As is the case with many professions and fields of human endeavor in contemporary times, even the seemingly cutthroat arena of marketing has been under greater scrutiny for ethical conduct. To answer the question of whether or not ethical guidelines make a difference, although it might not be a conscious discussion in daily activities, the heavy consequences for marketers caught in the midst of unethical conduct as well as the notion of an organization's reputation as being one of its "...greatest intangible assets" (Ferell), suggests that if guidelines haven't already made a difference, they certainly should matter. Even years ago, there were ethical concerns surrounding how advertisers handled marketing to children, with some stating that intensive advertising created a widespread of materialistic values among children that risked leaving them feeling deficient if they can't keep up with new products (Clay, 2000)
With the contemporary ethos of ethical business, it falls upon marketers to remain true to their objective in conducting fruitful business, but they also need to balance this out with taking the high road. As suggested in the El Sayed and El Ghazaly article, there are organizations that primarily seek to make a quick buck. However, an organization can commit itself towards integrating an ethical culture in order to achieve their end goals while striving to do only good. This would happen best by upholding as heroes those who achieve the most through righteous means, while giving cautionary tales of those who met their downfall by trying to cut corners. Leadership would have to set the example for up and comers, and recognize those who best exemplify the ethical values of the organization (Ferell). In short, a victory in good conscience can't simply be an objective, but must become a way of life woven into the very fabric of the organization's identity.
Tied into the discussion of marketing ethics is the question of consumer data collection. Whether or not this practice is acceptable is still an emerging debate. For the United States, it is known that companies collect data on consumers through tracking social media posts, online purchases, and search habits. There have, however, been instances where companies have embarrassed themselves in applying the information gathered, as in the case where Target sent coupons for baby products to a teenager after analyzing her shopping patterns, leading to her parents finding out she was expecting (Martin, 2014). Admittedly, speaking from personal perspective, people do accept a modicum of invasiveness to have their free services, but this doesn't happen globally. Speaking from personal experience, a close friend of mine related to me that in the process of continuing to create and expand the content for a major apparel company's web site, while Americans didn't balk at the idea of accepting location tracking, they had to work on a solution for the European market as people there apparently don't consent as readily towards sharing their location through web services. Like many questions of acceptable behavior, the answer comes down to the practice being only ethical as far as a given society is willing to permit it.
If placed in the position of managing marketing efforts, I might start at the initial onset by asking what constitutes acceptable behavior not only within the given culture of the organization and its respective industry, but more importantly by the ethical context of our customers or our target audience. It isn't up to us to arbitrarily decide Perhaps the simplest way to deal with this though might be a rule of thumb I've heard by a couple different names, to include the New York Times test or the Washington Post test. Simply put, if we were to do something and it made the front page headlines nationwide, would we feel shame, embarrassment, or otherwise like we were "caught" doing something? If the answer is no or if we would feel proud, then great...if not, then there needs to be immediate course corrections made. Admittedly, there is a potential challenge in that with today's technology driven communications and marketing landscape, there is the chance that unexplored ethical concerns could present themselves within the new mediums of communication or in the initial churn of defining what's acceptable...if virtual reality ever becomes a regular thing, will the regular rules of real society still apply, or will people be permitted to roam as they please? I believe then that management efforts will come down to regularly checking with the organization to ensure we are on course and can sleep soundly at night with our decisions.
Resources
Clay, R. A. (2000, September). Advertising to children: Is it ethical? [Electronic version]. Monitor on Psychology, 31(8), 52.
Ferrell, L. (n.d.). Marketing Ethics. In Cengage. Retrieved November 21, 2014, from http://college.cengage.com/business/modules/marktngethics.pdf
Martin, E. (2014, March 27). The Ethics of Big Data. In Forbes. Retrieved November 22, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/emc/2014/03/27/the-ethics-of-big-data/
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Sunday, November 16, 2014
A634.4.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In discussing the broader issue of racism, Hugh LaFollette discusses the more specific issue of affirmative action in his text The Practice of Ethics. Affirmative action, in brief, is the practice of giving special consideration to minorities and women, generally with regards to hiring processes and admission to colleges and universities. Although some programs were considered by the US Supreme Court as legally permissible in 2003, many Americans reject the practice (LaFollette, 2007). Interestingly enough, a 2014 Supreme Court decision upheld a Michigan constitutional amendment that prohibited the use of affirmative action at the state's public universities and colleges (Liptak, 2014).
Whether or not affirmative action is ethical, however, depends on one's viewpoint. There are certainly those who would be inclined to run with the argument that it is needed. LaFollette, for this half of the argument, poses the arguments of mitigating veiled or indirect racism, or ensuring equality of opportunity (LaFollette, 2007). Santa Clara University, in a comprehensive piece on affirmative action from their applied ethics center, writes that those favoring such programs appeal to distributive and compensatory justice, further asserting that whereas discrimination in the past was done out of ignorance or malice, preferential treatment programs have the aims of creating equal opportunity, and promoting equality. Further, they wrote that some arguable benefits include creating a cadre of professionals more responsive to needs of minorities, as well as cultivating benefits from the diversity of perspectives in the workplace and academia (Andre et al, n.d.)
As noted though, there are arguments against affirmative action. For discussion purposes, LaFollette presents several issues including perceptions of reverse discrimination in promoting others simply on account of race, doing harm to those that have done no wrong, potentially bringing up those who aren't necessarily the most qualified, and possibly even bringing further stigma upon minorities (LaFollette, 2007). The Santa Clara write up adds in that preferential treatment potentially ignores the claim of need in a situation, grants benefits to select groups regardless of whether or not individuals experienced discrimination, can encourage dependency in some cases, and related to the earlier note of stigma, can devalue the achievements of individuals that are members of a benefited group (Andre et al, n.d.).
Regarding my personal opinion of affirmative action, I can certainly see the argument of both sides from both an academic and experiential standpoint, as I am a member of both a majority and minority group as a bi-racial individual (which in itself can be classified as a minority group). Although I may myself have benefited from checking the box on university applications and the like, I personally do not believe in ascribing value to a person's performance and qualifications simply because of their racial, ethnic, or cultural background. Perhaps from deontological standpoint, one can make the argument of correcting the wrongs of society after the fact. However, from that same perspective, I still believe that though there is positive intent, affirmative action is still an act of discrimination, and and any benefit gained could potentially be seen as something of a "hand out" rather than something earned or an affirmation of a person's achievements. Further, from a consequentialist standpoint, I would argue there is greater harm in the intentional pursuit of affirmative action, for rather than forming an objective system or allowing an existing objective system to evaluate individuals on merit, affirmative action actively takes away a benefit or desired object from one person and gives it to another. Rather than having a single beneficiary as an end result of the system, there would then be one beneficiary and one person who was arbitrarily deprived to pay for another's benefit.
Sources
Andre, C., Velasquez, M., & Mazur, T. (n.d.). Affirmative action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy. In Santa Clara University Markkula Center of Applied Ethics. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden: Blackwell
Liptak, A. (2014, April 23). Court Backs Michigan on Affirmative Action [Electronic version]. The New York Times, p. A1.
Whether or not affirmative action is ethical, however, depends on one's viewpoint. There are certainly those who would be inclined to run with the argument that it is needed. LaFollette, for this half of the argument, poses the arguments of mitigating veiled or indirect racism, or ensuring equality of opportunity (LaFollette, 2007). Santa Clara University, in a comprehensive piece on affirmative action from their applied ethics center, writes that those favoring such programs appeal to distributive and compensatory justice, further asserting that whereas discrimination in the past was done out of ignorance or malice, preferential treatment programs have the aims of creating equal opportunity, and promoting equality. Further, they wrote that some arguable benefits include creating a cadre of professionals more responsive to needs of minorities, as well as cultivating benefits from the diversity of perspectives in the workplace and academia (Andre et al, n.d.)
As noted though, there are arguments against affirmative action. For discussion purposes, LaFollette presents several issues including perceptions of reverse discrimination in promoting others simply on account of race, doing harm to those that have done no wrong, potentially bringing up those who aren't necessarily the most qualified, and possibly even bringing further stigma upon minorities (LaFollette, 2007). The Santa Clara write up adds in that preferential treatment potentially ignores the claim of need in a situation, grants benefits to select groups regardless of whether or not individuals experienced discrimination, can encourage dependency in some cases, and related to the earlier note of stigma, can devalue the achievements of individuals that are members of a benefited group (Andre et al, n.d.).
Regarding my personal opinion of affirmative action, I can certainly see the argument of both sides from both an academic and experiential standpoint, as I am a member of both a majority and minority group as a bi-racial individual (which in itself can be classified as a minority group). Although I may myself have benefited from checking the box on university applications and the like, I personally do not believe in ascribing value to a person's performance and qualifications simply because of their racial, ethnic, or cultural background. Perhaps from deontological standpoint, one can make the argument of correcting the wrongs of society after the fact. However, from that same perspective, I still believe that though there is positive intent, affirmative action is still an act of discrimination, and and any benefit gained could potentially be seen as something of a "hand out" rather than something earned or an affirmation of a person's achievements. Further, from a consequentialist standpoint, I would argue there is greater harm in the intentional pursuit of affirmative action, for rather than forming an objective system or allowing an existing objective system to evaluate individuals on merit, affirmative action actively takes away a benefit or desired object from one person and gives it to another. Rather than having a single beneficiary as an end result of the system, there would then be one beneficiary and one person who was arbitrarily deprived to pay for another's benefit.
Sources
Andre, C., Velasquez, M., & Mazur, T. (n.d.). Affirmative action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy. In Santa Clara University Markkula Center of Applied Ethics. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden: Blackwell
Liptak, A. (2014, April 23). Court Backs Michigan on Affirmative Action [Electronic version]. The New York Times, p. A1.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
A634.3.5.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Completing a read of Kramer's article, The Harder They Fall, the first thing that comes to mind when considering the thought of dilemmas in work, society, and life is the overall notion of the "work-life" balance that many people seem to struggle with, to the point that the subject finds its ways into news stories and is even a point touched upon during military performance reviews. Even a matter of days ago, Forbes published an article centered around four tips on how to manage workloads so as not to displace one's personal life (Nuth, 2014).
Kramer, in conducting his study that formed some of the basis of his article, had noted several characteristics of those who get in trouble, some of which include getting caught up in some of the high-life that comes with success, not maintaining humility, or losing their sense of self-awareness (Kramer, 2003). Much of his vignettes also seemed to highlight well his idea of good people getting caught up in their rise to power and becoming reckless, or even taking an "at any cost" approach to being the winner of a given situation. I thought Kramer had an especially good point in his analysis of there being a "winner take all" market...many people are gunning for the same slice of the American Dream or high achievement, and although there are genuinely great people, much emphasis is placed upon the coveted positive of "number one" given to whoever edges out all others in some manner or another (Kramer, 2003). This drive to succeed, it seems, not only drives people to achieve the end goal of being on top, but as Kramer shared in another vignette of a woman leaving her family, cause people to potentially make extreme sacrifices of their family in order to "keep up".
It is indeed unfortunate that even years after the publication of Kramer's article, a dilemma continues between individuals and their work. An October article from Time's website highlighted a recent study that found 70% of worker suffer from work-family tension (Fondas, 2014). Society seems to have a way of amplifying expectations for productivity in spite of attempts to save working hours and manpower, thus leaving no relief in sight for the individual as progress moves forward. Although it is good that the problem has been recognized, the fact that it has become a part of the national conversation indicates that it has become very deeply seated. There is truly an ongoing push and pull between the individual and the major influencers of their life, to include work, family, and meeting other aspirations of higher education and service to their communities. Effective function without excess sacrifice to any single aspect requires a strong measure of time management, discipline, and as highlighted by Kramer, not sacrificing oneself and their values for the sake of the power game.
Kramer, in conducting his study that formed some of the basis of his article, had noted several characteristics of those who get in trouble, some of which include getting caught up in some of the high-life that comes with success, not maintaining humility, or losing their sense of self-awareness (Kramer, 2003). Much of his vignettes also seemed to highlight well his idea of good people getting caught up in their rise to power and becoming reckless, or even taking an "at any cost" approach to being the winner of a given situation. I thought Kramer had an especially good point in his analysis of there being a "winner take all" market...many people are gunning for the same slice of the American Dream or high achievement, and although there are genuinely great people, much emphasis is placed upon the coveted positive of "number one" given to whoever edges out all others in some manner or another (Kramer, 2003). This drive to succeed, it seems, not only drives people to achieve the end goal of being on top, but as Kramer shared in another vignette of a woman leaving her family, cause people to potentially make extreme sacrifices of their family in order to "keep up".
It is indeed unfortunate that even years after the publication of Kramer's article, a dilemma continues between individuals and their work. An October article from Time's website highlighted a recent study that found 70% of worker suffer from work-family tension (Fondas, 2014). Society seems to have a way of amplifying expectations for productivity in spite of attempts to save working hours and manpower, thus leaving no relief in sight for the individual as progress moves forward. Although it is good that the problem has been recognized, the fact that it has become a part of the national conversation indicates that it has become very deeply seated. There is truly an ongoing push and pull between the individual and the major influencers of their life, to include work, family, and meeting other aspirations of higher education and service to their communities. Effective function without excess sacrifice to any single aspect requires a strong measure of time management, discipline, and as highlighted by Kramer, not sacrificing oneself and their values for the sake of the power game.
Fondas, N. (2014, October 11). Work-Life Balance is Having a Moment - But for the Wrong Reasons. In Time. Retrieved November 6, 2014.
Kramer, R. M. (2003). The Harder They Fall. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.
Kramer, R. M. (2003). The Harder They Fall. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.
Nuth, A. (2014, November 4). 4 Work-Life Balance Tips. In Forbes. Retrieved November 6, 2014.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
A634.2.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
In Chapter 2 of Hugh LaFollette's The Practice of Ethics, readers are presented with a detailed discussion of consequentialism and deontology, two categories of ethical theory which discuss two common styles of reasoning through which people will reach a decision on how to act when presented with an issue of ethics. To briefly summarize, consequentialism emphasizes selecting an available course of action which will yield the best overall consequences. Deontology, on the other hand, emphasizes acting in accordance with moral rules or rights which can in some part be considered independently of the end results (LaFollette, 2007).
To expound somewhat further, LaFollette wrote that consequentialism requires consideration of several aspects of the end results. This can include figuring out which consequences of a given action count, and a weight of importance may need to be assigned to the factors that are of interest as part of the results of a given action. There is also the need to consider how to best measure the effect of the end result. By the dominant form of consequentialism, the theory of utilitarianism, one should look towards achieving the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people. Of course, with this theory comes the concern of its application, particularly in potentially considering consequences too narrowly. LaFollette uses the example of a proposed “survival lottery” scenario that would randomly select healthy individuals to be harvested for organs to help multiple sick people, provided the process was formalized, public, and democratically supported (LaFollette, 2011). The point, however, is that an individual making a decision through the lens of consequentialism and may not necessarily be considering the ethical implications of, say, actions on one individual that would benefit multiple people as in the survival lottery scenario, or simply not considering the fullest scope of potential impacts through either negligence of long term effects or secondary effects.
Resources
To expound somewhat further, LaFollette wrote that consequentialism requires consideration of several aspects of the end results. This can include figuring out which consequences of a given action count, and a weight of importance may need to be assigned to the factors that are of interest as part of the results of a given action. There is also the need to consider how to best measure the effect of the end result. By the dominant form of consequentialism, the theory of utilitarianism, one should look towards achieving the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people. Of course, with this theory comes the concern of its application, particularly in potentially considering consequences too narrowly. LaFollette uses the example of a proposed “survival lottery” scenario that would randomly select healthy individuals to be harvested for organs to help multiple sick people, provided the process was formalized, public, and democratically supported (LaFollette, 2011). The point, however, is that an individual making a decision through the lens of consequentialism and may not necessarily be considering the ethical implications of, say, actions on one individual that would benefit multiple people as in the survival lottery scenario, or simply not considering the fullest scope of potential impacts through either negligence of long term effects or secondary effects.
Deontology has the benefits,
according to LaFollette, of better reflecting how most people learn and develop
moral beliefs, and it doesn't receive as much critical review as
consequentialism. Deontology looks more towards rules individuals were raised
with, and uses these rules as guidelines for action more so than examining the
potential consequences of a given action. For a lot of people, this may seem
more like simply following the rules and may not present itself with as many
potential sticking points as consequentialism. LaFollette writes, however,
there are issues with deontology as well. As most people think consequences
count for something, deontologists must either give appropriate weight to
consequences or show they really don’t matter. Furthermore, there can be
complications as basic “approximations” of more complex rules eventually give
way to complex circumstances, such as the initial rule of “never lying”
eventually including “complex factors” later on. Possible conflicts between
rules may have to be dealt with if they arise. This system, as well, is not
perfect.
For me, I would hesitate to say
that either theory is superior to the other, and both of them have something to
offer in the way of providing inputs for a critical analysis of an issue.
Consequentialism provides a system of thought towards analyzing possible
choices, similar to a Courses of Action comparison in the military, while
deontology provides some guidance towards a choice, similar to best practices
and regulations in the military. In decision making processes, we are often
asked to analyze a problem, and from there develop several courses of action to
choose from. Each course is analyzed in the context of desired variables such
as costs, impact to individuals, and tend to be assigned point values based on
how they score in each variable…potential consequences are analyzed. Of course,
regulations have to be kept in mind and these can often drive what actions can
be taken, providing the initial check from deontology. However, knowing that
sometimes a particular job has to be done, there does come occasions where
waivers have to be signed allowing an exception to accomplish a greater goal,
which can be similar to the push and pull between consequentialism and
deontology. I believe, in short, that it is highly impracticable to depend on
either theory to act as the “be-all, end-all” means for deciding how to
navigate any issue of ethics. Rather, one has to be able to take an honest
assessment of a situation, think through as broad a scope as possible and
considering consequences (ideally soliciting multiple perspectives for a truly
large scale problem), and ideally, possessing sound judgment to decide when to
follow rules by the book and when to act in accordance with the best intent of
their conscience and good will.
Resources
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics.
Malden: Blackwell.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
A634.1.6.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Reading through Podolny's article, one may be left with a relatively bleak outlook as to the state of the business education community. At first glance, the assessment leaves one thinking that business schools have taken on one of the stereotypes of contemporary big business, pursuing their results at any cost. It is heartening though seeing that Podolny and others have dug deeper in the wake of recent business scandals and found there to be an emphasis on data and qualitative methods which a lack of education towards values and ethics.
Podolny suggested that schools needed further integration of ethics education to their course work, and even professionalizing the field with a code of conduct, among other ideas that also include putting less emphasis on comparing ranks and graduate income, and encouraging more qualitative research (Podolny, 2009). I'm inclined to agree that these would be helpful steps. Certainly, if the goal is to attract individuals that think about big picture impact rather than the bottom line, it would do schools well to highlight alumni that have "made a difference" with the knowledge they've gained, rather than what their take-home pay is. While data and hard numbers will always be important, people and society need to be brought back into the equation of business thinking.
Since the Podolny article was written in 2009, more has been written on the topic of ethics in the MBA field, and action seems to be underway. Yale and the Aspen Institute have implemented a curriculum emphasizing the application of ethics in the workplace, with a focus on standing up for one's values. Columbia has incorporated "analysis, decision making, and leadership." Harvard is offering a program for first year students called "Field Immersion Experiences for Leadership Development" that gives an opportunity to apply classroom learning while working with industry, and apparently building an entrepreneurial company in six weeks (O'Connor, 2013). The same year that Podolny wrote his article, Harvard also began promoting a student-led MBA oath (Anteby, 2013).
Having said that, although there are programs being put into place, there is still a strong word of caution underlying the conversation. One article suggested that there still isn't quite enough being done, and suggested there needs to be further opportunities for application, or interacting with MBA students from other countries to better understand their own ethical challenges (Himsel, 2014). I can certainly understand the concerns, and I've got additional thoughts as well on the long term impacts of these programs. Although these new efforts at imparting ethics will touch the current generation of MBA students, one has to wonder about the enduring value of these lessons once they set off into to world of business...one that presumably still has a fair number of individuals inundated in the old ways of business, and quite possibly with a body of senior leadership that continues to lead as they've always led and as they've seen in their own experiences rising through the ranks. I agree, and see it as the way ahead, that the institutions will need to continue seeking opportunities to apply ethics, and they should continue to integrate it into existing lesson plans where possible, for ethics cuts across so many lanes of business practices.
In short, this new breed of ethically minded MBA students need to not only learn and apply ethics, but they must have the resilience to maintain these attitudes and behaviors throughout their career until, through attrition and setting the example, the culture of ethics takes hold as the preponderance and the norm rather than simply being a new upstart. It is when ethical business practice becomes the standard by which all newcomers are judged, the new metric upon which the great leaders are remembered, that the greatest effect will be realized.
Works Cited
Anteby, M. (2013, October 22). Why business schools need business ethics. In The Guardian. Retrieved October 26, 2014
Himsel, D. (2014, August 6). Business Schools Aren't Producing Ethical Graduates. In Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved October 26, 2014
O'Connor, S. (2013, May 15). The Responsibility Of Business Schools In Training Ethical Leaders. In Forbes. Retrieved October 26, 2014
Podolny, J. M. (2009). The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business School. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 62-67.
Podolny suggested that schools needed further integration of ethics education to their course work, and even professionalizing the field with a code of conduct, among other ideas that also include putting less emphasis on comparing ranks and graduate income, and encouraging more qualitative research (Podolny, 2009). I'm inclined to agree that these would be helpful steps. Certainly, if the goal is to attract individuals that think about big picture impact rather than the bottom line, it would do schools well to highlight alumni that have "made a difference" with the knowledge they've gained, rather than what their take-home pay is. While data and hard numbers will always be important, people and society need to be brought back into the equation of business thinking.
Since the Podolny article was written in 2009, more has been written on the topic of ethics in the MBA field, and action seems to be underway. Yale and the Aspen Institute have implemented a curriculum emphasizing the application of ethics in the workplace, with a focus on standing up for one's values. Columbia has incorporated "analysis, decision making, and leadership." Harvard is offering a program for first year students called "Field Immersion Experiences for Leadership Development" that gives an opportunity to apply classroom learning while working with industry, and apparently building an entrepreneurial company in six weeks (O'Connor, 2013). The same year that Podolny wrote his article, Harvard also began promoting a student-led MBA oath (Anteby, 2013).
Having said that, although there are programs being put into place, there is still a strong word of caution underlying the conversation. One article suggested that there still isn't quite enough being done, and suggested there needs to be further opportunities for application, or interacting with MBA students from other countries to better understand their own ethical challenges (Himsel, 2014). I can certainly understand the concerns, and I've got additional thoughts as well on the long term impacts of these programs. Although these new efforts at imparting ethics will touch the current generation of MBA students, one has to wonder about the enduring value of these lessons once they set off into to world of business...one that presumably still has a fair number of individuals inundated in the old ways of business, and quite possibly with a body of senior leadership that continues to lead as they've always led and as they've seen in their own experiences rising through the ranks. I agree, and see it as the way ahead, that the institutions will need to continue seeking opportunities to apply ethics, and they should continue to integrate it into existing lesson plans where possible, for ethics cuts across so many lanes of business practices.
In short, this new breed of ethically minded MBA students need to not only learn and apply ethics, but they must have the resilience to maintain these attitudes and behaviors throughout their career until, through attrition and setting the example, the culture of ethics takes hold as the preponderance and the norm rather than simply being a new upstart. It is when ethical business practice becomes the standard by which all newcomers are judged, the new metric upon which the great leaders are remembered, that the greatest effect will be realized.
Works Cited
Anteby, M. (2013, October 22). Why business schools need business ethics. In The Guardian. Retrieved October 26, 2014
Himsel, D. (2014, August 6). Business Schools Aren't Producing Ethical Graduates. In Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved October 26, 2014
O'Connor, S. (2013, May 15). The Responsibility Of Business Schools In Training Ethical Leaders. In Forbes. Retrieved October 26, 2014
Podolny, J. M. (2009). The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business School. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 62-67.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
A633.9.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
If one were to take Obolensky's Complex Adaptive Leadership at face value, they would likely foresee a steady takeover of polyarchy systems over oligarchy, and may make old notions of leadership redundant or obsolete. Especially when numerous writings exist documenting bottom up style or collaborative organizations and non-traditional management styles, its fair to wonder what role there is for the old or traditional ways of doing business.
Having been through the course on strategic leadership and examining my own organization in light of the text, I personally see both old and new styles of leadership as having their own place and function within the overall continuum.On the one hand, the military environment traditionally demands a chain of command that members are expected to abide by unless the order given is illegal, immoral, or unethical. This becomes especially important in a crisis situation that demands rapid response with very little to no time to discuss options or share ideas. On the other hand, the military organization has a strong undercurrent of upward communication, and very recently, in introducing a new feedback system, has stated an expectation that leaders share their vision, receive feedback, and appropriately be engaged in the lives of their subordinates (Losey, 2014).
This brings to bear something of a necessary paradox for leadership in a military organization...there are certainly components that recognize and embrace concepts that are in line with the practices of polyarchy, but the organization can never be rid of oligarchy, and may at times require it. This can create several implications at the level of the individual leader and the organization as a whole. If this dichotomy of leadership exists in the organization, and signs indicate it should and must, to be a leader in more than title is paramount. Rather, the individual leader needs to be adaptable, able to assess the situation such as with Edward Snowden's Cynefin Framework, or assess the individual through concepts noted in Obolensky's text such as Level 5 Followership or Skill/Will assessment. Additionally, they need to be able to "code switch," able to move from more traditional and directive styles of oligarchy to the more open and patient styles of polyarchy. This implication carries as well to the organization as a whole and its leadership. Although it becomes more difficult and time consuming to redirect the mentality of an entire organization, higher levels too will need to be able to "code switch" in order to direct its resources most effectively towards the end goals that they've ideally set and are striving towards.
The impact upon myself as a leader, of course, is I will need to be able to hold myself to these same ideals. On top of the need to maintain my own development as an officer and as one who is heavily involve in the ever changing IT field, if I were to seriously continue pursuing leadership development I would need to be cognizant of the balance between oligarchy and polyarchy at all levels between my own workplace and higher headquarters. Furthermore, I would be required to be very thoughtful of my own actions when faced with different leadership and coaching situations around the office, particularly in light of whatever the interests of our work group's strategic goals are, and in keeping with the general expectations of developing my subordinates.
Future strategy becomes yet another issue, and one that can change in either subtle or drastic ways. The key will be to remain targeted towards the strategic goals of my immediate organization, and how they impact the goals of the different tiers of command above us all the way to headquarters. So long as we understand the overall mission, we should simply be able to make changes that will keep us on that track. Although changes in geopolitical circumstances and the nation's priorities may change over time, so long as the strategic goals are properly balanced being flexible and measurable, the organization should be able to make any necessary changes in direction. Having said that, some growing pain can be anticipated. As the military moves to integrate elements of polyarchy, there will for some time be many who are used to the old way of doing business and need to learn new modes of thought. Incoming personnel will still have to be schooled in the balance of the old and the new. Most critically, leaders at the very top will have to be among the best thinkers, best able to understand and utilize the dual culture of leadership over which they have strategic influence. Any strategy that is formulated and put into practice must not only endure time and inevitable change, but be one that can be executed under most any leadership paradigm.
Resources
Losey, S. (2014, May 21). New rule directs commanders to 'engage' in airmen's lives. Air Force Times. Retrieved May 25, 2014
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Having been through the course on strategic leadership and examining my own organization in light of the text, I personally see both old and new styles of leadership as having their own place and function within the overall continuum.On the one hand, the military environment traditionally demands a chain of command that members are expected to abide by unless the order given is illegal, immoral, or unethical. This becomes especially important in a crisis situation that demands rapid response with very little to no time to discuss options or share ideas. On the other hand, the military organization has a strong undercurrent of upward communication, and very recently, in introducing a new feedback system, has stated an expectation that leaders share their vision, receive feedback, and appropriately be engaged in the lives of their subordinates (Losey, 2014).
This brings to bear something of a necessary paradox for leadership in a military organization...there are certainly components that recognize and embrace concepts that are in line with the practices of polyarchy, but the organization can never be rid of oligarchy, and may at times require it. This can create several implications at the level of the individual leader and the organization as a whole. If this dichotomy of leadership exists in the organization, and signs indicate it should and must, to be a leader in more than title is paramount. Rather, the individual leader needs to be adaptable, able to assess the situation such as with Edward Snowden's Cynefin Framework, or assess the individual through concepts noted in Obolensky's text such as Level 5 Followership or Skill/Will assessment. Additionally, they need to be able to "code switch," able to move from more traditional and directive styles of oligarchy to the more open and patient styles of polyarchy. This implication carries as well to the organization as a whole and its leadership. Although it becomes more difficult and time consuming to redirect the mentality of an entire organization, higher levels too will need to be able to "code switch" in order to direct its resources most effectively towards the end goals that they've ideally set and are striving towards.
The impact upon myself as a leader, of course, is I will need to be able to hold myself to these same ideals. On top of the need to maintain my own development as an officer and as one who is heavily involve in the ever changing IT field, if I were to seriously continue pursuing leadership development I would need to be cognizant of the balance between oligarchy and polyarchy at all levels between my own workplace and higher headquarters. Furthermore, I would be required to be very thoughtful of my own actions when faced with different leadership and coaching situations around the office, particularly in light of whatever the interests of our work group's strategic goals are, and in keeping with the general expectations of developing my subordinates.
Future strategy becomes yet another issue, and one that can change in either subtle or drastic ways. The key will be to remain targeted towards the strategic goals of my immediate organization, and how they impact the goals of the different tiers of command above us all the way to headquarters. So long as we understand the overall mission, we should simply be able to make changes that will keep us on that track. Although changes in geopolitical circumstances and the nation's priorities may change over time, so long as the strategic goals are properly balanced being flexible and measurable, the organization should be able to make any necessary changes in direction. Having said that, some growing pain can be anticipated. As the military moves to integrate elements of polyarchy, there will for some time be many who are used to the old way of doing business and need to learn new modes of thought. Incoming personnel will still have to be schooled in the balance of the old and the new. Most critically, leaders at the very top will have to be among the best thinkers, best able to understand and utilize the dual culture of leadership over which they have strategic influence. Any strategy that is formulated and put into practice must not only endure time and inevitable change, but be one that can be executed under most any leadership paradigm.
Resources
Losey, S. (2014, May 21). New rule directs commanders to 'engage' in airmen's lives. Air Force Times. Retrieved May 25, 2014
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
A633.8.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
When a client turns to a coach, they are often seeking additional guidance or advice outside the scope of that which they've thought of already. Based on the prompt given in this week's blogging assignment, the value that coaches provide to any prospective client is at the very least an alternative outside perspective that may be able to perceive additional variables not apparent to the client, or they may be able to share their own experiences and thus offer additional ideas, potential solutions, and may even provide the client a stronger foundation upon which to reach for their goals and objectives.
Based on the Obolensky readings, coaching does represent a challenging but powerful tool with regards to leadership and strategy, as he writes coaching can bridge the divide between tell/sell practicies of the leader taking point and the involve/devolve practices of the follower taking lead. Additionally, Obolensky writes that coaching is a means of moving subordinates towards a Level 5 level of followership (Obolensky, 2010). In short, coaching is part of what enables an organization to move beyond one or two highly skilled individuals to building a cadre of capable people that can work together as a team towards (ideally) established goals and objectives. Thus, it is arguably a critical piece that spells the difference between the organization plateauing, and continuing to be successful and fruitful over the long haul as times change and people move through the organization.
As for how successful coaching can make a difference in a given organization, while the scope and exact impact may vary with a given circumstance, effective coaching can help maintain quality performance, break any potential jams in thinking, or in a case of following the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) a coach can help a subordinate or the organization reach higher levels of performance and achievement (Obolensky, 2010). The coach, as an outside voice that the client has reached out to in the context of the prompt, may be in a better position to get past any preconceptions or biases the client might have if they worked only with perspectives from their own organization, and may also highlight options the client may have not even known they had.
To me personally, I admittedly haven't thought much about reaching out for coaching. However, my unit and other units I've worked with are proactive in providing opportunities for professional development and mentoring opportunities. I go to these events sometimes, but on reflection I have to admit I don't seek a great deal of coaching. I suspect this is partially due to my propensity to solve problems on my own without seeking help, in line with the ISFJ personality type I learned about in another MSLD course. Considering the argument made for coaching, it might behoove me to seek it out in order to gain additional perspectives and further my own development.
Organizationally speaking, I'm not sure if there is much more we can take from the discussion, as regular feedback and mentorship mechanisms are firmly in place. However, there has admittedly been more than one occasion where in working with a sister unit, we found them trying to muddle through problems when a different solution set could have well made problem solving easier or even prevented the problem from occurring in the first place. At times we would essentially be solving problems for them, but there have also been times that we would share our knowledge and teach them what we knew, such as letting them know about an asset accounting website that technically needed to be used but was very poorly advertised. My point in this is that although an organization may think they're doing alright, it is entirely possibly they are only assessing themselves from within their own perspective and quite likely are missing any issues that exist within their "blind spots." This doesn't happen regularly, but I would think that being open to outsiders having a look in and sharing where the organization would like to be, it may well help the organization realize performance gains they didn't know could be made. Overall, I think individuals can be well served by embracing coaching, but an entire organization willing to be coached as well may certainly benefit from a fresh set of eyes.
Works Cited
Based on the Obolensky readings, coaching does represent a challenging but powerful tool with regards to leadership and strategy, as he writes coaching can bridge the divide between tell/sell practicies of the leader taking point and the involve/devolve practices of the follower taking lead. Additionally, Obolensky writes that coaching is a means of moving subordinates towards a Level 5 level of followership (Obolensky, 2010). In short, coaching is part of what enables an organization to move beyond one or two highly skilled individuals to building a cadre of capable people that can work together as a team towards (ideally) established goals and objectives. Thus, it is arguably a critical piece that spells the difference between the organization plateauing, and continuing to be successful and fruitful over the long haul as times change and people move through the organization.
As for how successful coaching can make a difference in a given organization, while the scope and exact impact may vary with a given circumstance, effective coaching can help maintain quality performance, break any potential jams in thinking, or in a case of following the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) a coach can help a subordinate or the organization reach higher levels of performance and achievement (Obolensky, 2010). The coach, as an outside voice that the client has reached out to in the context of the prompt, may be in a better position to get past any preconceptions or biases the client might have if they worked only with perspectives from their own organization, and may also highlight options the client may have not even known they had.
To me personally, I admittedly haven't thought much about reaching out for coaching. However, my unit and other units I've worked with are proactive in providing opportunities for professional development and mentoring opportunities. I go to these events sometimes, but on reflection I have to admit I don't seek a great deal of coaching. I suspect this is partially due to my propensity to solve problems on my own without seeking help, in line with the ISFJ personality type I learned about in another MSLD course. Considering the argument made for coaching, it might behoove me to seek it out in order to gain additional perspectives and further my own development.
Organizationally speaking, I'm not sure if there is much more we can take from the discussion, as regular feedback and mentorship mechanisms are firmly in place. However, there has admittedly been more than one occasion where in working with a sister unit, we found them trying to muddle through problems when a different solution set could have well made problem solving easier or even prevented the problem from occurring in the first place. At times we would essentially be solving problems for them, but there have also been times that we would share our knowledge and teach them what we knew, such as letting them know about an asset accounting website that technically needed to be used but was very poorly advertised. My point in this is that although an organization may think they're doing alright, it is entirely possibly they are only assessing themselves from within their own perspective and quite likely are missing any issues that exist within their "blind spots." This doesn't happen regularly, but I would think that being open to outsiders having a look in and sharing where the organization would like to be, it may well help the organization realize performance gains they didn't know could be made. Overall, I think individuals can be well served by embracing coaching, but an entire organization willing to be coached as well may certainly benefit from a fresh set of eyes.
Works Cited
Obolensky,
N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing
Limited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)