The list of 50 Reasons Not to Change proved to be rather comprehensive, and admittedly several of those have been heard coming out of the mouths of people I've worked with both at school and on the job. I'm certainly guilty of having said a few of those myself. However, the way I react initially strongly varies with the situation. Some of these reasons not to change just come as part of the military life, as there are always at least one or two policies that need to be followed that may defy common sense, the ever present question of manning and funding (particularly in these times as we're being called upon to do more with less), and of course considering the wishes and desires of our bosses and trying to either dance around said preferences or use them to our advantage. Having said that, while such concerns from the list of 50 reasons may be voiced, our office tends to be very good at making things work anyway. Rather than simply stopping at concerns on the funding, manning, or otherwise, we say "fair enough, how can we do this with what we have?" It's happened often enough that my initial reaction is more along the lines of "Ok, what trick are we going to pull off now?" or more often "What's the perspective of our more senior officers or senior enlisted that has more experience? What solutions do they see?"
As I've alluded to earlier, I've been guilty more than once of using these excuses myself when I hit a wall in a task or project. For all intents and purposes, I'm still a very new officer with less than three years of experience, almost half of which was used not in being an officer but being in training, then working a job that was inherently very reactionary rather than calling for action or new ideas. Frankly, I know that I tend to take policies and circumstances at face value, and creating a solution that isn't readily available or which goes outside some kind of established procedure is not my strong suit. I'm hoping that as time passes and I gain greater experience and confidence that I will be better able to seek first how I might work an issue rather than why it can't be done.
How to overcome these types of responses to change has varied some in my experience. A vast majority of the time, we're still being subject to the will of our commander or higher authority, and anytime we come back saying that something couldn't or shouldn't be done, we had to have a very good reason. In my case especially, I'd have to be able to answer not only to the commander but then at least one or two more levels of more senior officers, and that would be after trying to figure things out with at least one senior enlisted. So, admittedly it boils down to something of a "find a way or else" type of scenario, but to frame the task in a positive manner, our office generally maintains a very low tolerance of the 50 Reasons, with our organizational culture as a military unit calling for a "can do" attitude that finds or makes a way.
Regarding Seth Godin's talk tribes, I really think he's onto something with that idea. Most talks I've heard on leadership or change revolves around the idea of getting an idea out there or as some of my recent favorites have noted, stating with "why" as prescribed by author Simon Sinek, or another talk that discussed setting where things are now and where they can go. But they don't often talk about the people that follow an idea, which if I recall correctly was discussed in one of our early videos as an element of what makes change happen. When you get down to it, individuals can end up as the face of a movement but ideas only actually take flight when a significant number of people get on board to try and make it happen. Thinking from a historical perspective, the idea makes sense. The American Revolution, while largely attributed to the founding fathers, had a great deal of the footwork ride upon the common citizen that didn't care for the American Colonies being run by the British Empire. The Civil Rights movement, which did have some major figures such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., still had a great deal ride upon the people that took a stand to be heard. Within my own office environment, my last commander thought there was a better way to deal with the reporting and tracking of communications issues, and he rallied with his peers at our partner units that felt the same way and led them to adopt our new way of doing business. Those are examples where, as Godin put it, there was a group of people already looking for a change, and someone stood up to organize that group and make something happen. Definitely, while one person can get the idea to organize change, I think it takes a tribe to see the change through.
I can take away from this a couple of things. First and foremost, that there's actually a reasonably lengthy list of common excuses out there for why things can't change, many of which I've heard or used and all of which sound rather tacky when examined from a third party perspective. Knowing this, I would like to take this knowledge with me to be consciously aware of when one of these reasons is being used and to critically examine whether or not it's valid, and what can be done to overcome that reaction. Second though, I intend to be conscious of this idea of "tribes," and I'll see if there's any potential for application in my workplace or if there's any evidence of leveraging of tribes occurring that does in fact get change rolling.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
A630.5.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
The talk by NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe certainly made for some interesting observation of not only how the findings of the BST survey was conveyed to the rest of NASA, but also showed indications of how NASA leadership was taking the suggestions to heart.
O'Keefe's presentation to NASA employees seemed to be twofold in purpose. First and foremost, it very publicly brought to mind the issues that NASA was looking to fix in terms of their organizational culture based upon the BST findings, and it laid out some initial thoughts on what they intended to do about it by promoting communications and the like. Second, but still equally important, I think O'Keefe getting in front of his organization like that represented a sincere demonstration of his intent to break down the perceived communication barriers between different levels of the organization, as well as demonstrating that senior leadership was paying attention to the survey results and intended to act upon them.
Something else O'Keefe succeeded in where leaders of big organizations could just as easily fail was in how believable he was in his presentation. At the very least, his presentation style seemed very extemporaneous rather than tightly scripted, certainly somewhat more conversational in fashion. The fact that he also entertained a bit of self-deprecating humor on occasion by commenting on his age and referring to himself as an example of "managerial interference." O'Keefe came off as a reasonably genuine individual that was comfortable with his audience, and he seemed sincere in what he was saying.
As for why he discussed NASA's values, that seemed to be a major pillar of the entire conversation. Speaking strictly from the point of view of diagnostics, discussing these values did seem to set the target for where he wanted to take NASA as an organization, in effect setting a goal and giving people an idea for where NASA should be when they've undertaken full organizational development in their culture. If I recall correctly, I think O'Keefe also discussed where NASA stood at the time with relation to those values, effectively setting a baseline and then in effect stating where they were and were they could be.
Having seen this, I do think there are some takeaways to be had. Among other things, like it was alluded to in his talk, leaders need to be getting out there to get the on-the-ground perspective and see where things are going. I would say this is important not just for the stated reason of checking on the condition of the organization and the workforce, but also to demonstrate a visible display of the leader being interested in the lower echelons and putting themselves out there. I also think it might be worthwhile to at some point give pause during the day and give thought to where my actions out and about with the troops on a daily basis serve to build up the stated values of our organization, and maintain the line of communication between the lower echelons, the higher level leadership and myself.
O'Keefe's presentation to NASA employees seemed to be twofold in purpose. First and foremost, it very publicly brought to mind the issues that NASA was looking to fix in terms of their organizational culture based upon the BST findings, and it laid out some initial thoughts on what they intended to do about it by promoting communications and the like. Second, but still equally important, I think O'Keefe getting in front of his organization like that represented a sincere demonstration of his intent to break down the perceived communication barriers between different levels of the organization, as well as demonstrating that senior leadership was paying attention to the survey results and intended to act upon them.
Something else O'Keefe succeeded in where leaders of big organizations could just as easily fail was in how believable he was in his presentation. At the very least, his presentation style seemed very extemporaneous rather than tightly scripted, certainly somewhat more conversational in fashion. The fact that he also entertained a bit of self-deprecating humor on occasion by commenting on his age and referring to himself as an example of "managerial interference." O'Keefe came off as a reasonably genuine individual that was comfortable with his audience, and he seemed sincere in what he was saying.
As for why he discussed NASA's values, that seemed to be a major pillar of the entire conversation. Speaking strictly from the point of view of diagnostics, discussing these values did seem to set the target for where he wanted to take NASA as an organization, in effect setting a goal and giving people an idea for where NASA should be when they've undertaken full organizational development in their culture. If I recall correctly, I think O'Keefe also discussed where NASA stood at the time with relation to those values, effectively setting a baseline and then in effect stating where they were and were they could be.
Having seen this, I do think there are some takeaways to be had. Among other things, like it was alluded to in his talk, leaders need to be getting out there to get the on-the-ground perspective and see where things are going. I would say this is important not just for the stated reason of checking on the condition of the organization and the workforce, but also to demonstrate a visible display of the leader being interested in the lower echelons and putting themselves out there. I also think it might be worthwhile to at some point give pause during the day and give thought to where my actions out and about with the troops on a daily basis serve to build up the stated values of our organization, and maintain the line of communication between the lower echelons, the higher level leadership and myself.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
A630.4.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
I think what Marcia Blenko touched upon with the idea of employee engagement makes a lot of sense, and frankly it seems to be one of those things that matches up with human nature. I wouldn't expect the average person in any circumstance to put their fullest effort into something they don't have at least some interest in. In the state of nature there is the overriding interest of survival that always ups the interest in effective decisions, but in the contemporary working environment there's a lot more potential for slack. For instance, I can say from personal observation that someone who isn't especially interested in client relations will make especially good decisions in how they interact, and someone who isn't all that interested in the movement of desks and equipment likely won't ask all the probing questions about timing, dates, and impacts that senior leadership might want to dig for. A lack of interest means that much more conscious effort being required for maximized performance or decision making.
Beyond that, Blenko made some additional notes on what could impeded effective decision making. Among these there are issues such as the complexity of contemporary organizations, which I imagine can complicate the picture of who's in charge and who needs to be kept in the loop or otherwise. There can also be some negative leadership behaviors at play that complicate matters, such as a lack of discussion or the receipt of inputs before making a decision and executing (the Air Force might categorize these types of scenarios as "Ready, Fire, Aim" situations). Blenko also noted a lack of clarity in communications, which in most any organizational environment will spell at best minor frustration, and at worst major failure.
Overall, I think Blenko had a fairly thorough list of good decision making elements in considering quality, speed, yield, and effort. These certainly cover the bare minimums towards making a decision and getting it off the ground. For decision making in my organization, we're often tasked to present Courses of Action (COAs) to the commander, where we have to list our assumptions, list our COAs with full pros and cons of each one, and we might add in any limiting factors that span across all the COAs. We might even throw in a table that weighs important factors (such as cost and effect) and provide a weighted score. So for us, Blenko's elements would cover some of the considerations, but by itself it likely wouldn't satisfy my boss as he'll likely still want to know more about additional considerations and expected impacts. Quality considerations though would likely be very welcome.
Having viewed this video, it provides yet another lens with which to examine problems that come down from my bosses or through my e-mail box. Certainly, while we want to make the best decision we can within the confines of our deadlines, but I don't think we necessarily always think about how far out we want to take our decisions other than second or third order effects, and we tend to have our effort switches stuck at maximum output unless we thoroughly prioritized taskings. Something I might try and do with myself at least is to pause and at the very least ask if the decision I'm about to make is a knee jerk reaction based on trying to get something out of my way, perhaps sticking to doctrine, or if I really did in fact make a "good" decision. The only issue I could see is that measuring the quality of a decision would require identifying measurable, objective factors and a set of standards. I'm almost inclined to say it's one thing to Monday Morning Quarterback, but it would require some practice to quickly and efficiently establish measurable factors at the outset of every decision.
Beyond that, Blenko made some additional notes on what could impeded effective decision making. Among these there are issues such as the complexity of contemporary organizations, which I imagine can complicate the picture of who's in charge and who needs to be kept in the loop or otherwise. There can also be some negative leadership behaviors at play that complicate matters, such as a lack of discussion or the receipt of inputs before making a decision and executing (the Air Force might categorize these types of scenarios as "Ready, Fire, Aim" situations). Blenko also noted a lack of clarity in communications, which in most any organizational environment will spell at best minor frustration, and at worst major failure.
Overall, I think Blenko had a fairly thorough list of good decision making elements in considering quality, speed, yield, and effort. These certainly cover the bare minimums towards making a decision and getting it off the ground. For decision making in my organization, we're often tasked to present Courses of Action (COAs) to the commander, where we have to list our assumptions, list our COAs with full pros and cons of each one, and we might add in any limiting factors that span across all the COAs. We might even throw in a table that weighs important factors (such as cost and effect) and provide a weighted score. So for us, Blenko's elements would cover some of the considerations, but by itself it likely wouldn't satisfy my boss as he'll likely still want to know more about additional considerations and expected impacts. Quality considerations though would likely be very welcome.
Having viewed this video, it provides yet another lens with which to examine problems that come down from my bosses or through my e-mail box. Certainly, while we want to make the best decision we can within the confines of our deadlines, but I don't think we necessarily always think about how far out we want to take our decisions other than second or third order effects, and we tend to have our effort switches stuck at maximum output unless we thoroughly prioritized taskings. Something I might try and do with myself at least is to pause and at the very least ask if the decision I'm about to make is a knee jerk reaction based on trying to get something out of my way, perhaps sticking to doctrine, or if I really did in fact make a "good" decision. The only issue I could see is that measuring the quality of a decision would require identifying measurable, objective factors and a set of standards. I'm almost inclined to say it's one thing to Monday Morning Quarterback, but it would require some practice to quickly and efficiently establish measurable factors at the outset of every decision.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
A630.3.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Southwest Airlines implementation of a specific "Culture Committee" is an interesting way for a company to manifest the implementation of its corporate culture and looking out for the morale and welfare of their employees. I suppose one might consider it, in some ways, a scaled up version of an organizational Booster Club or Sunshine Fund. It's difficult to quantify exactly where and how the Culture Committee comes into play in the establishment of cultural norms, but it certainly seems to make an effective impression. While it was attested that employees don't always know about things like Hokey Day, the Culture Committee does make a positive impression upon the surprised flight attendants and reinforces the company's well known culture of fun. It also seems to help establish the idea of the company as one unified team where each member is there for the other.
The purpose of the Culture Committee seems to be to act as something of a sub-organization within the company responsible for the morale and welfare of the employees. It also exists to reinforce Southwest's organizational values by acting upon them and setting the example through taking care of their teammates with a very pleasant and easy demeanor. With the fact that the committee is formed from a group of peers, I would think this serves to enhance the unifying aspect, and imparts a sense of "these are my friends and co-workers, and they've got my back." To draw more directly from the video he Hokey Day, as noted by one member, is about "employees taking care of employees", and fits well with the committee's stated mission of "...making Southwest Airlines a fun, exciting, and wonderful way to work. I took interest as well in that the Culture Committee wore their values as they worked, donning t-shirts that emphasized "Warrior Spirit," "Servant's Heart," and "Fun-Loving Attitude," right under the prominent wording of "Whatever It Takes."
In my own place of work, this type of committee would be there to look out for the morale and welfare needs of our unit and also act as part of a full spectrum solution towards monitoring the overall health of our unit, ensuring a relatively good level of happiness and productivity. Our own Booster Club accomplishes some of these functions and use similar methods by providing opportunities for fun and camaraderie, with the aim of promoting teamwork and our core values. This typically gets accomplished via the planning and execution of events such as burger burns, holiday themed parties, the annual picnic, and more recently a "Wingman Day" that held sports competitions in conjunction with talks on personal resiliency and safety. In short, the mission of our own Culture Committee would be much the same as Southwest's: take care of our personnel and make sure that within the midst of the controlled chaos of military life there is still some fun, excitement, and care from superiors and peers.
From considering Southwest's efforts, I might take some time to re-examine the ways in which we take care of our people, and give some greater consideration to the ways in which it ties into our organizational culture. It seems to be one of the most oft spoken adages is "mission first, people always," and only having been in service for a few years I'm conscious of the issue but haven't yet had opportunity to really see this idea be put to the test. As one of my friends at the office is current heading up our Booster Club and I'm sitting on a base council that represents the interests and development of junior officers, I might have to find opportunities for ad hoc "case studies" to see where and how these organizations touch the lives of the people they serve. In addition, I might give pause to consider the ways in which these small groups support and establish the Air Force's core values and cultural norms.
The purpose of the Culture Committee seems to be to act as something of a sub-organization within the company responsible for the morale and welfare of the employees. It also exists to reinforce Southwest's organizational values by acting upon them and setting the example through taking care of their teammates with a very pleasant and easy demeanor. With the fact that the committee is formed from a group of peers, I would think this serves to enhance the unifying aspect, and imparts a sense of "these are my friends and co-workers, and they've got my back." To draw more directly from the video he Hokey Day, as noted by one member, is about "employees taking care of employees", and fits well with the committee's stated mission of "...making Southwest Airlines a fun, exciting, and wonderful way to work. I took interest as well in that the Culture Committee wore their values as they worked, donning t-shirts that emphasized "Warrior Spirit," "Servant's Heart," and "Fun-Loving Attitude," right under the prominent wording of "Whatever It Takes."
In my own place of work, this type of committee would be there to look out for the morale and welfare needs of our unit and also act as part of a full spectrum solution towards monitoring the overall health of our unit, ensuring a relatively good level of happiness and productivity. Our own Booster Club accomplishes some of these functions and use similar methods by providing opportunities for fun and camaraderie, with the aim of promoting teamwork and our core values. This typically gets accomplished via the planning and execution of events such as burger burns, holiday themed parties, the annual picnic, and more recently a "Wingman Day" that held sports competitions in conjunction with talks on personal resiliency and safety. In short, the mission of our own Culture Committee would be much the same as Southwest's: take care of our personnel and make sure that within the midst of the controlled chaos of military life there is still some fun, excitement, and care from superiors and peers.
From considering Southwest's efforts, I might take some time to re-examine the ways in which we take care of our people, and give some greater consideration to the ways in which it ties into our organizational culture. It seems to be one of the most oft spoken adages is "mission first, people always," and only having been in service for a few years I'm conscious of the issue but haven't yet had opportunity to really see this idea be put to the test. As one of my friends at the office is current heading up our Booster Club and I'm sitting on a base council that represents the interests and development of junior officers, I might have to find opportunities for ad hoc "case studies" to see where and how these organizations touch the lives of the people they serve. In addition, I might give pause to consider the ways in which these small groups support and establish the Air Force's core values and cultural norms.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)