on being in such a team, and finally a competency that I will need in order to facilitate such a team as an external manager.

            Self-managed teams have some benefits and drawbacks associated with them. One of the major benefits is that of autonomy, which is “the degree to which the job gives the worker freedom, independence, and discretion in scheduling the work and determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out” (Brown, 2011, p. 342). What this means is that members of the team are able to carry out tasks necessary without any sort of bureaucratic control. This enables speed and a sense of ownership over the task at hand. A drawback comes when disagreements form from within the team. I belong to a team of three members, soon to be two, and sometimes we’ll spend an entire day discussing small issues. This can lead to a lot of unproductivity where outside intervention may become necessary.

            Currently, I do belong to a self-managed team and by far I love it. Granted, the team size is really small (three, soon to be two), however, the lack of leadership scrutiny allows us the freedom to go directions that we think is best. I do wish however we had more members, as I believe disagreements can more easily be solved, simply by majority rule as opposed to a head to head collision between two members.

            One of the competencies that I believe an external leader needs to have is the ability to create what’s known as Level 5 followership for members within the team. This is where members of the team have a high level of skill and will (motivation) to complete a task, where completing the task becomes routine in their everyday work and updates are given to leaders simply for accountability purposes (perhaps by a weekly meeting) (Obolensky, 2010). However, to do this one may need the ability to groom the followers up to a Level 5 from any level below it (Level 1 through Level 4). Thankfully Obolensky highlights how to do this in Chapter 9 of his book, Complex Adaptive Leadership (Obolensky, 2010).

            Discussed included a benefit and a drawback for self-managed teams, how I belong to one, and finally a competency an external leader may need in order to facilitate such a team. I’m glad that the question was asked on how we, as an external manager, can create the environment that supports such a team, because it’s that very position that I hope to be in one day. Or perhaps at the very least be the consultant that suggests such a thing!

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (Eighth Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership (Second Edition ed.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

A631.3.4.RB_SchreterPaul

Setting goals and giving/receiving feedback are tied to potential performance changes whether they be positive or negative. It’s important that organizations be aware of two fronts, that supervisors know how to give proper feedback and that subordinates know how to receive proper feedback. Discussed will be how much feedback is given or received within my current position, my thoughts on setting goals, and finally what I gain after this week's review on the topic.

            It’s been shown on multiple fronts that millennials are requesting, if not requiring, consistent and constant feedback. It’s been said that “eighty five percent of younger workers wanted frequent and candid performance feedback compared to only 50 percent for older workers” (Brown, 2011, p. 322). Being a millennial myself, I appreciate receiving constant feedback for my works as this lets me know if I’m heading in the right direction or not. That being said, the feedback that I receive only happens once every six months. I also belong to a very small team without subordinates, so the feedback I give is only given when requested by a peer.

            Goal setting I see as something that engages me with whatever task that I’m working on. If I set myself up with a goal, I’m much more likely to stick to it and complete it. For example, one personal goal I have is to graduate the MSLD program with a 4.0 GPA, so that I have a better chance at getting accepted into the University of Cambridge. This goal is a part of what helps keep me engaged with the program. My efforts at work also benefit when I set myself up with a goal. The working tempo is very slow with very stable hours, with little pressure from leadership. So slacking off and getting complacent is a very real possibility for my position. By setting a goal to get a project done within a certain time period, I immediately notice that mentally I’m absorbed with my work and job satisfaction increases.

            One thing that I haven’t talked about yet is what’s known as the 360-degree feedback, which is something I am likely to implement should I ever get subordinates of my own. My leadership style is one where I focus on developing my subordinates to the best of my ability and to supply them with the tools necessary to succeed. By collecting data/information and giving them a full 360-feedback, I believe they are more likely to accept the information and to use it to better themselves. That said, it’s also important that I don’t use what others say to positively or negatively effect formal performance appraisals, as doing so can lead to inaccurate feedback by others (Yukl, 2013, p. 386). This has also been confirmed as something that can lead to a lawsuit if the two are mingled together (Anonymous, 1998). Overall, however, it creates an open discussion where “people are more likely to modify their self-perceptions in the face of multisource feedback” (Lepsinger & Lucia, 1997).

            Discussed included my views on the idea of feedback, how goals keep me engaged with an idea, and finally a quick talk on what I gathered from this week’s research and how I might apply it into my own leadership style. Overall trends seem to say that setting goals and giving consistent and constant feedback leads to overall performance increases. It’s important, however, that these be done properly as not doing so can actually lead to a loss in performance.

References

Anonymous. (1998). Mult-rater feedback and performance evaluation programs do not mix. SuperVision , 25.

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (Eighth Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A. D. (1997). Main content area 360 degree feedback and performance appraisal. Training , 62-70.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (Eighth Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, United States of America: Prentice Hall.

A631.2.5.RB_SchreterPaul

            I’ll be honest doing a reflection on a team charter seems a bit odd for me, considering it’s a fairly straightforward process that involves adding in personal comments without seeking opinions from other members (as far as our personal inputs into the assignment). That being said, I am having to write this before the submission of the assignment as I live in England and my day is already over. I will make comments though on the following questions:

1.     What behaviors seemed to help your team successfully complete its task?

One of our members quickly got the ball rolling and submitted her portion of the assignment. This is what motivated me to do the same and to upload my end. A third member has been able to successfully communicate with the team and mentioned working on his end as I write up this post. The fourth member is nowhere to be seen. I sent a message through canvas a few days ago as a reminder that the assignment needed to be completed, however if this person doesn’t show we simply need to work around it. Nothing else we can do.

2.     What factors inhibited decision-making or problem-solving?

Not knowing how to communicate with the missing member outside of canvas makes it difficult to support them in their academic success. In addition, seeing as I’m in a different time zone eliminates my ability to be a part of the decision-making process at the very end of the week. However as long as I keep my commitments, I have trust in my other two team members to do what is needed to be done.

3.     How much time was spent on decision-making and problem-solving?

One member quickly put up the deadline of 7pm Sunday, which I thought was completely reasonable. A couple reminder messages/emails were also sent out to ensure members upload their portion of the assignment.  

4.     How was information shared among team members?

Group discussion board, canvas messages, and personal emails (to all but one member, as we don’t know her email).

5.     How did issues of authority or power affect the team?

There weren’t any issues of authority. People seem to know what needed to get done and by what time.

6.     How did collaboration and competition influence the outcome?

Sending out reminder messages helped establish better communication between members and to get updates on statuses. I wouldn’t really say there was much competition.

7.     Did team members make process interventions?

One member requested we use personal emails instead of canvas for privacy and security reasons. That was pretty much the only process change that was done. There's not much we can do for the missing member, but to assume they are no longer part of the team and to continue with the assignment.

A631.1.5.RB_SchreterPaul

            CEO Bill Watkins made a realization that “nobody really wants to die for their god. No one wants to die for their country. Absolutely no one wants to die for money. But people put their lives on the line for the respect of their platoon mates.” (Brown, 2011, p. 274) After this realization, he started what’s known as EcoSeagate, where members of the company come together in a foreign environment and take part in team building exercises. Discussed will be the value in the team development process, why something like this would be necessary for high-performing organizations, and finally what my organization has done within the realm of team development.

            There are two aspects to the team development process. Brown states “one type of team development, are aimed at identifying group problems.” (Brown, 2011, p. 271) When members of a group don’t get along, it causes issues ranging from time delays, fighting, or even deliberate sabotage. The other type of team development is one where members “are aimed at improving the team’s functioning.” (Brown, 2011, p. 271) What this means is to build the synergistic qualities of the team so that the team itself is greater than the sum of its parts. So what else is there to know about team development then?

            Team development is important for a high-performing organization. Yukl mentions that “cooperation and mutual trust are important determinants of performance in groups where member roles are highly interdependent. A high level of cooperation and mutual trust is more likely when members identify with the team or work unit, value their membership, and are very cohesive.” (Yukl, 2013, p. 251) In other words, when people work well together greater benefits occur than if they didn’t. In ever growing complex environments leadership power shifts away from the few and moves onto the many. (Obolensky, 2010, p. 19) So it’s ever more important for members to work well together, especially in polyarchy environments.

            From the very beginning my organization has had team development and team building built into the orientation process; we call this Basic Military Training. For two months of our lives, we were taking out of our comfort zones and put into an incredibly intense environment where members of our team are broken down only to be built back up again. While at the beginning of my Basic Military Training experience I noticed we were all strangers and at the end of it, we were family. We performed and united not because of our Military Training Instructors, but because of each other. All throughout the organization team elements come in as well. For example, if one person messes up and makes a mistake (for example get’s a DUI), we all pay the price. This adds an element of accountability and responsibility.

            Discussed were values in the team development process, why it’s important to high-performance organizations, and finally what my organization has done to implement this. Bill Watkins came to his realization after spending time within the Army, which translates very well to the civilian sector. I believe taking what I know and what others have learned, I will be able to apply this to where I work when I get out.

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (Eight Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership (Second Edition ed.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (Eighth Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, United States of America: Prentice Hall.

A633.9.3.RB_SchreterPaul

            The question is being asked that if organizations are moving towards polyarchy then does it make old leadership models redundant? I don’t believe this has to be the case and the leader, while still existent, would simply change the role that they play within the organization. The new role that they would play would be to ensure processes and to facilitate a coaching role towards members.

            The ideal organization is where members of that organization are free to come together to tackle a problem, without any sort of bureaucratic processes. In essence, the role of the “leader ensures the process rather than doing the process, which is implied under an oligarchic assumption. So the leader moves away from content to process.” (Obolensky, Complex adaptive leadership, 2010, p. 203) In other words, the leader ensures the rules and boundaries are set up properly and that they are being followed. Think of Obolensky’s ‘Who needs leaders?’ exercise where certain rules are implemented in an ever so complex environment, but yet everything still flowed with such grace and simplicity. (Obolensky, Who needs leaders?, 2008) The simple, yet effective, Four + Four principles described in chapter 7 is what allowed for this smooth transition to take place. (Obolensky, Complex adaptive leadership, 2010) So within a polyarchy scenario, the leader simply needs to ensure process over content and let the followers take care of the rest.

            The next role the leader would need to play greater emphasis on would be that of a coach. The truth is that “coaching produces more consistent, replicable results than a lot of other management approaches. Coaching taps people’s creativity. It encourages them to be more flexible and adaptable. That kind of response from employees can have a substantial effect on the bottom line.” (von Hoffman, 1999) When employees are coached properly, they become better leaders themselves, which is essential in a polyarchic organization. If leadership powers are to flow towards the bottom of the organization, then those at the bottom need to step up and take hold of the leadership opportunities. Coaching is a great way to ensure people develop the skills necessary to come up with solutions in complex environments.

            The impact that this will have on my future strategy is to look at implementing good process practices and empower those around me to follow the process. The hope is that if the rules and guidelines are in place that people will be able to self-manage. A part of enabling this to occur is part coaching and part encouragement to allow a follower to start that “Level 5 Followership” taught in Chapter 9. (Obolensky, Complex adaptive leadership, 2010) Process development is what I learned in my computer science classes when it comes to how programs handle information. This may come in handy when it comes to process development with people and organizations.

           

References

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership (Second Edition ed.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

Obolensky, N. (2008, April 12). Who needs leaders? Retrieved 2015, from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E

von Hoffman, C. (1999). Coaching: The ten killer myths. Harvard Management Update , 4 (1), 4.

A632.8.3.RB_SchreterPaul

            In this week's blog reflection, I’m going to talk about two experiences of decision-making in multiple contexts. The first is within the simple context, which happens while I’m supervising for a local charity shop, Oxfam. The job is fairly simple and straightforward, make sure the till is manned and make sure someone is in the back sorting donations. My job as a leader is to “sense, categorize, respond,” which is fairly easy in this context. (Snowden & Boone, 2007) In fact, most of the time people are self-managing so I rarely have to do anything.

            The second example is within a chaotic context, which actually doesn’t have to do with a choice I made, but a choice another leader had made. This particular example has to do with when I was deployed and a missile was dropped a few meters away from me with the head shattering. The expediter didn’t even think, he started to evacuate the area and get the scene under control. His job as a leader in that situation was to act first, then to sense and respond. (Snowden & Boone, 2007) In the event of a delayed explosion, he could have saved a lot of lives that day.

            It is said “the trick is to understand the nature of the underlying issue being faced and then deal with it in an appropriate way. Much time is wasted by addressing ‘The Simple’, for example, by using emergent approach best suited to ‘The Complex’. Similarly, much time is wasted trying to solve ‘The Complex’ by employing things best used for ‘The Simple’ (such as use of processes).” (Obolensky, 2010) In other words, to be effective as a leader we need to be able to recognize the situation that we’re in, to properly respond the way we’re supposed to.

            In essence, each of the four categories of the Cynefin model can be addressed by:

The Simple: Categorize and deal, which means to organize the situation in such a way that allows for simple/straightforward answers.

The Complicated: Analyze and decide, which means to look at the situation with a deeper analysis and make an informed decision.

The Complex: Prove and discover, which means to experiment a little and to see what the results are. Then adjust accordingly.

The Chaotic: Act and move on, which means to act now, figure the rest out later. In other words "ask for forgiveness, not permission" couldn’t be any more relevant.

References

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

Snowden, D., & Boone, M. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review , 66-76.

A633.8.3.RB_SchreterPaul

Often times the answers are already within a person, which just needs to be unlocked. This is why we may go to a friend during our troubles or a trusted confidant, as the act of talking it through helps unlock passageways that may not have otherwise been obvious to us. This is why coaches provide value because talking with them helps reveal paths that may not have otherwise been noticed.

Obolensky mentions that the GROW technique is a “coaching questioning technique designed to enable the person being coached to find a way through a problem. It assumes a level of knowledge by the person answering the questions and is very much a ‘pull’ technique.” (Obolensky, 2010) What this means is that as a coach we would need to ask open-ended questions that aren’t suggestive. The non-suggestive questions are key, as it allows them to have ownership over the solution. Having ownership allows for a greater commitment.

An article in the Harvard Management Update states that “coaching can have a positive impact on performance, but it is not a short-term process. Coaching prospects should be people you think can be even greater assets to the organization than they already are.” (von Hoffman, 1999) What this means is that coaching is vital to both leadership and overall strategy when the coaching prospect is someone of high organizational importance. In essence, when the expected long-term return on investment is far greater than the actual cost of a coach. Perhaps this is why executive coaching and consulting can be considered such lucrative businesses.

My organization, the United States Air Force, already has internal coaching/mentorship at all levels. In our Professional Development Guide, it states the following:

“10.20. Assignment of Mentors:

10.20.1. The immediate supervisor or rater is the primary mentor (coach, counselor, guide, role model) for each of his or her Airmen. This designation in no way restricts the subordinate‘s desire to seek additional counseling and professional development advice from other sources or mentors. Supervisors and commanders must make themselves available to Airmen who seek career guidance and counsel.

10.20.2. Key to the mentoring process is direct involvement by the commander and supervisor. Commanders and supervisors must continually challenge their Airmen to improve. They must provide clear performance feedback and guidance in setting realistic near-, mid-, and long-term professional and personal development goals.” (PDG, 2013)

What this means is that from the very beginning we’re trained to become coaches for our subordinates and those that we work with. Even officers have their own coaches when it comes to the Chiefs that are assigned to them and the officers appointed over them. What this means is that coaching is valuable for any organization that plans to keep and maintain their people. With most enlistment contracts in the military lasting for at least six years, it would behoove the military to continue with its coaching mentality.

References

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

Professional Development Guide (Vols. AFPAM36-2241). (2013). Department of the Air Force.

von Hoffman, C. (1999). Coaching: The ten killer myths. Harvard Management Update , 4.

A632.7.4.RB_SchreterPaul

In my current line of work we create custom test equipment for the use by other maintainers. What we do directly affects other stakeholders by reducing maintenance times and improving quality of troubleshooting. Within my team, for the first time ever are we all collaborating on the same project to produce something amazing. However with collaboration comes the occasional conflict.

While we have been able to handle conflicts internally, after this week I am becoming more and more a strong believer that we need to get other stakeholders involved. I’ve always had the mindset of what would the customer want, but I’ve never actually involved them just yet. A part of this week’s blog assignment is to identify some ways stakeholder involvement can help make us make better decisions:

1)   What does the customer want? Right now we’re assuming we know what the customer wants without actually talking with them. Considering we work in the same building, we really aught to.

2)   They can provide insight into something we don’t know. None of us have actually done what our customers are doing; we only know it in theory and concepts. By talking with them, perhaps they can point something out that we are blinded too.

3)   Are we heading in the right direction? Even if we know what they want, are we doing it right? Are we taking the correct path with the process?

4)   Do our bosses think were doing the right thing? Its not just about creating products. What we really need to consider is are we developing products that create the most bang for the buck?

5)   Neutral party for conflicts. During internal conflicts, an outside stakeholder can provide neutral conflict mediation.

Again, this is something that we STILL have to do, as everything is internal right now. Our bosses did say they wanted us all to work on this project together, but that was about the full extent of their input. There isn’t anything yet to reflect back on, as this is an ongoing progress.