A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Reflecting on the opening exercise at the beginning of Chapter 4 of the Obolensky text and other readings, why do you think the shift in Leadership is occurring and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization. List three reasons that support or refute this position. If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes? What are the implications on strategy?

In the old workplace, the hierarchical isolation occurred in tiers. The manager was looked upon as a deity. They were supposed to see all and know all. Managers, then, could not ask questions to their employees about the on-the ground work; they were supposed to have all of the answers through supervision of labor. It is universally agreed that those at the top of the organisations only know a fraction of the solutions needed to overcome the problems faced by the organisations that they lead (Obolensky, 2014, p. 35). Therefore, the information given to those at the very top was the perception from the manager's perspective, not necessarily the workers' reality.

The manager told employees what to do. They evaluated work by whether it was right or wrong based on initial training. If it was consistently incorrect (according to the training), the person would be fired. It was as if workers were parts of a simple machine. If a part slowed down, sped up, or otherwise did something out of character, it was examined and, and if it made a product that was different from the rest, it needed to be replaced. But what if the "different" product was better?

It simply could not be, because changing the process to recreate a different product would be challenging - it would make the entire process more complex. There is a fear of complexity. However, businesses must face this with excitement. Is it better to stay the same, and fear complexity, or change in order to remain in existence? Things are changing, therefore we must adapt.

An organization with employees that take the initiative to get involved and find solutions will benefit over those who rely solely on the leadership. What happens where eager new employees get stamped out and poked as if to say, "fall in line"? It slows down progress and minimizes our ability to bank on creativity and innovation, and to empower and appreciate (Green, 2013). Remember that term "new blood"? I love it! I've been in Housing since 2007, and I try to make sure I am never doing things the same way I was back then. Technology is a factor in the shift in leadership. Our staff no longer just listens to us; they can hop online and find out how other resident assistants are programming, their responsibilities, their pay,.etc. They know they have rights; this should not scared middle management! In fact, the ideas and opinions workers receive from such information makes them wonderful resources for those of us who are office-dwellers.

Leadership has never been a static role. Society has changed over time, thus the expectations and key functions of leadership have also changed. One of the reasons for the change is the complexity with organizational structure and strategy within the market they operate. Managers that lead their organization are more stressed; challenged and confused today more than they have ever before (Obolensky, 2014, p. 37). I believe the biggest reason for the shift in leadership is the workforce population’s desire to be more involved with their organization. The problems entry-level employees see on a daily basis can directly affect their work performance. It is unrealistic to assume the leadership of an organization would know what problems are stressing everyone out in front of house operations. That is unless those problems are specifically brought to the leadership's attention, or of the leadership is keen enough, they will maintain a relationship with low-level employees in order to stay on top of the issues. As Obolensky notes, “subordinates need to challenge in order to follow, and superiors must listen in order to lead” (2014, p.38).

Not only does “servant leadership” play a huge role in the way I lead within my department, it also is displayed in the relationships that have been built between other University departments and the community. If there is a problem, concern, or question about the department or my coworkers, people may be intimidated of my director, but they tend to see me as approachable and effective at resolving issues. I am also adamant about connecting with my supervisees' supervisees - I enjoy having them come in my office and tell me about their residents, their programs and their ups and downs of being a student. Sometimes being an RA can feel like everyone's problems are on your shoulders - I want the student workers to know that they have a place to come to de-stress (Kelley, 1988). The environment constructed from such efforts has made employees feel heard and valued.

References

Green, Alison. (2013). 10 Ways You’re Annoying Your Employees. The Fast Track. Accessed at http://quickbase.intuit.com/blog/2013/03/12/10-ways-youre-annoying-your-employees/

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems

Find a company which reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and reflect in your blog what the implications are for you and your present organization (or any organization you are familiar with). Identify what you believe are appropriate actions to move your organization forward.

Obolensky (2014) notes that complex adaptive systems (CAS) feature flat hierarchies, open information sharing, great emphasis on personal responsibility, and Morning Star and St. Luke are two examples of companies that share this methodology (Hamel, 2011).

Another similar business is Zappos. Zappos is an online shoe and clothing shop based in Las Vegas, Nevada. The company was founded in 1999 by former Autoweb.com and Silicon Graphics worker. Like St Luke’s, there are no bosses at Zappos, a practice which the company has been practicing for a year. There is no explicit hierarchy; employees are self-governed, and team-inclusive (called "circles"). It is a "holocracy," a team working under the tenets of individual autonomy and self-governance (NOGUCHI, 2014). 

On the site, holacracy.org, the freedom from hierarchical organization is explained:

In traditional organizations, managers loosely delegate authority, but ultimately, their decisions always trump those they manage and everybody knows it. Any initiative outside the norm typically requires the boss’ approval, explicitly or implicitly. In Holacracy, authority is truly distributed and decisions are made locally by the individual closest to the front line. Teams are self-organized: they’re given a purpose, but they decide internally how to best reach it.

The whole is involved in hiring and firings which can be initiated by something as simple as a conversation between employees. Bonuses are based on peer reviews, and group meetings are lead by one person but based on a set of mutually agreed upon rules for order. Maverick enterprises rely to a large extent on individuals who actually believe in the tenets that govern their environment. Not all do: Fourteen percent of the employees took a buy-out instead of working in this new environment. Why would someone not want to work in such a seemingly free world? Brian Robertson, a serial entrepreneur and developer of the Holacracy process, says that people are essentially lazy.

Most organizations, including mine, have management (directors, deans, heads, etc.) to look up to for leadership and direction; someone has to be the “fall guy/girl” (NOGUCHI, 2014).

"There's something almost safe and comforting, even when we don't like it, about being in a system where there's somebody else whose job it is to protect us, take care of us, nurture us," Robertson says. "And when they don't do that well, we get to be angry with them and blame them and hide behind them."

As someone who is highly motivated and open about my strengths and weaknesses, I would enjoy working in a place like Zappo's. In my position, I do have some flexibility to my working hours, but at times I wish I could escape the eventual overbearing, micromanaging manger who thinks that stopping in encourages better work. I enjoy environments where I can go to my supervisor when I need advice, can share my opinions on how to solve problems, and become involved without limitation. When everyone feels that they have input into their work environment, people may take more initiative and take more personal pride in their job.

References

Hamel, G. (2011). First, Let's Fire all the Managers. Harvard Business Review.

Holacracy.org. (n/d). How It Works. Accessed at http://www.holacracy.org/how-it-works/

NOGUCHI, YUKI. (2014). Zappos: A Workplace Where No One And Everyone Is The Boss. NPR. Accessed at http://www.npr.org/2015/07/21/421148128/zappos-a-workplace-where-no-one-and-everyone-is-the-boss

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company

A633.2.3.RB - Butterfly Effect

Based on this week's reading, reflect on complexity science and theory in organizations and the butterfly effect (p.66). 

Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization.
What are the implication of complexity theory for you and your organization and how can you use this to drive improvements.

When I think of the terminology, I immediately recall a movie called The Butterfly Effect (2004), where Ashton Kutcher plays the main character, Eric, and has the ability to change past events. Eric can manipulate time periods and make changes; however, Eric soon notices that when he tries to go back to change just one minute detail, it changes the course of time completely. When he returns to the past to fix what manipulate in the past, once again, he made the future worse. The moral is clear: there is no such thing as a small change. Every small change can cause a ripple effect on larger issues, for better or for worse, or as Obolensky (2010) defines it, small changes result in large results.

In order to apply the butterfly effect, one must understand the complex and chaotic dynamics of their working and living environment.

Obolensky (2010) discusses how complex organizations contain features of self organization, inter-relatedness, adaptive nature, and emergence (p. 84). Some organizations can become complex beyond their capability; others do not discover the benefits to complexity and strive to keep the environment of old as simplistic as possible (and as I have said before, they will usually regret this mistake!). There are positive and negative traits in both situations. For example, complexity science exhibits an organizational understanding the importance of adaptability - when and where they need to adapt to be successful - which is a great benefit (p.88).

In my department at ERAU, we are set up in a very open-flow environment - we have guidelines and basic qualifications to perform each position, and we work off of each other like a machine; however, there is flexibility in terms of how one performs their job. In such environments,the autonomy can be positive to the overall attitude of the workers, making the institution stronger. I learn with my staff on how to make our department more efficient.

Classmate Ashley notes:

During my undergrad at Embry-Riddle, we were often forced to do our own version of a runaround that we named the Riddle Runaround. Whenever we needed to see someone about a class or fixing something on the academic side, we always faced conflicting stories.

In response to Ashley's circumstance, my position involves and encourages outreach to the campus community. I utilize this to get out of the office, visit other departments, meet with employees, and figure out what they do and how their work impacts our students. Therefore, instead of simply guessing what number to transfer a call to, I know when I am giving a resource that the person I am passing a question onto will be the end-all-be-all to the concern.

Another lesson I am learning presently is that everyone wants power, even if they have little say in the outcomes. Sometimes you have to just change a little bit to make people feel like they have "won". I  have another department we work with to run programs during the summer. We'd been setting up the structure for how things would be run in summer since March or April but last-minute things come up all of the time. I would charge her on the back end and she would get quite perturbed. I certainly did not understand the contention. The department would make immediate demands of us and not wish to pay for them. I realized the head of the other department did not realize the cost of the items she was asking for, or that we did not have the workers to do these requests at random times. I gave her the option of using her very large staff to fulfill her own needs while offering one or two knowledgeable hands on my staff, as long as the times were scheduled so I could give my people a heads up. This has reduced her costs and given her the opportunity to see how much effort her requests involve.

References
Bress, Eric; Gruber, J. Mackye. The Butterfly Effect. (2004). BenderSpink.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.

A633.1.2.RB - Leadership Gap

Chapter 1 of the Obolensky text begins with a reflective exercise. Create a reflection blog that responds to the questions asked in this exercise.

Has your own attitude to leaders changed in your life, and if so how?

If we take as a starting point in the attitude to those in authority/leaders as held by your grandparents, and then look at those attitudes held by your parents, and then by you, and then by the younger generation, is there a changing trend?  If so, what is it?

Why do you think that this has occurred? 

Additionally, while we live in a world with more information about leadership and leadership practices why is it that we have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders and how do you think we can close this gap?

Some of the people I look up to within the history books are Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Assata Shakur and Angela Davis. Their attitudes towards change for the sake of progress have always been very liberating to me. There are few of us who practice our rights (particularly the freedom of speech) as liberally as we should. I believe we should, as a nation, protest more often, taking our issues up to the courthouse or White House steps if necessary.
I gained this appreciation and understanding for my rights from my grandmother, who was quite an activist herself. Growing up in Philadelphia, she was involved in the progression of equality even as she provided for her six younger siblings without her father's aid. She was forced to drop out of high school to do so, but educated herself through voracious reading. Obolensky realizes that knowledge has increased, along with uncertainty. My grandmother's passion for societal change grew with the books she read by people with whom she completely disagreed with. As many of the writers of the forties and fifties came from different backgrounds and experiences than she did, she realized that some were completely disillusioned with the plight of people like her, and their reasoning for such differences was sometimes clouded in pseudoscience and ignorance. As Obolensky notes, what one knows is nearly irrelevant in comparison to what they do (2014). Strategies that leaders encompass, like teaching, coaching, involving, explaining and congratulating show that information sharing is far more valuable than mere information collection. While maintaining decent employment as a typist, she wrote lengthy manuscripts and speeches for others to present at progressive marches and gatherings in the sixties.
My mother, however, was more of a square. She was also a great writer, journaling for her high school paper and writing poetry. However, growing up within a stable (read: sheltered) middle-class household, she did not feel the pull of activism as much as her mother, who'd be raised in the post-WWII era which was unkind to minorities and conservatives of the roles of women. As Obolensky notes in Complex Adaptive Leadership, “the more we know, the less certain things become” (p. 16). My mother went on to join the military, which strengthened her conservative nature and lack of understanding towards the complexities of societal duress. The military lifestyle taught her a structure of listening to the person shouting, and because she never advanced to a relevant leadership position, she'd become accustomed to others telling her what to do instead of being creative and self-led (Snowden & Boone, 2007).
Obolensky refers to our society as living in a large period of discontinuity, saying, "we have changed the context within which we lead faster than we can change our assumptions about what leadership is" (p. 19). Sheltered from adversity, raised as an only child and prohibited from self-guidance, it was difficult for my mother to understand negotiation, compassion, creativity and determination. I believe the first time my mother faced adversity was being a mother. As a leader of the home, she exuded legitimate and coercive power. She was a "because I say so" type, and the use of explanation (and apology) was limited (Messina, 2008). However, my grandmother welded personal power more effectively. As someone who raised here siblings from her mother's death when she was twelve, and raising my mother, she had almost 40 years of experience as a caretaker, a budget planner and coach. She excelled at inspiring action. She was impressed by questioning and celebrated innovation. Even as a child, I felt a need to learn about the experiences of others, to protect their right to speak out (even against me) and celebrate them because sharing opinions, thoughts and experiences essentially makes everyone both a teacher and a learner.

This difference in strategy is much like the apparent gap in the quality of our leaders. Leaders of the past are expectant on order following, strict adherence to policy without questioning, and swift ramifications for anything seen as out of the ordinary. To bring attention to oneself, even by improving a process, is to be "showy," which also warrants consequence, even as informal as criticism. I believe there is a jealously in someone seen as an underling finding a better way to do things, particularly when the "leader" has not thought of it, which is why there is a dearth in true leaders. Since my childhood, I have been able to have leaders as well as managers, and I decided quite quickly after realizing the difference that I would prefer to be a leader, and a practitioner of wu-wei. Wu-wei is "active inaction," which essentially means to train, support, retrain, celebrate, and back off of supervisees. I allow my emerging leaders (not followers) to brainstorm and build effective ways of doing their work after I teach them the most effective way for me to do my own. As long as the work gets done well, I do not mind how it is done! In the global workplace, we have a lot of people who "manage" people but who cannot see themselves listening and considering the ideas of others.
Obolensky (2014) notes Lau Tzu’s definition of leadership:

The worst leader is one that lies and is despised; not much better is one that leads using oppression and fear; a little better is the leader who is visible, loved and respected; however, the best leader is one whom the people hardly knows exists, leaving them happy to say, once the aim is achieved, ‘We did it ourselves’ (p. 6).

References

Messina, James J. (2008). Eliminating Intimidation. Livestrong. Accessed at http://www.livestrong.com/article/14742-eliminating-intimidation/

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making (Links to an external site.)(cover story). Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.

A511.8.3.RB - Gender

Reflect upon and analyze what Rosabeth Moss Kanter has to say and how that does or does not coincide with what Yukl says about gender-based discrimination. Do you agree? Why or why not.

In Chapter 15, Yukl notes how globalization and changing demographic patterns are making it more important for leaders to understand how to influence and manage people from diverse backgrounds. As he discusses gender differences in leadership, Yukl notes the progression of gender egalitarianism in America, which exposes that in some cultures, women have more equal opportunity to be selected to leadership positions. In the absence of strongly differentiated gender-role expectations, men and women leaders are less limited in their behavior, thus there is less bias in how their behavior is evaluated by subordinates and bosses (Yukl, 2010, p. 461).

As a country with with strong values for individualism, the United States, individual rights are more important than social responsibilities, and people are expected to take care of themselves (Yukl, 2010, p. 461). Therefore, it is the goal of each individual to make their own opportunities and to receive the acknowledgements of hard work. It is my experience that harder working individuals may not always receive their due, because of interests outside of them that favor others for insignificant reasons.

Women and men, are equal as long as they are equivalent in education, skills and drive. In a high performance orientation culture, then, the selection of members for a team with an important task is likely to be based on talent. (Yukl, 2010, p. 461). Therefore, the jobs at the very top of any organization are really different from those below only because "they require a kind of dedication and commitment 24-7," as Kantner explains. Being "always on" that makes it difficult sometimes for people who are juggling lots of other responsibilities to say they really want those jobs, and then to put themselves into position to get them. 

We all have responsibilities; however, widespread discrimination is dearly evident in the low number of women who hold important, high-level leadership positions in most types of organizations. The strong tendency to favor men over women in filling high-level leadership positions is called the "glass ceiling" (Yukl, 2010, p. 466). Yukl notes, like Kanter, how women are often left out of the discussion for promotions. Because of lack of strong efforts to gain access to leadership positions and difficulties created by competing family demands, often leaders veil the elimination of female candidates to external, private factors about women's lives outside of work. "There's a discussion in a private conversation about, well, who are the people we should put in certain positions," Kanter says, "and then, well she really isn't quite as dedicated, or, we love the fact that she has a family and we're very family friendly, we don't want to take her away from the family, so they don't even give the woman a choice" (Harvard Business Review, 2010).

"I think one of the hidden sources of discrimination that still goes on in many companies is sort of informal and behind the scenes." The culmination of such discussions, as Yukl notes, supports an age-old belief., that men are more qualified than women for leadership roles (Yukl, 2010). Yukl continues by noting that some of the reason for this phenomena are a bias to select and promote individuals who are similar to the managers who make the decisions, and intentional efforts by some men to retain control of the most powerful positions for themselves (Yukl, 2010, p. 467). Kantner reflect Yukl's point almost verbatim:

I think this issue of trust in judgement is people who trust judgement of those who resemble themselves, and that's one of the things that I found in men and women of the corporation that still exist today. There's a preference for social similarity. Now increasingly, that means in top positions they are going to believe the people who think like them ought to be in those positions and that's more likely to be people who are from similar ethnic groups and those who are male (Harvard Business Review, 2010).

"It's the greedy and demanding nature of the very top jobs," Kantner notes (Harvard Business Review, 2010).

Yukl notes that societies with a strong humane orientation encourage and reward individuals for being friendly, caring, generous, and kind to others. However, Kanter may argue that there are cultures within organizations which work similarly. Yukl says that values include altruism, benevolence, kindness and generosity are often associated with stronger needs for affiliation and belonging, rather than for pleasure, achievement, or power (Yukl, 2010, p. 463). Kantner notes, "it's [...] very difficult to find a way to exactly compare men and women because women even at high levels are still often disproportionately found in people-oriented jobs jobs and in those jobs are more likely to pay more because whenever there is high degree of uncertainty then you're trusting people's judgement then you want to pay a lot for people whose judgment you trust. Whenever you're in a job that's more routinized , that's more rules bound , you don't pay as much for that job" (Harvard Business Review, 2010).

"On the other hand, now that we have so many women in the pipeline with the same education as men there's a preference for people who went to the same school... breaking the fact that it's just gender. There's still this lingering feeling though, that women are going to be torn because of their families, is one of the things that is totally in the minds of some men , and until we have the generation of men who are just as family oriented and leisure oriented, I think we won't get as much change as we would like"(Harvard Business Review, 2010).

There is no empirical support for the belief that men are no more qualified to be leaders than women, and laws now exist in numerous countries to stop sex-based discrimination  (Yukl, 2010). "This depends on how much money we think people want to make and what is the balance between money and happiness, so you know in the United States we measure everything in terms of income earning," says Kantner. "I would like certainly people who are performing the same work to have the chance for equal pay. I think recent congressional decisions and the Ledbetter case that's really important." Lilly Ledbetter, a 19-year employee of Goodyear Tire, sued Goodyear for gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that the company had given her a low salary because of her gender (The Oyez Project).

"I think that people also make a lot of choices and it's hard to say that everybody should work as hard for example as I worked, so I'm not sure that we get have a world that has all of those choices and in fact what women often do is start her own businesses at a very high rate higher rate than men. Some of those are sole proprietorships, and not all of them grow big, but that does show how much women want to contribute to the economy and should contribute to the economy" (Harvard Business Review, 2010).

Because of equal and more women becoming educated at higher levels than men, the tradition of male leaders that has turned some to believe that male leaders encompass personalities which may very well be detrimental to organizations, and the threat of impeding lawsuits, companies are looking at how to morph into more employer-friendly arenas, offering more options for work environment and schedules, professional development and mentoring opportunities, as well as better networking and benefits. Yukl notes evaluations from employees about their job aiding in this process of information gathering. Surveys of employee attitudes can be used to identify problems and assess progress (2010). Kanter notes that networking is also an efficient way of companies keeping their ear to the ground on how to retain and gain quality applicants and employees.

"The best companies," Kanter notes, "leave room for networks, and in fact make them official, so companies like IBM, Procter and Gamble, and Cisco all have women's networks and they also have them for working parents that are not just women, and so they're providing people [with ways] to find out how they're being treated." Comparing their company experience across many parts of the world allows for businesses to change their response to women's needs in the workplace. For example, women executives from around the world can now get on conference calls with each other and compare notes on what is being offered at IBM in America versus what us offered in South Korea. 

"We should make no advance assumptions about what those situations are," Kanter says. The discussion of such differences does not separate people - it brings people together so that they are better prepared to address their needs. Kantner ends noting that people are "much more likely to also have teamwork because that gives people support and making sure that they're treated fairly and paid equitably (Harvard Business Review, 2010).

References

Harvard Business Review. (2010). Women, Ambition and (Still) the Pay Gap. YouTube. Accessed at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhquUOlBuOY&feature=youtu.be&t=5s

The Oyez Project. (2007). LEDBETTER v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Accessed at http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1074

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations, 8th edition. Prentice Hall.

A511.7.3.RB - Self-Awareness

Understanding oneself is a core competency of good leaders. After all, self-knowledge allows us to be able to understand others as well. For most individuals who train to become coaches, the value of the training is as much about their increased self-awareness as it is about their ability to work with others and help them achieve their potential.

Goffee and Jones’ article “Getting personal on the topic of leadership” emphasizes the art of self-awareness, as does your textbook’s discussion.

Now, think about yourself, and reflect on what differences distinguish you and would help you in living and acting on the basis of your core values.

Goffee and Jones (2006) discuss several leaders who utilize their unique attributes to lead and build success for their organizations:

• Bill Gates - co-founder of Microsoft
• John Harvey-Jones - former head of the UK’s largest manufacturing company, ICI
• Akio Morita - founder of Sony
• Darwin E. Smith - chief executive of the paper company Kimberly-Clark
• Ken Livingstone - mayor of London

One of the most notable is Bill Gates. Regarded as a computer expert by the age of 19, Gates fell in love with the teletype machine - a system that sends computer code down a phone line - at 17. His former teacher, Bill Dugal, says that this machine started Microsoft. Gates made programs on punch cards. He was determined to learn everything bout this machine and what it could do, and joined Paul Allen (the other half to Microsoft) in doing so. When the first computer hit the scene - the Altair 8800 - Gates and Allen wrote the software for it sight unseen. When it worked, Microsoft set sail to become on of the only companies developing software. Goffee and Jones note that Gates has honed the negativity of the word geek, and because of his passion, has become "the ultimate computer geek." Gates is noted as saying, "if your culture doesn't like geeks, you are in real trouble." 

My personal tagline should be, "Think Big." I am usually underestimated initially for how much I will bring to the table, but I am a big planner, a big executor, and I can either work everyone or work myself. I think my quote describing my personality would be the same tagline for an ENTP, "one exciting challenge after another." My heart is always racing. There's always another deadline to make, something I can get done early, or a new idea to research. I'm proud to have been recognized several times during my time at ERAU; but because of this continuous burning of the midnight oil, I tend to burn out easily. Sometimes I do not feel appreciated, and it causes me to move on to the next opportunity where I can make an impact.

Some of my core values and how I utilize them at work:

• Open-minded: Unlike a lot of bosses, I prefer share my ideas last. I enjoy hearing others ideas and enjoy enabling my supervisees to make their own decisions. I suppose someone could read this to believe I am an introvert and resilient to leading, but I want to build strong leaders, and I cannot do that if I am always talking. It builds their confidence and gives me the opportunity to see how they think.
• Efficient: I like to get tasks completed as quickly and thoroughly as possible. I always give tons of information and detail. I love to write, so my reports are usually very long. I have been criticized for being too wordy. I am learning to scale back (but only enough so that I do not lose this skill when it is time to write my dissertation).
• Innovative/Creative: When there are a dearth of ideas, I will always come up with two or three new ideas. They may sound crazy, but they might just work. I am known for "wanting too much to happen too quickly," so some of my ideas are good, but need to be scaled down.
• Humorous: Even in times of stress, I try to infuse a slight bit of humor into situations. I want people to know that I am serious, but I still care about them and their issues. I do not know many people who have a generally humorous and social personality that plays into their work.
• Passionate: I love what I do and I am dedicated to seeing it done exceptionally. I take my mistakes personally at times, and I often look over things twice or three times (and ask others to) in order to assure that every detail is right. If I lose my passion for a job, I will move on. I do not want to waste my time (or anyone else's) being unhappy and under-performing.

References

Bill Gates: How A Geek Changed The World. Accessed at http://documentaryheaven.com/bill-gates-how-a-geek-changed-the-world/

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). Getting personal on the topic of leadership. Human Resource Management International Digest , 14 (4), 32-34.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations, 8th edition. Prentice Hall.

A511.6.3.RB - Meaning

Consider the following quotes and the associated HBR blog:
Dave and Wendy Ulrich, co-authors of The Why of Work have said, “In organizations, meaning and abundance are more about what we do with what we have than about what we have to begin with.”
In his famous book Man's Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl posits that it "is a peculiarity of man that he must have something significant yet to do in his life, for that is what gives meaning to life" (2004, p. 56).
Kouzes and Posner write in The Leadership Challenge: "The executive must find a way to communicate the vision in a way that attracts and excites members of the organization" (1987, p. 106).
See the Harvard Business Review blog entitled Getting Beyond Engagement to Creating Meaning at Work (Links to an external site.)
Now, reflect on what you have read and viewed and what it means when we say that leaders must create a “cause” or "meaning." Relate this to the theory of leading change.
Use examples and apply the work of others where necessary.

The definition of meaning is, "an interpreted goal, intent, or end," and "a sense of importance or purpose." In defining this, I think about my goals within my job and where I see myself on the path within higher education. Just yesterday I was discussing life as seasons within a year, where spring is the start of life, full of wonder and first sights, and winter is filled with reflection (and hopefully, not too many "I wish I would have"s). During this conversation, a colleague stated something simple and profound: "I have more years behind me than ahead of me now." This person sees themselves as in the fall of their lives. 

As the discussion went on, it seemed like the heyday of most of my colleagues lives was in their 20s and 30s. As I am in this range, I wondered if I am in the spring or the summer of my existence, and what I am doing to take advantage of this time. I thought about work and my coursework, and reflected on some of the things I miss doing before graduating. I am not very social anymore. Most of my goals revolve around acquiring boring things: experience, education and savings. I am constantly stressed over these things! It seems at times that I may not appreciate the opportunities of this time. There is still so much to look forward to. I do not think many of us notice how quickly our lives shift through these seasons, and it is important to acknowledge the benefits and setbacks of each season. I do not want to reach the winter of my life still reaching for my zenith.

Being within a close-knit collective at work is a double-edged sword: at times I would not rather be anywhere else. As I write this, I am sitting at my office desk after an eventful twelve-hour day. I spend time thinking about if I should invest in a cot for my office. On the other end, my love for work has made me very narrow-minded. I pack up my work PC only to open it back up at home to answer a few more emails to to make a to-do list for the next day or week. When I am truly disconnected (off or on vacation) from work, I feel guilty for possibly missing the apt opportunity to help someone.

Dr. Alex Pattakos notes in the book "Prisoners of Our Thoughts," this can also be the case for personal relationships, our living environment, and our physical health, or we may sacrifice these things. I know that I have circumvented working out or going t the doctor in order to make a meeting or to do extra work. Luckily, my partner does not miss a beat in telling me after about an hour to close the laptop. There is more to life than work, but it is difficult as a new professional to realize that - we see working our butt off as showing dedication (though most of the time, no one is there to put eyes on me leaving at midnight). It can feel like there is no appreciation. 

A lot  of people feel like they put a lot into their work, but they do not get a lot back. Over time this becomes spite; a person may have loved their job years before and suddenly, work does not satisfy the soul or provide satisfaction anymore. I have been warned many times of possible burnout. This is the issue: we are looking for appreciation in one place, and not realizing it can come from all facets of life. In leading my staff, I am adamant in remembering that people want to feel needed. All humans need to feel wanted. Science and medical research reveal that feeling unwanted stunts all forms of human growth and development. Physical, psychological, and emotional growth are all influenced by person's perception of feeling wanted. Dekkers states, "in fact, people who say they don't need to fill wanted are clearly lying or psychotic" (Dekkers, 2014). We have to realize the "seed of meaning" - which means we are responsible for seeing the value of the things we must go through - and we also must learn how to grow and develop from life's obstacles.

The need is pre-programmed. Real Estate expert Andy Mulholland defines three desires workers have of their employers. Mulholland (2011) states:

Number one, give me interesting work. Number two, expand my skill set. But number three is critical—it’s “recognize me.”

In a video by Professor Baba Shiv of Stanford University, Shiv talks about the importance of emotion in decision making. It is clear to most of us that if we feel cared for, we will follow the person showing us care. We will fight against anyone or anything that seems to be against us, or at least not have our best interest in mind. People can literally sense genuine interest, and when they do they are likely to develop the long-term relationships with you that will create win-win selling situations (Dekkers, 2014). Having a track record for improving environments and processes is a skill that will always benefit the whole when progression is necessary. As Yukl (2010) notes, "leadership is a process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective effort, and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose" (p. 21).

I have literally been the change within a workplace several times as I moved around after college. The group dynamics of great organizations are usually already set, and it can be uneasy being the new thread. However, you cannot expect or even consider having 100% in sensing opinions in group settings. In all groups there are individuals who rise above group-think; I look for that person for my "in". This is the person who has "been there" as the new person and remembers the awkwardness, or the oldest person in the group who everyone respects. Sometimes I catch flack for diving in too soon with new ideas. When facing objections, however, I always honor and respect their viewpoints and continue on with explaining my vision, however brief (Dekkers, 2014). 

In coming into leadership positions where those below you are hesitant of your motives, it is great to break the ice with knowing what their vision is, why they came and why they stay where they are, and how you can make their experience better. I am naturally someone who is ready to serve - not to be trampled on - but to show that I am not above anyone and that I value my team. I want to establish myself as someone who will never ask an employee to do something I have not do or would not do with them; workers and coworkers are willing to help you if they see you are putting forth your own best effort. If a leader is striving toward excellence every day, people will jump all over themselves to be a part of what they are doing (Holden Leadership Center).

In order to make fundamental and profound changes at any level you need to build a vanguard of people to spread these messages. These principles inspire people, bring life to people. (Pattakos, 2010)

Sometimes environments have ups and owns that dip far lower than one can expect to settle for. Change can certainly go wrong. For instance, I was once in a work situation where the job was wonderful, but the supervisor was deplorable. The person was slow to get things done, verbally attacking when asked questions or asked for status updates on action items, became very nervous and defensive in situations needing quick action, and would degrade others to deflect their personal dissatisfaction. In such an environment, it is important to focus on the goals individuals affected by such calamities have, in order to overcome the problem. For instance, if I am on a career path that I love, I will run into others like this person and will need to focus on the bigger picture to drown the drama out. Sometimes is is focusing in on the love we have for the people we work with, though a job may not be as challenging as we'd like. Perhaps we love the people we serve, and could not imagine leaving those personalities. There will always be blemishes - I am working to see that they are not all deal-breaking ones - but instead are a realization that I cannot have it all.

One of my favorite books, The Love Languages by Gary Chapman (1995), outlines five ways to express and experience love. One of the love languages is gift-giving. Though I do not believe I am excited by gifts (I enjoy words of affirmation more), I realize how easy it is to pep people up when they get something small and unexpected for doing something phenomenal (an example of reward power). It is important for awards to be based on meaningful criteria rather than favoritism or arbitrary judgments, which is why I really sit and think about why this person has stuck out to me, how often I have gifted something to this person, and if they are simply splendid, or doing what is expected of them (in comparison to those who are lacking). An award that is highly visible allows others to share in the process of commending the recipient and encourages others to live up to or exceed this person's actions (Yukl, 2010, p. 128).

References

Dekkers, T. (2014). From persuasion. How to persuade people and influence them.

Holden Leadership Center. Make People Feel Needed. Accessed at http://leadership.uoregon.edu/resources/exercises_tips/leadership_reflections/making_people_feel_needed

Mulholland, Andy. (2011). The three things we work for (money isn't one of them). [Video File]. Available from Books24x7

Pattakos, A. (2010). Prisoners of Our Thoughts: Viktor Frankl's Principles for Discovering Meaning in Life and Work. Berrett-Koehler Publishers; Second Edition

Shiv, Baba. (2011). Brain Research at Stanford: Decision Making. Stanford University. Accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRKfl4owWKc

Ulrich, D.; Ulrich, W. (2010). Getting Beyond Engagement to Creating Meaning at Work. Harvard Business Review. Accessed at https://hbr.org/2010/06/getting-beyond-engagement-to-c

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations, 8th edition. Prentice Hall.