A633.1.2.RB - Leadership Gap

Chapter 1 of the Obolensky text begins with a reflective exercise. Create a reflection blog that responds to the questions asked in this exercise.  Additionally, while we live in a world with more information about leadership and leadership practices, why is it that we have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders and how do you think we can close this gap?

1.) Has your own attitude to leaders changed in your life, and if so how?  Without question, the answer is yes.  As children, we really don’t have an understanding of what leadership encompasses.  Sure, we may have been the captain of some school group, Boy Scout troop, or sports team, but that doesn’t even touch the surface level of the type of leadership we experience when we become adults.  Children and young adults see leadership in certain individuals that are close to them such as teachers, parents or even coaches; people that are tangible to us.  However, as we mature and become more educated and experience leadership for ourselves, our perspectives change.  My perspective on leadership has changed in various ways.  Now, I see a deeper more in-depth endeavor when it comes to leadership.  As young adult, I never realized some of the most evil men in history could have been considered leaders (although their morals and ethics may have been undesirable).  Today, I have a better understanding of the qualities and characteristics a true leader possesses.  I can now recognize various styles of leadership.  Some are good, and some are average while some are outright bad and leave me in amazement for one reason or the other.  However to be honest, I do not have the answer to what makes the quintessential leader, but through this program I am learning more and more.  I can say that I have a much better understanding of how I can be a more effective leader.

2.) If we take as a starting point the attitude to those in authority/leaders as held by your grandparents, and then look at those attitudes held by your parents, and then by you, and then by the younger generation, is there a changing trend? If so, what is it?  I would have to say yes.  How society views leadership has changed with each generation.  We now live in a work society where there are four main generations and they all have different viewpoints; Matures (Born before 1945), Baby Boomers (1945-1964), Gen Xers (1964-1980), and Millennials (After 1980).  And all these groups view leadership differently.  Matures recognize leadership with seniority often gained through hard work and determination.  Baby Boomers view leadership through individuals who influenced their generation, i.e., MLK, Nelson Mandela or John F. Kennedy.  They seem to want to stand for something. Generation Xers view leadership through people they know, people who have proven themselves to them such as parents, grandparents, teachers, past bosses, and coaches. Last but not least is the Millennial group, this group has not yet identified what leadership is to them.  .

3.) Why do you think that this has occurred?  The world is changing as we speak.  We now have individuals who want to be individual thinkers that are influenced by someone else.  They are willing to go against the institutional rules and policies of the past.  To them, employee happiness is more important than profit margins.  There are many reasons why we now have a shift in how society views leadership; expansion of educational opportunities, technological advancements, less formality in some workplaces, and the power and influence of social media.  What worked in the past for leaders may now not have the same effect on today’s society.  American scholars, organizational consultants, and authors are widely regarded as pioneers of the contemporary field of leadership studies.  Warren Bennis probably, summed up a definition that encompasses every leadership perspective in our society, “Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.”  With that, we must understand that reality will always change and must so the vision to fit it. 

4.) Additionally, while we live in a world with more information about leadership and leadership practices why is it that we have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders and how do you think we can close this gap? My opinion on this question is based on the definition of the term, leadership.  There are so many definitions of the terms of leadership that I think we have lost the concept of what it means to be a leader or what it means to be in a leadership position.  Being a leader in today’s business world does not have the same job satisfaction that it had 50 years ago.  Society doesn’t invest in its leaders like it once did and there is now a gap or disconnect between the past and the present.  In the book Complex Adaptive Leadership, author Nick Obolensky (2010), states that "only those leaders who understand polyarchy will survive".  To me, this means that society must now outline the complexities of leadership in an effort to define the gap between the old and the new leadership styles.  Leadership is not about making a difference in the organization’s culture; it’s now about profit, profit, and more profit.  It does not matter how the organization achieves its profits so long as it reaches its goal.  That’s how a leader is now defined.  Furthermore, leaders in today’s organizations have forgotten the importance of vision communication.  They have to communicate with their subordinates as workers and as people. In order to close the gap, they must convey their organizational visions in a manner that encompasses the benefits for the company and its employees in a manner that is understood by all.

 

A630.9.4.RB - Hiring and Recruiting

Does Schmidt's description of the Google Culture make sense to you?  Mr. Eric Schmidt’s discussion on the culture of Google was very enlightening.  Although, I would agree that Schmidt's description does make sense to me I have a hard time picturing it in full application.  Eric admitted that Google is virtually a self-managed company because of their unique hiring practices.  The Hiring and Recruiting presentation by Eric Schmidt was a model that I think many companies could copy.  I appreciate that Mr. Schmidt and Google seek driven, self-motivated employees, which if correctly empowered, can manage themselves and produce.  From a personal perspective, I wish more companies, including the government, would actively discriminate (not by race, sex, religion, etc…) but by personal values, drive, motivation, competence, by our internal values that would make employees an asset and not a liability and not by whom you know.  I guess Mr. Schmidt is correct in the fact that Google employees are not really managed because they are very self-motivated and invested in their role at Google.

Is this a reasonable way to view the work that most people are doing in your workplace?  No I don’t think so.  This may be what everyone would like to see in the way a company should work, but to be honest it is not reality.  Sure, work gives us money as well as other things as Mr. Eric Schmidt mentioned.  I often hear people say I don’t work for the money; I work because I love my job.  However, ask them to take a pay cut or even work for free for a day and they will not be very happy.  It is unreasonable to compare Google to the federal government; it is like comparing apples to oranges.  There is a similarity between both entities in the fact that both organizations want people who are competent and empowered.  The main degree of separation is that Google practices what they preach while the government’s hiring practices are based on whom you know and whom you are related too.  Google prides itself on hiring talent and letting these people take on their own direction, with management taking the sideline.  The federal government, on the other hand, is very rigid and does not allow the creative freedom that Google does. 

As a leader, does it take courage to have and to implement this point of view?  I do not think that to implement a culture such as Google’s takes courage as a leader.  It’s not about courage, it’s about organizational culture.  Now, the leader may need courage to try to instill such organizational change because there is going to be resistance.  In this course, we have studied numerous cases in which a leader wanted to instill change but ran into numerous obstacles.  I think any business leader knows that it is the people of the organization that make it succeed or fail, not the name on the sign; however, they also know the most unpredictable aspect of any business is the people.  That being said, Eric Schmidt’s business approach on hiring may not fit all companies.  Finding the balance of people skills and personalities is critical to the culture envisioned for the organization, but having the right skill set and attitude may carry more emphasis.

Could this approach backfire?  Nothing is 100% guaranteed in today’s business environment and as I stated earlier the employee is the most unpredictable aspect of any business culture.  We all want to hire the right types of people, but it is not as easy as it seems.  Even Eric Schmidt admitted that sometimes the person may not have the right personality or even be the picture-perfect team player, but they may have an exotic skill set that is needed.  So I would say yes, it is possible for even the best-laid plans to backfire; but Google has been very successful with what they are doing for a long time.  I think one of the keys to the success of Google is their willingness to adapt to an ever changing environment.  Another aspect that may have been downplayed is the importance of middle management’s role in the hiring process.  If the managers involved in the recruitment process are not hiring individuals that match the values of the organization and these same managers are not being held to the Google standard, then failure is a high possibility.

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career? I cannot really say that I learned any new information from this exercise.  However, Mr. Schmidt did give me a new perspective on how to view some things when it comes to the hiring process.  He reinforced to me that not every organization will hire and retain the same types of employees.  Google has had success with their hiring processes and I as well as other organizations can learn from them when it comes to hiring, leading, and retaining employees. 

Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.  After learning about Googles hiring process, I would love to have a case study where they compared Google to other giants in the technology industry such as Yahoo, Amazon and even EBay.  The case study was very good, but it is also creating a rather glamorized picture of the company itself and the information it shares.  Surely, Goggle has had some tough times.  How many top executives have they lost in the last 10 years and what is their history of retention like with the various levels of the organization  No company can get it right every time.  Has Google ever hired someone and later found they could not handle all that creative freedom and lack of structure in the work environment?

 

 

A630.8.4.RB - Build a Tower, Build a Team

Do you agree with Tom Wujec's analysis of why kindergarteners perform better on the Spaghetti Challenge than MBA students?  After reviewing the video of Tom Wujec's analysis, I do agree that the analysis of why kindergarteners perform better than MBA students on the spaghetti challenge is accurate.  As adults, we make things more complicated than they need to be; we ask the question why instead of doing the task and we look to find some self-glorification when the task is done.  All of this takes away from the task objective itself.  All of these principles apply to the average MBA student because we are taught to be competitive, more direct, and more opinionated than an average child.  Even in the MSLD program, the first class and those that follow deal with critical thinking, which is ironic for this assignment because nowhere in critical thing does it say make it as simple as possible. 

Can you think of any other reasons why kids might perform better?  As leaders and managers, we are often told to think outside the box, but rarely do we practice it for various reasons: fear of failure, fear of rocking the boat, or fear of going against the norm.  Without a doubt, there are many more reasons, but these are just a few.  In general, young children do a very good job of thinking outside of the box, along with using their imagination and creativity. Initially, they are not concerned with failing and taking chances (such as the Marshmallow Challenge) or even going against the norm (because to them there is no norm).  As adults we look for options and different ways to do things until we find that one correct way to complete a task; however, kids are not trained to find that single right plan, they love trial and error.   While adults are losing time thinking about theory, kids are busy learning from application.  The last reason I think kids perform better is they have smaller egos.  Yes, they compete but not the point of causing stress upon themselves.  These factors allow kindergarteners to perform better because there are few things that interfere with their collaboration skills.  They love to share ideas and working together as a team while at the same time they are having fun.

In your view, why do CEOs with an executive assistant perform better than a group of CEOs alone?  I don’t find it strange that that CEO’s struggle without an executive assistant. There is a reason why many executive assistants are considered to be the right hand of the CEO.  It is these individuals who are time oriented.  They also have an in-depth understanding of the collaboration process; maintaining schedules, timelines, meeting and various office functions for the organization to function from an upper management perspective.  They are usually the ones that do all of the work.  If you could be a fly on the wall when the CEO’s were presented this challenge, I would think you would see individuals that came up with different plans that worked in theory, but failed in the building and time management phases of the challenge until the assistant was added to the team.  Basically the lower ranking person was the person who filled the role of maintenance functions for the team; ironic isn’t it.

 

If you were asked to facilitate a process intervention workshop, how could you relate the video to process intervention skills?  First and foremost, a person has to understand the role of a facilitator.  A facilitator helps groups to organize and structure their decision-making process, while remaining impartial and neutral in the process.  The facilitator helps ensure that all voices are heard and all ideas are considered, that meetings are productive and constructive, issues are clarified, and provide control of the group process, not the content.  A facilitator would remind the group to look at how the kindergarten children kept this simple and did not over complicate the Marshmallow Challenge.  My advice would be this; start with the goal…look at the tools you have, make sure everyone on the team has a voice, and utilize everyone’s individual level of expertise and strength.  Additionally, I would remind participants how this challenge will help everyone understand how to work together as a team not as a group of individuals.

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?  These exercises remind me that I must keep myself grounded in simplicity when it comes to certain situations.  Remember KISS, no matter how it is used; "keep it short and simple" and "keep it simple and straightforward" or "keep it simple stupid" as if you were a child.  Processes perform best when they have simple designs rather than complex ones.  Time management is also vital to success; while the adults were looking for that perfect solution, the kids were learning through effort and practice.  The video provided lessons on the importance of trying many different options while maintaining openness to creative solutions.  The next thing is the importance of collaboration.  Too often, we get caught up in trying to prove how smart we are or how to display our leadership skills; often forgetting we are part of a team. 

Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.  I don’t think I have any other insight or questions; the answers I provided pretty much addressed all my concerns.  The problem is we live in an adult world where fun is not important only successful task completion.  The business world, as we know, is very competitive and we teach those who follow in our footprints the same principles.  We all wish we could go back to the days when we could work and think like kindergarten kids, but the sad reality is very few organizations operate in this manner. 

A630.7.4.RB - Mastering the Art of Corporate Reinvention

For this study, there are two Chief Executives Officers (CEO), who have to revive their perspective corporations; Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell and Gordon Bethune CEO of Continental Airlines.  The emphasis of the seminar with these corporate CEOs was to analyze their perspective of how they address things such as keeping the companies employees happy; which leads to better customer satisfaction.  Both CEOs have different personality styles, even though they are both quite successful.  Mr. Bonsignore has a very open philosophy of meeting with and working with employees; being accessible to them.  Even though Mr. Bonsignore tends to be a bit stricter in his methodology of managing employees, he stills sees the value of employee appreciation.  Mr. Bethune has somewhat of a different outlook on customers.

What barriers do you see based on what you observed in the video?  The main barriers I see will be changing the corporate culture because not everyone is open to change.  Considering the age of the video, both CEOs will have to deal with new technology and a new group of younger employees with different perspectives and expectations of the work environment.  From a managerial and leadership perspective, I think there will be challenges for both Bonsignore and Bethune.  What must be kept in perspective is how cultural acceptance changes with environmental changes.  Although Mr. Bethune seems very sincere when address his employees and organization; I got mixed signals from Bonsignore who is a lot stricter in his approaches to organizational change.  The video paints a picture that Bethune has successfully grasped technological strategies in theory and application, whereas Bonsignore does not seem to be concerned with such theories, his focus is on the bottom line.  He places more importance on profits.  The fact is the success of both company CEOs will be based on acceptance from the employees.  The last barrier I see in the future is an identity crisis facing the company now that they have merged.  They now have to devise a system that establishes goals, policies, and values that portray what they are now and not what they were in the past.  At the same time, the organizational change needs to articulate a clear vision/mission statement that everyone can understand, comprehend, and accept as they progress toward future success.

What critical success factors should Honeywell consider as it crafts its organizational strategies around a new culture?  Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell needs to consider a fully integrated approach to change management.  He must not overlook the fact that behavioral, structural, and technological (change) factors must be considered in relation to the new organization as he leads his team strategies in creating a new culture.  The biggest factors for success will be the human factor.  The communication of the vision is paramount to getting the organization in line as well.  If employees can see the same vision that Michael sees, then it is all the more likely to find success.  He also needs to understand employees will portray a different attitude when he is around compared to when he is not. He must not seem as if he is forcing a new culture upon his organization.  Last but not least, I would inform him to consider the impact of culture shock; trying to implement too much of a culture change at one time.   

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?  This video showed several key factors to leadership and organizational change.  First and foremost, there is no one perfect style of leadership when it comes to addressing major change in an organization.  Both CEOs; Bethune and Bonsignore, admitted that they have made mistakes and the best thing to do is to own up to it, learn from it, and move forward.  Another lesson from this video is to continue to invest in human capital which is important to anyone in a leadership position. Bethune reemphasizes the importance of this by stating the often repeated statement of what differentiates leadership and management; leaders do the right thing and management do things right. Last but not least, I think the strongest factor to remember is organizational change is not an individual endeavor.  It takes positive leadership that seeks to retain the best elements from the individual companies to succeed.  Motivating employees toward success is an integral part of achieving organizational success now and in the future.  With all that being said, I will try to remember the importance of human capital within in my own organization as my fellow instructors and I implement new training technology and materials.