Matthew Taylor's video on the idea of 21st Century Enlightenment is certainly one of the more substantive videos I've watched over the course of the MSLD program, and certainly one that's taken quite a bit of thought to chew over. Admittedly, I still have a 100% grasp on what makes 21st Century Enlightenment what it is, but it may well warrant further thinking and an examination of the last major Enlightenment.
As best as I can gather from Taylor's talk, what makes the idea, and hence the title, of 21st Century Enlightenment is taking the principals of the Great Enlightenment of delving into what shaped modern peoples values, norms, and principals, and reassessing what we have now based on the circumstances of an increasingly diverse and globalized 21st Century. It's been quite some time since our last Enlightenment, and I think Taylor is getting at the idea of our society as a whole taking some time to look around and reassess our direction as a society. He says in relation to this that "to live differently, you have to think differently," by which I think he means we have to see to see the word and ourselves in a new perspective, and exercise critical thinking processes.
Taylor made an interesting point in stating that people need to try and "...resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange." It brings to mind the argumentative fallacy of appealing to tradition, or perhaps even confirmation bias. To paraphrase what I thought he was taking from Robert Kegan, people would do well to be conscious of this tendency to accept the familiar and reject the unfamiliar. Within my office, I can see traditional communication types in cases rejecting the sense of urgency with their work as the idea of communications being critical for the military is still fairly new. In contrast, our clients don't always understand that we can't make absolute guarantees for fixing things by a certain time, or track with the idea that there are some things beyond our control either physically or administratively. In the span of greater society, take any national level debate on controversial issues such as gun control or foreign policy, and you're nearly guaranteed to see this concept at work. For the gun issue, there might be those unwilling to entertain any limitations on their magazines or otherwise, and there might be those that refuse to see a gun as anything but a great danger to society.
Taylor went on to discuss the idea of eschewing the elements of pop culture that degrade people, and encouraging the development of empathetic citizens. I think to some measure, this has already started. Pop culture fairly regularly makes fun of pop culture, and the rapid increase in global connectivity via the spread of web access services and the rise of social networks enables people the world over to be connect to the experiences of others across the globe. I think people are already taking major steps to putting themselves into other people's shoes. However, I still think that for the most part, society tends to hit a major logjam anytime there's a divisive argument, with many not putting into practice the idea of maintaining healthy disagreement, and with people often falling into the old habit of resisting ideas contrary to what they know. Any major shift towards this idea would likely require a massive paradigm shift across all of society.
I couldn't draw out an exact answer on the prompt about atomizing people from collaborative environments, but I can certainly understand how removing people from that can be detrimental. When individuals are broken off from a collaborative group, they lose the benefit of additional perspectives and the "force multiplier" effect of having additional minds considering an issue. If this becomes the case for organizational change efforts, it's likely that an organization might simply stagnate under the single perspective being worked with at the top, or that they will simply fail to innovate and possible become a non-competitor. There are some instances where sole individuals can be of more effect than a collaborative group, but more often than not collaboration brings rapid idea development and great power.
If nothing else, the notion that people are thinking about change at the societal level is somewhat heartening. My organization is currently undergoing multiple shifts in how they view the world and their role, and it seems a much more manageable task than all of society. Additionally, Taylor brought to bear a number of interesting points to bear in mind as I go through the working day, especially in his highlight of the "tendency of familiarity," and by sounding a call for conscientious thought.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
A630.1.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
I'm hard pressed to think of any given situation in my office that had all of the video's elements present, but I can certainly get some thoughts going on how these different organizational agents come into play in a healthy organization.
The crowd is something I would consider both in a ways inevitable yet very necessary. Although the attitude of the crowd can be extremely fickle, because it is representative of the greater organizational population (and thus the primary source of manpower to drive most of anything), it is an agent that needs to be won over by the would be promoter of change. Without at the very least taking the crowd into consideration, or winning their all important buy-in for the envisioned change, making the change happen becomes very difficult if not impossible. The crowd is in a sense a constant of the organizational environment, but it must be won over and channeled.
The pessimist might be easily dismissed as an unnecessary drag upon the organization, but I argue they might serve their own purpose. If allowed to disseminate their view with nothing to compare it with, the pessimist's view may eventually become the view of the crowd, rendering the environment unwelcome to change. However, the pessimist shouldn't be completely silenced, for they may well see some major issues with the change or at least can act as a measure of what to prepare for with regards to the worst possible crowd reaction.
Along the same lines is the pragmatist. Although they'll at least look at the change or the obstacle, they're still (at least by the video's assertion) likely to maintain the status quo. But again, while they shouldn't be allowed to have complete run of the place they should also be given some heed as they may well have some reasonably level headed concerns that need to be considered or resolved before pressing forward with change.
Covering the other end of the dichotomy are the power players and the visionaries.The visionaries play an especially important role in that while they may not necessarily execute the change themselves or carry it across the finish line, they're the ones that can identify the way things are now and how they could be. They can look over the hill and see where they want the organization to go, perhaps even see the path to get there. The visionaries are the ones that will likely formulate the objective for any change or large scale effort for their organization.
But the visionary alone cannot reach out to the entire crowd, let alone the pragmatists and pessimists. This is where the power players fulfill their role. Arguably, for organizational health it might be one of the most important links as they'll go between the visionaries and everyone else. They don't carry the initial vision or stand among the crowd, but they have the power to carry the message and rally the masses through the influences they wield. One might even say they can act as a backbone for the organization.
The crowd is something I would consider both in a ways inevitable yet very necessary. Although the attitude of the crowd can be extremely fickle, because it is representative of the greater organizational population (and thus the primary source of manpower to drive most of anything), it is an agent that needs to be won over by the would be promoter of change. Without at the very least taking the crowd into consideration, or winning their all important buy-in for the envisioned change, making the change happen becomes very difficult if not impossible. The crowd is in a sense a constant of the organizational environment, but it must be won over and channeled.
The pessimist might be easily dismissed as an unnecessary drag upon the organization, but I argue they might serve their own purpose. If allowed to disseminate their view with nothing to compare it with, the pessimist's view may eventually become the view of the crowd, rendering the environment unwelcome to change. However, the pessimist shouldn't be completely silenced, for they may well see some major issues with the change or at least can act as a measure of what to prepare for with regards to the worst possible crowd reaction.
Along the same lines is the pragmatist. Although they'll at least look at the change or the obstacle, they're still (at least by the video's assertion) likely to maintain the status quo. But again, while they shouldn't be allowed to have complete run of the place they should also be given some heed as they may well have some reasonably level headed concerns that need to be considered or resolved before pressing forward with change.
Covering the other end of the dichotomy are the power players and the visionaries.The visionaries play an especially important role in that while they may not necessarily execute the change themselves or carry it across the finish line, they're the ones that can identify the way things are now and how they could be. They can look over the hill and see where they want the organization to go, perhaps even see the path to get there. The visionaries are the ones that will likely formulate the objective for any change or large scale effort for their organization.
But the visionary alone cannot reach out to the entire crowd, let alone the pragmatists and pessimists. This is where the power players fulfill their role. Arguably, for organizational health it might be one of the most important links as they'll go between the visionaries and everyone else. They don't carry the initial vision or stand among the crowd, but they have the power to carry the message and rally the masses through the influences they wield. One might even say they can act as a backbone for the organization.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
A521.9.4.GA_SienkiewiczRaymond
In Chapter 12 of his text The Leader's Guide to Storytelling, Stephen Denning describes "a different kind of leader," specifically, one who practices an "interactive mode of leadership." Basically, they get involved and have an understanding of how everything around them relates to each other.
Denning describes a number of dimensions involved in interactive leadership, several of which are quite similar to several I've heard in the past from other texts on leadership and have been attempting to integrate in my own leadership style. Certainly, the dimension of working with the world evokes a strong image of collaboration on overcoming challenges in a team effort or, as Denning suggests, channeling the energies of others towards a particular end. Collaboration I'm familiar with, but this idea of channeling energy is something I hadn't thought of in the leadership context, and one I may well experiment with.
The idea of adding and subtracting elements from the leadership palette gives, in a certain sense, another means of expressing the ways in which one emulates positive leadership techniques while rejecting the negative. An interactive leader will add to the general formula of management by adding the other dimensions, and will dismissed manipulation or otherwise. Knowing this gives me some flexibility in not necessarily sticking to a set formula and setting my out to develop my own style of leadership.
Active interest in promoting integrity and authenticity seems to have become more of a norm for leadership lately, and certainly one that can have an impact. For my leadership, integrity will remain a standing rule, but I think being more explicit with what I stand for and represent could lend well to being more of a distinct personality rather than just a name with a rank. Other dimensions that might tie well to this are those on not depending on hierarchical authority and understanding different narrative patterns. Being flexible with how the organization is directed and where the next big idea comes from, as well as being able to see different patterns, seems to me best suited to someone that practices authentic leadership and has subtracted negative elements from their leadership palette. The ability to lead without the formalized authority and with the ability to recognize patterns would, I believe, lend the greatest opportunity for fresh ideas and methods with the broadest range of execution patterns.
Regarding how Denning's dimensions manifests itself in my present leadership style, I'd say that the dimensions of working with the world, adding and subtracting from the leadership palette, and not depending on a hierarchical structure. Much of this comes through the nature of my working environment and from the benefit of past study. I learned early in my communications degree about the idea of horizontal communication and giving members a say when it was feasible, and it's something that gets practiced around my office. Every so often there's a project for the unit that solicits thoughts and ideas from the unit as a whole, and hardly a meeting goes by where there isn't an "around the room" to allow anyone present to get in their two cents.
On the note of palettes, young officers are reinforced on the basics regularly but are also just as often given anecdotes (or first hand experience) in leaders adding in positive (and on occasion less than positive) twists to leadership. I make an effort to add in what I can of being available for my subordinates and getting their needs taken care of, and being very conscious not to play any rank games if I can help it.
Finally, although I work in an organization with a very well defined hierarchy, I'm in a stage of my career where there's a great deal of crossover between myself as a junior leader and my most senior subordinates. There is a very strong expectation that senior enlisted members help teach new officers what it means to lead, and we're often told to learn well about what we work with from our experienced enlisted members. This creates an environment where although there is a formalized chain, one might say there's leadership happening at the top and bottom halves in parallel, and as funny as it may seem from the outside it's a system I make strong efforts to heed (particularly since they're the technical experts!)
Denning describes a number of dimensions involved in interactive leadership, several of which are quite similar to several I've heard in the past from other texts on leadership and have been attempting to integrate in my own leadership style. Certainly, the dimension of working with the world evokes a strong image of collaboration on overcoming challenges in a team effort or, as Denning suggests, channeling the energies of others towards a particular end. Collaboration I'm familiar with, but this idea of channeling energy is something I hadn't thought of in the leadership context, and one I may well experiment with.
The idea of adding and subtracting elements from the leadership palette gives, in a certain sense, another means of expressing the ways in which one emulates positive leadership techniques while rejecting the negative. An interactive leader will add to the general formula of management by adding the other dimensions, and will dismissed manipulation or otherwise. Knowing this gives me some flexibility in not necessarily sticking to a set formula and setting my out to develop my own style of leadership.
Active interest in promoting integrity and authenticity seems to have become more of a norm for leadership lately, and certainly one that can have an impact. For my leadership, integrity will remain a standing rule, but I think being more explicit with what I stand for and represent could lend well to being more of a distinct personality rather than just a name with a rank. Other dimensions that might tie well to this are those on not depending on hierarchical authority and understanding different narrative patterns. Being flexible with how the organization is directed and where the next big idea comes from, as well as being able to see different patterns, seems to me best suited to someone that practices authentic leadership and has subtracted negative elements from their leadership palette. The ability to lead without the formalized authority and with the ability to recognize patterns would, I believe, lend the greatest opportunity for fresh ideas and methods with the broadest range of execution patterns.
Regarding how Denning's dimensions manifests itself in my present leadership style, I'd say that the dimensions of working with the world, adding and subtracting from the leadership palette, and not depending on a hierarchical structure. Much of this comes through the nature of my working environment and from the benefit of past study. I learned early in my communications degree about the idea of horizontal communication and giving members a say when it was feasible, and it's something that gets practiced around my office. Every so often there's a project for the unit that solicits thoughts and ideas from the unit as a whole, and hardly a meeting goes by where there isn't an "around the room" to allow anyone present to get in their two cents.
On the note of palettes, young officers are reinforced on the basics regularly but are also just as often given anecdotes (or first hand experience) in leaders adding in positive (and on occasion less than positive) twists to leadership. I make an effort to add in what I can of being available for my subordinates and getting their needs taken care of, and being very conscious not to play any rank games if I can help it.
Finally, although I work in an organization with a very well defined hierarchy, I'm in a stage of my career where there's a great deal of crossover between myself as a junior leader and my most senior subordinates. There is a very strong expectation that senior enlisted members help teach new officers what it means to lead, and we're often told to learn well about what we work with from our experienced enlisted members. This creates an environment where although there is a formalized chain, one might say there's leadership happening at the top and bottom halves in parallel, and as funny as it may seem from the outside it's a system I make strong efforts to heed (particularly since they're the technical experts!)
Sunday, December 9, 2012
A521.8.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Bottom line up front: When it comes to striking up conversation with someone I've just met, although becoming much easier in recent weeks since I've learned some communication concepts such as the FORD acronym, is still a very difficult undertaking for me. This especially gets to be an issue if the person I'm talking to also isn't the most conversant type and gives little feedback.
Working a room is even more difficult. At least if I spend enough time with one person, usually there's enough small talk to keep things from being especially awkward, but in a group I always find myself unable to get a word in edgewise unless we're taking turns...even then, I don't have a lot to say. It becomes much easier, rather, to melt into the background and listen to the conversations that people are having. Generally speaking, I've found from experience that I converse optimally with either one very talkative person, or within a group of three, as it's intimate enough to speak easily but there is enough feedback and opportunity for triggering further conversation.
Examining my personality, my lack of ease in conversation can probably be attributed to the number of ways I've acted out the role of the quiet studious type. I've always been rather shy with new people, more often preferring to be spoken to rather than initiate speaking. Frankly, I also still have issues with thinking too much about how I'm being perceived, which is compounded by my tendency to not think well on my feet. A lot of this, perhaps, might be tied to my upbringing and experiences. Being an only child, I didn't spend much time with my peer group outside of school and my parents tend to stick closer to home more often than not. When I did finally get out to school, the combination my own attitudes about the school experience and being subject to much of the slings and arrows of dealing with other kids throughout middle school and high school left me feeling that social interaction was more often than not a stressful rather than fulfilling experience. Finally though, I got into college and made a conscious decision to practice this sort of thing with a significantly more polite peer group. Studying the topic full time certainly went a long way towards at least making the communication experience more pleasant.
Much of the material from Chapter 14 of the Messages texts lines up with what I've seen in communication classes and a book or two on dating, especially the parts about framing your attitude in making the approach, utilizing good body language, and some of the basic ice breaker methods. But, there was some interesting material in the section on the levels of self-disclosure. I also thought the explanation on active listening went into greater detail than what I've heard before, and tied together earlier thoughts on listening nicely. I wouldn't mind sometime trying out some of the basic icebreaker questions and techniques to gauge their effectiveness (I'm admittedly just a touch skeptical), and I might put some thought into the levels of self-disclosure at play in my various day to day relationships. Certainly, I'm already shifting some of my thoughts just slightly on a few of my regular interactions and evaluating where on each level I might be with people I know.
Working a room is even more difficult. At least if I spend enough time with one person, usually there's enough small talk to keep things from being especially awkward, but in a group I always find myself unable to get a word in edgewise unless we're taking turns...even then, I don't have a lot to say. It becomes much easier, rather, to melt into the background and listen to the conversations that people are having. Generally speaking, I've found from experience that I converse optimally with either one very talkative person, or within a group of three, as it's intimate enough to speak easily but there is enough feedback and opportunity for triggering further conversation.
Examining my personality, my lack of ease in conversation can probably be attributed to the number of ways I've acted out the role of the quiet studious type. I've always been rather shy with new people, more often preferring to be spoken to rather than initiate speaking. Frankly, I also still have issues with thinking too much about how I'm being perceived, which is compounded by my tendency to not think well on my feet. A lot of this, perhaps, might be tied to my upbringing and experiences. Being an only child, I didn't spend much time with my peer group outside of school and my parents tend to stick closer to home more often than not. When I did finally get out to school, the combination my own attitudes about the school experience and being subject to much of the slings and arrows of dealing with other kids throughout middle school and high school left me feeling that social interaction was more often than not a stressful rather than fulfilling experience. Finally though, I got into college and made a conscious decision to practice this sort of thing with a significantly more polite peer group. Studying the topic full time certainly went a long way towards at least making the communication experience more pleasant.
Much of the material from Chapter 14 of the Messages texts lines up with what I've seen in communication classes and a book or two on dating, especially the parts about framing your attitude in making the approach, utilizing good body language, and some of the basic ice breaker methods. But, there was some interesting material in the section on the levels of self-disclosure. I also thought the explanation on active listening went into greater detail than what I've heard before, and tied together earlier thoughts on listening nicely. I wouldn't mind sometime trying out some of the basic icebreaker questions and techniques to gauge their effectiveness (I'm admittedly just a touch skeptical), and I might put some thought into the levels of self-disclosure at play in my various day to day relationships. Certainly, I'm already shifting some of my thoughts just slightly on a few of my regular interactions and evaluating where on each level I might be with people I know.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
A521.7.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Back in the Spring of 2009, my ROTC detachment was completing preparatory training for a group of our sophomore cadets due to attend summer field training in Alabama. This pre-training experience itself wasn't exactly a walk in the park, bringing the same time management demands of being a cadet and a student, but adding in arriving earlier than the rest of the unit, being subject to have scrutiny in extra inspections and marching drills, and being given something of a simulated boot camp experience with much terser instruction techniques and greater expectations of independence.
I saw my peers just one year behind me going through this, and although I wasn't directly involved in their training other than being an assistant to the senior cadet that oversaw the training flight, I wanted to do something extra for them. Not that long ago I was in their position, and that experience plus the summer encampment was indeed difficult, but very empowering in 20/20 hindsight.
When it came time for the last session for last thoughts and questions, I asked my supervising cadet for a few minutes to tell my story. Looking back, I'm not too sure if it focused on any particular anomaly like Denning notes stories should do, but it did have something of a "things working out better than expected" tone that is a touch anomalous and mostly just a positive message.
Without immediately telling these sophomores who the protagonist my story was, I shared the fragment's of one cadets experience...forgetting their hat when they flew off, fumbling through parade steps, and their attempts at trying to play the leader on command. I shared an experience of what seemed like a rather bleak and less than ideal situation given how they'd been trained. The kicker though, was the fact that in the end all these less than ideal experiences turned into an opportunity to really learn what it meant to stop thinking so much and to have some basic confidence. On top of that, the protagonist in question not only found themselves to be relatively successful as a cadet, but they were from our detachment...and it was I, the one who was telling the story. One might say I stalked the potentially sensitive topic of "what if it's just not my month out there?" Rather than simply saying a platitude, I presented an account of this happening as well as what happened next.
That talk ended up being received with great ovation, and our Commandant said outright he was quite challenged to follow that up. It became something of a subtle legend within our class year. While I didn't necessarily impart any specific skill or technique, I did impart the knowledge of an experience to show that people with a very broad range of success at this one particular snapshot in their cadet career could still come out in very good shape over their junior and senior year of school. I shared the key value of confidence, and the good that can come of simply never quitting.
I saw my peers just one year behind me going through this, and although I wasn't directly involved in their training other than being an assistant to the senior cadet that oversaw the training flight, I wanted to do something extra for them. Not that long ago I was in their position, and that experience plus the summer encampment was indeed difficult, but very empowering in 20/20 hindsight.
When it came time for the last session for last thoughts and questions, I asked my supervising cadet for a few minutes to tell my story. Looking back, I'm not too sure if it focused on any particular anomaly like Denning notes stories should do, but it did have something of a "things working out better than expected" tone that is a touch anomalous and mostly just a positive message.
Without immediately telling these sophomores who the protagonist my story was, I shared the fragment's of one cadets experience...forgetting their hat when they flew off, fumbling through parade steps, and their attempts at trying to play the leader on command. I shared an experience of what seemed like a rather bleak and less than ideal situation given how they'd been trained. The kicker though, was the fact that in the end all these less than ideal experiences turned into an opportunity to really learn what it meant to stop thinking so much and to have some basic confidence. On top of that, the protagonist in question not only found themselves to be relatively successful as a cadet, but they were from our detachment...and it was I, the one who was telling the story. One might say I stalked the potentially sensitive topic of "what if it's just not my month out there?" Rather than simply saying a platitude, I presented an account of this happening as well as what happened next.
That talk ended up being received with great ovation, and our Commandant said outright he was quite challenged to follow that up. It became something of a subtle legend within our class year. While I didn't necessarily impart any specific skill or technique, I did impart the knowledge of an experience to show that people with a very broad range of success at this one particular snapshot in their cadet career could still come out in very good shape over their junior and senior year of school. I shared the key value of confidence, and the good that can come of simply never quitting.
Friday, November 30, 2012
A521.6.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In his text The Leader's Guide to Storytelling, Stephen Denning identifies six characteristics of high performance teams (which so happen to align as well with some characteristics of community). These include:
In my recent experience, the team I worked with on the transition of maintenance responsibilities of select pieces of equipment had some of these elements present. We communicated very frankly on what we could and could not do, as well as just how long it could take. We also got very good at doing somewhat rapid overhauls of our slide decks to accommodate the preferences and requests of our leadership. Finally, we all had developed better individual understandings of the systems and procedures involved, and did our best to help each other out as a matter of principal. Admittedly though, the passion was somewhat lacking. Most of our interest in the project was the product of not wanting to be further hassled by our leadership, and the common mood was more getting what we could done and over with as the project was widely recognized to be rather difficult and cumbersome to work with.
On a further note of high performance team, Denning writes that in cases where there is a poor opinion of collaboration, there are other factors at work besides the concept itself. In part, he notes that systems for incentives and the like tend to be individually focused in nature, but he also adds that "...the root cause lies deeper: collaboration rests on values." Just because people are thrown together into a work unit with a common goal doesn't necessarily translate to believing in the same things. In the case of my most recent team project, we didn't exactly have much in the way of explicitly stated values per se, but we did seem to have in mind the common interest at least of minimizing frustrations for both ourselves and our respective units. We were also driven in part by the ever present values shared among us to do the best we could for the overall good of the unit and our mission set. I suppose you could say we were pragmatic about the whole thing, but we wanted to do good by our greater team as well.
Later in the same chapter, Denning discusses four distinct patterns of people working together, to include work groups (where every member has a task but doesn't necessarily need to collaborate), teams (where people work together with a very high degree of interaction), communities (people of a common value and interest set gathering), networks (acquainted individuals sharing information, but not necessarily building relationships).
I can think of a couple different experiences in discussing these patterns. During the course of my undergraduate education, I've run into a number of work groups and they weren't necessarily great experiences. Often times, we would divide the work between us and work on our respective pieces. We usually succeeded and got the job done in the end. However, like the book noted, there was not a great deal of collaboration and there was little to nothing developed in the way of developing a deeper rapport or getting to know our strengths and weaknesses. On the other hand, I've also had the opportunity more recently to work on something more akin to a team when I was working on an equipment transition team. Although I've said in the past this wasn't the most pleasant task and we were more driven by a desire to have it done and over with, we did in fact collaborate. Among the three of us young officers, we understood that each of us brought something to the table, whether it be knowledge of the systems or the ability to take decent notes. We also recognized the fact that we had to actively collaborate on behalf of our respective work centers, and we even got other people talking and collaborating. The good news out of all of this is that even as we got assigned other tasks to contend with, the project is still moving along fairly well considering the sheer scope and the limited timelines.
- Actively shaping expectations of those using the team's inputs
- Rapidly adjusting to changing situations
- Growing steadily stronger
- Has members growing as individuals
- Fueled by interpersonal commitments
- Work with a shared passion
In my recent experience, the team I worked with on the transition of maintenance responsibilities of select pieces of equipment had some of these elements present. We communicated very frankly on what we could and could not do, as well as just how long it could take. We also got very good at doing somewhat rapid overhauls of our slide decks to accommodate the preferences and requests of our leadership. Finally, we all had developed better individual understandings of the systems and procedures involved, and did our best to help each other out as a matter of principal. Admittedly though, the passion was somewhat lacking. Most of our interest in the project was the product of not wanting to be further hassled by our leadership, and the common mood was more getting what we could done and over with as the project was widely recognized to be rather difficult and cumbersome to work with.
On a further note of high performance team, Denning writes that in cases where there is a poor opinion of collaboration, there are other factors at work besides the concept itself. In part, he notes that systems for incentives and the like tend to be individually focused in nature, but he also adds that "...the root cause lies deeper: collaboration rests on values." Just because people are thrown together into a work unit with a common goal doesn't necessarily translate to believing in the same things. In the case of my most recent team project, we didn't exactly have much in the way of explicitly stated values per se, but we did seem to have in mind the common interest at least of minimizing frustrations for both ourselves and our respective units. We were also driven in part by the ever present values shared among us to do the best we could for the overall good of the unit and our mission set. I suppose you could say we were pragmatic about the whole thing, but we wanted to do good by our greater team as well.
Later in the same chapter, Denning discusses four distinct patterns of people working together, to include work groups (where every member has a task but doesn't necessarily need to collaborate), teams (where people work together with a very high degree of interaction), communities (people of a common value and interest set gathering), networks (acquainted individuals sharing information, but not necessarily building relationships).
I can think of a couple different experiences in discussing these patterns. During the course of my undergraduate education, I've run into a number of work groups and they weren't necessarily great experiences. Often times, we would divide the work between us and work on our respective pieces. We usually succeeded and got the job done in the end. However, like the book noted, there was not a great deal of collaboration and there was little to nothing developed in the way of developing a deeper rapport or getting to know our strengths and weaknesses. On the other hand, I've also had the opportunity more recently to work on something more akin to a team when I was working on an equipment transition team. Although I've said in the past this wasn't the most pleasant task and we were more driven by a desire to have it done and over with, we did in fact collaborate. Among the three of us young officers, we understood that each of us brought something to the table, whether it be knowledge of the systems or the ability to take decent notes. We also recognized the fact that we had to actively collaborate on behalf of our respective work centers, and we even got other people talking and collaborating. The good news out of all of this is that even as we got assigned other tasks to contend with, the project is still moving along fairly well considering the sheer scope and the limited timelines.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
A521.5.8.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Not too long ago, a friend of mine who is also a new officer had an interesting issue in his section regarding some leave requests that were put in for a couple of his guys. Two people had put in their leave requests to two separate mid level supervisors for the section, and had received approval. It wasn't until later when it was passed up to my friend that the two requests were compared, and it was discovered that not only were both requests for the same time period, but it would leave the section undermanned.
Ordinarily, leave requests are granted without any trouble at all. After all, leave is something all personnel are given and are encouraged to take. On top of that, it looks bad for the unit if personnel have their leave requests denied, as this indicates either the leadership isn't putting a particularly high priority on welfare, or there's a severe enough problem in workload management that it's tying people down. However, there is always an ever present obligation to meet the needs of the mission, and supervisors can give mission requirements as a justification for denying leave if they really must. Usually though, people that have to work outside their normal hours receive some form of comp time.
This produced for my friend a bit of a conflict: He had an obligation to take care of his people, but he also had an obligation to keep his section running.
In the end, one of the original requests got the dates adjusted for unrelated reasons and this removed the conflict, but my friend was getting ready to back fill the two positions for that leave period. He had gone around the office and asked those of us who had experience in the section if we could help out, and he was prepared to chip in some extra time in the office as well. He could have randomly picked one guy and had them take the brunt of the hard lesson on coordination, but instead he opted to do what he could that would allow his guys to take their time off while minimizing the impact on the rest of the office.
It may not seem like very much, but this story illustrates how seriously we take the leave requests that make up part of our "care for people" equation. No one particularly enjoys having to sort out such matters when it happens, but when we're called upon to do so we do whatever we can to work our available resources to accommodate. Those same people will, in turn, will usually chip in where needed to help out their peers and subordinates. We get the job done, but we'll always take care of our people at the end of the day. We're proof that any organization work its salt can do both and be successful.
Ordinarily, leave requests are granted without any trouble at all. After all, leave is something all personnel are given and are encouraged to take. On top of that, it looks bad for the unit if personnel have their leave requests denied, as this indicates either the leadership isn't putting a particularly high priority on welfare, or there's a severe enough problem in workload management that it's tying people down. However, there is always an ever present obligation to meet the needs of the mission, and supervisors can give mission requirements as a justification for denying leave if they really must. Usually though, people that have to work outside their normal hours receive some form of comp time.
This produced for my friend a bit of a conflict: He had an obligation to take care of his people, but he also had an obligation to keep his section running.
In the end, one of the original requests got the dates adjusted for unrelated reasons and this removed the conflict, but my friend was getting ready to back fill the two positions for that leave period. He had gone around the office and asked those of us who had experience in the section if we could help out, and he was prepared to chip in some extra time in the office as well. He could have randomly picked one guy and had them take the brunt of the hard lesson on coordination, but instead he opted to do what he could that would allow his guys to take their time off while minimizing the impact on the rest of the office.
It may not seem like very much, but this story illustrates how seriously we take the leave requests that make up part of our "care for people" equation. No one particularly enjoys having to sort out such matters when it happens, but when we're called upon to do so we do whatever we can to work our available resources to accommodate. Those same people will, in turn, will usually chip in where needed to help out their peers and subordinates. We get the job done, but we'll always take care of our people at the end of the day. We're proof that any organization work its salt can do both and be successful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)