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.