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