A640.9.2.RB - Final Project Reflection

A640.9.2.RB - Final Project Reflection

One of the major tasks of this course was the completion of a service-learning project. Using the elements of thought, walk through your thoughts, observations and experiences from the service-learning project and how they relate to the course material.

 

The purpose of the service-learning project paper was to complete a course requirement and to apply the leadership theories we were learning about to a real-life situation. The questions I started with were, “What kind of leadership styles will I find at XPO? How do XPO and Boeing leadership styles differ –if they do at all - and how?  The research I did for this project allowed me to start thinking about the work at XPO differently and already it has taken on a new dimension. I wanted to explore the relationship between XPO and Boeing and its inherent challenges.

The information I gathered for this project came from my volunteer activity at XPO Logistics. The leadership style I most observed was a path-goal leadership theory. XPO is not very nuanced. The work is simple and the instruction and all communication is succinct. XPO is a gigantic tightly run ship because it has to be. XPO has big customers – Boeing being only one of many – and these customers have high expectations. So it was an interesting study to see how these things were accomplished in the short amount of time they actually have to get these huge shipments processed and delivered. My conclusion was that there are several leadership styles prevalent within XPO. It really seemed as though they tried to pair up leadership styles with departments and what those departments are trying to accomplish.

The concepts I used were the leadership styles of servant leader, path-goal leadership, and team leadership. I researched other studies on logistics companies and path-goal leadership theory. Insights that I added to my final paper were just that organizations benefit from the right-sized leadership fit. Innovation is important in logistics so having a strategic leader is important but it is the day-to-day hustle that brings money and a positive or negative reputation to the table. 

I don’t think I had any assumptions coming into this project – or at least the volunteering and what I’d find at XPO. I’d worked in factory and warehouse environments before so I knew a bit about what to expect and what questions I needed to ask. The implications and consequences that I found were that if organizations don’t think carefully about the styles of leadership their leaders exude then they could mismatch styles with needs and create a negative working environment.

My point of view as I went about answering these questions was that of a Boeing employee, woman, basically an outsider in the XPO organization, and with a background in supply chain and warehouse activities. The limitations of my POV were that it had been a while since I worked daily in a warehouse environment and that the shipping and receiving technology could have changed, my limitations were also that because I was an outsider and a Boeing employee that people might not be willing to talk to me or would not behave as they normally would if there wasn’t a stranger observing them.

A640.8.2.RB - Women in Leadership

A640.8.2.RB - Women in Leadership

Sheryl Sandberg’s Ted Talk covers many of the issues and challenges facing women leaders today. Sandberg briefly mentions some topics that companies use (mentoring, flextime and training programs) that she did not discuss in depth in her talk. Evaluate either Sandberg’s discussion of the importance of messages (self-talk and words we share with others) or one of the methods that she did not focus on. Use the elements of thinking to frame your discussion and provide any examples (personal or theoretical) to your explanation.

            Women in Leadership is such a hot-button thing for me. Watching this TED Talk I was nodding my head along with the women in the audience. Working in the aerospace business is mostly about trying to challenge the ideas of yesterday. It’s also about the good ‘ole boys club. In my organization, I can see things just starting to change for the better. Our site leader is a woman. She has a strong personality without being masculine. She is caring and tough. She is a woman in leadership. We need more female leaders who are unafraid of bringing up more females with them. Other explanations for the lack of representation of women in the top levels of management include women having fewer developmental opportunities, having less responsibility in the same jobs as men, having less access to mentors, and being in jobs that do not lead to leadership positions. (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013) Women can be petty and competitive when we should be supportive and collaborative.

            Sheryl also talks about partners being real partners. She says, “I think, as a society, we put more pressure on our boys to succeed than we do on our girls.” This means that we don’t put enough pressure on girls to succeed. We as a society have not adequately challenged our little girls. We give them Barbies with impossible beauty standards and tell them they are sweet princesses but we don’t praise them for being smart or clever. We dress them in pink and tell them to be nice – nice doesn’t challenge their brains and bodies. We have to be equal partners with our men. We have to partner with each other and take up the slack where we can for each other. Mutually and without judgement. In order to do that, we have to make sure that our girls and boys are raised as equals. And that the societal roles of men and women are allowed to evolve. [A]as companies…instate paid paternity policies — it’s worth keeping in mind that a law or on-the-books rule is just the first step in encouraging dads to take time away from work. Just as important are those fathers who are willing to actually use their paid time off; their actions can set a lasting and meaningful precedent for other men, even many years down the road. (Gavett, 2014) If we talk about equality, it means for everyone – men who want to stay home and watch the kids or women who want to run the world. We need to cut down archaic societal norms and expectations for everyone.

            Sheryl talks about sitting at the table. I do this. I always sit at the table, if it’s a room full of managers and I’m just support, I still sit at the table. I don’t worry if there are enough seats for all of the managers, I just sit at the table. I listen and I take notes. My colleagues don’t always do this. To be honest, I do it because it’s easier to hear everything and write when I’m at the table. I didn’t know it was something that is actually helping my career. But now I see how it diminishes them to be sitting on the sidelines when the action is taking place…at the table. Why does this matter? Boy, it matters a lot. Because no one gets to the corner office by sitting on the side, not at the table, and no one gets the promotion if they don't think they deserve their success, or they don't even understand their own success. (Sandberg, n.d.) I don’t always keep my hand raised though. This is something I’m going to do in the future, literally and figuratively. This is excellent advice.

            So yes, women in leadership is a very hot-button topic for me and I try to not get defensive or up on my soapbox. I should be more unapologetic for my passion about it though because the women who fought for our place at the table would be so disgusted with us for taking it all for granted. The thing is though - now we’re at the table. We’re there. We’re even sitting at the head of some of those tables. We don’t need to posture or bully people anymore. We don’t have to act like men to be equals. We can begin to develop as women leaders – different from male leadership. Different – not better or worse. Just different. And isn’t that the point? Isn’t that prospect exciting? I think so.

References:

Gavett, G. (2014). Brave men take paternity leave. HBR.org. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/07/brave-men-take-paternity-leave

Rowe, W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2013). Cases in leadership (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Sandberg, S. (no date). Why we have too few women leaders. TED Talk. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders

A640.7.3.RB - How to Answer Case Study Questions

A640.7.3.RB - How to Answer Case Study Questions

The approach I’ve been taking with the case studies is that I’ll read them on Monday and let the studies and questions percolate for a few days. I start writing and answering questions on Thursday and it takes me several hours to research and put the paper together. I wait until Sunday to submit the assignment just in case I come across something that might fit with the case that I could add to enhance. This approach works most weeks but sometimes I just don’t have a strong understanding of the study. One of the elements I wish I had taken was a derivative of this: A week or two before the case study, locate a practice test and run through it a few times on your own. The more acquainted you are with the word arrangement of this type of test, the more comfortable you will be during either a written or oral case study assessment. (King, 2017) It’s similar to what I’ve been doing but the key phrase in that element was to get acquainted with the word arrangement. This is excellent advice that I will take and put in my toolbox for future studies.

I took on the case as a whole and only focused on answering the assignment questions. I didn’t take a holistic approach and try to see the studies from different angles or perspectives other than the ones given. Note word arrangement, facts, figures or statistics in the text that will help come up with a solution. Think of different ways that you can answer the case study question and then determine the effects of each answer on your outcome. (King, 2017) King also talks about visualization which is a very essential analytic tool.

I do think that the article had several valid points. We only had the week to do our case studies and they were more analysis as opposed to tests but the message reads true for both types of assignments. Do not skip, skim or gloss over the content. Otherwise, vital information that you will need to answer the question might be missed. (King, 2017)  This is good advice for life in general!

References:

King, J. (2017). How to answer case study questions. CareerTrend.com Retrieved from https://careertrend.com/how-8342765-answer-case-study-questions.html

Rowe, W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2013). Cases in leadership (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

A640.6.4.RB - Authentic Leadership

A640.6.4.RB - Authentic Leadership

 

Authentic leadership is proposed as the core of effective leadership needed to build trust because of its clear focus on the positive role modeling of honesty, integrity, and high ethical standards in the development of leader-follower relationships (Wong & Cummings 2009). 

 

Critics attribute authentic leadership to a way to manipulate and deceive followers. Martin and Sims (1956) and Bailey (1988) wrote that all leaders must be manipulative to succeed.

 

Using the elements of thought, walk through the two statements above and compare and contrast the assumptions and implications of two such differing schools of thought.

 

The schools of thought that make up the above statements are not both about authentic leadership. The first statement is about authentic leadership. The mention of modeling honesty, integrity, and high ethical standards is exactly what authentic leadership is about. The second statement is about critics ascribing authentic leadership as just another way to manipulate their employees means that the critics have completely missed the point.

 

If a leader is manipulating or deceiving their employees then they are not authentic leaders. Therefore, the critics are wrong. Even if a person says, “Hey, I’m an authentic leader.” but goes out and cheats his staff, misleads his bosses, and lies to his customers – he is not an authentic leader. You get what you see with authentic leaders. Manipulation, game-playing, backstabbing, and hidden agendas are inconsistent with authenticity. (Rockwell, 2016) Being an authentic leader isn’t about labeling oneself as such. Being an authentic leader is letting your actions prove your authenticity. Anyone can say that they are a servant leader, or an authentic leader, or a resonant leader…you can say that you are Harry Houdini all day long but unless you can prove it – it’s not true.  Unless you walk the talk and model the behaviors of an authentic leader – you are not an authentic leader. If you are misleading your team – you are not an authentic leader. If you are manipulating and deceiving your employees – you are not an authentic leader.

 

An authentic leader, as described in the first statement, being a leader who models honestly, integrity, and high ethical standards. It is also defined in our text as be a style which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development. The authentic leader is confident, helpful, optimistic, resilient, transparent, moral/ethical, future-oriented, and gives priority to developing associates to be leaders. (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013) This is a lot to live up to – high standards for sure. Being an authentic leader isn’t easy and not everyone who attempts to model these behaviors is 100% successful. It is important to be authentic to yourself and do what you can. If you act like you’re an authentic leader but you are not being authentic to yourself – then you have also missed the point - it is an “all-in” proposition. It takes personal confidence to let yourself be seen. Authentic leaders are “seen” when they declare their beliefs, thoughts, motivations, and intentions. (Rockwell, 2016)

 

The two statements above talk about a style of leadership but only one is actually talking about authentic leadership.

 

 References:

 

Rockwell, D. (2016). Authenticity is at least four things. Leadership Freak. Retrieved from https://leadershipfreak.blog/2016/03/09/authenticity-is-at-least-four-things/

 

Rowe, W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2013). Cases in leadership (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

 

A640.5.2.RB - Leader-Member Exchange Theory of Leadership

A640.5.2.RB - Leader-Member Exchange Theory of Leadership

 

Individuals are willing to work harder than required for leaders who invest in their relationship because that’s what people need – relationships – to feel as though they make a difference or that they have an impact, however meager, on their organization. When leaders seek out people and work to make their interactions meaningful and positive it just helps everyone involved. People know when leadership is invested in them or not, if they are in the in-group or the out-group. In the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership, there is an in-group and an out-group.

The in-group relationships are marked with mutual trust; respect, liking, and reciprocal influence…members of the in-group are generally given more responsibility, more participation in decision making, more interesting job assignments, more tangible rewards, and more support in career advancement. (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013) When an employee sees that a leader or mentor or someone they respect has invested in their work and in them as a person, they see the leader/follower boundaries as bigger and brighter than originally thought so of course they are going to put into that relationship more than is required. When someone believes in you, you want to make sure that they have put their belief in the right person. The effort put into that relationship is the responsibility of both parties though.

The out-group members do what is required to keep their jobs and no more. They will not go the extra mile that is often required to achieve higher levels of effectiveness. Out-group members work strictly within the guidelines governing organizational roles with their leaders and only do the minimum necessary. (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013) The question that resonates in my head while reading this is, “But why?” Why do people pull back into their shells and refuse to do more than is required to keep their jobs? This brings to mind people who are jaded and who have perhaps once been part of the in-group but disillusioned by a less than honest leader.

 Personally, I have been part of both groups. When I’ve been part of an in-group, I felt a higher obligation to the company to do more than my best whenever possible. I also felt a stronger sense of ownership and autonomy. This is because I knew that people expected more from me – they had put their faith in me to be my very best self for the company. When part of the out-group I felt left behind and as if my very existence didn’t matter one way or another. I used more of my sick leave than I needed to and really didn’t give my best to the work. I also didn’t express interest in being part of the in-group. A person is willing to invest in you if you are willing to do the work. This works both ways – as a leader willing to invest in a follower or a follower willing to invest in the leader – you both have to do the work. I have had leaders who have promised to help with my career development only to disappoint me when opportunities to take classes or be part of a workshop that would give me critical experience by giving it to someone else – or to take it for themselves.  

Obviously I prefer to be in the in-group and I know that when I’m in the in-group, I have to work to stay in the in-group. The implications of being in the in-group are that you are held to a higher standard because you have demonstrated that you can adhere to the higher standard. You can be trusted and counted on to do your work and then some. Leadership sees this potential in someone who exhibits this initiative and works to develop them into leaders as well. Organizations that want to boost employee engagement should start by cultivating more inclusive leaders. These executives will need to spend time looking not only at demographic breakdowns but also at the people in front them. Interest and attention help employees thrive. (David, 2014)

 

References:

 

David, S. (2014). Inclusiveness means giving every employee personal attention HBR.org. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/06/inclusiveness-means-giving-every-employee-personal-attention

 

Rowe, W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2013). Cases in leadership (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

 

A640.4.4.RB - Developing a Case (Post event analysis)

A640.4.4.RB - Developing a Case (Post event analysis)

In this reflection blog, you will analyze what you have just done and provide your thoughts on the assignment. Some of the things to consider/questions to answer while completing your reflection blog are as follows.

Did the assignment help you in your understanding and analysis of cases?

This assignment definitely helped me see how difficult creating case studies really is. My process was to read through the material for this week and decide on a leadership theory that I thought I could do a case study for. I chose contingency theory leadership. Contingency theory inadvertently assumes that styles are behaviors that cannot be influenced or modified. (Gupta, 2009) Contingency theory of leadership assumes that the leader’s style is relatively stable and should be matched to the most appropriate situation for the leader’s style. (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013) As it turns out, this is a very complex, and highly debated, leadership theory. It doesn’t allow for flexibility or development of leadership and thus is not a one shoe fits all kind of theory. I was able to use my experience and have a pretty good example of how having the wrong person in a role can be just a horrible experience. That maybe understanding that whether you use the contingency theory or any other leadership theory out there, it’s important to think about people choices when promoting leaders and others to leadership positions. Just because they are an excellent technician doesn’t mean they are automatically leadership material.

In light of this exercise, what are some of the issues that are pertinent to case study development?

Case study development needs to have a subject, the case to study – which needs to be relatable and detailed, learning points, critical thinking points, and additional resources for help in the analytical process.  A case study must have an introduction and background information about what it is that is being studied. What concept is being analyzed and why.

What did you learn through completing this assignment?

Personally, I learned that I’m better at analyzing case studies than coming up with a whole case study on my own. This was a difficult assignment and although I struggled quite a bit with this, I think the more comfortable I got with both the subject and the case study process, I’d be able to be more effective at the whole thing. When we’re given a case study to look at and analyze it’s more about what details are already there. When we have to actually create one it’s about the details but also about making sure you have all of the essential elements so that it somewhat makes sense.

References:

Gupta, A. (2009). Contingent Leadership. Practical Management. Retrieved from http://www.practical-management.com/Leadership-Development/Contingent-Leadership.html

Rowe, W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2013). Cases in leadership (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

A635.8.3.RB - Transformational Strategies

A635.8.3.RB - Transformational Strategies

This statement from Stanley McChrystal, “If you’re a leader, the people who count on you need you on your feet.” is applicable in both of these videos. When the furniture store faced the recession of 2008 and the subsequent fire and lost so much business and time – the employees looked to Jim McIngvale for answers. He needed to be on his feet, hustling, looking for ways to stay afloat. This is of course a lesser situation than perhaps McChrystal faced in the heat of actual battle in Afghanistan in the years after 9/11/2001, but as leaders, they both needed to be on their feet, even when they got knocked down, to show the people who followed them how to move forward. 

McIngvale got creative with his employees and saw that they would need to combat the existing culture with some new processes. He forced people out of their comfort zones and created a better sales force. He mentioned that most people didn’t like to “prospect” for sales. But he brought in trainers, people who could show them the right (effective) way to prospect and how to find out what their customer truly wanted. He also increased annual sales by about $600k and saved about $1 million a year simply by having his team approach customers and acknowledge them in some way. Just reaching out to say “hello!” or “Welcome!” made it a much more personal experience for people. (Vital Smarts, 2012) Organizational transformation (OT)…may be defined as drastic, abrupt change to total structures, managerial processes, and corporate cultures. (Brown, 2011) McIngvale needed to completely adapt to new economic challenges that he’d never faced before. He invested in a program (Influencer) fully and his employees had to trust that this program was going to save their business. They all had to commit to this program 100% in order for it to work. I think maybe the true influence was from the leader walked the walk and took the initiative to heart. An effective vision should be challenging, inspiring, and aimed at empowering people at all levels. (Brown, 2011)

McChrystal also talked about having to build a consensus, a sense of shared purpose, and a shared consciousness across many people and across many different media. His team was spread between age groups and continents which made communicating and motivating his team even more difficult. (McChrystal, 2011) Doing battle in Afghanistan and doing corporate battle are only close in theory. Businesses fight every day to stay relevant and competitive – militaries fight for a way of life and to keep those who cannot fight for themselves safe from those who would take advantage. But each team needs to have that sense of shared purpose and a shared consciousness to be successful. When a leader isn’t trusted or isn’t willing to learn and trust their employees (soldiers), they can only make people move forward with words instead of leading people who want to move forward because they understand what part they have to play in the overall plan. A strong culture is characterized by the organization’s basic values being intensely held and widely shared... [t]he more members share the basic values and the greater their commitment to them, the stronger the culture. (Brown, 2011) It would be a different world if more leaders knew this – or understood this above all else. Ego truly has no place in leadership; only the desire to build people up to accomplish seemingly impossible things.

References:

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McChrystal, S. (2011). Listen, learn…and then lead. Ted.com. https://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal#t-538447

Vital Smarts. (2012). Influencer - Gallery Furniture video case study https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E20RW75Fhu4

A635.7.3.RB - INSEAD Reflection

A635.7.3.RB - INSEAD Reflection

Self-managed teams are autonomous work groups whose members decide how to handle their task. (Brown, 2011) These teams are often made up of people from different specialties and are brought together to solve a specific problem. Work teams are assigned a wide range of tasks including, scheduling, budgeting, assigning jobs, developing performance goals, and selecting team members. (Brown, 2011) The benefits of having a diverse makeup within the team are to bypass any bureaucratic issues they may come up against while trying to work through the different aspects of their project. It allows the team to move seamlessly through the project steps because they have tentacles in each major department required.

Our text goes over the drawbacks of a self-managed team and mentions that some of the work teams might not be appropriate to the task, people, and context. There are also roadblocks to a self-managed team when the organization doesn’t see the need for change, or when managers and leaders are vague about their roles regarding the self-managed teams, organizations that do not reward performance will run into problems, a lack of training can cause self-managed teams to fail, and building a self-managed work team is not a one-shot activity. (Brown, 2011)  

I would love to work within such a team – as long as it was appropriate to the tasks and that the team was made up of the right people for the job. I love the idea of an autonomous team that is high functioning and trusted by leadership to bring results. I haven’t seen a lot of that at Boeing but I think if I was part of the R&D teams it would make more sense for those tasks. It also makes sense to have self-managed mechanical teams who order their own parts, schedule their work, and utilize their own standard work to get their section of the airplane built. I see that some of the strongest teams get broken up because of management decisions to randomly move people around. When you have a strong team that knows what it’s doing and understands the work they are doing intimately, it’s dangerous to disrupt that brain trust by taking someone out or adding someone new, or both.  In supply chain, a self-managed team might make sense if we were given total autonomy to purchase and receive parts but I also know that there needs to be a checks and balance to who can purchase and who can receive in parts.  

To be an effective external manager of a self-managed team, or support team, you would need to be able to work in ambiguous situations. You would need to be a facilitator, energizer, teacher, and encourage the team’s self-managing behaviors, learning, goal setting, creativity, self-evaluation, peer-to-peer feedback, and group problem solving techniques. (Brown, 2011) The ability to break down roadblocks for your self-managed team would be essential. They wouldn’t need you to settle disputes or to approve decisions, but they will need an advocate and someone who can proactively see potential roadblocks and move them before they disrupt the momentum of the team.

 

References:

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

INSEAD (2008). Paul Tesluk - Self-managing teams: debunking the leadership paradox. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM

 

A635.6.3.RB – EcoSeagate

A635.6.3.RB – EcoSeagate

I do see value in the EcoSeagate team development process. Reading the blurb in the text, it seems that they had a very volatile and unstable work environment. “They called it Slavegate. People got fired all the time. The CEO had a grenade on his desk.” (Brown, 2011) The CEO had a grenade on his desk? That seems to be quite a powerful visual to have out on his desk. I can’t imagine going into a meeting in that room and not feel intimidated – walking in you already know you’ve lost. It really sounds like when the new CEO came in, he could either do nothing and things would continue to deteriorate, or, he could change the way the people saw management and themselves. And I think that because the workplace held such negative energy and memories, taking the groups outside and away from the office was the best way to go. They had to learn to trust each other – and management again.

Something like this would absolutely be necessary in a high-performing organization. One of the things about a high-performing organization or a high-performing team is the stress and focus that can wear even the best person down to nothing. Even when I’m in a med-performing team it always feels good to get away and have a team lunch off-site. You get to talk to your colleagues about something other than work which helps you know them on a deeper level. We go back to work, after just an hour, feeling closer and having made a couple new memories. A development process like EcoSeagate would be even more important because it encompasses several levels of employees away from their place of work, thrown into challenging situations where they have to learn to trust and rely on each other to complete tasks. I think one of the most important things to come out of an activity or development program like this is trust. Your team is made up of people with different needs, ambitions, and personalities. Getting to know them, and helping them to get to know each other, can build a happy, trusting team. (MTET, 2017)  It is imperative in the EcoSeagate situation that they all learn to trust each other again. It’s like they all lived under a repressive regime and can finally come out to breathe fresh air again. It takes time and work to believe that the fresh air is real.  

I know that in the upper levels of management Boeing does have some developmental programs similar to EcoSeagate’s example. I wish that we could all be involved – I really think that would help on so many levels. We are on a competitive schedule so it would only work if we worked ahead or pulled ahead some jobs for a day or two; or held it voluntarily on a weekend. I wonder if one of the reasons they don’t is because of union restrictions. I don’t know if that’s a thing or not. Here in South Carolina, we don’t have to worry about union restrictions and I think it would be a wonderful way to just put down our tools and talk to one another. I think that leadership would learn a lot from the feedback after a process like that too. Before returning to the workplace, participants summarize what they have learned and how it applies to their work. (Brown, 2011) Even though a development program that would take us away from our jobs for a day or two is technically not value added, (It doesn’t affect fit, form, or function of our work.) sometimes the non-value added but necessary category is what saves the day. It would pay off in improving morale, teamwork, and trust in our colleagues and leadership. I think that where there is a will, there is a way and I think that having a program like this at Boeing would be immensely helpful to all levels of employees. Team building is about providing the skills, training, and resources that your people need, so that they can work in harmony. But, to be truly effective, it needs to be a continual process, embedded into your team and organization's culture. (MTET, 2017)

 

References:

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mind Tools Editorial Team (MTET). (2017). Team building activities: an introduction. MindTools.com. https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_52.htm

 

A635.5.3.RB - Video Debrief of Team MA

A635.5.3.RB - Video Debrief of Team MA

 

While watching the NeXT video I kept noticing three categories from our Management Assessment in Jobs’ words: Achievement, Innovation, and Tolerance for, And Ability to Assess Risk. When he talked, he made a point of reiterating the company’s vision and he talked about his point about an issue being his “deepest belief.”  As the narrator mentioned, Jobs was assertive but valued consensus. (Петренко, 2012) I have read a lot about Steve Jobs and know that he wasn’t always the easiest person to work for or be around and his personal life was a bit troubled. Who is the easiest person to be around? Someone who agrees with everything we say? Someone who doesn’t challenge our beliefs about what is and isn’t possible? Someone who thinks innovation belongs on Star Trek and likes things the way they are? And who doesn’t have a troubled personal life from time to time? Steve Jobs was a complex genius who I honestly believe was absolutely passionate about computers and what they could do for people – to improve their lives. I find no fault in that. His vision, while sometimes intense, was always genuine and something he deeply believed. I think he could be cruel and impatient, demanding and stubborn, but genius usually includes the passion that takes many shapes. I’m going to look at the three categories above and do a little compare and contrast and see how well I would have done if I had been part of the NeXT startup team.

 

Achievement: According to the Next Steps Research Management Assessment (NSRMA) report, Achievement is the ambitious goals that are actively tracked with metrics that the individual strives to reach or exceed [these] are the most important attribute[s] in a large, high growth venture. Some of the attributes include: the ability to readily quote statistics on product launch dates, sales and profit milestones, comparisons to competitors, key clients, and use the milestones to validate their goals and the risk/reward of reaching them. (NSRMA, 2017) Jobs’ ability to understand the competitor’s business almost as intimately as he knew his own kept his products relevant. As for the goals of the NeXT startup team, he kept reiterating their vision of producing the epitome of scholastic software for college students. He understood the financial limitations of students and professors when it came to expensive equipment – but he also knew the importance of having those tools in the classroom/lab environment. During the retreat, when there was dissent or an argument, he kept refocusing the group back on the primary goals: Release by spring 1987, and $3000 price tag. It seemed that while there was dissent, there were like-minded individuals working to make sure their product was absolutely unique and awesome. My personal achievement characteristics show that I want to not only complete my goals but to sustain the gains. I need challenges or it will lead to boredom (and shopping on Amazon.com.), however, I’m okay if not every single task get completed every day, I understand that some ideas are worth my time while others end up either taking longer than expected or are not value added at all. Looking at those things, and even knowing that NeXT did not turn out to be the legacy that Jobs would be ultimately known for, I would have loved to have been part of that team, Based on my achievement assessment characteristics I think I would have been able to work well with the NeXT team.

 

Innovation: A balanced mix of the three key innovation attributes: problem solving, process creativity, and inventiveness are essential in the leadership team of a large growth venture. (NSRMA, 2017). The NeXT team showed great effort with all three of those characteristics. The retreat on the video was all about brainstorming, process creativity, and inventiveness. They were not only building a machine that would change computing in colleges but as the narrator said, they were working toward a new corporate structure, architecting a company. Jobs said in the video that the total was much more incredible than the sum of its parts. (Петренко, 2012) My innovation assessment shows that I enjoy finding problems, I not only desire the create/conceive new processes, I enjoy the creative aspect of new processes and am motivated to create/invent services and products. (NSRMA, 2017). This would have fit in well with this group. They were working on an innovative product that had the potential to be so impactful to the education system – to change the way students learn especially in higher education environments. This had the ability to open up so many new ideas and young minds in ways that could never have been realized before. That is incredibly exciting to me, even now, thinking about the impact this team was preparing to make – the responsibility and intensity behind that intent. Amazing.

 

Tolerance for and Ability to Assess Risk: The ability to both assess the “risk vs. reward” of a decision or situation, and rapidly make choices based on those assessments is a key to success in this environment. (NSRMA, 2017) In the video, two of the biggest issues at the first retreat were the cost and the timeline. The team knew that the timeline would be critical to the success of the product launch impact. The team also understood that the price point needed to be considered “affordable” to the average college student. The budget of this project was fairly tight seeing as Jobs had fronted $7M of his own money to start. The NSRMA says that the individuals who thrive in this environment often enjoy the challenge of assessing situations and have the ability to confidently take action on their assessments. (2017) Jobs was not lacking in confidence and the challenge of assessing risk was something he had been doing from the very early days of Apple. [B]ut you can’t grow unless you keep moving into new areas that pose new risks. (Champy & Nohria, 2000) My risk characteristics show that I understand that some risk is okay. I have a strong history of taking business risks and even a medium desire to take high and/or uncalculated risks. When working on a project, I’m ready to push the launch button even when an idea isn’t fully vetted – how else do you see if it will even get off the ground? When you see something finally put into action is the only time you will truly understand what problems you have yet to solve. This may have made me a good candidate for the NeXT startup team because I understand the risk assessment process but also know when it’s time to stop theorizing and time for action.

Overall, I think I would have thrived in the NeXT startup team. I would have probably been intimidated by Jobs and his personality – I still have a little part of me that needs to please people and have them like me. Not a big part, but I know myself well enough to know that a personality like Jobs, a visionary who is passionate and who could lead a horse to water AND make him drink is someone that I would want to have impressed and would have been devastated if I failed him in any way. That being said, I think the most important thing belonging in a group like the NeXT startup team is balance. I know that Steve Jobs subscribed to meditation and a Zen-like mindfulness that created a sense of calm to his otherwise passionate nature. Jobs is quoted by biographer Walter Isaacson as saying:

 

"If you just sit and observe, you will see how restless your mind is. If you try to calm it, it only makes it worse, but over time it does calm, and when it does, there's room to hear more subtle things--that's when your intuition starts to blossom and you start to see things more clearly and be in the present more. Your mind just slows down, and you see a tremendous expanse in the moment. You see so much more than you could see before." (James, 2015)

 

It seems to me that being a relentless achiever, innovator, and a risk taker demands that there be a side of calm to balance out the reality of business. What ambition does need in order to save itself from excess is a sense of balance. (Champy & Nohria, 2000)

 

 

References:

 

Brown, D. R.(2011). An experiential approach to organizational development (Eighth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

Champy J. & Nohria, N. (2000) The arc of ambition – defining the leadership journey. New York. Basic Books. 

 

James, G.(2015). How Steve Jobs trained his own brain. Inc.com. https://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/how-steve-jobs-trained-his-own-brain.html

 

Next Steps Research. (2017) Management assessment profile prepared for Embry-Riddle. Candidate: Jody Unverrich. Alexandria, VA.

 

Петренко, C. (2012) Steve Jobs brainstorms with NeXT team. YouTube.com. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loQhufxiorM

 

 

A635.4.3.RB - Build a Tower, Build a Team

A635.4.3.RB - Build a Tower, Build a Team

 

I have been part of a group of industrial engineers (IE) who took this challenge. I don’t have an engineering degree, I have a business degree so technically I was a “methods process analyst” or MPA – but we mostly did the same job. Something I noticed within our group was that the “degreed” IE’s were more likely to spend a lot of time talking and strategizing about the tower. The MPA group usually just started throwing things together. If there was a team that had both IE and MPA participants it went a little better because there were people who understood some design and some folks who push the group to start putting things together. I agree with Wujec’s analysis of why kindergartners did better with this challenge because as he said, they didn’t spend their time analyzing and jockeying for power – they didn’t spend time trying to be CEO of Spaghetti Inc. (Wujec, 2010) Kids tend to work with pure curiosity and are not worried about making mistakes and they still understand how to work together. I’m not sure when we lose that – high school? I’m not sure. I wish we didn’t. Recent MBA students have just come from a very competitive environment where losing or falling behind could cost them their career choices. Kindergartners maybe just came from nap time so they are ready to go! (Just kidding.)  

I also agree that CEOs with an executive assistant perform better because the assistant handles all of the details of the CEO’s day – they are resourceful, patient, understand the work, and have a broad network to pull from. CEO’s have a job too but if they are too busy scheduling their appointments and dealing with travel plans and hotel bookings, they won’t be as efficient. The executive assistant being part of a group of CEOs doing this challenge would organize the executives and make sure they all stayed on task. In this situation, the executive assistant acts as the OD and uses process intervention to move things along. Process intervention is to help the work group become more aware of the way it operates and the way its members work with one another. (Brown, 2011)

I think the biggest thing I’d take away from this TED talk is Wujec’s comment about prototypes and the iterative process. That seems applicable in many aspects of an organization. I know that I have sat in many process improvement workshops where we spend most of the first day just validating the existing process. That’s great but after a few hours, we should have it figured out. Good facilitators understand what a “rabbit hole” is and what productive discussion is. When I was in the engineering group I learned quickly that those engineers loved to talk. They would pontificate about theories and possibilities, what if’s and how to’s - it became drudgery for me – I just wanted to get this moving forward. It was like being the guy who shoots the starting gun at a track meet. He’s there ready to get these games started but the runners are all milling about talking about how their shoes are technically superior to the competitors and how fast they are going to go. The guy with the gun is just waiting for everyone to get on their blocks so he can fire the gun, go home and have lunch with his wife. That analogy went on longer than I meant it to but my point is that kindergartners are right – just start modeling and doing the building and designing because talk is cheap and you don’t know what will happen until you start. There is a time for talking and planning and organizing but that can become a huge roadblock if there is no one there to say, “Hey, team, let’s actually put some of these ideas to the test!”

 

References:

 

Brown, D. R.(2011). An experiential approach to organizational development (Eighth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

Wujec, T. (2010). Build a tower, build a team. TEDTalks.  https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower

A635.3.3.RB - 50 Reasons Not to Change/The Tribes We Lead

A635.3.3.RB - 50 Reasons Not to Change/The Tribes We Lead

 

 

You don’t have to go far at Boeing to hear the words, “We’ve always done it that way.” or “That’s how we’ve always done it.” or something along those lines. It never fails to irritate me. My response is usually this: “No. That’s not true. It hasn’t always been done this way. If that were true, we’d still be making airplanes out of canvas and glue and just talking about space travel.” To me, that is the biggest cop out of them all. The idea that something can’t be changed because it’s “always” been done or not done, or someone tried that back in 1985 and it was awful, all of that – it’s garbage. Unless a process is absolutely perfect and doesn’t have any negative aspects, no glitches, no “it works great when A, B, and C happen…” 1000% perfect, it can and probably should be changed. And even then, even at 1000% perfect – is that process going to be 1000% perfect a year from now? When rates increase? Decrease? During a recession? During a winning Mariners season? When a company decides that it has reached the pinnacle of profitability and success, that they can rest and let the money roll in, they have absolutely begun their downfall.  There is always going to be someone with bigger and better ideas who wants it more than you. In business, where you stop growing, you usually stay there until you die. I also believe that just because something has been tried before doesn’t mean it can’t be tried again. Change applies to ideologies as well as methodologies. As Godin said in the TED talk, [t]hat what we do for a living now…is find something worth changing, and then assemble tribes that assemble tribes that spread the idea and spread the idea…it becomes something far bigger than ourselves, it becomes a movement. (Godin, 2009) Making excuses or coming up with reasons not to change just puts up roadblocks.

There is another motto that is thrown around Boeing and it is “Beat Airbus!” – now while I am really tired of hearing that, it is moving us in a more innovative and competitive space. It’s pushing us, willingly or unwillingly, to do better, faster, with less, in order to produce an airplane so cool, so cost-effective, that our customers will be tripping over themselves to place orders. (This is for all programs, not just the 787.) After watching Seth Gordin’s TED talk about tribes, this made me realize that by putting this idea out there, this, “Beat Airbus!” motto in our faces and part of every staff meeting, they have inadvertently created this tribe of Boeing employees who are again, willingly or unwillingly, marching to the same beat. I think that every corporate giant has its day, and one day, someone ‘bigger and badder’ will probably take over where Boeing once stood. This is just the cycle of life. Airbus probably has the same or similar motto in its factories and staff meetings: “Beat Boeing! Be the Best!” and they have also created a tribe. Ultimately, the consumer will win this particular battle. Boeing and Airbus are formidable opponents who have both been changing their products and quality standards in an effort to be the one chosen by the airlines. But my point is that creating these tribes, these groups of people brought together by a commonality, helps move ideas forward.

These ideas are not overly complex. “Beat Airbus!” “Beat Boeing!” “Go Team Go!” “Let’s Get Lunch!” The ideas that start the change are usually not big complex ideas that have to have 37 diagrams and 14 Prezi presentations to explain them. This simplicity is part of the success. A change happens because that change is understood. Thinking about what words make an organizational change movement come to life – it’s the small but powerful narrative. Transformation must be both personal to all participants and centrally directed in order to be coherent…everyone involved needs to internalize the change. (Denning, 2011) The “everyone” here becomes your tribe. Your tribe of unique individuals brought together by a central and common idea.

Have I used excuses like the ones in the 50 Reasons Not to Change graphic? Absolutely. I read recently in the leadership blog, Leadership Freak – which I highly recommend, that excuses are an attempt to lower expectations [and] excuse makers are explaining why you should accept lackluster performance. (Rockwell, 2017) I had to think about that for a while. Was I doing that? When I said things like, “But I’m new here so I’m not sure.” Or “I’m not great at math so I could be wrong.” I was basically telling the listener that because I’m new or not great at math that my response or my work should be graded on a curve – don’t expect too much from me folks! I have spent the last few months trying to teach myself not to do that. Not to preface my work or my words with reason to value them less or to accept less from me. On the flip side of that I was also thinking how some excuses can also create tribes. Are the reasons we give ourselves for being part of a tribe also the excuses we use to not conform? When is it noble - truly trying to make a change and when is it just resistance to change – just being stubborn? Friendships, social cliques, or informal teams may be threatened by change…the stronger the group ties, the greater the resistance to change. (Brown, 2011)

One last insight I had while watching this video was that yes, tribes are formed because of things are in need of change. Sometimes though, tribes fight hard for what they believe in and still lose. I wonder if that has to do with who the tribe is fighting for and what they are fighting against. There was a group of women last year who marched in cities all over the world for women’s rights, they went by the name Nasty Women, and were a tribe who rallied against misogyny. With calls for solidarity, they fought for LGBTQ rights, education, racial equality, reproductive health care, and, yes, a woman in the White House. (Gray, 2016) Their methods were criticized and heralded alike. The people who considered themselves “Nasty Women” were responding to a statement made [d]uring the final moments of the third and final presidential debate, Donald Trump interrupted Clinton as she was answering a question about social security. “Such a nasty woman,” he muttered into his microphone. (Gray, 2016) This sparked such outrage because so many women could relate to being dismissed with comments like this. I don’t want to get on my soapbox about this but these people absolutely formed a tribe – even wore little pink “vagina” hats during their marches in solidarity. But in the end, it didn’t really change anything. Clinton was not elected and women are still fighting for respect and equality. I don’t know why the election ended that way. The time was ripe for a real change. Maybe it was mostly about the connection. Godin talked about pirates: [T]hey've got their own flag. They've got the eye patches. You can tell when you're running into someone in a tribe. And it turns out that it's tribes…that can change our world, that can change politics, that can align large numbers of people. Not because you force them to do something against their will, but because they wanted to connect. (Godin, 2009)

 

 

 

References:

 

Brown, D. R.(2011). An experiential approach to organizational development (Eighth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

Denning, S.(2011).The leader’s guide to storytelling, mastering the art and discipline of business narrative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

 

Godin, S. (2009). The tribes we lead. Ted.com. https://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead

 

Gray, E. (2016). How ‘Nasty Woman’ became a viral call for solidarity. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nasty-woman-became-a-call-of-solidarity-for-women-voters_us_5808f6a8e4b02444efa20c92

 

Rockwell, D.(2017).How to confront excuse makers.Leadership Freak.  https://leadershipfreak.blog/2017/04/11/how-to-confront-excuse-makers/

 

A635.2.3.RB - How Companies Can Make Better Decisions

A635.2.3.RB - How Companies Can Make Better Decisions

 

The Marcia Blenko video was very interesting. I agreed with her approach to decision effectiveness – an issue that can literally stop a company in its tracks. I have worked in organizations where decisions were made entirely at a corporate level and driven down through the ranks. A lot of retail places are run that way – as an employee you have to conform to new norms or you’ll most likely be disciplined or just fired. In the companies I have worked for in manufacturing there seems to be an acceptable amount of push-back from the employees when a new directive is passed down. The decision for some change is made but the employees had no say in it so they are initially resistant. I understand that not all decisions need to go through the entire organization for buy-in – that would be ridiculous and nothing would ever be decided. However, the day-to-day things that Blenko mentioned should have some buy-in from the employees because it is something that seems more tangible to them than some of the more lofty corporate goals. The day-to-day things are things that matter to them on a more personal level. Blenko says that it shouldn’t be surprising that companies where it’s easier to make decisions and get things done are better places for employees to work. (Blenko, 2010) One issue is that some companies are so big and have built up so many layers of bureaucratic approvals and signatures that even the seemingly easy decisions take on a slow and dreary life of their own. Back to employee engagement; when employees feel as though their voices have been taken into account – even if the ultimate decision is not what they wanted – they are more willing to accept the outcome. I think it must be human nature to want to be a part of decisions that affect us instead of allowing things to happen to us.

 

Some of the impediments Blenko discusses have to do with the organizational chart and understanding who really makes the decisions in the company – it can be ambiguous if the people on the org chart are there in name alone and really don’t make any decisions that matter. She also discussed leadership behaviors and making sure that the right talent is in place for making those critical decisions. When the CEO of a company is merely a figurehead and the real decision making is two layers under that individual – what are we paying them for? I used to think that being seen and known by senior leadership and directors was good for my career – it certainly doesn’t hurt – but it doesn’t matter in most cases. In most cases, finance makes the final decisions about lay-offs, raises, promotions, and budget allocation for the year. I have a feeling that they are the organizations who secretly, or not so secretly, hold the key decisions in their hands regardless of what the director promises.

One of the things we had to do as final assembly industrial engineers (IE) is schedule the work for each build. We went down to a shorter build and now have only a few days between each jet. In the 787 program we have to move jobs from one position to another because of engineering changes or new requirements – I can’t get into deep detail on this but we have to make these changes quickly and a lot of times it’s the same change on every single jet. We have a process where we initiate a work transfer which has to have four signatures to be processed and then about four more for acceptance. Personally, I had over 25 work changes for every jet – we couldn’t get a permanent change because it wasn’t exactly the same process as the Everett 787 build. (This is a whole other bone of contention that I won’t get into here but does have to do with a critical decision failure.) I have a few days to get the schedule loaded in the systems so that parts can be allocated to the position when the mechanics need them. Having to go through all of these signatures usually meant that those jobs were late getting scheduled. God forbid if a key signer was out of office and their back-up had to sign! I’m no longer an IE but I swear last week I still had job transfers I’d initiated back in MARCH of this year just now clearing. The airplane it was supposed to be moved to has been in the hands of the customer for a month now. The work got done but we had to expedite parts and create non-conformance reports on the scheduling.  That process is held hostage by a system where not everyone has the same sense of urgency. No one wants to make the decision to change that process because they don’t understand the time it takes out of our day to baby-sit these changes. I’m not in that department anymore but I swear if I’m ever in a position to make changes like that – I will. Time wasters like that cost way too much money and hold back innovation that could make us more competitive.

 

The four measurements that Blenko uses to gauge the effectiveness of a company’s decision making are: quality, speed, yield, and effort. I think that all four of those things are very important in determining the effectiveness of a company’s decision making – in my example above alone speed is the one thing that keeps that process from being effective. The work gets done with the same quality, yield, and effort even if the “official” change request isn’t approved because our main job is to get airplanes out of the doors. Anything that keeps us from doing that that isn’t a safety or quality issue doesn’t really matter. (Well, I’m sure it matters to someone but ultimately, we have to get the jet out.) Quality, speed, yield, and effort are very reasonable things to measure the effectiveness of decision making but are there any other factors that could be included? I want to say that the human factor is always important but I’m not quite sure how to fit that in those four things other than to say that the human factor impacts all four. So I’m not sure if that’s a fifth element to this or that it’s an implied factor in each of the existing four elements.

 

I have always thought that it was extremely important to include as many levels of employees as possible when making big decisions. As I said before, even if the result is not what they wanted, any maybe even if the decision has in reality already been made, people need to feel as though they have some input when change is coming. We spend most of our day in these organizations and we feel an ownership to the work we do. Wouldn’t it make sense to at least talk to some of the people who drive the machine forward when trying to change that machine a bit? A corporate culture must achieve goals as well as satisfy the needs of the members if the organization is to be effective. (Brown, 2011) I also know that in an organization the size of Boeing, or GM, or Apple – that getting each and every person’s input is unrealistic and time consuming – mostly just unrealistic. And this means that we have to make sure that the people speaking on our behalf understand what impact their decision making will have on the workforce. Cultures helps members fill in the blanks between formal directives and how work is actually done. (Brown, 2011) I don’t think that is unreasonable or unrealistic to expect senior leadership to listen and ask questions of the people who actually do the work. As for what I can take away from this video that I can use immediately in my career? I can make sure that when I’m an advocate for my work and changes that may impact it that I’m talking to the people who truly make the decisions and that I speak succinctly about the true needs of the organization and not just my personal preference. I have always learned that when presenting to the executive level of management, the presentation needs to answer just a few specific questions: What’s in it for them? How much does it cost? What is the ROI?  Now I know that it also matters that the person who is getting this information can actually make the final call on the request.

 

References:

 

Blenko, M. (2010) How companies can make better decisions. Harvard Business Review. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxpg6D4Hk8

 

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organizational development (Eighth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

A635.1.3.RB - 21st Century Enlightenment

A635.1.3.RB - 21st Century Enlightenment

 

 

Matthew Taylor’s talk is titled the 21^st Century Enlightenment because – simply put – it is a talk about looking forward to the foreseeable future. He mentions the initial “enlightenment” period but only as a means to show where we came from in an effort to explain where it is he thinks we should be going. He’s talking about time and change; understanding who we are as humans and what we could be. He’s hoping that now, in the 2^nd decade (almost the third) of the 21^st Century, is the time to shake off the dust of what we’ve come to think of as our pursuit of happiness and of progress and think of it differently. 

 

Taylor is absolutely right to say that “to live differently, you have to think differently.” (Taylor, 2010)  He mentions that we are very bad at predicting what will make us happy and even worse at describing what made us happy in the past. (Taylor, 2010) We make these predictions and assumptions based on thinking that is relatively unchanged for the last fifty or sixty years. Post WWII was all about getting everyone back on their feet, living in the suburbs with a yard, a wife, and 2.5 children. Women went back to being housewives and men went off to conquer the working world. That mindset is still there – it’s under every “honey” and “sweetheart” heard around the watercooler. It’s quieter and less aggressive for the most part but it is still lurking, that old thinking, behind closed boardrooms and bedrooms. We all have to think differently; get rid of archaic and outdated ideals when it comes to what we need to feel satisfied and happy. We have to almost free-float for a while to figure out what it is that we truly should value in the upcoming decades. This 21^st Century hasn’t been very enlightening thus far.

 

I would also agree that we need to individually examine what we think is right and wrong and why we think that way. Do individuals who are against same-sex marriages fundamentally believe that two men or two women don’t have the right to love each other and mix their lives together legally and/or in the sight of God? Or did they just grow up in an intolerant household or neighborhood where effeminate boys were called “queers” and no one wants to be one of those. Different is bad. Strange is different and therefore bad. Do any of us really know where our fundamental belief system comes from? Have we really given it much thought? And if we’re all just getting by on a belief system that we were given instead of one we invested thought and intellect to – is it really our values that we’re upholding? I have a friend who has converted to Judaism because she was trying to find faith and understanding in this world. I happen to know that she grew up in a staunchly religious household. The religion she was raised in valued men over women. Women weren’t allowed to preach or wear their hair short, they had to wear dresses to church and it was stifling to her as she got older. She went on to get bio-chemistry degrees, teaching degrees, and was an ER RN for many years. As she grew into an intellectual, she found her personal values no longer matched those of her church. She wanted change so she had to think differently about what gave her comfort. She had to let go of old and deeply ingrained ideals and free-float for a while in order to be able to find where she felt her soul find solace. She had to be brave and get uncomfortable to find her true core values. Change is hard in the same way that it’s hard to finish a marathon. Yes, it requires significant effort. But the fact that it requires effort doesn’t negate the fact that most people who commit to a change initiative will eventually succeed. (Tasler, 2017)

 

Fundamental disagreements move an organization forward. Change helps an organization move toward the future. It’s painful, its work, and it is rarely popular to shake up the status quo. But change is essential for an organization. It is vital to think differently just when you think you have every little thing figured out. Organizations stay fresh by shaking things up. Sometimes it doesn’t go well and they have to start again, but once they are on the path to change, all it takes is the right momentum, leadership, and collaboration of teams to make things you never thought possible happen. Organizations exist in a changing environment and, therefore, must have the capacity to adapt. (Brown, 2011) At one of the organizations I worked for, they started removing all of the trash cans, you know, the ugly brownish-gray metal things, for these tiny metal/mesh containers that sit on the desk top and are not much bigger than a pencil holder. We all laughed at this – how ridiculous! Shenanigans! Then we realized that this was our new reality. People started hoarding the few metal trashcans left – locking them up so the custodial staff wouldn’t confiscate them on the off-shift. People were not cool with this. Fast forward a couple of years later and the norm is that everyone has these little trash “cups” on their desks and dumps/sorts them out every day into recycle bins. I’m not sure how much money this has saved the company over time but it has established a new expectation and new norms have risen up with this new policy. (Woe is he who leaves banana peels in his trash cup-thing overnight!) This change was something that really didn’t impact anyone’s value systems – it was merely about ISO compliance and saving money. This is a silly example but it came to mind because at the time it was a major issue.

Entropy is a principle of physics according to which everything that is organized will break down or run down unless it is maintained. (Brown, 2011) Change is what we use to combat entropy. We shake things up so they stay relevant and fresh. In a marriage, when things are stale, a couple will take a vacation or change their routine in an effort to avoid entropy. The same goes for organizations. I will say though that in my last organization, they took this battle against entropy to new and frustrating lengths. Change came so fast and furious that it took on an ambiguous and confusing life of its own. Management didn’t even know what the expectations were at one point and none of us could grasp one concept before a new and more complex concept was thrown at us in a haphazard way. The worst part is that our job performance reviews were measured on our success or failures with these concepts and how we complied with them. How can you comply with something you don’t understand? You ask questions, you collaborate with people who seem like they might have it figured out, and you keep trying to do what is asked of you. Unless no one has it figured out and the changes break down the already fragile ecosystem of the team until no one talks to anyone else, morale is at an all-time low, and labor loss is at an all-time high. As leaders…we need to be aware that our team members are not entering change situations with a blank slate. Two decades of hearing about mythical failure rates has planted the seeds of bias against success in our minds. And every time we say “change is hard” we water those seeds. (Tasler, 2017)

My point is that change and thinking differently is absolutely how we find the enlightenment going forward. But we have to be thoughtful about how we think and how we go about this change and not just rush headlong into change just for the sake of changing. The idea is to THINK differently before we DO differently to make sure we’ll be doing the right thing. We have to look at ideas and new concepts from all perspectives, not just our personal vault of opinions and judgements. [W]e could remind ourselves and our teams that we have been learning new skills and adapting to new environments literally since the day we squirmed out of the womb. Adaptation is the rule of human existence, not the exception. (Tasler, 2017) It’s a scary proposition to look over that cliff and trust that your chute will open. But if you don’t take that leap, you’ll never know.  And if you do take that leap – enlightenment is possible.

 

 

References:

 

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organizational development (Eighth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

Tasler, N. (2017). Stop using the excuse “Organizational Change Is Hard”. Harvard Business Review. HBR.org. https://hbr.org/2017/07/stop-using-the-excuse-organizational-change-is-hard

 

Taylor, M. (2010). RSA ANIMATE: 21st century enlightenment. The RSA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo

 

A634.9.4.RB - A Reflection of Our Learning

A634.9.4.RB - A Reflection of Our Learning

Reflect on the three key lessons you take away from the course. Reflect on your perceived value of this course.

Three key lessons I’m taking away from this course is that not all morals or ethics are created equal. Everyone comes from a different background and has been shaped by unique experiences in their lives. Relativism is thinking that moral judgements are not objective in any important sense, they are relative to the individual or culture (LaFollette, 2007). Not even a sibling has the exact same moral and ethical idealism which makes it very difficult to understand why people do (and don’t do) the things they do (and don’t do.) The moral motivation for people is as unique as their fingerprints and comes from upbringing, religion, career choices, their relationships with authority, and so on. Most of us continue to hold variations of our initial beliefs with little critical thought. We each assume that of all possible sets of beliefs, ours must be (mostly) right (LaFollette, 2007).

Another lesson I’m taking from this class is the distinction between Consequentialism and Deontology. Consequentialism is based on the idea that we should choose those actions that have the best overall consequence or outcome. Deontology suggests that we should always act in accordance with moral rules of rights which are somewhat independent of the consequences (LaFollette, 2007).  We talked about the consequences of not telling a family member who is in frail health about the death of another family member. We knew that the consequences of telling the person could result in medical setbacks due to stress and their already frail health but also that if they found out we hid the truth, they would be upset with us. We would be making a lot of assumptions about what the person could and could not handle and ultimately, regardless if we told the person now or later, they would find out. A deontologist would know that the moral thing to do, regardless of health consequences, was to tell the family member of frail health the truth about the family member who had died. These are very difficult things to contend with and thinking that we know better than someone else what is good for them places us in a very precarious spot that is godlike and tremendously risky.

The third lesson that I will take from this class is all of the chapters on the ethics and moral dilemmas that surround racism – we are who we are and live the lives we live because of our predecessors…the habits we give our progeny and our peers will likewise shape their worlds, them, and their institutions (LaFollette, 2007), affirmative action, life and death, religion and morality, death, dying, and physician-assisted suicide, punishment, gun control, and every day morality. (To name a few!) All of the chapters have given me a multi-faceted view on many of the issues that we see/hear/read about/experience, every day. I thought that at 43 years old, I was pretty set with what I think to be right and wrong but reading the different and more objective thoughts about these issues showed me that while I do have a strong idea of what I hold to be ethical and moral, the lines that divide those things I find less ethical and moral are actually pretty thin.

This was a great class that made me have to dig deeper into myself than I thought I’d have to. It was mentally exhausting and pushed me to shake the dust off of things I thought were concrete. Those are good things and have added to my critical thinking toolbox! Lastly, I really loved this: Opening oneself to love and caring allows one to enjoy human satisfaction attainable only in concert with others (LaFollette, 2007). I could not agree more.  

 

Reference

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

A634.8.3.RB - Gun Control: What is the Answer?

A634.8.3.RB - Gun Control: What is the Answer?

In Chapter 12, LaFollette (2007) discusses gun control. Do citizens have a right to bear arms? Answer the question in your reflection blog. State your opinion and follow up your position with supporting documentation. Next, present the opposing side to your stance. Use external sources to enhance your claims.

In America, gun control is a huge hot-button issue. People are passionately on one side or the other. I have found that whether you live in the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest, the Southwest, or the Southeast, people have the same polarized arguments. The most common anti-gun control argument is that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. This is obvious and indisputable. No one believes that a gun – or any inanimate object – gains some kind of consciousness, decides to load itself and shoot a person in cold blood. However, people do grab a weapon and endanger each other’s lives on a daily basis. Most times, that weapon is a gun. People who are anti-gun control also reach into their knowledge of the Constitution and their right to bear arms. LaFollette talks about the fundamental rights – a non-derivative right protecting a fundamental right. These rights are more specialized and are integrally related to a person’s chance of living a good life, whatever her particular interests, desires, and beliefs happen to be. (LaFollette, 2007) Which brings us to the argument that owning a gun is or is not a fundamental right.  At least in the United States, the very second any type of gun control gets mentioned, someone will inevitably bring up the Second Amendment, which reads as follows: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Sylvia, 2013) When our forefathers were creating the Constitution, owning a gun was the way a person supported their family – they hunted for food and they could protect their family from those who wanted to do them harm. The same could be said for a horse – they used horses for plowing and heavy work on a farm and for riding along (with their rifles) the perimeter of their property to ensure that it was safe. Why is no one arguing the right to own horses? But I digress. Advocates (of guns being a fundamental right) must show that and how granting the right protects individuals’ fundamental interests, and they must be prepared to respond to objections that granting that right type will harm society. (Lafollette, 2007)

Pro-gun control advocates will tell you that they aren’t necessarily against people owning guns, they just want to regulate who can own them and how the guns are obtained. There is also the issue of assault-type guns. Owning an assault-type gun is really not necessary for providing for a family or self-defense. Another step in the right direction would be making it a little bit harder for everyone to own a gun. I’m NOT saying guns should be banned entirely, and I tend to agree that the definition of “assault weapons” is likely more problematic than helpful. But I don’t see the problem with making guns more difficult to obtain. (Sylvia, 2013)

Personally, the only guns I grew up with were the rifles my grandpa and uncles used for hunting which were out at their farm. My parents never had a gun in the house. When I got married, my husband had a couple of rifles that he had in storage but they weren’t in the house. One day he brought home a 9mm hand gun and my initial response was fear and anxiety. But he was retired military, grew up hunting, and thus had experience handling these weapons. So instead of freaking out and banning guns from the house, I asked him to teach me how to use it. I thought that it was my responsibility to become experienced with guns so that I didn’t accidently hurt or kill someone or myself! We went out to Greenwater National Park in WA and I fired my first handgun. It was scary and empowering. I’m pro-gun control but I don’t think there should be a ban on all guns. I think that if we have guns around, we should educate ourselves and be responsible with them. We should also keep them in a safe place away from kids or people who we don’t want using them. The issue of access to these weapons is another hit-button one – there should be a waiting period and I’m not completely adverse to a mental health evaluation as long as the evaluation is objective and educated. I think that with the current administration, American’s don’t need to worry about their right to bear arms being taken from them – besides, we’d all see any announcement as important as that on the President’s Twitter feed before any real decisions have been made. (Ahem.)

Reference

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Sylvia, J. (2013). Rational thoughts on gun control. Philosophymatters.org.                  http://www.philosophymatters.org/2013/01/rational-thoughts-on-gun-control/