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