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

MSLD 635 Module 3 - 50 Reasons Not to Change/The Tribes We Lead

50 Reasons Not to Change… The Tribes We Lead

Godin (2009) says we live in a new model of leadership, where the way we make change is not by using money or power to lever a system, but by leading, by connecting a tribe of people who are desperate to be connected to each other, by leading a movement and making change.

People has a natural resistance to change (Brown, 2011; Heathfield, 2018), , giving constant excuses to avoid the “threatening” aspect that change brings. When I hear a colleague giving excuses, before even considering the details, or gathering a bit of data behind the change, instantly I think “what a closed mind” and on the same moment I start preaching about the big picture, all the aspect that could have been involved and all possible positive impacts. My most common reaction is to present a holistic perspective of the changing process.

Although I am aware of the power of change, and that it is essentially important in development, as a human I also resist. Considering Godin’s list, I tend to use "this will not stand, I can't abide this status quo” or "this one is not important, we need to organize around it." I believe a way I can overcome my resistance thinking is by stepping back and zooming out, trying to look in different angles and also trying to gather more data to understand all the driven forces behind the decision to change.

I personally don’t agree that change is driven by tribes, but I believe that leading by tribes can be an effective strategy on leading change, a way to kick start a change process, before reaching broader audience and followers.

A lesson I can take in this exercise, is a thought given by Godin which I haven’t though through:

“You don't need everyone to create and lead change. It means that the idea you create, the product you create, the movement you create isn't for everyone, it's not a mass thing. That's not what this is about. What it's about instead is finding the true believers."

The human aspect is crucial to the effectiveness of the changing process, in the role of agents or advocates. If as a leader we not necessarily dictate the change, but possibly only lead a change which is already in progress. I believe the same way we only need a small group of people embracing our change, a small group of people also only need a leader to believe in them to spark change. The roles os change agents and advocates is not necessarily related to the formal rank one has in a organization.

References

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

Godin, S. (2009). The tribes we lead. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead/transcript

Heathfield, S. M. (2018, December 10). What Is Resistance to Change? How to Spot Resistance to Change in Your Company. Retrieved from https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-resistance-to-change-1918240

MSLD 635 Module 2 - How Companies can make Better Decision

How Companies Can Make Better Decisions

Hock et al (2001) state that only few of us are aware that we do not make good decisions, and one of the reasons is that, as long as the results are positive, we do not look closely to our decision processes. Blenko (2010) lists four elements for an effective decision making:

1.      Quality: goal achievement

2.      Speed: how fast decisions are made and how it plays a role on its effectiveness

3.      Yield: the planned decision is coherently put in practice

4.      Effort: are the action being fully embraced and acted upon.

Through an extensive research, Blenko (2010) confirmed her hypothesis that decision making effectiveness is correlated with employee engagement and brings positive financial results. Considering the conclusion that for a change to happen in its totality, it requires the involvement of the organization also as a whole, it is impossible to neglect the importance of the employees as change agents. On the last three elements of Blenko’s list, the direct and indirectly correlation between the decision and people involved in the change is undeniable.

Blenko (2010) also listed steps for effective decision making:

1.      Understanding how well decisions are being made

2.      Identifying critical strategic and operational decision

3.      Setting up decision for success by defining what is the decision, who is involved, how it will be implemented and when (calendar)

4.      Ensuring support from all elements of the organization

5.      Holistic embedding/ embracement inside the organization.

Again, if a closer look is taken at Blenko’s five steps, it is undeniable how the human factor plays an intrinsic role on the decision-making process and the power it “holds in hand” for its effectiveness. Considering the researchers’ data and presentation, I believe employee engagement should be considered not only as a change agent after the decision is made, but also in the organization/ change development. Critical decisions are not necessarily the big ones, but often includes strategic and operational decisions. Who best to describe and debate about operational factors if not the “operator”?

On implementing change, the frontline is the one that will deal and live with the change in a daily basis. How to ignore their opinion before the change is made, and on the ongoing process of the decision implementation? If employees do not understand the purpose behind the change, if does not see the long-term effects, I believe that hardly the decision or the change will happen fully.

      Impediments or barriers for good decision making, according to Blenko (2010), are not limited but include the following:

1.      Establishment of decisions that matter

2.      Unclear of who makes the decision and who is involved on the process of decision making

3.      Lack of leadership behind the decision-making process

4.      Lack of expertise

Adding to Blenko’s list, I also believe that an unsafe platform for open discussion, highly hierarchic organizations and departments agenda are possible and frequently witnessed barriers for effective decision making. I also pursue the idea that two more crucial elements should be included on Blenko’s list (previously stated) as: (1) Data collection/ Inventory and (2) Holistic Involvement. The own author indirectly describe these elements as important factors, but not necessarily lists as core elements for effective change.

      A way to apply this exercise and knowledge in my career is trying to find platforms to engage on the change process. In my organization often the workforce is only informed about the decisions made. We have internal and external Organization Development Practitioners at the moment but the involvement of employees is limited to change implementation, and often forced downwards. I know about trials before changes happen and I am also aware about change ambassadors that the company choose to represent the workforce on the change development. Looking for a platform where I can be part of this team would assist me on directly chang the decision-making enforcing reality. Lately I have been in workshops where changes are being informed. Although the workshops are designed for informative communication, it is clear that the company want to hear from employees after the change is being implemented. Taking this reality in consideration, I can open the communication channel with the departments directly involved in the operational change process (Product and Development) and report directly to my manager to look for support and guidance on opinion and communication patterns in the office, as I work remotely.

References

Blenko, M. (2010, October 13). How companies can make better decision, faster. Retrieve from https://youtu.be/pbxpg6D4Hk8

Hoch, S., Gunther, R., Kunreuther, H. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. New York, NY: Wiley.

MSLD 635 Module 1 - 21st Century Enlightenment

21st Century Enlightenment

“Enlightenment is not a historical period, but a process of social, psychological or spiritual development, unbound to time or place” (Stanford, 2017). Although it is a process mainly expressed on the eighteenth century, it carries values, meaningfulness, challenges and learnings which can be applied to 21^st century. The current century carries some peculiarities different from those of the “original enlightenment period”. We are leaving in a world of constant changes (Brown, 2011), not only in the market field, but in a human perspective. Cohesive is not our “only engine” anymore. We are moved by ideals, same as the pioneer thinkers of enlightenment, and our understanding of the effect between natural and social world in human nature increased substantially (Taylor, 2010)

            Taylor (2010) reinforces in the wake of enlightenment that to live differently we need to think differently. By that he means that we, as humans, need to see the world and ourselves from a new perspective, with more self-awareness socially embedded in a model of autonomy, focusing on our ability to empathize, and that we also need to resist to our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar, and wrong or false that which is only strange. As humans, the way we perceive the world is based on our experiences. Often, the way we perceive the world around us is more a reflection of ourselves instead of the reality. A clear example in my company that reflects this idea is the way the high leadership apparently perceive the flight attendant traits, in a personal scope. For instance, in one of the forums created and ran by leaders just to front line (to cabin crew to be more specific), one of the highest leaders in the company, when questioned about a decision made that impacted directly on the quality of life of the workforce, made some statement that have shown inaccurate facts, simply based on some of the trues about very specific people he has heard of (detail is not given due to company policies on exposure of information).

            I believe communication, in several different ways, is the tool we humans have to change the superficial reality of relationships and to break through the limits of logic in science, markets and bureaucracy. Communication by acknowledging, honoring and debating different point of views. Communication by sharing of information (personally and virtually). Communication gathering of cultures we come across in this global world, to make it universal apart from global.

            The lack of empathy, understanding, values norms and cognitive factors in our relationships is undermining the full potential of human interactions. It is also undermining the potential of changes towards evolvement. Humans are becoming skeptical about working collaboratively. The 21^st century brings with it a virtual reality that sabotage the blossoming nature of collaborative work environment. It does not mean that relating with each other virtually jeopardizes completely collaboration, but I believe the barriers of virtual relations have a destructive effect in human growth, consequently in the potential of organization changes.

            I have been thinking through this subject for a while, as the nature of my job allows me to constantly reflect upon the need of changes, the potential of diversity and the power of empathy, and also due to the Master degree I am majoring  An interesting perspective brought by Taylor (2010) that haven’t crossed my mind is how the author presented enlightenment as a process of cultural psychotherapy. I haven’t thought about enlightenment through these lenses, therefore I haven’t seen this process as a correlation between all beings of a human (social, natural, cultural, intellectual). Another take away is the reason behind the stalling of empathy and the counter relation of globalization vs public deficits.

The questions are:

What are the necessary measures to deal with globalization in order to achieve a positive outcome?

Currently, globalization is fostering empathy or hostility between humans?

References

Brown, D. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stanford (2017, August 29). Enlightenment. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/

Taylor, M. (2010. August 19). RSA ANIMATE: 21st Century Enlightenment. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=youtu.be

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.