MSLD 634 Module 5 - Is Marketing Evil?

Is Marketing Evil?

     Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large (American Marketing Association, 2017). It is a key functional area in the business organization that provides a visible interface with not only customers, but with all other stakeholders. It is important when addressing marketing ethics to recognize that it should be examined from an individual, organizational, and societal perspective (Dincer, B. & Dincer C., 2014)

     For marketers, ethics in the workplace refers to rules governing the conduct of organizational members and the consequences of marketing decisions (Ferrell, 2005). In my perspective, companies do not need to choose between winning or making ethical decision. I believe there is room for both on the process of decision making.

     A poor example for marketing with integrity was the recent campaign of an Italian football club, which started an anti-racism initiative featuring paintings of monkeys. The sport in Italy has been blighted by racist abuse this season, and the artwork commissioned by Serie A was designed to stop fans directing monkey chants at players (Sinnot, J. & Mezzofiore, G., 2019). Although the espoused intention of the artist was good, the anti-racism campaign, in my opinion, not only dehumanized black people by the comparison with an animal, but also reinforced racism by a campaign with a strong message and poor judgement, which provoked a counterproductive result. It reminded me of the Gucci campaign at the beginning of the year, when in a tentative of fighting racism created a sweater which reminded black face. (O’Kane, 2019). I believe both campaigns lacked integrity because in order to cause a brand impact they missed the bigger picture, the holistic perspective that a marketing campaign should take in consideration. These companies, in fact, fed racism and possibly made it stronger.

     If I am in a position of a leader in charge of selling my service to a potential customer, the main consideration I will take is at which expense my argumentation and persuasion will be powerful. Gordon Brown (2009) touches on this point and included the term of global citizenship suggested by Chris Anderson. As mentioned at the beginning of this post, marketing, for its exposing platform and link with the service/product to be provided, must consider all parts involved and affected in the process from creation to publishing. 

     Although a campaign is created to achieve the customer, other stakeholders (internal and external) should not be neglected, neither the competition. One type of campaign that I believe to be unethical is the average political campaign. Instead of seeing candidates talking about their policies and ideas, I often (if not always) observe them mocking and diminishing their strongest competitors. A lot of marketing campaigns focus on the “adversary’s” weakness as a strong strategy. I think that if I reach this point, I need, in fact, review the quality and relevancy of my product/service. While creating an ethical campaign, my number one priority would be analyzing at what expense I am creating an impact. If a campaign is creating harm in any part involved, in my opinion, it means I am lacking integrity. Financial results shouldn’t come first on marketing campaigns. As a leader, we don’t need to choose between a successful or an ethical campaign. With responsibility and creativity, we can have both!

References

American Marketing Association (2017). Definitions of Marketing. Retrieved from https://www.ama.org/the-definition-of-marketing-what-is-marketing/

Brown, G. (2009, July). Global ethics vs national interest. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown_global_ethic_vs_national_interest

Dincer, B; Dincer, C. (2014). An Overview and Analysis of Marketing Ethics. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences (4)11, 151-158

Ferrell, O.C. (2005). A Framework for Understanding Organizational Ethics, in Business Ethics: New Challenges for Business Schools and Corporate Leaders. R.A. Peterson and O.C. Ferrell, (eds.) Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 3-17

Sinnott, J., Mezzofiore, G. (2019, December 2017). Italian soccer anti-racism monkey artwork condemned as 'outrage'. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/16/football/serie-a-racism-artwork-spt-intl/index.html

O’Kane, C. (2019, February 7). Gucci removes $890 "blackface" sweater, apologizes after receiving backlash. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gucci-blackface-sweater-gucci-removes-890-blackface-sweater-apologzies-after-receiving-backlash/

MSLD 634 Module 4 - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Affirmative action is basically the practice of giving special consideration to minorities and women in hiring and school placement (LaFollette, 2007). First instituted in the 1960s and 1970s by employers and educational institutions in response to pressures from civil rights groups, federal legislation, and court rulings, preferential treatment programs seek to rectify the effects of past and ongoing discrimination. (Andre, Velasquez & Mazur, 1992).

LaFollette (2007) and Andre et al. (2007) presents some favorable and opposing arguments to affirmative actions (adapted with my words and opinion):

Against:

1.     Reverse discrimination: when distributing social benefits such as jobs or educational opportunities, recipients should be treated as equals unless there are morally relevant reasons for treating them different.

2.     Hurts those who have done no wrong: impose the burden of compensation on white males who seek jobs or higher education. These individuals are no more responsible for past injustices; therefore, it is unfair that they should bear the full burden of compensation.

3.     The qualification argument: The relevant criteria are an individual's qualifications and skills, not race or sex.

4.     Stigmatizes minorities: devalue minorities achievements, possibly leading to feelings of inferiority, self-doubt, and incompetence.

5.     Victimizes minorities: encourage dependency and reward people for identifying themselves as victims providing them no incentives to become self-reliant or to develop the skills necessary to succeed in the workplace or classroom.

6.     The rights of employers: those who may be more qualified are overlooked while others only minimally qualified are chosen, resulting is reduced productivity and efficiency in the workplace

7.     Neglects others’ needs: ignore the claim of need, denying benefits to disadvantaged white males while lavishing benefits on minorities who aren't in need of them.

8.     Poor target: only persons who have been discriminated against should be given preference. Most of the victims of past discrimination are no longer living, so the issue of just compensation is moot.

9.     Feeds segregation and tensions: as white males are denied positions going to less-qualified minorities and women, they will become increasingly resentful, heightening animosity and tension among groups.

10.  Opens for all types of discrimination: as racism and discrimination affects several groups and not minorities, preferential treatment will spur claims from all groups who feel they have been victims of injustice. For instance, non-minorities are already charging employers and universities with reverse discrimination due to quotas and other formulas used for hiring, promotion, and admission, bringing us back to point number one.

The circle of harms is created!

Favor:

1.      Continuing racism: as a result of past discrimination, women and minorities have been denied their fair share of opportunities. Racism continues to permeate businesses and educational institutions, ranging from prejudice in job classification and minority systems to biases in college entrance exams.

2.      History: Throughout generations, race and sex have been used to deny individuals equal treatment in employment and education. While many of today's minorities and women may not have been themselves the victims of discrimination, they have been victimized by its effects

3.      Domino effect (the minority saga): as descendants of those who were denied jobs or relegated to low-paying positions, they have grown up deprived of the resources, opportunities, and education necessary to develop the skills and confidence needed to compete on equal terms with white males.

4.      Domino effects (the majority saga): while today's white males may not themselves have been perpetrators of discrimination, they have benefitted most from its effects. Racial and sexist policies have given white males an unfair advantage in competing for jobs and college slots. Preferential treatment programs help neutralize this unfair advantage.

5.      Equality of opportunity: preferential treatment programs aim to achieve equal opportunity and provide a more equitable distribution of social and economic benefits.

6.      Cost-benefit: preferential policies redirect jobs and educational opportunities to those who are most in need of them, leading to a reduction in poverty and its associated social costs. And the real cost for the initiative are a fraction of its impacts.

7.      Eye opener for diversity: different perspectives and experiences that minorities and women bring to the workplace and to colleges and universities is an advantage for educational and corporate environments.

8.      Backslash on stigma: any stigmatizing that might concur with affirmative actions is no worse than that resulting from the absence of minorities in positions of influence and power.

9.      Backslash on the productivity factor: in cases in which candidates are equally qualified, productivity will not be affected and in cases in which qualifications do differ, the differences are unlikely to be significant enough to affect productivity.

            While reflecting and inputting my opinions above, I believe that affirmative action programs are only temporary solutions. This doesn’t mean I am against affirmative action, but I believe that other factors should be taken in consideration, in hiring and admission, as:

            1.   Qualification, based not only hard but also soft skills

            2. The hiring and admission requirements should not only look at skin color, geographic                       background or sex, but educational background and family income

                  3. A deep look at criminal background (if any)

                  4.  Quota should allow some flexibility

                  5.   Results after hiring and admission should be a measurement tool on keeping individual or   not., however results should not be limited to numbers but a deep analysis of effort and     contribution.

          I believe a more powerful way to make affirmative action really works is having programs inside corporations and universities that empowers the minorities. There is a high chance the domino effect of the disadvantages from the past will affect the present of individual in minority groups. If the goal of the programs is not only a façade, but it is founded on its espoused intentions, then affirmative actions should be systemic, meaningful and focus on mid and long-term results. Lastly, I defend the idea of affirmative actions at a very early age. Only by working on the cradle of injustice we will see powerful and long-lasting effects.

References

Andre, C; Mazur, T; Velasquez, M. (1992). Affirmative Action:
Twenty-five Years of Controversy. Retrieved from https://legacy.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html

LaFollette (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

MSLD 634 Module 3 - The Harder They Fall

The Harder They Fall

            Overall, being ambitious is a positive quality, however positive consequences of setting and achieving high goals is not always the reality. In fact, in some cases, extreme ambition may end up doing more harm than good. If you believe you're the type of person who is overwhelmingly ambitious, you'll need to watch out for some dangerous side effects (DeMers, 2017).      “In their brilliant and rapid ascents, star leaders repeatedly demonstrate the intelligence, resourcefulness, and drive to go the distance”. They look adept at overcoming whatever obstacles they encounter along the way, however the same leaders “demonstrate uncharacteristic lapses in professional judgment or personal conduct” (Kramer, 2003).

            What Kramer (2003) defends is my strong belief that the higher one climbs, the harder can be (not necessarily is) the fall. This statement has no correlation with risk taking, neither neglect the importance of ambitiousness in corporate and personal success. It simply alerts the precautions necessary to climb safely to the top and know your grounds when you are there. A blind ambition, the aversion for rules and for failure, the prioritization of efficiency over effectiveness, and the down and upward omission to unethical behaviors can lead a star leader (in a personal, professional and public scope) to drastic and almost irreversible collapse.

            Thinking in the societal scope, the ambitiousness of governmental leaders can lead to objective and subjective consequences. In one hand, unethical ambitious can negatively impact on tariffs, taxes, laws, quality inspection of governmental agencies, employment, social services, for instance. On the subjective side, depending on how influential a leader is, it can impact on the society’s behavior and approach to habits and aversion to diversity, for example.

At work the consequences are more explored and explicit, as we have seen several scandals in the past decades being uncovered, leading to radical and spread outcomes, as the great recession of 2008. Unethical ambitious in a small business perhaps affects only the employees and the community around, but usually this trait is rooted in mega corporations, as power has often the last say on the decision-making process. In the latter case, as Kramer (2003) says, the harder is the fall. The consequences achieve once an unimaginable precedent, if was not for the recession. Mega corporations has often equal or more powers than governments, even in developed countries (Kohls, 2014; SPERI, 2019; Ketchell, 2018; Vanbergen, 2016).

In my life, on an individual level, I am often reminding myself of where I came from and the real value of money. Although I am not a high ranked leader, the lifestyle my company provides to me and my fellow colleagues causes confusion and often illusion and distraction from reality. A simple example can illustrate it: my way to work. My salary easily affords a driver on my way to the company. In fact, going to work by taxi or driving is the most common type of transportation of majority of my colleagues. But here follows the math: if I go by taxi, I will spend an average of 50 dollars (return trip) and I will be ready in the office in 25 minutes. Going with my own car will cost me around 25 dollars and will take me around 40 minutes as I need to find a public parking spot. However, if I go by metro, it will take me one hour and fifteen minutes, but it will cost me 5 dollars   (return trip). When my colleagues ask me why I decided for public transportation, if in a month I would spend an average of only 5% of my salary on private transportation, I instantly say: “because I need to keep my feet on the ground”.

The reality of the country I live in, especially the city where I reside and the lifestyle, I can have access of, often deludes people, who struggle to adjust when they need or decide to shift careers and place of residence. It also reflects on uncontrolled expense and perception of monetary devalue. I constantly policy myself of the traps that a blin ambitious life can lead me too. While climbing to the cliff of my career, I triple check the straps and the safety gear, and I keep skeptic about the pleasures of the view and the breeze of the tip point!

References

DeMers, J. (2017, September 7). Can Excessive Ambition Actually Ruin Your Chances of Success? Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/299222

Kramer, R. M. (2003). The Harder They Fall. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

Ketchell, M. (2018, July 11). Who is more powerful – states or corporations?

Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/who-is-more-powerful-states-or-corporations-99616

Kohls, G. G. (2014, March 4). The Powers and Abuses of America’s Mega-Corporations. Retrieved from https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-powers-and-abuses-of-americas-mega-corporations/5371901

SPERI (2019, January 3). Corporate Power & the Global Economy. Retrieved from http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2019/01/03/corporate-power-the-global-economy/

Vanbergen, G. (2016, June 21). The Rise of the Corporatocracy. Retrieved from https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-rise-of-the-corporatocracy/5532097

MSLD 634 Module 2 - Theories of Ethics

 Theories of Ethics

There are two main theories behind the definition and understanding of ethics: consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism states that we should choose the available action with the best overall consequence, requiring the consideration of the interests of all affected. On the other hand, the deontologist approach states that we should act by moral rules and rights, partly independently of consequences (LaFollette, 2007).

I tend to lean more toward consequentialism, but often I catch myself as a deontologist. LaFollette (2007) highlights one point that explain why this happens to me. I get offended if someone lies or hide anything from me, even if I know that it produces a significant benefit for me or others. The movie Consumed by Daryl Wein (2015) is an illustration of this dilemma. Although I know that the mass production of food is indirectly helping fighting hunger around the globe, (which is often neglected as hunger is a not a reality for most of the countries in today’s society) I disagree with the negative impacts and side effects of mass production of food items. This example illustrates how deontologist and consequentialist I am. Genetically modifying an organism (GMO) for me is wrong by itself, independent of the positive consequences (fighting hunger, creating jobs, moving the economy), however when I analyze the consequences explicitly shown in the movie, I bend to consequentialism and consider GMO a clear unethical behavior. Although I have the same opinion regarding this subject, it is based on different foundations.

I believe these two theories have their pos and cons. The deontology approach is easier to understand and to explain, therefore, to find a common ground on the decision making process of one’s action, while the consequentialism cover a broader perspective, taking in consideration more variables and possibilities in the “equation” of ethics. An important aspect which I strongly believe is that one cannot limit himself on theories, approaches, tales or whatever names we want to call. I defend the idea that meaningful and respectful dialogue can accept all theories, although the decision possibly will bend to one of the sides. Facts, when making decision, should be the foundation of an ethical decision, independent of morality (Tiatorio, n.d.), feelings, laws and societal bias (Velasquez et al, 2010). Gathering facts and spending time and energy on finding a common ground (internally if the decision is only upon you, or externally if it directly depends on others) should be an issue worth talking about.

As William Ury (2017) says “we tend to see conflict as two-sided, and we frequently fail to see there is always a third side.” We should not be limited by a tale of two theories, but what we can positively learn from and act upon both. In my opinion, looking for the right or most appropriate theory deviates us from what really matters when it comes to ethics.

References

LaFollette (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

Tiatorio (n.d.). Intro. Retrieved from http://www.ethicsineducation.com/intro.htm.

Ury, W. (2017, February 7). There are three sides to every argument. Retrieved from https://ideas.ted.com/there-are-three-sides-to-every-argument/

Velasquez et al (2010). What is Ethics? Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics.

Wein, D. (2015). Consumed. United States of America: Mister Lister Films

MSLD 634 Module 1 - The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

When someone asks us why we made a decision or why we support some position, we offer, or should be prepared to offer, reasons for our actions, decisions, or conclusions. To make better choices, we must become aware of our options and the relevant background information; we should identify the consequences of our actions for others, for ourselves, and for the people we will become. (LaFollette, 2007).

Better choices do not mean good ones. In fact, sometimes no choice is the best choice we can have. The Trains Dilemma exemplifies this statement:

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing.

1.      You are the switch person. By throwing the switch you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw the switch?

2.      You are the switch person. By throwing the switch you can put the train on a sidetrack where one child is standing. The one child on the side track is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

3.      You are outside the train, standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him?

Asked what I would do in each scenario could lead to an unrealistic answer, as my decision would not be rational. The dilemma implies that stopping the train was not a possibility, which made me assume that I would lack time to think about alternatives and the consequences. I would be led probably by emotions or impulse.

On the first scenario, probably I would thrown the switch as a reflection. The presumed immediate consequence is that I would kill the one child on the side. In a long-term perspective, I would feel devasted for killing one child, and guilty for killing the one who was playing on the supposed safe place. But the fact I saved five could bring me comfort.

On the second scenario, I probably would just close my eyes, because emotion would overcome impulse. The consequence is that I would feel devasted, but I am not sure I would feel guilty. My child was not on the way of the train, not playing on an unsafe place, and I don’t believe the number of kids would make me feel guilt, although I don’t think I could ever recover from the consequences of my inaction.

On the third scenario, I could behave by impulse or emotion. With no time enough to think I don’t believe I would see the old man and per his age and the fact he had a long life comparing with the promising future of the kids, but by the fact I would hit a fragile person. The fragility could hit my emotions, but the reflection could kick in first.

What is not stated or clear also need to be taken in consideration when we think about the consequences of our decisions. In the scenarios perhaps wouldn’t make a difference on the decision itself, but in a situation not under pressure, going around the circle (Nosich, 2012) of critical thinking could impact greatly on the consequences.

For instance, I don’t know if the five kids by looking at the train coming would jump to one of the sides and coincidently be the same side the train ended up. Or perhaps the kid on the side would run far away when looking at the train? What about the kid on the side jumping by impulse on the trail in an act of bravery? If I was outside close to the old man, I had the alternative to jump in front of the train instead of pushing the old man. If I was the switch person I would need to take in consideration what would happen with the train, and the possible passengers, if I decided to throw the switch bottom. Could I cause an even worse accident? There are several variables which is hidden behind the scenarios and proportionally a bunch of unknow consequences. There could be countless implications.

The main learning outcome from this dilemma for me is timing. As LaFollete (2007) says, if we are not under pressure to make potentially momentous decision, we will be better equipped to make good decisions when we must act.

References

LaFollette (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

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.