The chaos game, although it has the air of "ice breaker" activities from group settings I've experienced or more so the leadership exercises given to us during cadet training, represents an interesting departure from the usual in terms of drills in collaboration. If nothing else, it provides something of a visual or reference points to what I think is some of Obolensky's main points with chaos theory. The game suggests to me that despite the apparent chaos that one sees upon first glance, and the prevailing notion that an entropy exists that moves things towards disorder, there is also an intrinsic state of order that individuals can find when given the opportunity to seek it out. In short, the game is a readily available demonstration that chaos theory can work. The trick, I think, is trusting the members involved enough to let them find that solution at their level.
What this implies to me in the context of strategy is that chaos theory can reinforce the eight principles that were discussed in this week's readings regarding strategic creation. For instance, if Obolensky hadn't given any parameters whatsoever to the group in the video, there would be multiple means of communication, people traveling about the room every which way, and in all likelihood they wouldn't even know what they were working toward. By contrast, with the limited directions they were given in terms of how they were allowed to communicate and what was require of them in terms of spacing in relation to reference points, the group succeeded. They didn't talk or use signals, but they knew what they had to accomplish and were free to move towards the given objective relatively quickly without being micromanaged by the leader.
To me, this observation has further implications for both followers and leaders within an organization. The leader, if they understand and apply the eight principles of objectives, rules, boundaries, feedback, skill/will, freedom of action, purpose, and tolerance of ambiguity, can both give their followers an appropriate level of instruction while being able to effectively gauge if they have what's required to be successful. The followers, in turn, can develop the confidence to act independently and carry out the mission given to them as they see fit. The chaos game and chaos theory arguably reinforces many of the key lessons about strategy, in keeping it just specific enough to give the vision of an end state, but flexible and broad enough that followers can thrive in a seemingly chaotic and difficult situation. Almost paradoxically, chaos theory recognizes the disorder, but also can give a sense that things can work out fine.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Sunday, April 20, 2014
A633.4.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Considering the readings from Obolensky, as well as the other selections for this week, what seems to be happening is a greater demand for leaders to be almost omnipotent, knowing everything about what happens under their organization. Why this is happening can vary from case to case, but generally speaking this may be due to the higher profiles leaders have in being credited for successes and failures in their organizations, whether it be successes such as Apple or Google, or any number of fallen or organizations hitting upon hard times such as Chrysler and GM. In either case, it is the senior leader that is in the spotlight of media and society, being hailed either as a genius or fraud as they are held accountable for what has transpired in the organization. Additionally, Obolensky seems to be getting at the concept of a "flat" organization in his writing, something I've seen discussed in other courses as essentially giving greater empowerment to subordinates to ask questions or share knowledge in order to cultivate a diversity of ideas and increase engagement in the organization's activities.
In the case of my organization, it is expected in a multitude of ways that the leader is credited with all successes and failures. If something is botched, I'm held responsible and am expected to fix it. If something goes well, even though I may have never touched the keyboard or executed the planning process, I can take credit for the purposes of awards or annual performance reports. It is even told to use in multiple forms of mentorship that we are ultimately responsible for whatever happens, even if we delegate. In that sense, we are running into the risks inherent to a traditional hierarchy. At the same time, we also have built into our service culture the idea of innovation and not settling for business as usual. There are mechanisms by which the lower tiers can pass up ideas or (tactfully) challenge questionable leadership policies and plans. Officers are expected to engage with their senior enlisted, and all ranks know that the younger enlisted personnel are expected to have hands on knowledge and technical expertise. To make things even more interesting, there's even something of an unwritten expectation for a healthy duty section that the officer will provide top cover for their section (e.g. giving the commander reasonable assurances issues will be resolved and thus buying time to work in relative peace), and the personnel will execute their duties and pass up information so as to bolster the officer's reputation and appearances.
Having said all of that, I don't believe there is much that needs to be done for promoting dialog and breaking down the leadership charade, as there already exists a certain dichotomy for polyarchy type organizational functionality under the framework of a traditional hierarchy. Having said that, there are unique challenges for leadership dynamics and organizational strategy. In most cases, commanders rotate about every two years...this means that besides different leadership styles being introduced to an audience where a fair portion may have already had one or two previous leadership climates, any long term strategy needs to be especially robust. If a strategy involves a plan that has a more limited lifespan of a year, perhaps two, its fairly sure the plan will carry out. However, anything extending further will need to have enough structure so as to maintain continuity with existing personnel, while also having just enough flexibility to accommodate not only changing work conditions, but also changing leadership climates. On that note, that could well make for the groundwork of truly excellent strategy...something that endures throughout time and defines an organization, no matter who specific members may be at a given time, while still ensuring long term success and survivability.
Resources
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
In the case of my organization, it is expected in a multitude of ways that the leader is credited with all successes and failures. If something is botched, I'm held responsible and am expected to fix it. If something goes well, even though I may have never touched the keyboard or executed the planning process, I can take credit for the purposes of awards or annual performance reports. It is even told to use in multiple forms of mentorship that we are ultimately responsible for whatever happens, even if we delegate. In that sense, we are running into the risks inherent to a traditional hierarchy. At the same time, we also have built into our service culture the idea of innovation and not settling for business as usual. There are mechanisms by which the lower tiers can pass up ideas or (tactfully) challenge questionable leadership policies and plans. Officers are expected to engage with their senior enlisted, and all ranks know that the younger enlisted personnel are expected to have hands on knowledge and technical expertise. To make things even more interesting, there's even something of an unwritten expectation for a healthy duty section that the officer will provide top cover for their section (e.g. giving the commander reasonable assurances issues will be resolved and thus buying time to work in relative peace), and the personnel will execute their duties and pass up information so as to bolster the officer's reputation and appearances.
Having said all of that, I don't believe there is much that needs to be done for promoting dialog and breaking down the leadership charade, as there already exists a certain dichotomy for polyarchy type organizational functionality under the framework of a traditional hierarchy. Having said that, there are unique challenges for leadership dynamics and organizational strategy. In most cases, commanders rotate about every two years...this means that besides different leadership styles being introduced to an audience where a fair portion may have already had one or two previous leadership climates, any long term strategy needs to be especially robust. If a strategy involves a plan that has a more limited lifespan of a year, perhaps two, its fairly sure the plan will carry out. However, anything extending further will need to have enough structure so as to maintain continuity with existing personnel, while also having just enough flexibility to accommodate not only changing work conditions, but also changing leadership climates. On that note, that could well make for the groundwork of truly excellent strategy...something that endures throughout time and defines an organization, no matter who specific members may be at a given time, while still ensuring long term success and survivability.
Resources
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
A633.3.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Reading through Obolensky's description of common traits in organizations operating off a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) model, I immediately thought how much of the descriptions echoed what I'd read in previous classes about flat organizations....generally informal hierarchy, and for what little formal hierarchy there is, it runs more flat and dynamic and the environment has a greater emphasis on the open sharing of information and holding individuals accountable (Obolensky, 2010). I had previous written about one of my favorite game development companies, the Valve Corporation based out of the greater Seattle, WA area. Although more well known for hit gaming franchises such as Half Life and Counter Strike, they are also known in business circles for their unorthodox business practices, such as having very little in the way of formal supervisor/subordinate relationships and giving every employee to freedom to pick or start a project and quite literally roll their desk over to wherever the rest of a self-formed team is working. Even more interesting is how employees get input into what their peers get paid. (Kelion, 2013)
This is one of several examples of organizations that don't operate off of a traditional hierarchy. Thinking about these ideas in relation to my organization is interesting, for the military is fraught with traditional hierarchy for better or for worse. Indeed, there is well over 200 years of tradition dictating that there be a chain of command and that it is followed...having said that, this isn't necessarily always the case, and indeed, there is a certain expectation of there being power in the lower ranks. Although officers hold formal authority, we're still guided to look to our enlisted personnel for technical expertise, and the official Air Force Pamphlet on the enlisted force structure even explicitly states that senior enlisted personnel will mentor young officers in their development.
Having said that, while I think there will never be a day my organization moves towards an informal hierarchy, I think we will all be cognizant of the impact that every member of the organization brings to bear, and we already have a strong culture of sharing information and ideas, and holding individuals accountable for their actions (for better or for worse). We possess something of a dual cultures that combines traits of a traditional hierarchy regarding decision making and accountability, while also embracing the creativity and problem solving traits of a polyarchy type organization. The most appropriate action moving forward, I think, is to continue to leverage up and coming communication technologies to facilitate the sharing of ideas, and to continue to foster the dual culture that respects the time tested chain of command while motivating our personnel to put their ideas out there. It wasn't that long ago the Air Force did this for initiatives such as the "Every Dollar Counts" campaign, which invited all members, regardless of rank or career field, to submit ideas to leadership on how the service could curb spending. To continue to do this would be greatly beneficial for the organization, and potentially beneficial to other organizations with whom we execute our missions.
Kelion, L. (2013, September 23). Valve: How going boss-free empowered the games-maker. In BBC. Retrieved April 13, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24205497
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
This is one of several examples of organizations that don't operate off of a traditional hierarchy. Thinking about these ideas in relation to my organization is interesting, for the military is fraught with traditional hierarchy for better or for worse. Indeed, there is well over 200 years of tradition dictating that there be a chain of command and that it is followed...having said that, this isn't necessarily always the case, and indeed, there is a certain expectation of there being power in the lower ranks. Although officers hold formal authority, we're still guided to look to our enlisted personnel for technical expertise, and the official Air Force Pamphlet on the enlisted force structure even explicitly states that senior enlisted personnel will mentor young officers in their development.
Having said that, while I think there will never be a day my organization moves towards an informal hierarchy, I think we will all be cognizant of the impact that every member of the organization brings to bear, and we already have a strong culture of sharing information and ideas, and holding individuals accountable for their actions (for better or for worse). We possess something of a dual cultures that combines traits of a traditional hierarchy regarding decision making and accountability, while also embracing the creativity and problem solving traits of a polyarchy type organization. The most appropriate action moving forward, I think, is to continue to leverage up and coming communication technologies to facilitate the sharing of ideas, and to continue to foster the dual culture that respects the time tested chain of command while motivating our personnel to put their ideas out there. It wasn't that long ago the Air Force did this for initiatives such as the "Every Dollar Counts" campaign, which invited all members, regardless of rank or career field, to submit ideas to leadership on how the service could curb spending. To continue to do this would be greatly beneficial for the organization, and potentially beneficial to other organizations with whom we execute our missions.
Kelion, L. (2013, September 23). Valve: How going boss-free empowered the games-maker. In BBC. Retrieved April 13, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24205497
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
A633.2.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
The Butterfly Effect is always an interesting point of discussion, particularly now knowing some more about the origins of the term. To recap, it is something of a reflection and a word of caution on how a seemingly small or insignificant event or difference can have major effects either in the future or in an interconnected area. This can be said for physical structures, organizational practices, or even the actions of one person or otherwise. Obolensky explained it well
In my own organization, we've had some of our own instances of the butterfly effect coming to play. I often use the example of a co-located help desk our unit stood up when I first arrived that sits with our client unit personnel. At first it was simply intended to shorten the response time for our technicians to respond to problems while also better gathering metrics for our organization. However, given time, we eventually found ourselves struggling to find manning for the position and motivate people to sign up, which soon created some stir within our unit. Then, over time there was a greater expectation of prompt customer service, even for odd non technical issues such as fixing floor tiles. Here we are three years later, and the expectations of the position and the supporting office has increased exponentially, with several more personnel closely involved and a great deal of time and energy spent on assembling informational briefings and constantly recreating training products and procedures for a position that is inevitably subject to change and can't perform effectively when confined to a checklist. Although it has created a lot of administrative hassle, it can also be said that it enhanced our working relationship with our clients, both halves have better situational awareness, and our combined organizations can do our jobs better.
I can also attest that even a relatively subtle change such as office reorganization that impacted, to some measure, how people interact. There was a period of time where we had all of us junior officers working relatively close together in the same area. Although we were bit right next to all of our workcenters, we still had decent command and control, and had the benefit of random conversations and friendly interactions to help bolster our synergy and keep us all on the same page. Not that long ago, we've moved our offices around and dispersed around our building. We did gain from this in that now we had what would be considered dedicated workcenter areas rather than having them mingled and spread out, thus allowing us to have ready access to all of our people at any given time. However, that removed opportunities for us officers to mingle together, creating somewhat of a damper on our day to day interactions, but of greater note it became more difficult for us to keep tabs on what everyone else was doing (and subsequently be aware of any possible impacts on our workcenters) without a conscious effort to go visit. We're still able to get things done, but there seems to be a bit more disorder or information delay involved before we can really put any joint efforts into action lately.
Overall, having read through the material several times now, I'm fixing upon the general theme that complexity isn't necessarily a bad thing, and may even be helpful to consider when dissecting a situation. It's also interesting to consider how it may not take sweeping changes in order to have great effect upon an organization, and that if there really is an underlying order within disorder, it gives added impetus to seek a solution when presented with what may appear to be a very difficult problem.
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
In my own organization, we've had some of our own instances of the butterfly effect coming to play. I often use the example of a co-located help desk our unit stood up when I first arrived that sits with our client unit personnel. At first it was simply intended to shorten the response time for our technicians to respond to problems while also better gathering metrics for our organization. However, given time, we eventually found ourselves struggling to find manning for the position and motivate people to sign up, which soon created some stir within our unit. Then, over time there was a greater expectation of prompt customer service, even for odd non technical issues such as fixing floor tiles. Here we are three years later, and the expectations of the position and the supporting office has increased exponentially, with several more personnel closely involved and a great deal of time and energy spent on assembling informational briefings and constantly recreating training products and procedures for a position that is inevitably subject to change and can't perform effectively when confined to a checklist. Although it has created a lot of administrative hassle, it can also be said that it enhanced our working relationship with our clients, both halves have better situational awareness, and our combined organizations can do our jobs better.
I can also attest that even a relatively subtle change such as office reorganization that impacted, to some measure, how people interact. There was a period of time where we had all of us junior officers working relatively close together in the same area. Although we were bit right next to all of our workcenters, we still had decent command and control, and had the benefit of random conversations and friendly interactions to help bolster our synergy and keep us all on the same page. Not that long ago, we've moved our offices around and dispersed around our building. We did gain from this in that now we had what would be considered dedicated workcenter areas rather than having them mingled and spread out, thus allowing us to have ready access to all of our people at any given time. However, that removed opportunities for us officers to mingle together, creating somewhat of a damper on our day to day interactions, but of greater note it became more difficult for us to keep tabs on what everyone else was doing (and subsequently be aware of any possible impacts on our workcenters) without a conscious effort to go visit. We're still able to get things done, but there seems to be a bit more disorder or information delay involved before we can really put any joint efforts into action lately.
Overall, having read through the material several times now, I'm fixing upon the general theme that complexity isn't necessarily a bad thing, and may even be helpful to consider when dissecting a situation. It's also interesting to consider how it may not take sweeping changes in order to have great effect upon an organization, and that if there really is an underlying order within disorder, it gives added impetus to seek a solution when presented with what may appear to be a very difficult problem.
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
A633.1.2.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In the opening chapter of his text, "Complex Adaptive Leadership," Nick Obolensky poses a series of reflective questions to help the reader gauge their own views on leadership. This series opens up with question on whether the reader's attitudes towards leaders has changed during their life, and how. In my own experiences, I know that when I was younger I thought of leaders as being very strong and dynamic individuals, with an energetic, magnetic, and charismatic character whom was well liked by most anyone. Having grown much older and having dealt with and within formal leadership roles over the last four years, I've learned that a leader can come in many different forms. Some may not have the highest formal authority, but an individual may be a leader in sheer expertise. Among the formal leaders, some have very relaxed personalities but get the job done, and others may be more taciturn but garner great respect. I've also learned that while a person may be in a position of authority, they may not necessarily be the expert, or they may be an ineffective leader due to less than ideal practices or because they lean on negative reinforcement.
Obolensky asked in his second question how attitudes towards authority might compare between the reader, their parents, grandparents, and a younger generation. I would say generally speaking there hasn't been a great deal of change between myself and my preceding generations. For the most part, my family runs along the lines of respecting rules and authority, and doing what's expected. Yet, at the same time, we've also been cognizant of the same idea that leaders are humans too and they may at times warrant questions or disagreement. I will say there is a certain difference between my mother's and father's sides of the family that I believe is rooted in culture. My father's family has been in America for several generations, and thus tends to lean more towards values of individuality and personal choice within the confines of following the law and, particularly in the military context, having at least a working relationship level of respect for authority. My mother's side of the family by contrast is originally from South Korea, and in having received further influence by Confucian filial piety, is more absolute about authority and going along with it, especially in the familial context. As for my younger peers though, I think there is an even higher level of emphasis on the individual and a greater propensity towards questioning authority, particular if it represents an "old way" of doing business or represents what might be considered dated value systems.Overall, I see an increasingly negative attitude about authority, whether it be perceived as mishandling something or overstretching influence, or simply being perceived as being a burden upon individuals.
The third reflection asks the reader why this shift may have occurred. I cannot fix upon one exact cause, but rather a chain of causes. Among other things, its almost expected that each new generation will question the decision of the elder generation, and this has become somewhat popularized in the attitudes of the Baby Boomer generation in the 70's, and seems to be cropping up yet again to some degree in the contemporary Millenials. One might also consider the writings of academics such as Robert Putnam, who opines that there is less participation in certain social groups in American society as well as increased geographic mobility, and thus there are impacts to how people interact...although intended as a thought on the contemporary sense of community, I would think it arguable that changes of this nature can impact people's feelings on traditional models of authority.
Resources
Lewis, A. (1995, December 18). Abroad at Home; An Atomized America. The New York Times.
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Obolensky asked in his second question how attitudes towards authority might compare between the reader, their parents, grandparents, and a younger generation. I would say generally speaking there hasn't been a great deal of change between myself and my preceding generations. For the most part, my family runs along the lines of respecting rules and authority, and doing what's expected. Yet, at the same time, we've also been cognizant of the same idea that leaders are humans too and they may at times warrant questions or disagreement. I will say there is a certain difference between my mother's and father's sides of the family that I believe is rooted in culture. My father's family has been in America for several generations, and thus tends to lean more towards values of individuality and personal choice within the confines of following the law and, particularly in the military context, having at least a working relationship level of respect for authority. My mother's side of the family by contrast is originally from South Korea, and in having received further influence by Confucian filial piety, is more absolute about authority and going along with it, especially in the familial context. As for my younger peers though, I think there is an even higher level of emphasis on the individual and a greater propensity towards questioning authority, particular if it represents an "old way" of doing business or represents what might be considered dated value systems.Overall, I see an increasingly negative attitude about authority, whether it be perceived as mishandling something or overstretching influence, or simply being perceived as being a burden upon individuals.
The third reflection asks the reader why this shift may have occurred. I cannot fix upon one exact cause, but rather a chain of causes. Among other things, its almost expected that each new generation will question the decision of the elder generation, and this has become somewhat popularized in the attitudes of the Baby Boomer generation in the 70's, and seems to be cropping up yet again to some degree in the contemporary Millenials. One might also consider the writings of academics such as Robert Putnam, who opines that there is less participation in certain social groups in American society as well as increased geographic mobility, and thus there are impacts to how people interact...although intended as a thought on the contemporary sense of community, I would think it arguable that changes of this nature can impact people's feelings on traditional models of authority.
Resources
Lewis, A. (1995, December 18). Abroad at Home; An Atomized America. The New York Times.
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
A632.9.2.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Dr. Shiv's discussion on the role of emotion during the decision making process, and to some measure the Wharton text's chapter on Protective Decisions, highlights that although there are objective variables in a decision and that objective reality may not be affected by the emotional tone of a moment, the fact remains that psychological factors such as confidence and one's attitude can impact overall performance and decision making ability.
There were two situations in recent memory where I experienced decision making and performance impacts from varying confidence levels and attitudes. A situation where I had high confidence and relatively high expectations for a positive outcome was when I volunteered to teach one of our monthly leadership seminars for the junior officers and senior enlisted. The topic that was requested was Team Building, and I just so happened to be taking my MSLD course for Developing Teamwork. A few days before the presentation, I created a slide deck and integrated much of my reading materials to cover the highlights, and even was able to provide inputs from a text on introversion (Quiet, by Susan Cain) as a foil to show times when individual work may be desirable. I also had a highly positive attitude about the task, as it was outside of the usual grind of the office and I hadn't had an opportunity to do a brief on a subject I was comfortable with since I had graduated college. To tie in with the Wharton text, I had positive past experiences and didn't feel a high need to exercise any "protection," per se, almost like the example of the individual who wasn't concerned about crime and didn't purchase a deadbolt (Hoch et al, 2001). The end result was a well received briefing, with one of my supervisors commenting that I did in fact exhibit a high level of confidence she didn't usually see, mentioning I might be a good fit for instructor duty at some point. In this circumstance, I was able to select my materials and give the presentation with a strong sense of certainty, because it was subject matter I felt I was able to internalize and understand. Additionally, I generally felt good about sharing what I felt was useful information, and having completed everything I did, I felt a sense of accomplishment.
Not long before that was a situation where although I wanted to succeed, I had low confidence and wanted to get it done and over with. I was interested in making a move away from my desk job and picking up a flying job with the Air Force, which required me to not only get accepted for the training pipeline but also base what's called Initial Flight Screening, where we fly small civilian airplanes. Although billed as a zero hour training course, there's still a strong element of testing one's intrinsic ability to learn quickly and on the Air Force's timetable. Try as I might, not only was I having a rough time with academics, but I was having trouble landing the plane on my own...a common issue of which there's only so much one can do, and something I had challenge doing without being talked through it. My confidence quickly dwindled, further compounded by ongoing issues with airsickness that never afflicted me before. When I got to my last chances, I continued a trend towards being highly risk averse and didn't execute the "slip" maneuvers that I learned a little too late was something that was part of normal business. Generally speaking, I wasn't willing to take a level of acceptable risk, and I also feel I perhaps could have made some different decisions on how much down time or recovery I needed after a day's flying versus forcing further study upon myself, perhaps influenced by the additional stress. Overall, the low confidence let to a high level of anxiety more than anything else, as well as a nominal amount of anger and frustration to see things through to the end, and eventually a sense of resignation that despite all efforts I was unable to meet the prescribed training timetable. In a mirror of Dr. Shiv's ideas on confidence relating to performance, I had lower confidence, and likely lost some investment or motivation in the effort (Shiv, 2011).
In both cases, the correlation between confidence and performance as highlighted by Dr. Shiv played out according to his assessment. Higher confidence leads to higher level of motivation and engagement, which can also translate to gains in efforts, and thus can lead to higher quality decisions or greater chances of success.
Resources
There were two situations in recent memory where I experienced decision making and performance impacts from varying confidence levels and attitudes. A situation where I had high confidence and relatively high expectations for a positive outcome was when I volunteered to teach one of our monthly leadership seminars for the junior officers and senior enlisted. The topic that was requested was Team Building, and I just so happened to be taking my MSLD course for Developing Teamwork. A few days before the presentation, I created a slide deck and integrated much of my reading materials to cover the highlights, and even was able to provide inputs from a text on introversion (Quiet, by Susan Cain) as a foil to show times when individual work may be desirable. I also had a highly positive attitude about the task, as it was outside of the usual grind of the office and I hadn't had an opportunity to do a brief on a subject I was comfortable with since I had graduated college. To tie in with the Wharton text, I had positive past experiences and didn't feel a high need to exercise any "protection," per se, almost like the example of the individual who wasn't concerned about crime and didn't purchase a deadbolt (Hoch et al, 2001). The end result was a well received briefing, with one of my supervisors commenting that I did in fact exhibit a high level of confidence she didn't usually see, mentioning I might be a good fit for instructor duty at some point. In this circumstance, I was able to select my materials and give the presentation with a strong sense of certainty, because it was subject matter I felt I was able to internalize and understand. Additionally, I generally felt good about sharing what I felt was useful information, and having completed everything I did, I felt a sense of accomplishment.
Not long before that was a situation where although I wanted to succeed, I had low confidence and wanted to get it done and over with. I was interested in making a move away from my desk job and picking up a flying job with the Air Force, which required me to not only get accepted for the training pipeline but also base what's called Initial Flight Screening, where we fly small civilian airplanes. Although billed as a zero hour training course, there's still a strong element of testing one's intrinsic ability to learn quickly and on the Air Force's timetable. Try as I might, not only was I having a rough time with academics, but I was having trouble landing the plane on my own...a common issue of which there's only so much one can do, and something I had challenge doing without being talked through it. My confidence quickly dwindled, further compounded by ongoing issues with airsickness that never afflicted me before. When I got to my last chances, I continued a trend towards being highly risk averse and didn't execute the "slip" maneuvers that I learned a little too late was something that was part of normal business. Generally speaking, I wasn't willing to take a level of acceptable risk, and I also feel I perhaps could have made some different decisions on how much down time or recovery I needed after a day's flying versus forcing further study upon myself, perhaps influenced by the additional stress. Overall, the low confidence let to a high level of anxiety more than anything else, as well as a nominal amount of anger and frustration to see things through to the end, and eventually a sense of resignation that despite all efforts I was unable to meet the prescribed training timetable. In a mirror of Dr. Shiv's ideas on confidence relating to performance, I had lower confidence, and likely lost some investment or motivation in the effort (Shiv, 2011).
In both cases, the correlation between confidence and performance as highlighted by Dr. Shiv played out according to his assessment. Higher confidence leads to higher level of motivation and engagement, which can also translate to gains in efforts, and thus can lead to higher quality decisions or greater chances of success.
Resources
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Shiv, B. (Narrator). (2011). Brain Research at Stanford: Decision Mak [Online video]. Retrieved March 16, 2014
Sunday, March 9, 2014
A632.8.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
David Snowden's Cynefin Framework brings to bear a different, almost paradoxical, point of view in how a leader can work through the process of analyzing information and executing upon a decision. Although it provides a framework in highlighting different the different contexts of simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic, there is an additional variability accounted for by having a context of "disorder" in the center of the chart that recognizes how a situation can change or deal with multiple contexts, thus changing considerations like whether analysis or action processes need to be executed first in a situation.
Although I can't point to one specific instance, most any time I had to deal with troubleshooting at the office has been a multiple-context decision making process. Like many things in the military environment, there is generally some widely accepted or explicitly published immediate action that is taken. In the IT realm for instance, there is actually a measure of truth to closing and opening a program or checking connectivity, something of a simple decision context. But, some issues may not be resolved, and I may find myself needing to find a technician with further expertise to help solve the problem, shifting the decision making over to the complicated arena. Things can get more interesting if the initially simple issue turns out to be something more widespread or was simply an early indicator of a catastrophic issue with greater impact, necessitating a larger and more rapid response from the tech support end under a chaotic context. That in turn could evolve into a decision where more probing and analysis is needed to develop a fix action, thus making us work in a complex context. Overall, any troubleshooting action can potentially go from routine, to chaotic or complex, back to routine within the course of the same job.
I very recently wrapped up another multiple context situation with what seemed like a relatively simple decoration project. I initially started with a simple framework...my boss' boss said go and get some nice foam board pictures hung up in the hallway, I'll get you some points of contact. In the midst of this, I'm also still sharing some level of authority with another friend at the office, both of us doing this task alongside our usual duties. Time passes, and before long we're asking where the project is. We are briefly in a chaotic stage as we scramble to pick up the project again, and gradually I gain full authority over the project. After further friction though, I start working directly with our in house public affairs section, and start working out how we can get the pictures made and hung up within the budget we have. From leadership perspective, it looked like it would be a complicated context that would require only leveraging our resources and expertise. Upon further consultation though, there were lots of rules and regulations that created difficulties for production, as well as equipment issues, ultimately leading us towards a complex context and having to contact another base and see if we could arrange for buying the materials from their bigger print shop. Further disorder was injected, however, when our higher headquarters said we could utilize their printing resources, and we were then shifting between straight disorder and a complex context as we sought out different courses of actions and their respective pros and cons. Finally, among all these context changes, my local point of contact found these very nice frames that were laying around from an abandoned project, with which we could utilize our own photo printing resources and forget about the foam board. I agreed we should present the option, and the Commander really liked the look. We were able to shift back to a complicated context of coordinating with the necessary experts to print the pictures, mount them in the frames, and get them hung up on the wall.
The biggest consideration in dealing with these context situations, for me personally, was identifying where I could handle the issue myself and where I needed to seek outside assistance or expertise. From there, it was a matter of taking in the information I could get and executing an appropriate course of action or determining I needed further information or assistance. Admittedly though, my considerations generally haven't gotten more complicated than that, and I could well stand to do further analysis now better understanding what to look for from the Cynefin point of view.
As for five ways in which the framework can be helpful in improving decision making, first off, it gives some general guidelines for the "flavor" of a situation and can help one perceive how they should be looking at a given situation...whether its a routine issue or one that needs heavy thought. Second, the framework can help a leader identify what their role in a situation should be, whether to facilitate the gathering and synthesizing of information or make a command decision to restore stability. Third, the framework can highlight danger signals to look for to indicate when a leader should attempt to shift the context so the decision making process isn't pinned to one state. This leads to a fourth improvement, which is how to respond to a set of danger signals to restore a balanced footing, be it seeking information or pushing for different approaches to problems. Finally, having a grasp of the overall Cynefin Framework model can help a leader appreciate the potential scope for dynamic changes, hopefully posturing them towards readiness in reacting to, if not anticipating, changes in the context they're working in (Snowden and Boone, 2007)
References
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review
Although I can't point to one specific instance, most any time I had to deal with troubleshooting at the office has been a multiple-context decision making process. Like many things in the military environment, there is generally some widely accepted or explicitly published immediate action that is taken. In the IT realm for instance, there is actually a measure of truth to closing and opening a program or checking connectivity, something of a simple decision context. But, some issues may not be resolved, and I may find myself needing to find a technician with further expertise to help solve the problem, shifting the decision making over to the complicated arena. Things can get more interesting if the initially simple issue turns out to be something more widespread or was simply an early indicator of a catastrophic issue with greater impact, necessitating a larger and more rapid response from the tech support end under a chaotic context. That in turn could evolve into a decision where more probing and analysis is needed to develop a fix action, thus making us work in a complex context. Overall, any troubleshooting action can potentially go from routine, to chaotic or complex, back to routine within the course of the same job.
I very recently wrapped up another multiple context situation with what seemed like a relatively simple decoration project. I initially started with a simple framework...my boss' boss said go and get some nice foam board pictures hung up in the hallway, I'll get you some points of contact. In the midst of this, I'm also still sharing some level of authority with another friend at the office, both of us doing this task alongside our usual duties. Time passes, and before long we're asking where the project is. We are briefly in a chaotic stage as we scramble to pick up the project again, and gradually I gain full authority over the project. After further friction though, I start working directly with our in house public affairs section, and start working out how we can get the pictures made and hung up within the budget we have. From leadership perspective, it looked like it would be a complicated context that would require only leveraging our resources and expertise. Upon further consultation though, there were lots of rules and regulations that created difficulties for production, as well as equipment issues, ultimately leading us towards a complex context and having to contact another base and see if we could arrange for buying the materials from their bigger print shop. Further disorder was injected, however, when our higher headquarters said we could utilize their printing resources, and we were then shifting between straight disorder and a complex context as we sought out different courses of actions and their respective pros and cons. Finally, among all these context changes, my local point of contact found these very nice frames that were laying around from an abandoned project, with which we could utilize our own photo printing resources and forget about the foam board. I agreed we should present the option, and the Commander really liked the look. We were able to shift back to a complicated context of coordinating with the necessary experts to print the pictures, mount them in the frames, and get them hung up on the wall.
The biggest consideration in dealing with these context situations, for me personally, was identifying where I could handle the issue myself and where I needed to seek outside assistance or expertise. From there, it was a matter of taking in the information I could get and executing an appropriate course of action or determining I needed further information or assistance. Admittedly though, my considerations generally haven't gotten more complicated than that, and I could well stand to do further analysis now better understanding what to look for from the Cynefin point of view.
As for five ways in which the framework can be helpful in improving decision making, first off, it gives some general guidelines for the "flavor" of a situation and can help one perceive how they should be looking at a given situation...whether its a routine issue or one that needs heavy thought. Second, the framework can help a leader identify what their role in a situation should be, whether to facilitate the gathering and synthesizing of information or make a command decision to restore stability. Third, the framework can highlight danger signals to look for to indicate when a leader should attempt to shift the context so the decision making process isn't pinned to one state. This leads to a fourth improvement, which is how to respond to a set of danger signals to restore a balanced footing, be it seeking information or pushing for different approaches to problems. Finally, having a grasp of the overall Cynefin Framework model can help a leader appreciate the potential scope for dynamic changes, hopefully posturing them towards readiness in reacting to, if not anticipating, changes in the context they're working in (Snowden and Boone, 2007)
References
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)