Taking into consideration the recent results of my management assessment and what the audience can see in this footage of the NeXT start up team, I would assess with high confidence that I wouldn't necessarily be an ideal fit. Not so much because of the skill set involved, but mainly from having an idea of how I "tick", particularly with the added insight of my Management Assessment.
NeXT, to start off with, would have been week outside my preferred organizational environment. By the assessment, I would ideally thrive best in a dynamic large organization, that is, one that has a good amount of changing activity but already possesses considerable size, resources, and infrastructure. In short, I would have novelty but still have a much higher likelihood of underlying stability. A fledgling start-up such as NeXT would indeed by dynamic...very dynamic. As the documentary showed, in a relatively short time span the team had gone from dreaming up the grand vision to sorting out the details of engineering and revenue stream. But that small, scrappy team environment wouldn't have a great deal of stability. Indeed, later in the video the team could be seen discussing where they could make cuts in their spending, to include presenting an old tactic of having the workers bring in their own computers. They were clearly in something of a crisis situation, and from first hand experience I would say it's stressful enough to consider such things in a big organization. I couldn't even imagine doing the same thing in a company that was, for all intents and purposes, still building up momentum and stability.
There would also be the question of the work environment, to include the pacing and the type of people. Jobs, of course, presented a very constant commanding and directive presence unto himself, a very strong personality. There also seemed to be a vibe about the conversations in that members of the group looked highly driven and were reaching far for their goals. I didn't get the sense that anyone in these meetings were particularly relaxed or otherwise. I also got the sense they were dealing with a rather challenging environment and a short time table, given the metrics they were trying to meet for price and power delivered in time for the university buying season. Much of these environmental dynamics also run contrary to what the assessment considered to be my optimum environment. As debriefed to me, my goal setting style tends to be very conservative, and while I do have an inner drive I'm not at the extreme where I have a desire to be at the very top of things. Thus, being in a group full of driven or more Type A personalities would eventually become exhausting. Besides that, I was also assessed as the type of person who tends to be less assertive and I tend to seek out additional advice. Additionally, any goals and challenge for me would be best tackled over the long term rather than under the auspices of meeting a certain target on a compressed timetable, which I think is the kind of situation NeXT found themselves in.
This is not to say such an environment would be impossible for me to work with. My overall management style, while still leaning towards the introverted logistical style, was measured as being very close to the center of the four different styles that could be assessed, which I was told meant I could potentially communicate with people from all the other styles and better see things from their perspective than someone who was a polar opposite. Speaking from personal experience, I can certainly understand the trend where I only have a small circle of close friends but wherever I go I seem to get along with most everybody.
Overall though, given the assessment placed me closer to the extreme opposite of the optimum organization type spectrum from that of a start up company, and given that the mismatches outweigh any matches or potential workarounds, I'm inclined to leave the work of outfits like NeXT to the innovative types that are more likely to thrive in such environments.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
A631.8.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
The idea of self-awareness as a tool for leadership development and leadership in general is a concept that has existed for quite sometime, and arguably is within the foundation of leadership studies. After all, one of the first courses in Embry-Riddle's leadership program touches on self-awareness, and the idea has been around since some of the earliest expanses of human history. Sun-Tzu wrote in The Art of War:
"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
Whether you're engaged with a nation state on the battlefield, or you're facing a major project in the boardroom, to go forth without at least some sense of who you are and what you're capable of reduces your ability to strive for the best outcome and opens up many more opportunities for unpleasant surprises and potential failure.
In my case, given the relatively high intensity of interpersonal interaction my work demands and the kind of feedback I've received on how I interact, it becomes very important to understand my "type". I took a Myers-Briggs test back in high school as part of an extracurricular academic program, and I vaguely recall I was classified as an ISTJ. Taking this online test as noted by the course, I was classified as an ISFJ. This would translate out as introverted, sensing, feeling, and judging. It's possible there were some variable in the question that explain the shift from sensing to intuitive as well as thinking to feeling, and the judging part is a comfortable constant. I was more drawn to the constant of the introvert categorization though, as this is something that has been brought to my attention multiple times. My current job demands frequent interaction with a wide variety of people, and the lifestyle of moving around every so often also demands I be able to make friends and acquaintances very quickly. Being a quiet type, neither of these come easy to me, and it doesn't help any I regularly have supervisors and people I work with (and even friends) opining on this apparent "shell" I have around me that seems to get in the way of people getting to know an otherwise good guy.
Reading over some descriptors of the personality type, I'm not especially surprised now that I was categorized as such...an overview by Kendra Cherry on About.com's psychology section describes ISFJ's as being quiet, dependable, hardworking individuals that prefer structure, and are perceptive of others, but they also can at times bottle up their feelings, have a problem with saying "no" to requests, or can be misread as being cold or aloof when they're just simply quiet. I certainly don't think I have the most orderly workspaces in the world, but for the most part I was nodding my head a great deal as I read the general characteristics. Just as I've encountered the "shell" comment on multiple occasions, I've also had to deal with being given a lot of tasks whilst also being lauded as a reliable individual to work with.
Knowing this, I can move forward in my leadership development knowing that I do have some good characteristics working for me that have already been recognized on multiple occasions. I'm also aware of possible weaknesses that I would like to stay cognizant of, for that may allow me to make the appropriate efforts to better connect with others and mitigate the "shell." On that note, now that I've been reintroduced to these personality types and temperaments, it may prove useful to study the different elements in greater depth and see if I can begin to make cursory examinations of the personalities of the people I work with, so I may tailor my interactions accordingly and hopefully realize greater synergy.
Although the stakes in office small talk and getting our projects done are not nearly as high as in all out warfare, I consider it prudent to apply Sun Tzu's philosophy, and gain a better understand for how I and others operate in our day to day lives.
Resources
Cherry, K. (n.d.). ISFJ - Introverted, Sensing, Feeling, Judging. In About.com: Psychology. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://psychology.about.com/od/trait-theories-personality/a/isfj.htm
Sun Tzu (n.d.). In Wikiquote. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu
"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
Whether you're engaged with a nation state on the battlefield, or you're facing a major project in the boardroom, to go forth without at least some sense of who you are and what you're capable of reduces your ability to strive for the best outcome and opens up many more opportunities for unpleasant surprises and potential failure.
In my case, given the relatively high intensity of interpersonal interaction my work demands and the kind of feedback I've received on how I interact, it becomes very important to understand my "type". I took a Myers-Briggs test back in high school as part of an extracurricular academic program, and I vaguely recall I was classified as an ISTJ. Taking this online test as noted by the course, I was classified as an ISFJ. This would translate out as introverted, sensing, feeling, and judging. It's possible there were some variable in the question that explain the shift from sensing to intuitive as well as thinking to feeling, and the judging part is a comfortable constant. I was more drawn to the constant of the introvert categorization though, as this is something that has been brought to my attention multiple times. My current job demands frequent interaction with a wide variety of people, and the lifestyle of moving around every so often also demands I be able to make friends and acquaintances very quickly. Being a quiet type, neither of these come easy to me, and it doesn't help any I regularly have supervisors and people I work with (and even friends) opining on this apparent "shell" I have around me that seems to get in the way of people getting to know an otherwise good guy.
Reading over some descriptors of the personality type, I'm not especially surprised now that I was categorized as such...an overview by Kendra Cherry on About.com's psychology section describes ISFJ's as being quiet, dependable, hardworking individuals that prefer structure, and are perceptive of others, but they also can at times bottle up their feelings, have a problem with saying "no" to requests, or can be misread as being cold or aloof when they're just simply quiet. I certainly don't think I have the most orderly workspaces in the world, but for the most part I was nodding my head a great deal as I read the general characteristics. Just as I've encountered the "shell" comment on multiple occasions, I've also had to deal with being given a lot of tasks whilst also being lauded as a reliable individual to work with.
Knowing this, I can move forward in my leadership development knowing that I do have some good characteristics working for me that have already been recognized on multiple occasions. I'm also aware of possible weaknesses that I would like to stay cognizant of, for that may allow me to make the appropriate efforts to better connect with others and mitigate the "shell." On that note, now that I've been reintroduced to these personality types and temperaments, it may prove useful to study the different elements in greater depth and see if I can begin to make cursory examinations of the personalities of the people I work with, so I may tailor my interactions accordingly and hopefully realize greater synergy.
Although the stakes in office small talk and getting our projects done are not nearly as high as in all out warfare, I consider it prudent to apply Sun Tzu's philosophy, and gain a better understand for how I and others operate in our day to day lives.
Resources
Cherry, K. (n.d.). ISFJ - Introverted, Sensing, Feeling, Judging. In About.com: Psychology. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://psychology.about.com/od/trait-theories-personality/a/isfj.htm
Sun Tzu (n.d.). In Wikiquote. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu
Sunday, December 8, 2013
A631.7.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Having been through the full series of classes on organizational development, while the concepts that were presented may well prove helpful on the job as we look for ways to do more with what we have (or less), the irony of the relatively young OD field doesn't escape me: it aims to help organizations develop themselves, but the field itself is made up of multiple methodologies and frameworks that I think will likely undergo changes and development to meet the needs of those who call upon it. After all, even Brown states "OD is a growing, developing, and changing field of study...The field of OD is currently and will likely always in in transition if it is to remain relevant" (Brown, 2011). I would summarize the notion as, change is the very nature of the field.
While I foresee continued growth and changes, I also see in that a steady future for the field. Considering how lean management and continuous improvement seem to have taken root in most any conversation on how businesses can improve, and how often companies seem to be changing their posture based on the health of the economy or consumer demand, OD is not going away. For that matter, I don't believe that OD is so much a "thing" that can go away like an obsolete piece of technology, but rather it is something woven into the framework of any company or organization that succeeds or continues to succeed...it is that recognition and that call to action when leaders, subordinates, or anyone with the initiative to call out an impending hazard recognizes that something within their system is broken and needs to be fixed, or there's an opportunity on the horizon that demands pursuit and thus a course change for the organization. All that has really been done with the formal OD title, I think, is giving a name and something of a semi-tangible framework for the idea.
That isn't to say there are no issues with said framework. As Brown noted in his chapter on the future of OD, the current fluidity of the field presents the lack of accepted core professional knowledge, a lack of certification, and the inherent complications that come with an emphasis on human behavior factors. As it stands now, the current framework also doesn't necessarily lend itself well to situations that demand rapid change (Brown, 2011). OD may also be helped by the fact there are other established frameworks on management and team building that can be utilized, such as bearing in mind the principles of what characterizes a high performance team, as well as the principles of setting SMART goals and Everest goals (Cameron and Whetten, 2011), principles established enough that you can find some of them on the Human Resources page of institutes such as MIT, or see correlations in military training manuals.
Ultimately though, I cannot pretend to accurately forecast where OD may go. There is no telling where the global economy and the companies influenced by it will head, let alone if the organizations of tomorrow will fit into any framework similar to what exists now, nor can I tell how much our culture may change in a world that now seems to be constantly wired in, on the move, and seemingly striving to keep doing more. I doubt it is a passing fad, and it very well could be a field whose existence is constant yet what it is will always change. Particularly with the trend of a globalized marketplace floating around more then ever, I see a lot of ways in which macrosystem and interpersonal trends can become increasingly prevalent, and the ongoing press for empowered individuals and companies that do unusual things for the employee's good, such as Google or SAS, highlights where we could we a continuation of individual trends. Now being aware of these concepts of OD, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out beyond the pages of the text and within the context of the real world and its seemingly infinite variables...
Resources
Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Learning & Development -- Important Steps
When Building a New Team (n.d.). In MIT
Human Resources. Retrieved December 8, 2013, from http://hrweb.mit.edu/learning-development/learning-topics/teams/articles/new-team
Whetten,
D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2011). Developing Management Skills (8th
ed.). Uppder Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
While I foresee continued growth and changes, I also see in that a steady future for the field. Considering how lean management and continuous improvement seem to have taken root in most any conversation on how businesses can improve, and how often companies seem to be changing their posture based on the health of the economy or consumer demand, OD is not going away. For that matter, I don't believe that OD is so much a "thing" that can go away like an obsolete piece of technology, but rather it is something woven into the framework of any company or organization that succeeds or continues to succeed...it is that recognition and that call to action when leaders, subordinates, or anyone with the initiative to call out an impending hazard recognizes that something within their system is broken and needs to be fixed, or there's an opportunity on the horizon that demands pursuit and thus a course change for the organization. All that has really been done with the formal OD title, I think, is giving a name and something of a semi-tangible framework for the idea.
That isn't to say there are no issues with said framework. As Brown noted in his chapter on the future of OD, the current fluidity of the field presents the lack of accepted core professional knowledge, a lack of certification, and the inherent complications that come with an emphasis on human behavior factors. As it stands now, the current framework also doesn't necessarily lend itself well to situations that demand rapid change (Brown, 2011). OD may also be helped by the fact there are other established frameworks on management and team building that can be utilized, such as bearing in mind the principles of what characterizes a high performance team, as well as the principles of setting SMART goals and Everest goals (Cameron and Whetten, 2011), principles established enough that you can find some of them on the Human Resources page of institutes such as MIT, or see correlations in military training manuals.
Ultimately though, I cannot pretend to accurately forecast where OD may go. There is no telling where the global economy and the companies influenced by it will head, let alone if the organizations of tomorrow will fit into any framework similar to what exists now, nor can I tell how much our culture may change in a world that now seems to be constantly wired in, on the move, and seemingly striving to keep doing more. I doubt it is a passing fad, and it very well could be a field whose existence is constant yet what it is will always change. Particularly with the trend of a globalized marketplace floating around more then ever, I see a lot of ways in which macrosystem and interpersonal trends can become increasingly prevalent, and the ongoing press for empowered individuals and companies that do unusual things for the employee's good, such as Google or SAS, highlights where we could we a continuation of individual trends. Now being aware of these concepts of OD, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out beyond the pages of the text and within the context of the real world and its seemingly infinite variables...
Resources
Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Learning & Development -- Important Steps
When Building a New Team (n.d.). In MIT
Human Resources. Retrieved December 8, 2013, from http://hrweb.mit.edu/learning-development/learning-topics/teams/articles/new-team
Whetten,
D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2011). Developing Management Skills (8th
ed.). Uppder Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
A631.6.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Transformation and change within any context, but certainly in the context of an organization, is rarely ever a one size fits all process. When faced with the need to innovate in the wake of the collapsing housing market in 2007, Gallery Furniture took the approach of an organizational change model called Influencer Training. Owner Jim McIngvale applied these principles and Influencer Training to target six different sources of influence for his employees, to include: personal motivation, personal ability, social motivation, and structural ability (VitalSmarts). This served, overall, to change the behavior of his salespeople which ultimately altered the shopping experience for customers and brought about more sales. Although this particular change model was based on a particular program, it does seem to follow some of the characteristics of charismatic transformation as there was a notable amount of change executed on a compressed timeframe, and the employees seem to have taken well to the changes. Considering the cultural strength of Gallery Furniture as well as the Strategy-Culture Matrix discussed in Brown's text, McIngvale seemed to have pursued a good strategy that yielded positive results. Given that employees stayed on throughout the changes, it is reasonable to assume there is a strong culture within the company, and combined with the high need for change McIngvale managed the change by researching, selecting, and executing what he considered a suitable strategy. It can also be argued he made some adjustments to the fundamental culture as well to move the sales folks to a culture of following up and being helpful, and his doing this through a small measure of "peer pressure" in the form of sales shoutouts suggests just a touch of gentle coercion (VitalSmarts).
In another set of circumstances, Army officer General McChrystal, although not discussing a planned change in processes, did recount his experience of a very rapid change in the operational posture of the Army. With his account of quite literally falling into a post-9/11 world, an instant turn between a peacetime Army and an Army that had to be ready to engage in sustained combat operations illustrates something of a dictatorial transformation, where there is no time for participation and the organization may not have much internal support (Brown, 2011). This isn't by fault of leadership though or a lack of subordinate willingness to do their job, but more by the sheer circumstances of having to stand up forces in the wake of an attack. But McChrystal was aware of what would need to be done to maintain the necessary buy in, and in his talk he touched upon upholding enduring organizational culture values of military people being there for one another, and the need to maintain relevance of a conflict that for some of his subordinates may have started when they were but grade-schoolers (TED). At the same time, he touched on personal anecdotes of his career to make the point that leaders needn't necessarily be larger than life, heroic figures, but be willing to listen and learn from any failures. Overall though, McChrystal seemed able to lean upon over 200 years of Army culture and tradition, as well as leadership ability, in managing the pivot from a military in a training/preparation posture to a high operations tempo culture. Not necessarily needing to change the organization itself, he seemed able to reinforce the strong organizational culture and maintained the commitment of subordinates towards accomplishing the mission.
In the circumstances presented, the leaders were able to effectively assess the type of change that was needed in their organizations to meet new requirements, and while benefiting from not having to make radical changes to the culture or procedures, they were able to work with their respective cultures to realize the end goals with just the right amount of strategic change.
Resources
Gallery Furniture Case Study (n.d.). In VitalSmarts. Retrieved December 1, 2013
Stanley McChrystal: Listen, learn.then lead (2011, April). In TED. Retrieved December 1, 2013
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)