A631.2.5.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

In the creation of the charter for our learning team within this course, there is also opportunity to observe the initial development of our team. Given the circumstances of having to adjust teams shortly before the second weeks started and the given fact we were working remotely, we seem to have done rather well. Considering the team development process outlined in Dan Brown's An Experiential Approach to Organizational Development, we've accomplished much of the steps involved. By way of the initial assignment, we initiated something of a running development meeting. In creating our charter, we set our objectives, we collected data on our capabilities, aims, and thoughts, and we also did some initial planning on our way ahead all within the context of conducting this virtual meeting. About the only step left is evaluating our team development process, which I expect should be something of an ongoing task for us. We've also done some initial consideration of roles by defining who would take lead on certain weeks throughout the course, and laying out general expectations for members of the team (Brown, 2011).

As for factors that inhibited any decision making or problem solving, while we didn't encounter any issues that hindered the completion of our objectives, we did have to deal with the ever present specter of our geographic separation and the associated "turn around time" for any of our communications. There is also a higher need for implicit trust, as for the most part we can only go off of a name and what our team mate's the other end are typing. At least this early on, it is difficult to draw much about who they are and what makes them tick, but we have to trust that they're here for a common goal and will take part to get there. As of now, we haven't run into any issues of group think, or any issues with goal settings or team culture that were noted, among other things, as possible issues in the class text (Brown, 2011).

On the note of the time taken for decision making and problem solving, the consolidation of the teams took place earlier in the week on Sunday evening, and the finalized inputs were posted to our group file exchange on Thursday. Given that, one could say it took about four days to make a complete run of decision making and problem solving with regards to our team charter. In terms of consolidating the teams though, that arguably took a little longer from the initial team establishment on Monday of week one, and the need became apparent on the following Saturday or Sunday as the class roster became finalized. By that same token though, since the issue was recognized and acted upon over a weekend, one could also say that took only one or two days with intervention from a third party (the professor).

Information was, to the best of my knowledge, shared exclusively by means of the Group Discussion forum built into the online Blackboard learning environment. Given our relatively short time together, we also haven't really run into any issues of power or authority yet, although we do seem to have had at least one or two members demonstrate a higher level of initiative. At this time, there hasn't been any issues, and it is welcome to have someone help take the initial lead.

Collaboration was essential to the completion of the project, as the charter required all members to give some modicum of input in order to meet requirements and gather our necessary data. Ultimately, it yielded us what we needed and also helped lay down the initial foundations of communication and trust within the group. There is no evidence at this time of competition or any particular friction, nor was there any instances of process intervention by team members aside initiating the team merger once the decision was passed down. Rather, the overall process felt very natural and equitable, requiring so far little in the way of formalized intervention of use of processes.

A631.1.5.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

As far as team development processes go, EcoSeagate represents one of the more unique propositions I've seen or heard of, and based on the considerations of the text, I would say there is value. After all, the text also uses EcoSeagate as an example in one of their sidebar boxes.

To speak more analytically though, EcoSeagate is a form of team development very much in the spirit of outdoor experiential learning, that is, developing teams by taking groups of coworkers into outdoor settings to participate in learning exercises with the intent of using a varied environment that would in most cases be a situation where "With such a foreign and intimidating environment, everyone feels off balance and no one has an advantage over anyone else" (Brown, 2011).

I do believe there is certainly value to be had overall. Considering other means of team development, the process would force people to work outside their comfort zone and reconsider their roles in the organization, as well as their strengths and weaknesses. Further, by working with a group of peers, especially if they're from other departments or backgrounds, they may gain further insight from discussions where team members are sharing their thoughts on a given situation or in figuring out where they can fit to help the team best succeed. Certainly, a weeks worth of training culminating in an adventure race is quite the way for one to find out what they're made of when put into an unfamiliar situation.

I think in the case of Seagate, the point is to really keep the organization on its toes. With great success, it can be easy for one to rest on their laurels and not push themselves. Combine that with people getting into a comfortable routine with their department and with certain people, and one may find themselves with a company that is slow to innovate, if it innovates at all, and it may subsequently lack some of the necessary hunger and vigor to maintain success. To borrow as well from the thoughts of Bill Watkins, by showing the value of teamwork to people outside of work, it might be something transferable, a notion demonstrated by his musing of how "...people put their lives on the line for the respect of their platoon mates" (Brown, 2011). For my own thoughts, an engineer or software developer that stays in their office will likely continue to think like an engineer or software developer. Now, take that same engineer that had to adventure through 40 kilometers of a foreign country with a younger factory worker and an older executive, they might be able to look at problems through slightly different colored lenses.

My organization kind of has these outdoor activities built into their normal routine through the occasional round of training for deployments or field work, but it could be beneficial in certain ways. We spend most of our days cooped up in an office working on computers, and I find at times there isn't what I would consider much of a fighting spark on hand. We do what we can though, occasionally having a paintball competition between flights or holding sporting events on a designated "Wingman Day" to promote esprit de corps throughout the unit. I think though, if there was some way to do a short weekend trip with a mixture of officers, as well as junior and senior enlisted, cycling through positions of responsibility and doing things that your average communications person wouldn't do on a daily basis, although it wouldn't directly relate to the IT realm it could spur something in how we think or at least how we relate to one another. I have to admit, it sounds like a fun way to take care of training and I may well chew on options for how we could do it as a squadron or within flights, particularly given the opportunities afforded by being located in Northern California.

A630.9.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

Erich Schmidt presents in his talk what might at first seem counter-intuitive for those seeking to improve leadership, but depending upon how one approaches what he says, it makes a great deal of sense. Certainly, in a military organization, what Schmidt describes about the company moving forward without a great deal of management intervention is the ideal state that is pursued. By having a chain of command and the backing of a couple hundred years of culture, there's this expectation for better or for worse that the boss said to do it, so it's up to the subordinates to try their best to make it work. On top of that, being an all volunteer service, people opt into the organization and choose to play by its rules. However, like Schmidt said, the manager is going to be trying to assist them if needed. The subordinates are resources for the leader to accomplish objectives given to them or created by them, and in turn the leader will be there to help get assistance from on high or to provide additional resources that their subordinates need to succeed such as tools, money, or additional political firepower.

I also think his thoughts on the idea of a discord and deadline make sense. While it might fly in the face of schools of thought that call for harmony and agreement, discord is what it takes to identify the best and worst of a given plan while also identifying ideas. Deadlines as well, while in some cases an artificial construct, ultimately acts as an excellent motivator to get things done. Like all things though, there needs to be a certain balance and moderation between these factors. Too much discord and there's nothing but unproductive discussion, bad feelings, and no solution offered. Be too soft or too hard on a deadline, and either things won't get done or your people will be set up for failure by not being given adequate time.

I might even argue that, although we don't do it explicitly, my organization practices the 20% rule on an ad hoc basis. While there is a set duty day, unless there's a critical tasking most people are left to their own devices so long as things are getting done. As long as projects or tasks are on track and one is good about generally being present for duty and available, one is free to go in and out of the office to  make any necessary appointments, get a haircut, or once in awhile leave for an extended period of the day to take care of a family issue. We also do tend to have lots of discussion about issues, often right up to the deadline, especially if the issue involves coordination and input from multiple units.

So, overall, this isn't an unreasonable way to view work as people do it in my workplace. Admittedly, there are numerous other regulations on how we actually conduct business and live our lives compared to most anyone in Silicon Valley, but much of the same basic principles apply. Given that, it doesn't take any particular courage for any leader in our organization implement, as that's just the way it is. However, there is a learning curve for younger officers to willingly back away from the work at hand and leave the better seasoned enlisted personnel to be the technical experts and do the job. It requires a measure of courage then to trust in this system of delegation and let it work. There is also a learning curve in accepting that something will come out of what initially seems like endless bickering and brinksmanship, until a solution seems to come out of nowhere at the eleventh hour.

Having said all that, this particular approach could backfire if too many individuals within the leadership structure don't allow the system to work. Rampant micromanagement at any level could cause the self driving machine to come to a halt, and overbearing leadership may create too much discord or time pressure. You may even have a case of too many subordinates that lack the personal drive and initiative to truly operate independently without a lot of intervention or hands on work by leadership, which in of itself creates a further drag on resources.

For me, I'm mainly taking away some perspective on my present situation. Yes, I work for a very large organization that's part of the federal government...that's an inherent recipe for a great deal of bureaucracy and the frustrating scenarios that fuel the likes of comics such as the Dilbert series. However, now that I stop and read Schmidt's thoughts on how Google runs their business, although my organization doesn't have quite the same reputation for employee freebies and the like, the basic operational theories seem to have a great deal of correlation, which is somehow heartening. I'm also taking away a reminder that discord is not necessarily a bad thing, and this serves as another one of a handful of examples I've heard about where its desirable. It is certainly an idea I hope will provide me with greater patience when facing disagreements and logjams at the office, and will keep me looking for the best solution with the end objective in mind.

A630.8.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

As humorous as Tom Wujec's analysis of the Marshmallow Challenge may sound, much of it makes sense. Granted, much of this sense could be argued to be from subjective sources, but it makes sense in its own way nonetheless. I agree with his analysis of what makes the team of kindergarten graduates more likely to succeed, and as cynical as it sounds I can understand where the team of MBA graduates are more likely to fail.

To dive in deeper, a recent MBA graduate is certainly going to be much more interested in the proposition of making their mark and getting ahead to get that nice corporate job than your average kindergarten graduate, and by way of training and the accumulated years of being taught to solve problems in a very systematic manner, an MBA graduate is much more likely to approach the challenge in an orderly step by step manner versus the more exploratory approach taken by the kindergarten graduate. In this specific scenario, although the marshmallow is logically the last step, its very mass and weight make it something of a central piece to be factored in. The kindergarten graduates, still being very young, are much more likely to be at a highly curious and exploratory of their lives and aren't as likely to see the marshmallow as a last step than they are to see it as something always there to be played with.

In the case of the CEOs versus CEOs with executive assistants, I think it has something to do with the diversity of perspective. While both sets of CEOs are likely cut from the same cloth of business minded people that want to get ahead, those paired with assistants have the benefit of a different perspective that ideally understand their bosses and what they're dealing with, yet come with a different  point of view and without the baggage of a fixed way of doing business.Thus, at least in the subtle way assistants do, they can inject their thoughts in something of an advisory role and lead from within the team.

In any of these scenarios, one could argue the influence of various group behaviors and process interventions. For instance, the MBA group might do well at testing for consensus and summarizing (task functions), but they may not be so good at harmonizing and encouraging, plus the members may be vying continuously for emerging into a leadership function full time rather than going in and out, per what Brown notes in his text on page 203. They may also be more inclined to carry out individual functions, still in something of a mentality to stand out above peers. Kindergarten graduates, although they may not be the most likely to elaborate, do seem like the type that would ask a great deal of questions, and assuming they get along well, there may be greater harmonizing and encouragement within the group. Some of these factors might apply as well to the scenarios of CEOs with or without assistants. I imagine the assistants might provide some of both task and maintenance functions by keeping the CEOs on track and cohesive, as well as undertaking process interventions on page 204 such as generalizing and probing. CEOs alone may also be conscious of how they compare to others, while the executive assistants may still be comfortable in their roles of providing support to the boss and not grandstanding.

In short, besides matters of experience or perspective biases, I believe that some group types can be more conducive than others towards having members that strike a balance between the task and maintenance functions, and may have more or less members that are inclined to work towards individual functions. Finally, there may also be varying balances in the implementation (or lack thereof) of process intervention techniques in challenges such as this.

A630.7.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

Listening to Michael Bonsignore's discussion and examining it in the lens of our readings on the impacts of organizational culture, I think he certainly has good intent in his decision to bring together the best practices of Honeywell and Allied Signal, and I like to think it will be a successful fusion of corporate cultures. Having said that, the video discusses mostly the general idea and as I recall it didn't mention any specific best practices they were looking at implementing. Without any specific examples in mind, it is difficult to make a specific judgment call on whether there will be any second order consequences or if particular initiatives will clash with other ones, which are potential issues highlighted in Donald R. Brown's An Experiential Approach to Organizational Development. Having said that, the fact that Bonsignore is considering a controlled creation of a new post merger culture rather than just running with the Honeywell culture he knows suggests to me an appreciation for different ways of doing business, and indicates to me he has the flexibility and know-how to make informed decisions that taps into the resources he has available.

That isn't to say I don't see potential barriers or challenges. Bonsignore discussed the fact that the company is very old and rather content with its place in the market when he came in, which suggests a challenging environment for enacting change and a great deal of inertia to overcome. Not only that, once the merger with Honeywell and Allied Signal did take place, he had to overcome the bad press generated by owning up to the fact that projected earnings were not going to be as high as the company thought it would be. Overall, Bonsignore came into a situation where he had to overcome change resistance, maintain the best of the characters of both companies, and sell the way ahead to his employees and Wall Street. He walked into something of a perfect storm with leading the company towards his vision, pressing them through a rough patch, and maintaining the success of his organization.

When it comes to crafting the culture of the new Honeywell, the critical success factors are very closely related to the task of overcoming the previously noted barriers. Mainly, Honeywell will have to work to consciously analyze what their former halves bring to the table, and find means to effectively integrate them. This may involve a long hard look at how they integrate any change strategies across the board for technology, behavior, and structure, and they may have to consider formalized organizational development efforts. Honeywell leadership will also have to be very conscious of the need to keep employees in the loop, as they make the company's mission happen and are in effect another stakeholder. Bonsignore noted that employees can be very resilient, so long as they're involved in what's happening and feel like the boss is communicating with them.

Having viewed this interview, I certainly enjoyed some greater perspective. Even at the highest echelons of America's biggest company, there are real people that are capable of making mistakes and have to own up to them. It was also interesting to get the perspective on creating something new rather than merely settling for an amalgamation of old cultures and standards. Finally, I appreciated hearing the thoughts on the need to be level. As for what I can take away immediately, I know my own organization is still in the middle of something of a transitional phase in standing up some new functions, and we're now doing that with some additional constraints on spending and manning. I'd certainly like to consider how we might start creating a new organizational culture out of our recent changes, and once again its refreshing in its own way to hear about even the business elite hitting harder times and overcoming obstacles.

A630.6.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

The list of 50 Reasons Not to Change proved to be rather comprehensive, and admittedly several of those have been heard coming out of the mouths of people I've worked with both at school and on the job. I'm certainly guilty of having said a few of those myself. However, the way I react initially strongly varies with the situation. Some of these reasons not to change just come as part of the military life, as there are always at least one or two policies that need to be followed that may defy common sense, the ever present question of manning and funding (particularly in these times as we're being called upon to do more with less), and of course considering the wishes and desires of our bosses and trying to either dance around said preferences or use them to our advantage. Having said that, while such concerns from the list of 50 reasons may be voiced, our office tends to be very good at making things work anyway. Rather than simply stopping at concerns on the funding, manning, or otherwise, we say "fair enough, how can we do this with what we have?" It's happened often enough that my initial reaction is more along the lines of "Ok, what trick are we going to pull off now?" or more often "What's the perspective of our more senior officers or senior enlisted that has more experience? What solutions do they see?"

As I've alluded to earlier, I've been guilty more than once of using these excuses myself when I hit a wall in a task or project. For all intents and purposes, I'm still a very new officer with less than three years of experience, almost half of which was used not in being an officer but being in training, then working a job that was inherently very reactionary rather than calling for action or new ideas. Frankly, I know that I tend to take policies and circumstances at face value, and creating a solution that isn't readily available or which goes outside some kind of established procedure is not my strong suit. I'm hoping that as time passes and I gain greater experience and confidence that I will be better able to seek first how I might work an issue rather than why it can't be done.

How to overcome these types of responses to change has varied some in my experience. A vast majority of the time, we're still being subject to the will of our commander or higher authority, and anytime we come back saying that something couldn't or shouldn't be done, we had to have a very good reason. In my case especially, I'd have to be able to answer not only to the commander but then at least one or two more levels of more senior officers, and that would be after trying to figure things out with at least one senior enlisted. So, admittedly it boils down to something of a "find a way or else" type of scenario, but to frame the task in a positive manner, our office generally maintains a very low tolerance of the 50 Reasons, with our organizational culture as a military unit calling for a "can do" attitude that finds or makes a way.

Regarding Seth Godin's talk tribes, I really think he's onto something with that idea. Most talks I've heard on leadership or change revolves around the idea of getting an idea out there or as some of my recent favorites have noted, stating with "why" as prescribed by author Simon Sinek, or another talk that discussed setting where things are now and where they can go. But they don't often talk about the people that follow an idea, which if I recall correctly was discussed in one of our early videos as an element of what makes change happen. When you get down to it, individuals can end up as the face of a movement but ideas only actually take flight when a significant number of people get on board to try and make it happen. Thinking from a historical perspective, the idea makes sense. The American Revolution, while largely attributed to the founding fathers, had a great deal of the footwork ride upon the common citizen that didn't care for the American Colonies being run by the British Empire. The Civil Rights movement, which did have some major figures such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., still had a great deal ride upon the people that took a stand to be heard. Within my own office environment, my last commander thought there was a better way to deal with the reporting and tracking of communications issues, and he rallied with his peers at our partner units that felt the same way and led them to adopt our new way of doing business. Those are examples where, as Godin put it, there was a group of people already looking for a change, and someone stood up to organize that group and make something happen. Definitely, while one person can get the idea to organize change, I think it takes a tribe to see the change through.

I can take away from this a couple of things. First and foremost, that there's actually a reasonably lengthy list of common excuses out there for why things can't change, many of which I've heard or used and all of which sound rather tacky when examined from a third party perspective. Knowing this, I would like to take this knowledge with me to be consciously aware of when one of these reasons is being used and to critically examine whether or not it's valid, and what can be done to overcome that reaction. Second though, I intend to be conscious of this idea of "tribes," and I'll see if there's any potential for application in my workplace or if there's any evidence of leveraging of tribes occurring that does in fact get change rolling.

A630.5.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

The talk by NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe certainly made for some interesting observation of not only how the findings of the BST survey was conveyed to the rest of NASA, but also showed indications of how NASA leadership was taking the suggestions to heart.

O'Keefe's presentation to NASA employees seemed to be twofold in purpose. First and foremost, it very publicly brought to mind the issues that NASA was looking to fix in terms of their organizational culture based upon the BST findings, and it laid out some initial thoughts on what they intended to do about it by promoting communications and the like. Second, but still equally important, I think O'Keefe getting in front of his organization like that represented a sincere demonstration of his intent to break down the perceived communication barriers between different levels of the organization, as well as demonstrating that senior leadership was paying attention to the survey results and intended to act upon them.

Something else O'Keefe succeeded in where leaders of big organizations could just as easily fail was in how believable he was in his presentation. At the very least, his presentation style seemed very extemporaneous rather than tightly scripted, certainly somewhat more conversational in fashion. The fact that he also entertained a bit of self-deprecating humor on occasion by commenting on his age and referring to himself as an example of "managerial interference." O'Keefe came off as a reasonably genuine individual that was comfortable with his audience, and he seemed sincere in what he was saying.

As for why he discussed NASA's values, that seemed to be a major pillar of the entire conversation. Speaking strictly from the point of view of diagnostics, discussing these values did seem to set the target for where he wanted to take NASA as an organization, in effect setting a goal and giving people an idea for where NASA should be when they've undertaken full organizational development in their culture. If I recall correctly, I think O'Keefe also discussed where NASA stood at the time with relation to those values, effectively setting a baseline and then in effect stating where they were and were they could be.

Having seen this, I do think there are some takeaways to be had. Among other things, like it was alluded to in his talk, leaders need to be getting out there to get the on-the-ground perspective and see where things are going. I would say this is important not just for the stated reason of checking on the condition of the organization and the workforce, but also to demonstrate a visible display of the leader being interested in the lower echelons and putting themselves out there. I also think it might be worthwhile to at some point give pause during the day and give thought to where my actions out and about with the troops on a daily basis serve to build up the stated values of our organization, and maintain the line of communication between the lower echelons, the higher level leadership and myself.