MSLD 521 Module 9 - A Different Kind of Leader

A Different Kind of Leader

           

            Leadership and communication have an inevitable relationship. A message presented by a interactive and actively transformative leader sparks change, and a leader with high communication skills can transform the world. Denning (2011), when touching base on leadership and communication, lists the dimensions of a transformative leader. Interactive leadership, for Denning:

1.      Entails a leader to work with the world rather than against it.

2.      Adds and subtracts elements from the leadership palette.

3.      Doesn’t depend on the possession of hierarchical authority.

4.      Builds on personal integrity and authenticity.

5.      Calls for the leader’s active participation rather than detached observation.

6.      Benefits from an understanding of a different narrative patterns.

Three of Denning’s dimension that I believe to be manifested in my current own application of leadership are:

1.      Entails a leader to work with the world rather than against it.

Professionally, while my organization is passing through several changes, there is a lot of rejection from the front line in applying those changes. Although I do not agree with all of them, and I believe that some challenges could be avoided or diminished, I try to motivate my team to deliver the best, independently of their perceptions. I do that through setting example, through honest conversation, and by valuing my team members’ opinions and performance through reporting suggestions to the company and their outstanding key behaviors.

2.       Doesn’t depend on the possession of hierarchical authority.

I strongly believe on the potential of polyarchic leadership as a powerful tool for long lasting results (Obolensky, 2014). Authority is something I don’t need to perform as a follower, neither as a leader. My team and I work together to achieve results, and all ideas are heard and considered before making decisions. Often, when passing through a challenge which allows me time for brainstorming, I get my team together to collect ideas and gather different perspective, setting a harm free conversation environment to find the best solution. This dimension brings along the third one which I apply.

3.      Calls for the leader’s active participation rather than detached observation.

Whichever decision I make, I embrace it with active participation. I roll up my sleeves and work along with my team, not only in challenging circumstances, but in any regular situation. As I have being in their role for years, my operational performance does not require me a lot of attention, this way allowing to play the role of the leader while performing as a follower by their side. When participating, I am still capable of observing behaviors and performance, adjust decision, provide two-way feedback, and call out poor decision making (independent who decided upon).

Overall, I believe to be interactive and actively connected with my followers, participating with others in any process, however I see a gap to be transformative; to shift perspectives by sharing my vision; to motivate others into action. Aware of this opportunity, I intend to use the power of storytelling, more specifically springboard story (Denning, 2011, chapter 3) and future story (Denning, 2011, chapter 10).

            The dimensions listed by Denning (2011) are reinforced by Obolensky (2014), Northouse (2016), Hill (2014) and McKay et al (2009) to name few of authors whose agree partially or holistically with Denning’s idea. Important to highlight is the ability of critical thinking (Nosich, 2012), when applying the dimensions, which does not necessarily imply that one should replace another, neither that they should be chosen in specific order, but that is essential that all are taken deeply in consideration, though through in all levels. Being able to combine and link the dimensions is possibly the greatest challenge for a leader, but conceivably the greatest achievement.

References

Denning, S. (2011). The Leader's Guide to Storytelling. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hill, L. (2014). How to manage for collective creativity. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/linda_hill_how_to_manage_for_collective_creativity

McKay, M., Davis, M., Fanning, P. (2009). Messages: the communication skills book. (3rd edition). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice. (7^th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the curriculum (4th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2^nd ed). New York, NY: Routledge.

Torres, R. (2013). What it takes to be a great leader. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/roselinde_torres_what_it_takes_to_be_a_great_leader#t-526779

MSLD 521 Module 8 - Cornerstones of Speaking

Cornerstones of Speaking

Supposedly, everyone who voluntarily chose or accept a speech want to be heard. But to be hard is a hard task when it involves public speaking especially when sharing a vision, due to individuals’ diversity in the audience (and what runs in each mind) and the time restriction, to cite few of the obstacles. Other barriers/ habits that a speaker needs to move away from, listed by Treasure (2013) as sins, are: gossiping, negativity, complaining, judging, excusing, lying and dogmatism. These habits should be avoiding not only when publicly speaking, but in every communication performed along the day in all interaction one makes, so when it is time to a presentation, there is no barriers previously created in the audience’s mind, including lack of credibility.

The author, in the other hand, presents four cornerstones for a speaker to stand on to deliver a powerful message, using the acronym HAIL, which stands for honesty, authenticity, integrity and love. Duarte (2011) also touches base on the love aspect, as a form to encourage emotion in the audience, facilitating the process of connection with the message and the presenter. Love, in this sense, represents the passion on the presentation.

     While Treasure (2013) shows general foundation for communication, Charlie Houpert (2016), on his channel Charisma on Command, analyzing Kevin Hart’s storytelling techniques, provides more specific strategies in order to capture people’s attention, as follow below:

1.      Capture attention before start speaking (preamble, be personal to with the audience, start with an introduction sentence until getting everyone attention, then move to the presentation)

2.      Bring back the attention in case the audience gets distracted, then continue with the story

3.      Tell the audience, and repeat it, reinforce it, what is going to be said (first of the “Tell’em” technique, as per Whalen, 2007)

4.      Commit to the story (with the content and paralanguages)

5.      Spice up the story with expressions (the passion aspect)

6.      Test your story and only use the best material (the one’s that got audience attention in the past)

7.      Increase your awareness of what make people loose attention and what catch their minds.

Up to the present, there are two particular things I do to get people’s attention: speaking with passion and play characters. When I am telling a story, it is like I am reviving the moment, so I make the sounds, I tell fellow character’s comments in first person, I increase my tone and I wait until the attention is all on me. My strategies look pretty much like Hart’s techniques, although I have never studied storytelling or public speaking cornerstones, so all of them is part of an unconscious process.

The technical jargons mentioned by McKay et al (2009) and Whalen (2007), which I will be taking in consideration on my future presentations, are:

1.      Prepare my speech in advance, choosing extemporaneous presentation always when possible.

2.      Have the speech designed in a logical order

3.      Try to follow the Tell’em technique (Whalen, 2007), inserted on Duarte’s (2011) speech design.

4.      Keep the communication simple

5.      Get on the message and get off fast

6.      Use the power of silence – enjoy pauses

7.      Use key words

8.      Do not read the talk

9.      Focus on the future possibilities and benefits, not simple conclusions of the presentation, presenting expected behavioral goal, by the end.

As theorical science, technical learning also assists on leadership skills development, although it cannot constrict a leader’s flexibility. There is a considerable number of factors at stake, when developing and making a presentation, so the techniques and strategies should be used along with critical thinking (Nosich, 2012) for the best outcome. The flexibility allowed in leadership and storytelling is fascinating, but prudence is necessary to avoid neglecting the social science researches, developed to assist leader to lead successfully. Collectiveness, as in human interactions, also is shown to be powerful in knowledge integrality.

References

Duarte, N. (2011). The secret structure of great talks. Retrieved form https://www.ted.com/talks/nancy_duarte_the_secret_structure_of_great_talks/transcript

Houpert, C. (2016, February 22). Kevin Hart’s 3 secrets to hilarious storytelling. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_L4OPU_rg&feature=youtu.be.

McKay, M., Davis, M., Fanning, P. (2009). Messages: the communication skills book. (3rd edition). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the curriculum (4th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson

Treasure, J. (2013). How to speak so that people want to listen. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/julian_treasure_how_to_speak_so_that_people_want_to_listen

Whalen, D. J. (2007). The Professional Communications Toolkit. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.

MSLD 521 Module 7 - Secret Structure

Secret Structure

            An idea, to be considered effective, needs to be spread, and the most effective way to share an idea is through story (Duarte, 2011). For an idea to impact and spark change, needs to resonate, to create a human connection (Duarte, 2013), to confirm some truths that deepens the understanding of who you we are as human being (Stanton, 2012).

Duarte describes few different structures, which in my opinion is an evolution of each other, or a zooming perspective of looking into them. First, Duarte talks about Aristotle views with the three-act (beginning, middle, end) structure of storytelling. Duarte subsequently presents Freytag’s pyramid (exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, denouement) as another possibility of structure, which in fact does not contradict Aristotle but complement with deeper details.

Then, Duarte (2011) presents her own view of an effective structure in storytelling founded on her views of Aristotle and Freytag, which consists initially in presenting the idea to the audience and making the status quo unappealing. Crafting the beginning involves describing life as the audience knows it. People should be nodding their heads in recognition because you’re articulating what they already understand opens them up to hear your ideas for change (Duarte, 2012, October 31), which illustrates some physical reactions created by effective storytelling (Duarte, 2013).

Then a presenter should move to the middle part, talking about the possibility of the future in case the idea is adopted, introducing the vision of what could be. The gap between the two will throw the audience a bit off balance, and that’s a good thing, because it jars them out of complacency (Duarte, 2012, October 31). In this middle part a presenter goes back to reality, moving to the future again, over and over to fight resistance, with repetition, metaphors and appropriate rhythm (Duarte, 2011) until reaching a point of a new norm, new bliss as described by the author, a poetic and dramatic way to call for action (Duarte, 2011), a way to show how better the world would be if the idea was adopted, in a bigger picture.

For my presentation I intend to use all Duarte’s techniques, however I do not plan to go over and over between reality and future several times, as my presentation does not have a business narrative, and shares more a vision, therefore less resistance, supposedly. One of Duarte’s technique I plan to use for the slide presentation, is based on her Harvard Business Review Video (2012, December 11), as follow:

1.      Use slides selectively

2.      Write the slides after the speech is prepared

3.      Design slide people can understand in 3 seconds

4.      Storyboard one concept per slide

5.      Use slide as visual complementation

All the studies are off extreme value and will assist me to communicate my idea, but as for Stanton (2012), the amusement of storytelling is that it has guidelines, not rules, therefore, the structures will be taken in consideration but not confine my creativity; an idea defended by all authors in storytelling that I had the opportunity to read or watch through my course.

References

Duarte, N. (2011). The secret structure of great talks. Retrieved form https://www.ted.com/talks/nancy_duarte_the_secret_structure_of_great_talks/transcript

Duarte, N. (2012, October 31). Structure your presentation like a story. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/10/structure-your-presentation-li

Duarte, N. (2012, December 11). Create slides people will remember. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeV2fHEM4RI

Duarte, N. (2013, March 21). How to tell a story. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JrRQ1oQWQk

Stanton, A. (2012). The clues to a great story. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_stanton_the_clues_to_a_great_story

MLSD 521 Module 6 - Sustained Change

Sustained Change

“Burning Platform”, a term created in the 80s by Daryl Conner (2010), is a tool, a psychological formula to sustain change. Conner says that good ideas do not go as far as business imperative. The leader’s behavior towards change is what will define the position of the organization in the market, no matter if it is already at risk, or if the leader is preventing a coming issue through taking a current opportunity.

The psychological formula, mentioned by Conner, is founded when the price of the status quo is higher than the price of the transition. The author defends the idea that when the risk of complacency is higher than the risks of a change, one is moved towards change putting fear aside and moving forward. When a platform is already burnt there is no choice and the leader along with the team do not consider looking back, as there is nothing to look at.

Anthony (2012) says the ideal is preventing the platform to burn. He goes along with Conner’s perspective, with the same ideal, however his focus is on prevention. At the other edge, Gilbert et al (2012), defend a more cautious idea, where they believe a change can be led with a regrouping strategy, sharing the transformation in two separate projects. “Transformation A should reposition the core business, adapting its current business model to the altered marketplace, and Transformation B should create a separate, disruptive business to develop the innovations that will become the source of future growth, this way, avoiding the risks of an aggressive transformation.

Independent of perspective, it is important that the change is well communicated. What leads the change, the way a leader chooses to sustain it and the business imperatives are crucial, but if the vision, goals and directions are not well communicated, the change burns along with the platform, and the transformation gets stalled (Kotter, 1996). According to Kotter, there are two cases of communication failure: inconsistency with the vision of the change, and frequent but poor communication.

There was a time, around three years ago, that I have found myself in a group with my colleagues (all onboard leaders), waiting for cabin crew managers to roll out an important  "change initiative to support a vision”. The company wanted the seniors onboard to be more supportive and decided to use a new performance review platform as a tool. The previous developed platform was being misused, and some of designed features was leading to misunderstand. This way, they spend more than a year developing a new performance review design, with restructuring of words and approach. The management team delivered the message, included the vision and the goal of the platform, and clarified all the doubts.

It was a full day of training on the new features and how to use each of them. Managers included some media to the presentation with curiosities about the company’s numbers, differences between generations and their common expectations, as we range between 21 to 60 years old in our department. The presentation was interactive, with role play, funny videos, different managers to talk about each topic, jump in of leadership training department, and coffee breaks to allow interaction and the information to be absorbed and discussed informally.

Because of the issues faces with the previous review platform, we were more than a year with no performance review at all, and this was causing some issues with careless attitude from the staff, and onboard leaders only documenting major behavioral issues through other communication channels. This issue made us all get excited about the introduction of the new platform, so getting me and my colleagues’ attention was not an issue from the beginning. As mentioned, the design of the presentation was well developed so the presentation ran smoothly with a great interaction. There were times when numbers and lack of deep information about the change (as the developing team was not present) distracted us from the main vision, but overall the message was well delivered.

The change has been technically sustained, along with other initiatives, as new requirements for promotions for instance. There was no way back, the consequences of the lack of a system was unsustainable and a performance review was necessary, as it is crucial in large organizations. The goal was achieved, the vision is maintained, but the values behind the vision is hindered. Team members are being supported by positive but general comments, often not discussed or not detailed. Feedbacks are not being given, and when it is delivered, it is done once, usually at the end of the journey, when nothing can be done to corrected and no impact can be anymore created. Often leaders give the virtually documented performance review to the crew member to read in a tablet, and after been read the review is submitted, without discussion, dialogue or any personal interaction, whatsoever.

The system is being misused again, but in opposite direction. Before was used as a tool to punish the reviewed staff, and now is used to motivate them (although I do not believe it is truly motivating anyone), as the management required. The vision was clear, and well communicated, but apart from not being sustained, is not used for the prior purpose. A performance review platform is to be used to evaluate and follow up a performance, not to motivate team members. This is partly the reason why the change could not be entirely sustained. Another reason I can think of, is that there is no innovation, or a team tracking how the system is been used. The change was defined, communicated and that was over, as if the project is finalized on its first step. A change to be sustained needs to be frequently communicated (Kotter, 2015) and it is not happening in my organization, on this specific change.

The way I am using this “burnt platform” to gain the support of my followers, in order to achieve sustained change, is by using the system with its first purpose (review a performance), focusing on behavioral traits, and when possible using it as a motivational tool (as required by the company), but in a customized way. I deliver feedback constantly throughout the journey, not only to the ones the system assigned to be reviewed, but to all my team members. After that, I document my observations on the review platform and have a discussion (two ways communication) with the crew member whom I was required to evaluate. Independently if the follower was assigned or not to be reviewed, I document the performance in a separate report which goes directly to the management, in case they show an outstanding performance. At the end of any conversation, I ask feedback from followers, on how I can improve as a leader.

These are few steps I take in order to sustain the change implemented by the company. I believe as leaders we are responsible to apply the required change the best way possible. I also believe to achieve this goal we are empowered to put our own twist in order implement transformation. I keep in mind the vision, the goal and the values behind, but how I act upon them is what makes me a leader. Burning platform, whether dealing a high risk or taking an opportunity, needs to be an emotional move (Conner, 2010). By taking every spare time to have dialogue with my followers, by observing them in unexpected circumstances, by asking their opinions, and by providing constructive and uplifting feedback to all followers independent if requirements, I believe it shows how valued they are and how I respected their job and efforts to accomplish the organization’s mission. Touching on core human values, ultimately a leader touches on emotions, and that is the way I lead my team.

  

References

Anthony, S. D. (2012, December 11). How to anticipate a burning platform. Retrieved from  https://hbr.org/2012/12/how-to-anticipate-a-burning-platform

Conner, D. (2010, November 24). Burning Platform: Misunderstanding. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwRB0sHpN9E&feature=youtu.be

Gilbert, C., Eyring, M. Foster, R. N. (2012, December). Two routes to resilience. Retrieved from  https://hbr.org/2012/12/two-routes-to-resilience

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: HBS Press

Kotter, J. (2013, August 2015). Leading change: establish a sense of urgency. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Yfrj2Y9IlI.