Taking into consideration the recent results of my management assessment and what the audience can see in this footage of the NeXT start up team, I would assess with high confidence that I wouldn't necessarily be an ideal fit. Not so much because of the skill set involved, but mainly from having an idea of how I "tick", particularly with the added insight of my Management Assessment.
NeXT, to start off with, would have been week outside my preferred organizational environment. By the assessment, I would ideally thrive best in a dynamic large organization, that is, one that has a good amount of changing activity but already possesses considerable size, resources, and infrastructure. In short, I would have novelty but still have a much higher likelihood of underlying stability. A fledgling start-up such as NeXT would indeed by dynamic...very dynamic. As the documentary showed, in a relatively short time span the team had gone from dreaming up the grand vision to sorting out the details of engineering and revenue stream. But that small, scrappy team environment wouldn't have a great deal of stability. Indeed, later in the video the team could be seen discussing where they could make cuts in their spending, to include presenting an old tactic of having the workers bring in their own computers. They were clearly in something of a crisis situation, and from first hand experience I would say it's stressful enough to consider such things in a big organization. I couldn't even imagine doing the same thing in a company that was, for all intents and purposes, still building up momentum and stability.
There would also be the question of the work environment, to include the pacing and the type of people. Jobs, of course, presented a very constant commanding and directive presence unto himself, a very strong personality. There also seemed to be a vibe about the conversations in that members of the group looked highly driven and were reaching far for their goals. I didn't get the sense that anyone in these meetings were particularly relaxed or otherwise. I also got the sense they were dealing with a rather challenging environment and a short time table, given the metrics they were trying to meet for price and power delivered in time for the university buying season. Much of these environmental dynamics also run contrary to what the assessment considered to be my optimum environment. As debriefed to me, my goal setting style tends to be very conservative, and while I do have an inner drive I'm not at the extreme where I have a desire to be at the very top of things. Thus, being in a group full of driven or more Type A personalities would eventually become exhausting. Besides that, I was also assessed as the type of person who tends to be less assertive and I tend to seek out additional advice. Additionally, any goals and challenge for me would be best tackled over the long term rather than under the auspices of meeting a certain target on a compressed timetable, which I think is the kind of situation NeXT found themselves in.
This is not to say such an environment would be impossible for me to work with. My overall management style, while still leaning towards the introverted logistical style, was measured as being very close to the center of the four different styles that could be assessed, which I was told meant I could potentially communicate with people from all the other styles and better see things from their perspective than someone who was a polar opposite. Speaking from personal experience, I can certainly understand the trend where I only have a small circle of close friends but wherever I go I seem to get along with most everybody.
Overall though, given the assessment placed me closer to the extreme opposite of the optimum organization type spectrum from that of a start up company, and given that the mismatches outweigh any matches or potential workarounds, I'm inclined to leave the work of outfits like NeXT to the innovative types that are more likely to thrive in such environments.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
A631.8.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
The idea of self-awareness as a tool for leadership development and leadership in general is a concept that has existed for quite sometime, and arguably is within the foundation of leadership studies. After all, one of the first courses in Embry-Riddle's leadership program touches on self-awareness, and the idea has been around since some of the earliest expanses of human history. Sun-Tzu wrote in The Art of War:
"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
Whether you're engaged with a nation state on the battlefield, or you're facing a major project in the boardroom, to go forth without at least some sense of who you are and what you're capable of reduces your ability to strive for the best outcome and opens up many more opportunities for unpleasant surprises and potential failure.
In my case, given the relatively high intensity of interpersonal interaction my work demands and the kind of feedback I've received on how I interact, it becomes very important to understand my "type". I took a Myers-Briggs test back in high school as part of an extracurricular academic program, and I vaguely recall I was classified as an ISTJ. Taking this online test as noted by the course, I was classified as an ISFJ. This would translate out as introverted, sensing, feeling, and judging. It's possible there were some variable in the question that explain the shift from sensing to intuitive as well as thinking to feeling, and the judging part is a comfortable constant. I was more drawn to the constant of the introvert categorization though, as this is something that has been brought to my attention multiple times. My current job demands frequent interaction with a wide variety of people, and the lifestyle of moving around every so often also demands I be able to make friends and acquaintances very quickly. Being a quiet type, neither of these come easy to me, and it doesn't help any I regularly have supervisors and people I work with (and even friends) opining on this apparent "shell" I have around me that seems to get in the way of people getting to know an otherwise good guy.
Reading over some descriptors of the personality type, I'm not especially surprised now that I was categorized as such...an overview by Kendra Cherry on About.com's psychology section describes ISFJ's as being quiet, dependable, hardworking individuals that prefer structure, and are perceptive of others, but they also can at times bottle up their feelings, have a problem with saying "no" to requests, or can be misread as being cold or aloof when they're just simply quiet. I certainly don't think I have the most orderly workspaces in the world, but for the most part I was nodding my head a great deal as I read the general characteristics. Just as I've encountered the "shell" comment on multiple occasions, I've also had to deal with being given a lot of tasks whilst also being lauded as a reliable individual to work with.
Knowing this, I can move forward in my leadership development knowing that I do have some good characteristics working for me that have already been recognized on multiple occasions. I'm also aware of possible weaknesses that I would like to stay cognizant of, for that may allow me to make the appropriate efforts to better connect with others and mitigate the "shell." On that note, now that I've been reintroduced to these personality types and temperaments, it may prove useful to study the different elements in greater depth and see if I can begin to make cursory examinations of the personalities of the people I work with, so I may tailor my interactions accordingly and hopefully realize greater synergy.
Although the stakes in office small talk and getting our projects done are not nearly as high as in all out warfare, I consider it prudent to apply Sun Tzu's philosophy, and gain a better understand for how I and others operate in our day to day lives.
Resources
Cherry, K. (n.d.). ISFJ - Introverted, Sensing, Feeling, Judging. In About.com: Psychology. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://psychology.about.com/od/trait-theories-personality/a/isfj.htm
Sun Tzu (n.d.). In Wikiquote. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu
"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
Whether you're engaged with a nation state on the battlefield, or you're facing a major project in the boardroom, to go forth without at least some sense of who you are and what you're capable of reduces your ability to strive for the best outcome and opens up many more opportunities for unpleasant surprises and potential failure.
In my case, given the relatively high intensity of interpersonal interaction my work demands and the kind of feedback I've received on how I interact, it becomes very important to understand my "type". I took a Myers-Briggs test back in high school as part of an extracurricular academic program, and I vaguely recall I was classified as an ISTJ. Taking this online test as noted by the course, I was classified as an ISFJ. This would translate out as introverted, sensing, feeling, and judging. It's possible there were some variable in the question that explain the shift from sensing to intuitive as well as thinking to feeling, and the judging part is a comfortable constant. I was more drawn to the constant of the introvert categorization though, as this is something that has been brought to my attention multiple times. My current job demands frequent interaction with a wide variety of people, and the lifestyle of moving around every so often also demands I be able to make friends and acquaintances very quickly. Being a quiet type, neither of these come easy to me, and it doesn't help any I regularly have supervisors and people I work with (and even friends) opining on this apparent "shell" I have around me that seems to get in the way of people getting to know an otherwise good guy.
Reading over some descriptors of the personality type, I'm not especially surprised now that I was categorized as such...an overview by Kendra Cherry on About.com's psychology section describes ISFJ's as being quiet, dependable, hardworking individuals that prefer structure, and are perceptive of others, but they also can at times bottle up their feelings, have a problem with saying "no" to requests, or can be misread as being cold or aloof when they're just simply quiet. I certainly don't think I have the most orderly workspaces in the world, but for the most part I was nodding my head a great deal as I read the general characteristics. Just as I've encountered the "shell" comment on multiple occasions, I've also had to deal with being given a lot of tasks whilst also being lauded as a reliable individual to work with.
Knowing this, I can move forward in my leadership development knowing that I do have some good characteristics working for me that have already been recognized on multiple occasions. I'm also aware of possible weaknesses that I would like to stay cognizant of, for that may allow me to make the appropriate efforts to better connect with others and mitigate the "shell." On that note, now that I've been reintroduced to these personality types and temperaments, it may prove useful to study the different elements in greater depth and see if I can begin to make cursory examinations of the personalities of the people I work with, so I may tailor my interactions accordingly and hopefully realize greater synergy.
Although the stakes in office small talk and getting our projects done are not nearly as high as in all out warfare, I consider it prudent to apply Sun Tzu's philosophy, and gain a better understand for how I and others operate in our day to day lives.
Resources
Cherry, K. (n.d.). ISFJ - Introverted, Sensing, Feeling, Judging. In About.com: Psychology. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://psychology.about.com/od/trait-theories-personality/a/isfj.htm
Sun Tzu (n.d.). In Wikiquote. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu
Sunday, December 8, 2013
A631.7.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Having been through the full series of classes on organizational development, while the concepts that were presented may well prove helpful on the job as we look for ways to do more with what we have (or less), the irony of the relatively young OD field doesn't escape me: it aims to help organizations develop themselves, but the field itself is made up of multiple methodologies and frameworks that I think will likely undergo changes and development to meet the needs of those who call upon it. After all, even Brown states "OD is a growing, developing, and changing field of study...The field of OD is currently and will likely always in in transition if it is to remain relevant" (Brown, 2011). I would summarize the notion as, change is the very nature of the field.
While I foresee continued growth and changes, I also see in that a steady future for the field. Considering how lean management and continuous improvement seem to have taken root in most any conversation on how businesses can improve, and how often companies seem to be changing their posture based on the health of the economy or consumer demand, OD is not going away. For that matter, I don't believe that OD is so much a "thing" that can go away like an obsolete piece of technology, but rather it is something woven into the framework of any company or organization that succeeds or continues to succeed...it is that recognition and that call to action when leaders, subordinates, or anyone with the initiative to call out an impending hazard recognizes that something within their system is broken and needs to be fixed, or there's an opportunity on the horizon that demands pursuit and thus a course change for the organization. All that has really been done with the formal OD title, I think, is giving a name and something of a semi-tangible framework for the idea.
That isn't to say there are no issues with said framework. As Brown noted in his chapter on the future of OD, the current fluidity of the field presents the lack of accepted core professional knowledge, a lack of certification, and the inherent complications that come with an emphasis on human behavior factors. As it stands now, the current framework also doesn't necessarily lend itself well to situations that demand rapid change (Brown, 2011). OD may also be helped by the fact there are other established frameworks on management and team building that can be utilized, such as bearing in mind the principles of what characterizes a high performance team, as well as the principles of setting SMART goals and Everest goals (Cameron and Whetten, 2011), principles established enough that you can find some of them on the Human Resources page of institutes such as MIT, or see correlations in military training manuals.
Ultimately though, I cannot pretend to accurately forecast where OD may go. There is no telling where the global economy and the companies influenced by it will head, let alone if the organizations of tomorrow will fit into any framework similar to what exists now, nor can I tell how much our culture may change in a world that now seems to be constantly wired in, on the move, and seemingly striving to keep doing more. I doubt it is a passing fad, and it very well could be a field whose existence is constant yet what it is will always change. Particularly with the trend of a globalized marketplace floating around more then ever, I see a lot of ways in which macrosystem and interpersonal trends can become increasingly prevalent, and the ongoing press for empowered individuals and companies that do unusual things for the employee's good, such as Google or SAS, highlights where we could we a continuation of individual trends. Now being aware of these concepts of OD, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out beyond the pages of the text and within the context of the real world and its seemingly infinite variables...
Resources
Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Learning & Development -- Important Steps
When Building a New Team (n.d.). In MIT
Human Resources. Retrieved December 8, 2013, from http://hrweb.mit.edu/learning-development/learning-topics/teams/articles/new-team
Whetten,
D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2011). Developing Management Skills (8th
ed.). Uppder Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
While I foresee continued growth and changes, I also see in that a steady future for the field. Considering how lean management and continuous improvement seem to have taken root in most any conversation on how businesses can improve, and how often companies seem to be changing their posture based on the health of the economy or consumer demand, OD is not going away. For that matter, I don't believe that OD is so much a "thing" that can go away like an obsolete piece of technology, but rather it is something woven into the framework of any company or organization that succeeds or continues to succeed...it is that recognition and that call to action when leaders, subordinates, or anyone with the initiative to call out an impending hazard recognizes that something within their system is broken and needs to be fixed, or there's an opportunity on the horizon that demands pursuit and thus a course change for the organization. All that has really been done with the formal OD title, I think, is giving a name and something of a semi-tangible framework for the idea.
That isn't to say there are no issues with said framework. As Brown noted in his chapter on the future of OD, the current fluidity of the field presents the lack of accepted core professional knowledge, a lack of certification, and the inherent complications that come with an emphasis on human behavior factors. As it stands now, the current framework also doesn't necessarily lend itself well to situations that demand rapid change (Brown, 2011). OD may also be helped by the fact there are other established frameworks on management and team building that can be utilized, such as bearing in mind the principles of what characterizes a high performance team, as well as the principles of setting SMART goals and Everest goals (Cameron and Whetten, 2011), principles established enough that you can find some of them on the Human Resources page of institutes such as MIT, or see correlations in military training manuals.
Ultimately though, I cannot pretend to accurately forecast where OD may go. There is no telling where the global economy and the companies influenced by it will head, let alone if the organizations of tomorrow will fit into any framework similar to what exists now, nor can I tell how much our culture may change in a world that now seems to be constantly wired in, on the move, and seemingly striving to keep doing more. I doubt it is a passing fad, and it very well could be a field whose existence is constant yet what it is will always change. Particularly with the trend of a globalized marketplace floating around more then ever, I see a lot of ways in which macrosystem and interpersonal trends can become increasingly prevalent, and the ongoing press for empowered individuals and companies that do unusual things for the employee's good, such as Google or SAS, highlights where we could we a continuation of individual trends. Now being aware of these concepts of OD, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out beyond the pages of the text and within the context of the real world and its seemingly infinite variables...
Resources
Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Learning & Development -- Important Steps
When Building a New Team (n.d.). In MIT
Human Resources. Retrieved December 8, 2013, from http://hrweb.mit.edu/learning-development/learning-topics/teams/articles/new-team
Whetten,
D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2011). Developing Management Skills (8th
ed.). Uppder Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
A631.6.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Transformation and change within any context, but certainly in the context of an organization, is rarely ever a one size fits all process. When faced with the need to innovate in the wake of the collapsing housing market in 2007, Gallery Furniture took the approach of an organizational change model called Influencer Training. Owner Jim McIngvale applied these principles and Influencer Training to target six different sources of influence for his employees, to include: personal motivation, personal ability, social motivation, and structural ability (VitalSmarts). This served, overall, to change the behavior of his salespeople which ultimately altered the shopping experience for customers and brought about more sales. Although this particular change model was based on a particular program, it does seem to follow some of the characteristics of charismatic transformation as there was a notable amount of change executed on a compressed timeframe, and the employees seem to have taken well to the changes. Considering the cultural strength of Gallery Furniture as well as the Strategy-Culture Matrix discussed in Brown's text, McIngvale seemed to have pursued a good strategy that yielded positive results. Given that employees stayed on throughout the changes, it is reasonable to assume there is a strong culture within the company, and combined with the high need for change McIngvale managed the change by researching, selecting, and executing what he considered a suitable strategy. It can also be argued he made some adjustments to the fundamental culture as well to move the sales folks to a culture of following up and being helpful, and his doing this through a small measure of "peer pressure" in the form of sales shoutouts suggests just a touch of gentle coercion (VitalSmarts).
In another set of circumstances, Army officer General McChrystal, although not discussing a planned change in processes, did recount his experience of a very rapid change in the operational posture of the Army. With his account of quite literally falling into a post-9/11 world, an instant turn between a peacetime Army and an Army that had to be ready to engage in sustained combat operations illustrates something of a dictatorial transformation, where there is no time for participation and the organization may not have much internal support (Brown, 2011). This isn't by fault of leadership though or a lack of subordinate willingness to do their job, but more by the sheer circumstances of having to stand up forces in the wake of an attack. But McChrystal was aware of what would need to be done to maintain the necessary buy in, and in his talk he touched upon upholding enduring organizational culture values of military people being there for one another, and the need to maintain relevance of a conflict that for some of his subordinates may have started when they were but grade-schoolers (TED). At the same time, he touched on personal anecdotes of his career to make the point that leaders needn't necessarily be larger than life, heroic figures, but be willing to listen and learn from any failures. Overall though, McChrystal seemed able to lean upon over 200 years of Army culture and tradition, as well as leadership ability, in managing the pivot from a military in a training/preparation posture to a high operations tempo culture. Not necessarily needing to change the organization itself, he seemed able to reinforce the strong organizational culture and maintained the commitment of subordinates towards accomplishing the mission.
In the circumstances presented, the leaders were able to effectively assess the type of change that was needed in their organizations to meet new requirements, and while benefiting from not having to make radical changes to the culture or procedures, they were able to work with their respective cultures to realize the end goals with just the right amount of strategic change.
Resources
Gallery Furniture Case Study (n.d.). In VitalSmarts. Retrieved December 1, 2013
Stanley McChrystal: Listen, learn.then lead (2011, April). In TED. Retrieved December 1, 2013
Sunday, November 24, 2013
A631.5.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
To be what is broadly defined as a successful leader is, I think, one of those things where there really is not necessarily one correct answer, yet at the same time there are some general expectations and traits of a successful leader. Even within that one Apple advertisement, you could see a very broad diversity in those who have led change, with personalities ranging from more introverted to more extroverted, and a range of fields and occupations to include inventors, entertainers, businessmen, civic leaders, and artists. Going about every day life, one can see there are those that lead by strong outward displays, physically leading a crowd from the front or pontificating on their ideas. There are also those that quietly work in their workshops and studios designing the next big thing, or quietly releasing literature or smaller talks that grow into something much bigger.
At the same time, that's not to say there's certain things a leader should be doing in order to realize system wide change. In Cameron and Whetten's Developing Management Skill, they outline a framework of "leading positive change" that consists of the following aspects that repeat cyclically: Establishing a Positive Climate, Creating Readiness, Articulating a Vision, Generating Commitment, and Institutionalizing the Change (Cameron and Whetten, 2011). This set of ideas comes after an interesting statement they make that "Leadership is a temporary condition in which certain skills and competencies are displayed" (Cameron and Whetten, 2011). To expound, they need to make subordinates feel good about any oncoming change, they need to give them the training and resources to make change happen while also setting a target to work towards, they need to get buy-in from their subordinates, and they need to see it through and execute in order to effect the envisioned positive outcome and maintain the legitimacy of any change initiatives.
As for what I personally think a leader really needs to have? That's admittedly an amalgamation of what I've experienced and heard in the grind of learning and practicing leadership: Having expertise, legitimate authority, a vision and a measurable goal to work towards, buy in from your would-be followers, a working knowledge of emotional intelligence, and overall the necessary know how and discipline to recognize problems, analyze how to make fixes or improvements, select an appropriate course of action and stick with it. A leader also needs to be able to discern what style of change or organization development would be best suited for their organization, and to take on to that, to have the strength to change what they can control, patience to strive on through what they can't control, and the wisdom to know the difference.
At the same time, that's not to say there's certain things a leader should be doing in order to realize system wide change. In Cameron and Whetten's Developing Management Skill, they outline a framework of "leading positive change" that consists of the following aspects that repeat cyclically: Establishing a Positive Climate, Creating Readiness, Articulating a Vision, Generating Commitment, and Institutionalizing the Change (Cameron and Whetten, 2011). This set of ideas comes after an interesting statement they make that "Leadership is a temporary condition in which certain skills and competencies are displayed" (Cameron and Whetten, 2011). To expound, they need to make subordinates feel good about any oncoming change, they need to give them the training and resources to make change happen while also setting a target to work towards, they need to get buy-in from their subordinates, and they need to see it through and execute in order to effect the envisioned positive outcome and maintain the legitimacy of any change initiatives.
As for what I personally think a leader really needs to have? That's admittedly an amalgamation of what I've experienced and heard in the grind of learning and practicing leadership: Having expertise, legitimate authority, a vision and a measurable goal to work towards, buy in from your would-be followers, a working knowledge of emotional intelligence, and overall the necessary know how and discipline to recognize problems, analyze how to make fixes or improvements, select an appropriate course of action and stick with it. A leader also needs to be able to discern what style of change or organization development would be best suited for their organization, and to take on to that, to have the strength to change what they can control, patience to strive on through what they can't control, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
A631.4.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Considering what was presented in the INSEAD video on self-managed work teams, there are certainly some benefits to be considered. As the name immediately suggests, such teams enjoy an intrinsic level of autonomy and authority that a work unit within a traditional organization usually doesn't enjoy. They are able to, more or less, dictate how they conduct operations, sustain logistics, and run training. In doing this, it is generally expected and is usually the case that the team members take greater ownership in the team's efforts and in turn have increased motivation and higher performance.
Considering the Brown text, there are further characteristics, and potentially benefits, that can be reaped. The teams run on the small side, and have the interesting dynamic of strong information sharing, lack of status symbols, and a diversity among team members in background and knowledge. They also have a need to be trained and cross-trained, overall leading to a lean workforce that can draw from a highly flexible knowledge base (Brown, 2011).
Of course, as with most things there are certain drawbacks to be considered. Immediately there's the issue of the team members having the necessary interest in managing their own team, and the team needs to be able to work with the greater organization or other third parties that may apply to their situation. Within the context of the video, there's also the consideration of how an external leader will interact with a self-managed team and give any necessary vectors. The video gave some thoughts on how this would need to be done, including goal setting, talking with teams in a manner that gives them the objective without dictating the means, and having a good sense of when and when not to intervene. Brown also notes that such teams are not appropriate for all tasks, and if there is a lack of training or rewards there may be issues. Additionally, because of having fewer layers, there will be fewer opportunities for advancement which creates an additional challenge in motivation (Brown, 2011).
Personally, the choice on whether or not I would want to work on such a team would largely depend on the task at hand. If it was indeed a task where I had the necessary know how and abilities to form my own course of action towards achieving the objective, I wouldn't mind working on a self-managed team that didn't have external leadership checking in directly as often. However, for the most part I would just as soon prefer working within a more traditional hierarchy system that has relatively clear steps and procedures towards getting the necessary work done. While a self-managed team concept is highly empowering to those on the team, I am personally content with receiving additional guidance and having some of the decision load taken off of me, particularly if the task is not within an area in which I possess expertise.
To be an effective external manager of a team, I think I mainly would need to develop competency in goal setting. In my current duties, I am already well versed in the general idea of passing along an objective to your subordinates and letting them figure out the exact methodology whenever permissible. However, I believe I would have to make some major improvements in goal setting or espousing a vision, as well as the general tenets of motivating a team. While I would be effective at simply relaying a message from higher leadership, I'm of the opinion that there's more I could do with regards to giving the team an end to pursue and having some of the desirable leader-team relation traits at work. In my opinion, external leadership of a team really comes down to a good mastery of leadership skills, but applying them more indirectly and on an as needed basis, largely letting the team doing its thing. Knowing when or when not to intervene, maintaining trust, and building the necessary "...strong partnership between team members and management" would be key (Brown, 2011).
Resources
Considering the Brown text, there are further characteristics, and potentially benefits, that can be reaped. The teams run on the small side, and have the interesting dynamic of strong information sharing, lack of status symbols, and a diversity among team members in background and knowledge. They also have a need to be trained and cross-trained, overall leading to a lean workforce that can draw from a highly flexible knowledge base (Brown, 2011).
Of course, as with most things there are certain drawbacks to be considered. Immediately there's the issue of the team members having the necessary interest in managing their own team, and the team needs to be able to work with the greater organization or other third parties that may apply to their situation. Within the context of the video, there's also the consideration of how an external leader will interact with a self-managed team and give any necessary vectors. The video gave some thoughts on how this would need to be done, including goal setting, talking with teams in a manner that gives them the objective without dictating the means, and having a good sense of when and when not to intervene. Brown also notes that such teams are not appropriate for all tasks, and if there is a lack of training or rewards there may be issues. Additionally, because of having fewer layers, there will be fewer opportunities for advancement which creates an additional challenge in motivation (Brown, 2011).
Personally, the choice on whether or not I would want to work on such a team would largely depend on the task at hand. If it was indeed a task where I had the necessary know how and abilities to form my own course of action towards achieving the objective, I wouldn't mind working on a self-managed team that didn't have external leadership checking in directly as often. However, for the most part I would just as soon prefer working within a more traditional hierarchy system that has relatively clear steps and procedures towards getting the necessary work done. While a self-managed team concept is highly empowering to those on the team, I am personally content with receiving additional guidance and having some of the decision load taken off of me, particularly if the task is not within an area in which I possess expertise.
To be an effective external manager of a team, I think I mainly would need to develop competency in goal setting. In my current duties, I am already well versed in the general idea of passing along an objective to your subordinates and letting them figure out the exact methodology whenever permissible. However, I believe I would have to make some major improvements in goal setting or espousing a vision, as well as the general tenets of motivating a team. While I would be effective at simply relaying a message from higher leadership, I'm of the opinion that there's more I could do with regards to giving the team an end to pursue and having some of the desirable leader-team relation traits at work. In my opinion, external leadership of a team really comes down to a good mastery of leadership skills, but applying them more indirectly and on an as needed basis, largely letting the team doing its thing. Knowing when or when not to intervene, maintaining trust, and building the necessary "...strong partnership between team members and management" would be key (Brown, 2011).
Resources
Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
A631.3.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
For me, the importance of feedback to overall performance goes without saying, having been driven into me for the almost seven years of training and active duty experience. Indeed, Air Force regulation mandates at the very bare minimum three formal feedback sessions per annual reporting period, not to even include the countless occasions of informal verbal feedback that happens day to day. Goal setting, although not emphasized as frequently, still has its moments to be brought up in mentoring discussions and we're taught the idea of setting specific, challenging, attainable goals during our training.
Indeed, there are others out in the world of management and leadership that recognize the importance of goals and feedback, and continue to back the benefits. A study published in 2009 concluded that goal setting led to engaged employees, engaged employees exhibit higher optimism, and higher optimism improved performance (Medlin and Green, 2009). Another study focusing on athletes found showing them videos with positive feedback resulted in overall better performance (Hutchinson, 2012). Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with a lot of these findings in my personal philosophy. Goals give something of a target or endpoint to work towards, while feedback gives both encouragement when things are being done right and gives points for improvement to help maximize performance. I also very much see the point in Brown's point regarding the combination of feedback and goals. Feedback without a goal, or pursuing a goal without feedback, doesn't create improvements and could have detrimental effects if individuals become frustrated in their efforts by not having an end goal or lacking guidance on how to get there.
I'm inclined to agree with Brown's contention on generational differences on feedback, with younger people seeking frequent feedback at a greater rate compared to older counterparts (Brown, 2011). I've seen a mixed bag of my peers that desire feedback or don't care about it, but I do think that those who do want it would want to receive feedback more frequently. After all, contemporary society generally has a much faster flow of small pieces of information, and younger people tend to be very regularly "wired in" to media communications and often receive short updates on events, interests, or otherwise. It only stands to reason they might want the same pacing for receiving information about their job performance.
As for how much I give and receive, I find that I'm often seeking feedback from my leadership (true to Brown's assertion), although I don't give it out very regularly. I'd like to think this is partially due to the fact that the people I supervise have generally been in the Air Force notably longer than I have, in some cases almost as long as I've been alive. Often, I delegate much of the day to day mechanics unless there's something that absolutely requires the officer level authority, and more often than not my NCO corps excels with minimal input. Besides that, for the small handful of feedbacks I have given, I've been moved around the offices at such a pace that I have yet to bear witness of a full annual feedback cycle for a person I was rating. In my case though, I'm still relatively new and conscious of my performance metrics, and take to heart what we're told in the way of finding ways to improve and taking ownership of our careers where we can. Thus, I often keep an ear open for any feedback my leadership gives me, as well as occasional requests. I also frequently solicit my subordinates for thoughts and feedback, and I've found my senior NCO's will frequently give me useful pointers for the day to day execution of management duties.
I admittedly need to work on creating better refined goals beyond getting the day's projects done and making my milestones for training, but with the feedback I receive, I do think it helps to sustain a certain level of performance and certainly helps make improvements if I know what specifically needs work. More often than not, feedback helps me refine my short term goals, although it can also be a bit of a jarring experience as well. Lately I've been trying to hash things out with what direction to take my career now that I am unable to retrain as a pilot, and apparently my efforts at trying to dig up some motivation and find a path is something my leadership has picked up on, yielding a few talks and words of advice. Not an uncomfortable situation, but it was something of a reminder that I don't have as good a poker face as I thought.
Having thought about all this, I think I'm on the right track with getting feedback for myself, but as the leader of my workcenter, I feel I need to get more comfortable with dispensing feedback to my subordinates as there have been occasions where I've had an opinion of something and I would usually let things work out or discuss it with my senior NCOs who've noticed the same thing and let them run with any "course corrections." Perhaps being more proactive would remove a potential layer of ambiguity, and might even serve to increase my credibility as a leader if I communicate more directly. I also think I, and perhaps even my workcenter, would be well served by committing to some goals rather than simply "doing the job" on a regular basis, if not in specific metrics then at least in some tangible accomplishments to be performed by certain deadlines.
References
Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Hutchinson, A. (2012, October 29). Negative feedback, negative performance [Electronic version]. The Globe and Mail, p. L3
Medlin, B., & Green, Jr., K. W. (2009). Enhancing performance through goal setting, engagement, and optimism [Electronic version]. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(7), 943-956. doi:10.1108/02635570910982292
Indeed, there are others out in the world of management and leadership that recognize the importance of goals and feedback, and continue to back the benefits. A study published in 2009 concluded that goal setting led to engaged employees, engaged employees exhibit higher optimism, and higher optimism improved performance (Medlin and Green, 2009). Another study focusing on athletes found showing them videos with positive feedback resulted in overall better performance (Hutchinson, 2012). Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with a lot of these findings in my personal philosophy. Goals give something of a target or endpoint to work towards, while feedback gives both encouragement when things are being done right and gives points for improvement to help maximize performance. I also very much see the point in Brown's point regarding the combination of feedback and goals. Feedback without a goal, or pursuing a goal without feedback, doesn't create improvements and could have detrimental effects if individuals become frustrated in their efforts by not having an end goal or lacking guidance on how to get there.
I'm inclined to agree with Brown's contention on generational differences on feedback, with younger people seeking frequent feedback at a greater rate compared to older counterparts (Brown, 2011). I've seen a mixed bag of my peers that desire feedback or don't care about it, but I do think that those who do want it would want to receive feedback more frequently. After all, contemporary society generally has a much faster flow of small pieces of information, and younger people tend to be very regularly "wired in" to media communications and often receive short updates on events, interests, or otherwise. It only stands to reason they might want the same pacing for receiving information about their job performance.
As for how much I give and receive, I find that I'm often seeking feedback from my leadership (true to Brown's assertion), although I don't give it out very regularly. I'd like to think this is partially due to the fact that the people I supervise have generally been in the Air Force notably longer than I have, in some cases almost as long as I've been alive. Often, I delegate much of the day to day mechanics unless there's something that absolutely requires the officer level authority, and more often than not my NCO corps excels with minimal input. Besides that, for the small handful of feedbacks I have given, I've been moved around the offices at such a pace that I have yet to bear witness of a full annual feedback cycle for a person I was rating. In my case though, I'm still relatively new and conscious of my performance metrics, and take to heart what we're told in the way of finding ways to improve and taking ownership of our careers where we can. Thus, I often keep an ear open for any feedback my leadership gives me, as well as occasional requests. I also frequently solicit my subordinates for thoughts and feedback, and I've found my senior NCO's will frequently give me useful pointers for the day to day execution of management duties.
I admittedly need to work on creating better refined goals beyond getting the day's projects done and making my milestones for training, but with the feedback I receive, I do think it helps to sustain a certain level of performance and certainly helps make improvements if I know what specifically needs work. More often than not, feedback helps me refine my short term goals, although it can also be a bit of a jarring experience as well. Lately I've been trying to hash things out with what direction to take my career now that I am unable to retrain as a pilot, and apparently my efforts at trying to dig up some motivation and find a path is something my leadership has picked up on, yielding a few talks and words of advice. Not an uncomfortable situation, but it was something of a reminder that I don't have as good a poker face as I thought.
Having thought about all this, I think I'm on the right track with getting feedback for myself, but as the leader of my workcenter, I feel I need to get more comfortable with dispensing feedback to my subordinates as there have been occasions where I've had an opinion of something and I would usually let things work out or discuss it with my senior NCOs who've noticed the same thing and let them run with any "course corrections." Perhaps being more proactive would remove a potential layer of ambiguity, and might even serve to increase my credibility as a leader if I communicate more directly. I also think I, and perhaps even my workcenter, would be well served by committing to some goals rather than simply "doing the job" on a regular basis, if not in specific metrics then at least in some tangible accomplishments to be performed by certain deadlines.
References
Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Hutchinson, A. (2012, October 29). Negative feedback, negative performance [Electronic version]. The Globe and Mail, p. L3
Medlin, B., & Green, Jr., K. W. (2009). Enhancing performance through goal setting, engagement, and optimism [Electronic version]. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(7), 943-956. doi:10.1108/02635570910982292
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)