The list of 50 Reasons Not to Change proved to be rather comprehensive, and admittedly several of those have been heard coming out of the mouths of people I've worked with both at school and on the job. I'm certainly guilty of having said a few of those myself. However, the way I react initially strongly varies with the situation. Some of these reasons not to change just come as part of the military life, as there are always at least one or two policies that need to be followed that may defy common sense, the ever present question of manning and funding (particularly in these times as we're being called upon to do more with less), and of course considering the wishes and desires of our bosses and trying to either dance around said preferences or use them to our advantage. Having said that, while such concerns from the list of 50 reasons may be voiced, our office tends to be very good at making things work anyway. Rather than simply stopping at concerns on the funding, manning, or otherwise, we say "fair enough, how can we do this with what we have?" It's happened often enough that my initial reaction is more along the lines of "Ok, what trick are we going to pull off now?" or more often "What's the perspective of our more senior officers or senior enlisted that has more experience? What solutions do they see?"
As I've alluded to earlier, I've been guilty more than once of using these excuses myself when I hit a wall in a task or project. For all intents and purposes, I'm still a very new officer with less than three years of experience, almost half of which was used not in being an officer but being in training, then working a job that was inherently very reactionary rather than calling for action or new ideas. Frankly, I know that I tend to take policies and circumstances at face value, and creating a solution that isn't readily available or which goes outside some kind of established procedure is not my strong suit. I'm hoping that as time passes and I gain greater experience and confidence that I will be better able to seek first how I might work an issue rather than why it can't be done.
How to overcome these types of responses to change has varied some in my experience. A vast majority of the time, we're still being subject to the will of our commander or higher authority, and anytime we come back saying that something couldn't or shouldn't be done, we had to have a very good reason. In my case especially, I'd have to be able to answer not only to the commander but then at least one or two more levels of more senior officers, and that would be after trying to figure things out with at least one senior enlisted. So, admittedly it boils down to something of a "find a way or else" type of scenario, but to frame the task in a positive manner, our office generally maintains a very low tolerance of the 50 Reasons, with our organizational culture as a military unit calling for a "can do" attitude that finds or makes a way.
Regarding Seth Godin's talk tribes, I really think he's onto something with that idea. Most talks I've heard on leadership or change revolves around the idea of getting an idea out there or as some of my recent favorites have noted, stating with "why" as prescribed by author Simon Sinek, or another talk that discussed setting where things are now and where they can go. But they don't often talk about the people that follow an idea, which if I recall correctly was discussed in one of our early videos as an element of what makes change happen. When you get down to it, individuals can end up as the face of a movement but ideas only actually take flight when a significant number of people get on board to try and make it happen. Thinking from a historical perspective, the idea makes sense. The American Revolution, while largely attributed to the founding fathers, had a great deal of the footwork ride upon the common citizen that didn't care for the American Colonies being run by the British Empire. The Civil Rights movement, which did have some major figures such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., still had a great deal ride upon the people that took a stand to be heard. Within my own office environment, my last commander thought there was a better way to deal with the reporting and tracking of communications issues, and he rallied with his peers at our partner units that felt the same way and led them to adopt our new way of doing business. Those are examples where, as Godin put it, there was a group of people already looking for a change, and someone stood up to organize that group and make something happen. Definitely, while one person can get the idea to organize change, I think it takes a tribe to see the change through.
I can take away from this a couple of things. First and foremost, that there's actually a reasonably lengthy list of common excuses out there for why things can't change, many of which I've heard or used and all of which sound rather tacky when examined from a third party perspective. Knowing this, I would like to take this knowledge with me to be consciously aware of when one of these reasons is being used and to critically examine whether or not it's valid, and what can be done to overcome that reaction. Second though, I intend to be conscious of this idea of "tribes," and I'll see if there's any potential for application in my workplace or if there's any evidence of leveraging of tribes occurring that does in fact get change rolling.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
A630.5.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
The talk by NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe certainly made for some interesting observation of not only how the findings of the BST survey was conveyed to the rest of NASA, but also showed indications of how NASA leadership was taking the suggestions to heart.
O'Keefe's presentation to NASA employees seemed to be twofold in purpose. First and foremost, it very publicly brought to mind the issues that NASA was looking to fix in terms of their organizational culture based upon the BST findings, and it laid out some initial thoughts on what they intended to do about it by promoting communications and the like. Second, but still equally important, I think O'Keefe getting in front of his organization like that represented a sincere demonstration of his intent to break down the perceived communication barriers between different levels of the organization, as well as demonstrating that senior leadership was paying attention to the survey results and intended to act upon them.
Something else O'Keefe succeeded in where leaders of big organizations could just as easily fail was in how believable he was in his presentation. At the very least, his presentation style seemed very extemporaneous rather than tightly scripted, certainly somewhat more conversational in fashion. The fact that he also entertained a bit of self-deprecating humor on occasion by commenting on his age and referring to himself as an example of "managerial interference." O'Keefe came off as a reasonably genuine individual that was comfortable with his audience, and he seemed sincere in what he was saying.
As for why he discussed NASA's values, that seemed to be a major pillar of the entire conversation. Speaking strictly from the point of view of diagnostics, discussing these values did seem to set the target for where he wanted to take NASA as an organization, in effect setting a goal and giving people an idea for where NASA should be when they've undertaken full organizational development in their culture. If I recall correctly, I think O'Keefe also discussed where NASA stood at the time with relation to those values, effectively setting a baseline and then in effect stating where they were and were they could be.
Having seen this, I do think there are some takeaways to be had. Among other things, like it was alluded to in his talk, leaders need to be getting out there to get the on-the-ground perspective and see where things are going. I would say this is important not just for the stated reason of checking on the condition of the organization and the workforce, but also to demonstrate a visible display of the leader being interested in the lower echelons and putting themselves out there. I also think it might be worthwhile to at some point give pause during the day and give thought to where my actions out and about with the troops on a daily basis serve to build up the stated values of our organization, and maintain the line of communication between the lower echelons, the higher level leadership and myself.
O'Keefe's presentation to NASA employees seemed to be twofold in purpose. First and foremost, it very publicly brought to mind the issues that NASA was looking to fix in terms of their organizational culture based upon the BST findings, and it laid out some initial thoughts on what they intended to do about it by promoting communications and the like. Second, but still equally important, I think O'Keefe getting in front of his organization like that represented a sincere demonstration of his intent to break down the perceived communication barriers between different levels of the organization, as well as demonstrating that senior leadership was paying attention to the survey results and intended to act upon them.
Something else O'Keefe succeeded in where leaders of big organizations could just as easily fail was in how believable he was in his presentation. At the very least, his presentation style seemed very extemporaneous rather than tightly scripted, certainly somewhat more conversational in fashion. The fact that he also entertained a bit of self-deprecating humor on occasion by commenting on his age and referring to himself as an example of "managerial interference." O'Keefe came off as a reasonably genuine individual that was comfortable with his audience, and he seemed sincere in what he was saying.
As for why he discussed NASA's values, that seemed to be a major pillar of the entire conversation. Speaking strictly from the point of view of diagnostics, discussing these values did seem to set the target for where he wanted to take NASA as an organization, in effect setting a goal and giving people an idea for where NASA should be when they've undertaken full organizational development in their culture. If I recall correctly, I think O'Keefe also discussed where NASA stood at the time with relation to those values, effectively setting a baseline and then in effect stating where they were and were they could be.
Having seen this, I do think there are some takeaways to be had. Among other things, like it was alluded to in his talk, leaders need to be getting out there to get the on-the-ground perspective and see where things are going. I would say this is important not just for the stated reason of checking on the condition of the organization and the workforce, but also to demonstrate a visible display of the leader being interested in the lower echelons and putting themselves out there. I also think it might be worthwhile to at some point give pause during the day and give thought to where my actions out and about with the troops on a daily basis serve to build up the stated values of our organization, and maintain the line of communication between the lower echelons, the higher level leadership and myself.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
A630.4.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
I think what Marcia Blenko touched upon with the idea of employee engagement makes a lot of sense, and frankly it seems to be one of those things that matches up with human nature. I wouldn't expect the average person in any circumstance to put their fullest effort into something they don't have at least some interest in. In the state of nature there is the overriding interest of survival that always ups the interest in effective decisions, but in the contemporary working environment there's a lot more potential for slack. For instance, I can say from personal observation that someone who isn't especially interested in client relations will make especially good decisions in how they interact, and someone who isn't all that interested in the movement of desks and equipment likely won't ask all the probing questions about timing, dates, and impacts that senior leadership might want to dig for. A lack of interest means that much more conscious effort being required for maximized performance or decision making.
Beyond that, Blenko made some additional notes on what could impeded effective decision making. Among these there are issues such as the complexity of contemporary organizations, which I imagine can complicate the picture of who's in charge and who needs to be kept in the loop or otherwise. There can also be some negative leadership behaviors at play that complicate matters, such as a lack of discussion or the receipt of inputs before making a decision and executing (the Air Force might categorize these types of scenarios as "Ready, Fire, Aim" situations). Blenko also noted a lack of clarity in communications, which in most any organizational environment will spell at best minor frustration, and at worst major failure.
Overall, I think Blenko had a fairly thorough list of good decision making elements in considering quality, speed, yield, and effort. These certainly cover the bare minimums towards making a decision and getting it off the ground. For decision making in my organization, we're often tasked to present Courses of Action (COAs) to the commander, where we have to list our assumptions, list our COAs with full pros and cons of each one, and we might add in any limiting factors that span across all the COAs. We might even throw in a table that weighs important factors (such as cost and effect) and provide a weighted score. So for us, Blenko's elements would cover some of the considerations, but by itself it likely wouldn't satisfy my boss as he'll likely still want to know more about additional considerations and expected impacts. Quality considerations though would likely be very welcome.
Having viewed this video, it provides yet another lens with which to examine problems that come down from my bosses or through my e-mail box. Certainly, while we want to make the best decision we can within the confines of our deadlines, but I don't think we necessarily always think about how far out we want to take our decisions other than second or third order effects, and we tend to have our effort switches stuck at maximum output unless we thoroughly prioritized taskings. Something I might try and do with myself at least is to pause and at the very least ask if the decision I'm about to make is a knee jerk reaction based on trying to get something out of my way, perhaps sticking to doctrine, or if I really did in fact make a "good" decision. The only issue I could see is that measuring the quality of a decision would require identifying measurable, objective factors and a set of standards. I'm almost inclined to say it's one thing to Monday Morning Quarterback, but it would require some practice to quickly and efficiently establish measurable factors at the outset of every decision.
Beyond that, Blenko made some additional notes on what could impeded effective decision making. Among these there are issues such as the complexity of contemporary organizations, which I imagine can complicate the picture of who's in charge and who needs to be kept in the loop or otherwise. There can also be some negative leadership behaviors at play that complicate matters, such as a lack of discussion or the receipt of inputs before making a decision and executing (the Air Force might categorize these types of scenarios as "Ready, Fire, Aim" situations). Blenko also noted a lack of clarity in communications, which in most any organizational environment will spell at best minor frustration, and at worst major failure.
Overall, I think Blenko had a fairly thorough list of good decision making elements in considering quality, speed, yield, and effort. These certainly cover the bare minimums towards making a decision and getting it off the ground. For decision making in my organization, we're often tasked to present Courses of Action (COAs) to the commander, where we have to list our assumptions, list our COAs with full pros and cons of each one, and we might add in any limiting factors that span across all the COAs. We might even throw in a table that weighs important factors (such as cost and effect) and provide a weighted score. So for us, Blenko's elements would cover some of the considerations, but by itself it likely wouldn't satisfy my boss as he'll likely still want to know more about additional considerations and expected impacts. Quality considerations though would likely be very welcome.
Having viewed this video, it provides yet another lens with which to examine problems that come down from my bosses or through my e-mail box. Certainly, while we want to make the best decision we can within the confines of our deadlines, but I don't think we necessarily always think about how far out we want to take our decisions other than second or third order effects, and we tend to have our effort switches stuck at maximum output unless we thoroughly prioritized taskings. Something I might try and do with myself at least is to pause and at the very least ask if the decision I'm about to make is a knee jerk reaction based on trying to get something out of my way, perhaps sticking to doctrine, or if I really did in fact make a "good" decision. The only issue I could see is that measuring the quality of a decision would require identifying measurable, objective factors and a set of standards. I'm almost inclined to say it's one thing to Monday Morning Quarterback, but it would require some practice to quickly and efficiently establish measurable factors at the outset of every decision.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
A630.3.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Southwest Airlines implementation of a specific "Culture Committee" is an interesting way for a company to manifest the implementation of its corporate culture and looking out for the morale and welfare of their employees. I suppose one might consider it, in some ways, a scaled up version of an organizational Booster Club or Sunshine Fund. It's difficult to quantify exactly where and how the Culture Committee comes into play in the establishment of cultural norms, but it certainly seems to make an effective impression. While it was attested that employees don't always know about things like Hokey Day, the Culture Committee does make a positive impression upon the surprised flight attendants and reinforces the company's well known culture of fun. It also seems to help establish the idea of the company as one unified team where each member is there for the other.
The purpose of the Culture Committee seems to be to act as something of a sub-organization within the company responsible for the morale and welfare of the employees. It also exists to reinforce Southwest's organizational values by acting upon them and setting the example through taking care of their teammates with a very pleasant and easy demeanor. With the fact that the committee is formed from a group of peers, I would think this serves to enhance the unifying aspect, and imparts a sense of "these are my friends and co-workers, and they've got my back." To draw more directly from the video he Hokey Day, as noted by one member, is about "employees taking care of employees", and fits well with the committee's stated mission of "...making Southwest Airlines a fun, exciting, and wonderful way to work. I took interest as well in that the Culture Committee wore their values as they worked, donning t-shirts that emphasized "Warrior Spirit," "Servant's Heart," and "Fun-Loving Attitude," right under the prominent wording of "Whatever It Takes."
In my own place of work, this type of committee would be there to look out for the morale and welfare needs of our unit and also act as part of a full spectrum solution towards monitoring the overall health of our unit, ensuring a relatively good level of happiness and productivity. Our own Booster Club accomplishes some of these functions and use similar methods by providing opportunities for fun and camaraderie, with the aim of promoting teamwork and our core values. This typically gets accomplished via the planning and execution of events such as burger burns, holiday themed parties, the annual picnic, and more recently a "Wingman Day" that held sports competitions in conjunction with talks on personal resiliency and safety. In short, the mission of our own Culture Committee would be much the same as Southwest's: take care of our personnel and make sure that within the midst of the controlled chaos of military life there is still some fun, excitement, and care from superiors and peers.
From considering Southwest's efforts, I might take some time to re-examine the ways in which we take care of our people, and give some greater consideration to the ways in which it ties into our organizational culture. It seems to be one of the most oft spoken adages is "mission first, people always," and only having been in service for a few years I'm conscious of the issue but haven't yet had opportunity to really see this idea be put to the test. As one of my friends at the office is current heading up our Booster Club and I'm sitting on a base council that represents the interests and development of junior officers, I might have to find opportunities for ad hoc "case studies" to see where and how these organizations touch the lives of the people they serve. In addition, I might give pause to consider the ways in which these small groups support and establish the Air Force's core values and cultural norms.
The purpose of the Culture Committee seems to be to act as something of a sub-organization within the company responsible for the morale and welfare of the employees. It also exists to reinforce Southwest's organizational values by acting upon them and setting the example through taking care of their teammates with a very pleasant and easy demeanor. With the fact that the committee is formed from a group of peers, I would think this serves to enhance the unifying aspect, and imparts a sense of "these are my friends and co-workers, and they've got my back." To draw more directly from the video he Hokey Day, as noted by one member, is about "employees taking care of employees", and fits well with the committee's stated mission of "...making Southwest Airlines a fun, exciting, and wonderful way to work. I took interest as well in that the Culture Committee wore their values as they worked, donning t-shirts that emphasized "Warrior Spirit," "Servant's Heart," and "Fun-Loving Attitude," right under the prominent wording of "Whatever It Takes."
In my own place of work, this type of committee would be there to look out for the morale and welfare needs of our unit and also act as part of a full spectrum solution towards monitoring the overall health of our unit, ensuring a relatively good level of happiness and productivity. Our own Booster Club accomplishes some of these functions and use similar methods by providing opportunities for fun and camaraderie, with the aim of promoting teamwork and our core values. This typically gets accomplished via the planning and execution of events such as burger burns, holiday themed parties, the annual picnic, and more recently a "Wingman Day" that held sports competitions in conjunction with talks on personal resiliency and safety. In short, the mission of our own Culture Committee would be much the same as Southwest's: take care of our personnel and make sure that within the midst of the controlled chaos of military life there is still some fun, excitement, and care from superiors and peers.
From considering Southwest's efforts, I might take some time to re-examine the ways in which we take care of our people, and give some greater consideration to the ways in which it ties into our organizational culture. It seems to be one of the most oft spoken adages is "mission first, people always," and only having been in service for a few years I'm conscious of the issue but haven't yet had opportunity to really see this idea be put to the test. As one of my friends at the office is current heading up our Booster Club and I'm sitting on a base council that represents the interests and development of junior officers, I might have to find opportunities for ad hoc "case studies" to see where and how these organizations touch the lives of the people they serve. In addition, I might give pause to consider the ways in which these small groups support and establish the Air Force's core values and cultural norms.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
A630.2.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
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.
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 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!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)