A633.9.3.RB - Polyarchy Reflections

A633.9.3.RB - Polyarchy Reflections

Most leadership models have the assumption of oligarchy – leadership is done by a few leaders over many followers. If Polyarchy is fast replacing the old oligarchy assumptions does this make these old leadership models redundant?  Reflecting on traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership, address the implications and how they will affect you as a leader in the future. 

Polyarchy is fast replacing the old oligarchy leadership style but I don’t think that makes oligarchy completely obsolete. I’m not quite sure how to say this but I’m going to try to make sense: Oligarchy is essentially like the parent of Polyarchy. Polyarchy is born out of a need for change in how organizations are being run because the times have changed. It’s a different world than that which birthed oligarchy and while it is archaic, and maybe a little grumpy after 7pm, it is still important to never lose sight of it because of its relationship to Polyarchy. There is a natural evolution and one day, Polyarchy will be an outdated idea and something new and more meaningful will be born of it. So, while you and I are made up of the DNA of generations of our family members, so it is with Polyarchy and Oligarchy.

The implications of this to me as a future leader are simple. Look forward, seek out positive changes, but never forget where you’ve come from and how much you’ve grown. I believe that Polyarchy is the next natural evolution within the complex adaptive strategy and there will be another evolution that will be an improvement on Polyarchy because the adaptive strategies and methods will lead us there.

My personal leadership development needs over the next 3 years will desperately require coaching. While we were doing our coaching sessions in Team B, I realized that I honestly have no idea what I want or where I want to go…speaking specifically of my career. I’ve always just kind of landed somewhere and made a go of it. Taking this job in South Carolina was the first time I actively made a career decision that forced me completely out of my comfort zone and into a place where my network is 3200 miles away. I did it because in my gut I knew that the glass ceiling was lower than I wanted to believe in my old organization. I also wanted to pursue this Master’s program because I knew that leadership skills would be very important to make any changes I might have the opportunity to make. But the specifics? Nothing. I need a coach who can ask me the non-suggestive questions to help guide me to what I really want to do. Starting with the coaching, I would also like to study more about Taoism and Chaos theory. The impact this will have on my future strategy will be to actually develop a future strategy. I'm sorry this isn't more technical; I learned a lot about complex adaptive strategy but honestly, I have more questions than answers at this point. However, I don't think that's a bad thing. Right?

Thank you Kees for your wonderful feedback this term. I've never had a professor who took the time to have a conversation with me (albeit virtual...still meaningful) like that. I hope to work with you again in the future and maybe by then I'll have more answers about my future leadership development. I really hope I have some great stories for you by then! Take care, Happy Holidays, and I hope 2017 is awesome for you!

References:

Obolensky, N. (2015). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.

A633.8.3.RB - How do Coaches Help

A633.8.3.RB - How do Coaches Help?

Based on the readings reflect upon the statement below:

To be an executive coach, it is necessary to know that clients are the first and best expert capable of solving their own problems and achieving their own ambitions, that is precisely the main reason why clients are motivated to call on a coach. When clients bring important issues to a coach, they already made a complete inventory of their personal or professional issues and of all possible options. Clients have already tried working out their issues alone, and have not succeeded.

Given the statement above what is it that coaches do to provide value to their clients?

Coaches provide a sounding board, direction, and, sometimes a confidant to executive clients. “Mindful coaches perfect a form of conscious and comfortable simultaneous attention to themselves, their coachee, the relationship between them, and the mental, emotional, and relational dynamics occurring in the moment.” (Riddle, 2012) Coaches give clients a place to think without the fear of sounding stupid or out of touch. By listening and helping clients answer their own questions, coaches empower clients to explore options.

Why is coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy? 

According to the statement above, clients already know what the problems are. They already have ideas and theories about how to solve these problems. The coaches ask open and non-suggestive questions to help clients focus and prioritize these problems/solutions. “Open questions cannot be answered by ‘yes/no’ and non-suggestive questions do not imply an answer in any way.” (Obolensky, 2015) Coaches provide guidance and perhaps the confidence needed to make difficult decisions. Coaches know that clients probably already know what the answer is, or what the solution should be, they have the information in front of them but can’t see the forest for the trees. Through conversation and asking questions, coaches help to thin the clutter, mental, virtual, and physical, so that the clients can see and think clearly.

How can it make a difference in an organization?

Let’s face it; leaders who are overly egotistical and believe that they have all the answers are usually detrimental to the organizations they run. Leaders who are encouraged to use coaches, who seek coaches are more effective and well rounded. Taking advice…or even being open to advice suggests humility and emotional intelligence.  “Coaching allows someone to stay on a line of thought until it yields new perspectives and answers.” (Riddle, 2012) Being able to disconnect from the craziness of a day as an executive and seriously and mindfully focus on solutions and different aspects of a situation is essential and a coach enables this ‘safe space’ for executives to bounce ideas off a platform without risking any outside judgement.

What does this mean to you and your organization?

Coaching in my organization means that they care about their leader’s development. They are investing in the future leadership and understand that leadership isn’t completely just how someone is or isn’t. Leadership takes effort and continual improvement.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2015). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.

Riddle, D. (January 23, 2012) Three Keys to Meaningful Leadership Coaching. Center for Creative Leadership. Forbes.com. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccl/2012/01/23/three-keys-to-mindful-leadership-coaching/#62b9a30d743f

A633.7.3.RB - Leader Follower Relationship

A633.7.3.RB - Leader Follower Relationship

Complete the exercise at the beginning of chapter 10 and use the scoring table at the end to assess your responses.

Reflect on what this assessment means in terms of you as a leader and your relationship to your followers.

The results of the exercise at the beginning of chapter 10 for me are as follows:

Strategy 1 (Tell) = 3

Strategy 2 (Sell) = 0

Strategy 3 (Involve) = 9

Strategy 4 (Devolve) = 4

The sum of my S1 and S3 score is higher that S2 and S4 which according to the text means that I may be taking a too direct an approach. The sum of my S2 and S3 is higher than my S1 and S4 and that could mean that I’m working too hard. Obolensky states that it also might be someone who finds letting go and being separated difficult. (Obolensky, 2015)

I guess I don’t understand why my high “tell” and “involve” score means that I could be taking a too direct approach and if so, why that is a bad thing. Since the “involve” score is the highest by far…that should be a fairly good thing. Since I have no true management/leadership responsibilities right now…not even training new people since I’m the newest person in my group, my frustration with not being allowed to be involved in decisions about my statement of work is probably what prompted my answers.   

This course has continued to change the way I’m thinking about being a leader and a follower. I thought that I was a fairly critical thinker, and I am, but not when it comes to systemic, complex leadership. It’s like digging deeper into a system that I thought was less dynamic and more stagnant than it is.

My future leadership goals include growing confident in my ability to tear down walls and ask the important questions for better or worse (hopefully better). In my experience, questions force people to think about what they are doing or telling others to do and that isn’t always easy to do. As we all know, a lot of direction given to subordinates is just parroting direction given to the managers when they were subordinates. We need to ask these questions so that we really understand what and why we are doing what we’re doing to make sure we are doing the right thing in the right way.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2015). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.

A633.6.4.RB - Circle of Leadership

A633.6.4.RB - Circle of Leadership

Critically think about how strategy is formulated in your organization and include both upward and downward leadership. Now, considering all of the readings in this module and the learning exercises regarding upward and downward leadership; reflect on the diagram (figure 9.5; p.152) "the vicious circle for leaders". 

Does this happen in your organization? 

I think that this definitely happens in my organization. In my immediate organization, industrial engineering, follower confidence is regularly shaken when something new is required and their level of influence is minimal so they defer to the leader for…well, leadership…instead of taking the initiative and opportunity for creating their own processes. This is because this dichotomy has been well established in the culture of the organization.   

What are the effects on the organization?

The effects are that teams silo themselves and don’t trust other teams. They keep their core competencies to themselves and we all suffer from this division. This summer, management tried to break down the siloes by mixing up the teams. People kept their statement of work but were suddenly reporting to a new manager. They even had to move their desks to the new manager’s area. This lasted about two months and then quietly, the two people who had been put in our team were moved back to their original team.

We are not confident enough to make our own decisions because we don’t think we have the autonomy to do so. We have gone through some crazy changes in the last four months and instead of sharpening our skills by working together and sharing knowledge, we have stayed siloed and the teams are all experiencing the same pains instead of learning from each other. (We’re positional so some teams experience the changes before other teams because of schedule position.) No one has said, “Hey…we need to let the Pos 2-5 people know that the director commented on this, this, and that.” Our leaders are nonchalant or hyper-critical…it’s very discerning and we’re actually also losing a few of our best people to other organizations because of this.

Create a new circle that would promote strong followership and even leadership at the lower levels of the organization.  Ensure that this reflects the actions and involvements of all significant departments such as; Sales, Marketing, Finance, Accounting, Operations, Marketing, and Distribution.

See that the behavior of the follower often drives the behavior of the leader, the leader is where the changes needs to happen.

(Imagine this in a circle…)

Leader assigns project, follower’s confidence wavers, leader does nothing, follower works on problem themselves by asking questions to applicable departments, leader offers assistance with removing any roadblocks, follower’s confidence increases, leader trusts the follower’s instincts and assigns higher profile projects, and follower’s confidence wavers again, the leader does nothing…etc. etc. etc.

(I guess you could ask why the follower’s confidence wavers at getting a high profile project but that would be what I would do. My confidence would be boosted but this new task would have me a little freaked out and my confidence would waver a little. I would talk to the leader about it, who would listen but do nothing, and I would have to figure it out again on my own with minimal help.)

References:

Obolensky, N. (2015). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.

A633.5.3.RB - Reflections on Chaos

A633.5.3.RB - Reflections on Chaos

Play the chaos game with a group of people (see Complex Adaptive Leadership (Obolensky, 2010) Chapter 6, or watch the above video.)

Create a reflection blog on what this exercise meant to you and how it impacts your understanding of chaos theory, include the implications that this has on strategy.

I was not able to play this with my team…but I really want to. This is a great exercise or even ice breaker for any group. I thoroughly enjoyed the video – I was genuinely surprised that they were able to accomplish the task in under a minute. It took Obolensky longer to give the instructions than for the task to be performed. Amazing.

In the simplest terms, this exercise showed me that simplicity is the best way to manage complex tasks. Chaos, described by Obolensky in our text, “…obeys deterministic laws, but it is so irregular that to an untrained eye it looks pretty much random. Chaos is not just complicated, patternless behavior; it is far more subtle.” (Obolensky, 2015) Subtlety isn’t the first thing one thinks of when they hear “chaos theory” but after re-reading that part of chapter five, it’s easy to see that complexity can look very confusing and random but the reality is much different. For example, when I first started working here in South Carolina at the 787 final assembly plant, I knew I’d have to learn how to create bar charts in a software called Aurora. This is a forward scheduling tool that is frustrating, complex and frankly, scared me. As I went into this training, everything seemed like learning a new language and none of it made sense. I couldn’t grasp the scheduling concepts and relationships between jobs. It was very chaotic and made even more complex because as I was learning to use this program, leadership decided that the resources available would lessen, the time frame would shorten and everything needed to be ready yesterday. I had to rebuild from scratch in order to shrink it down and that was going to take time. I think that almost every day in September I cried at least once at work or on the way home out of humiliation, frustration, and confusion. (Not obviously, you know…quiet tears…there’s really no crying in aerospace you know…! Ha!) The people trying to help me really just made it worse because they didn’t understand how I didn’t understand. I finally started working with the project integrator for my area, also an industrial engineer, and we would camp out in a collaboration room and just work the problem. Things were quiet, and I could ask questions and get a simple answer. He basically sat with me while I made my model and answered questions when I got lost. It was the simplest way to learn something…one-on-one. Pretty soon, it was like a fog cleared and things were suddenly making sense. It was like in the exercise above…if I made slow, small movements – or changes – within the model, I could change it without crashing the model or creating a mess. I could think a few moves ahead and understand the relationships between the precedence set for jobs and if they were truly precedence or just preference.

Anyway, it was a very complex and confusing time and it seemed like I’d never figure it out. But taking a quiet, simple approach allowed me to suss out the secrets of Aurora. I’m still not an expert by any means but my confidence is much higher and I am a better support to my area because I understand their build process better. (Now we’ve switched to Schedule Editor in Visio and everything is basically a cut and paste…super simplified. I feel like all of that pain over learning Aurora was for nothing! But, I’m still going to work some scenario models in Aurora so I don’t forget the skillset I worked hard to learn.) The exercise above helped me understand that when something is overwhelming and chaotic to stop and make small, subtle moves…tackle complexity with simplicity.  

References:

Obolensky, N. (2015). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Reflecting on the opening exercise at the beginning of Chapter 4 of the of Obolensky text and other readings, why do you think the shift in leadership is occurring and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization.  List three reasons that support or refute this position.

If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes?  What are the implications on strategy?

So…for the exercise at the beginning of chapter four, I indicated that of 100 percent of the solutions that actually make a difference to the workforce, 0% originated at the top.  Here’s why:

When I worked at Skin & Spar in Frederickson in Boeing’s Fabrication division, we got a new director about once every 18 months. It seemed that Skin & Spar was one of those assignments that directors took so they could claim experience in fabrication for their loftier goals of becoming VPs and more senior leaders. We got a new director in the spring of 2014. He was not a Boeing insider and had come from the world of trains and General Electric. In one of the first “All Team” meetings with him, he showed us all the inverted leadership triangle. He talked about “servant leaders” and removing roadblocks for us. I was so hopeful. I had heard these things before but this director seemed so honest and sincere. He talked about how he understood who did the real work and that he and his leadership team were primarily there to remove any roadblocks that kept us from being successful. This all made so much sense to me! Of course! That is exactly what senior managers should be doing…they have the authority to remove obstacles that the regular workforce just didn’t. It made so much sense to me! Finally a director who got it right! I was cautiously optimistic.

As the months went on, it was beginning to appear that our biggest roadblock to success was actually this new director. He did the exact opposite of the things he said he was going to do and the workforce became even more jaded. When he had been with our organization for about 9 months, he was promoted to site supervisor over all of Skin & Spar. Another new director was installed, this time a woman, and we all hoped this guy would be like the site supervisor he replaced…rarely seen or heard from. That was not the case. He still came to all of the meetings and board walks in the shop…making each meeting at least 30 minutes longer than it needed to be. He saw himself as a great teacher and liked to tell us parables about trees and sheep and rocks in a stream…it all became very ridiculous but no one said anything. One time, in a project review meeting, where the director was not present, we were going over the list of things that we were concerned about and it was all dancing around this central thing…so I said it. “Well someone needs to tell the emperor that he’s not wearing any clothes.” This statement was met with some laughter and some nods of agreement. Either way, it went on the meeting notes. I don’t know what ever came of it because shortly after that, I transferred to South Carolina where I am now. (It was by choice…haha!)  

The idea of stopping the charades is so refreshing to me. The idea of having leadership admitting that they need the workforce’s knowledge to be successful would be a powerful message to send to the employees and their middle management. The expectations for everyone would change! “So the fact is those at the top do not know the solutions to the problems faced by the organizations they lead. And generally speaking, they know that they do not know. However, they cannot say that they do not know.” (Obolensky, 2015) It would be such a relief to senior management to be able to confer with SMEs and actually get problems solved. Suddenly, the shop would have to take responsibility for parts shortages or for why they aren’t receiving their kits on time. The problems would bubble up from the bottom and have to be sorted out by the SMEs – not management. The idea that the workforce has to be dependent on themselves for solutions would be amazing and it would force people to think critically about how their work impacts other areas in the factory. Right now, because it’s easier to just blame problems on management and in response, management and senior leaders seem to think they need to fix the problems…because if THEY can’t figure it out…well…who can? It becomes a game of sorts and then nothing actually gets fixed. “Meanwhile those at the bottom of the organization are just as culpable. They know the solutions (or most of them). They also intuitively know that the people at the top do not know.” (Obolensky, 2015)

This brings me back to that inverted leadership triangle. What that director said was correct. Senior management should be there to remove roadblocks. The implications on strategy is that they don’t need to know what the roadblocks are before anyone else…that’s the responsibility of the workforce. The people who see the roadblocks need to communicate up and then senior leadership needs to act on this problem in a collaborative manner. I do think it is indicative of what is just starting to happen in my organization...just peeping out from behind the door is a realization that things have to change. The strategy becomes about fixing the organization and changing the culture and not about who can hold out longer in a power struggle.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2015). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.

A633.3.4.RB - Complexity Science

A633.3.4.RB - Complexity Science

Reflect on your own organizations strategy and how it has evolved over time. Discussing each stage of development and how feedback and strategy formulation have evolved. Consider the next stages in your company's evolution and describe what it will look like in 10 years and where will you be?

I have been thinking a lot about organizational evolution this week…not only because of this week’s readings but also because it is Boeing’s 100^th anniversary this year. I have been thinking about how this organization has evolved over those years, some of it intentional (Bill Boeing wanted to build airplanes), some of it reactive (World War II and the Space Race of the Cold War), and some of it was just pure genius (Joe Sutter – father of the 747). The stages of development: metaphor, Taoism, management theory, feedback, and strategy development all played a part in making the company what it is today – for better or worse.

Boeing has a hierarchy in place that, over time, has perpetuated the metaphor of the “Lazy B” or the idea that when someone gets hired into Boeing that they won’t have to work hard for premium pay anymore. Since I was a child during the development of this hierarchy and metaphor building, I can’t comment on how it came to be. But now that I’m an adult and have been with this organization for a few years, I can see that while the desire to evolve is there…the hierarchy is so ingrained that no matter how many levels of management are “flattened” to reduce the bureaucracy or how many posters telling us “People First” – the culture will not change. The current culture at my organization has been created over 100 years, many wars, national tragedies, and the inevitable changes that come with time. Ultimately though, in 2016, it is still largely a “good ol’ boys club.” I’m not saying that out of bitterness or malice...it’s just a matter of fact. And the fact is that 100 years of a culture does not change over-night. Sometimes I wish that the CEO or VP of Boeing would go on Undercover Bosses. I wish they could see and experience how hard most of the people work to meet increasingly ridiculous deadlines without risking their personal safety. I think they would discover that most people take a lot of pride in what they do.

Taoism is the balancing of the old with the new. Obolensky explains that, “At each stage that which is useful is kept and that which is not is discarded. That is different from a revolutionary process where at each stage there is an ‘overthrow’.” (Obolensky, 2015) In my organization, I can see bits and pieces of that with the implementation of the Lean practices, Theory of Constraints, and Employee Involvement teams. It’s not a total overthrow of a process or team, but it is more of a reimaging. It seems to me that we can’t continue to do business tomorrow exactly as it was done yesterday…or even today. That doesn’t mean everything that isn’t a new process or idea is bad. Part of Boeing’s Taoism is that 100 year old culture of how business has been done…that history from which we can keep the good and effective and learn from the bad and useless.

Management theory is where I think Boeing has a lot of opportunities for improvement. I talked about how the company, at its core, is still a patriarchal organization. When I step back though, I can see that the more senior leaders and superintendents are being exposed to more and more evolutionary management theories – I hate to use the buzzword empowerment but I can see where Boeing really does want to evolve to be competitive in the future and that it knows its biggest and best chance at that is by hiring people who are willing to rock the boat and have new ideas. Their greatest resource and asset is their people. There is a large roadblock between senior leadership and the first line managers; and I’m not totally sure who built it. These managers are over worked, underestimated, and micromanaged by metrics that are unrealistic and have nothing to do with the actual work. They need to have some reigns loosened, some real management development classes, and the opportunity to actually work with their teams instead of just babysitting adults. (I actually asked a new manager once what they learned in their three week manager’s class and he said simply, “How to stay out of HR.”) I sit in a daily meeting with at least seven first line managers who are all there to report their attendance, daily commits, and help needs. This meeting is supposed to be 45 minutes long. It regularly starts between 10-15 minutes late and goes on for at least an hour – but usually longer. 90% of the information they exchange could either be entered themselves in a shared document or at the very least, e-mailed to the senior manager prior to the meeting. This meeting should be 30 minutes and should ONLY be for the help needs. I think it is valuable for the managers to all see each other face-to-face at least once a day…build those relationships and networks. But to sit there for what seems to be an eternity for their five minutes of information seems like a serious waste of their time and talents. The first line managers should be at this meeting letting senior management know what roadblocks they need help with. Senior management should take those action items and then come to the support departments for the data they need. It is mindboggling how much time I spend on Pinterest when I’m in that meeting. I’m not proud of that and I do pay attention when my team is being discussed but really…most of the meeting is talking about last night’s football game or their personal golf game. I feel like I’m digressing from the point but if Boeing wants to have a diverse (not just culturally but intellectually) workforce and management team then they really need to give them the tools and the training…and trust them.

Feedback. Every year, Boeing does an employee survey. We all log on anonymously to a website and answer questions honestly. These surveys are tallied and then shared with the management teams who then devote an entire staff meeting to going over the results specific to their teams. There are action items and Kaizen newspapers that come out of these meetings and we’re all super enthusiastic about it for a couple weeks until something new and urgent comes and bumps this opportunity for growth and development until the next year. Personally, I do not hold back when I’m answering questions and definitely give them my opinion…and possible solutions that I’ve thought about a lot. I honestly have no idea what really happens up at the top of the leadership chain. Maybe they all take turns reading the especially juicy feedback comments and laugh about how meaningless us workers are all while toasting to themselves with 18 year old scotch and patting each other on the back. (I know that seems ridiculous…that probably isn’t the scenario and I’ve probably watched too much Mad Men…but one never knows…)

Strategy development – this is something I struggle with because after looking on the Boeing website last week and seeing that their strategies actually incited more questions than anything else makes me concerned. How do we move forward in this highly innovative industry in a meaningful and competitive way if we aren’t even clear on what a strategy actually is? “The extent to which the strategy is clear across the organization is often a headache for many top executives. Clarity means that everyone in the organization understands the overall big picture strategy and how they fit within it.” (Obolensky, 2015) Each year we have our Performance Management (PM) reviews. The points that we are reviewed on are supposed to be things that align with the organization’s BG&O’s (Boeing Goals and Objectives – or some such). So the attributes and performance that we review with our managers is arbitrary and isn’t meaningful because our managers don’t understand the BG&Os, they’ve just copy and pasted them into the right section, and we don’t understand how our jobs impact these BG&Os because our questions for clarification are met with either apathy or equally confusing politically correct answers. I would love to know how my job directly impacts the Boeing strategy. I basically make charts and monitor schedules so that we stay on schedule and each area gets their kits on time. I can make an educated guess about this impacting the overall Boeing strategy but it isn’t what my PM document looks like. There is a disconnect that can be repaired but I think part of that strategy development needs to start with the management theory strategy and how that should look and work.

In the next 40 years, I think that Boeing will have to downsize in some areas but grow in others. The strategy might be to move critical personnel to the more lucrative legacy programs like the 737 and possibly the military aspects of the 767 and relocate the displaced over to the newer technology found in 787 family and satellite/space programs. I know that there have been plans and even models built for a gigantic fused wing airplane that Boeing once thought to be the future of aviation…a virtual flying city…but I think that the vision for the future needs to be smaller in scale, larger in sustainable sourcing of materials, lighter, faster, and better production, performance, and customer service. The Boeing of 2056 is still an industry leader but maybe not as arrogant…maybe just leaner and stronger. The hierarchy of the 1900’s will need to go away and as the generational changes happen, I think the natural evolution of business and leadership will happen. I don’t want to discredit the backs upon which the future Boeing will be built upon because they are strong and proud backs, but we have to learn from them and base the future off of what works as well as taking some risks.

This post is super long, I’m sorry about that…but I am truly passionate about the future of this company. I am equally excited and terrified of ever being part of the management team at Boeing because I see so many people beaten down…so many people who started out so full of hope and optimism end up angry and disillusioned. I don’t want that to happen to me…but I don’t know if I’m strong enough to face it head to head either. But, that's a big reason why I'm in this degree field; to be part of the solution. (Besides…40 years from now I’ll be 82…and I hope to all the higher powers I will still be alive and flying on Boeing jets to exotic locations in my retirement!)

References:

Obolensky, N. (2015). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems

Find a company which reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and reflect in your blog what the implications are for you and your present organization (or any organization you are familiar with). Identify what you believe are appropriate actions to move your organization forward.

There is a company called Grace Manufacturing that was founded by Richard Grace in 1966 in Russellville, Arkansas. It started as a precision tool and die shop and has evolved into a company with products in several markets. The remarkable thing about this company is that they were able to adapt and change as the times changed. With the onset of the dot-matrix printer in the late 1980’s, they saw the need for some of their precision tool and die work was diminishing. They looked to what they already had on hand…lots of sharp metal and thought about what they could do with that. “As CEO (and founder’s son) Chris Grace put it, “We realized we were good at making sharp things. And so we thought, what can we make that’s sharp?”’ (Richardson, 2011)  

They looked to woodworking first because that made the most sense; sharp edges for axes and planers. “Grace had some success with these tools, but then the unexpected happened: chefs started using them in novel ways. Grace inadvertently created a need and a new product category: the culinary microplane, which extracts more flavors from foods than traditional grating and shaving.” (Richardson, 2011) They not only adapted their organization to fit the needs of the customer, Grace Manufacturing actually created a new niche market for their product.

The unexpected success with the microplane rejuvenated a company that could have easily stagnated. Instead, through the decades they were able to merge new products with products and services that they had built their foundation upon from photochemical machined precision parts for the computer peripheral market and the metal stamping operation to heat treating, injection molding, and clean room packaging. (Grace Manufacturing, 2016) This company used their technical knowledge and problem solving skills to continuously improve and evolve their processes and products.  “It’s a fascinating example of questioning assumptions about your business domain when under pressure, staying alert to customer needs, and being open to opportunities as they appear.” (Richardson, 2011)

The leaders at Grace Manufacturing used a dilemma evolution to move their organization forward. Instead of an “either/or” approach, they used a “both/and” strategy and in this case it was successful. (Obolensky, 2015) While this example has more to do with processes and products and less to do with organizational strategy, I do think that it shows a great amount of humility on the part of the leadership of Grace Manufacturing to see the bigger picture. They were able to keep up with how the world was changing but still maintain the core values of what they wanted to be as a company. As it says on their website: “Precision Products Through Innovative Manufacturing” is more than a slogan. It’s our philosophy and our commitment to the industries we serve.” (Grace Manufacturing, 2016)

References:

Grace Manufacturing. (2016) About Grace Manufacturing. http://gracemfg.com/home/?page_id=2

Obolensky, N. (2015). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.

Richardson, A. (January 18, 2011) Lessons in Adaptive Strategy. Harvard Business Review. January 18, 2011. https://hbr.org/2011/01/lessons-in-adaptive-strategy

USMicroplane. (2016) The Microplane Story. http://us.microplane.com/about-us.aspx

A633.2.3.RB - Butterfly Effect

A633.2.3.RB - Butterfly Effect

Based on this week's reading, reflect on complexity science and theory in organizations and the butterfly effect (p.66). 

Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization.

What are the implication of complexity theory for you and your organization and how can you use this to drive improvements.

Complexity science consists of four types: Imposed, Inherent, Designed, and Unnecessary complexities. (Obolensky, 2015) Imposed complexity comes from the outside…statutory and regulatory laws put in place that an organization must comply with in order to do business. Inherent complexities and internal to a company and can only be dealt with by changing the scope and structure of a business. Designed complexities has to do with how an organization does business. An example would be a company that, as a rule, does not outsource their manufacturing or only sells their product at a minimum mark-up. It can hinder immediate success but can also garner loyalty in their customers. Unnecessary complexities seem to be what most businesses struggle with. Management is pressured to solve a problem, they see it as a complicated issue and they put more stringent rules in place without even investigating the real issues. It’s the embodiment of cutting your nose off despite your face. (Obolensky, 2015) Organizations are all in a big hurry to beat out their competitor and climb that mountain of money for their investors. They forget that real problem solving takes time, not a lot…but some, and takes listening to people. What seems like a huge deal might actually have a simple solution. For example, mechanics on the floor constantly have jobs behind schedule because they are having trouble with rivets. Since the shop runs on a positional manufacturing model, delays in position one cause delays and parts problems all the way down the line. The mechanics complain that the rivets they get in their kits are the wrong size so they constantly have to reorder new rivets which causes a delay. Management imposes a tighter schedule expectation thinking that if they have to get the job done in less time, they’ll just make the rivets work. This causes even more back-ups because the rivets still don’t work so they still have to be reordered. Now everyone is in a panic and a recovery plan is ordered which now involves other departments…people are working overtime…its chaos. No one has asked why the rivets don’t work. The real problem is that the rivet supplier that was previously used has gone out of business and now the rivets are coming from another vendor who was given outdated specifications. Until this is figured out, people are going to be frustrated and work over time unnecessarily. If the manager had stopped to ask a simple question about the rivets, they would have been able to start on the right path to a simple solution to a complex problem.

Small changes yielding large results seems to come down to culture in my organization. One department has failed their customer so many times in the past that the customer has been diverting their requests to another shift where the supply chain is more reliable for years. No one really pays attention to this until someone new joins the team and goes to order a specific part. The lead comes up and tells him to stop…let the next shift order that part. When it is explained to the new person, they go and talk to the people in the supply chain team. The mechanic asks why there is a problem getting parts and the supply chain team looks at him like he’s the only one wearing a costume at a Halloween party. They explain that there used to be a hiccup in the software but that’s been fixed for a few years, they just never get requests on this shift anymore and haven’t questioned why. This new person requests the parts they need and they are actually delivered earlier than expected. When the new person explains the situation, the people who have been ordering parts from a different shift realize that no one actually asked why before. Being able to have a part requested and delivered on their shift will actually save them (and the company) a lot of time. One question, one small act can save labor hours which saves the organization money, which is always a good thing.

I will say that another small change that can yield large results is in how we treat other people. This isn’t a fancy business solution but in my experience, when you work in an organization, there are going to be times when you need help from someone. I make it my priority to find out who the procurement people are, the maintenance folks, materials management, and even executive assistants. I try to treat everyone with kindness regardless…life is hard enough without people being snarky and rude. But the people in the above mentioned positions are usually treated as if they are invisible until something happens and then people want their help. So, the small change that can yield large results is to reach out to people and be kind…being kind should be your default setting.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2015). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.

A633.1.2.RB - Leadership Gap

A633.1.2.RB - Leadership Gap

Chapter 1 of the Obolensky text begins with a reflective exercise. Create a reflection blog that responds to the questions asked in this exercise.

Obolensky Reflection Questions:

·         Has your own attitude to leaders changed in your life, and if so how?

o   Yes, my attitude has changed over time…but then again, parts of it hasn’t. I was raised to not question authority, my parents being the first authority figures. We grew up in a loving and warm household that had expectations and repercussions for breaking the rules. When I was in high school, I joined the Air Force Junior ROTC program and really thrived in that environment…maybe it was the familiarity of structure? I was also in band so that demanded discipline as well. As I’ve gotten older and had many, many bosses…I see that managers, of all levels…even CEOs…are just people like me. They have doubts, and questions…they have to answer to someone, and they just want to do a good job. As I was told at my first job…(loosely quoting – it was over 20 years ago) “We do our best every day. If we wait until some general manager or VP shows up to clean or fix things, then we are doing a disservice to our customers. We should be doing the right thing all the time, not just when we might get a corporate visit.”  So to me, I can respect a person’s position and understand the hierarchy of an organization, but I question decisions, the CEO isn't intimidating me because I should be doing my best work regardless. However, I need to know the context, the goal, and the vision. Otherwise, I’m really not motivated to just do work for the sake of doing work.

·         If we take as a starting point the attitude to those in authority/leaders held by your grandparents, and then look at those attitudes held by your parents, and then by you, and then by the younger generation, is there a changing trend? If so, what is it?

o   Changing trend? Absolutely. It is inevitable.

o   A couple classes ago, I wrote about what I saw as the generational differences I noticed in my organization. There is definitely a changing trend and it’s actually not bad. I think that it could go too far to one side or the other (Theory X  Vs. The Buddy System) but if we find the right combination of methodology and collaboration of the generations, I do think something magical can occur. The older generations need to put down their scorn for the youth and the youth need to get over themselves and accept that the older generation has more experience in life which is extremely valuable.

o   But this is a battle of the ages (literally and figuratively) because for all time the old have shaken their heads at the folly of youth (forgetting that they too once were the reckless ones) and the youth have shucked off the warnings of older people. I can remember writing in my journal as a teenager that my Mom just couldn’t understand…she would never understand…! (Ah…teenage angst.) But the reality is that she was once a teenage girl who also thought that her Mother couldn’t possibly understand her feelings. Every generation is the same…once we reach a point where we have things mostly figured out…we are old and can do very little about it. There is no way I would have believed that when I was 15 or 16 though. No way. And so it goes. I think it is just in our DNA.

o   Our grandparents came from a generation who had a more rigid set of socially acceptable behaviors and consequences if those behaviors weren’t adhered to. Our parents rebelled against these social norms and had the “Summer of Love” to prove how different they were from their parents. My generation, Generation X, came up being considered the slackers…the grunge scene being synonymous with our anarchist belief systems and values. Now we have the Millennials – who essentially were raised by us Gen Xers. We taught them that kindness matters, to be curious, to treat everyone with respect…and now that they are adults, or mostly adults, they are trying to live these values of equality and compassion only to be criticized for it by the very people who perpetuated these ideas.

·         Why do you think that this has occurred?

o   Each generation sees authority differently because each generation has been through different experiences. Our grandparents had the Great Depression, both World Wars, which created heroic leadership in our countries…Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, etc….they were men who saved our country and brought about programs like The New Deal so people could work and feed their families, saw the Berlin Wall go up, brought an end to the Korean War, and helped us enter the space age. They were men to look up to for this generation. Our parent’s generation grew up in the Cold War, bomb drills in school and worried about “The Bomb” annihilating the entire world. Then they saw the first man step foot on the moon and then thousands of their brothers and sisters killed in Vietnam. They lost John F. Kennedy and his brother Bobby Kennedy as well as Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and then John Lennon – people whose music had changed the world. They saw a President impeached and lost faith in those in charge. These are the people who raised who were to become Generation X…they taught us to challenge those in charge, that war was evil, and that money meant power. My generation, the slackers, were also born in the Cold War but it had mellowed out some…we saw the Berlin Wall destroyed, the first Desert Storm, then we entered what now seems like a naïve season of security (the 1990s) that was then completely obliterated on 9/11/2001. Everything changed. Everything. There are kids learning about 9/11 who were not alive then. To them, it’s just another date to learn…like my generation did with Dec. 7^th. This is getting very long but basically, what I’m saying is that each generation is shaped by the world and what is going on while they are younger…their values and belief systems are challenged during times of struggle and times of peace. Today’s youth are inundated with information ALL THE TIME. They are constantly plugged in and I have no idea what that will do to their views on leadership. What kind of leaders will they be? What kind of leaders will we allow them to be? Only time will tell.

·         Additionally, while we live in a world with more information about leadership and leadership practices why is it that we have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders and how do you think we can close this gap?

o   We have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders because we cannot come to a consensus about what we want as a corporate entity. We are constantly changing and adapting…competing to be the best which leaves little time to develop leaders, develop strategies that make sense, or even talk about what leadership means within our individual organizations. We can easily point out the shortcomings but have no time, in our race for fame and glory, to set it right. We are on a speeding train, heading for a mountain side, worried about the cost of fuel and if our competitor is gaining on us in the market.

o   I’m not saying that being competitive is a bad thing but we have to be intelligent about it and as the world is changing, so must corporate strategies. I honestly think that even Henry Ford would freak out if he saw that his production system had barely changed in the last 100 years. He would have expected better.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2015). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.

A521.9.4.RB - Reflections on Leadership

A521.9.4.RB - Reflections on Leadership

For this Reflection Blog, you will create a reflection blog focusing on Denning's Chapter 12, "A Different Kind of Leader."

In Chapter 12, Denning explicitly describes his dimensions of leadership. Reflect on those dimensions and how you expect they will impact the way you lead in the future. Include specific examples of how at least THREE of Denning's dimensions manifest in your own application of leadership.

I absolutely loved this book. I know this isn't "review the class text" time but I feel like I have to mention that. Stephen Denning has taken the “rules” of being a leader to new heights. His theories are spot on and meaningful without being preachy and unattainable. He understands and embraces people’s weaknesses and shows us how to recognize them and make them part of our leadership story.

“The interactive leader works with the world rather than against it.” (Denning, 2010) This is such a valid dimension of leadership today. I sit in a morning meeting that should absolutely be an e-mail. In this meeting, I listen to defeated managers feeling like they are fighting an uphill battle with every little thing. Parts are missing? They take that as a personal affront to their team’s progress. High labor loss? That has to be because they have lazy workers who hate them and are probably on interviews somewhere else. Behind schedule? That is because leadership thinks that they can do miracles with nothing and are unrealistic. That it’s all because the world is against them. A leader would see that missing parts is an opportunity to work with the suppliers or the kitting areas to see if they are getting everything they need to be successful. This could create a collaboration and even smarter tools for future successes. High labor loss could be a number of things. Did school just start up? Kids usually bring home those germs the first few weeks of school and inevitably the “crud” or whatever wreaks havoc on the kids and in turn the parents. People get sick. What about recent high levels of over time? Are people burnt out? How is morale? As a leader, high labor loss is an opportunity to have a conversation with your team and find out what’s going on, how you can help them, and to problem solve with them. Schedule is king at The Boeing Company. Everyone knows this and it has nothing to do with managers or people. Boeing is a mega-business that provides for somewhere around 79,000 employees. They have to make money and the way they make money is building the best airplanes the fastest, toughest, and in the most cost effective way than their competitors. Is this always fair to the people or even realistic? No. But the idea is that as leaders, we challenge our teams to do their very best…and then a little bit more. Boeing used to make airplanes out of canvas and wood. But in the 1960’s, it helped put man on the moon. We can make awesome jets in record time and it takes effective leaders…not whiney managers to inspire people to get it done. An effective leader believes that anything is possible!

“Interactive leadership builds on personal integrity and authenticity.” (Denning, 2011) Obviously, a leader needs to set the example for their teams. Can that leader also set the example for their peers? Their bosses? Their organization? Absolutely. Every single time a manager says one thing and does exactly the opposite, they chip away at their authenticity and integrity. How can teams be expected to behave one way when their manager behaves another? Being a leader means that you are always holding people to their highest potential and working to develop them into someone who will one day be a great leader too. It should be like gossip…you should be able to say whatever you’re going to say in front of the whole team. Leadership and the authenticity a leader should exude is the same way. If there is a behavior that your team shouldn’t display, then neither should you. “It’s not possible for leaders o exercise manipulative and spinning behavior in one part of their conduct and be accepted as open, truthful, and trustworthy in other domains.” (Denning, 2011)

“Interactive leadership doesn’t depend on the possession of hierarchical authority.” (Denning, 2011) Oh gosh I love this one. This dimension really plays to my inner anarchist – but in a good way. Should the fact that someone is a mechanic mean that interactive leadership doesn’t apply to them? Heck no. Just because someone isn’t a vice-president, or CEO, or even a manager does not mean that they do not have leadership skills or should be kept from using those leadership skills. When I need advice and direction from my team regarding their schedule, I go to the leaders of the team…the people who do the work and have proven integrity and sincerely care about the work. These people are rarely the managers. I have found that people who exhibit leadership (not to mention critical thinking) skills to some managers at Boeing tend to put the managers on the defensive. Leaders would develop those behaviors and advocate for their team. I recently found out that one manager at the last Boeing business unit I worked at in WA actually made it impossible for an up and coming leader to stay with the company. She had relegated him, a college educated degreed industrial engineer, to her personal secretary with no possible way out. Somehow, she had influence over people who could have helped him but didn’t. I’ve had dealings with this person myself so I know it is true and not an exaggeration. This kind of manager is deadly to the future leaders in an organization. Leaders are in all levels of an organization. If you are a manager and this idea scares you…you need to get out of management. “Anyone and everyone who can help clarify the direction or improve the structure, or secure support for it, or offer coaching that improves performance is providing leadership.” (Denning, 2011) I never want to be a manager who makes good people want to leave the organization that I support.

I repeat…I loved this text and it will go on my shelf to refer back to long after this class is over and my degree completed.

Reference:

Denning, S. (2011). The Leader's Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of Business Narrative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

A521.8.4.RB - Making Contact

A521.8.4.RB - Making Contact

McKay, Davis and Fanning provide some direction for making contact with strangers. How comfortable are you striking up a conversation with someone new?. Are you able to "work a room" with ease?

In your blog, reflect on aspects of your personality and/or upbringing which make you able to relate to strangers easily—o r not so easily. What lessons can you take from Chapter 14 of Messages to improve your ability to connect with others?

I love how McKay introduces this chapter: “The world is full of interesting strangers. Every day potential friends and lovers pass you in the hallway and the parking lot. It’s the art of beginnings.” (McKay, 2009) Absolutely.

Growing up, my family moved around a lot. We weren’t a military family, we just moved around a lot. This was mostly due to my Dad working as an Airframe Mechanic and him having to go wherever the Beechcraft contracts took him. My Mom was an English teacher so she was able to adapt her skillset to a new job when we had to move. Since she was a teacher, we usually moved in the summer and since we moved in the summer, she usually stuck us immediately into Vacation Bible School at the local Lutheran church. I think this served two purposes: for us to meet people, and for us to be out of the way while they unpacked and moved things around.

This constant moving around forced me to make new friends and when we moved, it also taught me the value of keeping in touch and fostering long-distance friendships. As an adult, I married an active duty military soldier and we moved around, when that first marriage broke apart, I had to figure out what I was going to do and moving into a place of my own wasn’t scary (it was sad because getting divorced sucked) because I was used to dealing with new situations. When I remarried, I ended up marrying a retired military soldier! Ha! But now I’m the one who has the job that moves us everywhere. We are both used to it and see moving as an adventure. It can be lonely when we’re just starting out but we both know how to handle these new situations. We both also value the fact that we are each other’s constant and when you grow up moving around all the time, finding that constant is very important.

At work, I’m easy-going and am not afraid to speak up or introduce myself. I respect people who have higher “offices” than me but I’m really not intimidated because I’ve seen so many of these people fall. I know that we’re all just people and that everyone is fighting some battle or another so I rely on humanity and compassion to make an impression on people. I used to volunteer for things as soon as I could but the more technical my work became, the more that tactic actually backfired on me so now I observe and engage with questions until I’m confident to volunteer for projects or special assignments. I understand that whatever my standing was in my last team…whatever seniority I had is now gone and I stand at the bottom of the pile again, at least as far as the team is concerned. I’m respectful of this and don’t make demands or try to show off but I definitely don’t let people take advantage of me or assume I’m easily manipulated. I am cognizant of the first impression I make just as much as I’m aware of the first impressions people make on me. I’m careful with my trust now as a result of learning the hard way and am careful with any trust put in me. I think part of this is experience and part of it is just getting older and having less and less to prove to myself. I know what I’m capable of and I know what risks I can take and when. It’s all a process and one day, maybe, I’ll get to just stay in one place! Ha!

Reference:

McKay, M., Davis, M., Fanning, P. (2009). Messages: The Communication Skills Book. Oakland, CA. New Harbinger Publications, Inc.

A521.7.4.RB - Secret Structure

A521.7.4.RB - Secret Structure

Nancy Duarte in her TedX Talk: The Secret Structure of Great Talks (Links to an external site.) describes a few different structures/outlines. She also describes techniques used by Steven Jobs and Martin Luther King, Jr. In your Reflection Blog, discuss the structure and techniques shared and how you might use them.

Duarte’s TED talk validated what I have always believed, that you can be the smartest person in the world with the best idea ever conceived…but if you can’t effectively communicate it to anyone, the idea will be meaningless. “So a single idea, from the human mind, it could start the ground swell, it could be a flash point for a movement, and it can actually rewrite our future. But an idea is powerless, if it stays inside of you. If you never pull that idea out for others to contend with, it will die with you.” (Duarte, 2011)

This video made me so happy! I love that she took two enigmatic speakers, Steve Jobs and Martin Luther King Jr. and analyzed one of their most impactful speeches. She noted that the speeches had a similar flow and a similar shape. They started with a current situation, elevated to a great new situation, and then repeated that formula to invigorate and motivate their audiences. (What are the odds that someone who was at MLK’s famous “I have a dream” speech was also at Steve Jobs’ 2007 iPhone launch speech? Just a random thought.) The brilliance of the pattern is that the audience doesn’t realize that that’s what’s happening…but they will remember the experience.

I think that I will do more research on this phenomenon and seek out more from Nancy Duarte. In my line of work, I have to do presentations on mostly pretty dry topics such as behind schedule metrics and recovery plans, or schedule/capacity planning scenarios. I do my best to make sure that my presentations aren’t full of eye charts and I don’t read verbatim off of the slides. But how to tell a more compelling story with the data would absolutely make my job a lot more interesting and add a new element to what and how I present. “I was fired up about presentations back when it wasn't cool to be fired up about presentations. I really think they have the power to change the world when you communicate effectively through them. And changing the world is hard.” (Duarte, 2011) I couldn’t agree more.

Reference:

Duarte, N. (Nov. 2011). The Secret Structure of Great Talks. TED talks. http://www.ted.com/talks/nancy_duarte_the_secret_structure_of_great_talks

A521.6.3.RB - High Performance Teams

A521.6.3.RB - High Performance Teams

Based on this week's readings from the Denning text, identify the elements of high-performance teams and apply them to teams with whom you have worked in your organization. Next, identify the importance of shared values and discuss the influence of shared values on your team's performance. Finally, examine the four patterns of working together and detail one positive and one negative experience. What could you have done to influence the outcomes?

In my experience, high performance teams have a special synergy. The team members just seem to work well together and are able to collaborate without ego or personal agendas. They work together to produce something that is beneficial to everyone in the organization and because of these things, mostly resemble a community. Shared experiences bring the people together in a way that is powerful and creates an atmosphere of possibility.

The four patterns of working together are: work groups, teams, communities, and networks. (Denning, 2011) Work groups are generally those groups who are working on the same project in the same space. This is the most common kind of group in any organization. Work groups generally report to a common supervisor. When the organization I was working for decided to come up with a “Transformation Team” – this was a work group that consisted of people from different departments who for a year all worked together on the same project and reported to a common supervisor.

Teams are “organizational groupings of people who are interdependent, share common goals, coordinate their activities to accomplish these goals, and share responsibility for the performance of the collectivity.” (Denning, 2011) In my organization, when we are behind schedule or have an urgent project that needs immediate attention, we usually have a “Tiger Team” of people who come from the impacted areas and work together to solve the problem and prevent it from happening again. They are dedicated to these teams until the solutions are found, tested, implemented, and sustainable.

Communities are a recent addition to the work patterns and refers to a group of people basically share a common interest. “[C]ommunity meant a group of people in a specific geographical area who lived, worked, played, worshipped, and died together, sometimes over many generations.” (Denning, 2011) In my organization, we have an inSite internal website that brings communities together within Boeing. I belong to a few of these communities such as the Lean group, the Women in Leadership group, and even the Group of Awesome. We share articles, ideas, and even debates about things that we care a great deal about. We are not in the same geographical location, usually, but we all come together for a common interest.

Networks are more dynamic because they are always being built on, maintained over time and careers, and keep people connected in a mutually beneficial way. LinkedIn is a networking site that can help connect people to find new careers, mentors, and just connect with people in the same industry. It’s a place for recruiters to search for candidates and for former co-workers to keep in touch. Networking helps a lot in my organization because of its size. People come and go in a very cyclical manner and it is always good to know people in other business units who may be able to help solve issues for you and vice versa.

I was part of a workshop, a Lean team, last year that yielded both a positive and a negative experience. The positive experience was that I got to work with people I had never really met before. It built up my network of people and exposed me to some interesting aspects of the business of which I was previously only mildly aware. I learned so much over the week and even got to build a scale model of our process improvement using Legos and creativity. In my book, that is always a good thing. The negative part was the Lean facilitator. His manager was well known to all of us as just not a great manager. She would talk down to you one second and then compliment your presentation in the next. She was unpredictable, mean, and insincere. So I know he felt the pressure to get data up to the stakeholders of this project and because of this, some things were rushed, overlooked, and just wrong. We didn’t have all of the necessary people on the team and when we brought that up we were told that it didn’t matter. Of course it mattered! In the end, we were successful with coming up with an alternative process that would actually save substantial time off the existing process at a relatively low cost to the organization. I ended up taking a job in South Carolina less than two weeks later so I’m not sure what ever happened with the actually implementation.

References:

Denning, S. (2011). The Leader's Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of Business Narrative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

A521.5.4.RB - Aligning Values

A521.5.4.RB - Aligning Values

Based on the readings in the Denning text and the assessment you took in A521.5.1 identify in detail the process of developing and aligning organizational values. Identify the three basic components of an ethical community and discuss how they might be applied in your organization. Are there values that are missing from your organization?

Discuss how you might develop those values and also align them with the values of the individuals in the organization.

When you hear a company proclaim that they have integrity, compassion, or care about you, the customer, but then turn around and double charge your account and argue with you when you call to get it fixed…that is misalignment of message: the organizational values do not align with what they are actually doing, and it is quite frustrating. Recently, Wells Fargo has been in the news for fraudulent activity regarding employees who actually created false accounts, moved customer’s money to these created accounts, and caused customers to have overdrafts and additional fees. “The San Francisco bank, with its folksy stagecoach logo, has positioned itself as a solid, Main Street lender that avoided the excesses of the financial crisis and other missteps on Wall Street.” (Glazer, 2016)

 I worked for Wells Fargo in Tacoma, WA back in 2001 – 2003 as a teller. I was working there when the 9/11 attacks happened and watched customers come in and demand their entire balances in cash. We rolled an old black & white TV from the break room and had the news coverage playing all day. We cared about our customers and tried to put them at ease during a time of great confusion and pain. As tellers, we were encouraged to help our customers every day by reviewing their accounts and seeing if the customers qualified for higher interest accounts – without incurring additional fees for minimum balances. We were not to make these changes without permission though so we had to know and understand the products in order to sell the customers on a change. After 9/11, and in the aftermath of the economic problems that came after, we started getting new directives. We could still help our customers but we’d only get credit for upselling mortgages and any credit accounts. This “credit” was that we had to have a minimum number of sales per month in order to do well on our reviews which led to potential raises. I had to convince people to open credit card accounts even though I could see that they had over 60 overdrafts in their checking account for the month. Wells Fargo would never issue them a credit card – unless it was a secured credit card. Either way, the hit would go against their credit ratings and I really didn’t think this was right. I can see why the employees ended up thinking they needed to create false accounts in order to succeed in the company. “Wells Fargo employees, often chasing sales goals and bonuses, created fake accounts for customers, invented personal identification numbers and moved funds between accounts without authorization.” (Glazer, 2016) I also worked at Wells Fargo for their 100^th anniversary – and it saddens me to see that a bank with a reputation of being more of a people’s bank has gotten so lost that it has forgotten the very values it stands for.

According to Denning, the three basic components of an ethical community are: trust, loyalty, and solidarity. He used the example of Anita Roddick, the founder of The Body Shop as an example. “Roddick developed the company around her belief that it is more important than ever before for business to assume a moral leadership in society.” (Denning, 2011) The customers and employees should be able to trust that they will be treated ethically. Employees should behave with loyalty and held accountable to the values and morals that the business is built upon, and remain steadfast in solidarity in compassion for their fellow human beings, even if it conflicts with profits.

Before taking the assessment in A521.5.1, I was struggling with the question of whether or not I felt that Boeing lived up to the values it says it has. These include integrity, safety, and trust and respect. http://www.boeing.com/principles/vision.page  Truthfully, and probably a little naively, I believe in these values too. Do I think that every single person at Boeing follows and lives these values every day? Do I live these values every day? No. But I strive to and I firmly believe that most of my coworkers do too. I think we can get jaded when we focus too close to a situation and take it too personally, but ultimately, Boeing does do what it says its going to do for us, the employees. I am taking this class…working toward a Masters degree, for free because Boeing believes in the advancement of its employees and shows it by paying for college degrees for those interested. It’s definitely not all sunshine and blue skies at Boeing, but whatever the situation, they do invest their money back into their businesses. Yes, the stakeholders and the schedule are major drivers but when we have leaders and employees who live the Boeing values to the best of their abilities, there are some pretty amazing things that get accomplished.

References:

Denning, S. (2011). The Leader's Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of Business Narrative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Glazer, E. (2016). Next Test for Wells Fargo: Its Reputation. Wall Street Journal. Sept. 9, 2016. http://www.wsj.com/articles/next-test-for-wells-fargo-its-reputation-1473462195