In Chapter 12 of his text The Leader's Guide to Storytelling, Stephen Denning describes "a different kind of leader," specifically, one who practices an "interactive mode of leadership." Basically, they get involved and have an understanding of how everything around them relates to each other.
Denning describes a number of dimensions involved in interactive leadership, several of which are quite similar to several I've heard in the past from other texts on leadership and have been attempting to integrate in my own leadership style. Certainly, the dimension of working with the world evokes a strong image of collaboration on overcoming challenges in a team effort or, as Denning suggests, channeling the energies of others towards a particular end. Collaboration I'm familiar with, but this idea of channeling energy is something I hadn't thought of in the leadership context, and one I may well experiment with.
The idea of adding and subtracting elements from the leadership palette gives, in a certain sense, another means of expressing the ways in which one emulates positive leadership techniques while rejecting the negative. An interactive leader will add to the general formula of management by adding the other dimensions, and will dismissed manipulation or otherwise. Knowing this gives me some flexibility in not necessarily sticking to a set formula and setting my out to develop my own style of leadership.
Active interest in promoting integrity and authenticity seems to have become more of a norm for leadership lately, and certainly one that can have an impact. For my leadership, integrity will remain a standing rule, but I think being more explicit with what I stand for and represent could lend well to being more of a distinct personality rather than just a name with a rank. Other dimensions that might tie well to this are those on not depending on hierarchical authority and understanding different narrative patterns. Being flexible with how the organization is directed and where the next big idea comes from, as well as being able to see different patterns, seems to me best suited to someone that practices authentic leadership and has subtracted negative elements from their leadership palette. The ability to lead without the formalized authority and with the ability to recognize patterns would, I believe, lend the greatest opportunity for fresh ideas and methods with the broadest range of execution patterns.
Regarding how Denning's dimensions manifests itself in my present leadership style, I'd say that the dimensions of working with the world, adding and subtracting from the leadership palette, and not depending on a hierarchical structure. Much of this comes through the nature of my working environment and from the benefit of past study. I learned early in my communications degree about the idea of horizontal communication and giving members a say when it was feasible, and it's something that gets practiced around my office. Every so often there's a project for the unit that solicits thoughts and ideas from the unit as a whole, and hardly a meeting goes by where there isn't an "around the room" to allow anyone present to get in their two cents.
On the note of palettes, young officers are reinforced on the basics regularly but are also just as often given anecdotes (or first hand experience) in leaders adding in positive (and on occasion less than positive) twists to leadership. I make an effort to add in what I can of being available for my subordinates and getting their needs taken care of, and being very conscious not to play any rank games if I can help it.
Finally, although I work in an organization with a very well defined hierarchy, I'm in a stage of my career where there's a great deal of crossover between myself as a junior leader and my most senior subordinates. There is a very strong expectation that senior enlisted members help teach new officers what it means to lead, and we're often told to learn well about what we work with from our experienced enlisted members. This creates an environment where although there is a formalized chain, one might say there's leadership happening at the top and bottom halves in parallel, and as funny as it may seem from the outside it's a system I make strong efforts to heed (particularly since they're the technical experts!)
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Sunday, December 9, 2012
A521.8.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Bottom line up front: When it comes to striking up conversation with someone I've just met, although becoming much easier in recent weeks since I've learned some communication concepts such as the FORD acronym, is still a very difficult undertaking for me. This especially gets to be an issue if the person I'm talking to also isn't the most conversant type and gives little feedback.
Working a room is even more difficult. At least if I spend enough time with one person, usually there's enough small talk to keep things from being especially awkward, but in a group I always find myself unable to get a word in edgewise unless we're taking turns...even then, I don't have a lot to say. It becomes much easier, rather, to melt into the background and listen to the conversations that people are having. Generally speaking, I've found from experience that I converse optimally with either one very talkative person, or within a group of three, as it's intimate enough to speak easily but there is enough feedback and opportunity for triggering further conversation.
Examining my personality, my lack of ease in conversation can probably be attributed to the number of ways I've acted out the role of the quiet studious type. I've always been rather shy with new people, more often preferring to be spoken to rather than initiate speaking. Frankly, I also still have issues with thinking too much about how I'm being perceived, which is compounded by my tendency to not think well on my feet. A lot of this, perhaps, might be tied to my upbringing and experiences. Being an only child, I didn't spend much time with my peer group outside of school and my parents tend to stick closer to home more often than not. When I did finally get out to school, the combination my own attitudes about the school experience and being subject to much of the slings and arrows of dealing with other kids throughout middle school and high school left me feeling that social interaction was more often than not a stressful rather than fulfilling experience. Finally though, I got into college and made a conscious decision to practice this sort of thing with a significantly more polite peer group. Studying the topic full time certainly went a long way towards at least making the communication experience more pleasant.
Much of the material from Chapter 14 of the Messages texts lines up with what I've seen in communication classes and a book or two on dating, especially the parts about framing your attitude in making the approach, utilizing good body language, and some of the basic ice breaker methods. But, there was some interesting material in the section on the levels of self-disclosure. I also thought the explanation on active listening went into greater detail than what I've heard before, and tied together earlier thoughts on listening nicely. I wouldn't mind sometime trying out some of the basic icebreaker questions and techniques to gauge their effectiveness (I'm admittedly just a touch skeptical), and I might put some thought into the levels of self-disclosure at play in my various day to day relationships. Certainly, I'm already shifting some of my thoughts just slightly on a few of my regular interactions and evaluating where on each level I might be with people I know.
Working a room is even more difficult. At least if I spend enough time with one person, usually there's enough small talk to keep things from being especially awkward, but in a group I always find myself unable to get a word in edgewise unless we're taking turns...even then, I don't have a lot to say. It becomes much easier, rather, to melt into the background and listen to the conversations that people are having. Generally speaking, I've found from experience that I converse optimally with either one very talkative person, or within a group of three, as it's intimate enough to speak easily but there is enough feedback and opportunity for triggering further conversation.
Examining my personality, my lack of ease in conversation can probably be attributed to the number of ways I've acted out the role of the quiet studious type. I've always been rather shy with new people, more often preferring to be spoken to rather than initiate speaking. Frankly, I also still have issues with thinking too much about how I'm being perceived, which is compounded by my tendency to not think well on my feet. A lot of this, perhaps, might be tied to my upbringing and experiences. Being an only child, I didn't spend much time with my peer group outside of school and my parents tend to stick closer to home more often than not. When I did finally get out to school, the combination my own attitudes about the school experience and being subject to much of the slings and arrows of dealing with other kids throughout middle school and high school left me feeling that social interaction was more often than not a stressful rather than fulfilling experience. Finally though, I got into college and made a conscious decision to practice this sort of thing with a significantly more polite peer group. Studying the topic full time certainly went a long way towards at least making the communication experience more pleasant.
Much of the material from Chapter 14 of the Messages texts lines up with what I've seen in communication classes and a book or two on dating, especially the parts about framing your attitude in making the approach, utilizing good body language, and some of the basic ice breaker methods. But, there was some interesting material in the section on the levels of self-disclosure. I also thought the explanation on active listening went into greater detail than what I've heard before, and tied together earlier thoughts on listening nicely. I wouldn't mind sometime trying out some of the basic icebreaker questions and techniques to gauge their effectiveness (I'm admittedly just a touch skeptical), and I might put some thought into the levels of self-disclosure at play in my various day to day relationships. Certainly, I'm already shifting some of my thoughts just slightly on a few of my regular interactions and evaluating where on each level I might be with people I know.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
A521.7.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Back in the Spring of 2009, my ROTC detachment was completing preparatory training for a group of our sophomore cadets due to attend summer field training in Alabama. This pre-training experience itself wasn't exactly a walk in the park, bringing the same time management demands of being a cadet and a student, but adding in arriving earlier than the rest of the unit, being subject to have scrutiny in extra inspections and marching drills, and being given something of a simulated boot camp experience with much terser instruction techniques and greater expectations of independence.
I saw my peers just one year behind me going through this, and although I wasn't directly involved in their training other than being an assistant to the senior cadet that oversaw the training flight, I wanted to do something extra for them. Not that long ago I was in their position, and that experience plus the summer encampment was indeed difficult, but very empowering in 20/20 hindsight.
When it came time for the last session for last thoughts and questions, I asked my supervising cadet for a few minutes to tell my story. Looking back, I'm not too sure if it focused on any particular anomaly like Denning notes stories should do, but it did have something of a "things working out better than expected" tone that is a touch anomalous and mostly just a positive message.
Without immediately telling these sophomores who the protagonist my story was, I shared the fragment's of one cadets experience...forgetting their hat when they flew off, fumbling through parade steps, and their attempts at trying to play the leader on command. I shared an experience of what seemed like a rather bleak and less than ideal situation given how they'd been trained. The kicker though, was the fact that in the end all these less than ideal experiences turned into an opportunity to really learn what it meant to stop thinking so much and to have some basic confidence. On top of that, the protagonist in question not only found themselves to be relatively successful as a cadet, but they were from our detachment...and it was I, the one who was telling the story. One might say I stalked the potentially sensitive topic of "what if it's just not my month out there?" Rather than simply saying a platitude, I presented an account of this happening as well as what happened next.
That talk ended up being received with great ovation, and our Commandant said outright he was quite challenged to follow that up. It became something of a subtle legend within our class year. While I didn't necessarily impart any specific skill or technique, I did impart the knowledge of an experience to show that people with a very broad range of success at this one particular snapshot in their cadet career could still come out in very good shape over their junior and senior year of school. I shared the key value of confidence, and the good that can come of simply never quitting.
I saw my peers just one year behind me going through this, and although I wasn't directly involved in their training other than being an assistant to the senior cadet that oversaw the training flight, I wanted to do something extra for them. Not that long ago I was in their position, and that experience plus the summer encampment was indeed difficult, but very empowering in 20/20 hindsight.
When it came time for the last session for last thoughts and questions, I asked my supervising cadet for a few minutes to tell my story. Looking back, I'm not too sure if it focused on any particular anomaly like Denning notes stories should do, but it did have something of a "things working out better than expected" tone that is a touch anomalous and mostly just a positive message.
Without immediately telling these sophomores who the protagonist my story was, I shared the fragment's of one cadets experience...forgetting their hat when they flew off, fumbling through parade steps, and their attempts at trying to play the leader on command. I shared an experience of what seemed like a rather bleak and less than ideal situation given how they'd been trained. The kicker though, was the fact that in the end all these less than ideal experiences turned into an opportunity to really learn what it meant to stop thinking so much and to have some basic confidence. On top of that, the protagonist in question not only found themselves to be relatively successful as a cadet, but they were from our detachment...and it was I, the one who was telling the story. One might say I stalked the potentially sensitive topic of "what if it's just not my month out there?" Rather than simply saying a platitude, I presented an account of this happening as well as what happened next.
That talk ended up being received with great ovation, and our Commandant said outright he was quite challenged to follow that up. It became something of a subtle legend within our class year. While I didn't necessarily impart any specific skill or technique, I did impart the knowledge of an experience to show that people with a very broad range of success at this one particular snapshot in their cadet career could still come out in very good shape over their junior and senior year of school. I shared the key value of confidence, and the good that can come of simply never quitting.
Friday, November 30, 2012
A521.6.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In his text The Leader's Guide to Storytelling, Stephen Denning identifies six characteristics of high performance teams (which so happen to align as well with some characteristics of community). These include:
In my recent experience, the team I worked with on the transition of maintenance responsibilities of select pieces of equipment had some of these elements present. We communicated very frankly on what we could and could not do, as well as just how long it could take. We also got very good at doing somewhat rapid overhauls of our slide decks to accommodate the preferences and requests of our leadership. Finally, we all had developed better individual understandings of the systems and procedures involved, and did our best to help each other out as a matter of principal. Admittedly though, the passion was somewhat lacking. Most of our interest in the project was the product of not wanting to be further hassled by our leadership, and the common mood was more getting what we could done and over with as the project was widely recognized to be rather difficult and cumbersome to work with.
On a further note of high performance team, Denning writes that in cases where there is a poor opinion of collaboration, there are other factors at work besides the concept itself. In part, he notes that systems for incentives and the like tend to be individually focused in nature, but he also adds that "...the root cause lies deeper: collaboration rests on values." Just because people are thrown together into a work unit with a common goal doesn't necessarily translate to believing in the same things. In the case of my most recent team project, we didn't exactly have much in the way of explicitly stated values per se, but we did seem to have in mind the common interest at least of minimizing frustrations for both ourselves and our respective units. We were also driven in part by the ever present values shared among us to do the best we could for the overall good of the unit and our mission set. I suppose you could say we were pragmatic about the whole thing, but we wanted to do good by our greater team as well.
Later in the same chapter, Denning discusses four distinct patterns of people working together, to include work groups (where every member has a task but doesn't necessarily need to collaborate), teams (where people work together with a very high degree of interaction), communities (people of a common value and interest set gathering), networks (acquainted individuals sharing information, but not necessarily building relationships).
I can think of a couple different experiences in discussing these patterns. During the course of my undergraduate education, I've run into a number of work groups and they weren't necessarily great experiences. Often times, we would divide the work between us and work on our respective pieces. We usually succeeded and got the job done in the end. However, like the book noted, there was not a great deal of collaboration and there was little to nothing developed in the way of developing a deeper rapport or getting to know our strengths and weaknesses. On the other hand, I've also had the opportunity more recently to work on something more akin to a team when I was working on an equipment transition team. Although I've said in the past this wasn't the most pleasant task and we were more driven by a desire to have it done and over with, we did in fact collaborate. Among the three of us young officers, we understood that each of us brought something to the table, whether it be knowledge of the systems or the ability to take decent notes. We also recognized the fact that we had to actively collaborate on behalf of our respective work centers, and we even got other people talking and collaborating. The good news out of all of this is that even as we got assigned other tasks to contend with, the project is still moving along fairly well considering the sheer scope and the limited timelines.
- Actively shaping expectations of those using the team's inputs
- Rapidly adjusting to changing situations
- Growing steadily stronger
- Has members growing as individuals
- Fueled by interpersonal commitments
- Work with a shared passion
In my recent experience, the team I worked with on the transition of maintenance responsibilities of select pieces of equipment had some of these elements present. We communicated very frankly on what we could and could not do, as well as just how long it could take. We also got very good at doing somewhat rapid overhauls of our slide decks to accommodate the preferences and requests of our leadership. Finally, we all had developed better individual understandings of the systems and procedures involved, and did our best to help each other out as a matter of principal. Admittedly though, the passion was somewhat lacking. Most of our interest in the project was the product of not wanting to be further hassled by our leadership, and the common mood was more getting what we could done and over with as the project was widely recognized to be rather difficult and cumbersome to work with.
On a further note of high performance team, Denning writes that in cases where there is a poor opinion of collaboration, there are other factors at work besides the concept itself. In part, he notes that systems for incentives and the like tend to be individually focused in nature, but he also adds that "...the root cause lies deeper: collaboration rests on values." Just because people are thrown together into a work unit with a common goal doesn't necessarily translate to believing in the same things. In the case of my most recent team project, we didn't exactly have much in the way of explicitly stated values per se, but we did seem to have in mind the common interest at least of minimizing frustrations for both ourselves and our respective units. We were also driven in part by the ever present values shared among us to do the best we could for the overall good of the unit and our mission set. I suppose you could say we were pragmatic about the whole thing, but we wanted to do good by our greater team as well.
Later in the same chapter, Denning discusses four distinct patterns of people working together, to include work groups (where every member has a task but doesn't necessarily need to collaborate), teams (where people work together with a very high degree of interaction), communities (people of a common value and interest set gathering), networks (acquainted individuals sharing information, but not necessarily building relationships).
I can think of a couple different experiences in discussing these patterns. During the course of my undergraduate education, I've run into a number of work groups and they weren't necessarily great experiences. Often times, we would divide the work between us and work on our respective pieces. We usually succeeded and got the job done in the end. However, like the book noted, there was not a great deal of collaboration and there was little to nothing developed in the way of developing a deeper rapport or getting to know our strengths and weaknesses. On the other hand, I've also had the opportunity more recently to work on something more akin to a team when I was working on an equipment transition team. Although I've said in the past this wasn't the most pleasant task and we were more driven by a desire to have it done and over with, we did in fact collaborate. Among the three of us young officers, we understood that each of us brought something to the table, whether it be knowledge of the systems or the ability to take decent notes. We also recognized the fact that we had to actively collaborate on behalf of our respective work centers, and we even got other people talking and collaborating. The good news out of all of this is that even as we got assigned other tasks to contend with, the project is still moving along fairly well considering the sheer scope and the limited timelines.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
A521.5.8.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Not too long ago, a friend of mine who is also a new officer had an interesting issue in his section regarding some leave requests that were put in for a couple of his guys. Two people had put in their leave requests to two separate mid level supervisors for the section, and had received approval. It wasn't until later when it was passed up to my friend that the two requests were compared, and it was discovered that not only were both requests for the same time period, but it would leave the section undermanned.
Ordinarily, leave requests are granted without any trouble at all. After all, leave is something all personnel are given and are encouraged to take. On top of that, it looks bad for the unit if personnel have their leave requests denied, as this indicates either the leadership isn't putting a particularly high priority on welfare, or there's a severe enough problem in workload management that it's tying people down. However, there is always an ever present obligation to meet the needs of the mission, and supervisors can give mission requirements as a justification for denying leave if they really must. Usually though, people that have to work outside their normal hours receive some form of comp time.
This produced for my friend a bit of a conflict: He had an obligation to take care of his people, but he also had an obligation to keep his section running.
In the end, one of the original requests got the dates adjusted for unrelated reasons and this removed the conflict, but my friend was getting ready to back fill the two positions for that leave period. He had gone around the office and asked those of us who had experience in the section if we could help out, and he was prepared to chip in some extra time in the office as well. He could have randomly picked one guy and had them take the brunt of the hard lesson on coordination, but instead he opted to do what he could that would allow his guys to take their time off while minimizing the impact on the rest of the office.
It may not seem like very much, but this story illustrates how seriously we take the leave requests that make up part of our "care for people" equation. No one particularly enjoys having to sort out such matters when it happens, but when we're called upon to do so we do whatever we can to work our available resources to accommodate. Those same people will, in turn, will usually chip in where needed to help out their peers and subordinates. We get the job done, but we'll always take care of our people at the end of the day. We're proof that any organization work its salt can do both and be successful.
Ordinarily, leave requests are granted without any trouble at all. After all, leave is something all personnel are given and are encouraged to take. On top of that, it looks bad for the unit if personnel have their leave requests denied, as this indicates either the leadership isn't putting a particularly high priority on welfare, or there's a severe enough problem in workload management that it's tying people down. However, there is always an ever present obligation to meet the needs of the mission, and supervisors can give mission requirements as a justification for denying leave if they really must. Usually though, people that have to work outside their normal hours receive some form of comp time.
This produced for my friend a bit of a conflict: He had an obligation to take care of his people, but he also had an obligation to keep his section running.
In the end, one of the original requests got the dates adjusted for unrelated reasons and this removed the conflict, but my friend was getting ready to back fill the two positions for that leave period. He had gone around the office and asked those of us who had experience in the section if we could help out, and he was prepared to chip in some extra time in the office as well. He could have randomly picked one guy and had them take the brunt of the hard lesson on coordination, but instead he opted to do what he could that would allow his guys to take their time off while minimizing the impact on the rest of the office.
It may not seem like very much, but this story illustrates how seriously we take the leave requests that make up part of our "care for people" equation. No one particularly enjoys having to sort out such matters when it happens, but when we're called upon to do so we do whatever we can to work our available resources to accommodate. Those same people will, in turn, will usually chip in where needed to help out their peers and subordinates. We get the job done, but we'll always take care of our people at the end of the day. We're proof that any organization work its salt can do both and be successful.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
A521.5.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In his book The Leader's Guide to Storytelling, Stephen Denning identifies the three basic components of a genuinely ethical community. These include: trust (a general expectation that members will be ethical with one another), loyalty (an acceptance of the need to not breach that trust and fulfill related duties) and solidarity (caring for others and being ready to act on their behalf, even if there's conflict with personal interests).
With my organization, the Core Values of Integrity First and Service Before Self match up well to the all of the components in one aspect or another. There is a general expectation of honesty among people that join the service, and to paraphrase some thought from my commander, he implicitly trusts anyone he works with unless they give him reason not to. In the even that people are caught lying about shortcomings, problems, accomplishment of tasks or otherwise, there are usually consequences. In short, the value of integrity creates a general expectation and climate of ethics (trust), and creates an obligation to maintain trust and to do their job (loyalty).
On the note of Service Before Self, this exemplifies the overall values of doing good work, taking care of the mission, and taking care of your people before your own needs. Perhaps one would rather head home right on time and let things slide until the morning, or they'd rather pass a task on to someone else because they don't feel like doing it. But, by undertaking service before self and acting in solidarity, they get out their with their guys and stay a little later, or they help out with the workload so everyone has a fair share. They live out the adage of "mission first, people always."
If values are ever lacking, it is usually within sub-organizations such as bases or individual squadrons. Within the group that my squadron falls under, I would think we could
With my organization, the Core Values of Integrity First and Service Before Self match up well to the all of the components in one aspect or another. There is a general expectation of honesty among people that join the service, and to paraphrase some thought from my commander, he implicitly trusts anyone he works with unless they give him reason not to. In the even that people are caught lying about shortcomings, problems, accomplishment of tasks or otherwise, there are usually consequences. In short, the value of integrity creates a general expectation and climate of ethics (trust), and creates an obligation to maintain trust and to do their job (loyalty).
On the note of Service Before Self, this exemplifies the overall values of doing good work, taking care of the mission, and taking care of your people before your own needs. Perhaps one would rather head home right on time and let things slide until the morning, or they'd rather pass a task on to someone else because they don't feel like doing it. But, by undertaking service before self and acting in solidarity, they get out their with their guys and stay a little later, or they help out with the workload so everyone has a fair share. They live out the adage of "mission first, people always."
If values are ever lacking, it is usually within sub-organizations such as bases or individual squadrons. Within the group that my squadron falls under, I would think we could
A521.5.1.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Quintessential Career's values test indeed proved to be an interesting and revealing exercise for this week. I hadn't previously given a whole lot of thought to my own values beyond those related to general moral beliefs or life philosophies, but thinking about work related values offered a good opportunity for reflection.
A lot of my number one priority values seemed to be reasonably in line with my workplace's values, to include placing a high value on integrity and truth, order, solid work-life balance, making a positive impact, and to some measure having a sense of adventure or blazing a new trail. Certainly, integrity is the first of the Core Values we're taught in training, a need for order is evident in our chain of command, and there's frequently emphasis on maintaining a balance between work and family. A positive impact on society, and activities such as travel and seeing the world are also some of the more often cited motivations for joining the military.
However, there was some notable differences in values. One thing I put down as a number one priority is work that involves creativity or building. Unfortunately, at least within my workplace, much of our daily tasks are highly regimented, even down to slide formatting. Additionally, the average officer is usually expected to be acting in more of a managerial role by receiving tasks and requirements for upper level leadership and then delegating it out to their subordinates. Admittedly, this particular values conflict has become apparent in recent weeks in what I feel is an increasing disinterest in the work I usually get that often focuses on meetings, e-mails, and administrative matters when I'd prefer to be getting hands on with a task.
Another interesting difference is my opinion on competition, leadership, and decision making. Being an officer always carries a certain level of competition, as you're constantly being stratified against your peers for ratings and awards. I marked a very low priority on high competition. Much of an officer's job description consists of being a leader, which of course involves varying levels of leadership and decision making. These are also areas I marked as very low priority, being a more laid back and even somewhat indecisive individual.
That's not to say that particular conflict has no means of being mitigated or assuaged. I had the opportunity to bring up that disconnect to my supervision and they actually thought it would be very beneficial for me to get some hands on experience with the equipment we maintain in order to better understand it, have an appreciation for the labor and logistics involved, and have the additional benefit of having an officer coming down from the office and working alongside the troops.
As for my present thoughts on leadership and decision making, I suppose one could say my decision to enter the service involved in part a decision to give myself some "exposure therapy." Ideally, by being thrown into situations where I'd have to lead or make a decision, I would inevitably have to practice those values, become more comfortable with them, and eventually be able to make them without a lot of fuss. I'd say there has been some improvement over the last several years in terms of actual execution, and I don't get too hung up on the need to do it. Although I don't plan on consciously seeking out a top leadership position whenever I decide to enter the civilian workforce, I'm attempting to mitigate this part of the values conflict through a conscious decision to try and embrace it for what it's worth.
A lot of my number one priority values seemed to be reasonably in line with my workplace's values, to include placing a high value on integrity and truth, order, solid work-life balance, making a positive impact, and to some measure having a sense of adventure or blazing a new trail. Certainly, integrity is the first of the Core Values we're taught in training, a need for order is evident in our chain of command, and there's frequently emphasis on maintaining a balance between work and family. A positive impact on society, and activities such as travel and seeing the world are also some of the more often cited motivations for joining the military.
However, there was some notable differences in values. One thing I put down as a number one priority is work that involves creativity or building. Unfortunately, at least within my workplace, much of our daily tasks are highly regimented, even down to slide formatting. Additionally, the average officer is usually expected to be acting in more of a managerial role by receiving tasks and requirements for upper level leadership and then delegating it out to their subordinates. Admittedly, this particular values conflict has become apparent in recent weeks in what I feel is an increasing disinterest in the work I usually get that often focuses on meetings, e-mails, and administrative matters when I'd prefer to be getting hands on with a task.
Another interesting difference is my opinion on competition, leadership, and decision making. Being an officer always carries a certain level of competition, as you're constantly being stratified against your peers for ratings and awards. I marked a very low priority on high competition. Much of an officer's job description consists of being a leader, which of course involves varying levels of leadership and decision making. These are also areas I marked as very low priority, being a more laid back and even somewhat indecisive individual.
That's not to say that particular conflict has no means of being mitigated or assuaged. I had the opportunity to bring up that disconnect to my supervision and they actually thought it would be very beneficial for me to get some hands on experience with the equipment we maintain in order to better understand it, have an appreciation for the labor and logistics involved, and have the additional benefit of having an officer coming down from the office and working alongside the troops.
As for my present thoughts on leadership and decision making, I suppose one could say my decision to enter the service involved in part a decision to give myself some "exposure therapy." Ideally, by being thrown into situations where I'd have to lead or make a decision, I would inevitably have to practice those values, become more comfortable with them, and eventually be able to make them without a lot of fuss. I'd say there has been some improvement over the last several years in terms of actual execution, and I don't get too hung up on the need to do it. Although I don't plan on consciously seeking out a top leadership position whenever I decide to enter the civilian workforce, I'm attempting to mitigate this part of the values conflict through a conscious decision to try and embrace it for what it's worth.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
A521.4.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Within my line of work, exposure to, as well as the occasional use of, incongruent messages comes with the territory. Somewhat more often when I first came into my job, I'd have to try and explain a technical issue or procedure to a member of our client unit, and they would often want very specific timelines, details, or some kind of guarantee. Of course, computers can be very fickle and there's something of an unofficial rule that we never use definite words like "will," but rather say "that particular box should be working fine," or "we should be done on time." We consciously used that particular verbal modifier as a layer of protection in case things didn't go as planned, as our Type-A clients at the time tended to see technical issues as a foul on us.
Beyond that, I can say I still have a lot of work to do with keep my paralanguage in check. Although my actions in doggedly chasing down issues was enough to build credibility, I can think of a few occasions where I didn't have the best of articulation, resonance, or volume when I was trying to work my way through a brief or rundown of an issue, and thus didn't come off as highly confident in the information. This, of course, resulted in some incongruence being sent my way in the form of a more senior officer from our client unit stepping in closer from the "social" to the "personal" space, perhaps exercising some hidden agenda styles such as "I'm good (but you're not)" or "I know it all" with regards to having a handle on the overarching situation. In those cases, if for whatever reason things kept going downhill I quickly found myself feeling rather ineffective in articulating on behalf of my unit, while also feeling both under the gun to maintain a good image for comm support and quell our customers from doing anything to make the situation worse.
Not too long ago, I dealt with some incongruence at the base personnel section that yielded me some lost time and increased frustration. As part of an application for training, I had to get some paperwork drafted of which I only had a sample from the instructions. I went to the personnel desk asking to get the right form, and a very young Airman answered my query. I recall he spoke somewhat softly with some hesitance, and kept his arms close towards his body. I didn't think much of it at the time and took his word, as I've found some of the younger troops can get like that working with officers like I've done with senior officers. He did also add he hadn't worked with that particular set of forms, and sent me to another section that dealt with other records issues. After another 15 minute wait there, that office sent me back to the personnel section, where the same Airman and two other younger guys deliberated on how to handle that form. One of them came back with the same sheet and said I simply needed to sign. I pointed out it was a sample, at which point they brought out an NCO...this is when they finally told me I simply needed to draft the form myself and bring it to them. I was glad to get an answer, but the fact it took about an hour of running around to get it was something of a nuisance.
So, for the incongruence coming from myself, the solution starts first with recognizing the issues. Knowing that I have issues with volume control and articulation, which impacts perceptions of confidence. The "Messages" text has very helpfully provided some exercises in volume modulation as well as articulation, and execution of these exercises as well as a continued conscious effort to practice and reassess my paralanguage in conjunction with my body language could very well do me a great deal of good in exuding greater confidence and thus aid credibility. Additionally, having this greater recognition of metamessages, paralanguage, and hidden agendas will allow me to make a change in identifying when such communication is occurring. This will subsequently allow me to ask the necessary follow up questions to get further clarity, or at least give me further insight into how to "read" the overall interaction.
Beyond that, I can say I still have a lot of work to do with keep my paralanguage in check. Although my actions in doggedly chasing down issues was enough to build credibility, I can think of a few occasions where I didn't have the best of articulation, resonance, or volume when I was trying to work my way through a brief or rundown of an issue, and thus didn't come off as highly confident in the information. This, of course, resulted in some incongruence being sent my way in the form of a more senior officer from our client unit stepping in closer from the "social" to the "personal" space, perhaps exercising some hidden agenda styles such as "I'm good (but you're not)" or "I know it all" with regards to having a handle on the overarching situation. In those cases, if for whatever reason things kept going downhill I quickly found myself feeling rather ineffective in articulating on behalf of my unit, while also feeling both under the gun to maintain a good image for comm support and quell our customers from doing anything to make the situation worse.
Not too long ago, I dealt with some incongruence at the base personnel section that yielded me some lost time and increased frustration. As part of an application for training, I had to get some paperwork drafted of which I only had a sample from the instructions. I went to the personnel desk asking to get the right form, and a very young Airman answered my query. I recall he spoke somewhat softly with some hesitance, and kept his arms close towards his body. I didn't think much of it at the time and took his word, as I've found some of the younger troops can get like that working with officers like I've done with senior officers. He did also add he hadn't worked with that particular set of forms, and sent me to another section that dealt with other records issues. After another 15 minute wait there, that office sent me back to the personnel section, where the same Airman and two other younger guys deliberated on how to handle that form. One of them came back with the same sheet and said I simply needed to sign. I pointed out it was a sample, at which point they brought out an NCO...this is when they finally told me I simply needed to draft the form myself and bring it to them. I was glad to get an answer, but the fact it took about an hour of running around to get it was something of a nuisance.
So, for the incongruence coming from myself, the solution starts first with recognizing the issues. Knowing that I have issues with volume control and articulation, which impacts perceptions of confidence. The "Messages" text has very helpfully provided some exercises in volume modulation as well as articulation, and execution of these exercises as well as a continued conscious effort to practice and reassess my paralanguage in conjunction with my body language could very well do me a great deal of good in exuding greater confidence and thus aid credibility. Additionally, having this greater recognition of metamessages, paralanguage, and hidden agendas will allow me to make a change in identifying when such communication is occurring. This will subsequently allow me to ask the necessary follow up questions to get further clarity, or at least give me further insight into how to "read" the overall interaction.
Monday, November 5, 2012
A521.3.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
It was the summer of 2008, and I was between my sophomore and junior years of college. I had spent about half of the prior school year preparing for summer Field Training with ROTC. Up until then, it was like I had two lives: one as a student, and one that was like the boot camp story arc from Full Metal Jacket, minus the swearing and physical discipline.
Preparation in itself was already an interesting experience, waking up earlier for ROTC events, getting some more intensive and vocalized training, and being held to a standard that effectively called for better than perfect. Now I was off to do the same thing day in and day out for about a month straight, with people I'd never met before, in the middle of Alabama, and to make things worse, I'd spent the days prior getting "verbal corrections" by my mother regarding my planning and packing practices, and in the process left a camouflage cap at home.
Things didn't really get much better once I had actually arrived. For whatever reason, call it the luck of the draw or a bad case of the nerves, things just didn't go as smoothly as I would've liked. It felt like it took awhile for me to "click" with the people there. I kept making silly mistakes on my parade steps or in protocol because I was becoming intensely focused on certain aspects of what I was doing rather than maintaining a holistic view. I know I certainly couldn't get much of a command presence going nor was I particularly effective when I was placed in charge. So at least while I was in the moment, I had fairly negative feelings about the experience and was legitimately concerned much of the time about making the grade.
Of course, I don't remember all of this because it was a truly awful experience through and through. Honestly, some of the finer details and the names have faded but for a few key pieces. But, I remember it because I look back and see a major pivot point in my life not just as a cadet or prospective officer, but even in some aspects of my personal self. Towards the end of the month long encampment, there came a period where we were still subject to the rules of "the game," but they weren't as hard on us. Eventually, we were even given time for feedback from both the active duty officers that supervised us as well as our peers. The feedback I got consistently across the board was I came off as a very smart guy, I just needed to work on my confidence. I honestly still wonder about the smart assessment as I generally didn't say very much, but after everything I'd been through, to have people outright bring up the issue of my confidence kicked off something in my head.
Before Field Training even, I had another similarly pivotal experience. It arguably started maybe halfway through my freshman year of college but really came to fruition around the spring of 2008. This was when I made a change in where I was going to school. When I first applied to college, I already had somewhat limited options as I was more of an A- or B+ student, and the only extra credentials I had was being an Eagle Scout. I also didn't take much of an interest in the process beyond it being something I had to do more or less because my parents told me to. Though all this, I muddled through a process where it seemed like a good idea to send me to smaller liberal art schools that could accommodate participation in Air Force ROTC. Being accepted from two out of the eight, I went with a smaller school in Seattle because it seemed like the practical thing to do.
While I had some good experiences and met people I still consider good friends, this was the first time I really got hit with a hard lesson in taking control of my future and knowing when to follow my heart over my head. The first year I muddled through the campus culture that I found to be less than ideal, along with finding classes that interested me, keeping occupied, and working through the commute to my ROTC classes at UW. I wasn't too happy with the circumstances, but I stuck with it after being advised to give things a chance and lacking any further direction. Once sophomore year rolled around though, the school announced plans to make cuts to liberal arts programs to stem funding issues they've had for years...while at the same time making plans to upgrade the basketball team to Division 1 athletics. At that point, stories I've heard about making conscious decisions to make a change made sense, because I finally made one myself. Although it took months of thought and wasn't an easy process, I did what I had to do to transfer to the University of Washington. At the time there was concerns expressed by my instructors about graduating on time, and for awhile I still wasn't sure if it was a good idea to stay in Seattle. But with time I was happy I made the move, and I learned to consider my feelings as well as fact.
These two situations, although technically separate problems, were interesting in that they happened around the same time and seemed to weave around a common thread of confidently taking action. Changing schools required me to make a conscious decision to be involved in the outcome rather than simply riding out choices I let other people make for me. Today I can say that whenever I get put into a team situation or a work environment where I'm going to be in place for an extended period, I make an effort to have a say where I can and to actively participate versus sitting back and taking whatever comes. For that matter, even now rather than idly accept the Air Force's decision to be a communications officer, I'm currently doing the best I can at that job while doing what it takes to change career fields.
As far as the summer training experience goes? What that did was set the foundation for some needed steel in my spine. Although I'm still working on performing with confidence, today I have fewer inhibitions when working in a group environment. I focus less on what other people think about what I have to say about a problem, and instead try and maintain confidence in what I'm sharing. Rather than focusing on "I've never done that before," I'm more inclined to say "I'll do what I can." It has extended rather nicely to the personal life too, yielding results such as a few journeys to places around town just because it looked interesting on the map, a couple occasions to try my hand at a Cessna because it was something new, and more.
To wrap up an already long blog entry, that small period of a few months left upon the last four years and counting a constant reminder to not stand idly by watching the world go by, but to get involved, take action, and do it with the confidence needed to really seize the moment.
Preparation in itself was already an interesting experience, waking up earlier for ROTC events, getting some more intensive and vocalized training, and being held to a standard that effectively called for better than perfect. Now I was off to do the same thing day in and day out for about a month straight, with people I'd never met before, in the middle of Alabama, and to make things worse, I'd spent the days prior getting "verbal corrections" by my mother regarding my planning and packing practices, and in the process left a camouflage cap at home.
Things didn't really get much better once I had actually arrived. For whatever reason, call it the luck of the draw or a bad case of the nerves, things just didn't go as smoothly as I would've liked. It felt like it took awhile for me to "click" with the people there. I kept making silly mistakes on my parade steps or in protocol because I was becoming intensely focused on certain aspects of what I was doing rather than maintaining a holistic view. I know I certainly couldn't get much of a command presence going nor was I particularly effective when I was placed in charge. So at least while I was in the moment, I had fairly negative feelings about the experience and was legitimately concerned much of the time about making the grade.
Of course, I don't remember all of this because it was a truly awful experience through and through. Honestly, some of the finer details and the names have faded but for a few key pieces. But, I remember it because I look back and see a major pivot point in my life not just as a cadet or prospective officer, but even in some aspects of my personal self. Towards the end of the month long encampment, there came a period where we were still subject to the rules of "the game," but they weren't as hard on us. Eventually, we were even given time for feedback from both the active duty officers that supervised us as well as our peers. The feedback I got consistently across the board was I came off as a very smart guy, I just needed to work on my confidence. I honestly still wonder about the smart assessment as I generally didn't say very much, but after everything I'd been through, to have people outright bring up the issue of my confidence kicked off something in my head.
Before Field Training even, I had another similarly pivotal experience. It arguably started maybe halfway through my freshman year of college but really came to fruition around the spring of 2008. This was when I made a change in where I was going to school. When I first applied to college, I already had somewhat limited options as I was more of an A- or B+ student, and the only extra credentials I had was being an Eagle Scout. I also didn't take much of an interest in the process beyond it being something I had to do more or less because my parents told me to. Though all this, I muddled through a process where it seemed like a good idea to send me to smaller liberal art schools that could accommodate participation in Air Force ROTC. Being accepted from two out of the eight, I went with a smaller school in Seattle because it seemed like the practical thing to do.
While I had some good experiences and met people I still consider good friends, this was the first time I really got hit with a hard lesson in taking control of my future and knowing when to follow my heart over my head. The first year I muddled through the campus culture that I found to be less than ideal, along with finding classes that interested me, keeping occupied, and working through the commute to my ROTC classes at UW. I wasn't too happy with the circumstances, but I stuck with it after being advised to give things a chance and lacking any further direction. Once sophomore year rolled around though, the school announced plans to make cuts to liberal arts programs to stem funding issues they've had for years...while at the same time making plans to upgrade the basketball team to Division 1 athletics. At that point, stories I've heard about making conscious decisions to make a change made sense, because I finally made one myself. Although it took months of thought and wasn't an easy process, I did what I had to do to transfer to the University of Washington. At the time there was concerns expressed by my instructors about graduating on time, and for awhile I still wasn't sure if it was a good idea to stay in Seattle. But with time I was happy I made the move, and I learned to consider my feelings as well as fact.
These two situations, although technically separate problems, were interesting in that they happened around the same time and seemed to weave around a common thread of confidently taking action. Changing schools required me to make a conscious decision to be involved in the outcome rather than simply riding out choices I let other people make for me. Today I can say that whenever I get put into a team situation or a work environment where I'm going to be in place for an extended period, I make an effort to have a say where I can and to actively participate versus sitting back and taking whatever comes. For that matter, even now rather than idly accept the Air Force's decision to be a communications officer, I'm currently doing the best I can at that job while doing what it takes to change career fields.
As far as the summer training experience goes? What that did was set the foundation for some needed steel in my spine. Although I'm still working on performing with confidence, today I have fewer inhibitions when working in a group environment. I focus less on what other people think about what I have to say about a problem, and instead try and maintain confidence in what I'm sharing. Rather than focusing on "I've never done that before," I'm more inclined to say "I'll do what I can." It has extended rather nicely to the personal life too, yielding results such as a few journeys to places around town just because it looked interesting on the map, a couple occasions to try my hand at a Cessna because it was something new, and more.
To wrap up an already long blog entry, that small period of a few months left upon the last four years and counting a constant reminder to not stand idly by watching the world go by, but to get involved, take action, and do it with the confidence needed to really seize the moment.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
A521.2.3_SienkiewiczRaymond
Chiamamanda Adichie's talk on the danger of the single story presented an interesting second side to the coin that is storytelling. Although her talk dealt a great deal with what one may ordinarily see as considerations that must be taken in working with or around stereotypes, it could tie into springboard stories and general leadership story telling in rather interesting ways.
Adichie throughout her talk noted how different places (usually countries) could come loaded with certain baked in perceptions or stereotypes with a foreign audience. For instance, she once held particular perceptions about Mexico, and her roommate had view of Africa that alluded more to tribal culture or being removed from certain standards of living. Although a stretch, thinking back to Denning's elements of a springboard story that include stating a specific time and place, the mental image held of Seattle in the 2006-2010 time frame might vary greatly between myself as someone who resided in Seattle, and someone who's never been there and grew up in Dallas. Or, I can say that my friends from Portland hear about Biloxi, Mississipi (or frankly most any place in the south) and they have a difficult time thinking of anything positive about the experience of living there, let alone passing through. In short, even small elements such as place or the central protagonist can come loaded with the audience's perceptions and cause a distraction from the main message, especially if any of the audience members are prone to some of the listening blocks noted in the "Messages" text such as Judging, Dreaming, or even Identifying from past negative experiences.
The same could very well be true for the deliver of the message if they aren't being mindful of their storytelling, and a good storyteller might want to be aware of their personal biases before making a delivery. One piece of advice dropped by Whalen in "The Professional Communicator's Toolkit" is to "be a two-edged knife"...that is, touch on both sides of the issue. According to Whalen, this allows for your presentation to be more balanced and demonstrates consideration of multiple viewpoints. While this idea might be more difficult to apply mid-sentence in a presentation, it might be worth some thought for the leader that is trying to think of a springboard story to add to their tool kit. Overall, the overall process might include some final "proof-reading" questions such as what kind of reactions will come from the different elements (for better or for worse), and does this story cover the issues presented from all the angles?
Although it adds some extra steps to the process, Adichie does have a point with her talk on the single story. To tell one story from one perspective is probably the cleanest, simplest way to present a story so long as it is well tailored to the audience and the purpose for telling it. However, if not well vetted or if applied too much further beyond the boundaries of the story, there is the possibility of secondary effects that may form or reinforce a negative "single story," and set the stage for potential friction or otherwise when the exception(s) to the story story makes itself apparent. The leader would, therefore, best serve their people by being relevant and on point, but perhaps having a repertoire of stories to draw upon or at least being cognizant of the single stories that may be at play.
Adichie throughout her talk noted how different places (usually countries) could come loaded with certain baked in perceptions or stereotypes with a foreign audience. For instance, she once held particular perceptions about Mexico, and her roommate had view of Africa that alluded more to tribal culture or being removed from certain standards of living. Although a stretch, thinking back to Denning's elements of a springboard story that include stating a specific time and place, the mental image held of Seattle in the 2006-2010 time frame might vary greatly between myself as someone who resided in Seattle, and someone who's never been there and grew up in Dallas. Or, I can say that my friends from Portland hear about Biloxi, Mississipi (or frankly most any place in the south) and they have a difficult time thinking of anything positive about the experience of living there, let alone passing through. In short, even small elements such as place or the central protagonist can come loaded with the audience's perceptions and cause a distraction from the main message, especially if any of the audience members are prone to some of the listening blocks noted in the "Messages" text such as Judging, Dreaming, or even Identifying from past negative experiences.
The same could very well be true for the deliver of the message if they aren't being mindful of their storytelling, and a good storyteller might want to be aware of their personal biases before making a delivery. One piece of advice dropped by Whalen in "The Professional Communicator's Toolkit" is to "be a two-edged knife"...that is, touch on both sides of the issue. According to Whalen, this allows for your presentation to be more balanced and demonstrates consideration of multiple viewpoints. While this idea might be more difficult to apply mid-sentence in a presentation, it might be worth some thought for the leader that is trying to think of a springboard story to add to their tool kit. Overall, the overall process might include some final "proof-reading" questions such as what kind of reactions will come from the different elements (for better or for worse), and does this story cover the issues presented from all the angles?
Although it adds some extra steps to the process, Adichie does have a point with her talk on the single story. To tell one story from one perspective is probably the cleanest, simplest way to present a story so long as it is well tailored to the audience and the purpose for telling it. However, if not well vetted or if applied too much further beyond the boundaries of the story, there is the possibility of secondary effects that may form or reinforce a negative "single story," and set the stage for potential friction or otherwise when the exception(s) to the story story makes itself apparent. The leader would, therefore, best serve their people by being relevant and on point, but perhaps having a repertoire of stories to draw upon or at least being cognizant of the single stories that may be at play.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
A521.1.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
I'm a little hard pressed to think of any common stories I can share from my unit, but there is a broad swath of stories involving the Air Force going back over 65 years, and American military aviation for the last 100 years.
One story that gets told whether you're in a typical flying unit or working in an information technology function is that of General Billy Mitchell. General Mitchell is regarded as, essentially, one of the first visionary in the applications of aviation to military operations. In his time, airplanes were a relatively new invention and had been mainly utilized for scouting purposes, and sparsely being used for combat in the form of shooting handguns at enemy plans, or dropping small explosives over enemy territory.
After World War I, General Mitchell envisioned further applications for airplanes, particularly in the bomber role, and became a very vocal advocate. Despite the doubts of senior Army and Navy officers, he arranged for a demonstration of airplanes multiple time sinking battleships, the prestige weapon of the time. Although General Mitchell still didn't make significant headway after these demonstrations, and due to his approach earned further ire from other military leaders in the short term, history proved him to have a point. From WWII onward, air superiority would become an essential part of military doctrine, and there are now independent air services all across the world. For that, General Mitchell earned a posthumous promotion and his story lives on.
Although the literal story may not directly relate to non-flying sections of the Air Force, the overall themes of innovative, out of the box thinking and possessing the intellectual integrity to stand by good ideas are captured within the story. Additionally, it bolsters and defines the type of forward thinking culture, one that's open to new technologies and ideas, that the Air Force generally likes to promote. The story, overall, represents a root cause of our forward momentum and rapid development as an independent service. Whether discussing aircraft, or advances in space or information technology, leaders will often speak of General Mitchell's experiences and promote that same spirit of innovation. The fact that the story has lived for this long, and that it is still taught to cadets to this day, speaks for its effectiveness.
One story that gets told whether you're in a typical flying unit or working in an information technology function is that of General Billy Mitchell. General Mitchell is regarded as, essentially, one of the first visionary in the applications of aviation to military operations. In his time, airplanes were a relatively new invention and had been mainly utilized for scouting purposes, and sparsely being used for combat in the form of shooting handguns at enemy plans, or dropping small explosives over enemy territory.
After World War I, General Mitchell envisioned further applications for airplanes, particularly in the bomber role, and became a very vocal advocate. Despite the doubts of senior Army and Navy officers, he arranged for a demonstration of airplanes multiple time sinking battleships, the prestige weapon of the time. Although General Mitchell still didn't make significant headway after these demonstrations, and due to his approach earned further ire from other military leaders in the short term, history proved him to have a point. From WWII onward, air superiority would become an essential part of military doctrine, and there are now independent air services all across the world. For that, General Mitchell earned a posthumous promotion and his story lives on.
Although the literal story may not directly relate to non-flying sections of the Air Force, the overall themes of innovative, out of the box thinking and possessing the intellectual integrity to stand by good ideas are captured within the story. Additionally, it bolsters and defines the type of forward thinking culture, one that's open to new technologies and ideas, that the Air Force generally likes to promote. The story, overall, represents a root cause of our forward momentum and rapid development as an independent service. Whether discussing aircraft, or advances in space or information technology, leaders will often speak of General Mitchell's experiences and promote that same spirit of innovation. The fact that the story has lived for this long, and that it is still taught to cadets to this day, speaks for its effectiveness.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
A500.9.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
With the end of any given course, be it for a few days or a few weeks, there will almost always be the question of "was this worth my time?" A lot of that can come down to very qualitative answers, perhaps maybe quantitative if you ascribe a value to what you gained from the time invested. But I digress. I would say that, given my overall objective of getting some kind of Master's degree to satisfy expectations at work, that I at least am another few credits closer to gaining the degree and even managed to walk away with a few additional ideas and thought processes.
On the positive side of things, through the discussions I was able to see some other people's experiences in being students, thinking through their thinking, and their leadership experiences up through now. I also did take away some food for thought in the form of CARS, qualitative versus quantitative thinking, and the general concept of Action Research.
There were though, some things that required a bit of resiliency and adaptability on my part. Among other things, I've found that the parallel to life nature of online learning in the context of my personal life demands a level of time management and self-discipline that can match and exceed what I had to muster during college. Back then, studying was my primary job and I had more time dedicated to it, mostly needing to cram in ROTC and a personal life with minimal commuting time. Now I have about a 40 minute drive each way to the office, a roughly nine hour duty day, and the need to maintain some semblance of order in my bachelor household. This doesn't include getting tasks done and turned in during vacation or business trips, which can be yet another adventure unto itself. It's not impossible, but it does add a level of planning and removes some potential for spontaneity. To improve my overall learning experience, I may have to take more concentrated efforts to "schedule" school time throughout the week so that I have a greater yield of free time over the weekends. This may have to extend as well to scheduling time for house cleaning, time for preparing the week's meals, etc.
Given the nature of how the material is being delivered on an asynchronous timeline to individuals across the globe, I believe that the staff and faculty at ERAU are already doing a great job with support. I can say that so far I've never had to wait particularly long for replies to queries, and everything has been running fairly steadily. The only real gripe I've had is the sometimes open ended instructions given to some assignments, as this makes it a bit more difficult for me to gauge whether or not I'm on the right track. I did, however, recently read in the discussion board that this was intentional and I can see where the development team is going with the pedagogy. The only recommendation I might give is to provide a listing of useful information for commonly used MSLD tools or concepts such as the Brain, SEE-I charts, presentation tools, and the like. When I took MSLD520, I had to do a fair amount of digging to figure out the formatting for SEE-I and had to mull a bit on good presentation resources. MSLD500 did a very good job of introducing resources on these subjects as we went along, I just didn't have the benefit of it being my very first course
I would say that most of the material is relevant to my experiences or at the very least relevant to what I expect to see in the course. I believe the general critical thinking methods we've discussed will be useful in my work so long as I can recognize when to use them. Being able to evaluate my own thinking, as well as the thought process of my organization, may prove extremely beneficial. Although I don't anticipate conducting a lot of research projects at the office beyond occasional efficiency studies, I certainly expect them to come as I complete my degree program. Again, having taken a somewhat circuitous path to the Foundations course, I would say this particular course does prepare us for what is to come later in the program.
On the positive side of things, through the discussions I was able to see some other people's experiences in being students, thinking through their thinking, and their leadership experiences up through now. I also did take away some food for thought in the form of CARS, qualitative versus quantitative thinking, and the general concept of Action Research.
There were though, some things that required a bit of resiliency and adaptability on my part. Among other things, I've found that the parallel to life nature of online learning in the context of my personal life demands a level of time management and self-discipline that can match and exceed what I had to muster during college. Back then, studying was my primary job and I had more time dedicated to it, mostly needing to cram in ROTC and a personal life with minimal commuting time. Now I have about a 40 minute drive each way to the office, a roughly nine hour duty day, and the need to maintain some semblance of order in my bachelor household. This doesn't include getting tasks done and turned in during vacation or business trips, which can be yet another adventure unto itself. It's not impossible, but it does add a level of planning and removes some potential for spontaneity. To improve my overall learning experience, I may have to take more concentrated efforts to "schedule" school time throughout the week so that I have a greater yield of free time over the weekends. This may have to extend as well to scheduling time for house cleaning, time for preparing the week's meals, etc.
Given the nature of how the material is being delivered on an asynchronous timeline to individuals across the globe, I believe that the staff and faculty at ERAU are already doing a great job with support. I can say that so far I've never had to wait particularly long for replies to queries, and everything has been running fairly steadily. The only real gripe I've had is the sometimes open ended instructions given to some assignments, as this makes it a bit more difficult for me to gauge whether or not I'm on the right track. I did, however, recently read in the discussion board that this was intentional and I can see where the development team is going with the pedagogy. The only recommendation I might give is to provide a listing of useful information for commonly used MSLD tools or concepts such as the Brain, SEE-I charts, presentation tools, and the like. When I took MSLD520, I had to do a fair amount of digging to figure out the formatting for SEE-I and had to mull a bit on good presentation resources. MSLD500 did a very good job of introducing resources on these subjects as we went along, I just didn't have the benefit of it being my very first course
I would say that most of the material is relevant to my experiences or at the very least relevant to what I expect to see in the course. I believe the general critical thinking methods we've discussed will be useful in my work so long as I can recognize when to use them. Being able to evaluate my own thinking, as well as the thought process of my organization, may prove extremely beneficial. Although I don't anticipate conducting a lot of research projects at the office beyond occasional efficiency studies, I certainly expect them to come as I complete my degree program. Again, having taken a somewhat circuitous path to the Foundations course, I would say this particular course does prepare us for what is to come later in the program.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
A500.8.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
I believe this is at least the second time I've had to consider the question of presentation design, not counting about six years about learning and refining the craft of the brief. Many an evening has been spent slinging letters, clip art, and non-copyrighted images into countless slides, and I can say that formed my own thoughts on good slide design.
At the very least, I'm on board with avoiding the most egregious errors of making presentations, namely to make the slides the absolute focus of the presentation, creating walls of text that mirror your own words, and failing to consider the slides from the perspective of the audience. Of course, something that I've learned is important and that I continue to refine is my individual skills as a briefer in terms of appropriate body language and motions, eye contact, and aspects of speech such as enunciation, projection, and speed. Something I've done to help with this is try and "act" like a briefer, with a set of lines and motions to follow on the stage made of my presentation and the room I'm in. I'm not sure if there's any particular protocol on this, but it seems to have made the difference more than once even given vanilla slide design.
Having said that, what we've learned in Garr Reynold's writings on Presentation Zen is certainly worth integrating more not just into my coursework, but also in my daily work. The example slides were, in concept, very simple, but following the prescribed practices made them look infinitely more professional, and create significantly more stage presence than slides of a more generic appearance. There were also some finer details I wouldn't have considered, such as using a consistent theme but making minor adjustments, as Reynolds noted in his example with the red bar and paperclip motif. I also appreciate that he emphasized the idea that slides are only part of the equation, and that he mentioned some of the same things I learned in school about speaking, appropriate motions, and so on. In short, I felt he was advocating a relatively simple but thoughtful and detail oriented approach to presentations, one that also respects the relationship and holistic results of presenter and presentation.
What I would like to find out, and perhaps I'll read deeper into his website, is how exactly he makes those slides that jump off the page so well. It doesn't seem like something easily executed with off the shelf PowerPoint template solutions, and some of what he does with blending images into backgrounds looks like it would require either his own stock of images or a certain amount of photo editing. I did try to integrate his style into my work with Prezi, but running off of the templates and trying to match pre-licensed images as well made this task easier said than done. Results with PowerPoint also seems to vary greatly, based on what I've seen in the last week or so of slides at work. Some people followed the principles very well, and others were more typical.
To bottom line this, there are definitely techniques to be learned, and tools to be practiced. But there is no doubt that seemingly small details can make a big difference when combined with an effective speaker.
References
Reynolds, G. (n.d.). Presentation Zen: How to Design & Deliver Presentations Like a Pro. In Garr Reynolds Official Site. Retrieved July 18, 2012, from http://www.garrreynolds.com/Presentation/pdf/presentation_tips.pdf
Reynolds, G. (n.d.). The Big Four: Contrast, Repetition, Alignment, Proximity. In Presentation Zen. Retrieved July 18, 2012, from http://www.presentationzen.com/chapter6_spread.pdf
At the very least, I'm on board with avoiding the most egregious errors of making presentations, namely to make the slides the absolute focus of the presentation, creating walls of text that mirror your own words, and failing to consider the slides from the perspective of the audience. Of course, something that I've learned is important and that I continue to refine is my individual skills as a briefer in terms of appropriate body language and motions, eye contact, and aspects of speech such as enunciation, projection, and speed. Something I've done to help with this is try and "act" like a briefer, with a set of lines and motions to follow on the stage made of my presentation and the room I'm in. I'm not sure if there's any particular protocol on this, but it seems to have made the difference more than once even given vanilla slide design.
Having said that, what we've learned in Garr Reynold's writings on Presentation Zen is certainly worth integrating more not just into my coursework, but also in my daily work. The example slides were, in concept, very simple, but following the prescribed practices made them look infinitely more professional, and create significantly more stage presence than slides of a more generic appearance. There were also some finer details I wouldn't have considered, such as using a consistent theme but making minor adjustments, as Reynolds noted in his example with the red bar and paperclip motif. I also appreciate that he emphasized the idea that slides are only part of the equation, and that he mentioned some of the same things I learned in school about speaking, appropriate motions, and so on. In short, I felt he was advocating a relatively simple but thoughtful and detail oriented approach to presentations, one that also respects the relationship and holistic results of presenter and presentation.
What I would like to find out, and perhaps I'll read deeper into his website, is how exactly he makes those slides that jump off the page so well. It doesn't seem like something easily executed with off the shelf PowerPoint template solutions, and some of what he does with blending images into backgrounds looks like it would require either his own stock of images or a certain amount of photo editing. I did try to integrate his style into my work with Prezi, but running off of the templates and trying to match pre-licensed images as well made this task easier said than done. Results with PowerPoint also seems to vary greatly, based on what I've seen in the last week or so of slides at work. Some people followed the principles very well, and others were more typical.
To bottom line this, there are definitely techniques to be learned, and tools to be practiced. But there is no doubt that seemingly small details can make a big difference when combined with an effective speaker.
References
Reynolds, G. (n.d.). Presentation Zen: How to Design & Deliver Presentations Like a Pro. In Garr Reynolds Official Site. Retrieved July 18, 2012, from http://www.garrreynolds.com/Presentation/pdf/presentation_tips.pdf
Reynolds, G. (n.d.). The Big Four: Contrast, Repetition, Alignment, Proximity. In Presentation Zen. Retrieved July 18, 2012, from http://www.presentationzen.com/chapter6_spread.pdf
Sunday, July 15, 2012
A500.7.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Quantitative research, according to the slides by Tero Mamia, is "based around the idea that social phenomena can be quantified, measured, and expressed numerically." This is in contrast to qualitative research that is more focused on coding not based upon hard numbers and statistics. Whereas qualitative research "aims at understanding" and answers primarily the question of "how", quantitative research "aims at (causal) explanation) and primarily answers the question of "why". Both methods, according to Mamia, can aim at a description of social reality, and can be complementary rather than contradictory as they take different paths on research and perspectives for the same question.
Mamia also laid out an outline of the quantitative method. It's useful to know that the overall method is "based on the idea that social phenomena can be quantified, measured, and expressed numerically." The information gained can be expressed in numeric terms and thus analyzed by statistical methods, or even be classified into numeric variables.
Quantitative Research, like most other research methods, comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. On the side of strengths, it does allow research of structures and processes not direclty observable, it is well suited for quantitative description and comparisons, and works well for description of change as well as analysis and explanation of causal dependencies between phenomena.
The weaknesses to be considered are ones arguably inherent to anything depending on raw numbers. It can potentially simplify or "compress" the complex reality and thus make it somewhat constrained. It's only applicable for things that can be measured or quantified, and presumes the necessary knowledge to ask "correct" questions. Not only that, but quantitative research makes it difficult to study processes or "dynamic" phenomenon, creating a static view of reality, and makes it harder to catch onto the intentions and meanings when an actor's perspectives are described.
The would be researcher also needs to bear research in mind as dialogue between theory and empirical observations. Theory will direct observation, and provide a framework for the research. This leads into the planning of the research, which includes selection of the theme or topic, getting familiar with any previous research, selecting a theoretical approach, specifying the research problem, and planning the empirical research process through research design. Research design would include elements such descriptions, the time dimension involved, target population, method of data collection such as sampling representative groups via surveys and observation, and so on. On top of these considerations and arguably most importantly, the researcher must remember to never do harm to their participants, ensure informed consent and anonymity, and thus earn the confidence of the participants.
References
Mamia, Tero "Quantitative Research Methods" https://erau.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/institution/Worldwide_Online/MSLD%20500/msld_500_quant_research_methods_lecture1_tero_mamia.pdf
Accessed 14 July 2012
Mamia also laid out an outline of the quantitative method. It's useful to know that the overall method is "based on the idea that social phenomena can be quantified, measured, and expressed numerically." The information gained can be expressed in numeric terms and thus analyzed by statistical methods, or even be classified into numeric variables.
Quantitative Research, like most other research methods, comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. On the side of strengths, it does allow research of structures and processes not direclty observable, it is well suited for quantitative description and comparisons, and works well for description of change as well as analysis and explanation of causal dependencies between phenomena.
The weaknesses to be considered are ones arguably inherent to anything depending on raw numbers. It can potentially simplify or "compress" the complex reality and thus make it somewhat constrained. It's only applicable for things that can be measured or quantified, and presumes the necessary knowledge to ask "correct" questions. Not only that, but quantitative research makes it difficult to study processes or "dynamic" phenomenon, creating a static view of reality, and makes it harder to catch onto the intentions and meanings when an actor's perspectives are described.
The would be researcher also needs to bear research in mind as dialogue between theory and empirical observations. Theory will direct observation, and provide a framework for the research. This leads into the planning of the research, which includes selection of the theme or topic, getting familiar with any previous research, selecting a theoretical approach, specifying the research problem, and planning the empirical research process through research design. Research design would include elements such descriptions, the time dimension involved, target population, method of data collection such as sampling representative groups via surveys and observation, and so on. On top of these considerations and arguably most importantly, the researcher must remember to never do harm to their participants, ensure informed consent and anonymity, and thus earn the confidence of the participants.
References
Mamia, Tero "Quantitative Research Methods" https://erau.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/institution/Worldwide_Online/MSLD%20500/msld_500_quant_research_methods_lecture1_tero_mamia.pdf
Accessed 14 July 2012
Sunday, July 8, 2012
A500.6.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
I must admit, when I first read the term "qualitative research", that kind of flew in the fact of everything I knew up to this point about research. Sure, I've done research papers in the liberal arts that were very qualitative and based on people's writings, but I couldn't easily see this being used for a formal study. But the idea is certainly an interesting one.
Hoepfl's definition captured the idea very nicely, stating that qualitative research "...broadly defined, means 'any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification'." In short, it's research that doesn't rely on raw numbers.
One first needs to be aware of situations where a qualitative method is appropriate. Hoepfl' writes that these methods are appropriate when one first needs to find the variables for later quantitative testing, or where a researcher determines that a quantitative measure can't "accurately describe or interpret a situation". Thus, the problems tend to be framed as open ended questions that facilitate "discovery of new information".
Hoepfl also synthesized the findings of several writer's viewpoints on qualitative researched and summarized these in a list that defined feature's of qualitative research. First, the research uses a natural setting as the source of data, with the researcher observing and interpreting yet maintaining neutrality. The researcher will also act in the capacity of a "human instrument" of data collection, and will also predominantly be using "inductive data analysis". A qualitative research report will also have some unique characteristics. Among other things, these reports are more descriptive and expressive in their language. There is also what Hoepfl calls an "interpretive character" in the research, "...aimed at discovering the meaning events have for the individuals who experience them". In dealing with all this, a researcher needs to "pay attention to the idiosyncratic as well as the pervasive," and understand what makes each case unique. It must also be understood that this research is of an emergent design, and needs to be judged with special criteria for trustworthiness.
The researcher, being an instrument of the research itself, also has some special considerations. Hoepfl writes they must adopt a stances suggested by characteristics of the naturalist paradigm, and they need to develop an appropriate skill level, as well as prepare their research design to use strategies for naturalistic inquiry. To this end, there are some general steps for the design of a naturalistic inquiry to include determining and planning: a focus for the inquiry, the fit of the research paradigm to the focus, how data is collected, what the phases of the inquiry will be, what other instrumentation may be used, the collection and recording modes for the data, which analysis procedures will be used, logistics of data collection, and techniques for determining trustworthiness. These steps, in turn, have a number of sub-steps and points of consideration.
Overall, Hoepfl recognized that qualitative research can be taxing upon the researcher and consumer a significant amount of time. The researcher will also bear much of the burden for discovering and interpreting the importance of their findings, as well as establishing connections between observations and conclusions. However, this type of research can also yield results not easily acquired through conventional statistical techniques.
Hoepfl's definition captured the idea very nicely, stating that qualitative research "...broadly defined, means 'any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification'." In short, it's research that doesn't rely on raw numbers.
One first needs to be aware of situations where a qualitative method is appropriate. Hoepfl' writes that these methods are appropriate when one first needs to find the variables for later quantitative testing, or where a researcher determines that a quantitative measure can't "accurately describe or interpret a situation". Thus, the problems tend to be framed as open ended questions that facilitate "discovery of new information".
Hoepfl also synthesized the findings of several writer's viewpoints on qualitative researched and summarized these in a list that defined feature's of qualitative research. First, the research uses a natural setting as the source of data, with the researcher observing and interpreting yet maintaining neutrality. The researcher will also act in the capacity of a "human instrument" of data collection, and will also predominantly be using "inductive data analysis". A qualitative research report will also have some unique characteristics. Among other things, these reports are more descriptive and expressive in their language. There is also what Hoepfl calls an "interpretive character" in the research, "...aimed at discovering the meaning events have for the individuals who experience them". In dealing with all this, a researcher needs to "pay attention to the idiosyncratic as well as the pervasive," and understand what makes each case unique. It must also be understood that this research is of an emergent design, and needs to be judged with special criteria for trustworthiness.
The researcher, being an instrument of the research itself, also has some special considerations. Hoepfl writes they must adopt a stances suggested by characteristics of the naturalist paradigm, and they need to develop an appropriate skill level, as well as prepare their research design to use strategies for naturalistic inquiry. To this end, there are some general steps for the design of a naturalistic inquiry to include determining and planning: a focus for the inquiry, the fit of the research paradigm to the focus, how data is collected, what the phases of the inquiry will be, what other instrumentation may be used, the collection and recording modes for the data, which analysis procedures will be used, logistics of data collection, and techniques for determining trustworthiness. These steps, in turn, have a number of sub-steps and points of consideration.
Overall, Hoepfl recognized that qualitative research can be taxing upon the researcher and consumer a significant amount of time. The researcher will also bear much of the burden for discovering and interpreting the importance of their findings, as well as establishing connections between observations and conclusions. However, this type of research can also yield results not easily acquired through conventional statistical techniques.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
A500.5.3_SienkiewiczRaymond
When I first came into the course, my concept of critical thinking went so far as an amalgamation of the three definitions offered in the first chapter of our text. I knew critical thinking was basically thinking about my thinking in order to improve my thinking. That's about all there was to it, and it seemed like a much more soft, perhaps philosophical line of thought for me.
Now however, I've been working with the subject long enough to realize that there is a much more robust framework for the study of critical thinking than I previously thought. There is definitely a much deeper realm of terminology, processes, and factors than I previously thought, and I feel I'm only just beginning to really understand it all. Although I might have been taught in the ways of the elements of reasoning, as well as the standards of critical thinking, I definitely can't say that I consciously think about this in my day to day problem solving, and I would have to sit down to think about whether or not I might have used the concepts unconsciously during the course of a regular day.
So, frankly speaking, unless I just happen to be unknowingly running through the process, I think I still have to invest further time in internalizing the techniques and concepts for maximum effect beyond the class environment. What I might have to do is on a weekly basis, take a problem that isn't especially time sensitive and attempt to analyze it in the context of the elements of critical thinking and check my thoughts against the standards of critical thinking. I might even compare that to my "gut reaction" I might have gone with had I not engaged in thoughtful, critical thinking.
Admittedly, I'm not currently at the level of performance one might aspire to be, but I am under the impression that this is one of those skills that one is never really "done" learning, but rather continuously builds upon and refines over a lifetime. It won't be an overnight process, but I do think it would do me good to be more sensitive to these themes.
Now however, I've been working with the subject long enough to realize that there is a much more robust framework for the study of critical thinking than I previously thought. There is definitely a much deeper realm of terminology, processes, and factors than I previously thought, and I feel I'm only just beginning to really understand it all. Although I might have been taught in the ways of the elements of reasoning, as well as the standards of critical thinking, I definitely can't say that I consciously think about this in my day to day problem solving, and I would have to sit down to think about whether or not I might have used the concepts unconsciously during the course of a regular day.
So, frankly speaking, unless I just happen to be unknowingly running through the process, I think I still have to invest further time in internalizing the techniques and concepts for maximum effect beyond the class environment. What I might have to do is on a weekly basis, take a problem that isn't especially time sensitive and attempt to analyze it in the context of the elements of critical thinking and check my thoughts against the standards of critical thinking. I might even compare that to my "gut reaction" I might have gone with had I not engaged in thoughtful, critical thinking.
Admittedly, I'm not currently at the level of performance one might aspire to be, but I am under the impression that this is one of those skills that one is never really "done" learning, but rather continuously builds upon and refines over a lifetime. It won't be an overnight process, but I do think it would do me good to be more sensitive to these themes.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
A500.4.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Dr. Sheena Iyengar proposes the assumptions that Americans generally believe in the ideas of making your own choices, having more options to make better choices, and that one should never refuse more choices. Frankly speaking, I agree with her on all fronts. The most readily apparent demonstration of this is in the American consumer marketplace, and it goes further than Burger King's former tagline of "Have It Your Way." Indeed, it seems to me that more so than ever there is an emphasis not just on choices but an increasing individuality.
On one end of the choice spectrum, you may still see some businesses that pride themselves on a measure of simplicity such as the In-N-Out fast food chain, but nonetheless maintain a sense of choice by allowing adjustments to the basic choices. In-N-Out has capitalized on this by running with the mystique of their "secret menu," an official-unofficial list of extra topping and preparation options for their food. More intense opportunities for choice have come to market in recent years. Apparel companies such as Nike and New Balance have made a number of products that can have the color of every shoe component selected by the customer. Some automakers have gone this route as well, with BMW's Mini offering a number of paint and accessory options from the factory, and Toyota's Scion brand advertising their cars as both basic transportation and blank canvases for customization. The culture of choice can be seen here, and in the many different versions of any given item you may be looking for at the local Wal-Mart or Target.
When applied to leadership, this brings up some interesting implications from the standpoint of being a follower and being a leader. In the context of one of the cultures or groups that Dr. Iyengar mentions as being accustomed to everything being the same or not having nearly as many variants, the boss may be the boss and the situation may be the situation, for better or for worse. There may not be a notion of a better or worse way to conduct business. In the context of what we're assuming is the typically American culture of choice, this would be very different. A subordinate might feel like they have a choice of leadership or command climates, and depending on circumstances may speak up or may simply leave their position to join another organization. By that same token, there may or may not be an expectation of being empowered or having a say in the situation. If people are used to having a choice, they may not be used to running with the orders of a boss that doesn't practice empowerment. From the perspective of leadership, in a culture of choice I could see a greater likelihood that a leader would feel they're free to choose their methodology, subordinates, and expectations. A leader in a non-choice culture may be more inclined to proceed on with the status quo.
Her last point about never saying no to choice also brings up potential pitfalls for leading general problem solving. I could see a possibility where an individual gets faced with a situation that has one answer that would seem like the right choice to most people, but they may spend excess time and energy seeking potential alternatives due to the expectation of choice or misgivings about the "only option." This in turn may lead to "paralysis by analysis", and in seeking choices, no choice is made at all. On a related note, in a situation where for whatever reason there really is only one viable option, any expectation of choice and refusal to say no to choice, may make it more difficult for a team to come to terms with having the one solution and giving their full effort towards it.
For what it's worth, a context of choice in relation to leadership is not unto itself a good or bad thing. The good or bad that comes out of having choice is based upon the actual choices made in a given situation. It should be noted though, that the existence of choice arguably gives the greatest leverage towards positive change and improvement in a leadership environment.
When applied to leadership, this brings up some interesting implications from the standpoint of being a follower and being a leader. In the context of one of the cultures or groups that Dr. Iyengar mentions as being accustomed to everything being the same or not having nearly as many variants, the boss may be the boss and the situation may be the situation, for better or for worse. There may not be a notion of a better or worse way to conduct business. In the context of what we're assuming is the typically American culture of choice, this would be very different. A subordinate might feel like they have a choice of leadership or command climates, and depending on circumstances may speak up or may simply leave their position to join another organization. By that same token, there may or may not be an expectation of being empowered or having a say in the situation. If people are used to having a choice, they may not be used to running with the orders of a boss that doesn't practice empowerment. From the perspective of leadership, in a culture of choice I could see a greater likelihood that a leader would feel they're free to choose their methodology, subordinates, and expectations. A leader in a non-choice culture may be more inclined to proceed on with the status quo.
Her last point about never saying no to choice also brings up potential pitfalls for leading general problem solving. I could see a possibility where an individual gets faced with a situation that has one answer that would seem like the right choice to most people, but they may spend excess time and energy seeking potential alternatives due to the expectation of choice or misgivings about the "only option." This in turn may lead to "paralysis by analysis", and in seeking choices, no choice is made at all. On a related note, in a situation where for whatever reason there really is only one viable option, any expectation of choice and refusal to say no to choice, may make it more difficult for a team to come to terms with having the one solution and giving their full effort towards it.
For what it's worth, a context of choice in relation to leadership is not unto itself a good or bad thing. The good or bad that comes out of having choice is based upon the actual choices made in a given situation. It should be noted though, that the existence of choice arguably gives the greatest leverage towards positive change and improvement in a leadership environment.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
A500.3.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
One can argue that information is information, wherever you may find it. However, especially in a day and age where anyone can post just about anything to the web, there is increasingly the question of quality. Add to that the academic environment's demand for intellectual rigor and originality, and it becomes more imperative to make sure your sources meet standards of credibility.
What I think sets the Hunt Library apart from a standard Google search is the scope of the information you have to sift through. Assuming a general Google search (and not the Google Scholar option), you'll likely pull up a number studies and articles, and these can very well be on legitimate news sites or academic sites. But you'll also likely end up with a scattering of Wikipedia related articles or posts from community blogs and forums that, although potentially interesting perspectives to look at, do not carry the highest guarantee of credibility for research or academic writing. It also should be noted that Google does make a measure of profit off of advertisement, and one way this is done is by posting a pertinent advertised result at the very top of the search list. In the context of a search on leadership, this will likely yield multiple results in the area of leadership courses, self help books, consultants, etc. That's not to say Google should be entirely ruled out. If used carefully, it does have the potential to find newer information, and is very useful for finding graphics or videos you may want to use in a presentation.
With a library search, you have the benefit of a tighter scope and more rigorous standards, as the main customer of a library search is the student or an academic working under their respective considerations for work. Besides that, there are other tertiary benefits, one of which includes the availability of the library's database subscriptions. Rather than having to scour through available magazines at the local bookseller, or wading through a large body of articles in multiple subjects, you can usually select a subject database and have a list of pertinent, highly respectable sources. For example, the Hunt Library has a Defense/Military subject, which can lead me to a database for Jane's or Air University. There is also the opportunity available to contact a reference librarian and get some additional research assistance if required. While this may be a drier and less colorful means of searching, and while you may still have to sift for the pertinent information, you will have potentially less doubt about a source and may be better able to utilize it towards a paper or project.The main catch, of course, is understanding the library's or database's search functions well enough to find what you need with minimum stress.
At the very end of the day though, much of the responsibility for verifying the usefulness and legitimacy will fall upon those who use the data for their own purposes. Much of the world's information, whether obtained from Google or from the Hunt Library, has its use or place in the thoughts of the people. The key is to take appropriate measures, to include critical thinking, to ensure the information received will in fact enable the greater discovery of truth or continued advancement of our fields of study.
What I think sets the Hunt Library apart from a standard Google search is the scope of the information you have to sift through. Assuming a general Google search (and not the Google Scholar option), you'll likely pull up a number studies and articles, and these can very well be on legitimate news sites or academic sites. But you'll also likely end up with a scattering of Wikipedia related articles or posts from community blogs and forums that, although potentially interesting perspectives to look at, do not carry the highest guarantee of credibility for research or academic writing. It also should be noted that Google does make a measure of profit off of advertisement, and one way this is done is by posting a pertinent advertised result at the very top of the search list. In the context of a search on leadership, this will likely yield multiple results in the area of leadership courses, self help books, consultants, etc. That's not to say Google should be entirely ruled out. If used carefully, it does have the potential to find newer information, and is very useful for finding graphics or videos you may want to use in a presentation.
With a library search, you have the benefit of a tighter scope and more rigorous standards, as the main customer of a library search is the student or an academic working under their respective considerations for work. Besides that, there are other tertiary benefits, one of which includes the availability of the library's database subscriptions. Rather than having to scour through available magazines at the local bookseller, or wading through a large body of articles in multiple subjects, you can usually select a subject database and have a list of pertinent, highly respectable sources. For example, the Hunt Library has a Defense/Military subject, which can lead me to a database for Jane's or Air University. There is also the opportunity available to contact a reference librarian and get some additional research assistance if required. While this may be a drier and less colorful means of searching, and while you may still have to sift for the pertinent information, you will have potentially less doubt about a source and may be better able to utilize it towards a paper or project.The main catch, of course, is understanding the library's or database's search functions well enough to find what you need with minimum stress.
At the very end of the day though, much of the responsibility for verifying the usefulness and legitimacy will fall upon those who use the data for their own purposes. Much of the world's information, whether obtained from Google or from the Hunt Library, has its use or place in the thoughts of the people. The key is to take appropriate measures, to include critical thinking, to ensure the information received will in fact enable the greater discovery of truth or continued advancement of our fields of study.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
A500.2.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In my life, I tend to place a high importance on maintaining
standards of duty and reliability, the former of which may be a non-critical
standard, and the latter listed in the text as a critical standard. These
standards were admittedly not ones I was born with, but sometime towards the
end of high school and the beginning of college it developed. Somewhere along
the line, I made a generally solid effort to do what I told people I was going
to do and stick with it, mainly as a matter of principle as well as trying to
avoid being the very thing that often annoyed me in the form of people that
didn't follow through. At this point, this was how I did my business, but it
wasn't necessarily at the forefront of my thinking when I did something.
It was
progressively through my time in college and ROTC that these standards became
further fixed in my psyche and my daily routine. Initially, I think this developed
more out of a cultivated sense that I could do better than I did in school up
to that point, had I given a more sincere effort to my studies. ROTC added
further incentive, as performance in the classroom and in our activities would
play some role in our future career path. I fostered the mindset of “mission
first”, and my mission at that time was to do well in school. However, it was during summer field training following my sophomore year that doing my duty and doing
it reliably became deeply rooted. Besides getting the boot camp experience and
being issued a few missing spine vertebrae, I'd taken more to not just simply
doing my basic job on time, but I also became much more open to taking more up
front responsibility for my achievements and my mistakes, and to going the extra mile for the
greater good of the team even if it meant more effort or discomfort on my part.
In the roughly six
years since then, I've held on to those same standards and continued to refine
them in different contexts as an upper level college student, an officer
trainee, and an active duty officer. I habitually take on additional taskings
to help around the unit so long as I have the time available and my work
doesn't suffer, and particularly if I can contribute one of my better developed skill
sets. I make it a point to see tasks through and follow up on communication,
and from this I have received a lot of positive feedback from my supervisors.
Besides that, although I've found my current line of work as being a mixture of
the mundane and the highly stressful, I've used these standards as my personal
compass to keep me on course and press through any difficulties I come
across. Although it would be very easy for me to simply stop caring and do the
bare minimum to get paid, the certain something that gave me the drive to do
more keeps kicking back in, refusing to settle for less.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
A500.1.5.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
To me, the definition of intellectual perseverance can be boiled
down to sticking with intellectual insights and truths in all circumstances,
being ready to maintain rationality in the face of irrational opposition, and
being willing to not settle but rather continue working through any confusion
and tough questions to reach deeper insights. To expound, through fresh through
processes or the introduction of new information, one may come upon new
intellectual insights, or rediscover a truth that’s relevant to their
circumstances. Although others may be insistent on sticking to a particular
point of view no matter how irrational, the persevering person must be willing
to stand by their truths and insights. One might compare this to instances in
history when a very firmly established status quo was disturbed by new, logical
insights. Examples can include the idea of a heliocentric system of planets as
championed by Copernicus and Galileo in a time when the world still largely held
an Earth centered view of space.
Additionally, a person may also be faced with truths presented to
them that are difficult to easily comprehend or integrate into their thinking. Trying
new leadership methods or learning an entirely new field of study is not easy
and requires work from the outset. To truly understand a concept and know it
from every direction requires one to maintain the will to ask questions, and to
keep digging for answers to those very questions.
I think this type
of perseverance, as well as perseverance in general, will prove important as
the very nature of pursuing studies in leadership demands the mental
flexibility to consider different perspectives, think through new ideas, and
perhaps take a long hard look at whether or not my version of "business as
usual" is the best thing I can do for my leadership development. It isn't
necessarily comfortable or fun to put in the work to gain that kind of
understanding. But the potential benefits are certainly there, and worth
pursuing. Perhaps by building a bit of mental fortitude and maintaining a
measure of solid discipline, I will be better able to add to my leadership
toolkit, be better able to consider different courses of actions, and upend
some of the appeals to tradition that tend to circulate around the office if
circumstances don’t demand otherwise.
Thinking about my
concept of a leader, I think intellectual perseverance would act as a major
fixture, for I consider a good leader to be someone that can craft or select a
sensible course of action, and have both the fortitude to stand by their
decision if it was a truly reasonable decision, and the courage to make
adjustments if the situation necessitates a change. Drawing another example from history, there were plenty of people in the military and in seats of power who thought that the airplane would never be a viable part of military doctrine. Despite risk to his career and much unfounded opposition, General Billy Mitchell continued to advocate for air power, and today many not only recognize the need for air superiority in a military operation, but day to day life in the world is enhanced by how much smaller the world becomes with routine flights moving people and commerce. This I think is also the way of the great leaders and the great innovators of our time...they were people that could find that next big idea, and run with it.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
A520.9.5.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Whether or not I feel comfortable on the actual act of developing my sources of personal power is a mixed bag...frankly, although I understand the value of exerting influence and the like, I tend to be a passive and congenial personality. But I do realize its something I will have to work on whether I enjoy it or not. I'm not a stranger to these sources of personal power, and I recognize the need to continue improving what I can if I expect to make much of a career out of being a leader.
As for if I'm a likable person? Generally, I'd like to think I am. Admittedly I can be a little daft in the finest of social cues and don't consider myself especially sociable, but I am nodding my head a lot as I read over the table on page 290 of the text. I frequently encourage people to be straight forward with me, and I do my best to be tactfully open with other people, and to be loyal to the people I've had the good fortune to consider friends or trusted colleagues. I consider myself to be for the most part non-judgmental, to possess a very sympathetic ear, and I tend to be very cognizant about the sacrifices or exchanges necessary to maintain balance in my relationships. Overall, although I've never been insanely popular, in recent years I seem to have developed a knack for being a generally likable, or at the very least very inoffensive guy to have around. This has helped me be a member or at least an observer of multiple social circles that I've encountered in recent years, some of which had no connection to the others and could have very broad ranges of personalities.
Regarding how well I'm able to influence up and down my chain of command, I'm more uncertain of that. I do have fairly good working relationships with my immediate supervisor and my commander. I get the big picture goals, have seen more of what the senior leadership has to deal with, and have picked up on strengths and weaknesses. I also try to keep my supervisors in the loop on issues. However, I'm still working on the broader concept of fitting my work styles to theirs, and make improvements to my use of their time and resources. Its not so much that I squander them, but often I try to get by without bothering them. When I do, its usually to get more specific guidance, and at that point, I've ceded some of my influence. Having said that, the fact that a junior officer like myself is able to work closely with senior leadership does suggest a reasonably high level of trust, and although I kind of default to a high level of followership, I think they still respect my input where its warranted or necessary.
As for if I'm a likable person? Generally, I'd like to think I am. Admittedly I can be a little daft in the finest of social cues and don't consider myself especially sociable, but I am nodding my head a lot as I read over the table on page 290 of the text. I frequently encourage people to be straight forward with me, and I do my best to be tactfully open with other people, and to be loyal to the people I've had the good fortune to consider friends or trusted colleagues. I consider myself to be for the most part non-judgmental, to possess a very sympathetic ear, and I tend to be very cognizant about the sacrifices or exchanges necessary to maintain balance in my relationships. Overall, although I've never been insanely popular, in recent years I seem to have developed a knack for being a generally likable, or at the very least very inoffensive guy to have around. This has helped me be a member or at least an observer of multiple social circles that I've encountered in recent years, some of which had no connection to the others and could have very broad ranges of personalities.
Regarding how well I'm able to influence up and down my chain of command, I'm more uncertain of that. I do have fairly good working relationships with my immediate supervisor and my commander. I get the big picture goals, have seen more of what the senior leadership has to deal with, and have picked up on strengths and weaknesses. I also try to keep my supervisors in the loop on issues. However, I'm still working on the broader concept of fitting my work styles to theirs, and make improvements to my use of their time and resources. Its not so much that I squander them, but often I try to get by without bothering them. When I do, its usually to get more specific guidance, and at that point, I've ceded some of my influence. Having said that, the fact that a junior officer like myself is able to work closely with senior leadership does suggest a reasonably high level of trust, and although I kind of default to a high level of followership, I think they still respect my input where its warranted or necessary.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
A520.7.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In my profession, there is strong recognition for the importance and impact of good coaching and mentorship...so much so that it's mandatory to receive feedback at least once a year, and the organizational culture strongly encourages (read, expects) junior officers to attend the mentorship or career broadening discussion that comes with every visit of a senior officer.
These expectations, however, do not diminish the coaching and mentoring process, for most anyone that plans to be a career military officer understands that most learning takes place in absorbing knowledge from your superiors, as well as your senior enlisted subordinates. Often times, these senior leaders had to demonstrate their capability to rise in the ranks, and it is they who signs off on performance reports and may very well have say in your next assignment. Thus, it behooves the up and coming officer to learn the best of every senior officer they come across, and to integrate it into their developing leadership style.
I do want to add that for me personally, an interest in coaching and mentorship isn't only due to professional tradition, but also because I've come to highly value the feedback I have received over the years. I'm admittedly my own harshest critic at times, and during the coaching/feedback sessions I've received I usually received a more even-handed evaluation of how I'm doing and can draw some motivation. More importantly though, I get a third party perspective on what needs work, which often gives some confirmation of potential areas of improvement I had been thinking about but can just as often bring new areas to my attention. I definitely owe a lot of my leadership development over the last couple of years to having received good coaching.
Most general mentorship sessions are also valuable for me in either reaffirming that even the most experienced leaders had to go through some of the same growing pains I've had to deal with, and sometimes I even gain some additional perspective on focus areas or the kind of leader I'd like to develop into. As cliche as it may sound, there's still something to be said for being able to candidly sit down with someone who has been doing what I'm doing for anywhere from ten to twenty years, and hearing about how they handled challenges that came their way.
Bottom line, having that coaching and mentorship experience is probably the single most valuable aspects of my profession, and even in my daily life has had some of the highest impact on and off the job.
These expectations, however, do not diminish the coaching and mentoring process, for most anyone that plans to be a career military officer understands that most learning takes place in absorbing knowledge from your superiors, as well as your senior enlisted subordinates. Often times, these senior leaders had to demonstrate their capability to rise in the ranks, and it is they who signs off on performance reports and may very well have say in your next assignment. Thus, it behooves the up and coming officer to learn the best of every senior officer they come across, and to integrate it into their developing leadership style.
I do want to add that for me personally, an interest in coaching and mentorship isn't only due to professional tradition, but also because I've come to highly value the feedback I have received over the years. I'm admittedly my own harshest critic at times, and during the coaching/feedback sessions I've received I usually received a more even-handed evaluation of how I'm doing and can draw some motivation. More importantly though, I get a third party perspective on what needs work, which often gives some confirmation of potential areas of improvement I had been thinking about but can just as often bring new areas to my attention. I definitely owe a lot of my leadership development over the last couple of years to having received good coaching.
Most general mentorship sessions are also valuable for me in either reaffirming that even the most experienced leaders had to go through some of the same growing pains I've had to deal with, and sometimes I even gain some additional perspective on focus areas or the kind of leader I'd like to develop into. As cliche as it may sound, there's still something to be said for being able to candidly sit down with someone who has been doing what I'm doing for anywhere from ten to twenty years, and hearing about how they handled challenges that came their way.
Bottom line, having that coaching and mentorship experience is probably the single most valuable aspects of my profession, and even in my daily life has had some of the highest impact on and off the job.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
A520.6.5.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
With regards to the group setting and how I generally relate to the team, I find myself somewhat split. By necessity of me often being designated as supervisor or officer in charge, I have to take on elements of a task-facilitating role. This happens in that I'm often seeking information on an issue, giving information to superiors or clients, and almost always passing instructions to my subordinates and monitoring their progress. That, however, requires me to be consciously taking on that role and acting accordingly. I find that if I'm left to my own devices and not designated as a leader, such as in a class setting or team effort not related to my work, I fall into a relationship-building role. In most average group settings, I tend to blend in more and am more apt to occasionally relieve tension, help with development or the construction of consensus, and sometimes empathize with the plight at hand. Generally speaking, that kind of interaction felt more comfortable to me than taking the lead on tasking.
Again, by nature of being the supervisor, its quite necessary for me to engage with my teams in order to get orders out to them, as well as to receive any feedback for queries or updates on action taken so I can update my leadership. I do, however, make it a practice to do more than just that. I try and regularly check in the offices on which I have oversight to see to their general welfare, and I might even casually chat as well.
On that same token, I am cognizant of trying to maintain our cohesion and general collaboration with the rest of the unit and our clients. I heard more than once in my bachelor's program about the idea of horizontal communication, and I try to promote that wherever I go, as having everyone in synch with the information available is often critical. Again, I'm also somewhat prone towards relationship building, so I'm often trying to get everyone's buy in on the issue at hand, or otherwise trying to encourage us forward as necessary.
Again, by nature of being the supervisor, its quite necessary for me to engage with my teams in order to get orders out to them, as well as to receive any feedback for queries or updates on action taken so I can update my leadership. I do, however, make it a practice to do more than just that. I try and regularly check in the offices on which I have oversight to see to their general welfare, and I might even casually chat as well.
On that same token, I am cognizant of trying to maintain our cohesion and general collaboration with the rest of the unit and our clients. I heard more than once in my bachelor's program about the idea of horizontal communication, and I try to promote that wherever I go, as having everyone in synch with the information available is often critical. Again, I'm also somewhat prone towards relationship building, so I'm often trying to get everyone's buy in on the issue at hand, or otherwise trying to encourage us forward as necessary.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
A520.5.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Russ Forrester's Empowerment: Rejuvenating a Potent Idea, and what's written in Whetten and Cameron's Developing Management Skills presents what seems to be similar thoughts on the same topic of empowerment, but they have some subtle variance in tone and how they word what is good or bad for empowerment. On top of that, they also have subtle differences in their definition of empowerment.
To begin, they both agree on the use of the word "empowerment" and that it does involve power. Forrester sees empowerment as implying the freedom and ability to make decisions, rather than merely suggesting participation. The bottom line given is that empowerment is about power and its enhancement. Whetten and Cameron provide a definition more towards personal development, stating not only that to empower is to enable, but that it means "to help people develop a sense of self-confidence", and to "overcome feelings of powerlessness or helplessness". So, both considered the power aspect, but one took in more consideration of the individual being empowered.
As for how they discuss the best conditions or methods for empowerment, although they may use different terms, both writings have the same general idea. Among other things, the necessary resources need to be provided to subordinates, and the people themselves need to be supported as well via positive emotions or getting needed assistance with any obstacles. Additionally, both call for stating clear goals and maintaining a sense of what needs to be accomplished.
Where there seems to be more notable differences is in the discussion of what can go wrong in empowerment. The textbook's noted issues are few and seem rather broad, mainly noting the that the individual responsible for delegation may not think their subordinates can handle the work at hand, or may maintain a high need for control over the situation and thus may micromanage the work. Forrester, on the other hand, presents six common issues to contrast his six channels for empowerment, and mainly warns against a one size fits all style, relying too heavily on the idea and not the actual act of empowerment, not getting buy in from the organization or not being well invested in empowerment, and not adjusting the overall work system for the changes made in a smaller part. Overall, the text's chapter makes some broader strokes on the idea of empowerment, mostly on the positive aspects and how to make it happen. Forrester, on the other hand, noted both potential pit falls and means for success in the format of six bullets to both halves of the story, taking a very structured approach to the discussion.
To begin, they both agree on the use of the word "empowerment" and that it does involve power. Forrester sees empowerment as implying the freedom and ability to make decisions, rather than merely suggesting participation. The bottom line given is that empowerment is about power and its enhancement. Whetten and Cameron provide a definition more towards personal development, stating not only that to empower is to enable, but that it means "to help people develop a sense of self-confidence", and to "overcome feelings of powerlessness or helplessness". So, both considered the power aspect, but one took in more consideration of the individual being empowered.
As for how they discuss the best conditions or methods for empowerment, although they may use different terms, both writings have the same general idea. Among other things, the necessary resources need to be provided to subordinates, and the people themselves need to be supported as well via positive emotions or getting needed assistance with any obstacles. Additionally, both call for stating clear goals and maintaining a sense of what needs to be accomplished.
Where there seems to be more notable differences is in the discussion of what can go wrong in empowerment. The textbook's noted issues are few and seem rather broad, mainly noting the that the individual responsible for delegation may not think their subordinates can handle the work at hand, or may maintain a high need for control over the situation and thus may micromanage the work. Forrester, on the other hand, presents six common issues to contrast his six channels for empowerment, and mainly warns against a one size fits all style, relying too heavily on the idea and not the actual act of empowerment, not getting buy in from the organization or not being well invested in empowerment, and not adjusting the overall work system for the changes made in a smaller part. Overall, the text's chapter makes some broader strokes on the idea of empowerment, mostly on the positive aspects and how to make it happen. Forrester, on the other hand, noted both potential pit falls and means for success in the format of six bullets to both halves of the story, taking a very structured approach to the discussion.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
A520.4.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In answering the question of what motivates people to work, Andy Mulholland offered three reasons: to do interesting work, to expand one's skill sets, and to be valued.
The first reason is fairly intuitive, as the average person wants to be engaged in, interested in, or otherwise have some kind of buy in with their work. It is said that one who does what they love for work isn't really working at all, and generally speaking, a person interested in their work is more likely to keep doing the same job. Certainly, I find that when I'm doing a task where I'm interested in the subject or activity, I give a stronger effort in terms of quality and being relentless in the completion, thus overall creating a more satisfactory result for myself and whoever I'm working for.
The second reason may not be quite as obvious, but it makes good sense. Most people also want to expand their skill sets, or in the most general sense, they want to feel like they accomplished something with the work they're doing. To tie in somewhat with having interesting work, a person on an assembly line turning the same set of screws will eventually get bored doing the same thing, and they may eventually feel like they aren't doing anything new or broadening their horizons. To speak from experience, I spent nine months working a new single-manned help desk position, much longer than anyone originally planned. Not too long after the six month mark, I got very bored with waiting for things to happen, and I especially didn't feel like I was making any developments in the leadership and managerial skills essential for my continuing success as an officer.
The third point, to be valued, is a culmination of the previous two points. People want to know that what they're doing matters in some way, and they would like to hear some form of thanks every so often. To not do so increases the likelihood for bitterness, and potentially decreased will to go the extra mile as needed. I can relate in that going for long periods of time without any positive feedback doesn't feel particularly good, and I also recognize it is something that my people want as well. No one enjoys thankless work.
As for what else my motivate me, there are about three I can think of. First and foremost, in my work I feel a measure of duty. Although I don't believe its the single best run organization to exist, I still believe in doing my part in the Air Force as a simple matter of believing that everyone should do some part for the greater good of the nation. Although it doesn't necessarily make me feel a whole lot better on early mornings, it does keep me running. Second, I'm motivated by the sense of obligation I feel towards the people I've worked with in the past and work with now. A lot of good people have helped me to get where I am today by teaching me or by recognizing what I can do, and I feel that not doing my job and not doing it well would be a disservice to them. Finally, I'm motivated by the hope of my own dreams. Although what I'm doing now isn't what I had in mind when I graduated from college, and I don't intend to do it for the rest of my life, I do hope that doing well now will eventually get me to a more enjoyable job in the military, and maybe someday in the future when I have greater financial stability I can pursue my more fantastical dreams of writing a novel or getting to work writing for a major publication. Arguably, my motivators are somewhat "soft" and not easily defined in a managerial text, but for now I think that is what has and for now will continue to work for me.
The first reason is fairly intuitive, as the average person wants to be engaged in, interested in, or otherwise have some kind of buy in with their work. It is said that one who does what they love for work isn't really working at all, and generally speaking, a person interested in their work is more likely to keep doing the same job. Certainly, I find that when I'm doing a task where I'm interested in the subject or activity, I give a stronger effort in terms of quality and being relentless in the completion, thus overall creating a more satisfactory result for myself and whoever I'm working for.
The second reason may not be quite as obvious, but it makes good sense. Most people also want to expand their skill sets, or in the most general sense, they want to feel like they accomplished something with the work they're doing. To tie in somewhat with having interesting work, a person on an assembly line turning the same set of screws will eventually get bored doing the same thing, and they may eventually feel like they aren't doing anything new or broadening their horizons. To speak from experience, I spent nine months working a new single-manned help desk position, much longer than anyone originally planned. Not too long after the six month mark, I got very bored with waiting for things to happen, and I especially didn't feel like I was making any developments in the leadership and managerial skills essential for my continuing success as an officer.
The third point, to be valued, is a culmination of the previous two points. People want to know that what they're doing matters in some way, and they would like to hear some form of thanks every so often. To not do so increases the likelihood for bitterness, and potentially decreased will to go the extra mile as needed. I can relate in that going for long periods of time without any positive feedback doesn't feel particularly good, and I also recognize it is something that my people want as well. No one enjoys thankless work.
As for what else my motivate me, there are about three I can think of. First and foremost, in my work I feel a measure of duty. Although I don't believe its the single best run organization to exist, I still believe in doing my part in the Air Force as a simple matter of believing that everyone should do some part for the greater good of the nation. Although it doesn't necessarily make me feel a whole lot better on early mornings, it does keep me running. Second, I'm motivated by the sense of obligation I feel towards the people I've worked with in the past and work with now. A lot of good people have helped me to get where I am today by teaching me or by recognizing what I can do, and I feel that not doing my job and not doing it well would be a disservice to them. Finally, I'm motivated by the hope of my own dreams. Although what I'm doing now isn't what I had in mind when I graduated from college, and I don't intend to do it for the rest of my life, I do hope that doing well now will eventually get me to a more enjoyable job in the military, and maybe someday in the future when I have greater financial stability I can pursue my more fantastical dreams of writing a novel or getting to work writing for a major publication. Arguably, my motivators are somewhat "soft" and not easily defined in a managerial text, but for now I think that is what has and for now will continue to work for me.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
A520.3.5.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
The concepts of supportive communication aren't entirely foreign to me, thankfully, and I've been practicing the use of some of these ideas for a little while. I remember first hearing about "I" statements in a high school health class, and I was advised early on in college to work on eye contact and general communication. As for the PMI program, this is already built into my workplace through regular feedback sessions and annual performance reviews.
I do, however, see where I can further integrate ideas from the book. Certainly, I can stand to better learn assessing communication situations as times for coaching and times for counseling, as there are times when one or the other might be conducive to the growth of subordinates at the office. I also think I could stand to be a little more honest about my opinions in certain circumstances, which I think would help build congruence between myself and higher leadership.
I also think that myself, and my entire organization for that matter, could stand to do a better job of being more supportive in our communication with and about other organizations we need to work with. Especially when talking about the actions of other Air Force IT organizations that don't necessarily mesh with our objectives and timelines, we tend to make rather broad, evaluative, and organization specific statements, and we aren't always the most understanding of whatever circumstances they may be working under. This leads to frustration for us, and certainly strained relationships overall.
I believe that if I were to practice supportive communication, and eventually set the example for my organization, it would certainly go a long way towards increasing trust and confidence between our members, and might over time improve morale and unit cohesion if we felt we were on the same page, could lean on each other, and had the confidence that when things happened we would be judging the problem, not the individual. Eventually, if we can provide supportive communications to our partner organizations, our IT support mission might see improvement as we would likely be more focused on constructive feedback targeted upon actual problems, rather than wasting energy and effort upon any friction created by perceived lack of support.
I believe that if I were to practice supportive communication, and eventually set the example for my organization, it would certainly go a long way towards increasing trust and confidence between our members, and might over time improve morale and unit cohesion if we felt we were on the same page, could lean on each other, and had the confidence that when things happened we would be judging the problem, not the individual. Eventually, if we can provide supportive communications to our partner organizations, our IT support mission might see improvement as we would likely be more focused on constructive feedback targeted upon actual problems, rather than wasting energy and effort upon any friction created by perceived lack of support.
A520.3.1.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Checking out the presentation we were provided gave me a few handy descriptors for how I perceive my decision making style. Certainly, it would be fair to call it more cautious, rational, and open to input by others. Some might even say my decision making is a little passive, pending a push from external forces. One word that really stuck out to me was "agonize". Some every day decisions I can make rather quickly, such as when I go to buy cereal or bread I look past brand names and find whatever has the lowest unit cost and is the type I like to eat. On other decisions though, I take a very long time, such as when I'm deciding whether or not to buy a nice electronic gadget or other big ticket item. Even when I do agonize, I don't have the greatest of confidence, having been in circumstances where I gave, say, my first college and my new car a whole lot of thought and ended up not being especially happy (and thus having to make adjustments).
Now on consideration of opposite descriptors, I can think of active, internally driven, daring, irrational, and decisive. Only one of those words comes off as particularly undesirable (irrational), and the rest are generally regarded as good qualities, at least from the perspective of an American or Westerner.
Frankly speaking, to solve problems from the opposite of my typical approach might be rather beneficial in some circumstances, particularly being in a career field that sometimes demands swift and effective action on the part of anyone in a leadership position. Of course, irrational decisions are generally frowned upon and I would want to avoid doing that in any event. I could also still see usefulness in continuing to use caution, receiving feedback from others, and taking my time in decision making, as there are also long term projects with lots of resources in money, equipment, or manpower that may require thorough and deliberate action.
Thus, assuming I were to consciously move my decision making style towards one that could flex between deliberate and well thought, as well as rapid and decisive, I believe that would in turn make me a flexible leader better able to perform in a wider variety of situations, and in turn make me more effective during the course of our rapidly changing tasks and requirements. In short, although it would take some time and continued practice, I could move closer towards what I think would be considered an ideal decision making approach.
Now on consideration of opposite descriptors, I can think of active, internally driven, daring, irrational, and decisive. Only one of those words comes off as particularly undesirable (irrational), and the rest are generally regarded as good qualities, at least from the perspective of an American or Westerner.
Frankly speaking, to solve problems from the opposite of my typical approach might be rather beneficial in some circumstances, particularly being in a career field that sometimes demands swift and effective action on the part of anyone in a leadership position. Of course, irrational decisions are generally frowned upon and I would want to avoid doing that in any event. I could also still see usefulness in continuing to use caution, receiving feedback from others, and taking my time in decision making, as there are also long term projects with lots of resources in money, equipment, or manpower that may require thorough and deliberate action.
Thus, assuming I were to consciously move my decision making style towards one that could flex between deliberate and well thought, as well as rapid and decisive, I believe that would in turn make me a flexible leader better able to perform in a wider variety of situations, and in turn make me more effective during the course of our rapidly changing tasks and requirements. In short, although it would take some time and continued practice, I could move closer towards what I think would be considered an ideal decision making approach.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
A520.2.6.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In revisiting the time management assessment I took from the book this week, my skill level is a very mixed bag, and not a highly developed one at that. I can say with certainty that I get at least one thing done a day, that I schedule some "me time", and that I'm cognizant of increasing my daily efficiency whenever I can. I can also say with certainty that I've never taken advantage of a time log, nor have I ever done much in the way of a cost-benefit analysis for my daily tasks. The rest of the prompts I rated as being very midland, and I usually only do things like making lists and taking on a "get it done" attitude when I'm at work. The prompts for working meetings and utilizing subordinates are also relatively new ideas to me. Once at home, I tend to get very complacent, and while my work and academics don't usually suffer, I don't often feel like I'm accomplishing very much towards my personal goals.
When I do take time management measures, such as setting personal deadlines, making lists, prioritizing, and keeping an orderly workplace, I believe that does increase my internal locus of control and allows me better control and accountability for what I get done. The most important action I take at the office on the daily basis is keeping my notepad handy to write down my personal list of "check boxes" to establish my priorities for the day and give an at-a-glance overview of what's left. Something I do engage in frequently by the nature of my work is delegation and letting others take credit. Due to the sheer number of tasks and technical expertise required, there's no way I could do everything in my section by myself. Thus, I let my subordinate experts work the issues they can at the lowest possible level, have credit for their individual performance, and I'm content that the work is complete while I still have credit for supervisory authority.
I think that if I were to give more structure to my meetings, that might give me a bit more certainty about our focus for the week and reduce my stress from ambiguity, as well as maybe allowing my staff to more quickly get on with their day. I would also like to be more vocal about the initiative my subordinates can take so they can engage issues with reduced administrative turnaround and perhaps even feel a measure of trust and empowerment. Both of these points would also serve to increase my external locus of control. Finally, I'd like to integrate more of my work practices into my daily personal life, as increasing my productivity and accomplishments at home will lead to reduced stress across the board, and lead to more positive quality of life.
Starting tomorrow, I'll see about writing myself a reminder note in my notebook cover to keep myself cognizant of the improvements I'd like to make, and I would also like to give myself more permission to be less of a perfectionist and take some reasonable risks to try some other management approaches. It seems like these improvements are something that will hold once I've done it enough times for it to become routine. I also think, given that keeping a list helps out at work, that I might have to invest in a sturdy notebook or memo pad to carry with me at home.
When I do take time management measures, such as setting personal deadlines, making lists, prioritizing, and keeping an orderly workplace, I believe that does increase my internal locus of control and allows me better control and accountability for what I get done. The most important action I take at the office on the daily basis is keeping my notepad handy to write down my personal list of "check boxes" to establish my priorities for the day and give an at-a-glance overview of what's left. Something I do engage in frequently by the nature of my work is delegation and letting others take credit. Due to the sheer number of tasks and technical expertise required, there's no way I could do everything in my section by myself. Thus, I let my subordinate experts work the issues they can at the lowest possible level, have credit for their individual performance, and I'm content that the work is complete while I still have credit for supervisory authority.
I think that if I were to give more structure to my meetings, that might give me a bit more certainty about our focus for the week and reduce my stress from ambiguity, as well as maybe allowing my staff to more quickly get on with their day. I would also like to be more vocal about the initiative my subordinates can take so they can engage issues with reduced administrative turnaround and perhaps even feel a measure of trust and empowerment. Both of these points would also serve to increase my external locus of control. Finally, I'd like to integrate more of my work practices into my daily personal life, as increasing my productivity and accomplishments at home will lead to reduced stress across the board, and lead to more positive quality of life.
Starting tomorrow, I'll see about writing myself a reminder note in my notebook cover to keep myself cognizant of the improvements I'd like to make, and I would also like to give myself more permission to be less of a perfectionist and take some reasonable risks to try some other management approaches. It seems like these improvements are something that will hold once I've done it enough times for it to become routine. I also think, given that keeping a list helps out at work, that I might have to invest in a sturdy notebook or memo pad to carry with me at home.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
A520.2.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Recently at my office, we had to do a fair amount of conflict resolution with regards to the schedule for a new single person IT Help Desk position. The issue we ran into involved getting adequate manning for trained personnel in order to cover vacation time, and also to rotate out individuals that had been working the position for several months already. The biggest challenge in scheduling, besides the fact that our local rules specially call for using highly experienced individuals, is the fact we're basically pulling a person away from their normal job and duty section for several months, and we're required to provide 24/7 coverage. The root problem, though, was the fact we could not get volunteers to fill slots, nor were any of the other duty sections willing to give up personnel. There was also a problem in which we didn't have one person to call the shots for all of the duty sections, but had multiple senior leaders with multiple opinions.
My role was being the officer in charge of the new position, and ultimately, I had to bring the issues to my management's attention in order to get everyone talking, and create a unified picture of the "health" of our position and what was needed to ensure we had coverage without relying too much on a small group of individuals. In a sense, I was a mediator between the leadership that wanted to have the position, and the people that actually had to man it.
The other participants were the individuals sitting at the new position, the new "backshop" created to support it, the leadership of the other duty sections from which we obtained personnel, and the leadership of our overall office that had to balance the needs of all the duty sections and make sure we were getting our work accomplished.
After an extended period of going back and forth between different sections seeking bodies and meeting resistance, myself and my backshop had to go up our chain of command to make as clear as possible for them what was happening and that we needed them to lay down some firmer orders to meet the needs of a position that they themselves created. Eventually, they spelled out who would sit in the position, and they've rewritten our local rules to more clearly state how we would go about training, who would provide manning, who would control the overall schedule, and how we were to go about requesting time off in order to have adequate time to make adjustments.
To this day we're still working on the overall execution of the new guidance, and still joke about the constant state of change, but we've since been satisfied that leadership is aware of the potential for problems and is continuing to work with us. Personally, I think we can still improve in terms of creating a single point of authority for any changes ("The Buck Stops Here"), and I think we can get improvement from all parties involved on matters of communicating our concerns, suggesting alternatives, actively listening, and ultimately creating mutually agreeable solutions.
My role was being the officer in charge of the new position, and ultimately, I had to bring the issues to my management's attention in order to get everyone talking, and create a unified picture of the "health" of our position and what was needed to ensure we had coverage without relying too much on a small group of individuals. In a sense, I was a mediator between the leadership that wanted to have the position, and the people that actually had to man it.
The other participants were the individuals sitting at the new position, the new "backshop" created to support it, the leadership of the other duty sections from which we obtained personnel, and the leadership of our overall office that had to balance the needs of all the duty sections and make sure we were getting our work accomplished.
After an extended period of going back and forth between different sections seeking bodies and meeting resistance, myself and my backshop had to go up our chain of command to make as clear as possible for them what was happening and that we needed them to lay down some firmer orders to meet the needs of a position that they themselves created. Eventually, they spelled out who would sit in the position, and they've rewritten our local rules to more clearly state how we would go about training, who would provide manning, who would control the overall schedule, and how we were to go about requesting time off in order to have adequate time to make adjustments.
To this day we're still working on the overall execution of the new guidance, and still joke about the constant state of change, but we've since been satisfied that leadership is aware of the potential for problems and is continuing to work with us. Personally, I think we can still improve in terms of creating a single point of authority for any changes ("The Buck Stops Here"), and I think we can get improvement from all parties involved on matters of communicating our concerns, suggesting alternatives, actively listening, and ultimately creating mutually agreeable solutions.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
A520.1.6.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
So I'm now finding myself about a week deep into the course and have read through a fair share of posts involving thoughts on Self-Awareness, and I've also taken the post learning assessment. Although I haven't had any grand epiphanies or otherwise, I do now find myself mulling more on the topic of how well I know myself and how it relates to my leadership. Indeed, after having been on hiatus from that line of thought for the better part of a year, now coming back into a leadership role at my job, coming back to this is something of a sobering experience.
I didn't see a very broad range of change in my assessment. Certainly, I feel like I still hold the same general values and still think roughly the same about my personality. But what sticks out is I scored myself a little lower on how well I grasp the idea of emotional maturity, and my understanding of how I cope with ambiguity. I'm also taking interest that although I scored as a Creative cognitive style, in some ways my habits are more in line with a Knowing style, namely I do like creative tasks and keeping busy, but I really like having very set procedures and rules.
Having read the material, although I still acknowledge I'm more grown up in comparison to when I first entered college, now I feel like I've still got a little ways to go in really knowing myself. This line of thought makes me think back to a New York Times article I read several years ago on this newer idea of young people in their early to mid 20's experiencing "Odyssey Years", where although they may legally be independent, they're experiencing more of an extended adolescence, wondering what to do with their lives and how. Perhaps this is just part of my experience of that idea, but I'd certainly like to give some focus to improving my emotional intelligence, and get a fix on how people cope with ambiguity so that I may improve my ability to lead, and maybe one day know how to lead myself.
I digress though...the bottom line is that I will likely begin to develop another lens in which to observe the workings of my organizations and how they might better themselves (although hopefully, I won't be trying to solve every problem with self awareness!)
I didn't see a very broad range of change in my assessment. Certainly, I feel like I still hold the same general values and still think roughly the same about my personality. But what sticks out is I scored myself a little lower on how well I grasp the idea of emotional maturity, and my understanding of how I cope with ambiguity. I'm also taking interest that although I scored as a Creative cognitive style, in some ways my habits are more in line with a Knowing style, namely I do like creative tasks and keeping busy, but I really like having very set procedures and rules.
Having read the material, although I still acknowledge I'm more grown up in comparison to when I first entered college, now I feel like I've still got a little ways to go in really knowing myself. This line of thought makes me think back to a New York Times article I read several years ago on this newer idea of young people in their early to mid 20's experiencing "Odyssey Years", where although they may legally be independent, they're experiencing more of an extended adolescence, wondering what to do with their lives and how. Perhaps this is just part of my experience of that idea, but I'd certainly like to give some focus to improving my emotional intelligence, and get a fix on how people cope with ambiguity so that I may improve my ability to lead, and maybe one day know how to lead myself.
I digress though...the bottom line is that I will likely begin to develop another lens in which to observe the workings of my organizations and how they might better themselves (although hopefully, I won't be trying to solve every problem with self awareness!)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)