To be what is broadly defined as a successful leader is, I think, one of those things where there really is not necessarily one correct answer, yet at the same time there are some general expectations and traits of a successful leader. Even within that one Apple advertisement, you could see a very broad diversity in those who have led change, with personalities ranging from more introverted to more extroverted, and a range of fields and occupations to include inventors, entertainers, businessmen, civic leaders, and artists. Going about every day life, one can see there are those that lead by strong outward displays, physically leading a crowd from the front or pontificating on their ideas. There are also those that quietly work in their workshops and studios designing the next big thing, or quietly releasing literature or smaller talks that grow into something much bigger.
At the same time, that's not to say there's certain things a leader should be doing in order to realize system wide change. In Cameron and Whetten's Developing Management Skill, they outline a framework of "leading positive change" that consists of the following aspects that repeat cyclically: Establishing a Positive Climate, Creating Readiness, Articulating a Vision, Generating Commitment, and Institutionalizing the Change (Cameron and Whetten, 2011). This set of ideas comes after an interesting statement they make that "Leadership is a temporary condition in which certain skills and competencies are displayed" (Cameron and Whetten, 2011). To expound, they need to make subordinates feel good about any oncoming change, they need to give them the training and resources to make change happen while also setting a target to work towards, they need to get buy-in from their subordinates, and they need to see it through and execute in order to effect the envisioned positive outcome and maintain the legitimacy of any change initiatives.
As for what I personally think a leader really needs to have? That's admittedly an amalgamation of what I've experienced and heard in the grind of learning and practicing leadership: Having expertise, legitimate authority, a vision and a measurable goal to work towards, buy in from your would-be followers, a working knowledge of emotional intelligence, and overall the necessary know how and discipline to recognize problems, analyze how to make fixes or improvements, select an appropriate course of action and stick with it. A leader also needs to be able to discern what style of change or organization development would be best suited for their organization, and to take on to that, to have the strength to change what they can control, patience to strive on through what they can't control, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Sunday, November 17, 2013
A631.4.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Considering what was presented in the INSEAD video on self-managed work teams, there are certainly some benefits to be considered. As the name immediately suggests, such teams enjoy an intrinsic level of autonomy and authority that a work unit within a traditional organization usually doesn't enjoy. They are able to, more or less, dictate how they conduct operations, sustain logistics, and run training. In doing this, it is generally expected and is usually the case that the team members take greater ownership in the team's efforts and in turn have increased motivation and higher performance.
Considering the Brown text, there are further characteristics, and potentially benefits, that can be reaped. The teams run on the small side, and have the interesting dynamic of strong information sharing, lack of status symbols, and a diversity among team members in background and knowledge. They also have a need to be trained and cross-trained, overall leading to a lean workforce that can draw from a highly flexible knowledge base (Brown, 2011).
Of course, as with most things there are certain drawbacks to be considered. Immediately there's the issue of the team members having the necessary interest in managing their own team, and the team needs to be able to work with the greater organization or other third parties that may apply to their situation. Within the context of the video, there's also the consideration of how an external leader will interact with a self-managed team and give any necessary vectors. The video gave some thoughts on how this would need to be done, including goal setting, talking with teams in a manner that gives them the objective without dictating the means, and having a good sense of when and when not to intervene. Brown also notes that such teams are not appropriate for all tasks, and if there is a lack of training or rewards there may be issues. Additionally, because of having fewer layers, there will be fewer opportunities for advancement which creates an additional challenge in motivation (Brown, 2011).
Personally, the choice on whether or not I would want to work on such a team would largely depend on the task at hand. If it was indeed a task where I had the necessary know how and abilities to form my own course of action towards achieving the objective, I wouldn't mind working on a self-managed team that didn't have external leadership checking in directly as often. However, for the most part I would just as soon prefer working within a more traditional hierarchy system that has relatively clear steps and procedures towards getting the necessary work done. While a self-managed team concept is highly empowering to those on the team, I am personally content with receiving additional guidance and having some of the decision load taken off of me, particularly if the task is not within an area in which I possess expertise.
To be an effective external manager of a team, I think I mainly would need to develop competency in goal setting. In my current duties, I am already well versed in the general idea of passing along an objective to your subordinates and letting them figure out the exact methodology whenever permissible. However, I believe I would have to make some major improvements in goal setting or espousing a vision, as well as the general tenets of motivating a team. While I would be effective at simply relaying a message from higher leadership, I'm of the opinion that there's more I could do with regards to giving the team an end to pursue and having some of the desirable leader-team relation traits at work. In my opinion, external leadership of a team really comes down to a good mastery of leadership skills, but applying them more indirectly and on an as needed basis, largely letting the team doing its thing. Knowing when or when not to intervene, maintaining trust, and building the necessary "...strong partnership between team members and management" would be key (Brown, 2011).
Resources
Considering the Brown text, there are further characteristics, and potentially benefits, that can be reaped. The teams run on the small side, and have the interesting dynamic of strong information sharing, lack of status symbols, and a diversity among team members in background and knowledge. They also have a need to be trained and cross-trained, overall leading to a lean workforce that can draw from a highly flexible knowledge base (Brown, 2011).
Of course, as with most things there are certain drawbacks to be considered. Immediately there's the issue of the team members having the necessary interest in managing their own team, and the team needs to be able to work with the greater organization or other third parties that may apply to their situation. Within the context of the video, there's also the consideration of how an external leader will interact with a self-managed team and give any necessary vectors. The video gave some thoughts on how this would need to be done, including goal setting, talking with teams in a manner that gives them the objective without dictating the means, and having a good sense of when and when not to intervene. Brown also notes that such teams are not appropriate for all tasks, and if there is a lack of training or rewards there may be issues. Additionally, because of having fewer layers, there will be fewer opportunities for advancement which creates an additional challenge in motivation (Brown, 2011).
Personally, the choice on whether or not I would want to work on such a team would largely depend on the task at hand. If it was indeed a task where I had the necessary know how and abilities to form my own course of action towards achieving the objective, I wouldn't mind working on a self-managed team that didn't have external leadership checking in directly as often. However, for the most part I would just as soon prefer working within a more traditional hierarchy system that has relatively clear steps and procedures towards getting the necessary work done. While a self-managed team concept is highly empowering to those on the team, I am personally content with receiving additional guidance and having some of the decision load taken off of me, particularly if the task is not within an area in which I possess expertise.
To be an effective external manager of a team, I think I mainly would need to develop competency in goal setting. In my current duties, I am already well versed in the general idea of passing along an objective to your subordinates and letting them figure out the exact methodology whenever permissible. However, I believe I would have to make some major improvements in goal setting or espousing a vision, as well as the general tenets of motivating a team. While I would be effective at simply relaying a message from higher leadership, I'm of the opinion that there's more I could do with regards to giving the team an end to pursue and having some of the desirable leader-team relation traits at work. In my opinion, external leadership of a team really comes down to a good mastery of leadership skills, but applying them more indirectly and on an as needed basis, largely letting the team doing its thing. Knowing when or when not to intervene, maintaining trust, and building the necessary "...strong partnership between team members and management" would be key (Brown, 2011).
Resources
Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
A631.3.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
For me, the importance of feedback to overall performance goes without saying, having been driven into me for the almost seven years of training and active duty experience. Indeed, Air Force regulation mandates at the very bare minimum three formal feedback sessions per annual reporting period, not to even include the countless occasions of informal verbal feedback that happens day to day. Goal setting, although not emphasized as frequently, still has its moments to be brought up in mentoring discussions and we're taught the idea of setting specific, challenging, attainable goals during our training.
Indeed, there are others out in the world of management and leadership that recognize the importance of goals and feedback, and continue to back the benefits. A study published in 2009 concluded that goal setting led to engaged employees, engaged employees exhibit higher optimism, and higher optimism improved performance (Medlin and Green, 2009). Another study focusing on athletes found showing them videos with positive feedback resulted in overall better performance (Hutchinson, 2012). Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with a lot of these findings in my personal philosophy. Goals give something of a target or endpoint to work towards, while feedback gives both encouragement when things are being done right and gives points for improvement to help maximize performance. I also very much see the point in Brown's point regarding the combination of feedback and goals. Feedback without a goal, or pursuing a goal without feedback, doesn't create improvements and could have detrimental effects if individuals become frustrated in their efforts by not having an end goal or lacking guidance on how to get there.
I'm inclined to agree with Brown's contention on generational differences on feedback, with younger people seeking frequent feedback at a greater rate compared to older counterparts (Brown, 2011). I've seen a mixed bag of my peers that desire feedback or don't care about it, but I do think that those who do want it would want to receive feedback more frequently. After all, contemporary society generally has a much faster flow of small pieces of information, and younger people tend to be very regularly "wired in" to media communications and often receive short updates on events, interests, or otherwise. It only stands to reason they might want the same pacing for receiving information about their job performance.
As for how much I give and receive, I find that I'm often seeking feedback from my leadership (true to Brown's assertion), although I don't give it out very regularly. I'd like to think this is partially due to the fact that the people I supervise have generally been in the Air Force notably longer than I have, in some cases almost as long as I've been alive. Often, I delegate much of the day to day mechanics unless there's something that absolutely requires the officer level authority, and more often than not my NCO corps excels with minimal input. Besides that, for the small handful of feedbacks I have given, I've been moved around the offices at such a pace that I have yet to bear witness of a full annual feedback cycle for a person I was rating. In my case though, I'm still relatively new and conscious of my performance metrics, and take to heart what we're told in the way of finding ways to improve and taking ownership of our careers where we can. Thus, I often keep an ear open for any feedback my leadership gives me, as well as occasional requests. I also frequently solicit my subordinates for thoughts and feedback, and I've found my senior NCO's will frequently give me useful pointers for the day to day execution of management duties.
I admittedly need to work on creating better refined goals beyond getting the day's projects done and making my milestones for training, but with the feedback I receive, I do think it helps to sustain a certain level of performance and certainly helps make improvements if I know what specifically needs work. More often than not, feedback helps me refine my short term goals, although it can also be a bit of a jarring experience as well. Lately I've been trying to hash things out with what direction to take my career now that I am unable to retrain as a pilot, and apparently my efforts at trying to dig up some motivation and find a path is something my leadership has picked up on, yielding a few talks and words of advice. Not an uncomfortable situation, but it was something of a reminder that I don't have as good a poker face as I thought.
Having thought about all this, I think I'm on the right track with getting feedback for myself, but as the leader of my workcenter, I feel I need to get more comfortable with dispensing feedback to my subordinates as there have been occasions where I've had an opinion of something and I would usually let things work out or discuss it with my senior NCOs who've noticed the same thing and let them run with any "course corrections." Perhaps being more proactive would remove a potential layer of ambiguity, and might even serve to increase my credibility as a leader if I communicate more directly. I also think I, and perhaps even my workcenter, would be well served by committing to some goals rather than simply "doing the job" on a regular basis, if not in specific metrics then at least in some tangible accomplishments to be performed by certain deadlines.
References
Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Hutchinson, A. (2012, October 29). Negative feedback, negative performance [Electronic version]. The Globe and Mail, p. L3
Medlin, B., & Green, Jr., K. W. (2009). Enhancing performance through goal setting, engagement, and optimism [Electronic version]. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(7), 943-956. doi:10.1108/02635570910982292
Indeed, there are others out in the world of management and leadership that recognize the importance of goals and feedback, and continue to back the benefits. A study published in 2009 concluded that goal setting led to engaged employees, engaged employees exhibit higher optimism, and higher optimism improved performance (Medlin and Green, 2009). Another study focusing on athletes found showing them videos with positive feedback resulted in overall better performance (Hutchinson, 2012). Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with a lot of these findings in my personal philosophy. Goals give something of a target or endpoint to work towards, while feedback gives both encouragement when things are being done right and gives points for improvement to help maximize performance. I also very much see the point in Brown's point regarding the combination of feedback and goals. Feedback without a goal, or pursuing a goal without feedback, doesn't create improvements and could have detrimental effects if individuals become frustrated in their efforts by not having an end goal or lacking guidance on how to get there.
I'm inclined to agree with Brown's contention on generational differences on feedback, with younger people seeking frequent feedback at a greater rate compared to older counterparts (Brown, 2011). I've seen a mixed bag of my peers that desire feedback or don't care about it, but I do think that those who do want it would want to receive feedback more frequently. After all, contemporary society generally has a much faster flow of small pieces of information, and younger people tend to be very regularly "wired in" to media communications and often receive short updates on events, interests, or otherwise. It only stands to reason they might want the same pacing for receiving information about their job performance.
As for how much I give and receive, I find that I'm often seeking feedback from my leadership (true to Brown's assertion), although I don't give it out very regularly. I'd like to think this is partially due to the fact that the people I supervise have generally been in the Air Force notably longer than I have, in some cases almost as long as I've been alive. Often, I delegate much of the day to day mechanics unless there's something that absolutely requires the officer level authority, and more often than not my NCO corps excels with minimal input. Besides that, for the small handful of feedbacks I have given, I've been moved around the offices at such a pace that I have yet to bear witness of a full annual feedback cycle for a person I was rating. In my case though, I'm still relatively new and conscious of my performance metrics, and take to heart what we're told in the way of finding ways to improve and taking ownership of our careers where we can. Thus, I often keep an ear open for any feedback my leadership gives me, as well as occasional requests. I also frequently solicit my subordinates for thoughts and feedback, and I've found my senior NCO's will frequently give me useful pointers for the day to day execution of management duties.
I admittedly need to work on creating better refined goals beyond getting the day's projects done and making my milestones for training, but with the feedback I receive, I do think it helps to sustain a certain level of performance and certainly helps make improvements if I know what specifically needs work. More often than not, feedback helps me refine my short term goals, although it can also be a bit of a jarring experience as well. Lately I've been trying to hash things out with what direction to take my career now that I am unable to retrain as a pilot, and apparently my efforts at trying to dig up some motivation and find a path is something my leadership has picked up on, yielding a few talks and words of advice. Not an uncomfortable situation, but it was something of a reminder that I don't have as good a poker face as I thought.
Having thought about all this, I think I'm on the right track with getting feedback for myself, but as the leader of my workcenter, I feel I need to get more comfortable with dispensing feedback to my subordinates as there have been occasions where I've had an opinion of something and I would usually let things work out or discuss it with my senior NCOs who've noticed the same thing and let them run with any "course corrections." Perhaps being more proactive would remove a potential layer of ambiguity, and might even serve to increase my credibility as a leader if I communicate more directly. I also think I, and perhaps even my workcenter, would be well served by committing to some goals rather than simply "doing the job" on a regular basis, if not in specific metrics then at least in some tangible accomplishments to be performed by certain deadlines.
References
Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Hutchinson, A. (2012, October 29). Negative feedback, negative performance [Electronic version]. The Globe and Mail, p. L3
Medlin, B., & Green, Jr., K. W. (2009). Enhancing performance through goal setting, engagement, and optimism [Electronic version]. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(7), 943-956. doi:10.1108/02635570910982292
Sunday, November 3, 2013
A631.2.5.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In the creation of the charter for our learning team within this course, there is also opportunity to observe the initial development of our team. Given the circumstances of having to adjust teams shortly before the second weeks started and the given fact we were working remotely, we seem to have done rather well. Considering the team development process outlined in Dan Brown's An Experiential Approach to Organizational Development, we've accomplished much of the steps involved. By way of the initial assignment, we initiated something of a running development meeting. In creating our charter, we set our objectives, we collected data on our capabilities, aims, and thoughts, and we also did some initial planning on our way ahead all within the context of conducting this virtual meeting. About the only step left is evaluating our team development process, which I expect should be something of an ongoing task for us. We've also done some initial consideration of roles by defining who would take lead on certain weeks throughout the course, and laying out general expectations for members of the team (Brown, 2011).
As for factors that inhibited any decision making or problem solving, while we didn't encounter any issues that hindered the completion of our objectives, we did have to deal with the ever present specter of our geographic separation and the associated "turn around time" for any of our communications. There is also a higher need for implicit trust, as for the most part we can only go off of a name and what our team mate's the other end are typing. At least this early on, it is difficult to draw much about who they are and what makes them tick, but we have to trust that they're here for a common goal and will take part to get there. As of now, we haven't run into any issues of group think, or any issues with goal settings or team culture that were noted, among other things, as possible issues in the class text (Brown, 2011).
On the note of the time taken for decision making and problem solving, the consolidation of the teams took place earlier in the week on Sunday evening, and the finalized inputs were posted to our group file exchange on Thursday. Given that, one could say it took about four days to make a complete run of decision making and problem solving with regards to our team charter. In terms of consolidating the teams though, that arguably took a little longer from the initial team establishment on Monday of week one, and the need became apparent on the following Saturday or Sunday as the class roster became finalized. By that same token though, since the issue was recognized and acted upon over a weekend, one could also say that took only one or two days with intervention from a third party (the professor).
Information was, to the best of my knowledge, shared exclusively by means of the Group Discussion forum built into the online Blackboard learning environment. Given our relatively short time together, we also haven't really run into any issues of power or authority yet, although we do seem to have had at least one or two members demonstrate a higher level of initiative. At this time, there hasn't been any issues, and it is welcome to have someone help take the initial lead.
Collaboration was essential to the completion of the project, as the charter required all members to give some modicum of input in order to meet requirements and gather our necessary data. Ultimately, it yielded us what we needed and also helped lay down the initial foundations of communication and trust within the group. There is no evidence at this time of competition or any particular friction, nor was there any instances of process intervention by team members aside initiating the team merger once the decision was passed down. Rather, the overall process felt very natural and equitable, requiring so far little in the way of formalized intervention of use of processes.
As for factors that inhibited any decision making or problem solving, while we didn't encounter any issues that hindered the completion of our objectives, we did have to deal with the ever present specter of our geographic separation and the associated "turn around time" for any of our communications. There is also a higher need for implicit trust, as for the most part we can only go off of a name and what our team mate's the other end are typing. At least this early on, it is difficult to draw much about who they are and what makes them tick, but we have to trust that they're here for a common goal and will take part to get there. As of now, we haven't run into any issues of group think, or any issues with goal settings or team culture that were noted, among other things, as possible issues in the class text (Brown, 2011).
On the note of the time taken for decision making and problem solving, the consolidation of the teams took place earlier in the week on Sunday evening, and the finalized inputs were posted to our group file exchange on Thursday. Given that, one could say it took about four days to make a complete run of decision making and problem solving with regards to our team charter. In terms of consolidating the teams though, that arguably took a little longer from the initial team establishment on Monday of week one, and the need became apparent on the following Saturday or Sunday as the class roster became finalized. By that same token though, since the issue was recognized and acted upon over a weekend, one could also say that took only one or two days with intervention from a third party (the professor).
Information was, to the best of my knowledge, shared exclusively by means of the Group Discussion forum built into the online Blackboard learning environment. Given our relatively short time together, we also haven't really run into any issues of power or authority yet, although we do seem to have had at least one or two members demonstrate a higher level of initiative. At this time, there hasn't been any issues, and it is welcome to have someone help take the initial lead.
Collaboration was essential to the completion of the project, as the charter required all members to give some modicum of input in order to meet requirements and gather our necessary data. Ultimately, it yielded us what we needed and also helped lay down the initial foundations of communication and trust within the group. There is no evidence at this time of competition or any particular friction, nor was there any instances of process intervention by team members aside initiating the team merger once the decision was passed down. Rather, the overall process felt very natural and equitable, requiring so far little in the way of formalized intervention of use of processes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)