A634.2.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

In Chapter 2 of Hugh LaFollette's The Practice of Ethics, readers are presented with a detailed discussion of consequentialism and deontology, two categories of ethical theory which discuss two common styles of reasoning through which people will reach a decision on how to act when presented with an issue of ethics. To briefly summarize, consequentialism emphasizes selecting an available course of action which will yield the best overall consequences. Deontology, on the other hand, emphasizes acting in accordance with moral rules or rights which can in some part be considered independently of the end results (LaFollette, 2007).

To expound somewhat further, LaFollette wrote that consequentialism requires consideration of several aspects of the end results. This can include figuring out which consequences of a given action count, and a weight of importance may need to be assigned to the factors that are of interest as part of the results of a given action. There is also the need to consider how to best measure the effect of the end result. By the dominant form of consequentialism, the theory of utilitarianism, one should look towards achieving the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people. Of course, with this theory comes the concern of its application, particularly in potentially considering consequences too narrowly. LaFollette uses the example of a proposed “survival lottery” scenario that would randomly select healthy individuals to be harvested for organs to help multiple sick people, provided the process was formalized, public, and democratically supported (LaFollette, 2011). The point, however, is that an individual making a decision through the lens of consequentialism and may not necessarily be considering the ethical implications of, say, actions on one individual that would benefit multiple people as in the survival lottery scenario, or simply not considering the fullest scope of potential impacts through either negligence of long term effects or secondary effects.

Deontology has the benefits, according to LaFollette, of better reflecting how most people learn and develop moral beliefs, and it doesn't receive as much critical review as consequentialism. Deontology looks more towards rules individuals were raised with, and uses these rules as guidelines for action more so than examining the potential consequences of a given action. For a lot of people, this may seem more like simply following the rules and may not present itself with as many potential sticking points as consequentialism. LaFollette writes, however, there are issues with deontology as well. As most people think consequences count for something, deontologists must either give appropriate weight to consequences or show they really don’t matter. Furthermore, there can be complications as basic “approximations” of more complex rules eventually give way to complex circumstances, such as the initial rule of “never lying” eventually including “complex factors” later on. Possible conflicts between rules may have to be dealt with if they arise. This system, as well, is not perfect.

For me, I would hesitate to say that either theory is superior to the other, and both of them have something to offer in the way of providing inputs for a critical analysis of an issue. Consequentialism provides a system of thought towards analyzing possible choices, similar to a Courses of Action comparison in the military, while deontology provides some guidance towards a choice, similar to best practices and regulations in the military. In decision making processes, we are often asked to analyze a problem, and from there develop several courses of action to choose from. Each course is analyzed in the context of desired variables such as costs, impact to individuals, and tend to be assigned point values based on how they score in each variable…potential consequences are analyzed. Of course, regulations have to be kept in mind and these can often drive what actions can be taken, providing the initial check from deontology. However, knowing that sometimes a particular job has to be done, there does come occasions where waivers have to be signed allowing an exception to accomplish a greater goal, which can be similar to the push and pull between consequentialism and deontology. I believe, in short, that it is highly impracticable to depend on either theory to act as the “be-all, end-all” means for deciding how to navigate any issue of ethics. Rather, one has to be able to take an honest assessment of a situation, think through as broad a scope as possible and considering consequences (ideally soliciting multiple perspectives for a truly large scale problem), and ideally, possessing sound judgment to decide when to follow rules by the book and when to act in accordance with the best intent of their conscience and good will. 

Resources

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden: Blackwell.

A634.1.6.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

Reading through Podolny's article, one may be left with a relatively bleak outlook as to the state of the business education community. At first glance, the assessment leaves one thinking that business schools have taken on one of the stereotypes of contemporary big business, pursuing their results at any cost. It is heartening though seeing that Podolny and others have dug deeper in the wake of recent business scandals and found there to be an emphasis on data and qualitative methods which a lack of education towards values and ethics.

Podolny suggested that schools needed further integration of ethics education to their course work, and even professionalizing the field with a code of conduct, among other ideas that also include putting less emphasis on comparing ranks and graduate income, and encouraging more qualitative research (Podolny, 2009). I'm inclined to agree that these would be helpful steps. Certainly, if the goal is to attract individuals that think about big picture impact rather than the bottom line, it would do schools well to highlight alumni that have "made a difference" with the knowledge they've gained, rather than what their take-home pay is. While data and hard numbers will always be important, people and society need to be brought back into the equation of business thinking.

Since the Podolny article was written in 2009, more has been written on the topic of ethics in the MBA field, and action seems to be underway. Yale and the Aspen Institute have implemented a curriculum emphasizing the application of ethics in the workplace, with a focus on standing up for one's values. Columbia has incorporated "analysis, decision making, and leadership." Harvard is offering a program for first year students called "Field Immersion Experiences for Leadership Development" that gives an opportunity to apply classroom learning while working with industry, and apparently building an entrepreneurial company in six weeks (O'Connor, 2013). The same year that Podolny wrote his article, Harvard also began promoting a student-led MBA oath (Anteby, 2013).

Having said that, although there are programs being put into place, there is still a strong word of caution underlying the conversation. One article suggested that there still isn't quite enough being done, and suggested there needs to be further opportunities for application, or interacting with MBA students from other countries to better understand their own ethical challenges (Himsel, 2014). I can certainly understand the concerns, and I've got additional thoughts as well on the long term impacts of these programs. Although these new efforts at imparting ethics will touch the current generation of MBA students, one has to wonder about the enduring value of these lessons once they set off into to world of business...one that presumably still has a fair number of individuals inundated in the old ways of business, and quite possibly with a body of senior leadership that continues to lead as they've always led and as they've seen in their own experiences rising through the ranks. I agree, and see it as the way ahead, that the institutions will need to continue seeking opportunities to apply ethics, and they should continue to integrate it into existing lesson plans where possible, for ethics cuts across so many lanes of business practices.

In short, this new breed of ethically minded MBA students need to not only learn and apply ethics, but they must have the resilience to maintain these attitudes and behaviors throughout their career until, through attrition and setting the example, the culture of ethics takes hold as the preponderance and the norm rather than simply being a new upstart. It is when ethical business practice becomes the standard by which all newcomers are judged, the new metric upon which the great leaders are remembered, that the greatest effect will be realized.

Works Cited
Anteby, M. (2013, October 22). Why business schools need business ethics. In The Guardian. Retrieved October 26, 2014
Himsel, D. (2014, August 6). Business Schools Aren't Producing Ethical Graduates. In Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved October 26, 2014
O'Connor, S. (2013, May 15). The Responsibility Of Business Schools In Training Ethical Leaders. In Forbes. Retrieved October 26, 2014
Podolny, J. M. (2009). The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business School. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 62-67.

A633.9.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

If one were to take Obolensky's Complex Adaptive Leadership at face value, they would likely foresee a steady takeover of polyarchy systems over oligarchy, and may make old notions of leadership redundant or obsolete. Especially when numerous writings exist documenting bottom up style or collaborative organizations and non-traditional management styles, its fair to wonder what role there is for the old or traditional ways of doing business.

Having been through the course on strategic leadership and examining my own organization in light of the text, I personally see both old and new styles of leadership as having their own place and function within the overall continuum.On the one hand, the military environment traditionally demands a chain of command that members are expected to abide by unless the order given is illegal, immoral, or unethical. This becomes especially important in a crisis situation that demands rapid response with very little to no time to discuss options or share ideas. On the other hand, the military organization has a strong undercurrent of upward communication, and very recently, in introducing a new feedback system, has stated an expectation that leaders share their vision, receive feedback, and appropriately be engaged in the lives of their subordinates (Losey, 2014).

This brings to bear something of a necessary paradox for leadership in a military organization...there are certainly components that recognize and embrace concepts that are in line with the practices of polyarchy, but the organization can never be rid of oligarchy, and may at times require it. This can create several implications at the level of the individual leader and the organization as a whole. If this dichotomy of leadership exists in the organization, and signs indicate it should and must, to be a leader in more than title is paramount. Rather, the individual leader needs to be adaptable, able to assess the situation such as with Edward Snowden's Cynefin Framework, or assess the individual through concepts noted in Obolensky's text such as Level 5 Followership or Skill/Will assessment. Additionally, they need to be able to "code switch," able to move from more traditional and directive styles of oligarchy to the more open and patient styles of polyarchy. This implication carries as well to the organization as a whole and its leadership. Although it becomes more difficult and time consuming to redirect the mentality of an entire organization, higher levels too will need to be able to "code switch" in order to direct its resources most effectively towards the end goals that they've ideally set and are striving towards.

The impact upon myself as a leader, of course, is I will need to be able to hold myself to these same ideals. On top of the need to maintain my own development as an officer and as one who is heavily involve in the ever changing IT field, if I were to seriously continue pursuing leadership development I would need to be cognizant of the balance between oligarchy and polyarchy at all levels between my own workplace and higher headquarters. Furthermore, I would be required to be very thoughtful of my own actions when faced with different leadership and coaching situations around the office, particularly in light of whatever the interests of our work group's strategic goals are, and in keeping with the general expectations of developing my subordinates.

Future strategy becomes yet another issue, and one that can change in either subtle or drastic ways. The key will be to remain targeted towards the strategic goals of my immediate organization, and how they impact the goals of the different tiers of command above us all the way to headquarters. So long as we understand the overall mission, we should simply be able to make changes that will keep us on that track. Although changes in geopolitical circumstances and the nation's priorities may change over time, so long as the strategic goals are properly balanced being flexible and measurable, the organization should be able to make any necessary changes in direction. Having said that, some growing pain can be anticipated. As the military moves to integrate elements of polyarchy, there will for some time be many who are used to the old way of doing business and need to learn new modes of thought. Incoming personnel will still have to be schooled in the balance of the old and the new. Most critically, leaders at the very top will have to be among the best thinkers, best able to understand and utilize the dual culture of leadership over which they have strategic influence. Any strategy that is formulated and put into practice must not only endure time and inevitable change, but be one that can be executed under most any leadership paradigm.

Resources
Losey, S. (2014, May 21). New rule directs commanders to 'engage' in airmen's lives. Air Force Times. Retrieved May 25, 2014
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.

A633.8.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

When a client turns to a coach, they are often seeking additional guidance or advice outside the scope of that which they've thought of already. Based on the prompt given in this week's blogging assignment, the value that coaches provide to any prospective client is at the very least an alternative outside perspective that may be able to perceive additional variables not apparent to the client, or they may be able to share their own experiences and thus offer additional ideas, potential solutions, and may even provide the client a stronger foundation upon which to reach for their goals and objectives.

Based on the Obolensky readings, coaching does represent a challenging but powerful tool with regards to leadership and strategy, as he writes coaching can bridge the divide between tell/sell practicies of the leader taking point and the involve/devolve practices of the follower taking lead. Additionally, Obolensky writes that coaching is a means of moving subordinates towards a Level 5 level of followership (Obolensky, 2010). In short, coaching is part of what enables an organization to move beyond one or two highly skilled individuals to building a cadre of capable people that can work together as a team towards (ideally) established goals and objectives. Thus, it is arguably a critical piece that spells the difference between the organization plateauing, and continuing to be successful and fruitful over the long haul as times change and people move through the organization.

As for how successful coaching can make a difference in a given organization, while the scope and exact impact may vary with a given circumstance, effective coaching can help maintain quality performance, break any potential jams in thinking, or in a case of following the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) a coach can help a subordinate or the organization reach higher levels of performance and achievement (Obolensky, 2010). The coach, as an outside voice that the client has reached out to in the context of the prompt, may be in a better position to get past any preconceptions or biases the client might have if they worked only with perspectives from their own organization, and may also highlight options the client may have not even known they had.

To me personally, I admittedly haven't thought much about reaching out for coaching. However, my unit and other units I've worked with are proactive in providing opportunities for professional development and mentoring opportunities. I go to these events sometimes, but on reflection I have to admit I don't seek a great deal of coaching. I suspect this is partially due to my propensity to solve problems on my own without seeking help, in line with the ISFJ personality type I learned about in another MSLD course. Considering the argument made for coaching, it might behoove me to seek it out in order to gain additional perspectives and further my own development.

Organizationally speaking, I'm not sure if there is much more we can take from the discussion, as regular feedback and mentorship mechanisms are firmly in place. However, there has admittedly been more than one occasion where in working with a sister unit, we found them trying to muddle through problems when a different solution set could have well made problem solving easier or even prevented the problem from occurring in the first place. At times we would essentially be solving problems for them, but there have also been times that we would share our knowledge and teach them what we knew, such as letting them know about an asset accounting website that technically needed to be used but was very poorly advertised. My point in this is that although an organization may think they're doing alright, it is entirely possibly they are only assessing themselves from within their own perspective and quite likely are missing any issues that exist within their "blind spots." This doesn't happen regularly, but I would think that being open to outsiders having a look in and sharing where the organization would like to be, it may well help the organization realize performance gains they didn't know could be made. Overall, I think individuals can be well served by embracing coaching, but an entire organization willing to be coached as well may certainly benefit from a fresh set of eyes.

Works Cited

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.

A633.7.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

In taking the course on strategic leadership and the complex adaptive leadership studies associated with it, it would be fair to say that I haven't experience a dramatic shift in my actual thinking, but it has certainly gotten me to examine my thinking from some different angles in some ways, and certainly has reinforced some of my previous leadership studies, particularly in areas of how followers can lead and how organizations can benefit by getting away from strict hierarchies.

I will say that within the time frame of this course versus prior to taking it, I may need to work further on how I apply my leadership and balancing the ideals of complex adaptive leadership with what is required of me at the office. On the one hand, based on my test results and how Obolensky would assess it, I work myself too hard and have a hard time letting myself go. On the other hand, some of the feedback I've received at work indicates I need to do more to know my workcenter inside and out, and the ideal that is being impressed upon me by my current commander is that someone in my position should know the status of their flight and what they're working on at any given time. In the midst of all this is also the undercurrent of how leadership functions in my organization...while there may be officers that are held responsible for decision making, there are still moments where their subordinates can design the solution and make a recommendation. I might argue that, although I'm continuing to be exposed to different ideas, I'm still living and breathing within the context of my organizational culture where there is limited room to explore different ways of doing business.

Overall, what this experience has shown me is further evidence of a suspicion I've had that while I understand good leadership from an academic standpoint, I still have further need to apply my knowledge and learn from the associated experiences. This, I hope, will be an opportunity I can pursue as I continue to progress in my organization, gain additional responsibility, and ultimately work in real world circumstances.

A633.6.5.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

In Chapter 9 of Complex Adaptive Leadership, Obolensky introduces to readers a possible "vicious circle for leaders," in which a follower may ask for advice from the leader, and in demonstrating a lower level of skill on the service, this drives the leader to get concerned and take a more hands on approach, which leads to a follower's confidence lowering and assuming they need to demonstrate greater deference. When caught in a vicious circle, these steps continue to repeat and the problem compounds itself.

Within my own organization, I wouldn't say that it happens on a regular basis, but there are occasions for it to happen either on and off during normal activities or around larger projects that have garnered high attention from senior leadership. As our organization is in the unusual position of having relatively new officers filling roles in mid level leadership positions, although these officers are trusted to perform at an above average level there are still inevitably times when inexperience shows and higher levels of leadership will need to jump in to provide additional guidance or offer corrections. How the young officer reacts can vary based upon situation and personality...I admittedly tend to become a little more cautious and deferential, while some of my peers can continue to assume their typical role as hard chargers.

The effects on the organization as a whole can also vary and can be argued upon. If higher level leadership is called in to take a more hands on approach, this can restrict some freedom of action for junior leadership and create additional stressors. Depending upon the senior leader's methodology, the younger officer may feel put "under the microscope" and may experience something of a fight or flight response or pressure to perform, which depending upon how they process it can also make life unpleasant for their subordinates or render the officer less effective in the leadership decisions they are given. Senior leadership may in turn feel additional stress from feeling the need to more closely monitor activities, and having to move between tactical and strategic viewpoints may increase the possibility of them missing other issues. Overall, from my limited experience, the unit will continue to run although the leadership experience can become more unpleasant for the follower.

As for how to diffuse this cycle, it may simply involve replacing the hands on approach from leadership step with instead giving the appropriate response from the Level V Followership hierarchy and perhaps even giving on the spot feedback that gives emphasis on what the follower did well and what more they can do. By doing this, rather than simply intervening and possibly putting a halt to any of the follower's forward momentum or causing them to become risk averse, the follower can better comprehend what did for them and take a tailored approach to making improvements on weaker areas. This would ideally yield a follower that will steadily improve over time, be willing to take reasonable risks, and perhaps even build their confidence by having their success validated and having an interest taken in their continued development.

A633.5.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

The chaos game, although it has the air of "ice breaker" activities from group settings I've experienced or more so the leadership exercises given to us during cadet training, represents an interesting departure from the usual in terms of drills in collaboration. If nothing else, it provides something of a visual or reference points to what I think is some of Obolensky's main points with chaos theory. The game suggests to me that despite the apparent chaos that one sees upon first glance, and the prevailing notion that an entropy exists that moves things towards disorder, there is also an intrinsic state of order that individuals can find when given the opportunity to seek it out. In short, the game is a readily available demonstration that chaos theory can work. The trick, I think, is trusting the members involved enough to let them find that solution at their level.

What this implies to me in the context of strategy is that chaos theory can reinforce the eight principles that were discussed in this week's readings regarding strategic creation. For instance, if Obolensky hadn't given any parameters whatsoever to the group in the video, there would be multiple means of communication, people traveling about the room every which way, and in all likelihood they wouldn't even know what they were working toward. By contrast, with the limited directions they were given in terms of how they were allowed to communicate and what was require of them in terms of spacing in relation to reference points, the group succeeded. They didn't talk or use signals, but they knew what they had to accomplish and were free to move towards the given objective relatively quickly without being micromanaged by the leader.

To me, this observation has further implications for both followers and leaders within an organization. The leader, if they understand and apply the eight principles of objectives, rules, boundaries, feedback, skill/will, freedom of action, purpose, and tolerance of ambiguity, can both give their followers an appropriate level of instruction while being able to effectively gauge if they have what's required to be successful. The followers, in turn, can develop the confidence to act independently and carry out the mission given to them as they see fit. The chaos game and chaos theory arguably reinforces many of the key lessons about strategy, in keeping it just specific enough to give the vision of an end state, but flexible and broad enough that followers can thrive in a seemingly chaotic and difficult situation. Almost paradoxically, chaos theory recognizes the disorder, but also can give a sense that things can work out fine.