A633.3.3.RB_SchreterPaul

Making that transitional change from a Type 1 Functional Silo to a Type 3 CAS organization is quite the large leap. The United States Air Force is already one of the biggest organizations in the world and inner workings of it are vast and varied. Within my realm of expertise, I can only speak for the workings of Aircraft Maintenance, which closely resembles a Type 2 Matrix structure. The current structure from the point of view of a maintainer is as follows:

Section Chief -> Supervisor -> You
Production Super -> Expediter -> You

While we fall under the chain of command of our Section Chief, we get loaned out as a resource to the Production Super. While I believe the current system works and there isn’t a drastic need to make that change into a Type 3 CAS organization, it most certainly can be done and improvements may be expected. I will talk about what sort of benefits we could expect, how performance reviews will be changed, and finally how the pay system would have to be changed as well.

Currently anyone that joins the Air Force is locked into a particular specialty. We go to technical training to only learn our specialty and when we go to our first duty station, we work only within the realms of our specialty. Currently, there are five different specialties that work on the flight line and many of the skills of these specialties overlap. Within a CAS system, “teams are formed, perform and then disappear as the need arises.” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 26) When an aircraft breaks, a team then self-assembles to take care of the problem. Without managers, this would also more freely allow people to try their hand at different specialties. Not only will skill sets expand, but this may prevent idle bodies from just sitting around when nothing breaks within their particular specialty. People are more likely to go outside to learn something new.

The second element of moving to a CAS like system is the element of peer review similar to how Morning Star handles it when “at the end of the year, every employee in the company receives feedback from his or her CLOU colleagues.” (Hamel, 2011) Rather than a boss-to-subordinate type of feedback, feedback is received from everyone you work with. That way you get a much better idea on how well you’re performing and you can be more fairly ranked with your peers. The current system within the Air Force is by the boss-to-subordinate only, which poses difficulties when the boss is on a different shift or in another country altogether.

The third element would have to be a change within the pay system. Currently within the Air Force pay is based on rank, which is loosely correlated with value added. With the new system, the entire rank structure would almost have to be removed along with the pay scale. Reason being is that rank is equivalent to a title, which makes people feel privileged. Everything being equal, people are then graded based on merit and not rank. Morning Star handles the situation with “a local compensation committee; about eight such bodies are created across the company each year. The committees work to validate self-assessments and uncover contributions that went unreported. After weighing inputs, the committees set individual compensation levels, ensuring that pay aligns with value added.” (Hamel, 2011) Removing rank with rank pay and moving to a peer based compensation system, people become more focused on value as opposed to shooting for the next promotion.

The three things I mentioned are what sort of benefits could be expected from a Type 3 CAS organization, how performance reviews would be changed, and finally how the pay system would also have to be changed. While not completely out of feasibility, getting the military to make a huge organizational change is something that will be incredibly difficult. Decades-old worth of structure and culture will have to be dismantled in order to build up something new and worthwhile. If already engaged in foreign military operations, is it worth trying to make organizational changes now or would it be better to wait for times of peace?

References

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

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

A632.3.4.RB_SchreterPaul

You can always put on a different shade when looking at a situation, effectively viewing something through a new frame. When doing so you become more open minded about a situation and realize that there is much more than your own self-interests. There are a number of ways to combat framing traps and the three methods that I’ll discuss are by understanding the frames of others, aligning frames, and speaking to others frames.

The first framing tip is to try and understand the frames of others to get a better understanding of the situation. The idea here is that this is “the process of examining the frames of different stakeholders [which] should make you more aware of frame overlap and conflict.” (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2005, p. 142) At work we are in the process of trying to move our small team to fall administratively under the Group level as opposed to a Squadron level. Simply trying to say we belong under the Group level won’t be enough to convince the yes/no decision maker, but rather we need to understand what it is making them currently say no. Right now their concern is that they may never get the manning slots back should they give it away. If we can somehow resolve this concern, we will have a better chance at accomplishing our objective.

The second framing tip is to try and align frames. I don’t have a direct personal example however through my readings I’ve discovered this incredible idea of going for the win/win situation. “Winning is deeply embedded in our national psyche. The word win is synonymous with success. Unfortunately, it also implies the corresponding lose. Even though the term win/win is used in many places, most of us think ‘for me to win, you must lose.’ Though win/win is pervasive in organizations, the idea of everyone winning is not yet an operational principle people full embrace.” (Levine, 2009, p. 78) In other words, there’s no reason we should go for the win/lose mentality. Try to align our mentalities so that everyone gets something they can be happy with. Assume an overabundance is the best way to think of it.

The last framing tip is to speak to other frames. A friend of mine came to me asking the best way for her to tell someone she cares about that this person is making a bad decision in his or her life. I recommended her not to tell this person up front their opinion because right away it will come off as adversarial and the person will likely put up a wall. I recommended instead to ask about their choice and to ask questions about it, to try and really understand their perspective. Only then, can she try to explore other options and ease them into seeing her viewpoint as well. In the end however, they have to make their own decision. This is the approach that Samaritans takes when people call in for help, they say, “sometimes it’s easy to want to try and fix a person’s problems, or give them advice. It’s usually better for people to make their own decisions. Help them think of all the options, but leave the choice to them.” (Samaritans, 2015) I used to be a volunteer and sometimes not giving advice is the hardest thing to do, but we have no right to dictate what people do with their own lives.

The three frame tips that I discussed were understanding the frames of others, aligning frames, and speaking to other frames. By only looking at things through our own frames we become incredibly bias with how we see the world and how we decide, which could have negative consequences and result in outcomes we don’t want. By being mindful of our frames, we are better able to get to an outcome that is in everyone’s best interest.

References

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into resolution. Williston: Berrett-Koehler Publishers .

Samaritans. (2015). HOW TO START A DIFFICULT CONVERSATION. Retrieved 2015, from Samaritans: http://www.samaritans.org/how-we-can-help-you/what-speak-us-about/if-you%E2%80%99re-worried-about-someone/how-start-difficult

A633.2.3.RB_SchreterPaul

Applying complexity theory to leadership has been a revelation on the idea of cause and effect. Obolensky is quick to point out that “a very small change within a complex system can produce a very large difference to what would have otherwise happened. In other words, when a situation has a great sensitivity to initial conditions a small change can have a disproportionate effect.” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 70) There are two examples that I can point out within my organization where small changes have yielded large results.

The first example was back when I used to work on the flight line where our main goal was to produce aircraft sorties. Hoch and Kunreuther point out that “time perception affects both the decision-making process and the resultant decision. It naturally follows then that members of cultures with different time perceptions may differ in their decision-making processes and outcomes.”  (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2005, p. 105) In translation what this means is that if leadership gives the impression that there is no time and that aircraft needed to be fixed yesterday, it leads to poor decision making and quick band-aid fixes from the maintainers. Then when jets keep braking, top leadership puts pressures on lower leadership, who then reflects that pressure onto the maintainers, who end up constantly working within a high-stress environment. Aircraft don’t get good fixes, things break more and more often, and repeat recur rates of pilot reported discrepancies go through the roof. This is an example where small pressures from top leadership can trickle down to lower levels and cause havoc and chaos.

The other example is based on the same story but this time with new leadership. When the new leadership came in they realized that something needed to be done. So they got everyone together and said that the new priorities are shifting from getting aircraft fixed fast to getting them fixed right, the first time. They were willing to sacrifice a sortie for a good fix rather than a quick one. For a little while, culturally nothing changed because everyone was used to the old culture. However over time you could noticeably see the change in leadership viewpoints slowly start to trickle downward. Over the course of a few months, repeat recur rates had gone down, less aircraft were braking, and overall stress levels were deteriorating. This is an example of where a small change from the top had a drastic effect with everyone down below.

What I get out of complexity theory is that we’re constantly being watched and that everything we do can have a drastic effect on our organization. Boyatzis and McKee made mention that to be a resonant leader we need to be “in tune with those around [us]. This results in people working in sync with each other, in tune with each other’s thoughts and emotions.” (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005, p. 4) When we’re in tune with others we can then recognize when something is wrong and make changes to correct them before it spirals out of control. Small changes lead to big results and we need to make sure that these results go in the right direction.

References

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

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

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

A632.2.3.RB_SchreterPaul

The four basic methodologies that Sheena Iyengar suggested were as follows (Iyengar, 2011):

            Cut: Less is more

            Concretize: Make it vivid

            Categorize: More categories, fewer choices

            Condition

 The two implications that I’ll be addressing are with cutting and conditioning and how they might affect me personally and how they would apply within my organization. Cutting is about reducing the number of choices to not only making decisions more likely but mentally easier as well. Conditioning is about organizing information in such a way that allows for gradual increases in commitment as opposed to expecting full commitment all at once.

With regards to cutting there are two ways that it can affect me, one with my personal life and another within my organization. Baba Shiv brings up a good point in his TED talk that sometimes it’s good to give up the drivers seat because any decision that involves an immediate negative result can lead to less mental energy and commitment to a task. (Shiv, 2012) This especially applies towards medical decisions. In Baba’s case his wife had stage 2B breast cancer and what the two had decided was to give up the drivers seat, let the doctors make all the decisions, and that way they could put all their energy towards the recovery processes as opposed to worrying about whether or not they can make a good decision. If I personally ever run into a similar situation, I am more likely to put faith in my doctors and allow them to make the best decisions that they think is best for me.

The way cutting decisions is currently being used in my organization is with software design and user interaction. I create custom packages with a big, large, programmable multimeter that allows for quicker and more accurate troubleshooting of aircraft components. I had a debate recently with my peer that the less we ask of the user, the fewer choices they have to make, the better the user experience will be. They were on the mindset that more choices are better because it gives the user the control to do things how they want, so perhaps it’s time to show them an educational TED video to change their mind!

The next thing to discuss is with the idea of conditioning data so that it is easier to deal with and allows for more commitment on my part. A little embarrassing to admit, but I signed up for the dating website eHarmony. One of the quick things I realized was that unlike other dating services, eHarmony will only give you a limited number of matches as opposed to all at once.  They say, “There's a reason for that-if you received all of your potential matches at once, you might miss someone special. Just as we wouldn't want one of your matches to overlook your name and profile, we want you to have the time to read and review every match you receive.” (eHarmony, Inc., 2014) What I personally noticed was that when on other dating website and when presented with a lot of information, my commitment towards any one individual was far less as I was constantly focused on searching through all the profiles. On eHarmony, I was more likely to dive in and find out more information about someone and to start that communication processes.

Finally, I believe that conditioning can be a great idea when it comes to being a Victim Advocate within my organization. A Victim Advocate within my organization is someone who “provides essential support, liaison services, and care to [victims of sexual assault.” (PDG, 2013) One of the biggest difficulties that I’ve noticed with most victims is that initial decision to come forward. When they do, so much is going through their minds already that information overload isn’t likely what’s best for them. So instead it’s best to do it in small chunks, let them make small decisions first with what they think is best for them and then to slowly reveal more and more information and services that are available. I believe it not only gets them more involved with the process but also gives them back that control that was taken away from them without being overwhelmed.

References

eHarmony, Inc. (2014). Do you limit the number of matches I receive each day? . Retrieved 2015, from eHarmony: http://help-singles.eharmony.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1394/~/do-you-limit-the-number-of-matches-i-receive-each-day%3F

Iyengar, S. (2011). Sheena Iyengar: How to make choosing easier. Retrieved 2015, from TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose/transcript?language=en#t-917027

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

Shiv, B. (2012). Baba Shiv: Sometimes it's good to give up the driver's seat. Retrieved 2015, from TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/baba_shiv_sometimes_it_s_good_to_give_up_the_driver_s_seat#t-567206

A633.1.2.RB_SchreterPaul

Leaders are born, not made. Or so I always thought since growing as a kid. All the time you would see those that are more charismatic, masculine, or even just brave naturally take on leadership roles. But as time moves on, beyond that of primary and secondary school, and you begin to see a shift. I can’t speak for my parents or my grandparents, but I believe the shift of opinion from the old to young will be drastically different, as the world around us has exponentially increased in knowledge and value.

Just like the advancement of science, the advancement of leadership studies has changed throughout the years. If I were to guess, public opinion (and thus the opinion of my grandparents and parents) was probably matching with that of the leadership theories of the time. Early on in the 1930’s and 1940’s most leadership studies were based off of the trait approach, where leaders were assumed to be born based on personal personality, motives, values, and skills. It was said, “early leadership theories attributed managerial success to extraordinary abilities such as tireless energy, penetrating intuition, uncanny foresight, and irresistible persuasive powers.“ (Yukl, 2013) But when those studies began to fail, other approaches such as the behavior approach in the 1950’s and others began to take shape. Now with the creation of the MSLD program at ERAU, the whole study of leadership seems so vast, complex, and growing that by the time we graduate everything we learned at the beginning may no longer be relevant!

I believe this change in opinion has occurred because of the growth of knowledge that everyone as a collective whole as consumed. Obolensky brings up the idea that “the increase of knowledge in the world is matched by an increase of uncertainty. Knowing more does not necessarily help increase certainty.” (Obolensky, 2010) As things become more and more complex and rapidly changing, organizational leaders need to be able to adapt quickly or get buried alive. Yukl brings up the idea of participative leadership that “involves efforts by a leader to enlist the aid of others in making important decisions. Democratic societies uphold the right of people to influence decisions that will affect them in important ways. Involving others in making decisions is often a necessary part of the political process for getting decisions approved and implemented in organizations.” (Yukl, 2013) But its not just about decision acceptance, it’s also about speed. A leader cannot lead in a complex and fast changing environment unless they empower those on the front lines to make the decisions themselves. I’d be really curious to see how ideas change in the coming years.

References

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

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. New Jersey: Pearson.

A632.1.4.RB_SchreterPaul

            The Wharton text brings up the discussion on reasoning in multistage decision-making. Many people don’t often fully think things through much like a researcher would and end up making bad decisions. The two ideas that will be discussed are his ideas on complete forward planning and heuristics.

            Complete forward planning is defined as “maximizing total utility over a horizon, decision makers are assumed to look ahead to all future periods and anticipate all possible choices and outcomes.” (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2005) The idea is simple in the sense that we should always make the choice that yields the best outcome. But as Dan Gilbert quickly points out in his talk, it’s never that simple. (Gilbert, 2005) People vastly change their opinions due to internal errors in calculating odds and internal errors in calculating value. A simple change in frame somehow yields vastly different results. Sometimes it’s hard to predict the best outcome, but if you can apply and follow the maths, better decisions can be made.

            This is something that I’ve been employing myself, or at least trying to employ. My original plan was to stay in the military for 20 years for the incredible retirement, however the possibility of having a more lucrative civilian life hasn’t fully been considered. On one hand the military is a guaranteed stable income whereas on the other hand working in the civilian sector can go any which direction. This is one case where I am still doing my research so that I can properly apply and assess the different situations and to choose the best outcome for me.

            Another idea I found absolutely amazing was the one based on heuristics, which is something most people do anyways and that is to “use experience to learn and improve.” (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2015) Hoch and Kunreuther apply this idea to our dating techniques in the sense that once we properly sample within a given pool, we can then figure out what which are the good and bad picks. (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2005) Hannah Fry takes this a step further and claims that mathematically speaking, we should sample the first 37% of our available pool before being committed with a concrete answer. (Fry, 2014) When I entered my first serious relationship this strategy was actually haunting me because according to the maths it wasn’t a relationship I should be in, however after not being in the relationship anymore, it only sets my standards higher for the next one. I almost feel like that’s a rather shallow thing to say.

            Discussed were Hoch and Kunreuther’s ideas on complete forward planning and heuristics. Each of these currently plays a role in how I view my current long-term career plans and on with my dating views. While some may govern their choices simply by their emotions, but applying a sort of science behind the decision, then perhaps a better more informed decision could be made.

References

Fry, H. (2014, April). Hannah Fry: The mathematics of love. Retrieved August 2015, from TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/hannah_fry_the_mathematics_of_love#t-515665

Gilbert, D. (2005, July). Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions. Retrieved August 2015, from TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness#t-95465

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. (2015). heuristic. Retrieved 2015, from Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heuristic