Over the course of the last nine weeks, I've picked up a certain amount of practical knowledge, and a good deal of perspective. To consider three lessons I've taken away from the course, I can certainly attest that I was reintroduced to some ideas from college philosophy classes I hadn't revisited in several years, primarily to include the discussions of consequentialism and deontology which I believe I first heard about when discussing the likes of Mill and Kant. Indeed, to consciously examine issues from within those different frameworks as well as the overall idea of pragmatism can generate some thoughts on why some people believe what they do. Second, I took away that the very nature of ethics demands critical thinking and a certain mental flexibility, for in the ethical dilemmas we studied there were often no correct answers but several right answers that present themselves based on the moral lens applied to the situation...While greater society and in some cases universal notions of humanity will lean strongly towards ideas of not killing or stealing in general circumstances, but each situation ultimately needs to be acted upon by the agents involved to the best of their abilities. Third, and tied in to the first two ideas, though we may have different ethical lenses and value systems formed by our various paths in life, more often than not it can be argued there are situations by necessity, special skills, or otherwise in which people must take some kind of action via moral obligation. This might be captured most succinctly by the thoughts of many a great leader that points towards the idea of "duty".
Indeed, the course did provide a range of perspective through readings that at times demanded thorough examination for understanding, as well as the wide range of thoughts and experiences that every student brought to the course. Having to stop and apply these perspectives to an examination of my own "built-in" value system was helpful towards me achieving better understanding of why I think the way I do, and why people may disagree. I do have to admit that while the content seems worth the time, the means of delivery in the context of my daily life proved at times to be a challenge. The remote nature of online learning lends itself to requiring a lot of writing assignments, and balanced against a full time job and daily life, there were occasions when some of the shorter write ups or forum prompts felt more than adequate to drive home the necessary points of the lesson.
Having said that, I think the overall course was accomplished as best as possible given the circumstances of instruction, and though some of the topics could at times go in several different directions, I understand the point of the text in exploring different situations where ethics can be applied. While the issues themselves, be they affirmative action, racism, animal treatment, or otherwise, may not have a direct relationship at the superficial level, all share the general notion of people thinking through the full spectrum of implications for their actions (or lack thereof), and in most cases these examples were ones where students could make a connection in some form, big or small. So long as the required writing pieces can be continually refined for relevance and motivating engagement from the students, I expect the course will continue to fulfill the core objective of enhancing ethical foundations that can be applied to any endeavor for a lifetime.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Sunday, December 14, 2014
A634.8.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
With the increased attention being given to mass shooting events in recent years, there has inevitably been multiple visitations to the question of whether or not increased levels of gun control are required. Much of the debate has centered around either the relative availability of guns in the United States, or the quality of mental health diagnostics and care as many of the recent perpetrators have been found to have a history of mental health related issues.
Hugh LaFollette, in his text The Practice of Ethics, highlights several of the formal and informal arguments for and against gun control in contemporary society. Depending upon which data set is examined, one could well thing that more guns leads to more violence, or it might even lead to less. Overall though, he did bring up points to consider on the questions of managing risks versus desires, and brought up argument for and against the nature of gun ownership as a "right" and an aspect of citizenship. Tied to this as well is the question of enforcement...even if guns were banned to a greater degree, there could be additional costs to law enforcement with different levels of effect similar to the experience of Prohibition in the United States (LaFollette, 2007).
Regarding my own opinion, I certainly don't think that an outright ban on weapons is a feasible nor desirable solution. Indeed, for all the comparisons of the United States to Europe with regards to gun ownership relative to the level of violent crime (usually indicating fewer guns leads to fewer crimes), I point to the example of Switzerland as an exception to the typical argument. It is not uncommon to see rifles being carried openly in public by people participating in shooting sports, and depending on the statistics cited, the country ranks third or fourth in number of guns per capita yet has a firearms death rate about one-seventh of the rate of the United States (Nelson, 2013). This isn't to say the country, known for a tradition of their conscripted military forces keeping weapons at home, isn't experiencing its own qualms in recent history. Besides the frequent utilization in suicides, there was one significant shooting attack at the parliament in 2001 (Bachmann, 2012), and another shooting attack at a factory in Lurcene (Nelson, 2013). But there is not overwhelming support for gun control at this time...in February 2011, nearly 57 percent of voters were against weapons storage in armories versus the traditional home system (Nelson, 2013).
Of course, we have to recognize that there is good cause to consider how guns come into the hands of private citizens. The shooting incidents in Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Santa Barbara are reminders that there are still gaps in the system, and answers are slow to come. Those such as Richard Martinez, father of one of the Santa Barbara victims, believed that his son died because of the actions of politicians and the NRA, and framed the gun control debate as not one of gun rights, but of the right to live (Stout, 2014). In the months following, California took further action and signed a law allowing relatives to request a court order to remove weapons from the possession of individuals they believe may pose a threat, which gun right advocates believe is an infringement on civil liberties and constitutes denial of due process (Wood, 2014). Those who want gun control have a perfectly valid point in preventing these tragedies from happening again.
This leads to my holistic thought on the situation...we seem to have identified a trend where the people who commit these crimes have some kind of malicious intent with early indicators, or more recently, they're individuals with mental health issues that go untreated or somehow get possession of weapons. The solution, I believe, will lie in a combination of more uniform background checks to ensure individuals are of sound mind and demeanor to be entrusted by society with a weapon, but more importantly I believe there needs to be an education piece. People need to be able to recognize any warning signs of individuals who may lash out at those around them, and have a good idea of immediate action steps to take. I also believe more needs to be done to encourage people afflicted with mental health issues to receive help, although granted, such matters tend to be very personal and require the buy-in of the person involved. Overall, I still believe in the freedom to bear arms, but admittedly, there will be a challenge in plugging the different possible holes in the system of checks and balances, and in bringing the country onto the same page with respect to both gun laws and gun culture.
Resources
Bachmann, H. (2012, December 20). The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works. In Time. Retrieved December 14, 2014.
Nelson, S. S. (2013, March 19). What's Worked, And What Hasn't, In Gun-Loving Switzerland. In National Public Radio. Retrieved December 14, 2014.
Stout, D. (2014, May 26). Gun-Control Debate Heats Up Following California Shooting. In Time. Retrieved December 14, 2014.
Wood, D. (2014, October 1). Santa Barbara aftermath: how California is breaking new ground on gun control. In Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved December 14, 2014.
Hugh LaFollette, in his text The Practice of Ethics, highlights several of the formal and informal arguments for and against gun control in contemporary society. Depending upon which data set is examined, one could well thing that more guns leads to more violence, or it might even lead to less. Overall though, he did bring up points to consider on the questions of managing risks versus desires, and brought up argument for and against the nature of gun ownership as a "right" and an aspect of citizenship. Tied to this as well is the question of enforcement...even if guns were banned to a greater degree, there could be additional costs to law enforcement with different levels of effect similar to the experience of Prohibition in the United States (LaFollette, 2007).
Regarding my own opinion, I certainly don't think that an outright ban on weapons is a feasible nor desirable solution. Indeed, for all the comparisons of the United States to Europe with regards to gun ownership relative to the level of violent crime (usually indicating fewer guns leads to fewer crimes), I point to the example of Switzerland as an exception to the typical argument. It is not uncommon to see rifles being carried openly in public by people participating in shooting sports, and depending on the statistics cited, the country ranks third or fourth in number of guns per capita yet has a firearms death rate about one-seventh of the rate of the United States (Nelson, 2013). This isn't to say the country, known for a tradition of their conscripted military forces keeping weapons at home, isn't experiencing its own qualms in recent history. Besides the frequent utilization in suicides, there was one significant shooting attack at the parliament in 2001 (Bachmann, 2012), and another shooting attack at a factory in Lurcene (Nelson, 2013). But there is not overwhelming support for gun control at this time...in February 2011, nearly 57 percent of voters were against weapons storage in armories versus the traditional home system (Nelson, 2013).
Of course, we have to recognize that there is good cause to consider how guns come into the hands of private citizens. The shooting incidents in Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Santa Barbara are reminders that there are still gaps in the system, and answers are slow to come. Those such as Richard Martinez, father of one of the Santa Barbara victims, believed that his son died because of the actions of politicians and the NRA, and framed the gun control debate as not one of gun rights, but of the right to live (Stout, 2014). In the months following, California took further action and signed a law allowing relatives to request a court order to remove weapons from the possession of individuals they believe may pose a threat, which gun right advocates believe is an infringement on civil liberties and constitutes denial of due process (Wood, 2014). Those who want gun control have a perfectly valid point in preventing these tragedies from happening again.
This leads to my holistic thought on the situation...we seem to have identified a trend where the people who commit these crimes have some kind of malicious intent with early indicators, or more recently, they're individuals with mental health issues that go untreated or somehow get possession of weapons. The solution, I believe, will lie in a combination of more uniform background checks to ensure individuals are of sound mind and demeanor to be entrusted by society with a weapon, but more importantly I believe there needs to be an education piece. People need to be able to recognize any warning signs of individuals who may lash out at those around them, and have a good idea of immediate action steps to take. I also believe more needs to be done to encourage people afflicted with mental health issues to receive help, although granted, such matters tend to be very personal and require the buy-in of the person involved. Overall, I still believe in the freedom to bear arms, but admittedly, there will be a challenge in plugging the different possible holes in the system of checks and balances, and in bringing the country onto the same page with respect to both gun laws and gun culture.
Resources
Bachmann, H. (2012, December 20). The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works. In Time. Retrieved December 14, 2014.
Nelson, S. S. (2013, March 19). What's Worked, And What Hasn't, In Gun-Loving Switzerland. In National Public Radio. Retrieved December 14, 2014.
Stout, D. (2014, May 26). Gun-Control Debate Heats Up Following California Shooting. In Time. Retrieved December 14, 2014.
Wood, D. (2014, October 1). Santa Barbara aftermath: how California is breaking new ground on gun control. In Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved December 14, 2014.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
A634.7.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
The videos presented this week by Dr. Bruce Weinstein and Chuck Gallagher provided a useful reminder of the impacts of the actions of individuals on organizations and the people within them, as well as potentially the individual in question and their family units. After watching the videos, I can think of a handful of times where what the presenters discussed made itself apparent in my own organization.
To reiterate what I'm sure I've said in this class and others, the Air Force's primary statement of ethical conduct is publicly captured in the core values of Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence in All We Do (U.S. Air Force, n.d.). This value set applies to all personnel, be it a junior enlisted fresh out of basic, or a general with over 30 years of service. How these values are portrayed may vary from circumstance to circumstance, but for the most part it is portrayed by our conduct on and off duty, at work and at home.
To use the presentations as a guide, I can say I've seen examples of behavior that would fit well within Dr. Weinstein's and Mr. Gallagher's ideas of ethical and unethical conduct. Weinstein, for instance, touched upon the idea of constructive criticism, and this is an every day occurrence for our organization. Most everywhere I've gone, particularly in my current role as a relatively young officer, I very regularly receive some measure of feedback from my superiors of what I've done well on, and where I need to improve. Usually this is given very objectively and in a reasonably private setting, and is usually capped off with a reminder that I'm making progress. I've only had one leadership experience where the supervision in question tended to "editorialize," but by and large our leadership culture is very good about doing building up our people's confidence and skill sets in an ethical manner. The fact that this is the norm also facilitates Weinstein's note about ethical behavior being beneficial for everyone's morale and productivity, and it is to the organization's benefit to be ethical.
Unfortunately, thinking about Gallagher's description of the slippery slope, I can also very readily see areas where as an organization we regularly find ourselves entertaining an ethical grey area. Every year without fail, we have to deal with the challenge of our budget...not so much in not having enough money, but spending it to justify maintaining our level of unit funding. Although this shouldn't be the case technically, a culture has been formed over the years where the rule of thumb dictates that not only does any leftover money get redistributed to other needs, but those units that don't spend all of their funding are liable to find themselves with less money during the next fiscal year. Frugality goes unrewarded, and while we might find ourselves able to fund last minute business trips, it is not uncommon to find ourselves with a bunch of fancy office supplies, display monitors, and new furniture that we didn't really need. Although "everyone does it," it is still unsettling that this still occurs when the service is being faced with massive cuts and there is increased emphasis on fiscal responsibility. The Air Force has, unfortunately, been no stranger to spending scandals in the past, and one can only wonder about the fine line that it seems to regularly ride upon.
To use the presentations as a guide, I can say I've seen examples of behavior that would fit well within Dr. Weinstein's and Mr. Gallagher's ideas of ethical and unethical conduct. Weinstein, for instance, touched upon the idea of constructive criticism, and this is an every day occurrence for our organization. Most everywhere I've gone, particularly in my current role as a relatively young officer, I very regularly receive some measure of feedback from my superiors of what I've done well on, and where I need to improve. Usually this is given very objectively and in a reasonably private setting, and is usually capped off with a reminder that I'm making progress. I've only had one leadership experience where the supervision in question tended to "editorialize," but by and large our leadership culture is very good about doing building up our people's confidence and skill sets in an ethical manner. The fact that this is the norm also facilitates Weinstein's note about ethical behavior being beneficial for everyone's morale and productivity, and it is to the organization's benefit to be ethical.
Unfortunately, thinking about Gallagher's description of the slippery slope, I can also very readily see areas where as an organization we regularly find ourselves entertaining an ethical grey area. Every year without fail, we have to deal with the challenge of our budget...not so much in not having enough money, but spending it to justify maintaining our level of unit funding. Although this shouldn't be the case technically, a culture has been formed over the years where the rule of thumb dictates that not only does any leftover money get redistributed to other needs, but those units that don't spend all of their funding are liable to find themselves with less money during the next fiscal year. Frugality goes unrewarded, and while we might find ourselves able to fund last minute business trips, it is not uncommon to find ourselves with a bunch of fancy office supplies, display monitors, and new furniture that we didn't really need. Although "everyone does it," it is still unsettling that this still occurs when the service is being faced with massive cuts and there is increased emphasis on fiscal responsibility. The Air Force has, unfortunately, been no stranger to spending scandals in the past, and one can only wonder about the fine line that it seems to regularly ride upon.
Additional Resources
US Air Force, Our Values (n.d.). In U.S. Air Force. Retrieved December 7, 2014, from http://www.airforce.com/learn-about/our-values/
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
A634.6.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
If one consider's virtue as being closest to Aristotle's idea as presented in Hugh LaFollette's The Practice of Ethics, then to live a virtuous life is simply living in such a way as to live the best life possible (LaFollette, 2007). For Benjamin Franklin, his overall concept of a virtuous life was captured in his 13 Virtues, which we are told include temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility (PBS, n.d.).
For further personal reflection, I will take a closer look at three virtues and how to better include them in my daily life, specifically the virtues of resolution, industry, and cleanliness. Resolution is defined as "...performing what you ought," and to "perform without fail what you resolve." Industry is to always be "...employed in something useful" and not wasting actions. Finally, cleanliness is simply "tolerate no uncleanness in body, clothes, or habitation." (PBS, n.d.)
With regard to resolution, I personally define this as a combination of doing what is expected of you, and completing not only these tasks but also any task that you set out to accomplish. Although the ideal would be for everyone to finish everything, and finish it well, the fact is that intents go unfulfilled and tasks fall by the wayside by way of sheer business, entropy or otherwise. I myself, while I more often than not complete my work and school tasks by a fairly large margin, do find myself with lingering tasks in my personal life. Household projects don't get tended to as often or as promptly as I would like, photos go for weeks without being uploaded and usually never get touch up, and although I have several personal writing projects that I've begun to pen I've only actually completed two in the last several years. To better meet the challenge of resolution, now that I've identified my own shortcomings, I can make it a point (and ideally will resolve to this) that I pause to schedule the time for my various resolutions and ultimately see them through.
Industry is another issue that I expect to be highly common in the modern, wired era of 24 hour news cycles, blogs, and near constant stimuli via on-demand entertainment, social media, and the generally easy availability of time-wasters. Although this is only for maybe a few minutes at a time, assuming an individual hasn't dedicated an entire half hour to an hour for a television program, those handful of minutes eventually add up to a great deal of time that could have been allocated towards other ventures. I myself am guilty as well of idling away time at home and at work reading short articles or reading up on information not immediately related to what I'm doing, and although in the grand scheme it may not seem so much, the fact is the time is still gone. Time is a finite, one use resource, and I would do well to be more conscious of how much bang I get for my investment.
Finally, very much tied to the previous two virtues is the virtue of cleanliness. Cleanliness is admittedly a very personal standard, as everyone has what they consider an acceptable level. Some individuals I know cannot stand even a piece of paper that is out of place, while others have their belongings scattered every which way or have their empty drink containers piled on the counter top. I admittedly move back and forth between the extremes depending on my level of business and whether or not I'm expecting visitor's, but I know my work space and home environment more often fits the stereotype of the absent minded professor that, although they themselves are not untidy in appearance or thinking, they tend to have a higher tolerance for books and papers piled high on every horizontal surface.
The key to any of these virtues and bringing them to practical application in my daily life is to first and foremost identify it as a goal or necessity, and perhaps take to heart Aristotle's idea of the virtues in question as being part of the path to the best life possible. From the initial application, I also believe that to see any enduring effect that the virtues would have to become consistent lifestyle habits. Although living by these and the other virtues prescribed by Frankly is not an impossible task, it is certainly an interesting challenge for these modern times that demands more of our time and energy in spite of advances in attempting to save the same.
Resources
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden: Blackwell.
For further personal reflection, I will take a closer look at three virtues and how to better include them in my daily life, specifically the virtues of resolution, industry, and cleanliness. Resolution is defined as "...performing what you ought," and to "perform without fail what you resolve." Industry is to always be "...employed in something useful" and not wasting actions. Finally, cleanliness is simply "tolerate no uncleanness in body, clothes, or habitation." (PBS, n.d.)
With regard to resolution, I personally define this as a combination of doing what is expected of you, and completing not only these tasks but also any task that you set out to accomplish. Although the ideal would be for everyone to finish everything, and finish it well, the fact is that intents go unfulfilled and tasks fall by the wayside by way of sheer business, entropy or otherwise. I myself, while I more often than not complete my work and school tasks by a fairly large margin, do find myself with lingering tasks in my personal life. Household projects don't get tended to as often or as promptly as I would like, photos go for weeks without being uploaded and usually never get touch up, and although I have several personal writing projects that I've begun to pen I've only actually completed two in the last several years. To better meet the challenge of resolution, now that I've identified my own shortcomings, I can make it a point (and ideally will resolve to this) that I pause to schedule the time for my various resolutions and ultimately see them through.
Industry is another issue that I expect to be highly common in the modern, wired era of 24 hour news cycles, blogs, and near constant stimuli via on-demand entertainment, social media, and the generally easy availability of time-wasters. Although this is only for maybe a few minutes at a time, assuming an individual hasn't dedicated an entire half hour to an hour for a television program, those handful of minutes eventually add up to a great deal of time that could have been allocated towards other ventures. I myself am guilty as well of idling away time at home and at work reading short articles or reading up on information not immediately related to what I'm doing, and although in the grand scheme it may not seem so much, the fact is the time is still gone. Time is a finite, one use resource, and I would do well to be more conscious of how much bang I get for my investment.
Finally, very much tied to the previous two virtues is the virtue of cleanliness. Cleanliness is admittedly a very personal standard, as everyone has what they consider an acceptable level. Some individuals I know cannot stand even a piece of paper that is out of place, while others have their belongings scattered every which way or have their empty drink containers piled on the counter top. I admittedly move back and forth between the extremes depending on my level of business and whether or not I'm expecting visitor's, but I know my work space and home environment more often fits the stereotype of the absent minded professor that, although they themselves are not untidy in appearance or thinking, they tend to have a higher tolerance for books and papers piled high on every horizontal surface.
The key to any of these virtues and bringing them to practical application in my daily life is to first and foremost identify it as a goal or necessity, and perhaps take to heart Aristotle's idea of the virtues in question as being part of the path to the best life possible. From the initial application, I also believe that to see any enduring effect that the virtues would have to become consistent lifestyle habits. Although living by these and the other virtues prescribed by Frankly is not an impossible task, it is certainly an interesting challenge for these modern times that demands more of our time and energy in spite of advances in attempting to save the same.
Resources
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden: Blackwell.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
A634.5.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymo
As is the case with many professions and fields of human endeavor in contemporary times, even the seemingly cutthroat arena of marketing has been under greater scrutiny for ethical conduct. To answer the question of whether or not ethical guidelines make a difference, although it might not be a conscious discussion in daily activities, the heavy consequences for marketers caught in the midst of unethical conduct as well as the notion of an organization's reputation as being one of its "...greatest intangible assets" (Ferell), suggests that if guidelines haven't already made a difference, they certainly should matter. Even years ago, there were ethical concerns surrounding how advertisers handled marketing to children, with some stating that intensive advertising created a widespread of materialistic values among children that risked leaving them feeling deficient if they can't keep up with new products (Clay, 2000)
With the contemporary ethos of ethical business, it falls upon marketers to remain true to their objective in conducting fruitful business, but they also need to balance this out with taking the high road. As suggested in the El Sayed and El Ghazaly article, there are organizations that primarily seek to make a quick buck. However, an organization can commit itself towards integrating an ethical culture in order to achieve their end goals while striving to do only good. This would happen best by upholding as heroes those who achieve the most through righteous means, while giving cautionary tales of those who met their downfall by trying to cut corners. Leadership would have to set the example for up and comers, and recognize those who best exemplify the ethical values of the organization (Ferell). In short, a victory in good conscience can't simply be an objective, but must become a way of life woven into the very fabric of the organization's identity.
Tied into the discussion of marketing ethics is the question of consumer data collection. Whether or not this practice is acceptable is still an emerging debate. For the United States, it is known that companies collect data on consumers through tracking social media posts, online purchases, and search habits. There have, however, been instances where companies have embarrassed themselves in applying the information gathered, as in the case where Target sent coupons for baby products to a teenager after analyzing her shopping patterns, leading to her parents finding out she was expecting (Martin, 2014). Admittedly, speaking from personal perspective, people do accept a modicum of invasiveness to have their free services, but this doesn't happen globally. Speaking from personal experience, a close friend of mine related to me that in the process of continuing to create and expand the content for a major apparel company's web site, while Americans didn't balk at the idea of accepting location tracking, they had to work on a solution for the European market as people there apparently don't consent as readily towards sharing their location through web services. Like many questions of acceptable behavior, the answer comes down to the practice being only ethical as far as a given society is willing to permit it.
If placed in the position of managing marketing efforts, I might start at the initial onset by asking what constitutes acceptable behavior not only within the given culture of the organization and its respective industry, but more importantly by the ethical context of our customers or our target audience. It isn't up to us to arbitrarily decide Perhaps the simplest way to deal with this though might be a rule of thumb I've heard by a couple different names, to include the New York Times test or the Washington Post test. Simply put, if we were to do something and it made the front page headlines nationwide, would we feel shame, embarrassment, or otherwise like we were "caught" doing something? If the answer is no or if we would feel proud, then great...if not, then there needs to be immediate course corrections made. Admittedly, there is a potential challenge in that with today's technology driven communications and marketing landscape, there is the chance that unexplored ethical concerns could present themselves within the new mediums of communication or in the initial churn of defining what's acceptable...if virtual reality ever becomes a regular thing, will the regular rules of real society still apply, or will people be permitted to roam as they please? I believe then that management efforts will come down to regularly checking with the organization to ensure we are on course and can sleep soundly at night with our decisions.
Resources
Clay, R. A. (2000, September). Advertising to children: Is it ethical? [Electronic version]. Monitor on Psychology, 31(8), 52.
Ferrell, L. (n.d.). Marketing Ethics. In Cengage. Retrieved November 21, 2014, from http://college.cengage.com/business/modules/marktngethics.pdf
Martin, E. (2014, March 27). The Ethics of Big Data. In Forbes. Retrieved November 22, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/emc/2014/03/27/the-ethics-of-big-data/
With the contemporary ethos of ethical business, it falls upon marketers to remain true to their objective in conducting fruitful business, but they also need to balance this out with taking the high road. As suggested in the El Sayed and El Ghazaly article, there are organizations that primarily seek to make a quick buck. However, an organization can commit itself towards integrating an ethical culture in order to achieve their end goals while striving to do only good. This would happen best by upholding as heroes those who achieve the most through righteous means, while giving cautionary tales of those who met their downfall by trying to cut corners. Leadership would have to set the example for up and comers, and recognize those who best exemplify the ethical values of the organization (Ferell). In short, a victory in good conscience can't simply be an objective, but must become a way of life woven into the very fabric of the organization's identity.
Tied into the discussion of marketing ethics is the question of consumer data collection. Whether or not this practice is acceptable is still an emerging debate. For the United States, it is known that companies collect data on consumers through tracking social media posts, online purchases, and search habits. There have, however, been instances where companies have embarrassed themselves in applying the information gathered, as in the case where Target sent coupons for baby products to a teenager after analyzing her shopping patterns, leading to her parents finding out she was expecting (Martin, 2014). Admittedly, speaking from personal perspective, people do accept a modicum of invasiveness to have their free services, but this doesn't happen globally. Speaking from personal experience, a close friend of mine related to me that in the process of continuing to create and expand the content for a major apparel company's web site, while Americans didn't balk at the idea of accepting location tracking, they had to work on a solution for the European market as people there apparently don't consent as readily towards sharing their location through web services. Like many questions of acceptable behavior, the answer comes down to the practice being only ethical as far as a given society is willing to permit it.
If placed in the position of managing marketing efforts, I might start at the initial onset by asking what constitutes acceptable behavior not only within the given culture of the organization and its respective industry, but more importantly by the ethical context of our customers or our target audience. It isn't up to us to arbitrarily decide Perhaps the simplest way to deal with this though might be a rule of thumb I've heard by a couple different names, to include the New York Times test or the Washington Post test. Simply put, if we were to do something and it made the front page headlines nationwide, would we feel shame, embarrassment, or otherwise like we were "caught" doing something? If the answer is no or if we would feel proud, then great...if not, then there needs to be immediate course corrections made. Admittedly, there is a potential challenge in that with today's technology driven communications and marketing landscape, there is the chance that unexplored ethical concerns could present themselves within the new mediums of communication or in the initial churn of defining what's acceptable...if virtual reality ever becomes a regular thing, will the regular rules of real society still apply, or will people be permitted to roam as they please? I believe then that management efforts will come down to regularly checking with the organization to ensure we are on course and can sleep soundly at night with our decisions.
Resources
Clay, R. A. (2000, September). Advertising to children: Is it ethical? [Electronic version]. Monitor on Psychology, 31(8), 52.
Ferrell, L. (n.d.). Marketing Ethics. In Cengage. Retrieved November 21, 2014, from http://college.cengage.com/business/modules/marktngethics.pdf
Martin, E. (2014, March 27). The Ethics of Big Data. In Forbes. Retrieved November 22, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/emc/2014/03/27/the-ethics-of-big-data/
Sunday, November 16, 2014
A634.4.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In discussing the broader issue of racism, Hugh LaFollette discusses the more specific issue of affirmative action in his text The Practice of Ethics. Affirmative action, in brief, is the practice of giving special consideration to minorities and women, generally with regards to hiring processes and admission to colleges and universities. Although some programs were considered by the US Supreme Court as legally permissible in 2003, many Americans reject the practice (LaFollette, 2007). Interestingly enough, a 2014 Supreme Court decision upheld a Michigan constitutional amendment that prohibited the use of affirmative action at the state's public universities and colleges (Liptak, 2014).
Whether or not affirmative action is ethical, however, depends on one's viewpoint. There are certainly those who would be inclined to run with the argument that it is needed. LaFollette, for this half of the argument, poses the arguments of mitigating veiled or indirect racism, or ensuring equality of opportunity (LaFollette, 2007). Santa Clara University, in a comprehensive piece on affirmative action from their applied ethics center, writes that those favoring such programs appeal to distributive and compensatory justice, further asserting that whereas discrimination in the past was done out of ignorance or malice, preferential treatment programs have the aims of creating equal opportunity, and promoting equality. Further, they wrote that some arguable benefits include creating a cadre of professionals more responsive to needs of minorities, as well as cultivating benefits from the diversity of perspectives in the workplace and academia (Andre et al, n.d.)
As noted though, there are arguments against affirmative action. For discussion purposes, LaFollette presents several issues including perceptions of reverse discrimination in promoting others simply on account of race, doing harm to those that have done no wrong, potentially bringing up those who aren't necessarily the most qualified, and possibly even bringing further stigma upon minorities (LaFollette, 2007). The Santa Clara write up adds in that preferential treatment potentially ignores the claim of need in a situation, grants benefits to select groups regardless of whether or not individuals experienced discrimination, can encourage dependency in some cases, and related to the earlier note of stigma, can devalue the achievements of individuals that are members of a benefited group (Andre et al, n.d.).
Regarding my personal opinion of affirmative action, I can certainly see the argument of both sides from both an academic and experiential standpoint, as I am a member of both a majority and minority group as a bi-racial individual (which in itself can be classified as a minority group). Although I may myself have benefited from checking the box on university applications and the like, I personally do not believe in ascribing value to a person's performance and qualifications simply because of their racial, ethnic, or cultural background. Perhaps from deontological standpoint, one can make the argument of correcting the wrongs of society after the fact. However, from that same perspective, I still believe that though there is positive intent, affirmative action is still an act of discrimination, and and any benefit gained could potentially be seen as something of a "hand out" rather than something earned or an affirmation of a person's achievements. Further, from a consequentialist standpoint, I would argue there is greater harm in the intentional pursuit of affirmative action, for rather than forming an objective system or allowing an existing objective system to evaluate individuals on merit, affirmative action actively takes away a benefit or desired object from one person and gives it to another. Rather than having a single beneficiary as an end result of the system, there would then be one beneficiary and one person who was arbitrarily deprived to pay for another's benefit.
Sources
Andre, C., Velasquez, M., & Mazur, T. (n.d.). Affirmative action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy. In Santa Clara University Markkula Center of Applied Ethics. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden: Blackwell
Liptak, A. (2014, April 23). Court Backs Michigan on Affirmative Action [Electronic version]. The New York Times, p. A1.
Whether or not affirmative action is ethical, however, depends on one's viewpoint. There are certainly those who would be inclined to run with the argument that it is needed. LaFollette, for this half of the argument, poses the arguments of mitigating veiled or indirect racism, or ensuring equality of opportunity (LaFollette, 2007). Santa Clara University, in a comprehensive piece on affirmative action from their applied ethics center, writes that those favoring such programs appeal to distributive and compensatory justice, further asserting that whereas discrimination in the past was done out of ignorance or malice, preferential treatment programs have the aims of creating equal opportunity, and promoting equality. Further, they wrote that some arguable benefits include creating a cadre of professionals more responsive to needs of minorities, as well as cultivating benefits from the diversity of perspectives in the workplace and academia (Andre et al, n.d.)
As noted though, there are arguments against affirmative action. For discussion purposes, LaFollette presents several issues including perceptions of reverse discrimination in promoting others simply on account of race, doing harm to those that have done no wrong, potentially bringing up those who aren't necessarily the most qualified, and possibly even bringing further stigma upon minorities (LaFollette, 2007). The Santa Clara write up adds in that preferential treatment potentially ignores the claim of need in a situation, grants benefits to select groups regardless of whether or not individuals experienced discrimination, can encourage dependency in some cases, and related to the earlier note of stigma, can devalue the achievements of individuals that are members of a benefited group (Andre et al, n.d.).
Regarding my personal opinion of affirmative action, I can certainly see the argument of both sides from both an academic and experiential standpoint, as I am a member of both a majority and minority group as a bi-racial individual (which in itself can be classified as a minority group). Although I may myself have benefited from checking the box on university applications and the like, I personally do not believe in ascribing value to a person's performance and qualifications simply because of their racial, ethnic, or cultural background. Perhaps from deontological standpoint, one can make the argument of correcting the wrongs of society after the fact. However, from that same perspective, I still believe that though there is positive intent, affirmative action is still an act of discrimination, and and any benefit gained could potentially be seen as something of a "hand out" rather than something earned or an affirmation of a person's achievements. Further, from a consequentialist standpoint, I would argue there is greater harm in the intentional pursuit of affirmative action, for rather than forming an objective system or allowing an existing objective system to evaluate individuals on merit, affirmative action actively takes away a benefit or desired object from one person and gives it to another. Rather than having a single beneficiary as an end result of the system, there would then be one beneficiary and one person who was arbitrarily deprived to pay for another's benefit.
Sources
Andre, C., Velasquez, M., & Mazur, T. (n.d.). Affirmative action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy. In Santa Clara University Markkula Center of Applied Ethics. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden: Blackwell
Liptak, A. (2014, April 23). Court Backs Michigan on Affirmative Action [Electronic version]. The New York Times, p. A1.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
A634.3.5.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Completing a read of Kramer's article, The Harder They Fall, the first thing that comes to mind when considering the thought of dilemmas in work, society, and life is the overall notion of the "work-life" balance that many people seem to struggle with, to the point that the subject finds its ways into news stories and is even a point touched upon during military performance reviews. Even a matter of days ago, Forbes published an article centered around four tips on how to manage workloads so as not to displace one's personal life (Nuth, 2014).
Kramer, in conducting his study that formed some of the basis of his article, had noted several characteristics of those who get in trouble, some of which include getting caught up in some of the high-life that comes with success, not maintaining humility, or losing their sense of self-awareness (Kramer, 2003). Much of his vignettes also seemed to highlight well his idea of good people getting caught up in their rise to power and becoming reckless, or even taking an "at any cost" approach to being the winner of a given situation. I thought Kramer had an especially good point in his analysis of there being a "winner take all" market...many people are gunning for the same slice of the American Dream or high achievement, and although there are genuinely great people, much emphasis is placed upon the coveted positive of "number one" given to whoever edges out all others in some manner or another (Kramer, 2003). This drive to succeed, it seems, not only drives people to achieve the end goal of being on top, but as Kramer shared in another vignette of a woman leaving her family, cause people to potentially make extreme sacrifices of their family in order to "keep up".
It is indeed unfortunate that even years after the publication of Kramer's article, a dilemma continues between individuals and their work. An October article from Time's website highlighted a recent study that found 70% of worker suffer from work-family tension (Fondas, 2014). Society seems to have a way of amplifying expectations for productivity in spite of attempts to save working hours and manpower, thus leaving no relief in sight for the individual as progress moves forward. Although it is good that the problem has been recognized, the fact that it has become a part of the national conversation indicates that it has become very deeply seated. There is truly an ongoing push and pull between the individual and the major influencers of their life, to include work, family, and meeting other aspirations of higher education and service to their communities. Effective function without excess sacrifice to any single aspect requires a strong measure of time management, discipline, and as highlighted by Kramer, not sacrificing oneself and their values for the sake of the power game.
Kramer, in conducting his study that formed some of the basis of his article, had noted several characteristics of those who get in trouble, some of which include getting caught up in some of the high-life that comes with success, not maintaining humility, or losing their sense of self-awareness (Kramer, 2003). Much of his vignettes also seemed to highlight well his idea of good people getting caught up in their rise to power and becoming reckless, or even taking an "at any cost" approach to being the winner of a given situation. I thought Kramer had an especially good point in his analysis of there being a "winner take all" market...many people are gunning for the same slice of the American Dream or high achievement, and although there are genuinely great people, much emphasis is placed upon the coveted positive of "number one" given to whoever edges out all others in some manner or another (Kramer, 2003). This drive to succeed, it seems, not only drives people to achieve the end goal of being on top, but as Kramer shared in another vignette of a woman leaving her family, cause people to potentially make extreme sacrifices of their family in order to "keep up".
It is indeed unfortunate that even years after the publication of Kramer's article, a dilemma continues between individuals and their work. An October article from Time's website highlighted a recent study that found 70% of worker suffer from work-family tension (Fondas, 2014). Society seems to have a way of amplifying expectations for productivity in spite of attempts to save working hours and manpower, thus leaving no relief in sight for the individual as progress moves forward. Although it is good that the problem has been recognized, the fact that it has become a part of the national conversation indicates that it has become very deeply seated. There is truly an ongoing push and pull between the individual and the major influencers of their life, to include work, family, and meeting other aspirations of higher education and service to their communities. Effective function without excess sacrifice to any single aspect requires a strong measure of time management, discipline, and as highlighted by Kramer, not sacrificing oneself and their values for the sake of the power game.
Fondas, N. (2014, October 11). Work-Life Balance is Having a Moment - But for the Wrong Reasons. In Time. Retrieved November 6, 2014.
Kramer, R. M. (2003). The Harder They Fall. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.
Kramer, R. M. (2003). The Harder They Fall. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.
Nuth, A. (2014, November 4). 4 Work-Life Balance Tips. In Forbes. Retrieved November 6, 2014.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
A634.2.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In Chapter 2 of Hugh LaFollette's The Practice of Ethics, readers are presented with a detailed discussion of consequentialism and deontology, two categories of ethical theory which discuss two common styles of reasoning through which people will reach a decision on how to act when presented with an issue of ethics. To briefly summarize, consequentialism emphasizes selecting an available course of action which will yield the best overall consequences. Deontology, on the other hand, emphasizes acting in accordance with moral rules or rights which can in some part be considered independently of the end results (LaFollette, 2007).
To expound somewhat further, LaFollette wrote that consequentialism requires consideration of several aspects of the end results. This can include figuring out which consequences of a given action count, and a weight of importance may need to be assigned to the factors that are of interest as part of the results of a given action. There is also the need to consider how to best measure the effect of the end result. By the dominant form of consequentialism, the theory of utilitarianism, one should look towards achieving the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people. Of course, with this theory comes the concern of its application, particularly in potentially considering consequences too narrowly. LaFollette uses the example of a proposed “survival lottery” scenario that would randomly select healthy individuals to be harvested for organs to help multiple sick people, provided the process was formalized, public, and democratically supported (LaFollette, 2011). The point, however, is that an individual making a decision through the lens of consequentialism and may not necessarily be considering the ethical implications of, say, actions on one individual that would benefit multiple people as in the survival lottery scenario, or simply not considering the fullest scope of potential impacts through either negligence of long term effects or secondary effects.
Resources
To expound somewhat further, LaFollette wrote that consequentialism requires consideration of several aspects of the end results. This can include figuring out which consequences of a given action count, and a weight of importance may need to be assigned to the factors that are of interest as part of the results of a given action. There is also the need to consider how to best measure the effect of the end result. By the dominant form of consequentialism, the theory of utilitarianism, one should look towards achieving the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people. Of course, with this theory comes the concern of its application, particularly in potentially considering consequences too narrowly. LaFollette uses the example of a proposed “survival lottery” scenario that would randomly select healthy individuals to be harvested for organs to help multiple sick people, provided the process was formalized, public, and democratically supported (LaFollette, 2011). The point, however, is that an individual making a decision through the lens of consequentialism and may not necessarily be considering the ethical implications of, say, actions on one individual that would benefit multiple people as in the survival lottery scenario, or simply not considering the fullest scope of potential impacts through either negligence of long term effects or secondary effects.
Deontology has the benefits,
according to LaFollette, of better reflecting how most people learn and develop
moral beliefs, and it doesn't receive as much critical review as
consequentialism. Deontology looks more towards rules individuals were raised
with, and uses these rules as guidelines for action more so than examining the
potential consequences of a given action. For a lot of people, this may seem
more like simply following the rules and may not present itself with as many
potential sticking points as consequentialism. LaFollette writes, however,
there are issues with deontology as well. As most people think consequences
count for something, deontologists must either give appropriate weight to
consequences or show they really don’t matter. Furthermore, there can be
complications as basic “approximations” of more complex rules eventually give
way to complex circumstances, such as the initial rule of “never lying”
eventually including “complex factors” later on. Possible conflicts between
rules may have to be dealt with if they arise. This system, as well, is not
perfect.
For me, I would hesitate to say
that either theory is superior to the other, and both of them have something to
offer in the way of providing inputs for a critical analysis of an issue.
Consequentialism provides a system of thought towards analyzing possible
choices, similar to a Courses of Action comparison in the military, while
deontology provides some guidance towards a choice, similar to best practices
and regulations in the military. In decision making processes, we are often
asked to analyze a problem, and from there develop several courses of action to
choose from. Each course is analyzed in the context of desired variables such
as costs, impact to individuals, and tend to be assigned point values based on
how they score in each variable…potential consequences are analyzed. Of course,
regulations have to be kept in mind and these can often drive what actions can
be taken, providing the initial check from deontology. However, knowing that
sometimes a particular job has to be done, there does come occasions where
waivers have to be signed allowing an exception to accomplish a greater goal,
which can be similar to the push and pull between consequentialism and
deontology. I believe, in short, that it is highly impracticable to depend on
either theory to act as the “be-all, end-all” means for deciding how to
navigate any issue of ethics. Rather, one has to be able to take an honest
assessment of a situation, think through as broad a scope as possible and
considering consequences (ideally soliciting multiple perspectives for a truly
large scale problem), and ideally, possessing sound judgment to decide when to
follow rules by the book and when to act in accordance with the best intent of
their conscience and good will.
Resources
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics.
Malden: Blackwell.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
A634.1.6.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Reading through Podolny's article, one may be left with a relatively bleak outlook as to the state of the business education community. At first glance, the assessment leaves one thinking that business schools have taken on one of the stereotypes of contemporary big business, pursuing their results at any cost. It is heartening though seeing that Podolny and others have dug deeper in the wake of recent business scandals and found there to be an emphasis on data and qualitative methods which a lack of education towards values and ethics.
Podolny suggested that schools needed further integration of ethics education to their course work, and even professionalizing the field with a code of conduct, among other ideas that also include putting less emphasis on comparing ranks and graduate income, and encouraging more qualitative research (Podolny, 2009). I'm inclined to agree that these would be helpful steps. Certainly, if the goal is to attract individuals that think about big picture impact rather than the bottom line, it would do schools well to highlight alumni that have "made a difference" with the knowledge they've gained, rather than what their take-home pay is. While data and hard numbers will always be important, people and society need to be brought back into the equation of business thinking.
Since the Podolny article was written in 2009, more has been written on the topic of ethics in the MBA field, and action seems to be underway. Yale and the Aspen Institute have implemented a curriculum emphasizing the application of ethics in the workplace, with a focus on standing up for one's values. Columbia has incorporated "analysis, decision making, and leadership." Harvard is offering a program for first year students called "Field Immersion Experiences for Leadership Development" that gives an opportunity to apply classroom learning while working with industry, and apparently building an entrepreneurial company in six weeks (O'Connor, 2013). The same year that Podolny wrote his article, Harvard also began promoting a student-led MBA oath (Anteby, 2013).
Having said that, although there are programs being put into place, there is still a strong word of caution underlying the conversation. One article suggested that there still isn't quite enough being done, and suggested there needs to be further opportunities for application, or interacting with MBA students from other countries to better understand their own ethical challenges (Himsel, 2014). I can certainly understand the concerns, and I've got additional thoughts as well on the long term impacts of these programs. Although these new efforts at imparting ethics will touch the current generation of MBA students, one has to wonder about the enduring value of these lessons once they set off into to world of business...one that presumably still has a fair number of individuals inundated in the old ways of business, and quite possibly with a body of senior leadership that continues to lead as they've always led and as they've seen in their own experiences rising through the ranks. I agree, and see it as the way ahead, that the institutions will need to continue seeking opportunities to apply ethics, and they should continue to integrate it into existing lesson plans where possible, for ethics cuts across so many lanes of business practices.
In short, this new breed of ethically minded MBA students need to not only learn and apply ethics, but they must have the resilience to maintain these attitudes and behaviors throughout their career until, through attrition and setting the example, the culture of ethics takes hold as the preponderance and the norm rather than simply being a new upstart. It is when ethical business practice becomes the standard by which all newcomers are judged, the new metric upon which the great leaders are remembered, that the greatest effect will be realized.
Works Cited
Anteby, M. (2013, October 22). Why business schools need business ethics. In The Guardian. Retrieved October 26, 2014
Himsel, D. (2014, August 6). Business Schools Aren't Producing Ethical Graduates. In Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved October 26, 2014
O'Connor, S. (2013, May 15). The Responsibility Of Business Schools In Training Ethical Leaders. In Forbes. Retrieved October 26, 2014
Podolny, J. M. (2009). The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business School. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 62-67.
Podolny suggested that schools needed further integration of ethics education to their course work, and even professionalizing the field with a code of conduct, among other ideas that also include putting less emphasis on comparing ranks and graduate income, and encouraging more qualitative research (Podolny, 2009). I'm inclined to agree that these would be helpful steps. Certainly, if the goal is to attract individuals that think about big picture impact rather than the bottom line, it would do schools well to highlight alumni that have "made a difference" with the knowledge they've gained, rather than what their take-home pay is. While data and hard numbers will always be important, people and society need to be brought back into the equation of business thinking.
Since the Podolny article was written in 2009, more has been written on the topic of ethics in the MBA field, and action seems to be underway. Yale and the Aspen Institute have implemented a curriculum emphasizing the application of ethics in the workplace, with a focus on standing up for one's values. Columbia has incorporated "analysis, decision making, and leadership." Harvard is offering a program for first year students called "Field Immersion Experiences for Leadership Development" that gives an opportunity to apply classroom learning while working with industry, and apparently building an entrepreneurial company in six weeks (O'Connor, 2013). The same year that Podolny wrote his article, Harvard also began promoting a student-led MBA oath (Anteby, 2013).
Having said that, although there are programs being put into place, there is still a strong word of caution underlying the conversation. One article suggested that there still isn't quite enough being done, and suggested there needs to be further opportunities for application, or interacting with MBA students from other countries to better understand their own ethical challenges (Himsel, 2014). I can certainly understand the concerns, and I've got additional thoughts as well on the long term impacts of these programs. Although these new efforts at imparting ethics will touch the current generation of MBA students, one has to wonder about the enduring value of these lessons once they set off into to world of business...one that presumably still has a fair number of individuals inundated in the old ways of business, and quite possibly with a body of senior leadership that continues to lead as they've always led and as they've seen in their own experiences rising through the ranks. I agree, and see it as the way ahead, that the institutions will need to continue seeking opportunities to apply ethics, and they should continue to integrate it into existing lesson plans where possible, for ethics cuts across so many lanes of business practices.
In short, this new breed of ethically minded MBA students need to not only learn and apply ethics, but they must have the resilience to maintain these attitudes and behaviors throughout their career until, through attrition and setting the example, the culture of ethics takes hold as the preponderance and the norm rather than simply being a new upstart. It is when ethical business practice becomes the standard by which all newcomers are judged, the new metric upon which the great leaders are remembered, that the greatest effect will be realized.
Works Cited
Anteby, M. (2013, October 22). Why business schools need business ethics. In The Guardian. Retrieved October 26, 2014
Himsel, D. (2014, August 6). Business Schools Aren't Producing Ethical Graduates. In Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved October 26, 2014
O'Connor, S. (2013, May 15). The Responsibility Of Business Schools In Training Ethical Leaders. In Forbes. Retrieved October 26, 2014
Podolny, J. M. (2009). The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business School. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 62-67.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
A633.9.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
If one were to take Obolensky's Complex Adaptive Leadership at face value, they would likely foresee a steady takeover of polyarchy systems over oligarchy, and may make old notions of leadership redundant or obsolete. Especially when numerous writings exist documenting bottom up style or collaborative organizations and non-traditional management styles, its fair to wonder what role there is for the old or traditional ways of doing business.
Having been through the course on strategic leadership and examining my own organization in light of the text, I personally see both old and new styles of leadership as having their own place and function within the overall continuum.On the one hand, the military environment traditionally demands a chain of command that members are expected to abide by unless the order given is illegal, immoral, or unethical. This becomes especially important in a crisis situation that demands rapid response with very little to no time to discuss options or share ideas. On the other hand, the military organization has a strong undercurrent of upward communication, and very recently, in introducing a new feedback system, has stated an expectation that leaders share their vision, receive feedback, and appropriately be engaged in the lives of their subordinates (Losey, 2014).
This brings to bear something of a necessary paradox for leadership in a military organization...there are certainly components that recognize and embrace concepts that are in line with the practices of polyarchy, but the organization can never be rid of oligarchy, and may at times require it. This can create several implications at the level of the individual leader and the organization as a whole. If this dichotomy of leadership exists in the organization, and signs indicate it should and must, to be a leader in more than title is paramount. Rather, the individual leader needs to be adaptable, able to assess the situation such as with Edward Snowden's Cynefin Framework, or assess the individual through concepts noted in Obolensky's text such as Level 5 Followership or Skill/Will assessment. Additionally, they need to be able to "code switch," able to move from more traditional and directive styles of oligarchy to the more open and patient styles of polyarchy. This implication carries as well to the organization as a whole and its leadership. Although it becomes more difficult and time consuming to redirect the mentality of an entire organization, higher levels too will need to be able to "code switch" in order to direct its resources most effectively towards the end goals that they've ideally set and are striving towards.
The impact upon myself as a leader, of course, is I will need to be able to hold myself to these same ideals. On top of the need to maintain my own development as an officer and as one who is heavily involve in the ever changing IT field, if I were to seriously continue pursuing leadership development I would need to be cognizant of the balance between oligarchy and polyarchy at all levels between my own workplace and higher headquarters. Furthermore, I would be required to be very thoughtful of my own actions when faced with different leadership and coaching situations around the office, particularly in light of whatever the interests of our work group's strategic goals are, and in keeping with the general expectations of developing my subordinates.
Future strategy becomes yet another issue, and one that can change in either subtle or drastic ways. The key will be to remain targeted towards the strategic goals of my immediate organization, and how they impact the goals of the different tiers of command above us all the way to headquarters. So long as we understand the overall mission, we should simply be able to make changes that will keep us on that track. Although changes in geopolitical circumstances and the nation's priorities may change over time, so long as the strategic goals are properly balanced being flexible and measurable, the organization should be able to make any necessary changes in direction. Having said that, some growing pain can be anticipated. As the military moves to integrate elements of polyarchy, there will for some time be many who are used to the old way of doing business and need to learn new modes of thought. Incoming personnel will still have to be schooled in the balance of the old and the new. Most critically, leaders at the very top will have to be among the best thinkers, best able to understand and utilize the dual culture of leadership over which they have strategic influence. Any strategy that is formulated and put into practice must not only endure time and inevitable change, but be one that can be executed under most any leadership paradigm.
Resources
Losey, S. (2014, May 21). New rule directs commanders to 'engage' in airmen's lives. Air Force Times. Retrieved May 25, 2014
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Having been through the course on strategic leadership and examining my own organization in light of the text, I personally see both old and new styles of leadership as having their own place and function within the overall continuum.On the one hand, the military environment traditionally demands a chain of command that members are expected to abide by unless the order given is illegal, immoral, or unethical. This becomes especially important in a crisis situation that demands rapid response with very little to no time to discuss options or share ideas. On the other hand, the military organization has a strong undercurrent of upward communication, and very recently, in introducing a new feedback system, has stated an expectation that leaders share their vision, receive feedback, and appropriately be engaged in the lives of their subordinates (Losey, 2014).
This brings to bear something of a necessary paradox for leadership in a military organization...there are certainly components that recognize and embrace concepts that are in line with the practices of polyarchy, but the organization can never be rid of oligarchy, and may at times require it. This can create several implications at the level of the individual leader and the organization as a whole. If this dichotomy of leadership exists in the organization, and signs indicate it should and must, to be a leader in more than title is paramount. Rather, the individual leader needs to be adaptable, able to assess the situation such as with Edward Snowden's Cynefin Framework, or assess the individual through concepts noted in Obolensky's text such as Level 5 Followership or Skill/Will assessment. Additionally, they need to be able to "code switch," able to move from more traditional and directive styles of oligarchy to the more open and patient styles of polyarchy. This implication carries as well to the organization as a whole and its leadership. Although it becomes more difficult and time consuming to redirect the mentality of an entire organization, higher levels too will need to be able to "code switch" in order to direct its resources most effectively towards the end goals that they've ideally set and are striving towards.
The impact upon myself as a leader, of course, is I will need to be able to hold myself to these same ideals. On top of the need to maintain my own development as an officer and as one who is heavily involve in the ever changing IT field, if I were to seriously continue pursuing leadership development I would need to be cognizant of the balance between oligarchy and polyarchy at all levels between my own workplace and higher headquarters. Furthermore, I would be required to be very thoughtful of my own actions when faced with different leadership and coaching situations around the office, particularly in light of whatever the interests of our work group's strategic goals are, and in keeping with the general expectations of developing my subordinates.
Future strategy becomes yet another issue, and one that can change in either subtle or drastic ways. The key will be to remain targeted towards the strategic goals of my immediate organization, and how they impact the goals of the different tiers of command above us all the way to headquarters. So long as we understand the overall mission, we should simply be able to make changes that will keep us on that track. Although changes in geopolitical circumstances and the nation's priorities may change over time, so long as the strategic goals are properly balanced being flexible and measurable, the organization should be able to make any necessary changes in direction. Having said that, some growing pain can be anticipated. As the military moves to integrate elements of polyarchy, there will for some time be many who are used to the old way of doing business and need to learn new modes of thought. Incoming personnel will still have to be schooled in the balance of the old and the new. Most critically, leaders at the very top will have to be among the best thinkers, best able to understand and utilize the dual culture of leadership over which they have strategic influence. Any strategy that is formulated and put into practice must not only endure time and inevitable change, but be one that can be executed under most any leadership paradigm.
Resources
Losey, S. (2014, May 21). New rule directs commanders to 'engage' in airmen's lives. Air Force Times. Retrieved May 25, 2014
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
A633.8.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
When a client turns to a coach, they are often seeking additional guidance or advice outside the scope of that which they've thought of already. Based on the prompt given in this week's blogging assignment, the value that coaches provide to any prospective client is at the very least an alternative outside perspective that may be able to perceive additional variables not apparent to the client, or they may be able to share their own experiences and thus offer additional ideas, potential solutions, and may even provide the client a stronger foundation upon which to reach for their goals and objectives.
Based on the Obolensky readings, coaching does represent a challenging but powerful tool with regards to leadership and strategy, as he writes coaching can bridge the divide between tell/sell practicies of the leader taking point and the involve/devolve practices of the follower taking lead. Additionally, Obolensky writes that coaching is a means of moving subordinates towards a Level 5 level of followership (Obolensky, 2010). In short, coaching is part of what enables an organization to move beyond one or two highly skilled individuals to building a cadre of capable people that can work together as a team towards (ideally) established goals and objectives. Thus, it is arguably a critical piece that spells the difference between the organization plateauing, and continuing to be successful and fruitful over the long haul as times change and people move through the organization.
As for how successful coaching can make a difference in a given organization, while the scope and exact impact may vary with a given circumstance, effective coaching can help maintain quality performance, break any potential jams in thinking, or in a case of following the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) a coach can help a subordinate or the organization reach higher levels of performance and achievement (Obolensky, 2010). The coach, as an outside voice that the client has reached out to in the context of the prompt, may be in a better position to get past any preconceptions or biases the client might have if they worked only with perspectives from their own organization, and may also highlight options the client may have not even known they had.
To me personally, I admittedly haven't thought much about reaching out for coaching. However, my unit and other units I've worked with are proactive in providing opportunities for professional development and mentoring opportunities. I go to these events sometimes, but on reflection I have to admit I don't seek a great deal of coaching. I suspect this is partially due to my propensity to solve problems on my own without seeking help, in line with the ISFJ personality type I learned about in another MSLD course. Considering the argument made for coaching, it might behoove me to seek it out in order to gain additional perspectives and further my own development.
Organizationally speaking, I'm not sure if there is much more we can take from the discussion, as regular feedback and mentorship mechanisms are firmly in place. However, there has admittedly been more than one occasion where in working with a sister unit, we found them trying to muddle through problems when a different solution set could have well made problem solving easier or even prevented the problem from occurring in the first place. At times we would essentially be solving problems for them, but there have also been times that we would share our knowledge and teach them what we knew, such as letting them know about an asset accounting website that technically needed to be used but was very poorly advertised. My point in this is that although an organization may think they're doing alright, it is entirely possibly they are only assessing themselves from within their own perspective and quite likely are missing any issues that exist within their "blind spots." This doesn't happen regularly, but I would think that being open to outsiders having a look in and sharing where the organization would like to be, it may well help the organization realize performance gains they didn't know could be made. Overall, I think individuals can be well served by embracing coaching, but an entire organization willing to be coached as well may certainly benefit from a fresh set of eyes.
Works Cited
Based on the Obolensky readings, coaching does represent a challenging but powerful tool with regards to leadership and strategy, as he writes coaching can bridge the divide between tell/sell practicies of the leader taking point and the involve/devolve practices of the follower taking lead. Additionally, Obolensky writes that coaching is a means of moving subordinates towards a Level 5 level of followership (Obolensky, 2010). In short, coaching is part of what enables an organization to move beyond one or two highly skilled individuals to building a cadre of capable people that can work together as a team towards (ideally) established goals and objectives. Thus, it is arguably a critical piece that spells the difference between the organization plateauing, and continuing to be successful and fruitful over the long haul as times change and people move through the organization.
As for how successful coaching can make a difference in a given organization, while the scope and exact impact may vary with a given circumstance, effective coaching can help maintain quality performance, break any potential jams in thinking, or in a case of following the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) a coach can help a subordinate or the organization reach higher levels of performance and achievement (Obolensky, 2010). The coach, as an outside voice that the client has reached out to in the context of the prompt, may be in a better position to get past any preconceptions or biases the client might have if they worked only with perspectives from their own organization, and may also highlight options the client may have not even known they had.
To me personally, I admittedly haven't thought much about reaching out for coaching. However, my unit and other units I've worked with are proactive in providing opportunities for professional development and mentoring opportunities. I go to these events sometimes, but on reflection I have to admit I don't seek a great deal of coaching. I suspect this is partially due to my propensity to solve problems on my own without seeking help, in line with the ISFJ personality type I learned about in another MSLD course. Considering the argument made for coaching, it might behoove me to seek it out in order to gain additional perspectives and further my own development.
Organizationally speaking, I'm not sure if there is much more we can take from the discussion, as regular feedback and mentorship mechanisms are firmly in place. However, there has admittedly been more than one occasion where in working with a sister unit, we found them trying to muddle through problems when a different solution set could have well made problem solving easier or even prevented the problem from occurring in the first place. At times we would essentially be solving problems for them, but there have also been times that we would share our knowledge and teach them what we knew, such as letting them know about an asset accounting website that technically needed to be used but was very poorly advertised. My point in this is that although an organization may think they're doing alright, it is entirely possibly they are only assessing themselves from within their own perspective and quite likely are missing any issues that exist within their "blind spots." This doesn't happen regularly, but I would think that being open to outsiders having a look in and sharing where the organization would like to be, it may well help the organization realize performance gains they didn't know could be made. Overall, I think individuals can be well served by embracing coaching, but an entire organization willing to be coached as well may certainly benefit from a fresh set of eyes.
Works Cited
Obolensky,
N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing
Limited.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
A633.7.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In taking the course on strategic leadership and the complex adaptive leadership studies associated with it, it would be fair to say that I haven't experience a dramatic shift in my actual thinking, but it has certainly gotten me to examine my thinking from some different angles in some ways, and certainly has reinforced some of my previous leadership studies, particularly in areas of how followers can lead and how organizations can benefit by getting away from strict hierarchies.
I will say that within the time frame of this course versus prior to taking it, I may need to work further on how I apply my leadership and balancing the ideals of complex adaptive leadership with what is required of me at the office. On the one hand, based on my test results and how Obolensky would assess it, I work myself too hard and have a hard time letting myself go. On the other hand, some of the feedback I've received at work indicates I need to do more to know my workcenter inside and out, and the ideal that is being impressed upon me by my current commander is that someone in my position should know the status of their flight and what they're working on at any given time. In the midst of all this is also the undercurrent of how leadership functions in my organization...while there may be officers that are held responsible for decision making, there are still moments where their subordinates can design the solution and make a recommendation. I might argue that, although I'm continuing to be exposed to different ideas, I'm still living and breathing within the context of my organizational culture where there is limited room to explore different ways of doing business.
Overall, what this experience has shown me is further evidence of a suspicion I've had that while I understand good leadership from an academic standpoint, I still have further need to apply my knowledge and learn from the associated experiences. This, I hope, will be an opportunity I can pursue as I continue to progress in my organization, gain additional responsibility, and ultimately work in real world circumstances.
I will say that within the time frame of this course versus prior to taking it, I may need to work further on how I apply my leadership and balancing the ideals of complex adaptive leadership with what is required of me at the office. On the one hand, based on my test results and how Obolensky would assess it, I work myself too hard and have a hard time letting myself go. On the other hand, some of the feedback I've received at work indicates I need to do more to know my workcenter inside and out, and the ideal that is being impressed upon me by my current commander is that someone in my position should know the status of their flight and what they're working on at any given time. In the midst of all this is also the undercurrent of how leadership functions in my organization...while there may be officers that are held responsible for decision making, there are still moments where their subordinates can design the solution and make a recommendation. I might argue that, although I'm continuing to be exposed to different ideas, I'm still living and breathing within the context of my organizational culture where there is limited room to explore different ways of doing business.
Overall, what this experience has shown me is further evidence of a suspicion I've had that while I understand good leadership from an academic standpoint, I still have further need to apply my knowledge and learn from the associated experiences. This, I hope, will be an opportunity I can pursue as I continue to progress in my organization, gain additional responsibility, and ultimately work in real world circumstances.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
A633.6.5.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In Chapter 9 of Complex Adaptive Leadership, Obolensky introduces to readers a possible "vicious circle for leaders," in which a follower may ask for advice from the leader, and in demonstrating a lower level of skill on the service, this drives the leader to get concerned and take a more hands on approach, which leads to a follower's confidence lowering and assuming they need to demonstrate greater deference. When caught in a vicious circle, these steps continue to repeat and the problem compounds itself.
Within my own organization, I wouldn't say that it happens on a regular basis, but there are occasions for it to happen either on and off during normal activities or around larger projects that have garnered high attention from senior leadership. As our organization is in the unusual position of having relatively new officers filling roles in mid level leadership positions, although these officers are trusted to perform at an above average level there are still inevitably times when inexperience shows and higher levels of leadership will need to jump in to provide additional guidance or offer corrections. How the young officer reacts can vary based upon situation and personality...I admittedly tend to become a little more cautious and deferential, while some of my peers can continue to assume their typical role as hard chargers.
The effects on the organization as a whole can also vary and can be argued upon. If higher level leadership is called in to take a more hands on approach, this can restrict some freedom of action for junior leadership and create additional stressors. Depending upon the senior leader's methodology, the younger officer may feel put "under the microscope" and may experience something of a fight or flight response or pressure to perform, which depending upon how they process it can also make life unpleasant for their subordinates or render the officer less effective in the leadership decisions they are given. Senior leadership may in turn feel additional stress from feeling the need to more closely monitor activities, and having to move between tactical and strategic viewpoints may increase the possibility of them missing other issues. Overall, from my limited experience, the unit will continue to run although the leadership experience can become more unpleasant for the follower.
As for how to diffuse this cycle, it may simply involve replacing the hands on approach from leadership step with instead giving the appropriate response from the Level V Followership hierarchy and perhaps even giving on the spot feedback that gives emphasis on what the follower did well and what more they can do. By doing this, rather than simply intervening and possibly putting a halt to any of the follower's forward momentum or causing them to become risk averse, the follower can better comprehend what did for them and take a tailored approach to making improvements on weaker areas. This would ideally yield a follower that will steadily improve over time, be willing to take reasonable risks, and perhaps even build their confidence by having their success validated and having an interest taken in their continued development.
Within my own organization, I wouldn't say that it happens on a regular basis, but there are occasions for it to happen either on and off during normal activities or around larger projects that have garnered high attention from senior leadership. As our organization is in the unusual position of having relatively new officers filling roles in mid level leadership positions, although these officers are trusted to perform at an above average level there are still inevitably times when inexperience shows and higher levels of leadership will need to jump in to provide additional guidance or offer corrections. How the young officer reacts can vary based upon situation and personality...I admittedly tend to become a little more cautious and deferential, while some of my peers can continue to assume their typical role as hard chargers.
The effects on the organization as a whole can also vary and can be argued upon. If higher level leadership is called in to take a more hands on approach, this can restrict some freedom of action for junior leadership and create additional stressors. Depending upon the senior leader's methodology, the younger officer may feel put "under the microscope" and may experience something of a fight or flight response or pressure to perform, which depending upon how they process it can also make life unpleasant for their subordinates or render the officer less effective in the leadership decisions they are given. Senior leadership may in turn feel additional stress from feeling the need to more closely monitor activities, and having to move between tactical and strategic viewpoints may increase the possibility of them missing other issues. Overall, from my limited experience, the unit will continue to run although the leadership experience can become more unpleasant for the follower.
As for how to diffuse this cycle, it may simply involve replacing the hands on approach from leadership step with instead giving the appropriate response from the Level V Followership hierarchy and perhaps even giving on the spot feedback that gives emphasis on what the follower did well and what more they can do. By doing this, rather than simply intervening and possibly putting a halt to any of the follower's forward momentum or causing them to become risk averse, the follower can better comprehend what did for them and take a tailored approach to making improvements on weaker areas. This would ideally yield a follower that will steadily improve over time, be willing to take reasonable risks, and perhaps even build their confidence by having their success validated and having an interest taken in their continued development.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
A633.5.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
The chaos game, although it has the air of "ice breaker" activities from group settings I've experienced or more so the leadership exercises given to us during cadet training, represents an interesting departure from the usual in terms of drills in collaboration. If nothing else, it provides something of a visual or reference points to what I think is some of Obolensky's main points with chaos theory. The game suggests to me that despite the apparent chaos that one sees upon first glance, and the prevailing notion that an entropy exists that moves things towards disorder, there is also an intrinsic state of order that individuals can find when given the opportunity to seek it out. In short, the game is a readily available demonstration that chaos theory can work. The trick, I think, is trusting the members involved enough to let them find that solution at their level.
What this implies to me in the context of strategy is that chaos theory can reinforce the eight principles that were discussed in this week's readings regarding strategic creation. For instance, if Obolensky hadn't given any parameters whatsoever to the group in the video, there would be multiple means of communication, people traveling about the room every which way, and in all likelihood they wouldn't even know what they were working toward. By contrast, with the limited directions they were given in terms of how they were allowed to communicate and what was require of them in terms of spacing in relation to reference points, the group succeeded. They didn't talk or use signals, but they knew what they had to accomplish and were free to move towards the given objective relatively quickly without being micromanaged by the leader.
To me, this observation has further implications for both followers and leaders within an organization. The leader, if they understand and apply the eight principles of objectives, rules, boundaries, feedback, skill/will, freedom of action, purpose, and tolerance of ambiguity, can both give their followers an appropriate level of instruction while being able to effectively gauge if they have what's required to be successful. The followers, in turn, can develop the confidence to act independently and carry out the mission given to them as they see fit. The chaos game and chaos theory arguably reinforces many of the key lessons about strategy, in keeping it just specific enough to give the vision of an end state, but flexible and broad enough that followers can thrive in a seemingly chaotic and difficult situation. Almost paradoxically, chaos theory recognizes the disorder, but also can give a sense that things can work out fine.
What this implies to me in the context of strategy is that chaos theory can reinforce the eight principles that were discussed in this week's readings regarding strategic creation. For instance, if Obolensky hadn't given any parameters whatsoever to the group in the video, there would be multiple means of communication, people traveling about the room every which way, and in all likelihood they wouldn't even know what they were working toward. By contrast, with the limited directions they were given in terms of how they were allowed to communicate and what was require of them in terms of spacing in relation to reference points, the group succeeded. They didn't talk or use signals, but they knew what they had to accomplish and were free to move towards the given objective relatively quickly without being micromanaged by the leader.
To me, this observation has further implications for both followers and leaders within an organization. The leader, if they understand and apply the eight principles of objectives, rules, boundaries, feedback, skill/will, freedom of action, purpose, and tolerance of ambiguity, can both give their followers an appropriate level of instruction while being able to effectively gauge if they have what's required to be successful. The followers, in turn, can develop the confidence to act independently and carry out the mission given to them as they see fit. The chaos game and chaos theory arguably reinforces many of the key lessons about strategy, in keeping it just specific enough to give the vision of an end state, but flexible and broad enough that followers can thrive in a seemingly chaotic and difficult situation. Almost paradoxically, chaos theory recognizes the disorder, but also can give a sense that things can work out fine.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
A633.4.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Considering the readings from Obolensky, as well as the other selections for this week, what seems to be happening is a greater demand for leaders to be almost omnipotent, knowing everything about what happens under their organization. Why this is happening can vary from case to case, but generally speaking this may be due to the higher profiles leaders have in being credited for successes and failures in their organizations, whether it be successes such as Apple or Google, or any number of fallen or organizations hitting upon hard times such as Chrysler and GM. In either case, it is the senior leader that is in the spotlight of media and society, being hailed either as a genius or fraud as they are held accountable for what has transpired in the organization. Additionally, Obolensky seems to be getting at the concept of a "flat" organization in his writing, something I've seen discussed in other courses as essentially giving greater empowerment to subordinates to ask questions or share knowledge in order to cultivate a diversity of ideas and increase engagement in the organization's activities.
In the case of my organization, it is expected in a multitude of ways that the leader is credited with all successes and failures. If something is botched, I'm held responsible and am expected to fix it. If something goes well, even though I may have never touched the keyboard or executed the planning process, I can take credit for the purposes of awards or annual performance reports. It is even told to use in multiple forms of mentorship that we are ultimately responsible for whatever happens, even if we delegate. In that sense, we are running into the risks inherent to a traditional hierarchy. At the same time, we also have built into our service culture the idea of innovation and not settling for business as usual. There are mechanisms by which the lower tiers can pass up ideas or (tactfully) challenge questionable leadership policies and plans. Officers are expected to engage with their senior enlisted, and all ranks know that the younger enlisted personnel are expected to have hands on knowledge and technical expertise. To make things even more interesting, there's even something of an unwritten expectation for a healthy duty section that the officer will provide top cover for their section (e.g. giving the commander reasonable assurances issues will be resolved and thus buying time to work in relative peace), and the personnel will execute their duties and pass up information so as to bolster the officer's reputation and appearances.
Having said all of that, I don't believe there is much that needs to be done for promoting dialog and breaking down the leadership charade, as there already exists a certain dichotomy for polyarchy type organizational functionality under the framework of a traditional hierarchy. Having said that, there are unique challenges for leadership dynamics and organizational strategy. In most cases, commanders rotate about every two years...this means that besides different leadership styles being introduced to an audience where a fair portion may have already had one or two previous leadership climates, any long term strategy needs to be especially robust. If a strategy involves a plan that has a more limited lifespan of a year, perhaps two, its fairly sure the plan will carry out. However, anything extending further will need to have enough structure so as to maintain continuity with existing personnel, while also having just enough flexibility to accommodate not only changing work conditions, but also changing leadership climates. On that note, that could well make for the groundwork of truly excellent strategy...something that endures throughout time and defines an organization, no matter who specific members may be at a given time, while still ensuring long term success and survivability.
Resources
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
In the case of my organization, it is expected in a multitude of ways that the leader is credited with all successes and failures. If something is botched, I'm held responsible and am expected to fix it. If something goes well, even though I may have never touched the keyboard or executed the planning process, I can take credit for the purposes of awards or annual performance reports. It is even told to use in multiple forms of mentorship that we are ultimately responsible for whatever happens, even if we delegate. In that sense, we are running into the risks inherent to a traditional hierarchy. At the same time, we also have built into our service culture the idea of innovation and not settling for business as usual. There are mechanisms by which the lower tiers can pass up ideas or (tactfully) challenge questionable leadership policies and plans. Officers are expected to engage with their senior enlisted, and all ranks know that the younger enlisted personnel are expected to have hands on knowledge and technical expertise. To make things even more interesting, there's even something of an unwritten expectation for a healthy duty section that the officer will provide top cover for their section (e.g. giving the commander reasonable assurances issues will be resolved and thus buying time to work in relative peace), and the personnel will execute their duties and pass up information so as to bolster the officer's reputation and appearances.
Having said all of that, I don't believe there is much that needs to be done for promoting dialog and breaking down the leadership charade, as there already exists a certain dichotomy for polyarchy type organizational functionality under the framework of a traditional hierarchy. Having said that, there are unique challenges for leadership dynamics and organizational strategy. In most cases, commanders rotate about every two years...this means that besides different leadership styles being introduced to an audience where a fair portion may have already had one or two previous leadership climates, any long term strategy needs to be especially robust. If a strategy involves a plan that has a more limited lifespan of a year, perhaps two, its fairly sure the plan will carry out. However, anything extending further will need to have enough structure so as to maintain continuity with existing personnel, while also having just enough flexibility to accommodate not only changing work conditions, but also changing leadership climates. On that note, that could well make for the groundwork of truly excellent strategy...something that endures throughout time and defines an organization, no matter who specific members may be at a given time, while still ensuring long term success and survivability.
Resources
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
A633.3.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Reading through Obolensky's description of common traits in organizations operating off a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) model, I immediately thought how much of the descriptions echoed what I'd read in previous classes about flat organizations....generally informal hierarchy, and for what little formal hierarchy there is, it runs more flat and dynamic and the environment has a greater emphasis on the open sharing of information and holding individuals accountable (Obolensky, 2010). I had previous written about one of my favorite game development companies, the Valve Corporation based out of the greater Seattle, WA area. Although more well known for hit gaming franchises such as Half Life and Counter Strike, they are also known in business circles for their unorthodox business practices, such as having very little in the way of formal supervisor/subordinate relationships and giving every employee to freedom to pick or start a project and quite literally roll their desk over to wherever the rest of a self-formed team is working. Even more interesting is how employees get input into what their peers get paid. (Kelion, 2013)
This is one of several examples of organizations that don't operate off of a traditional hierarchy. Thinking about these ideas in relation to my organization is interesting, for the military is fraught with traditional hierarchy for better or for worse. Indeed, there is well over 200 years of tradition dictating that there be a chain of command and that it is followed...having said that, this isn't necessarily always the case, and indeed, there is a certain expectation of there being power in the lower ranks. Although officers hold formal authority, we're still guided to look to our enlisted personnel for technical expertise, and the official Air Force Pamphlet on the enlisted force structure even explicitly states that senior enlisted personnel will mentor young officers in their development.
Having said that, while I think there will never be a day my organization moves towards an informal hierarchy, I think we will all be cognizant of the impact that every member of the organization brings to bear, and we already have a strong culture of sharing information and ideas, and holding individuals accountable for their actions (for better or for worse). We possess something of a dual cultures that combines traits of a traditional hierarchy regarding decision making and accountability, while also embracing the creativity and problem solving traits of a polyarchy type organization. The most appropriate action moving forward, I think, is to continue to leverage up and coming communication technologies to facilitate the sharing of ideas, and to continue to foster the dual culture that respects the time tested chain of command while motivating our personnel to put their ideas out there. It wasn't that long ago the Air Force did this for initiatives such as the "Every Dollar Counts" campaign, which invited all members, regardless of rank or career field, to submit ideas to leadership on how the service could curb spending. To continue to do this would be greatly beneficial for the organization, and potentially beneficial to other organizations with whom we execute our missions.
Kelion, L. (2013, September 23). Valve: How going boss-free empowered the games-maker. In BBC. Retrieved April 13, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24205497
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
This is one of several examples of organizations that don't operate off of a traditional hierarchy. Thinking about these ideas in relation to my organization is interesting, for the military is fraught with traditional hierarchy for better or for worse. Indeed, there is well over 200 years of tradition dictating that there be a chain of command and that it is followed...having said that, this isn't necessarily always the case, and indeed, there is a certain expectation of there being power in the lower ranks. Although officers hold formal authority, we're still guided to look to our enlisted personnel for technical expertise, and the official Air Force Pamphlet on the enlisted force structure even explicitly states that senior enlisted personnel will mentor young officers in their development.
Having said that, while I think there will never be a day my organization moves towards an informal hierarchy, I think we will all be cognizant of the impact that every member of the organization brings to bear, and we already have a strong culture of sharing information and ideas, and holding individuals accountable for their actions (for better or for worse). We possess something of a dual cultures that combines traits of a traditional hierarchy regarding decision making and accountability, while also embracing the creativity and problem solving traits of a polyarchy type organization. The most appropriate action moving forward, I think, is to continue to leverage up and coming communication technologies to facilitate the sharing of ideas, and to continue to foster the dual culture that respects the time tested chain of command while motivating our personnel to put their ideas out there. It wasn't that long ago the Air Force did this for initiatives such as the "Every Dollar Counts" campaign, which invited all members, regardless of rank or career field, to submit ideas to leadership on how the service could curb spending. To continue to do this would be greatly beneficial for the organization, and potentially beneficial to other organizations with whom we execute our missions.
Kelion, L. (2013, September 23). Valve: How going boss-free empowered the games-maker. In BBC. Retrieved April 13, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24205497
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
A633.2.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
The Butterfly Effect is always an interesting point of discussion, particularly now knowing some more about the origins of the term. To recap, it is something of a reflection and a word of caution on how a seemingly small or insignificant event or difference can have major effects either in the future or in an interconnected area. This can be said for physical structures, organizational practices, or even the actions of one person or otherwise. Obolensky explained it well
In my own organization, we've had some of our own instances of the butterfly effect coming to play. I often use the example of a co-located help desk our unit stood up when I first arrived that sits with our client unit personnel. At first it was simply intended to shorten the response time for our technicians to respond to problems while also better gathering metrics for our organization. However, given time, we eventually found ourselves struggling to find manning for the position and motivate people to sign up, which soon created some stir within our unit. Then, over time there was a greater expectation of prompt customer service, even for odd non technical issues such as fixing floor tiles. Here we are three years later, and the expectations of the position and the supporting office has increased exponentially, with several more personnel closely involved and a great deal of time and energy spent on assembling informational briefings and constantly recreating training products and procedures for a position that is inevitably subject to change and can't perform effectively when confined to a checklist. Although it has created a lot of administrative hassle, it can also be said that it enhanced our working relationship with our clients, both halves have better situational awareness, and our combined organizations can do our jobs better.
I can also attest that even a relatively subtle change such as office reorganization that impacted, to some measure, how people interact. There was a period of time where we had all of us junior officers working relatively close together in the same area. Although we were bit right next to all of our workcenters, we still had decent command and control, and had the benefit of random conversations and friendly interactions to help bolster our synergy and keep us all on the same page. Not that long ago, we've moved our offices around and dispersed around our building. We did gain from this in that now we had what would be considered dedicated workcenter areas rather than having them mingled and spread out, thus allowing us to have ready access to all of our people at any given time. However, that removed opportunities for us officers to mingle together, creating somewhat of a damper on our day to day interactions, but of greater note it became more difficult for us to keep tabs on what everyone else was doing (and subsequently be aware of any possible impacts on our workcenters) without a conscious effort to go visit. We're still able to get things done, but there seems to be a bit more disorder or information delay involved before we can really put any joint efforts into action lately.
Overall, having read through the material several times now, I'm fixing upon the general theme that complexity isn't necessarily a bad thing, and may even be helpful to consider when dissecting a situation. It's also interesting to consider how it may not take sweeping changes in order to have great effect upon an organization, and that if there really is an underlying order within disorder, it gives added impetus to seek a solution when presented with what may appear to be a very difficult problem.
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
In my own organization, we've had some of our own instances of the butterfly effect coming to play. I often use the example of a co-located help desk our unit stood up when I first arrived that sits with our client unit personnel. At first it was simply intended to shorten the response time for our technicians to respond to problems while also better gathering metrics for our organization. However, given time, we eventually found ourselves struggling to find manning for the position and motivate people to sign up, which soon created some stir within our unit. Then, over time there was a greater expectation of prompt customer service, even for odd non technical issues such as fixing floor tiles. Here we are three years later, and the expectations of the position and the supporting office has increased exponentially, with several more personnel closely involved and a great deal of time and energy spent on assembling informational briefings and constantly recreating training products and procedures for a position that is inevitably subject to change and can't perform effectively when confined to a checklist. Although it has created a lot of administrative hassle, it can also be said that it enhanced our working relationship with our clients, both halves have better situational awareness, and our combined organizations can do our jobs better.
I can also attest that even a relatively subtle change such as office reorganization that impacted, to some measure, how people interact. There was a period of time where we had all of us junior officers working relatively close together in the same area. Although we were bit right next to all of our workcenters, we still had decent command and control, and had the benefit of random conversations and friendly interactions to help bolster our synergy and keep us all on the same page. Not that long ago, we've moved our offices around and dispersed around our building. We did gain from this in that now we had what would be considered dedicated workcenter areas rather than having them mingled and spread out, thus allowing us to have ready access to all of our people at any given time. However, that removed opportunities for us officers to mingle together, creating somewhat of a damper on our day to day interactions, but of greater note it became more difficult for us to keep tabs on what everyone else was doing (and subsequently be aware of any possible impacts on our workcenters) without a conscious effort to go visit. We're still able to get things done, but there seems to be a bit more disorder or information delay involved before we can really put any joint efforts into action lately.
Overall, having read through the material several times now, I'm fixing upon the general theme that complexity isn't necessarily a bad thing, and may even be helpful to consider when dissecting a situation. It's also interesting to consider how it may not take sweeping changes in order to have great effect upon an organization, and that if there really is an underlying order within disorder, it gives added impetus to seek a solution when presented with what may appear to be a very difficult problem.
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
A633.1.2.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In the opening chapter of his text, "Complex Adaptive Leadership," Nick Obolensky poses a series of reflective questions to help the reader gauge their own views on leadership. This series opens up with question on whether the reader's attitudes towards leaders has changed during their life, and how. In my own experiences, I know that when I was younger I thought of leaders as being very strong and dynamic individuals, with an energetic, magnetic, and charismatic character whom was well liked by most anyone. Having grown much older and having dealt with and within formal leadership roles over the last four years, I've learned that a leader can come in many different forms. Some may not have the highest formal authority, but an individual may be a leader in sheer expertise. Among the formal leaders, some have very relaxed personalities but get the job done, and others may be more taciturn but garner great respect. I've also learned that while a person may be in a position of authority, they may not necessarily be the expert, or they may be an ineffective leader due to less than ideal practices or because they lean on negative reinforcement.
Obolensky asked in his second question how attitudes towards authority might compare between the reader, their parents, grandparents, and a younger generation. I would say generally speaking there hasn't been a great deal of change between myself and my preceding generations. For the most part, my family runs along the lines of respecting rules and authority, and doing what's expected. Yet, at the same time, we've also been cognizant of the same idea that leaders are humans too and they may at times warrant questions or disagreement. I will say there is a certain difference between my mother's and father's sides of the family that I believe is rooted in culture. My father's family has been in America for several generations, and thus tends to lean more towards values of individuality and personal choice within the confines of following the law and, particularly in the military context, having at least a working relationship level of respect for authority. My mother's side of the family by contrast is originally from South Korea, and in having received further influence by Confucian filial piety, is more absolute about authority and going along with it, especially in the familial context. As for my younger peers though, I think there is an even higher level of emphasis on the individual and a greater propensity towards questioning authority, particular if it represents an "old way" of doing business or represents what might be considered dated value systems.Overall, I see an increasingly negative attitude about authority, whether it be perceived as mishandling something or overstretching influence, or simply being perceived as being a burden upon individuals.
The third reflection asks the reader why this shift may have occurred. I cannot fix upon one exact cause, but rather a chain of causes. Among other things, its almost expected that each new generation will question the decision of the elder generation, and this has become somewhat popularized in the attitudes of the Baby Boomer generation in the 70's, and seems to be cropping up yet again to some degree in the contemporary Millenials. One might also consider the writings of academics such as Robert Putnam, who opines that there is less participation in certain social groups in American society as well as increased geographic mobility, and thus there are impacts to how people interact...although intended as a thought on the contemporary sense of community, I would think it arguable that changes of this nature can impact people's feelings on traditional models of authority.
Resources
Lewis, A. (1995, December 18). Abroad at Home; An Atomized America. The New York Times.
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Obolensky asked in his second question how attitudes towards authority might compare between the reader, their parents, grandparents, and a younger generation. I would say generally speaking there hasn't been a great deal of change between myself and my preceding generations. For the most part, my family runs along the lines of respecting rules and authority, and doing what's expected. Yet, at the same time, we've also been cognizant of the same idea that leaders are humans too and they may at times warrant questions or disagreement. I will say there is a certain difference between my mother's and father's sides of the family that I believe is rooted in culture. My father's family has been in America for several generations, and thus tends to lean more towards values of individuality and personal choice within the confines of following the law and, particularly in the military context, having at least a working relationship level of respect for authority. My mother's side of the family by contrast is originally from South Korea, and in having received further influence by Confucian filial piety, is more absolute about authority and going along with it, especially in the familial context. As for my younger peers though, I think there is an even higher level of emphasis on the individual and a greater propensity towards questioning authority, particular if it represents an "old way" of doing business or represents what might be considered dated value systems.Overall, I see an increasingly negative attitude about authority, whether it be perceived as mishandling something or overstretching influence, or simply being perceived as being a burden upon individuals.
The third reflection asks the reader why this shift may have occurred. I cannot fix upon one exact cause, but rather a chain of causes. Among other things, its almost expected that each new generation will question the decision of the elder generation, and this has become somewhat popularized in the attitudes of the Baby Boomer generation in the 70's, and seems to be cropping up yet again to some degree in the contemporary Millenials. One might also consider the writings of academics such as Robert Putnam, who opines that there is less participation in certain social groups in American society as well as increased geographic mobility, and thus there are impacts to how people interact...although intended as a thought on the contemporary sense of community, I would think it arguable that changes of this nature can impact people's feelings on traditional models of authority.
Resources
Lewis, A. (1995, December 18). Abroad at Home; An Atomized America. The New York Times.
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)