A635.8.3.RB_TransormationalStrategies_LouBeldotti

A635.8.3.RB

Transformational Strategies

In this blog, I am asked, “How do I relate and make sense of the approaches taken by Jim "Mattress Mack" McIngvale and Stanley McChrystal compared to the information presented in my textbook?” and use the figures below: “Figure 15.4 Relative Strength of Corporate Cultures” and “Figure 15.5 The Strategy-Culture Matrix in my response.”

(Brown, 2011)

             Gallery Furniture was opened in the Houston area in 1981.  According to Mattress Mack, sales were great because of the house building boom.  He goes onto say that over 60,000 houses were being built per year but in 2008 it slowed down to about 15,000 per year.  If that wasn’t bad enough, in 2009 they experienced a horrific fire that caused $30,000,000.00 in damages which affected their customer base.  To get beyond these problems, business practices had to change.  The culture of the business had not change since they had opened their doors in 1981.  However, cultural change had to occur if they wanted to remain solvent.  In figure 15.4 and 15.5 above and to the side, between 1981 and 2008 Gallery Furniture would have fallen in the “strong culture” quadrant of 15.4 (Strong/High) and the “reinforce the culture” quadrant of 15.5 (Low/High).  As the company transformed toward a new culture, it face resistance from some of the senior employees.  In this case, they were in the “weak culture” of 15.4 (Weak/Low) and the “change the strategy” of 15.5 (Low/Low).  However, as Mattress Mack moved forward by having influencers and coaches who dealt with the customers (prospecting) and employees, respectively.  The company introduced things such as incentive pay and a wellness program to not only get employee buy in to the culture changes taking place but also improve the bottom line. 

            I can truly relate to Mattress Mack’s approach to his cultural transformation.  I have witnessed this type of transformation while in the Army.  Even though there were the old Soldiers (like the old employees) that resisted, they eventually either made the transformation, got out or retired.

            With regards to General McChrystal’s TED Talk, I can completely relate.  I lived the exact same experiences that he did.  I watched the Army transform right before my eyes.  I watched the old regime resist change and grasped for understanding as a new generation of Soldiers came on board.  I use to call them the “Nintendo” generation.  Especially toward the end of my military career.  These new Soldiers were tech savvy, texting, video game playing arguers.  They always question why something is being done.  Being a different kind of “old school”, it really would get under my skin.  Now that I have been retired almost seven year and have seen the actions and behaviors of the high school Cadets that I teach, the military is going to need to transform again.

References

McChrystal, S. (2011, Mar). TEDTalk: Listen, learn…then learn. [Video File].  Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal/transcript?language=en

McIngvale, J. (2012, September 17). Influencer | Gallery Furniture video case. [Video File].  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E20RW75Fhu4

Brown, D.R. (2011). Experiential approach to organization development. (8^th Ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

A635.7.3.RB_INSEADReflection_LouBeldotti

A635.7.3.RB

INSEAD Reflection

In light of the video found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM and the readings from Brown’s text, “An Experimental Approach to Organization Development” I am asked to answer these three questions:

• What do you see as some of the major benefits and drawbacks of self-managed teams?
• Would you like to work within such a team?
• What competencies would you need to develop to be an effective external manager of a self-managed work team?

            According to Brown, “A self-managed work team is an autonomous group whose members decide how to handle their task. 26 The task of the team is an identifiable task, service, or product. The group may be a permanent work team or a temporary team brought together to solve a problem or develop a new product. Often teams are composed of people from different parts of the organization, with different skills and backgrounds. Authority has been vested in the teams by upper management to manage their group processes, including production and personnel matters, in or-der to accomplish their objectives. The diversified background of members and the necessary authority gives the teams the ability to move around the bureaucratic organization and get the job done.” (Brown, 2011)

            In my current position as a secondary education teacher, I am constantly assigning tasks and assignments to teams of Cadets.  Our classes are modeled after the US Army with each period being a Platoon, the first four and last four periods being Companies and collectively being a Battalion.  In this culture, they self-manage.  It’s amazing.  I constantly have other teachers come and ask me how it is done.  I will only become involved when a Cadets have questions that Senior Cadets cannot answer. 

               According to Professor Paul Tesluk of the University of Maryland, “Self-managing teams are not as rare phenomena as what they used to be.  You know by definition, a self-managing team is a team of that has formal responsibility and authority for making their own decisions about how they organize their work and how they decide.  Now, they're going to get their work done so instead of the formal supervisor having that responsibility it's really up to the team to decide how they structure themselves and how they go about organizing their workflow and process. And now in the knowledge-based economy, you see much more of that happening then what you use to with flatter organizational structures as well.  So leaders don't have the ability to focus on a certain select number of teams. With a flatter organizational structure there's more emphasis on teams being more self-managing but it is a contradiction in some ways. It's a bit of a paradox of how do you lead teams to lead themselves.  But at least in our research what we find is that it's a very important element for external leaders to be able to do successfully because the type of leadership style is very different from a self-managing team than from one that's more leader managed and led.” (INSEAD, 2008)

            I am of the opinion that there is both good and bad in self-managing teams.  If you give these teams too much autonomy, they can run amuck.  And since my brain is wired differently due to my 27-year Army career, I live by the fact that if you are a leader, you are responsible for everything that happens and fails to happen in your organization.  So, with that said, there must be over-watch without micromanagement.  Lines of communication between the leader and the team must be wide open.  However, self-managed teams striving for excellence has been my experience.  These teams want to please the boss.  They want autonomy.  They learn from their successes and failures more often because they were the ones who succeeded or failed without a manager or leader breathing down their necks.

            As a younger Soldier, once I proved to my leadership that I was capable of accomplishing tasks that had been giving me, the leader backed off.  From the previously mentioned Army model, Soldiers in my same position worked together and essentially self-managed.  So, with that said, I have worked within a self-managed team and enjoyed it!

            The only competency I would need to develop to be an effective external manager of a self-managed work team is to abate my extreme desire to be a micromanager.  As a retired Senior Noncommissioned Officer being extremely hands on is well embedded in me.

References

Brown, D.R. (2011). Experiential approach to organization development. (8^th Ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Prentice Hall

INSEAD. (2008, September 22). Self-managing teams: debunking the leadership paradox. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM

A635.6.3.RB_EcoSeagate_LouBeldotti

A635.6.3.RB

EcoSeagate

            For this blog, I have been asked to review the OD Application found on page 274 of my textbook, “An Experiential Approach to Organization Development” by Donald R. Brown and answer the following three questions:

1. Do you see value in the EcoSeagate team development process?
2. Why would something like this be necessary in a high-performing organization?
3. Could your organization benefit from a similar activity?

            According to Seagate’s website, “Seagate is the global leader in data storage solutions, developing amazing products that enable people and businesses around the world to create, share and preserve their most critical memories and business data.

            Over the years the amount of information stored has grown from megabytes all the way to geopbytes, confirming the need to successfully store and access huge amounts of data. As demand for storage technology grows the need for greater efficiency and more advanced capabilities continues to evolve.

            Today data storage is more than just archiving; it’s about providing ways to analyze information, understand patterns and behavior, to re-live experiences and memories. It’s about harnessing stored information for growth and innovation. Seagate is building on its heritage of storage leadership to solve the challenge of getting more out of the living information that’s produced every day. What began with one storage innovation has morphed into many systems and solutions becoming faster, more reliable and expansive. No longer is it just about storing information; it is about accessing and interpreting information quickly, accurately and securely.” (Seagate, 2016)

            In Brown’s text, he lays out the OD Application: EcoSeagate and Team Development, “Seagate Technology, a manufacturer of computer hard drives, each year spends $2 million on one outdoor lab experience. It calls the lab EcoSeagate and it is where the company brings together 200 of its employees from around the world to a team development meeting in the desolate mountains and glaciers of New Zealand, close to where Lord of the Rings was filmed. With such a foreign and intimidating environment, everyone feels off balance and no one has an advantage over anyone else. Prework for the participants is a good deal of physical conditioning and required reading of The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leader- ship Fable .CEO Bill Watkins started EcoSeagate in 2000, soon after becoming president of Seagate. Watkins says, ‘They called it Slavegate. People got fired all the time. The CEO had a grenade on his desk.’ Watkins figured that if he showed the value of teamwork away from work, the participants would transfer the experience back into their work. He says, ‘I learned a lesson a long time ago in the Army. Nobody really wants to die for their god. No one wants to die for their country. Absolutely no one wants to die for money. But people put their lives on the line for the respect of their platoon mates.’ The participants, who are selected from more than 2,000 applicants, consist of a cross-section of the company: top executives, managers, engineers, and factory workers. The 200 participants are split into 40 teams of 5 people. The composition of the teams is made in advance with consideration given to having a mix that includes physical ability, level within the company, sex, nationality, and personality. For five days, the teams go through a variety of competitive events that encourage each team to learn how to work together. EcoSeagate culminates in a 40-kilometer adventure race through a course consisting of biking, climbing, traversing unknown terrain with a vague map, kayaking, traversing canyons on cables, and running. Watkins has not been able to prove or point to quantitative results of EcoSeagate. He has never won his own race and has even come in dead last. Through the years, he has received criticism from stockholders for the event, and though he cannot precisely measure the results, to him there are obvious signs that it is working. ‘The only thing you know for sure,’ he says, ‘is that if you do nothing, then nothing will happen, and nothing will change.’” (Brown, 2011, pg. 274)

            After reading about Seagate and watching the two videos, I can honestly say that I would love to experience this type of team building.

            In the two videos, employees are broken down into teams and are given colored wardrobe and banners and a bird mascot such as the tui which is native to New Zealand.  These teams then participate in competition events such as biking, running, kayaking, scavenger hunt and more.  They are also challenged to overcome their fears by participating in high ropes and rappelling.  After each competition, they gather together and perform tribal chants and dances.  These events help teams develop their teamwork skills, build respect and trust for each other, resolve conflict, become more committed and be accountable for their actions and deeds.

            I certainly see great value in Seagate’s team development program.  However, it must be quantified to show the stakeholders and shareholders that it is viable program and improves the overall performance of the organization increasing the “bottom-line”.

            Team building events in high-performance organizations is paramount.  During my 27-year Army career, team building was part of culture and helped create great organizational cohesiveness and performance.

            In secondary education I could see benefit and this type of practice.  Teachers are just not cohesive.  Each teacher does his or her own thing.  I believe by building a team instead of a group of individuals, education would improve for students and the end result would be an overall culture of teamwork with a common goal.

References

Seagate. (2016). About Seagate. Retrieved from http://www.seagate.com/about-seagate/

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

Chao, M. (2008, April 25). Eco Seagate 2008 1/3. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCOfOFMiLtE

Chao, M. (2008, April 26). Eco Seagate 2008 2/3. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etwuap-_Azk&spfreload=10

A635.5.3.RB_VideoDebriefOfTeamMA_LouBeldotti

A635.5.3.RB

Video Debrief of Team MA

            While watching the referenced YouTube video, I was transported back in time.  Not because of the content but because of the video quality, sound, background music and voice over.  I was reminded of the eighth grade and watching 8mm films in class on a projector.  I was so distracting that I actually had to watch the video three times to get the content.

            Frankly, I had very little knowledge about Jobs other than he had founded Apple, he had been forced out of Apple, returned some years later and died of pancreatic cancer.  I honestly do not even remember NeXT. 

            So, I have been asked to discuss how my characteristics would have fit with the makeup and culture of the NeXT startup team. 

            I am a very outgoing individual.  I usually make friends fast.  I enjoy being in-charge but can follow. 

            In the video, a young Steve Jobs comes across as the obvious leader.  Steve pitches his vision for NeXT by, “Steve’s goal is to transform the learning process at the college and graduate school level with a powerful computer and a new kind of software and we decided we wanted to start a company that had a lot to do with education and in particular higher education colleges and universities. So what our vision is, is that there's a revolution in software going on now on college and university campuses and it has to do with providing two types of breakthrough software. One is called simulated learning environments.  It's where you can't give a student in physics a linear accelerator.  You can't give a student, in biology, a five-million-dollar recombinant DNA laboratory but you can simulate those things.  You can simulate them on a very powerful computer and it is it is not possible for students to afford these things. It is not possible for most faculty members to afford these things so if we can take what we do best, which is to find really great technology and pull it down to a price that's affordable to people. If we can do the same thing for this type of computer, which is maybe 10 times as powerful as a personal computer that we did for personal computers, then I think we can make a real difference in the way the learning experience happens in the next five years and that's what we're trying to do.” (Jobs, circa 1985)

            What a dynamic thinker.  Truly a man well before his time.  I would have loved to have been on the NeXT team!

            Jobs was a great entrepreneur.  Personally, I do not have that same entrepreneurial spirit.  I enjoy following those with these great minds and believe that I have the “go-getter” attitude to make the visionary’s vision come true.  I have personally followed great leaders such as Carl Vuono, H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, Gordon Sullivan, Gary Luck, Tommy Franks, George Casey, David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno.  I personally worked directly or indirectly for these four-star General Officers.  As a matter of fact, it was then, Lieutenant General (3-star), Raymond Orierno who personally pinned Master Sergeant Rank on me when I was last promoted. Don’t get me wrong, gentle reader, I do have visions but nothing like Steve Jobs had.  I have not invented a single thing.  I look up to men like Marconi, Edison, Bell, Pullman, Otis, Ford and Jobs.  Their visions have continued to amaze me.  Heck, without them, we wouldn’t have the radio, light bulb, phone, passenger train car, elevator, mass produced automobile and all of those great Apple products!

            In closing, I would have made a great team member on the NeXT start-up team.  I could see their passion and desire as I have always done in everything that I have done.

References

Jobs, S. (circa 1985). YouTube: Jobs brainstorms with NeXT Team. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/loQhufxiorM

A635.4.3.RB_BuildATowerBuildATeam_LouBeldotti

A635.4.3.RB

Build a Tower, Build a Team

After viewing the TedTalk video, “Build a tower, build a team”, I am asked to reflect on the following questions in a well-written post on my Reflection Blog by answering the following questions:

• Do you agree with Tom Wujec's analysis of why kindergartners perform better on the Spaghetti Challenge than MBA students?

• Can you think of any other reasons why kids might perform better?

• In your view, why do CEOs with an executive assistant perform better than a group of CEOs alone?

• If you were asked to facilitate a process intervention workshop, how could you relate the video to process intervention skills?

• What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

            According to Tom Wujec, “Several years ago here at TED, Peter Skillman introduced a design challenge called the marshmallow challenge. And the idea's pretty simple: Teams of four have to build the tallest free-standing structure out of 20 sticks of spaghetti, one yard of tape, one yard of string and a marshmallow. The marshmallow has to be on top. And, though it seems really simple, it's actually pretty hard because it forces people to collaborate very quickly. And so, I thought this was an interesting idea, and I incorporated it into a design workshop. And it was a huge success…So there are a number of people who have a lot more "uh-oh" moments than others, and among the worst are recent graduates of business school.  They lie, they cheat, they get distracted and they produce really lame structures. And of course there are teams that have a lot more "ta-da" structures, and among the best are recent graduates of kindergarten. And it's pretty amazing. As Peter tells us, not only do they produce the tallest structures, but they're the most interesting structures of them all.  So the question you want to ask is: How come? Why? What is it about them? And Peter likes to say that none of the kids spend any time trying to be CEO of Spaghetti, Inc. Right? They don't spend time jockeying for power. But there's another reason as well. And the reason is that business students are trained to find the single right plan, right? And then they execute on it. And then what happens is, when they put the marshmallow on the top, they run out of time and what happens? It's a crisis. Sound familiar? Right. What kindergartners do differently is that they start with the marshmallow, and they build prototypes, successive prototypes, always keeping the marshmallow on top, so they have multiple times to fix when they build prototypes along the way. Designers recognize this type of collaboration as the essence of the iterative process. And with each version, kids get instant feedback about what works and what doesn't work.  (Wujec, 2010).  I agree with Wujec’s analysis of why kindergartners performed better than MBA students.  In addition to his reasons, here’s my take…kids just want to have fun!  They are definitely less competitive at that age and have no hidden agenda.

            During my military career, senior leaders were never without an assistant.  Assistants took care of the busy tasks that allowed the senior leader to more effectively perform his or her tasks.  Assistance would manage the leader’s calendar, correspondence, travel arrangements and other support tasks.  This also has the same effect on civilian CEOs. 

            I thoroughly enjoyed the video and encourage everyone who reads this blog to view it.  I plan on showing the video to my Cadets and actually attempting the challenge.  I want to examine their critical thinking skills and the way they process ideas and concepts as a team.  I may even share it with my Principal to potentially use as an exercise during our next staff meeting. 

References

Wujec, T. (2010, Feb). TED: Build a tower, build a team. [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower

A635.3.3.RB_50ReasonsNotToChange/TheTribesWeLead_LouBeldotti

A635.3.3.RB

50 reasons not to change/the tribes we lead

I have been asked to view two presentations and reflect on the following questions in a well written post on my Reflection Blog.

• How do you react when you hear colleagues using some of the excuses listed in the 50 Reasons Not to Change graphic?
• Do you ever use any of these excuses yourself?
• How can you overcome the thinking that creates those responses to change efforts?
• Do you agree with Seth Godin’s concept that change is driven by tribes?
• What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

Who likes change?  I certainly do not.  It is just good old human nature to resist change and it is so much easier to come up with reasons not to change.  Basically, fear of the unknown.

According to Dr. Donald R. Brown, “The greater the impact on the existing culture and norms, the greater the amount of resistance that is likely to emerge, and thus the more difficult it will be to implement the change program. On the other hand, an organizational culture that values change and innovation will positively influence the acceptance and support of a change program. GM has for decades been a leading example of having an organizational culture that valued the status quo. Former GM CEO Roger Smith, as long ago as the 1980s, referred to the tens of thousands of managers made complacent by the golden days of GM as the “frozen middle.” For a number of reasons, including a GM culture that did not value change, Smith was not successful in many of the changes he attempted to make.

Organization members may have a psychological resistance to change because they want to avoid uncertainty. Past ways of doing things are well known and predictable, and unwillingness to give up familiar tasks or relationships may cause resistance. Many people feel comfortable doing things the same way as always—they prefer to remain in “the comfort zone.” Douglas Solomon, the chief technology strategist at IDEO, which is a consulting firm specializing in in-novation, believes that companies who are in their comfort zone are not aware of a need to change and are likely to resist change. He says, “There are still people who say, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ And I don’t think these companies are in a good position to really change, because they’re happy with where they are [their comfort zone]. So you have to have a certain degree of discomfort in your business to be willing to make the changes that are necessary.” (Brown, 2011)

            As a secondary educator, I experiences excuses daily.  Everyone from tenured teachers down to young freshmen.  Some of them are exactly as Dr. Watkins describes like “The Union will scream”, “It’s too much trouble to change”, “It can’t be done”, “It’s not my job” (Watkins, n.d.) to things so brazen like, “I don’t want to do it”, I don’t feel like it”, “Who cares” and “That’s stupid”.  Interestingly enough, most teachers have the same mindset.  It is just as Seth Godin describes in his TEDTalk video, “But there is good news around the corner -- really good news. I call it the idea of tribes. What tribes are, is a very simple concept that goes back 50,000 years. It's about leading and connecting people and ideas. And it's something that people have wanted forever. Lots of people are used to having a spiritual tribe, or a church tribe, having a work tribe, having a community tribe. But now, thanks to the internet, thanks to the explosion of mass media, thanks to a lot of other things that are bubbling through our society around the world, tribes are everywhere…What all these people have in common is that they are heretics. That heretics look at the status quo and say, ‘This will not stand. I can't abide this status quo. I am willing to stand up and be counted and move things forward. I see what the status quo is; I don't like it.’ That instead of looking at all the little rules and following each one of them, that instead of being what I call a sheepwalker -- somebody who's half asleep, following instructions, keeping their head down, fitting in -- every once in a while someone stands up and says, ‘Not me.’ Someone stands up and says, ‘This one is important. We need to organize around it.’ And not everyone will. But you don't need everyone. You just need a few people who will look at the rules, realize they make no sense, and realize how much they want to be connected.” (Godin, 2009)

            When faced with the negative, I try to be encouraging.  I try to impart to the “nay-sayers” that it is worth the try even though I have been on the side of the “nay-sayers” over certain required changes.  I, too, have used excuses about not changing things…especially at home.  But that’s another story, altogether.

            I completely agree with Godin’s concept of tribes although I have always referred to them as cliques.  There is strength in numbers.  When like-minded people get together, it is easier to facilitate change.  However, it is also easier to resist change.  I good example of this is the current Presidential race.  Those that do not want change will vote their way and those that want change will vote theirs.  There is three four tribes in this situation.  The Republican Tribe, the Democrat Tribe, the Independent Tribe and the Undecided Tribe. 

            Moving forward, I plan on being more cognitive in recognizing “tribes”, analyzing their like-mindedness to be able to create a course of action that enables me to influence their decision.

References

Godin, S. (2009, February). TEDTalk: The tribes we lead. [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead?language=en

Watkins, D. (n.d.). 50 Reasons not to change. Retrieved from https://prezi.com/z2v2cvo4t9tc/50-reasons-not-to-change/

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

A635.2.3.RB_HowCompaniesCanMakeBetterDecisionsFaster_LouBeldotti

A635.2.3.RB

How Companies Can Make Better Decisions, faster.

After viewing the video, reflect on the following questions in a well-written post on your Reflection Blog.

• Marcia Blenko argues that decision effectiveness correlates positively with employee engagement and organizational performance. How do you think that employee engagement relates to decision effectiveness?
• What are some impediments to good decision making?
• Blenko suggests that there are four elements of good decisions: quality, speed, yield, and effort. In your opinion, is there anything missing from this list?
• What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.

            It has been my experience that decision effectiveness does correlate positively with employee engagement and organizational performance.  Effective decisions do occur more often when employees are happier and they have total buy-in.

            Marcia Blenko laments, “How did you come to focus on decision-making as the key driver of organizational performance? Well you know, Sarah, a lot of this comes from our experience over the years working with companies. But then over the last five years we've done a number of research projects that are really backed up with some data of the hypotheses. One of the things we've noticed over the years is the companies that are better at making and executing decisions really do seem to operate at a much faster metabolism and have better financial results. So, we actually did conduct this research study across the big six markets. We are in the US, UK, France, Germany, China, and Japan. All different sized companies and what we found is a very high correlation between decision effectiveness and financial performance. However, we cut the data revenue growth return on capital or total shareholder return. We had a ninety-five percent-plus correlation with the decision effectiveness. Interestingly, we also saw a very high correlation between decision effectiveness and employee engagement which I guess shouldn't be surprising that companies where it's easier to make decisions and get things done or more stimulating places for employees to work.  I think this is really at the heart of our approach to organization thinking.” (Blenko, 2010)

            The biggest impediments to good decision making is definitely indecision, negativity and nay-sayers.  Secondary to that the need to have employee and stakeholder buy-in.

            According to Blenko, There are four components to good decision making:  “Quality is the first and the one that's very intuitive. Everyone's always saying, ‘Well was it a good decision?’ and that's right. I mean in retrospect, did we actually make good high quality decisions? But there's three other factors of decision effectiveness that matter too. The second is speed.  How quickly do we make important decisions relative to our competition?  The third is yield. To what extent do we execute decisions the way we intended? The fourth is something we call effort.” (Blenko, 2010)

            So, is there anything missing?  I am going to say “no”.  I believe that Blenko is comprehensive and spot on when it comes to good decision making.

            As a take-away, I will blend these four factors during my decision making moving forward.  I have sadly only used a few of them, in concert, in the past.

Reference

Blenko, M. (2010, October 13). How companies can make better decisions, faster. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxpg6D4Hk8

A635.1.3.RB_21stCenturyEnlightenment_LouBeldotti

A635.1.3.RB

21^st Century Enlightenment

            After viewing the video, I am asked to reflect on the following questions in a well-written post on my Reflection Blog. I have not simply listed and answer the prompts.  Instead, I have written my blog and incorporated my thoughts into my reflection.  I have made certain to incorporate my own experiences into my reflection.

Here are the prompts:

• Why do you think the talk is titled 21st Century Enlightenment?
• What does Matthew Taylor mean when he says "to live differently, you have to think differently"?
• At one point in the video (4:10), Taylor argues that we need "to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange". What is he talking about? Can you think of an example within your company or your life that supports this point?
• Taylor argues that our society should eschew elements of pop culture that degrade people and that we should spend more time looking into what develops empathetic citizens. Would this be possible?
• At the end of the video, Taylor talks about atomizing people from collaborative environments and the destructive effect on their growth. What are the implications of these comments for organizational change efforts?
• What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.

            So, what the heck is enlightenment?  My take is suddenly understanding something as if a switch was flipped inside my head.  An “a-ha” moment.  Something that has convinced me to change my mind or opinion. 

            I believe Taylor refers to his video as “21^st Century Enlightenment” because he makes a comparison to the 18^th century…over 300 years prior.  In the 18^th century technology, as we know it, did not exists.  Homes were lit with candles or oil and heated with fireplaces or stoves.  There were no phones, let alone cellular phones.  Transportation was by foot, wagon or buggy.  Technology such as the locomotive didn’t come to until the 19^th century along with the automobile which didn’t make an appearance until the late 19^th century.  Food was preserved with salt.  Clothing was washed by hand and dried on a line.  Education was not required.  People died younger.  Medical science was barbaric and dentistry hardly existed.  I assume those were pretty smelly times.  People behaved differently and their values were completely different.  The law was often taken into one’s own hands and there was no regret for killing an offender or dueling to the death for the hand of a woman or property.

            Life was simple.  An individual’s sphere of influence was not far reaching.  An individual’s circle of friends was small. 

            However, as we progressed, it was absolutely necessary to begin thinking differently.  If not, one would fail to progress.  According to Taylor, “I do favor the view that we need to live differently in the 21st century and as the architects of the Enlightenment understood.  To live differently involves thinking differently.  It involves seeing the world and ourselves from a new perspective and critically examining what enlightenment values have come to mean to us.”  (Taylor, 2010)

            As a people, we tend to believe what we want to believe.  According to Taylor, “resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange.  Now the good news, and it is really good news, is that there's every reason to believe that we can expand empathy’s reach despite major departures from the trend.” (Taylor, 2010)

            I was born in 1964.  Things were much different then than they are today even over the course of 50 years.  As a school teacher I see the trends and values of children that has me shaking my head.  Technology and pop culture have dramatically changed the landscape in the 21^st century.  Yes, there is an awakening but it is terribly skewed from the way I want to see it.  Taylor is right.  Taylor states, “Popular culture inclines us to think of other people. For example, a culture which prized empathy would be one which distinguish the healthy activity of public disagreement from the unhealthy habit of public disparagement has become a cliché that education is the most valuable resource in a global knowledge.”  (Taylor, 2010).  Education is important but so is life lessons.  Sadly, the only life lessons that the youth of today learn is from pop culture, celebrities, social media, YouTube and the media.  Again, they believe what they want to believe.  Change will be difficult.

            As a school teacher, my colleagues and I are very like-minded.  We have two common goals…educating our students and graduating them after four years.  Because of this, we are constantly collaborating.  For an organization to change, they must evolve to stay current.  To do this, all stakeholders must come on line.  If they do not, there will be system failure within the organization.

            Finally, I enjoyed the video immensely and as a take away, I plan on being more observant of my surroundings and how they affect how I perform my duties as a school teacher.

Reference

Taylor, M. (2010, August 19). RSA Animate: 21^st Century Enlightenment. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo

A633.9.3.RB_PolyarchyReflections_LouBeldotti

A633.9.3.RB

Polyarchy Reflections

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

Include a discussion of your leadership development needs over the next 3 years and identify the resources that will help you achieve such a development.  Use all you have learned as well as the 70–20–10 approach.  What impact will all of this have on your future strategy?

            There are several old saying about resisting change.  One example is “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks”.  Change is difficult for many especially those that have been in an organization for a significant period of time.  This was very prevalent I the Army when I first joined.  Many of the Soldiers in our ranks were veterans of the Vietnam War and they resisted change with all of their might.  We often referred to them as “Old Heads” but they like to refer to themselves as “Old School”.  They would resist things like uniform changes, changes to tactics, vehicle changes, Soldier living conditions, food changes in the dining facility or field and many more.  However, the Army as an organization was changing with or without them.  Eventually the Old Heads retired and change occurred more smoothly. 

            I don’t believe that old leadership models are becoming redundant.  I just believe they need to be adaptive to the changing landscape and tweaked.

                Traditional leadership, or oligarchy involves fewer leaders supervising an entire organization which is almost tantamount to a dictatorship.  This was indeed the type of leadership I faced with the Old Heads when I first joined the Army.  Conversely, polyarchy has many leaders supervising fewer individuals. 

            I found the old “my way or the highway” leadership off-putting when I first became a Soldier.  Although the Army is still mostly oligarchy it does implement polyarchy into its leadership model.  An example of this is the make-up of a military unit.  A Company size element has approximately 30 leaders from Company Commander to Squad Leader.  They are responsible for leading approximately 100 Soldiers which is a ratio of 3.33:1 which is more polyarchical.  However, if you dissect the Company down to its smallest element known as a Platoon you will find that the ratio is 24:1 which is more oligarchical.  These ratios increase as the hierarchal ladder is climbed.  An example of this is the Commanding General of an installation.  He or she is responsible thousands of Soldiers.  The ratio can be 10,000:1 or even higher. 

            So, does the General personally lead each and every individual Soldier?  No.  However he or she is ultimately responsible.  An example of this is the Walter Reed scandal that occurred in 2007.  I was assigned to the United States Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) at the time and remember the incident well.  The Commanding General, Lieutenant General Kevin Kiley, was held ultimately responsible and was relieved of his duties and ultimately forced to retire.

            In my current occupation as a school teacher, there are very few leaders.  The Principal, like the General, is ultimately in-charge. He has five Assistant Principals (APs) who are responsible for certain individuals and there is five Department Chairs.  That is a grand total of eleven individuals in leadership positions with 167 teachers.  The Principal has a ratio of 167:1. If the APs are responsible for an equal amount of teachers then their ratio would be 33.4:1.  This is definitely oligarchical.  Sadly, unless I, myself, become a Principal or Assist Principal this has no implications on my future as a leader.  The only individuals I will be able to affect are my Cadets.

            As I develop as a leader in secondary education, I need the opportunity to advance.  However I do not endeavor to become a High School administrator. (Beldotti, 2016)

            Until I wrote this blog, I had never heard of the 70:20:10 Model.  According to TrainingIndustry.com, “The 70:20:10 Model for Learning and Development is a commonly used formula within the training profession to describe the optimal sources of learning by successful managers. It holds that individuals obtain 70 percent of their knowledge from job-related experiences (experiential/experience), 20 percent from interactions with others (social/exposure), and 10 percent from formal educational events (formal/education).  The 70:20:10 model is considered to be of greatest value as a general guideline for organizations seeking to maximize the effectiveness of their learning, and development programs through other activities and inputs. The model continues to be widely employed by organizations throughout the world.

            The model’s creators hold that hands-on experience (the 70 percent) is the most beneficial for employees because it enables them to discover and refine their job-related skills, make decisions, address challenges and interact with influential people such as bosses and mentors within work settings. They also learn from their mistakes and receive immediate feedback on their performance.

            Employees learn from others (the 20 percent) through a variety of activities that include social learning, coaching, mentoring, collaborative learning and other methods of interaction with peers. Encouragement and feedback are prime benefits of this valuable learning approach.

            The formula holds that only 10 percent of professional development optimally comes from formal traditional courseware instruction and other educational events, a position that typically surprises practitioners from academic backgrounds.” (TrainingIndustry.com, 2016)

            Once this degree is conferred, I will couple it with my MBA and military leadership experience and seek employment where I can put this knowledge to use.

            This model makes perfect sense and I will start implementing it immediately as I start me future job search.

References

70:20:10 Forum. (n.d.). The 70:20:10 Framework.  Retrieved from https://www.702010forum.com/about-702010-framework

TrainingIndustry.com. (2016). The 70:20:10 model for learning and development. Retrieved from https://www.trainingindustry.com/wiki/entries/the-702010-model-for-learning-and-development.aspx

Beldotti, L. J. (2016) Personal experience.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership. (2d Ed.). Gower Publishing: Burlington, VT.

                 

A633.8.3.RB_HowDoCoachesHelp_LouBeldotti

A633.8.3.RB

How do coaches help?

Based on the readings reflect upon the statement below:

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

• Given the statement above what is it that coaches do to provide value to their clients?
• Why is coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy? 
• How can it make a difference in an organization?
• What does this mean to you and your organization?

            Each coach cannot have experienced every experience.  This is especially true when it comes to business coaches and life coaches.  One can generalize and use common sense when those being coached have clouded thoughts.  Coaches bring clarity in times of turmoil. 

            I am reminded of the movie, “Hitch”, starring Will Smith. The movie, in a nut shell goes something like this, “Alex Hitchens, better known as Hitch, is the date doctor. His latest project, Albert Brenneman, is a nerdy financial consultant who fell in love with the famous Allegra Cole. While Hitch helps Albert with his love life, he struggles with his own. He starts falling for work-a-holic, Sarah Melas. After boyfriend problems with her best friend, Sarah labels Hitch with a reputation that he didn't deserve. Hitch proves his love and goes to great lengths to win a love of his own.”  (IMDb: Hitch, 2005)

            You see, Hitch can see clearly when it comes to Albert’s issues yet he cannot see his own.  Albert is an open book and this makes it easy for Hitch to offer advice.  Hitch is a coach.

            Just like Hitch, coaches try to find the attractors that will stimulate those being coached.  Obolensky discusses coaching attractors in his text, “Complex Adaptive Leadership”.  According to Obolensky, “Coaching attractor. Of all the periodic attractors on paired strategies, this is the most powerful and also demands the greatest skill. On the one side of the divide (Tell–Sell), the leader acts as the leader. On the other (Involve–Devolve) the leader encourages the follower to take the lead. Coaching is a good technique to bridge the divide, as well as move an individual towards level 5 followership (gets on with things without supervision and reports in a routine way). There are many different coaching approaches and methodologies. The most effective one for Complex Adaptive Leadership is the GROW model coupled with a questioning technique which makes use of a mix of open/closed and suggestive/non-suggestive questions. Let’s look at how this works. In phase space the action is a mix of Selling (using suggestive questions) and Involving (using non-suggestive questions).” (Obolensky, 2014)

            So, what is the GROW model?   According to Obolensky, “The GROW model is a questioning technique. GROW stands for the questions asked: Goal, Reality, Options, Will. It is a coaching questioning technique designed to enable the person being coached to find a way through a problem. It assumes a level of knowledge by the person answering the questions and is very much a ‘pull’ technique. As such, it would belong as part of the S3 (involve) strategy. The GROW model assumes open questions. The line of questioning follows a natural flow, although in reality one would jump about a bit. For example, having identified the goal and why the person wishes to achieve it, the options may indicate that the goal stated is in fact an option of a deeper goal – one would need then to cycle back and clarify the goal again. Open questions cannot be answered by ‘yes/no’ and non-suggestive questions do not imply an answer in any way. This is an important distinction. If questions were suggestive (for example, ‘Would such-and-such a solution work?’), and the person took the approach suggested it would not be wholly owned. Non-suggestive questions mean that any answer or solution which emerges is wholly made by the individual and so is more easily owned. If there is success, the sense of achievement is enhanced. If there is failure, the accountability is clear. However, the GROW approach does assume the individual has the tacit knowledge to uncover the solution or the way forward. If that tacit knowledge is incomplete, then the leader will need to suggest solutions. So questioning can be suggestive and non-suggestive. When coupled with open/closed questioning technique, four basic types of questions can be employed during the GROW process.”

Goal

What would you like to achieve?

What benefit would you gain?

What would happen if you failed?

Reality

How far are you from your goal?

What are the barriers that you face?

Who could help you?

Options

How could you achieve your goal?

If that approach failed, what then?

How could you ask for help?

Will

What is the very first step?

When will you take it?

Do you really want to do this?

            The GROW model makes sense since it asks open ended fact finding questions.  This is what coaches do to provide value to their clients.  Coaches help their clients think through their obstacles.  Coaches help their clients think about the “what ifs”.  Coaches help their clients achieve their goals by engaging them.

            Coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy because it enables and engages leaders while clarifies strategies by allowing the stakeholders to do their own thinking through critical thinking based on open ended, fact finding questioning.  This could be the difference between success and failure.  Coaching brings action to stagnation.

 

            Regarding my organization, secondary education is fluid.  Teachers self-coach themselves based on policy, syllabi and curriculum but sometimes need a bit of a kick from the administration.  However, teachers must be flexible because of changes in requirements, testing and policy.

References

IMDb. (2005). Hitch.  Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386588/plotsummary

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership. (2d ed). Gower Publishing: Burlington, VT