After viewing the video in the previous activity, reflect on the following questions in a well-written post on your Reflection Blog.
Is the Culture Committee at Southwest effective in establishing cultural norms?
From what you can tell, what is the purpose of the culture committee at Southwest?
What would you see as a viable mission for a culture committee in your place of work (or your last place of work if you are not currently working)?
What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.
“A corporate culture is a system of shared values and beliefs that interact with a organization’s people, structure, and systems to produce behavioral norms. It is the tangible and intangible characteristics of an organization including aspirations, reward systems, behaviors, assumptions, performance, rituals, communications, and heritage” (Brown, 2011).
The culture committee was formed in 1991 due to Southwest’s rapid growth rate. Southwest believed that in order to maintain success (away from their Dallas HQ) Southwest wanted to insure their core value, their spirit, their corporate culture was transmitted to new hires and employees at other locations.CEO Gary Kelly admits that “the Southwest Culture has thrived, but it hasn’t been easy.” He adds that the culture’s longevity “has been both our biggest accomplishment and our most significant challenge.” Creating and maintaining a positive corporate culture is hard work (Oswald, 2009).
Kelly states a few steps for creating a successful corporate culture are to make culture everyone’s responsibility; create a culture committee (Southwest has two: Local Culture Committees and a Corporate Culture Committee) (Southwest, 2008); avoid promoting people who don’t reflect the company culture; and include a evaluations of culture on your annual employee performance appraisals (Oswald, 2009).
From this list of creating a winning corporate culture, Southwest’s purpose for having a Culture Committee can be realized: making employees aware of the company’s culture, inside promotion and employee job performance. In my organization, Embry-Riddle, I believe the culture set is clear in the actions of the leaders, though it may not be evaluated through employee reviews. Our corporate culture has been established by the Chancellor, and is reflected in the easy going nature of the Dean of Students, the Dean of Admissions, and many of the department directors. However, it is clear these head have an understanding and commitment to business affairs of the organization, of which treating employees well is a strategy. Within my department is where I see it the most - the Director is smart in his balance of knowing the strengths, weaknesses, habits and backgrounds of the employees. He expects a high level of customer service and satisfaction from every employee and it is exemplified in out departmental tenets of customer service, community and care. In fact, in describing our individual positions as professional staff, all of our responsibilities have these three words as the forefront. By his words and actions, he has created a culture of professionalism without pressure, which are both needed in a position dealing with young people as consumers of knowledge. Our culture committee, the Workplace Environment Quality Committee, is responsible for celebrating new arrivals to the institution, assuring everyone gets a birthday card, and acknowledging the commitment to the school through anniversary and random "person of the day" recognition. They are also a large part of planning and executing the monthly Service Excellence Awards.
In the video on CBS News on Southwest, a woman standing with a group of fellow workers dancing states that the executives of the company are greatly admired. "We are a family, they love us, we feel the love and it shows in the way we behave" (Merlis, A. (2007). Should not every employee feel as wanted and valued to say something so positive about their workplace?
References
Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organizational development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Merlis, A. (2007). Something Special About Southwest Airlines. CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-3221531.html
Oswald, Dan (2009). Corporate culture Done Right: Southwest Airlines. Retrieved online fromhttp://blogs.hrhero.com/oswaldletters/2009/11/29/corporate-culture-done-right-southwest-airlines/
Southwest Airlines (2008). Southwest Airlines “A Day in the Life of the Culture Committee” video presentation. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7P0T9IbYKU&feature=player_embedded
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Saturday, August 29, 2015
A633.9.3.RB - Polyarchy Reflections
Most leadership models have the assumption of oligarchy – leadership is done by a few leaders over many followers. If polyarchy is fast replacing the old oligarchy assumptions does this make these old leadership models redundant? Reflecting on traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership, address the implications and how they will affect you as a leader in the future. What impact will they have on your future strategy?
Traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership (CAL) can have many implications for organizations. A successful organization will grow from a “functional silo” organization through to a complex adaptive structure (Obolensky, 2010, p. 23-27), or perish; therefore, leadership models will adapt and change along the way. CAL can promote increased flexibility within the realm of traditional leadership. More organizations need to become more bottom up and the way to do this is through change, coaching, motivation and innovation. It can also encourage more upward leadership because CAL helps traditional leaders to consider interaction and adaptability in their changing environment.
Polyarchy is somewhat of a paradoxical change from old oligarchical assumptions. Instead of a single leader providing direction, a polyarchic view is where many people are led by many people (Obolensky, 2010, p. xiv). In addition, a leader is more concerned for all members of the organization and thus, ensures that each member obtains the skills and knowledge required to perform day-to-day practices.
Leaders today will grow to understand that being a leader no longer requires knowing the solutions and passing then on; it requires having the ability to listen well, in order to spot solutions and support those who proposed them. When I think about micromanagement of employees, I wonder what the point is in keeping people around that a manager does not believe can do the work alone. Someone needs to leave - either the employee or the manager - because the point of hiring is to spread to load of responsibility! We need to coach - empowering teams instead of hovering over them, telling them when they are doing something wrong, and closing our office door behind us (Bajic, 2013). This change in workplace dynamics is being seen across industries as companies revisit how they work, where they work, how to increase efficiency, reduce operational costs, and what will attract and retain the best talent (SMPS New York, 2015). According to Obolensky (2010), "the ability to follow, and know when to do so, is as important as the ability to lead” (p. 143). In addition, knowing when to act is just as important as knowing when not to act.
My goal is to focus on the strengths of my followers and helping them to embrace change by facing it up front and not being afraid to take a chance. Collaboration and team work is a big focus for me as well as promoting individual growth from each follower. To do this, I need to know what they want. In most companies, managers believe that if they grow a employee too much, a good employee will find a better opportunity elsewhere. As a manager, that's how you manage to keep a few people, usually from personal circumstance and not a love for the job. As a leader, that mindset is how you send people out the door. Thinking that people need their companies and that companies do not need employees is perhaps the most poisonous of concepts from the traditional structured workplace - the old notion of “just be grateful you have a job” is a fast ticket to low performance and high turnover (Duncan, 2013). I had this boss; my only wonder for managers who think like this is, "do you write the check for this person, personally?" If not, chances are they have someone to answer to as well! The polyarchic pedagogy from which transformative leadership rests, notes that people are multitalented, so a leader can get more done from a worker when they understand their passions. My director knows some of my talents are creative (as in artistic - graphic design specifically); though my position do not directly require a handling of such communications, when he handed me the social media presence of our department last year, I felt like a kid in a candy store! Point? If a supervisor does not know how an employee would like to grow professionally, they cannot tailor opportunities to meet their needs, and that is how companies lose good people (Bajic, 2013).
Luckily, in my position, I know my supervisees will be going into other career fields. I have no fear of them leaving (to graduate) - I want them to leave - but they should see direct connections with what their responsibilities were in their role and how they should be treated (and treat people) in the workplaces of their tomorrow. Although the use of polyarchy differs significantly in each organization, the concept is the same. The key is to understand that the traditional dynamic between leader and emerging leader has changed. Supervisors needs to encourage their supervisees to lead while also being open to their supervisees opinions, concerns and needs.
A way to do this is through the ‘wu wei’ concept (art of inaction and waiting until the right time to take action). Stepping back and seeing how my supervisees approach and solve issues has been a matter of not turning around as much to answer a question for them when they hesitate, and questioning them when they come see me to give them an answer. I do not want them to come to me with questions and leave with my answer; I want to challenge them to think logically and weigh the benefits and setbacks of their own thoughts and assumptions. It is the process of showing a man to fish:
References
Bajic, Elena. (2013).The 6 Steps For Retaining Good Employees. Forbes. Accessed at http://www.forbes.com/sites/elenabajic/2013/07/15/the-6-steps-for-retaining-good-employees/
Duncan, R. (2013). Nine Ways To Keep Your Company's Most Valuable Asset -- Its Employees. Forbes. Accessed at http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2013/08/20/nine-ways-to-keep-your-companys-most-valuable-asset-its-employees/
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Burlington, VT; Gower Publishing Company.
SMPS New York. (2015). The Ever-Changing Dynamics of the Corporate Workplace. Society for Marketing Professional Resources. Accessed at http://smpsny.org/events/workplace201/
 |
| From Obolensky, 2010, p. 110 |
Polyarchy is somewhat of a paradoxical change from old oligarchical assumptions. Instead of a single leader providing direction, a polyarchic view is where many people are led by many people (Obolensky, 2010, p. xiv). In addition, a leader is more concerned for all members of the organization and thus, ensures that each member obtains the skills and knowledge required to perform day-to-day practices.
Leaders today will grow to understand that being a leader no longer requires knowing the solutions and passing then on; it requires having the ability to listen well, in order to spot solutions and support those who proposed them. When I think about micromanagement of employees, I wonder what the point is in keeping people around that a manager does not believe can do the work alone. Someone needs to leave - either the employee or the manager - because the point of hiring is to spread to load of responsibility! We need to coach - empowering teams instead of hovering over them, telling them when they are doing something wrong, and closing our office door behind us (Bajic, 2013). This change in workplace dynamics is being seen across industries as companies revisit how they work, where they work, how to increase efficiency, reduce operational costs, and what will attract and retain the best talent (SMPS New York, 2015). According to Obolensky (2010), "the ability to follow, and know when to do so, is as important as the ability to lead” (p. 143). In addition, knowing when to act is just as important as knowing when not to act.
My goal is to focus on the strengths of my followers and helping them to embrace change by facing it up front and not being afraid to take a chance. Collaboration and team work is a big focus for me as well as promoting individual growth from each follower. To do this, I need to know what they want. In most companies, managers believe that if they grow a employee too much, a good employee will find a better opportunity elsewhere. As a manager, that's how you manage to keep a few people, usually from personal circumstance and not a love for the job. As a leader, that mindset is how you send people out the door. Thinking that people need their companies and that companies do not need employees is perhaps the most poisonous of concepts from the traditional structured workplace - the old notion of “just be grateful you have a job” is a fast ticket to low performance and high turnover (Duncan, 2013). I had this boss; my only wonder for managers who think like this is, "do you write the check for this person, personally?" If not, chances are they have someone to answer to as well! The polyarchic pedagogy from which transformative leadership rests, notes that people are multitalented, so a leader can get more done from a worker when they understand their passions. My director knows some of my talents are creative (as in artistic - graphic design specifically); though my position do not directly require a handling of such communications, when he handed me the social media presence of our department last year, I felt like a kid in a candy store! Point? If a supervisor does not know how an employee would like to grow professionally, they cannot tailor opportunities to meet their needs, and that is how companies lose good people (Bajic, 2013).
Luckily, in my position, I know my supervisees will be going into other career fields. I have no fear of them leaving (to graduate) - I want them to leave - but they should see direct connections with what their responsibilities were in their role and how they should be treated (and treat people) in the workplaces of their tomorrow. Although the use of polyarchy differs significantly in each organization, the concept is the same. The key is to understand that the traditional dynamic between leader and emerging leader has changed. Supervisors needs to encourage their supervisees to lead while also being open to their supervisees opinions, concerns and needs.
The first time, we will do it together. Then I want to see you try alone, and I'll steer you when I think you may hurt yourself, but you will either figure out how to do it how I do, or find an even better way. My goal it to give my supervisees enough space to teach me a better way!Though polyarchy is fast replacing old oligarchical assumptions, the old models are yet to become redundant and unnecessary. Many larger corporations, those who have been around for quite some time and have complex leadership systems, still have niches within their establishment who run a top-down environment; it would be daunting for someone who is expecting to be valued as the source of information to realize their department is expecting them to be order-takers. This is not a beneficial environment for an emerging leaders, but there are skills to be learned while coping through the eventually overhaul of the structural dynamic. Knowing the old model will help leaders strive forward in whatever organization they may be in.
References
Bajic, Elena. (2013).The 6 Steps For Retaining Good Employees. Forbes. Accessed at http://www.forbes.com/sites/elenabajic/2013/07/15/the-6-steps-for-retaining-good-employees/
Duncan, R. (2013). Nine Ways To Keep Your Company's Most Valuable Asset -- Its Employees. Forbes. Accessed at http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2013/08/20/nine-ways-to-keep-your-companys-most-valuable-asset-its-employees/
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Burlington, VT; Gower Publishing Company.
SMPS New York. (2015). The Ever-Changing Dynamics of the Corporate Workplace. Society for Marketing Professional Resources. Accessed at http://smpsny.org/events/workplace201/
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
A633.8.3.RB - How do Coaches Help?
Based on the the readings reflect upon the statement below:
To be an executive coach, it is necessary to know that clients are the first and best expert capable of solving their own problems and achieving their own ambitions, that is precisely the main reason why clients are motivated to call on a coach. When clients bring important issues to a coach, they already made a complete inventory of their personal or professional issues and of all possible options. Clients have already tried working out their issues alone, and have not succeeded.
As Constantine von Hoffman notes in Coaching: The ten killer myths (1999), coaching means helping people define clear goals and set a specific time frame in which to meet them. This is different from mentoring, which is characteristic of a long-term relationship. The goals can be anything from overcoming a problem with personal interactions to achieving a professional objective. Coaches provide value to their clients by showing them how to utilize their talents and pointing them into the successful direction.
Great coaches have been coached, and continue to look for development. Just as leaders do, coaches model what they expect of others. As Joe Girardi, manager of the New York Yankees baseball team notes,
To be an executive coach, it is necessary to know that clients are the first and best expert capable of solving their own problems and achieving their own ambitions, that is precisely the main reason why clients are motivated to call on a coach. When clients bring important issues to a coach, they already made a complete inventory of their personal or professional issues and of all possible options. Clients have already tried working out their issues alone, and have not succeeded.
- Given the statement above what is it that coaches do to provide value to their clients?
- Why is coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy?
- How can it make a difference in an organization?
- What does this mean to you and your organization?
As Constantine von Hoffman notes in Coaching: The ten killer myths (1999), coaching means helping people define clear goals and set a specific time frame in which to meet them. This is different from mentoring, which is characteristic of a long-term relationship. The goals can be anything from overcoming a problem with personal interactions to achieving a professional objective. Coaches provide value to their clients by showing them how to utilize their talents and pointing them into the successful direction.
Great coaches have been coached, and continue to look for development. Just as leaders do, coaches model what they expect of others. As Joe Girardi, manager of the New York Yankees baseball team notes,
You ask your players to be prepared mentally and physically, so you have to be prepared. Beyond that, you’ve got to adapt to the type of players you have. If you’ve got a home-run-hitting team, you can’t make them all base stealers, and vice versa.
Coaching can help the employees discover and communicate their goals for their career (Freeman, 2014). We must do things that great coaches do to earn the right to coach others. Establishing clear linkages between leadership development programs and overall business objectives can be achieved through effective coaching. Some managers fear that helping someone achieve a professional goal will encourage the person to quit and look for something better. When you form relationships in which others are inspired, challenged, appreciated and held accountable for their performance this will enhance and contribute to organizational strategy; most people looking for development are NOT looking to leave.
Coaching can have a direct impact on employees in an organization for a lasting affect well after the a session has taken place. Coaching can have a positive impact on performance when employees realize how cultivating new abilities can help them advance.
Embry-Riddle does not have any formal coaching programs in place; however, the Director of my department provided me with informal coaching sessions that help me to establish short term goals and personal objectives. I believe this was a good start and I hope it will continue, but it only began as a plan to quell an issue between a superior and I, which has been resolved. I would like to see more opportunities for more formal coaching and development opportunities within my department because it can positively benefit staff, leading to workers being more motivated and satisfied.
References
Carmichael, Sarah Green. How to Coach, According to 5 Great Sports Coaches. Harvard Business Review. Accessed at https://hbr.org/2015/02/how-to-coach-according-to-5-great-sports-coaches
Freeman, C. (2014). Coaching Is Important Piece of Engagement Strategy, Webinar Hears. HR Focus, 91(4), 14-15.
Coaching can have a direct impact on employees in an organization for a lasting affect well after the a session has taken place. Coaching can have a positive impact on performance when employees realize how cultivating new abilities can help them advance.
Embry-Riddle does not have any formal coaching programs in place; however, the Director of my department provided me with informal coaching sessions that help me to establish short term goals and personal objectives. I believe this was a good start and I hope it will continue, but it only began as a plan to quell an issue between a superior and I, which has been resolved. I would like to see more opportunities for more formal coaching and development opportunities within my department because it can positively benefit staff, leading to workers being more motivated and satisfied.
References
Freeman, C. (2014). Coaching Is Important Piece of Engagement Strategy, Webinar Hears. HR Focus, 91(4), 14-15.
von Hoffman, C. (1999). Coaching: The ten killer myths. Harvard Management Update, 4(1), 4.
Friday, August 21, 2015
A630.2.4.RB - 21st Century Enlightenment
- Why do you think the talk is titled 21st Century Enlightenment?
- What does Matthew Taylor mean when he says "to live differently, you have to think differently"?
- At one point in the video (4:10), Taylor argues that we need "to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange". What is he talking about? Can you think of an example within your company or your life that supports this point?
- Taylor argues that our society should eschew elements of pop culture that degrade people and that we should spend more time looking into what develops empathetic citizens. Would this be possible?
- At the end of the video, Taylor talks about atomizing people from collaborative environments and the destructive effect on their growth. What is the implication of these comments for organizational change efforts?
- What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
After reviewing this video, it seems that Taylor believes that most people are copying the path of those who have come before them. We believe there are only a few distinct roads to success. There must, then, also be, particular principles, values, morals, standards on this road. To this, he remarks, “to live differently, you have to think differently.” We should rethink how we see certain perspectives of society The question is: Do I agree? One hundred percent. I say this because I/we live in an evolving world.
Taylor states that "to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange". This reminds me of two Malcolm X quotes about truth:
The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.
I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against.Malcolm X was one of the most undervalued sociologists of the 20th century, in that his skill for communicating racial tension and influencing progress were paramount to the success of equality movements for the sixties onward. His impact on critical race theory is likened to W.E.B. DuBois and Angela Davis. X's words are directly in line with Taylor's push for innovative thinking. As leaders, not only should we question what is fed to us as truth from the media and speakers of today; we have to question what is in any book, especially since we are trained to be very critical thinkers Critical thinking is about thinking about the thinking). I think Taylor is being narrow-minded to say not to read a self-help book.
Some things I took from Taylor's video:
- There is no limit to expanding empathy towards others.
- We need to resist our tendencies to follow the norm.
- Enlightenment does not happen in a bubble.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
A633.7.3.RB - Leader Follower Relationship
After completing the assessment at the beginning of chapter 10, I found that I scored highest in quadrant S1 and S3; S1 receiving a score of 9 and S3 receiving a score of 5. Obolensky (2010) states that “if the sum of S1 and S3 is greater than the sum of S2 and S4 then you may be taking too direct an approach”. This is not far from reality. At work, I am very straight-forward with people. I am nice, and I try to show as much care as possible, but I do not want my need misconstrued.
This summer, I realized I had an issue supervising those two levels lower than me. I enjoyed teaching them, but I worried about them often. I felt like they did not understand the work, and would micromanage every aspect of their responsibilities. It was a hassle, because my coworkers would tell me things they did wrong, and I wanted to show that I cared about the inconvenience they may have made for my coworker, and make sure I was very clear in my expectations. I surveyed them often, and got involved far too often. It is hard for me to sit back and watch them fail. I want them to succeed, but I learned I was not giving them the skill/will to succeed on their own.
I now understand the importance of letting go and allowing other to take the lead, that is why my future goal will be to implement each of the Four + Four principles (Tell, Sell, Involve, and Devolve). I am going to start by outline the benefits of completing the task at hand and then allow the other person to take on the responsibility as I stand on the sideline providing support.
When you treat a leader as a follower, you are turning them into someone who does not develop the necessary independence, strength, and personal accountability for them to lead others (Searcy, 2013). I want to become the type of leader that people have confidence and trust in. The type that will jump in to help when needed but step back and see how things play out. I want to be a motivator and a mentor. This part I think I do already it is just a better of sharpening my skills.
Brown, D. (2011). Experiential Approach to Organization Development. 8th edition. Prentice-Hall Publishing.
This summer, I realized I had an issue supervising those two levels lower than me. I enjoyed teaching them, but I worried about them often. I felt like they did not understand the work, and would micromanage every aspect of their responsibilities. It was a hassle, because my coworkers would tell me things they did wrong, and I wanted to show that I cared about the inconvenience they may have made for my coworker, and make sure I was very clear in my expectations. I surveyed them often, and got involved far too often. It is hard for me to sit back and watch them fail. I want them to succeed, but I learned I was not giving them the skill/will to succeed on their own.
I recall a week I left for vacation, and though there were a lot of things left undone, most of it had to do with the person looking after my work not really knowing how much I did. When I came back, a few of the RAs boasted that since they could not come to me, they trusted their own judgement and were right most of the time. I needed to step back, ignore their pleas, and let them figure things out on their own. In the Inc. article titled "4 Ways To Build Leaders, Not Followers," Searcy (2013) recalls working with a leader who built a company on the dysfunction. The business is only bigger because of his efforts, and his team is paralyzed without his daily direction of what they should do next. I do not want to foster that!
I now understand the importance of letting go and allowing other to take the lead, that is why my future goal will be to implement each of the Four + Four principles (Tell, Sell, Involve, and Devolve). I am going to start by outline the benefits of completing the task at hand and then allow the other person to take on the responsibility as I stand on the sideline providing support.
When you treat a leader as a follower, you are turning them into someone who does not develop the necessary independence, strength, and personal accountability for them to lead others (Searcy, 2013). I want to become the type of leader that people have confidence and trust in. The type that will jump in to help when needed but step back and see how things play out. I want to be a motivator and a mentor. This part I think I do already it is just a better of sharpening my skills.
It is better to create leaders rather than creating needy followers!
References
Searcy, T. (2013). 4 Ways To Build Leaders, Not Followers. Inc. Accessed by http://www.inc.com/tom-searcy/4-ways-to-build-leaders-not-followers.html
Sunday, August 16, 2015
A630.1.4.RB - Board of Directors
After viewing the Youtube video, A Tale of Power and Vision, reflect on your organization or a past organization. In a well-written post to your Reflection Blog, describe a situation from your organizational life that was similar to the situation from the video. Access the blog instructions by clicking on the blog icon. Describe the situation in detail making sure to discuss how the organization was able to work through the difficulties to enable real change to occur.
If you can't think of a similar situation, then reflect on the different organizational agents from the video: pessimists, pragmatists, visionaries, power players, and the crowd. Consider whether the attitudes represented by each of these agents are necessary and healthy within a normally functioning company. Try to think of both positive and negative aspects of each agent.
When I was working at another university, it was announced that the Department of Housing would be consolidating its three old, clunky computer programs for student charges, placement and academic access to a new software system (ResCenter) that would be allow better access to information about students for staff and students themselves. The information would make it easier to see all classes, housing, tuition fees and demographic information. It would give students the ability to change courses, housing, pay bills, see grades and loans, and request multiple verification for outside agents.
However, the university had several members of the community who were ten years in the job, and were rather pessimistic about changing processes. The older staff and faculty complained that they everyone at the University was used to the present system, and if new staff were added, no one in their departments would be able to train them. Things would be far worse before they got better. Another complaint was that there were more people to train over than people coming in. Because the comments were from those who had the most time and power in the institution (usually managers and directors of money-pits in the University) there was a slow transition of applications.
Change is a way of life in today’s organization, but organizations are also faced with maintaining a stable identity and operations in order to accomplish their primary goals (Brown, 2011). There were obvious benefits to changing to one program. Visionaries saw the change as a step towards full automation with a central information hub and a way to save on time, effort and paper. Everyone could access certain areas of the application and see the information they were designated to see, just like when certain applications were withheld from other departments. Adding and deleting rights would be far quicker when someone could cut or add all access from one place. In two of the other systems, changes were only registered overnight; essentially a person fired immediately could have the power to change tons of information (or erase it) if they were on a certain level in the administration. The old programs also had roadblocks due to a lack of flexibility in their setup. The pragmatists in the group felt that change was needed. The new program would replace three programs, and was highly customizable. The pessimistic workers saw this blowing up in the University's face. This group felt that new folks simply were not seeing the big picture - the old programs crashed on occasion, but they were never all down at the same time. What if the program did not work, and everything had been transitioned for nothing? Some department had access to all three systems, while others did not need one or two of them, respectively. Would someone inadvertently gain access to information and abuse it? What if the application crashed? Then NO access would be available. This left many newcomers shaking their heads. The conclusion about the vets by the newcomers? "Having to learn a new system would require an investment [they] were not willing to make." Sadly, I believe many thought they would be phased out if things became more computer-friendly.
The power players (upper management) was focused on the bottom dollar. Having multiple system that did not update together lead to inaccurate records (overpayments, holds, etc). Inaccuracy between departments created distrust and frustration. Frustration with administration results in transfers. What would allow staff to engage with students' needs, faster? How were students going to react to being able to gain information at 2 am instead of having to do run around and get it from two or three different places, Monday through Friday, between 9 am and 5 pm, between classes, clubs, limited professor hours and meetings? This ideal would be on par with other schools, who recognized that students with access were happy students. Happy students stayed until graduation.
Still, the old regime felt that students were never satisfied, and changing the system (to the inconvenience of the staff) was going to lead to STAFF heading out the door. People were furious and had a reply for every benefit. What is someone messed up a record in the new system? They'd be no checks and balances? Who would hold the system accountable? The gole of the leadership was to quell the fears of the old staff, build excitement towarss the ease of the new program, and dissolve the use of the old programs as soon as possible so students could start fresh the next school year (and they systems could not be compared - new students and staff would know no better/worse). Trainings were conducted once the systems were tested. A group of students were introduced to the new system, given a crash course on it, and were asked to find several pieces of information about themselves through the new application. They noted that the information was searchable from the front page, the user interface was far more advanced, and that information they would usually need to wait to receive from a human was easily generated from the site.
"Positive psychology" researchers broadcast studies showing that optimistic people are happier and have more friends. In every way, it seems, optimists bask in the sunshine of the world's approbation, while pessimists mope in the shadows (Paul, 2011). However, this is not always the case! With their strong belief in hope, their "can-do" attitude often leads optimists to adopt problem-focused coping past the point when their efforts to change the situation will make a difference. They believe that they can achieve what they want to, just by trying hard. This type of perfectionism can lead them to hold false and unrealistic expectations. They'd be better off sitting down and taking a breather rather than continually striving to change the unchangeable (Whitbourne, 2010). Sometimes being a pessimist can be an asset; they can see why something may not work and we can fix it before it becomes an issue.However, the Negative Nancy in all aspects of a company can be discarded. Consistent pessimists bring down departments and companies with their negative attitude, and that attitude can spread like a virus.
If you can't think of a similar situation, then reflect on the different organizational agents from the video: pessimists, pragmatists, visionaries, power players, and the crowd. Consider whether the attitudes represented by each of these agents are necessary and healthy within a normally functioning company. Try to think of both positive and negative aspects of each agent.
When I was working at another university, it was announced that the Department of Housing would be consolidating its three old, clunky computer programs for student charges, placement and academic access to a new software system (ResCenter) that would be allow better access to information about students for staff and students themselves. The information would make it easier to see all classes, housing, tuition fees and demographic information. It would give students the ability to change courses, housing, pay bills, see grades and loans, and request multiple verification for outside agents.
For staff, it was great for finding out when students had class (particularly for scheduling conduct meetings), why they had a hold on their account (usually for non-payment from the library, housing damages or financial aid issues).
However, the university had several members of the community who were ten years in the job, and were rather pessimistic about changing processes. The older staff and faculty complained that they everyone at the University was used to the present system, and if new staff were added, no one in their departments would be able to train them. Things would be far worse before they got better. Another complaint was that there were more people to train over than people coming in. Because the comments were from those who had the most time and power in the institution (usually managers and directors of money-pits in the University) there was a slow transition of applications.
Change is a way of life in today’s organization, but organizations are also faced with maintaining a stable identity and operations in order to accomplish their primary goals (Brown, 2011). There were obvious benefits to changing to one program. Visionaries saw the change as a step towards full automation with a central information hub and a way to save on time, effort and paper. Everyone could access certain areas of the application and see the information they were designated to see, just like when certain applications were withheld from other departments. Adding and deleting rights would be far quicker when someone could cut or add all access from one place. In two of the other systems, changes were only registered overnight; essentially a person fired immediately could have the power to change tons of information (or erase it) if they were on a certain level in the administration. The old programs also had roadblocks due to a lack of flexibility in their setup. The pragmatists in the group felt that change was needed. The new program would replace three programs, and was highly customizable. The pessimistic workers saw this blowing up in the University's face. This group felt that new folks simply were not seeing the big picture - the old programs crashed on occasion, but they were never all down at the same time. What if the program did not work, and everything had been transitioned for nothing? Some department had access to all three systems, while others did not need one or two of them, respectively. Would someone inadvertently gain access to information and abuse it? What if the application crashed? Then NO access would be available. This left many newcomers shaking their heads. The conclusion about the vets by the newcomers? "Having to learn a new system would require an investment [they] were not willing to make." Sadly, I believe many thought they would be phased out if things became more computer-friendly.
The power players (upper management) was focused on the bottom dollar. Having multiple system that did not update together lead to inaccurate records (overpayments, holds, etc). Inaccuracy between departments created distrust and frustration. Frustration with administration results in transfers. What would allow staff to engage with students' needs, faster? How were students going to react to being able to gain information at 2 am instead of having to do run around and get it from two or three different places, Monday through Friday, between 9 am and 5 pm, between classes, clubs, limited professor hours and meetings? This ideal would be on par with other schools, who recognized that students with access were happy students. Happy students stayed until graduation.
Still, the old regime felt that students were never satisfied, and changing the system (to the inconvenience of the staff) was going to lead to STAFF heading out the door. People were furious and had a reply for every benefit. What is someone messed up a record in the new system? They'd be no checks and balances? Who would hold the system accountable? The gole of the leadership was to quell the fears of the old staff, build excitement towarss the ease of the new program, and dissolve the use of the old programs as soon as possible so students could start fresh the next school year (and they systems could not be compared - new students and staff would know no better/worse). Trainings were conducted once the systems were tested. A group of students were introduced to the new system, given a crash course on it, and were asked to find several pieces of information about themselves through the new application. They noted that the information was searchable from the front page, the user interface was far more advanced, and that information they would usually need to wait to receive from a human was easily generated from the site.
The first training with staff, however, was less than productive. It became a debate over security. There were quite a few office workers who had a negative attitude about the system. Theyu felt they could not guarantee their work on the system. The AAs had great relationships with each other, and the happy family model would be broken. What would happen if one of them erased necessary information that couldn't be retrieved? Would they be fired, for not knowing how to work the new system. It was age discrimination, they said. They'd already had to learn to use the three systems after transferring from strict paper files... 15 years ago. They now had to maintain paper AND the three systems, which was a huge shift in their job responsibilities back then.
The higher-ups assured staff that no one would be losing their job because of this program, and that many students still preferred to speak to live people. People were needed to update the system. Filing paper and only dealing with one program reduced the workload. Things were getting better.
Did venting quell all of their concerns? Not all of them, but it allowed them to feel heard and get a better understanding of why the new system was coming in and the advantages. In terms of security, the IT director noted that access was limited in the new system because levels of securities were assigned by processes, which could be customized quickly. If you needed access, you would have it. Plus, all changes were tracked.
It is not that the older staff did not want to move forward, accept change, or get to the other side of the chasm as depicted in the video by Kohn (2007); it is the need to address fear and risk in a manner that will have the greatest effectiveness. After a few in-depth training sessions, the office workers were on the same page and eager to customize the system for their own needs. Many came up with ideas on how to expand the program as well.
It is not that the older staff did not want to move forward, accept change, or get to the other side of the chasm as depicted in the video by Kohn (2007); it is the need to address fear and risk in a manner that will have the greatest effectiveness. After a few in-depth training sessions, the office workers were on the same page and eager to customize the system for their own needs. Many came up with ideas on how to expand the program as well.
"Positive psychology" researchers broadcast studies showing that optimistic people are happier and have more friends. In every way, it seems, optimists bask in the sunshine of the world's approbation, while pessimists mope in the shadows (Paul, 2011). However, this is not always the case! With their strong belief in hope, their "can-do" attitude often leads optimists to adopt problem-focused coping past the point when their efforts to change the situation will make a difference. They believe that they can achieve what they want to, just by trying hard. This type of perfectionism can lead them to hold false and unrealistic expectations. They'd be better off sitting down and taking a breather rather than continually striving to change the unchangeable (Whitbourne, 2010). Sometimes being a pessimist can be an asset; they can see why something may not work and we can fix it before it becomes an issue.However, the Negative Nancy in all aspects of a company can be discarded. Consistent pessimists bring down departments and companies with their negative attitude, and that attitude can spread like a virus.
References
Brown, D. (2011). Experiential Approach to Organization Development. 8th edition. Prentice-Hall Publishing.
Kohn, S. (2007). Board of Directors: A tale of power and vision. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZVIWZGheXY
Paul, a. 2011. The Uses and Abuses of Optimism and Pessimism. Psychology today. Accessed at https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201110/the-uses-and-abuses-optimism-and-pessimism
Whitbourne, Susan. (2010). The Trouble With Optimism. Psychology today. Accessed athttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201011/the-trouble-optimism?collection=69594
Brown, D. (2011). Experiential Approach to Organization Development. 8th edition. Prentice-Hall Publishing.
Kohn, S. (2007). Board of Directors: A tale of power and vision. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZVIWZGheXY
Paul, a. 2011. The Uses and Abuses of Optimism and Pessimism. Psychology today. Accessed at https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201110/the-uses-and-abuses-optimism-and-pessimism
Whitbourne, Susan. (2010). The Trouble With Optimism. Psychology today. Accessed athttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201011/the-trouble-optimism?collection=69594
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
A633.6.5.RB - Circle of Leadership
Considering all of readings in this module and the learning exercises regarding upward and downward leadership; reflect on the diagram (figure 9.5; p.152) "the vicious circle for leaders". Does this happen in your organization? What are the effects on the organization? Create a new circle that would promote strong follower-ship and even leadership at the lower levels of the organization.
This does not necessarily mean that the leader is micromanaging, but the leader needs to instill confidence in staff by training them well, helping them along immediately after training with allowing them trial and error in their own suppositions, and then trusting them enough to make their own decisions. Sometimes I do this with my supervisees that I headed this summer; because they are two levels closer to our customer base, I fear that if I do not follow up with them on their concerns, they will not handle things well, and it could have an impact on our students. I trust my direct supervisees a bit more because I know they have been promoted because they've mastered the other position. I just need to teach them a bit more, watch, correct, and send them on their way. This need to almost "cut the cord" with some level of worker can be found in almost every organization.This happens so much in my department above me as well, and I am as bad as everyone else for playing into it. The Director of Housing knows all, and everyone goes to him for approval for everything! I tend to go to him, particularly this summer, because the responsibilities I have during this time are new to me, though I have been there for a year. Also, my past supervisor left, so during the summer the Director was my direct supervisor (yet another two levels below supervision), and I know my new supervisor has yet to get into the full swing of things (and they will need to ask the Director for the answers to my questions), so why not just go to the source?
My Director has also been at the University for nearly 10 years, so he not only knows more than anyone else about what I'm doing, he knows more about doing the process here (compared to someone who's done it, but elsewhere). I rely on his experience to help me see the pitfalls and strengths in any ideas on how to improve our summer processes, which involve working with another department and more than fifty outside agents. In addition to knowing what I'm doing, I need to guide 5-6 new workers to do something they have either never done, or re-train workers stuck in their ways for different (yet temporary) expectations. It's so easy to blame yourself when an issue occurs and they panic on how to solve it - if I don't become involved, I'll look uncaring and lazy, is what I think to myself - If I can help, I should show them the way out.
However, this means that when I am gone, they panic. I get calls at all hours about their questions and concerns. When I went on vacation for a week, for instance, I came back to things quite disheveled; when the Director is out, there's always so many questions for him when he returns as well (though we are better off as professionals [ever so slightly]). I need to learn to identify the problem, elaborate on it, and encourage my staff to fix it without me. I think I have come a long way since the beginning of the summer, but it has also been a humbling experience. It is easier to train those who know the ropes with just a few more leadership skills than to have to start from the ground up!
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
A633.5.3.RB - Reflections on Chaos
Who Needs Leaders
Duration: (3:32 min.)
Source: YouTube
Play the chaos game with a group of people (see Complex Adaptive Leadership (Obolensky, 2010) Chapter 6, or watch the above video.)
Create a reflection blog on what this exercise meant to you and how it impacts your understanding of chaos theory, include the implications that this has on strategy.
In Obolensky's video "Who Needs Leaders" (2008), the exercise involved twenty-five men who are asked to pick two unidentified people in the room, and place themselves equidistant between the two. Once the instructions were provide each participant had to decide how they would execute the instructions. This was a very intriguing exercise to watch. My initial guess was that it was going to take at least 10-15 minutes to achieve the goal. I thought there would be chaos in competition, and that people would not be able to accurately split the difference between their two points without messing someone’s else’s distance; perhaps they would not care about their fellow man attempting to achieve the same goal, almost creating an endless chaotic loop of competitors. It took just under a minute; this was done without communication between participants. Reflecting on why this was the case, several reasons came to mind.
Obolensky provided a quintessential example of what is needed in place of traditional leadership when complexity runs high. In other words, "What enabled you to complete a highly complex task?" (2010, p. 96). Obolensky identifies his eight principles and how their inter-relatedness can produce positive outcomes, which can change the perception of chaos theory. He states in the example that the more complex the situation and task, the less directive traditional leadership is needed. The individuals became a system working together towards a final state seemingly disorganized, but did so in a very rhythmic manner. They were like a well oils machine that troubleshot until they came to a concluson.
The implications this exercise can have on strategy and chaos theory exemplify the need for tolerance of ambiguity and chaos. Each person had a goal and it depended on all of the other individuals and that is what created their path. By allowing them to exist as part of the Four + Four dynamic model, they were balanced through the connections to the other principles, like unambiguous feedback.
Operational feedback allows individuals and/or teams to measure their contribution against the whole organization, and transparency is seen as a way to avoid tensions becoming critical between oligarchy and polyarchy (2010, p. 124). Behavioral feedback can be on the organizational or personal level.
The biggest emphasis in utilizing the Four + Four principles (2010, p. 125) is that every organization will find their own unique way of expressing them, which in part reflects the 'dynamic' aspect of the principles. Having leadership that is capable of fully understanding the implications the principles can have will help in promoting Complex Adaptive Leadership in organizations.
The last question the mediator asked was, “What would have happened if we had put one of you in charge?” As the group laughs, there is an element of understanding for how absurd it must be when leaders cradle their employees and disallow them the trust and freedom to act, as many of us do. Or, perhaps the mediator was noting how much longer it takes to try to manage individuals to get what one needs versus allowing a group to tackle the issue. Either way, the group achieved better success together than if they would have working as an individual. This activity is a testament that leaders can “let go” and allow individuals in the organization to self-organize.
References:
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Burlington, VT; Gower Publishing Company. Obolensky, N. (2008). Who Needs Leaders. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)