Please let me know if you can read this post
Friday, January 13, 2023
Monday, December 16, 2013
A631.9.2.RB_HansardCarey
As demonstrated in the video, Steve Jobs was a very
motivated individual with a clear vision. He knew what he wanted and through
charismatic leadership, he was able to inspire others to leave Apple and work
with him on his NeXT adventure. As for my ability to fit into an environment
like that, my test results are mixed. Not everyone is able to fit into such a
fast-paced and highly charged setting.
First, in the area of independence characteristics, my score
was in the middle. I do not believe that I would leave to work for a start up
company because I like stability, which is contrary to what the results showed.
In general, my confidence level is high when I feel as though I am
knowledgeable about my job role and responsibilities. In a start up
environment, I would think that roles and responsibilities are not as clearly
defined as they would be in an established company. Employees are more likely
to be able to characterize their roles. The final attribute in this area shows
that I have a strong desire for structure. Based on the video, Jobs appears to have
vision but not a great amount of structure. I definitely like a certain amount
of structure at work and even somewhat controlled chaos is not appealing to me.
Once again, my scores were in the middle for achievement
attributes. What stood out to me in this section was my tendency toward
conservative goal ambitiousness and a high level of motivation by challenges.
The goals I normally set for myself are goals that I feel as though I can
achieve. They do challenge me, but they are not so lofty that I feel as though
I cannot attain them. In Jobs’s company, he has set a very hefty goal of
launching his product in a little over a year. Although this is quite a
challenge and I understand the need for deadlines, I do not feel as though I
would be able to achieve that goal and do my best work. My philosophy is I
would rather do it right that fast.
Risk is another area where my test results revealed a
tendency to stay in the middle. In Jobs’s company, NeXT, there is great
personal and professional risk involved. People left what I assume were stable,
well-paying jobs to branch out with Jobs. Professionally, they are exploring
new, unchartered territory which brings with it high risk. Even though the test
results were not conclusive, I generally am not a huge risk-taker and am not
sure that I would fit into this organization well.
Again, when it comes to innovating, problem solving, and
being creative, my results put me in the middle of the road. In a new company,
employees get to create their own culture and processes. The test showed I have
an inclination for using rules and standards and am not a fan of creating new
processes and being creative. In addition, Jobs was looking for people to be
innovative and solve problems they were facing. The test indicates that I am
more likely to identify problems rather than solve them and have an aversion to
creating and inventing. Because
this business venture is in the highly volatile and rapidly changing world of
technology, problem solving and inventing is an absolute necessity. Having
someone on board who does not possess those qualities is more of a hindrance
than a helping factor.
This venture is obviously one where individual recognition
is not likely. According to the test, recognition is an area that was
identified as important to me and with which I agree. The focus would be on the
team effort rather than individual effort. In my eyes, both would be highly
important but not necessarily provided in this environment.
Finally, the results showed that I do not define success
financially and clearly, financial success is essential to this start up as
they are already discussing how to cut costs just a few months in.
If I were considering or being considered for a job at NeXT
and only based my decision of employment on the results of the test, it would
seem that I would be a fairly safe choice. Most of my results were in the
middle of the spectrum, indicating that I am overall balanced and don’t fall on
one extreme or the other. I think that I would enjoy being involved in
something new and the challenges that come with it. However, after watching the
video, personal instinct tells me that I would not enjoy working there.
Although it would be exciting and challenging, the fast-paced nature, looming
deadlines, and stress that accompany both of those do not appeal to me. I
prefer to work at a more relaxed pace and reserve the right to change the
deadline if necessary without severe repercussions. Therefore, I do not believe
that I would fit into the culture at NeXT and, if given the choice, would
choose not to work there.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
A631.8.4.RB_HansardCarey
I have taken the Myers Briggs test before during a retreat
for work but, since it had been a couple of years, I took it again for this
module. The results showed that my type is I
(67%), S (12%), F (12%), J(11%). These
results are similar to what I learned the first time I took it and accurate, in
my opinion. As I was reading through information on my type, Heiss, (2007) says
that ISFJ personalities, “tend to be harried and uncomfortable in supervisory
roles” (para. 3). She goes on to discuss the “need to be needed” which
definitely describes me (Heiss, 2007, para. 1).
ISFJ personality types are also purported to be genuine and good with
people which is another accurate statement about my personality (Heiss, 2007).
When my department conducted this test, someone from HR who
is certified to interpret the results of this test came to talk about the
results with us. He asked us to stand in our groups from highest percent at one
end to highest end of the opposing type at the other. For example, the person
with the highest percentage for introversion was on one side and the person
with the highest percentage of extroversion was on the other. What an
interesting visual that was!! There was only one other person with a higher
introversion score than me, so I was at that end of the spectrum. At the other
end, the highest extroverted scores were Katy and the CEO. I heard many people
commenting that they never knew that I was so introverted and that I always
seemed so nice and friendly. The presenter went on to explain that a high
percentage for introversion did not mean that one was antisocial but rather
that that person derives energy in a different way. Introverts like to have
quiet time to refresh at the end of the day. There does not have to be constant
activity or large groups of people around for an introvert. This provided an aha
moment for many especially the extroverts who are the social butterflies and
want constant attention. We all saw each other in a new light after that.
There are many uses for personality typing in the business
world. For instance, after our exercise, we were asked to put the acronym for
our personality types outside our offices. Using the information we had been
given, we were able to find out more about others and how to more effectively
interact with them. I tend to be very self-aware, but not everyone is. This
test could give a leader insight into what makes him/her tick and by doing so,
understand how to more effectively behave and interact with others. For example, one of the misconceptions about
introverts is that because they are quiet they appear standoffish. If I walk
into a group of people I do not know, I am not likely to seek out others to
speak to. An extrovert might misinterpret that as rudeness or think that I do
not want to talk to anyone and that is simply not the case. Most of the time, I
am just observing what others are doing and saying and once I get to know you,
I am very friendly and personable. Understanding these differences will help
these personality types better deal with others.
I believe I am very self-aware. Part of my approach to
dealing with the people that I work with is to build solid relationships with
them. That does not mean that we agree on everything. But what it does mean is
that when we don’t, I can have a friendly debate with the other person because
I already have a good relationship with him/her. I use humor to try to get
through difficult conversations and situations. I have a hard time
understanding people who are only friendly when they want something from you
and the moment something doesn’t go their way, they turn into someone else. One
of the best resources we have available to us is other people.
Having said that, as the courses have gone by, we have read
over and over again about traits that leaders possess and I have noticed that I
am definitely the type of person that is more concerned with interpersonal
relationships rather than strategy, budget, and deadlines. I understand that
all of those things are still important but again, I have a hard time
understanding people who only focus on those things. As a leader, knowing my
personality type and what my strengths and weaknesses are will allow me to
surround myself with different personality types with opposing strengths and
weaknesses to balance out my traits. That balance makes for the strongest
leaders.
Reference:
Heiss, M. (2007, August 20). Introverted sensing
feeling judging. Retrieved from http://www.typelogic.com/isfj.html
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
A631.7.4.RB_HansardCarey
Organization
Development is not, in my opinion, a passing fad. According to Brown (2011),
“OD is a planned strategy to bring about organizational change” (p. 5). Organizations need to adapt and change
according to the market and available technology. Therefore, as long as
companies recognize that change is essential to their livelihood, OD will be
necessary. Most of the time, those within an organization do not understand how
to effect systematic change on their own and will require the help of an OD
practitioner or training in OD techniques.
In
general, I think that once top leaders understand the steps involved in OD,
they see the benefit of aligning their systems, employees, and leaders, as well
as receiving feedback on their processes. One of the key takeaways for me from
these courses has been the fact that leaders need to be involved with any
change effort from the ground up. “In attempting to manage today’s
organizations, many executives find that their past failures to give enough
attention to the changing environment are now creating problems for them”
(Brown, 2011, p. 7). I think with the
right guidance from an OD practitioner, a leader’s past failures will serve as
motivation to make the necessary organizational changes.
Communication
is vital to the health of an organization and both communication and leadership
involvement are necessary whether there is a change effort underway or not. Learning
and understanding how systems interact with and affect each other are also
useful skills for any leader. Identifying values for the organization and
getting buy in from employees helps strengthen the company. In other words, the
techniques and skills that leaders learn while going through the OD process can
carry forward into the future and contribute to upcoming successes long after
the OD practitioner has separated from the business.
Having
said that, there will always be some organizations that are not ready for the
OD process. Many of these companies’ leaders are probably the same people
saying that OD is a fad. When preparing to begin an OD program, there are several
issues to consider including whether the values of the company and practitioner
are in sync, whether achievable goals can be established, and if the employees
are willing to embrace the change movement (Brown, 2011). Change is not a concept that most employees
eagerly embrace even when they see the need. Change can be scary and the future
is undoubtedly uncertain but motivated leadership and knowledgeable OD
practitioners working together with employees can achieve success. There is not
a one-size-fits all approach to OD. If the practitioner recognizes that a
specific approach is not working, he/she needs to be flexible and adapt. He/she
also needs to make sure that throughout the process, he/she is imparting the
skills and knowledge to leaders in order for the organization to remain stable
yet adaptable when necessary without the practitioner. By doing so, this will
ease the practitioner’s transition out of the picture.
While I
do not feel that Organization Development is a passing fad, every good idea has
a period when it is the latest and greatest and another period where interest
in it wanes. I can only hope that the central ideas of OD will continue to be
used to create and sustain dynamic companies.
Reference:
Brown ,
D. (2011). An experiential approach to organizational development.
(8th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
A631.6.4.RB_HansardCarey
I enjoyed watching the videos and considering the different
approaches to change outlined in each. In the case of Gallery Furniture, the
company was on the verge of going under due to outside forces beyond their
control. The company was forced to take drastic measures to stay alive in the
economy at the time. This approach included involving an outside practitioner.
In my opinion, when radical change is needed, having an outsider step in to
facilitate is a good idea. I relate this situation to having trouble with your
children. I cannot tell you how many parents I had conferences with who told me
that their child was rude and distant at home; but in the classroom, I did not
see any of these behaviors. In fact, I was often able to communicate with their
children more effectively about school related issues than their parents were
at times. In a corporation, the manager is like the parent. The information
they have to share about the need for change may be easier to hear from an
outsider. The manager still needs to be actively involved but bad news might be
better received from someone outside the company. When employees know that
there is going to be radical change, they are often no longer trusting of
management…especially if layoffs are involved. An outside practitioner has no
emotional attachment to the management or employees and is able to deal with
conflict in a different manner than those experiencing the change. It is still
vital that the leader of the organization head the overall change movement and
that employees understand he/she is invested in making the organization
successful.
In the case of Gallery furniture, their main strategy was to
change the culture. Cultural change can be risky. According to Brown (2011),
Terrence Deal and Allan Kennedy have identified one of the reasons for
mitigating large-scale change as “mediocre or worse” performance of the
organization (p. 409). Brown (2011) asserts that, “An organization. . .may need
to change its culture in order to adapt to a changing environment or to perform
at higher levels of effectiveness” (p. 409). In a culture where customers were able to walk out and it
was okay, it was difficult to encourage employees to move away from that behavior
and begin to follow up by phone or email with their customers. However, their
old practices were not very effective and needed to change and through the
efforts of management and the outside practitioner, employees began to see
that. More changes to the culture involved an effort to help employees be
healthier, the addition of incentive pay for performance, and displaying sales
statistics. All of these efforts encouraged employees to adapt to the new norms.
By instituting a wellness program, the organization was communicating to the
employees that their health and wellbeing was important.
On the other hand, Stanley McChrystal comes from a totally
different environment. In his position in the military, he was the individual
that people looked to for guidance. Most of these people are not empowered to
make drastic decisions on their own and the commander does not have the luxury
of bringing in an outside practitioner to redesign anything. He struck me as a
very self-aware and humble leader who understands that sometimes, the answers
are not available outside the organization but rather from your subordinates.
He relied on those around him to be lead him through
change. He refers to the challenges of keeping up with changes in technology
and leading people who are doing things you have never done. McChrystal
describes a strong culture in the military and Brown (2011) refers to many
aspects of culture that apply to the one McChrystal was dealing with. Even
though soldiers are unable to make their own strategic decisions, individual
autonomy is still possible in the heat of battle. He and his direct reports
were understanding of the needs of one another through the constant rapid
changes they were experiencing and he was able to manage around the
organizational culture (Brown, 2011). The geographic distance of his troops required
methods of communication that he was not necessarily familiar with but that
those around him were able to help him learn. The ability to quickly and easily
communicate with the troops that were thousands of miles away from him
encouraged open communication in his battalion (Brown, 2011).
McChrystal touts the importance of having a shared purpose
despite different life experiences. As a leader, he understands that it is his
job to create that common vision. According to Brown’s relative strength of corporate
culture (2011), the military falls into the quadrant where members have a
strong commitment to values and a high number of members sharing those values.
The vision shared by McChrystal is a catalyst for the values shared by his
soldiers.
Brown , D. (2011). An experiential approach to
organizational development. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
A631.5.4.RB_HansardCarey
Becoming the kind of leader who can successfully promote and
lead systematic change takes time and commitment by the leader and a certain
amount of charisma. The first step to becoming such a leader is creating a
vision for people that they can believe in and follow. Yukl (2011) says that,
“Charisma is more likely to be attributed to leaders who advocate a vision that
is highly discrepant from the status quo, but still within the latitude of
acceptance by followers” (p. 262). Leaders whose ideas are too far out in left
field are not likely to have buy in by followers. Charismatic leaders, in
general, are also more willing to make sacrifices themselves to accomplish
their goals and followers appreciate that (Yukl, 2011). As a matter of fact,
the best leaders have, at one time, been good followers themselves and
understand what followers want out of a great leader. In my opinion, a likable
leader is one that I, as a follower, am willing to make my own sacrifices for
to promote change.
The leader of my department is a visionary and very
charismatic. However, many times, because she does not have great interpersonal
skills, her followers do not trust her and become intimidated by her. In
addition to having charisma, leaders need knowledgeable and trusting followers
to lead system wide change. If the followers do not understand or agree with
the vision of the leader, or do not trust this person, system wide change is
almost impossible to achieve. The leader cannot be an expert in all areas of
the organization and relies on the knowledge and trust of followers to make the
right changes and decisions for all systems in the business. The best followers and leaders develop a
trusting relationship and understand that they are not always there to agree
with each other. Followers should be able to let the leader know when bad
decisions are being made and the leader should be able to take that information
and learn from it. I think if the leader of my department had a better
relationship with her followers, she would be incredibly dangerous (in a good
way!).
We are currently in the process of trying to implement
change within the colleges with the implementation of the multi-modality
template. This template is one that has essentially been created for the online
environment and been adapted for use in other modalities. This project has been
in the works for several months now and was initially under the leadership of
my direct supervisor. Within the past 2 months, he was removed as head of the
project for several reasons. Among them was the fact that he was new to the
university and did not know many of the stakeholders in the project. He did not
have their trust and when he attempted to make decisions that were not popular,
some of the other team members went to his supervisor to complain. I do not
think he had a good concept of the big picture and he was not doing a good job
brining all of the parties together to work out the concerns and determine the
needs of the stakeholders. To make matters worse for him, instead of helping
him and providing mentorship, his boss simply took over the project with very
little explanation to others on the project. In my opinion, this leaves a
negative impression on those who still do not know him very well and does not
set him up for success when he works with these people in the future.
Although I can think of many times when leaders have been
successful, I think the most recent is the transition to Campus Solutions from
Datatel, the previous student management system. While the project was
technically led by University IT, on the Worldwide side, there was a leader who
called the shots and stood up for our needs. This person also happens to be a
long-time friend of mine but I had never seen her in a work environment before.
She was able to coordinate teams of subject matter experts and representatives
from Campus Solutions to design the product to meet Worldwide’s needs. There
was a lot of doubt surrounding the launch date of CS but she was able to allay
everyone’s fears and lead everyone through the change successfully. The speed
bumps that happened afterward were handled as they came along and, although I
am sure it was stressful and frustrating for her at times, she was able to keep
the confidence of all of her subordinates and complete the project.
As I have been reading about system-wide change, I have been
wondering if I have what it takes to lead such change myself. I have been
involved in a change project in a smaller context earlier this year when we
upgraded EagleVision. I had the help of many colleagues and did not consider
myself the lead, even though many important decisions were made by me in
relation to the retraining of hundreds of certified faculty. It was a group
effort and could not have been accomplished by any single one of us. So, reflecting
on that experience, I think that the most important aspect of leading change is
forming a great team that guides the change, like my friend did. The leader is
important in the role of visionary and mentor but those who are really responsible
for making the change happen are the followers. Putting them together in teams
and utilizing their strengths is a vital part of instituting change. "Teamwork
divides the task and multiplies the success” (unknown author).
References:
Yukl, G. (2011). Leadership in organizations. (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
A631.4.4.RB_HansardCarey
The idea of self-managed teams really intrigues me. In
theory, it makes total sense. Who knows their job and what it takes to do it
right than those who do it every day? Although my team is not currently
self-managed, I feel as though we could be if given the chance. We are all
subject matter experts and with training, I feel as though we can also
successfully manage our budget and identify new academic technologies for use
by our faculty and staff. My current supervisor leaves the day-to-day decisions
to us anyway (on the training team) and is a facilitator who helps us focus on
the ultimate goal, much like the external supervisor would be for a self
managed team.
Because the employees are the experts at what they do, I
think putting them into self-managed teams demonstrates that the organization
has faith in their ability to make the business successful. This confidence
motivates employees to continue to find better ways to do their jobs. Another
advantage to these teams is the reward system that is associated with them. We
all like to feel appreciated for the work that we do and knowing that an
individual reward is based on the success of our team makes us a better team
member. I believe that I would like working in a self-managed team. Working in
a group of people who know what their job entails and who are willing to work
with you to achieve a goal would be a pleasure. It would remove from the
equation interference from a leader who is making suggestion only on a
superficial knowledge of the job and the employee’s responsibilities.
One of the drawbacks is that management has to be on board
and that can be hard to do. In organizations with self-managed teams the
hierarchy is typically flatter (Brown, 2011). It is difficult for managers to let this happen and it is
even more difficult for them to step back and not be so involved in decision-making.
A related drawback is that when
you flatten the hierarchy of an organization, employees have little chance for
advancement (Brown, 2011). I know that one of my aspirations is to move up the
totem pole at some point in my life and working on a self-manage team would
make that goal harder to realize.
Becoming the external leader of one of these teams would be
a challenge initially. Learning to be a different kind of leader takes some
getting used to and having a mentor show me the ropes would be helpful. One
aspect of being the leader of a self-managed team that I find intriguing is the
interpersonal aspect of it. Leaders of these teams help employees focus on the ultimate
organizational and team goals. They can step in when there is a situation that
is out of the ordinary to help the team navigate through the issue. The rest of
the time, managers have the opportunity to develop relationships with team
members. I enjoy having positive working relationships with my teammates. I
look for ways to compromise when there is friction and attempt to ensure that
all sides are heard and understood. I see this as being an asset to a leader
managing these teams. I think that as for technical competencies like
communication skills and conflict resolution, I do a good job but there is
always room for improvement. I know that more work needs to be done on the behavioral
competencies like inspiring my team and time management. I have always
struggled with time management and hard fast deadlines
stress me out even though I work best when I have a specific deadline
identified. For this reason, I think mentorship would be necessary for anyone
leading a self-managed team.
Brown , D. (2011). An experiential approach to
organizational development. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
(2008, Sept 28). Self-managing teams: debunking
the leadership paradox [Web Video]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM&feature=youtu.be
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)