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.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Sunday, March 16, 2014
A632.9.2.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Dr. Shiv's discussion on the role of emotion during the decision making process, and to some measure the Wharton text's chapter on Protective Decisions, highlights that although there are objective variables in a decision and that objective reality may not be affected by the emotional tone of a moment, the fact remains that psychological factors such as confidence and one's attitude can impact overall performance and decision making ability.
There were two situations in recent memory where I experienced decision making and performance impacts from varying confidence levels and attitudes. A situation where I had high confidence and relatively high expectations for a positive outcome was when I volunteered to teach one of our monthly leadership seminars for the junior officers and senior enlisted. The topic that was requested was Team Building, and I just so happened to be taking my MSLD course for Developing Teamwork. A few days before the presentation, I created a slide deck and integrated much of my reading materials to cover the highlights, and even was able to provide inputs from a text on introversion (Quiet, by Susan Cain) as a foil to show times when individual work may be desirable. I also had a highly positive attitude about the task, as it was outside of the usual grind of the office and I hadn't had an opportunity to do a brief on a subject I was comfortable with since I had graduated college. To tie in with the Wharton text, I had positive past experiences and didn't feel a high need to exercise any "protection," per se, almost like the example of the individual who wasn't concerned about crime and didn't purchase a deadbolt (Hoch et al, 2001). The end result was a well received briefing, with one of my supervisors commenting that I did in fact exhibit a high level of confidence she didn't usually see, mentioning I might be a good fit for instructor duty at some point. In this circumstance, I was able to select my materials and give the presentation with a strong sense of certainty, because it was subject matter I felt I was able to internalize and understand. Additionally, I generally felt good about sharing what I felt was useful information, and having completed everything I did, I felt a sense of accomplishment.
Not long before that was a situation where although I wanted to succeed, I had low confidence and wanted to get it done and over with. I was interested in making a move away from my desk job and picking up a flying job with the Air Force, which required me to not only get accepted for the training pipeline but also base what's called Initial Flight Screening, where we fly small civilian airplanes. Although billed as a zero hour training course, there's still a strong element of testing one's intrinsic ability to learn quickly and on the Air Force's timetable. Try as I might, not only was I having a rough time with academics, but I was having trouble landing the plane on my own...a common issue of which there's only so much one can do, and something I had challenge doing without being talked through it. My confidence quickly dwindled, further compounded by ongoing issues with airsickness that never afflicted me before. When I got to my last chances, I continued a trend towards being highly risk averse and didn't execute the "slip" maneuvers that I learned a little too late was something that was part of normal business. Generally speaking, I wasn't willing to take a level of acceptable risk, and I also feel I perhaps could have made some different decisions on how much down time or recovery I needed after a day's flying versus forcing further study upon myself, perhaps influenced by the additional stress. Overall, the low confidence let to a high level of anxiety more than anything else, as well as a nominal amount of anger and frustration to see things through to the end, and eventually a sense of resignation that despite all efforts I was unable to meet the prescribed training timetable. In a mirror of Dr. Shiv's ideas on confidence relating to performance, I had lower confidence, and likely lost some investment or motivation in the effort (Shiv, 2011).
In both cases, the correlation between confidence and performance as highlighted by Dr. Shiv played out according to his assessment. Higher confidence leads to higher level of motivation and engagement, which can also translate to gains in efforts, and thus can lead to higher quality decisions or greater chances of success.
Resources
There were two situations in recent memory where I experienced decision making and performance impacts from varying confidence levels and attitudes. A situation where I had high confidence and relatively high expectations for a positive outcome was when I volunteered to teach one of our monthly leadership seminars for the junior officers and senior enlisted. The topic that was requested was Team Building, and I just so happened to be taking my MSLD course for Developing Teamwork. A few days before the presentation, I created a slide deck and integrated much of my reading materials to cover the highlights, and even was able to provide inputs from a text on introversion (Quiet, by Susan Cain) as a foil to show times when individual work may be desirable. I also had a highly positive attitude about the task, as it was outside of the usual grind of the office and I hadn't had an opportunity to do a brief on a subject I was comfortable with since I had graduated college. To tie in with the Wharton text, I had positive past experiences and didn't feel a high need to exercise any "protection," per se, almost like the example of the individual who wasn't concerned about crime and didn't purchase a deadbolt (Hoch et al, 2001). The end result was a well received briefing, with one of my supervisors commenting that I did in fact exhibit a high level of confidence she didn't usually see, mentioning I might be a good fit for instructor duty at some point. In this circumstance, I was able to select my materials and give the presentation with a strong sense of certainty, because it was subject matter I felt I was able to internalize and understand. Additionally, I generally felt good about sharing what I felt was useful information, and having completed everything I did, I felt a sense of accomplishment.
Not long before that was a situation where although I wanted to succeed, I had low confidence and wanted to get it done and over with. I was interested in making a move away from my desk job and picking up a flying job with the Air Force, which required me to not only get accepted for the training pipeline but also base what's called Initial Flight Screening, where we fly small civilian airplanes. Although billed as a zero hour training course, there's still a strong element of testing one's intrinsic ability to learn quickly and on the Air Force's timetable. Try as I might, not only was I having a rough time with academics, but I was having trouble landing the plane on my own...a common issue of which there's only so much one can do, and something I had challenge doing without being talked through it. My confidence quickly dwindled, further compounded by ongoing issues with airsickness that never afflicted me before. When I got to my last chances, I continued a trend towards being highly risk averse and didn't execute the "slip" maneuvers that I learned a little too late was something that was part of normal business. Generally speaking, I wasn't willing to take a level of acceptable risk, and I also feel I perhaps could have made some different decisions on how much down time or recovery I needed after a day's flying versus forcing further study upon myself, perhaps influenced by the additional stress. Overall, the low confidence let to a high level of anxiety more than anything else, as well as a nominal amount of anger and frustration to see things through to the end, and eventually a sense of resignation that despite all efforts I was unable to meet the prescribed training timetable. In a mirror of Dr. Shiv's ideas on confidence relating to performance, I had lower confidence, and likely lost some investment or motivation in the effort (Shiv, 2011).
In both cases, the correlation between confidence and performance as highlighted by Dr. Shiv played out according to his assessment. Higher confidence leads to higher level of motivation and engagement, which can also translate to gains in efforts, and thus can lead to higher quality decisions or greater chances of success.
Resources
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Shiv, B. (Narrator). (2011). Brain Research at Stanford: Decision Mak [Online video]. Retrieved March 16, 2014
Sunday, March 9, 2014
A632.8.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
David Snowden's Cynefin Framework brings to bear a different, almost paradoxical, point of view in how a leader can work through the process of analyzing information and executing upon a decision. Although it provides a framework in highlighting different the different contexts of simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic, there is an additional variability accounted for by having a context of "disorder" in the center of the chart that recognizes how a situation can change or deal with multiple contexts, thus changing considerations like whether analysis or action processes need to be executed first in a situation.
Although I can't point to one specific instance, most any time I had to deal with troubleshooting at the office has been a multiple-context decision making process. Like many things in the military environment, there is generally some widely accepted or explicitly published immediate action that is taken. In the IT realm for instance, there is actually a measure of truth to closing and opening a program or checking connectivity, something of a simple decision context. But, some issues may not be resolved, and I may find myself needing to find a technician with further expertise to help solve the problem, shifting the decision making over to the complicated arena. Things can get more interesting if the initially simple issue turns out to be something more widespread or was simply an early indicator of a catastrophic issue with greater impact, necessitating a larger and more rapid response from the tech support end under a chaotic context. That in turn could evolve into a decision where more probing and analysis is needed to develop a fix action, thus making us work in a complex context. Overall, any troubleshooting action can potentially go from routine, to chaotic or complex, back to routine within the course of the same job.
I very recently wrapped up another multiple context situation with what seemed like a relatively simple decoration project. I initially started with a simple framework...my boss' boss said go and get some nice foam board pictures hung up in the hallway, I'll get you some points of contact. In the midst of this, I'm also still sharing some level of authority with another friend at the office, both of us doing this task alongside our usual duties. Time passes, and before long we're asking where the project is. We are briefly in a chaotic stage as we scramble to pick up the project again, and gradually I gain full authority over the project. After further friction though, I start working directly with our in house public affairs section, and start working out how we can get the pictures made and hung up within the budget we have. From leadership perspective, it looked like it would be a complicated context that would require only leveraging our resources and expertise. Upon further consultation though, there were lots of rules and regulations that created difficulties for production, as well as equipment issues, ultimately leading us towards a complex context and having to contact another base and see if we could arrange for buying the materials from their bigger print shop. Further disorder was injected, however, when our higher headquarters said we could utilize their printing resources, and we were then shifting between straight disorder and a complex context as we sought out different courses of actions and their respective pros and cons. Finally, among all these context changes, my local point of contact found these very nice frames that were laying around from an abandoned project, with which we could utilize our own photo printing resources and forget about the foam board. I agreed we should present the option, and the Commander really liked the look. We were able to shift back to a complicated context of coordinating with the necessary experts to print the pictures, mount them in the frames, and get them hung up on the wall.
The biggest consideration in dealing with these context situations, for me personally, was identifying where I could handle the issue myself and where I needed to seek outside assistance or expertise. From there, it was a matter of taking in the information I could get and executing an appropriate course of action or determining I needed further information or assistance. Admittedly though, my considerations generally haven't gotten more complicated than that, and I could well stand to do further analysis now better understanding what to look for from the Cynefin point of view.
As for five ways in which the framework can be helpful in improving decision making, first off, it gives some general guidelines for the "flavor" of a situation and can help one perceive how they should be looking at a given situation...whether its a routine issue or one that needs heavy thought. Second, the framework can help a leader identify what their role in a situation should be, whether to facilitate the gathering and synthesizing of information or make a command decision to restore stability. Third, the framework can highlight danger signals to look for to indicate when a leader should attempt to shift the context so the decision making process isn't pinned to one state. This leads to a fourth improvement, which is how to respond to a set of danger signals to restore a balanced footing, be it seeking information or pushing for different approaches to problems. Finally, having a grasp of the overall Cynefin Framework model can help a leader appreciate the potential scope for dynamic changes, hopefully posturing them towards readiness in reacting to, if not anticipating, changes in the context they're working in (Snowden and Boone, 2007)
References
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review
Although I can't point to one specific instance, most any time I had to deal with troubleshooting at the office has been a multiple-context decision making process. Like many things in the military environment, there is generally some widely accepted or explicitly published immediate action that is taken. In the IT realm for instance, there is actually a measure of truth to closing and opening a program or checking connectivity, something of a simple decision context. But, some issues may not be resolved, and I may find myself needing to find a technician with further expertise to help solve the problem, shifting the decision making over to the complicated arena. Things can get more interesting if the initially simple issue turns out to be something more widespread or was simply an early indicator of a catastrophic issue with greater impact, necessitating a larger and more rapid response from the tech support end under a chaotic context. That in turn could evolve into a decision where more probing and analysis is needed to develop a fix action, thus making us work in a complex context. Overall, any troubleshooting action can potentially go from routine, to chaotic or complex, back to routine within the course of the same job.
I very recently wrapped up another multiple context situation with what seemed like a relatively simple decoration project. I initially started with a simple framework...my boss' boss said go and get some nice foam board pictures hung up in the hallway, I'll get you some points of contact. In the midst of this, I'm also still sharing some level of authority with another friend at the office, both of us doing this task alongside our usual duties. Time passes, and before long we're asking where the project is. We are briefly in a chaotic stage as we scramble to pick up the project again, and gradually I gain full authority over the project. After further friction though, I start working directly with our in house public affairs section, and start working out how we can get the pictures made and hung up within the budget we have. From leadership perspective, it looked like it would be a complicated context that would require only leveraging our resources and expertise. Upon further consultation though, there were lots of rules and regulations that created difficulties for production, as well as equipment issues, ultimately leading us towards a complex context and having to contact another base and see if we could arrange for buying the materials from their bigger print shop. Further disorder was injected, however, when our higher headquarters said we could utilize their printing resources, and we were then shifting between straight disorder and a complex context as we sought out different courses of actions and their respective pros and cons. Finally, among all these context changes, my local point of contact found these very nice frames that were laying around from an abandoned project, with which we could utilize our own photo printing resources and forget about the foam board. I agreed we should present the option, and the Commander really liked the look. We were able to shift back to a complicated context of coordinating with the necessary experts to print the pictures, mount them in the frames, and get them hung up on the wall.
The biggest consideration in dealing with these context situations, for me personally, was identifying where I could handle the issue myself and where I needed to seek outside assistance or expertise. From there, it was a matter of taking in the information I could get and executing an appropriate course of action or determining I needed further information or assistance. Admittedly though, my considerations generally haven't gotten more complicated than that, and I could well stand to do further analysis now better understanding what to look for from the Cynefin point of view.
As for five ways in which the framework can be helpful in improving decision making, first off, it gives some general guidelines for the "flavor" of a situation and can help one perceive how they should be looking at a given situation...whether its a routine issue or one that needs heavy thought. Second, the framework can help a leader identify what their role in a situation should be, whether to facilitate the gathering and synthesizing of information or make a command decision to restore stability. Third, the framework can highlight danger signals to look for to indicate when a leader should attempt to shift the context so the decision making process isn't pinned to one state. This leads to a fourth improvement, which is how to respond to a set of danger signals to restore a balanced footing, be it seeking information or pushing for different approaches to problems. Finally, having a grasp of the overall Cynefin Framework model can help a leader appreciate the potential scope for dynamic changes, hopefully posturing them towards readiness in reacting to, if not anticipating, changes in the context they're working in (Snowden and Boone, 2007)
References
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review
Sunday, March 2, 2014
A632.7.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Most leadership texts and curriculum specifically prescribe in their methodologies, or at the very least infer, the idea that collaboration with any and all stakeholders in an issue is of great importance. Besides the benefits of having a certain number of additional viewpoints from which to gain ideas and perspective, collaboration with other parties can highlight any second order effects a proposed action may have. This would especially be true in a larger organization, especially one that has multiple tiers of leaders and followers where the lower tiers are likely to be tasked with execution or must adjust to any changes from the higher tiers.
Within the context of Stewart Levine's Cycle of Resolution, collaboration also seems to constitute much of the model's foundation. Several of the steps within the cycle have names that suggest an inherent requirement for collaboration, including words such as "listening" in two steps, and "agreement" in an additional two steps. That means at least four of seven steps within the cycle have an explicit intent of working with other interested parties in reaching ultimate resolution. In doing this, there is greater likelihood of not only arriving at an optimum course of action for the greater organization and the interconnected parties, but also a minimized risk of consequences that may go unseen within the scope of a single perspective.
At one time I was involved with a project to relocate a piece of massive equipment from where it was in storage to our own campus. It was presented to me as a simple, broad, mission type order to "get it here." Little did I know the numerous intricacies involved. It wasn't simply a matter of throwing the equipment on a truck and bringing it over, but it ended up involving many players and countless considerations. I started very simply with only asking around the plans shop I was working with at the time and asking them who to talk to. This expanded over time to involve higher level logistics planners, operational oversight and planning, manning, and eventually infrastructure and facilities. Before long, I even had to work around environmental issues as we aren't allowed to drop anything into just any empty plot of grass. We also had to work around considerations for further development of our campus. Overall though, I admittedly had no process I was working with other than following leads from question to question, and I hadn't developed much of an outcome I was seeking beyond getting the equipment on site and making the boss happy. In the end, even after having to hand the project off when I went on an extended business trip, we're still nudging the thing along over a year later.
There are certainly some ways stakeholder involvement could have made this process less painful. First off, a more exhaustive outreach to potential stakeholders may have cut some time out of the piecemeal discovery of considerations at the initial onset, and may have been conducive to more rapidly bringing together the parties necessary to decide upon resolution. Second, to borrow from Levine's text Getting Resolution, having these parties together would have afforded the opportunity for the different stakeholders to tell their stories and provide greater clarity on the sub-objectives that would directly contribute to the primary objective. Third, to continue from sharing our perspectives a gathering of shareholders could continue following Levine's resolution model and get current and complete information. In having heard different perspectives, the shareholders could highlight what worked or did not work for similar moves in the past and compile a more complete list of issues and questions that need to be worked out. Fourth, having gone through these processes there is greater likelihood of coming to some kind of an agreement on a way ahead and thus there is the opportunity for each stakeholder to have taken on a more active role in the move and help expedite the process. Finally, in having had that initial involvement, I would think we would be much closer to Levine's definition of resolution than we are now and be executing the move in some fashion, vice the current state which still involves much ongoing debate on the questions of how, whom, and what will be used to make the move finally happen (Levine, 2009).
Of course, we still haven't achieved the end objective due to the red tape involved, but there are lessons learned in this experience. First off, it was a hard lesson learned in expeditiously ascertaining who all the stakeholders or parties of interest would be, make contact, and get coordinated to prevent a long drawn out process of discovery and sputtering coordination. Second, if those parties did come together, we would need be upfront fairly quickly on our needs and concerns so as, again, not to waste a great deal of time dealing with them in a piecemeal fashion. Finally, we seem to continue learning the hard way that seeking resolution without an agreement per Levine's models is a recipe for a long, drawn out execution phase. Rather than having actions fall into place as agreed upon in a collaboratively produced framework, the project seems to be stuck in a day by day re-evaluation of how things are going now based upon the actions of the current stakeholders (or lack thereof) and how it impacts the other stakeholders based on regulation or any politics involved.
To summarize in brief, the situation had proved that half-hearted collaboration at the outset in combination with a loosely defined agreement has, as of now, yielded no firm results and a great deal of frustration.
References
Within the context of Stewart Levine's Cycle of Resolution, collaboration also seems to constitute much of the model's foundation. Several of the steps within the cycle have names that suggest an inherent requirement for collaboration, including words such as "listening" in two steps, and "agreement" in an additional two steps. That means at least four of seven steps within the cycle have an explicit intent of working with other interested parties in reaching ultimate resolution. In doing this, there is greater likelihood of not only arriving at an optimum course of action for the greater organization and the interconnected parties, but also a minimized risk of consequences that may go unseen within the scope of a single perspective.
At one time I was involved with a project to relocate a piece of massive equipment from where it was in storage to our own campus. It was presented to me as a simple, broad, mission type order to "get it here." Little did I know the numerous intricacies involved. It wasn't simply a matter of throwing the equipment on a truck and bringing it over, but it ended up involving many players and countless considerations. I started very simply with only asking around the plans shop I was working with at the time and asking them who to talk to. This expanded over time to involve higher level logistics planners, operational oversight and planning, manning, and eventually infrastructure and facilities. Before long, I even had to work around environmental issues as we aren't allowed to drop anything into just any empty plot of grass. We also had to work around considerations for further development of our campus. Overall though, I admittedly had no process I was working with other than following leads from question to question, and I hadn't developed much of an outcome I was seeking beyond getting the equipment on site and making the boss happy. In the end, even after having to hand the project off when I went on an extended business trip, we're still nudging the thing along over a year later.
There are certainly some ways stakeholder involvement could have made this process less painful. First off, a more exhaustive outreach to potential stakeholders may have cut some time out of the piecemeal discovery of considerations at the initial onset, and may have been conducive to more rapidly bringing together the parties necessary to decide upon resolution. Second, to borrow from Levine's text Getting Resolution, having these parties together would have afforded the opportunity for the different stakeholders to tell their stories and provide greater clarity on the sub-objectives that would directly contribute to the primary objective. Third, to continue from sharing our perspectives a gathering of shareholders could continue following Levine's resolution model and get current and complete information. In having heard different perspectives, the shareholders could highlight what worked or did not work for similar moves in the past and compile a more complete list of issues and questions that need to be worked out. Fourth, having gone through these processes there is greater likelihood of coming to some kind of an agreement on a way ahead and thus there is the opportunity for each stakeholder to have taken on a more active role in the move and help expedite the process. Finally, in having had that initial involvement, I would think we would be much closer to Levine's definition of resolution than we are now and be executing the move in some fashion, vice the current state which still involves much ongoing debate on the questions of how, whom, and what will be used to make the move finally happen (Levine, 2009).
Of course, we still haven't achieved the end objective due to the red tape involved, but there are lessons learned in this experience. First off, it was a hard lesson learned in expeditiously ascertaining who all the stakeholders or parties of interest would be, make contact, and get coordinated to prevent a long drawn out process of discovery and sputtering coordination. Second, if those parties did come together, we would need be upfront fairly quickly on our needs and concerns so as, again, not to waste a great deal of time dealing with them in a piecemeal fashion. Finally, we seem to continue learning the hard way that seeking resolution without an agreement per Levine's models is a recipe for a long, drawn out execution phase. Rather than having actions fall into place as agreed upon in a collaboratively produced framework, the project seems to be stuck in a day by day re-evaluation of how things are going now based upon the actions of the current stakeholders (or lack thereof) and how it impacts the other stakeholders based on regulation or any politics involved.
To summarize in brief, the situation had proved that half-hearted collaboration at the outset in combination with a loosely defined agreement has, as of now, yielded no firm results and a great deal of frustration.
References
Levine, S. (2009). Getting
Resolution. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)