In her research on the concept choice, Sheena Iyengar dived into a deeper examination of the implications of having a greater variety of choice, and found that more is not necessarily better. In fact, choice overload can arguably lead to poorer choices or no choice at all. One simple but interesting example she gave was how grocery customers, when presented with a selection of six versus twenty four different jams, were more likely to make a purchase when they had fewer choices.
Through these observations, she proposed four different techniques for application in business to improve the choosing experience. The first technique was to make cuts, not in an across the board manner necessarily but to trim back extraneous choices that had little positive impact, e.g. a product that had poor sales or cost more to make than it profited. The second was concretization, that is, illustrate clear consequences related to the decision being made, in her example what a person could do with extra money saved away. Some additional choices can be useful though. In a third technique, Iyengar suggests categorization by way of taking a large pile of potential choices and breaking them into multiple categories. In her example, she believes it is better to have 400 magazines with 20 categories rather than 600 with 10, for there is greater distinction and better choice opportunities. Finally she suggested conditioning for complexity by giving the less complex before the more difficult ones, as this helps avoid a level of decision fatigue where the chooser keeps going with the "default choice."
I could see the techniques of cutting and concretization as having some notable implications for myself and my organization. Knowing myself, I know that it doesn't take a lot for me to start feeling a little "whelmed" by decisions involved with a project or a problem, and I may well procrastinate until I'm forced to make a decision. By consciously breaking down a problem into the fewest number of available courses of action, I would expect it to be easier to make any necessary comparisons and make a decision more efficiently. Expanding upon that, by having fewer decisions in the pool it yields a reduced workload in anticipating concrete consequences from those decisions, another important variable in making a selection. In short, I would ideally reduce my decision chain to include only the most viable or reasonable courses of action, and if queried about consequences it will be easier for me to give concrete answers to provide justification or gain buy in.
There are also organizational implications for these two techniques. In my line of work, there are some problems that crop up which may be beyond my expertise, or may require a higher level of authority or influence. At the point I come to my commander or other senior leadership, there's an increased expectation that I come to them with possible solutions as they are inherently very busy people and can't do all of the problem solving for me. By cutting back the possible decisions being presented to them and being able to vocalize the concrete consequences as well as any possible second or third order effects, that enables them to more rapidly make a decision or to execute any necessary actions to help move things along. Additionally, by helping them out, that also ideally creates greater tolerance towards providing their inputs or expertise when I come to them with a problem that has me well and truly stumped.
To summarize, cutting and concretization techniques will, while not necessarily guaranteeing me the best decisions ever, will help me to actually make an informed decision in the first place at a reasonable pace, or at least give me a framework with which to provide my leadership useful options and enabling issues to be resolved at the lowest level possible.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Sunday, January 19, 2014
A632.1.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In reading over the noted section on multi-stage decision making and the formulas that researchers use, I have to admit I'm impressed that researchers were able to work out decision making to the point where it wasn't just simply a recommend series of steps or a thought process that could be broken down into an acronym, but that they were able to lay out a numerical and data driven formula. Impressive as it may be though, I am very far from that same level of detail and would say I more often operate on a very basic set of heuristics as the text may call it.
Most of my day to day decision making can include recognizing potential problems in projects or solving problems that come up (and back brief my leadership accordingly, only pulling guidance if its a very hot issue), but often times I mainly need to decide whom to task with getting a problem worked and the manner in which I keep my supervisors in the loop. As comes inherent to the military profession, much of the technical expertise on the particulars of how a problem gets solved is taken care of by more experienced enlisted personnel to whom I give the broader objectives, and to whom I give any necessary authorizations to execute their solutions. Given that information and action flow, I'm inclined to think the implementation of decision formulas would be unfeasible, if not outright problematic. Thus, my decision making usually boils down to simply finding out what gadget needs fixing and delegating the job to the appropriate shop, or consulting with my flight chief or other senior enlisted for more complex matters such as appropriate disciplinary measures (which can also often times be dictated for us either by the Commander or Air Force regulations). As noted in the text on page 43, I'm generally using heuristics that weigh my options, generally weighing between action or inaction within different contexts.
Upon further examination it seems like the text focuses on examples of decision making in the context of events that have repeating occurrences or decision points, often with statistical elements, that in my opinion don't translate particularly well to decision making in the context of leading people and managing projects. Having said that, there are still good points that I believe have universal application in avoiding "myopia" and hurdles such as cognitive limitation and concreteness bias. I will admit that one of my greatest difficulties in working IT management is that often times we're talking about computer programs and processes -- something that I can't easily see or touch beyond perhaps drawing out a diagram. Even so, those aspects as well as the limited physical tasks of moving systems and plugging them in are things I often never touch and can only deal with conceptually due to what is expected from my role as a manager vice that of a technician.
Being conscious of another potential pitfall though, is generally speaking a good thing. Although maintaining a long term view isn't natural in day to day decision making, particularly at my level, I think it would be beneficial to think about second and third order effects next time I'm dealing with a larger scale decision. Further, knowing that there really is a thing as concreteness bias, that provides further impetus to ask the right questions to try and solidify concepts that at first glance have no inherent solidity. Although it would be rather difficult to use the text's process in a sensible manner to my duties, considering the potential obstacles to thinking may well improve my ability to anticipate and mitigate issues, and perhaps help me help my workcenter create better deliverables the first time around without a lot of back and forth between our level and senior leadership.
Most of my day to day decision making can include recognizing potential problems in projects or solving problems that come up (and back brief my leadership accordingly, only pulling guidance if its a very hot issue), but often times I mainly need to decide whom to task with getting a problem worked and the manner in which I keep my supervisors in the loop. As comes inherent to the military profession, much of the technical expertise on the particulars of how a problem gets solved is taken care of by more experienced enlisted personnel to whom I give the broader objectives, and to whom I give any necessary authorizations to execute their solutions. Given that information and action flow, I'm inclined to think the implementation of decision formulas would be unfeasible, if not outright problematic. Thus, my decision making usually boils down to simply finding out what gadget needs fixing and delegating the job to the appropriate shop, or consulting with my flight chief or other senior enlisted for more complex matters such as appropriate disciplinary measures (which can also often times be dictated for us either by the Commander or Air Force regulations). As noted in the text on page 43, I'm generally using heuristics that weigh my options, generally weighing between action or inaction within different contexts.
Upon further examination it seems like the text focuses on examples of decision making in the context of events that have repeating occurrences or decision points, often with statistical elements, that in my opinion don't translate particularly well to decision making in the context of leading people and managing projects. Having said that, there are still good points that I believe have universal application in avoiding "myopia" and hurdles such as cognitive limitation and concreteness bias. I will admit that one of my greatest difficulties in working IT management is that often times we're talking about computer programs and processes -- something that I can't easily see or touch beyond perhaps drawing out a diagram. Even so, those aspects as well as the limited physical tasks of moving systems and plugging them in are things I often never touch and can only deal with conceptually due to what is expected from my role as a manager vice that of a technician.
Being conscious of another potential pitfall though, is generally speaking a good thing. Although maintaining a long term view isn't natural in day to day decision making, particularly at my level, I think it would be beneficial to think about second and third order effects next time I'm dealing with a larger scale decision. Further, knowing that there really is a thing as concreteness bias, that provides further impetus to ask the right questions to try and solidify concepts that at first glance have no inherent solidity. Although it would be rather difficult to use the text's process in a sensible manner to my duties, considering the potential obstacles to thinking may well improve my ability to anticipate and mitigate issues, and perhaps help me help my workcenter create better deliverables the first time around without a lot of back and forth between our level and senior leadership.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
A631.9.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)