A631.4.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

Considering what was presented in the INSEAD video on self-managed work teams, there are certainly some benefits to be considered. As the name immediately suggests, such teams enjoy an intrinsic level of autonomy and authority that a work unit within a traditional organization usually doesn't enjoy. They are able to, more or less, dictate how they conduct operations, sustain logistics, and run training. In doing this, it is generally expected and is usually the case that the team members take greater ownership in the team's efforts and in turn have increased motivation and higher performance.

Considering the Brown text, there are further characteristics, and potentially benefits, that can be reaped. The teams run on the small side, and have the interesting dynamic of strong information sharing, lack of status symbols, and a diversity among team members in background and knowledge. They also have a need to be trained and cross-trained, overall leading to a lean workforce that can draw from a highly flexible knowledge base (Brown, 2011).

Of course, as with most things there are certain drawbacks to be considered. Immediately there's the issue of the team members having the necessary interest in managing their own team, and the team needs to be able to work with the greater organization or other third parties that may apply to their situation. Within the context of the video, there's also the consideration of how an external leader will interact with a self-managed team and give any necessary vectors. The video gave some thoughts on how this would need to be done, including goal setting, talking with teams in a manner that gives them the objective without dictating the means, and having a good sense of when and when not to intervene. Brown also notes that such teams are not appropriate for all tasks, and if there is a lack of training or rewards there may be issues. Additionally, because of having fewer layers, there will be fewer opportunities for advancement which creates an additional challenge in motivation (Brown, 2011).

Personally, the choice on whether or not I would want to work on such a team would largely depend on the task at hand. If it was indeed a task where I had the necessary know how and abilities to form my own course of action towards achieving the objective, I wouldn't mind working on a self-managed team that didn't have external leadership checking in directly as often. However, for the most part I would just as soon prefer working within a more traditional hierarchy system that has relatively clear steps and procedures towards getting the necessary work done. While a self-managed team concept is highly empowering to those on the team, I am personally content with receiving additional guidance and having some of the decision load taken off of me, particularly if the task is not within an area in which I possess expertise.

To be an effective external manager of a team, I think I mainly would need to develop competency in goal setting. In my current duties, I am already well versed in the general idea of passing along an objective to your subordinates and letting them figure out the exact methodology whenever permissible. However, I believe I would have to make some major improvements in goal setting or espousing a vision, as well as the general tenets of motivating a team. While I would be effective at simply relaying a message from higher leadership, I'm of the opinion that there's more I could do with regards to giving the team an end to pursue and having some of the desirable leader-team relation traits at work. In my opinion, external leadership of a team really comes down to a good mastery of leadership skills, but applying them more indirectly and on an as needed basis, largely letting the team doing its thing. Knowing when or when not to intervene, maintaining trust, and building the necessary "...strong partnership between team members and management" would be key (Brown, 2011).

Resources

Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM&feature=youtu.be

A631.3.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

For me, the importance of feedback to overall performance goes without saying, having been driven into me for the almost seven years of training and active duty experience. Indeed, Air Force regulation mandates at the very bare minimum three formal feedback sessions per annual reporting period, not to even include the countless occasions of informal verbal feedback that happens day to day. Goal setting, although not emphasized as frequently, still has its moments to be brought up in mentoring discussions and we're taught the idea of setting specific, challenging, attainable goals during our training.

Indeed, there are others out in the world of management and leadership that recognize the importance of goals and feedback, and continue to back the benefits. A study published in 2009 concluded that goal setting led to engaged employees, engaged employees exhibit higher optimism, and higher optimism improved performance (Medlin and Green, 2009). Another study focusing on athletes found showing them videos with positive feedback resulted in overall better performance (Hutchinson, 2012). Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with a lot of these findings in my personal philosophy. Goals give something of a target or endpoint to work towards, while feedback gives both encouragement when things are being done right and gives points for improvement to help maximize performance. I also very much see the point in Brown's point regarding the combination of feedback and goals. Feedback without a goal, or pursuing a goal without feedback, doesn't create improvements and could have detrimental effects if individuals become frustrated in their efforts by not having an end goal or lacking guidance on how to get there.

I'm inclined to agree with Brown's contention on generational differences on feedback, with younger people seeking frequent feedback at a greater rate compared to older counterparts (Brown, 2011). I've seen a mixed bag of my peers that desire feedback or don't care about it, but I do think that those who do want it would want to receive feedback more frequently. After all, contemporary society generally has a much faster flow of small pieces of information, and younger people tend to be very regularly "wired in" to media communications and often receive short updates on events, interests, or otherwise. It only stands to reason they might want the same pacing for receiving information about their job performance.

As for how much I give and receive, I find that I'm often seeking feedback from my leadership (true to Brown's assertion), although I don't give it out very regularly. I'd like to think this is partially due to the fact that the people I supervise have generally been in the Air Force notably longer than I have, in some cases almost as long as I've been alive. Often, I delegate much of the day to day mechanics unless there's something that absolutely requires the officer level authority, and more often than not my NCO corps excels with minimal input. Besides that, for the small handful of feedbacks I have given, I've been moved around the offices at such a pace that I have yet to bear witness of a full annual feedback cycle for a person I was rating. In my case though, I'm still relatively new and conscious of my performance metrics, and take to heart what we're told in the way of finding ways to improve and taking ownership of our careers where we can. Thus, I often keep an ear open for any feedback my leadership gives me, as well as occasional requests. I also frequently solicit my subordinates for thoughts and feedback, and I've found my senior NCO's will frequently give me useful pointers for the day to day execution of management duties.

I admittedly need to work on creating better refined goals beyond getting the day's projects done and making my milestones for training, but with the feedback I receive, I do think it helps to sustain a certain level of performance and certainly helps make improvements if I know what specifically needs work. More often than not, feedback helps me refine my short term goals, although it can also be a bit of a jarring experience as well. Lately I've been trying to hash things out with what direction to take my career now that I am unable to retrain as a pilot, and apparently my efforts at trying to dig up some motivation and find a path is something my leadership has picked up on, yielding a few talks and words of advice. Not an uncomfortable situation, but it was something of a reminder that I don't have as good a poker face as I thought.

Having thought about all this, I think I'm on the right track with getting feedback for myself, but as the leader of my workcenter, I feel I need to get more comfortable with dispensing feedback to my subordinates as there have been occasions where I've had an opinion of something and I would usually let things work out or discuss it with my senior NCOs who've noticed the same thing and let them run with any "course corrections." Perhaps being more proactive would remove a potential layer of ambiguity, and might even serve to increase my credibility as a leader if I communicate more directly. I also think I, and perhaps even my workcenter, would be well served by committing to some goals rather than simply "doing the job" on a regular basis, if not in specific metrics then at least in some tangible accomplishments to be performed by certain deadlines.

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Hutchinson, A. (2012, October 29). Negative feedback, negative performance [Electronic version]. The Globe and Mail, p. L3

Medlin, B., & Green, Jr., K. W. (2009). Enhancing performance through goal setting, engagement, and optimism [Electronic version]. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(7), 943-956. doi:10.1108/02635570910982292

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.