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.