MSLD 635 Module 8 - Transformational Strategies

Transformational Strategies

Good management does not mean trying harder by using old methods but by developing strategies. Leaders play a major role in organizational performance, not just as the leading but as the starting point of all the changing process. Transformation in an organizational level requires change and redesign to total structure and managerial processes, including norms and corporate cultures. (Brown, 2011).

A corporate culture can be its major strength when consistent with its strategies. Cultural change efforts include activities designed to improve the skills/ ability and motivation of organization members in personal, social and structural aspects (Brown, 2011). An example of how to implement cultural change through effective strategy and actions is given by Vital Smarts (2012) when covering the change process of a Texas Furniture Company using the Influencer Training Program, which is a leadership course that teaches proven strategies to drive high-leverage, rapid, and sustainable behavior change for teams and organizations (Vital Smarts, 2019). Changing drastically was the only alternative the leader had in hand, in order to try to save the company from a probable bankruptcy. Analyzing the Strategy Culture Matrix by Brown (2011, p. 407) along with the Gallery Furniture illustration, I could comprehend that in the initial stage, the organization was in quadrant 3 where they had a low compatibility of change with existing culture, however high need for strategic change, therefore requiring a management around the culture. At a later state, when change was implemented and results were reflecting its effectiveness, they stationed in quadrant 2, with a high compatibility of change/management with existing culture, however low need for strategic change/management. Based on the results shown by Vital Smarts, Gallery Furniture at a later stage only needed to reinforce the culture daily, not letting complacency blind their potential or fade their efforts.

Change is not a subject limited to the corporative environment. In military leaders also face inevitable change, not only related to technical strategies in the war field, but also culturally speaking. McChrystal (2011) relates the subject matter with the September 11th, 2001 incident and how it impacted not only the nation in individual levels, but also presented a leadership challenge that would impact the military approach. Similar to the current reality in corporations, the things that were obvious and familiar before, are not anymore. The environment changed, the speed, the scrutiny, the sensitivity of everything now is so fast, sometimes it evolves faster than people have time to really reflect on it. Everything is in a different context (McChrystal, 2011). The increase of virtual teams is forcing complex decisions to be made by distance, leaders to communicate remotely and followers to support all initiatives and decisions made by leaders without looking into their eyes. Built and rebuild trust and confidence became more necessary than ever after September 11^th, so did happen with corporations after the Information Technology boom. McCarthy also touches base on diversity of followers (background, generation, gender) and the inversion of expertise. In the “new leadership culture” a leader needs to stay credible and legitimate, more transparent and a lot more willing to listen, and to be reverse mentored from lower. 

Corporations and military that are adapting to the changes forced by the contemporary world, creating a culture of inclusiveness, collaboration and transparency are the ones striving. We often witness several large and “powerful” organizations that are shutting doors or are being forced to merge because of the inability to adapt. The above illustrations along with Brown (2011) textbook, in my opinion, imply that after a drastic and complete change an organization/leader needs to keep the situational awareness high and reinforces/maintain the living culture inside the organization in order to achieve a long-lasting transformation.

References

McChrystal, S. (2011, March). Listen, learn then lead. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal

Vital Smarts. (2012, September 16). Influencer | Gallery Furniture Video Case Study. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=E20RW75Fhu4

Vital Smarts. (n.d.). Lead with influence. Retrieved from https://www.vitalsmarts.com/influencer-training/, on September 29, 2019.

MSLD 635 Module 7 - INSEAD Reflection

INSEAD Reflection

    A self-managed team is an autonomous group whose members decide how to handle their task, and where increased responsibility is placed on team members (Brown, 2011). Self-management does not imply a leader is absent. It is initially seen as a paradox (Insead, 2008) since a superficial view of the term would not make sense but looking at it in depth allows us to understand that the role of the leader is distinct and not absent.

To start it is crucial to identify the three levels of management in a self-managed team (Brown, 2011):

1.      Internal team leader: a member of the group

2.      External team leader: partially similar to the supervision role in traditional organization

3.      Support team leader: partially similar to site manager (responsible for general and broader aspects)

    According to Paul Tesluk, on his interview with Insead (2008) leaders in self-managed team, through visionary and enthusiastic communication, help the team to develop capabilities, to understand unique strengths, roles and responsibilities, and to understand the goal. This leader is flexible about the means of the work but specific about the ends (goal setting), not micromanaging but establishing a quality work relationship in a team with high level of expertise, knowledge and diversity (Instead, 2008; Brown, 2011).

  The major benefits of self-managed team, in my opinion, is the flexibility to work which sparks creativity, along with specific goals/ends which sparks accountability, consequently quality productivity, which explains what Brown (2011) mentions regarding self-managed team being a technique of total quality management. Considering the characteristics of self-managed teams listed by Brown (2011, p. 350) I believe that closeness of the group, flatter management, open communication, diversity and collaboration is what draw the potential this type high performance team.

    I believe the drawback of self-managed team is not on its nature but on the neglection of its foundation. If the characteristics of a self-managed team is ignored, a team of this nature tends to fail, as the base/structure is not well sustained. Obolensky (2014) explains this principle when covering the base of polyarchic organizational leadership. An organization to be flatter requires a strong foundation, otherwise it is led to “death”. Brown (2011, p. 351) touches base on this aspect when he mentions the new organization structure required for the success of a self-managed team.

I believe as a facilitator/member I would like to work in such a team, if it is structured and the characteristics are present, due to its flexibility and trust nature. As a manager I am not so sure I would enjoy as I believe I lack several traits to be successful on leading this type of team. The struggles I would go through and the high possibility of failing could turn the joy into stress, unless I first work on my weaknesses.

    To be an external manager of a self-managed work team I would need to develop my communication skills (less detailed and more concise communication), my micro-managing rooted behavior, my controlling leadership type (if I detect mistake I correct and then talk to the employee, opposing what Tesluk mention about allowing mistakes to happen) and especially my broader knowledge on all aspects of a successful decision (considering my current organization).

     Last, I do not believe all organization or departments could support a self-management team, unless high leadership embraces the potential and details of this type of team. We rarely see companies as Google (Brown, 2011), with its size, broadness and impact, succeeding in horizontal leadership. As the author says, although it is an aspect that needs to embraced organization-wide, operationally works more in departments or plants.

References

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

Insead. (2008, September 22). Self-managing teams: debunking the leadership paradox. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=133&v=GBnR00qgGgM

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

MSLD 635 Module 6 - EcoSeagate

EcoSeagate

Today’s leaders are being challenged to provide leadership in new and changing conditions. Teams are being seen as a way to organize professional work, but high-performing work teams does not happen by an edict from upper management or the people in strategic planning restructuring the company. It comes with deliberate planning and training, taking years to implement. Members of an effective team are open, honest, supportive, trustworthy, cooperative, collaborative, committed to team’s goals, working in an environment where decisions are reached by consensus and where communications channels are open and well developed (Brown, 2011).

One of the techniques used for team development is outdoor experiential laboratory training. Seagate Technology, for instance, used this technique to show the value of teamwork (a lab called EcoSeagate) and also to change the perception that employees had in top leaders of the company, whom, in their perspective, used a punishment culture to get things done. Some factors, in my opinion, made this technique valuable for the organization, as:

1.      Diversity on participants (diversity on background, culture and expertise is crucial for groups being considered a team and make quality decisions)

2.      Small groups (division of participants in small groups for higher effectiveness)

3.      Planning (high structured and planned lab)

4.      Subjects (Chao, 2008) - (topics covered and their variety cohesive with teamwork. E.g. conflict, commitment, accountability, trust, so forth. )

5.      Resilience on Value vs Money (CEO resilient under high pressure from stockholders)

Team development aims to integrate the individual’s and group’s goals to the goals of the organization. Team building and development is used to increase communication, cooperation and cohesiveness, consequently increasing productivity and effectiveness (Brown, 2011). In high-performing teams it is still necessary to develop a team as the comfort-zone may lead the members to the traps of groupthink, stated by Brown (p.268) as illusion of invulnerability, of morality, of unanimity, rationalization, shared stereotypes, self-censorship, mind guards and direct pressure, affecting the group awareness of possible internal and external threats. Because team development covers dynamic aspects as competition, diversity, group processes and intergroups relationships, team development is high-performing teams is even more crucial.

My organization, being highly complex and extremely impacted by external forces operating in an interdependent internal environment, could definitely benefit from a corporate bootcamp as EcoSeagate. The main reason I believe in its potential outcome is due to the structure of this external lab, having diversity on expertise and ranked positions as a rule, and a small group nature giving an opportunity for closer relationships. I work in a diverse company where its employees come from a highly diverse culture and background and operate mainly in large groups. Decision are made by few and forced downwards and although collaboration is often espoused, it is rarely practiced. Safe platform is boycotted by high leader, consequently communication does not flow on its full potential. This type of technique would allow a change in perspective from all ranks and increase the trust among collaborators.

References

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

Chao, M. (2008, April 25). EcoSeagate 2008 1/3. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCOfOFMiLtE&feature=youtu.be

Chao, M. (2008, April 26. EcoSeagate 2008 2/3. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etwuap-_Azk&feature=youtu.be

MSLD 635 Module 5 - Video Debrief of Team MA

Video Debrief of Team MA

Researches on effective organizations shows that the team approaching to management is increasing each day, because of the importance of teams/groups. Therefore, companies nowadays are concerned about the way they manage their employees. An effective process that has shown to be powerful in the corporative world is empowerment. Empowerment, covering decision making, accountability, responsibility and ownership (Brown, 2011) have been valued lately and it is seen as a watershed in the world of businesses that are built to last to last (Collins & Porras, 1994).

An illustration of empowerment, also of interpersonal interventions is shown in a video that presents the beginning of NeXT startup (Jobs Official, 2017). All employees involved at the first steps of the company could give their opinion, which was listened, debated, analyzed and discussed until a final decision was made. And the cycle restarted again with every input. There are several characteristics of Organization Development illustrated in this video, and although the company was not going through a process of change, it was starting from scratch, which made a huge part of the process easier, but also carried other challenges already overcame in existent organizations.

According to my Management Assessment Profile, in consideration with the environment witnessed in the video, I believe some of my characteristics would have fit with the makeup and culture of the NeXT startup team, in different ways. The assessment has shown that I am a diplomatic leader, comfortable in complex situations, who can add skills in mediation and enjoy influencing others and can help keep an organization running smoothly by focusing on motivating and inspiring people to achieve visionary goals. An interesting aspect is observed by looking at graphic, which although shows I possess diplomatic traits, proves that I am located barely in the middle of the graphic, which means I can deal with all different type of people without getting into conflict. On the meetings for the makeup of NeXT this leadership style would have contributed with the nature of the team (diverse in leadership styles and empowered).

When it comes to the independence characteristic of the assessment, it shows that I have a balanced desire for structure and for being independent, which means I like working with structure but appreciate some flow on work and a certain level of autonomy. This could contribute with the startup as the rules, deadline and purpose were pre-established, but flexibility for change and value for employee inputs was also present. The assessment has shown that I am highly driven by challenges and by going beyond the boundaries for improvement, if I observe a gap for it. These traits fit well, in my opinion, with the startup and the CEO, as it appears to be the mantra of the project.

When it comes to take risks, I present a balanced business risk desire which could play in favor of the startup, as it showed acceptance for risks, as soon as the risk is critically thought through and cautions were taken. In terms of innovation, although I am people oriented and not product, service or process oriented, I have a high desire for problem solving, which according to the debriefing with a specialist, it plays an important role on organization as I contribute by focusing on the solution and not the problem. The caution in this term is dealing with people that keep touching base on problems and details and cannot see beyond the problems’ boundaries. In this case I would need to use my diplomatic skills to overcome this possible weakness while working in a high-level team and NeXT’s.

As a person not driven by financial metrics (professionally neither personally), this trait would play in my favor as the financial risks carried while creating a new organization, and also the risks of leaving a stable job, could affect my performance otherwise. Although the money invested was from the CEO personal budget and it was intended to cover 18 months of the organization development, from what I could observe it was not the driven force of the project neither the concern brought up frequently. The engine of the startup and the entire team was the purpose of the project, and the promising success as being pioneering in the field. The financial factor was focused to the outcome of the project, instead of the makeup of the organization, an aspect that is aligned with my low financial driven trait.

Taking part on the assessment makes a huge difference on my performance in my current organization, and in my upcoming career. Although the assessment has just proven points I knew about myself, it gave me a better picture on what I need to be aware of when going through challenging situations, apart from reinforcing my awareness of strengths I possess and eventually neglect. It helps me building confidence, by enabling me to work in my proven weaknesses (in advance or during a situation) and allowing my positive traits to flourish without uncertainty.

References

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

Collins, J. C., Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York, NY: Harper Business.

Jobs Official (2017, November 24). Steve Jobs brainstorms with the NeXT team 1985. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udi0rk3jZYM&t=637s

MSLD 635 Module 4 - Build a Tower, build a Team

Build a Tower, Build a Team

The leadership role is being transformed because of the increasing importance of team’s in today’s organization. Research on effective organizations shows that more and more organizations are relying on the team approach to managing (Brown, 2011).

Wujec (2010), on his short presentation, talk about the marshmallow challenge, created by Peter Skillman. The purpose of Wujec was to analyze the performance of different types of individual and teams in a simple activity that reveals a lot of aspects of a groups and teams. One of the Wujec’s conclusion is that kindergartners perform better than MBA students. The reason inferred by the author is that simplicity has a powerful note on teamwork. Partially I agree with Wujec because I believe that facing simple situations in a complex way tends to turn simplicity into complexity. The reason I agree partially is covered also by the author when he touches base on the preparation aspect. When a task is given in advance, allowing team to discuss and collaborative find solutions the outcome tends to change, and MBA students prove to be also great performers.

Another reason I believe kids perform better is because they get less distracted by external aspects when they have a task in hand. Kids at this age does not have ego; does not worry with status; and they have no agenda when an activity of this level is presented to them. It brings back that simplicity, not only in a technical scope but behavioral speaking, also plays a role on the positive outcome of a situation at hand.

Wujec’s mentions that group of CEOs alone has a lower performance in comparison of CEOs with an executive assistant, due to the assistant’s holistic perspective. Although I agree with Wujec, I also believe there are other aspects that influences the better results. One of them is the fact the assistant, in a situation like this, plays as mediator, due to the CEOs probable similar traits. When CEOs are alone there is a high probability of clash in personalities, agendas and leadership traits. Another aspect is the fact that the assistant probably has a simpler mind, which goes in liaise with the kindergartners results: simplicity is crucial for simple challenges. Last, but not least, the assistance brings the technical collaboration to the “table”. CEOs tend to think in larger scopes and far forward, while assistants deal with technicalities more often.

            If I were asked to facilitate a process intervention workshop, I would relate the balance of skills from the participants on the activities. For instance, I would initially put teams with same background and formal position to work together, and right afterwards I would separate them and build teams as diverse as possible. The purpose of this design would be to present to the participants how collaborative diversity is powerful and how all members contribute to the outcome of the results, independently on how high-skilled they are. This balance on the team’s structure would be brought up also on how systems and subsystem are interrelated as presented by Brown (2011), in the same way people are interdependent.

Jody Rogers (n.d.) presents follow-up questions to ask of the group to facilitate discussion and further learning, which I believe could be used if I were asked to facilitate a process intervention workshop. The questions suggested by Rogers are:

• Was there a leader on your team? Who was it and who decided who the leader would be?
• If you had no leader, do you think having designated someone a leader would have helped?
• If you had a leader, how did he/she do? Of the leadership practices we have learned so far, which did your leader use?
• How helpful was everyone on your team in challenging the process of building the tallest structure? Did anyone appear to be an expert?
• Did any team members tune out of the activity — out of frustration with other members or for some other reason? What could you have done to keep all members of the group fully engaged?
• Did you feel everyone's ideas were well received during the activity?
• How did you feel as the time limit was approaching? Did pressure increase? If yes, was that helpful or not?
• In retrospect, what could you have done better to enhance your ability to Challenge the Process?
• Did you practice outsight? Where might new ideas have come from given your time constraint?
• Did you celebrate small wins? If yes, how did you do this?

            The main learning outcome of this exercise, for me, is how bottom-line employees can contribute to challenges. Their lack of knowledge and of broader perspective can, in fact, be a positive aspect to solve challenges. In my current job I can bring the team together more often to make basic decisions, empowering and delegating decision making. In my career, specially the one I intend to pursue, I can make use of the same or similar challenges to work on team building  and observe group tasks and maintenance task on individuals, not only to reinforce participants strengths but to assist on the diagnosis of team problem and potential, through observation.

References

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

Rogers, J. (n.d.). Challenging the process with the Marshmallow Challenge. Retrieved from http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/resource/challenging-the-process-with-the-marshmallow-challenge.aspx

Wujec, T. (2010, February). Build a tower, build a team. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower