A640.9.2.RB_BorutyAlan_Final Project Reflection

Final Project Reflection

When I learned of the service-learning project (SLP) requirement in this course, I was not thrilled.  I could not see how volunteering my time and observing a workplace could possibly benefit me in this course.  At least that was my rationale.  Truth be known, I was bothered by it; I did not want to do it.

I seriously considered dropping the class, but quickly realized that I had no options.  This course was the only one available in my catalog; I have taken all of the others.  And, I still need the hours to meet program requirements.  Then, I realized how ridiculous I was behaving.  So, I committed myself to this course.  I committed to giving my best, doing the work, and earning the grade, to include the SLP. 

Today, I am very glad that I did.  If I had been given the opportunity, I would not have taken this course and I would have missed out on one of the best learning experiences of my career. 

At first, it felt like I was just going through the motions.  I worked my first shift, journaled what I observed, and I waited for my next workday to come around.  I could not afford for my next shifts to be the same.  I had not even identified my leader’s dominant leadership style.  So, I asked a few questions.  Following other people’s advice, I started looking for things I had studied during the other weekly activities instead of just waiting for something to happen. This is when everything came to life with the project.

I chose Dollar General as the company I would study and my small-town local Dollar General Store to do my volunteer work.  I was surprised to find out that Dollar General is a Fortune 200 Company finding its place on the annual list at number 123, a five-place improvement over the 2017 list (Fortune 500, 2018).

The company may post Fortune 200 revenue, but its stores are quite simple and conservative.  They are small in size at 3500 square feet, the floors are bare concrete and merchandise rests on simple, metal shelving.  However, the stores are clean and inviting.  They truly do create the small-town-general-store feel.  And, of course, the stores are located in small towns all over the country, specifically 15,277 small towns.

The manager of my store is Glen.  Glen does not look like a typical store manager.  He is unkempt.  His hair is long and unbrushed, his wears worn out jeans and t-shirts, and his appearance made it easy, I am sorry to say, for me to underestimate him, which I did.  The problem with judgement and early assessments without all the information is that they are usually wrong or incomplete.  That was the case with me and Glen.  I had almost written him off before I learned he is an educated man, he had been in the job for many years, and his leadership skills are very well developed.  I am fortunate that I got to watch him work a couple of small issues before we parted ways. 

One of those issues almost turned into something much bigger and would have if Glen had not instinctively neutralized the situation.  An employee was late for work for the second time in two days.  When Glen asked the young man about it, it startled him and he became defensive.  Glen recognized that if he continued talking, the situation would become confrontational.  So, Glen took the conversation private.  It was Glen’s choice to make.  By choosing not to further embarrass the employee, Glen showed respect for the employee and everyone watching as well.  Instantly everyone knew that if it had been them they would have wanted the same treatment.

It sounds simple, but it extremely easy to go overboard in a situation like that.  The majority of Glen’s employees are local high school students.  If he had handled the situation any differently, he would have been seen as a tyrant with whom no one would want to work.  His workforce is young and already highly transient.  He could not afford to make the situation any worse. 

I finally determined that Glen’s dominant leadership style is participative.  I had a hard time accepting the assessment because of the age of his workforce and their transitional nature.  What I saw as a complication, Glen saw as an opportunity.  He felt that this was the perfect place for the leadership style.  He told me that everyone that works here has an idea how to do things better.  Since the decisions made in the store are not typically time sensitive, participation was the best style for them.  They would learn what works and what will not and through the consensus process, they understand why.  In this way, Glen claimed that employees that stayed for one year would be capable of store management.  They would not be ready for it based on experience, but they could do it.  I was impressed.  He does not have to do what he does; no one expects it.  And, it almost certainly adds time to every decision.  He does it because he believes every experience should be one we learn from and first job in high school is no different.  Glen started this practice almost 12 years ago and has only experienced two or three exceptions to his claim.  This is servant leadership in practice.  According to Rowe and Guerrero (2018), “servant leadership focuses on the behaviors leaders should exhibit to put followers first and to support follower’s personal development….servant leadership begins when leaders commit themselves to putting their subordinates first, being honest with them, and treating them fairly” (p. 175). Glen wanted his employees to know what he knows for no other reason than he felt like it was the right thing to do.  In this way, Glen is a servant leader.

This project has had a profound effect on me.  I learned a lot about an incredible company and I learned some about retail operations, but I attribute most of my learning to a leader that I had written off far too early based on his appearance.  I consider myself to be a good leader.  During this project, I witnessed better and I am glad that I did.  I know now that I will never prejudge another person's leadership abilities again.

My degree would not have been complete without this experience.  This experience that I was so motivated to forgo.  Some lessons are far more difficult to learn than others, but they must be learned nonetheless.

~Pete

References

Fortune 500 (2018). Dollar General [Web page]. Fortune.com. Accessed on , December 6, 2018 from http://fortune.com/fortune500/dollar-general/

Rowe W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2018). Cases in leadership (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.

A640.8.2.RB_BorutyAlan_Women in Leadership

Women in Leadership

It is true, fewer than 6 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs are women (Rowe & Guerrero, 2018).  This number has barely changed since 2002 and the change has been in the wrong direction (Sandberg, 2010).  Similar numbers apply to all the top leadership jobs regardless of profession.  Sheryl Sandberg (2010) asserted that “women are not making it to the top of any profession anywhere in the world” (0:36). She calls this a “real problem” (0:35).  I have to agree with her.

Sandberg (2010) explained that women have more difficult decisions to make than men when it comes to professional success versus personal fulfillment.  Because of this, women may be dropping out or choosing to stay home since upward mobility seems out of their reach at work.  Sandberg’s question at issue is, how do we fix this and change the numbers at the top? 

In her TED Talk, Sheryl Sandberg (2010) looks at this problem not from the point of what business can do to correct the problem, but from the point of what women can do as individuals to help correct the problem.  To that end, Sandberg offers three messages to women to help them achieve greater success in climbing the corporate ladder: 1) Sit at the table, 2) Make your partner a real partner, and 3) Don’t leave before you leave.

Sit at the table addresses the fact that women tend to underestimate their abilities.  As such, they rarely negotiate for themselves and any success they achieve, they attribute to other people.  Sandberg (2010) suggests that women need to believe in themselves and their abilities, negotiate their own worth, and own their success.  Women need to have enough confidence in themselves to sit at the table and be heard.

Make your partner a real partner addresses the hard choice women have between staying at home and returning to pursue their career.  The workload in homes where both partners work is unbalanced and weighs heavily on the shoulders of the woman.  Balancing that workload will make it easier for the woman choose to continue their career.  In homes where the workload is balanced, the divorce rate is lower and intimacy between partners is greater (Sandberg, 2010).  

Don’t leave before you leave addresses the tendency for women to throttle back on their career the minute they begin to think about starting a family.  They stop looking for promotions, turn down important projects, and begin to lean back in order to make room in their life for a baby.  Many do this much too early.  Sandberg (2010) asserts they should stay fully engaged and moving forward up to the day they have to leave to care for a child or whatever reason they have for leaving.

Sheryl Sandberg (2010) addressed this issue and presented her message with passion.  I have no doubt that her concern is genuine and she wants to be part of the solution.  Unfortunately, I do not believe her message takes the correct approach especially ‘sit at the table’.  There other two messages are actually pretty good advice.

I spent the majority of my career in the military.  Most people would consider this a male dominated environment. In some ways, they would be correct.  However,  in terms of leadership, this was not my experience.  During my 24-year career, I had the privilege of working with numerous women leaders.  I would estimate at least half of the leaders I worked for were women.  Men and women are different.  And, men and women are different leaders.  According to Rowe and Guerrero (2018) research shows that women are more effective than men in business and educational settings.  “Women are more likely to use transformational leadership, which is positively linked to performance (p. 334).  This was my experience. 

I offer a few observations of my own.  Women leaders do not bring their ego to the table; men do.  Women leaders listen to really understand the problem, then offer suggestions that may help.  Male leaders have solved the problem before it has been fully explained.  One works with a woman leader, but works for a male leader.  I was blessed with great leadership throughout my career, male and female.  Women approach situations differently.  They are more compassionate and empathic.  Men lead from the brain and women lead from the heart.  Neither is wrong and organizations need both styles of leadership.

This is why I believe Sandberg is wrong.  Her sit at the table message is encouraging women to be more like their male counterparts.  We need women leaders because of their ways, not despite their ways. 

There are many things that contribute to women being underrepresented at the top.  Things like the glass ceiling, having to choose between raising a family or pursuing a career, gender differences, prejudice, lack of leadership and mentoring are all alive and well and play a part in keeping the numbers at the top skewed (Rowe and Guerrero, 2018).  Addressing these issues will help.  However, instead of getting women to behave more like their male counterparts, organizations should make the attempt to understand and appreciate what women bring to the table just by being themselves.  There is a long way to go before this issue is solved.  We need to make certain that we change the right things. 

~Pete

References

Rowe, W. G. & Guerrero, L. (2018). Cases in leadership (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.

Sandberg, S. (2010, December). Why we have too few women leaders [Video file]. TEDWomen 2010. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders

A640.7.3.RB_BorutyAlan_How to Answer Case Study Questions

How to Answer Case Study Questions

I have had the opportunity to analyze dozens if not hundreds of case studies over the years.  It is always the same.  I read the case study twice.  The second time through, I analyze what I have read based on what I know and what I have learned to get a good understanding of the case.  Then, I read the first question and immediately forget everything I just read.  My issue is not limited to case studies, but it does include them.

The steps I follow when I am answering case study questions would likely be described as spastic, disorganized, random, and/or illogical if someone evaluated my process.  And, they would be right.  It causes me more than a little frustration.  I know there must be better ways to approach the issue.  I have read numerous ‘how to’ articles and they have helped, but the initial panic that causes my thinking to abandon me is still alive and well.  Fortunately I have found that if I take a deep breath and re-read the question as an extension of the case, it helps me get back on track.

I have a tendency to try to solve the entire case with the answer to one specific question.  I eventually sort through everything and provide reasonable answers to all of the questions, but that is only after many re-writes and some level of frustration.  I know there is a solution; I just have not found it yet.

Juanita King’s (2017) article, How to Answer Case Study Questions, takes a very simple and common sense approach to answering case study questions.  Her purpose is to help people to succeed during written or oral examinations that verify subject matter mastery in a given field of study.  It also provided me with ideas that will improve my answers to case study questions in the future.

King’s (2017) first suggestion is to practice.  “The more acquainted you are with the word arrangement of this type of test, the more comfortable you will be during either a written or oral case study assessment” (para. 2).  I have never done case studies for fun, but it is true that case study questions are uniquely worded.  If I become more familiar with how the questions are worded instead of being surprised each time, I might be able to remember the details of the study and relate the question appropriately.  It is a simple concept that makes sense.  It is obvious and I know it will work.  But even if I am wrong, all I have lost is a little time reading case studies.

The next thing King (2017) recommends is to relax on the day of the test and rely on what you know to answer the questions.  I interpret this to mean ‘reflect’ and I think it is great advice.  Reflecting on the things I have learned helps me apply that learning in different ways, see them from different viewpoints, and remain objective in my thinking (Nosich, 2012).  I wish this was something I did automatically and constantly, but it is still something I occasionally have to remind myself to do.  When I do, I always gain a better understanding.  It certainly will not hurt.

Most of King’s (2017) remaining suggestions have to do with identifying and understanding the problem and are things I already do.  However, there are two more suggestions that I wish I had been doing all along.  First, she suggests that one should “visualize the scenario or situation posed by the question.  See it in your mind's eye as you review it.  Consider the question as if it were an actual problem that will affect the lives of others” (para. 6).  For me, this will serve to make the study real versus purely academic.  In real situations, my actions are based on facts, experience, compassion, empathy, and knowledge.  In academic situations, I generally look for the right answer based on knowledge only.  It is correct, but it is not always right.

Finally, King (2017) recommends something with which I have always struggled.  “Slow down if you start to get confused. You may be moving too fast, trying to beat the clock” (para. 7).  My tendency in this situation is to do the exact opposite.  I panic and try to push myself harder which only exacerbates the problem.  Trying to go faster only serves to waste more time, slowing me down even further.  Instinctively, I am programmed to do the wrong thing.  Slow down and resolve the point of confusion before moving forward is the right answer and it makes perfect sense.  Why is it such a hard suggestion to follow? 

~Pete

References

King, J. (2017, July 5). How to answer case study questions. CareerTrend.com. Accessed 2018, November 30 from https://careertrend.com/how-8342765-answer-case-study-questions.html

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

A640.6.4.RB_BorutyAlan_Authentic Leadership

Authentic Leadership

In the early 2000s, leadership and leaders in general came under intense scrutiny after a series of scandals involving top leaders of large organizations dominated the news headlines.  These events led the public to believe that this behavior ran rampant through leadership ranks in business (Rowe & Guerrero, 2018).  Rowe and Guerrero (2018) explained that authentic leadership came about in 2003 as a response to the public outcry for change. The public demanded “more honest, more trustworthy, and more genuine leadership” (p. 202) and that is exactly what authentic leadership gave them. 

The question was what are we going to do about it and how can we prevent it from happening again?  Creating a new leadership style called Authentic Leadership was the leadership community’s partial solution and contribution to answering the questions at issue.  The business community addressed the question through policy changes, transparency being the most significant.  These were difficult questions and the truth is, there is no real answer.  There were too many assumptions made during this trying time.  The public assumed all leaders are crooks and we assumed that authentic leadership was the answer.  Not all leaders are crooks and even if we could force all leaders into the authentic leadership style, it would not solve this problem.  People intent on doing the wrong thing are going to do the wrong thing.  We are forced into a reactive posture because we have to trust our leaders to do the right thing.  And, the vast majority of them do.

If we had not reacted as we did, there is a chance the public would have acted less aggressively.  However, that chance would be very small or unlikely.  So, neutralize the situation as quickly as possible, then solve the problem makes the most sense.  Either way, the public's claims were legitimate and they required an appropriate response.

The information available was limited to what the media provided and it was not laudatory of leadership.  Some of it was true and some of it was not.  Leaders have too much power and too much autonomy to use it.  Leaders do not answer to anyone.  All leaders participate in the same types of behavior.  True or not, we needed to answer the accusations.  So, we offered the concept of authentic leadership in response.  

It has been a while since the last major scandal and things have settled down.  We still continue to inject transparency in what we do and strive to improve our leadership skills.  No one wants the things that happened at Enron to happen again.  Awareness, transparency, audits and new leadership concepts cannot hurt but, unfortunately, they will not stop the next person from trying to get away with it.

The critics that believe authentic leadership is a way to manipulate and deceive followers should  think about their claim a bit further.  I would argue that every form of leadership offers the leader the opportunity to manipulate and deceive followers.  This is why trust is such an important part of leadership.  It has to be earned over time, but it can be violated in an instant.  Authentic leadership came along after the scandals; it did not cause the scandals nor will it fix them, but it could address them.  However, recognizing these incidents for what they really are is my advice.  They are the actions of an individual criminal.  They are not indicative of a cancer afflicting all leaders.  Deal with them swiftly, appropriately, and publicly.  To do otherwise, is to harm the larger, innocent group.  It may be that the critics of authentic leadership misunderstand what constitutes ‘authentic’ in this context.  I did.

I had mixed feelings about authentic leadership.  My first reaction was, is there any other kind?  Authentic should be a prerequisite for leadership.  After a second look, I realized that the elements that define authentic leaders are legitimate.  It is very important for leaders to know themselves well enough to trust themselves to lead.  According to Rowe and Guerrero (2018) it is because self-aware leaders understand their strengths and weaknesses, are tuned in to how their behavior affects others, and know who they are and what they stand for, other people perceive these leaders as more authentic” (p. 204).

Authentic leaders have an internalized moral perspective.  They will “resist external pressures that are contrary to their moral standards through an internal regulation process that ensures their values are congruent with the anticipated outcomes of a behavior” (p. 204).  In other words, authentic leaders are not easily swayed from their deeply held beliefs and values nor would they likely be persuaded to act against them.

Authentic leaders use balanced processing.  They listen to all the information in an objective manner before they make a decision.  In other words, they think before they act.  They do not make hasty decisions that have to be reversed later.

Finally, authentic leaders exhibit relational transparency. They understand they are not perfect and they do not attempt to be.  They are willing to admit their mistakes and learn from them.  This self-disclosure is not easy , but it is necessary to building trust and sound relationships (Rowe & Guerrero, 2018).

According to Rowe and Guerrero (2018) self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency are the attributes of the authentic leader.  I would argue that they are attributes every leader, regardless of their style, should strive to attain.  Perhaps authentic is the best name for this leadership style because as Bill George (2015) points out, these leaders are real and genuine, “you cannot ‘fake it till you make it’ by putting on a show as a leader or being a chameleon in your style. People sense very quickly who is authentic and who is not” (para. 5).  George (2015) goes on to say that all authentic leaders have five qualities in common: 1) they understand their purpose, 2) they practice solid values, 3) they lead with heart, 4) they establish connected relationships, and 5) they demonstrate self-discipline.

While I do not believe authentic leadership will prevent a leader that is intent on doing the wrong thing from following through with those plans, people who truly embrace the attributes and qualities of the authentic leader would not likely involve themselves in such scandalous behavior.  Business could benefit from having more authentic leaders throughout its organizations, especially in its top positions.  I, for one, see authentic leadership qualities as excellent goals to pursue. 

~Pete

References

George, B. (2015, November 10). The true qualities of authentic leaders. Forbes.com. Accessed November 24, 2018 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/11/10/the-true-qualities-of-authentic-leaders/#31d5c382f74d

Rowe, W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2018). Cases in leadership. (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publishing.

A640.5.2.RB_BorutyAlan_Leader-Member Exchange Theory of Leadership

Leader-Member Exchange Theory of Leadership

Why are individuals willing to work harder than required for leaders that invest in high-quality relationships with them?

Simply stated, leaders that invest in high-quality relationships with subordinates expect more from those individuals than they do others.  Further, by working harder than required, individuals receive benefits that others do not.  On the surface, these relationships resemble ‘good ole boy’ or ‘scratch my back and I will scratch yours’ agreements.  In fact, individuals that have a high-quality relationship with the leader are considered to be part of the in-group.  Indeed, this is a major criticism of the leader-member exchange theory of leadership (Dunaetz, 2015).

However, this is not the intent of the theory.  These high-quality relationships run deeper than appearance would suggest.  They form as a result of the interactions between the leader and an individual and are marked by mutual trust, respect, liking, and reciprocal influence (Rowe and Guerrero, 2018).  While every subordinate has the opportunity to make it to the leader’s in-group, not all exchanges are equal and some are not in-group quality.  Those subordinates become part of the out-group.

Rowe and Guerrero (2018) go on to clarify, “in-group relationships develop when leaders and followers negotiate that followers do more than required by their job description, and the leaders provide more than that required by the formal hierarchy” (p. 122).  Leaders give in-group members more responsibilities, more say in decisions, better jobs, more rewards, and more support for career advancement (Rowe and Gurrero, 2018).  Therefore, in-group subordinates are the individuals in an organization with high leadership and promotion potential.  So, to finally answer the prompt question, individuals that have high-quality relationships with the leader will work harder than required so as not to fall out of the leader’s favor and find themselves among the out-group. 

Would you be willing to work harder than required for someone like that and under what conditions?

My simple answer to this question is yes, I would.  However, this is not a simple question.  Therefore, I feel I must qualify my answer.  Having been a member of an in-group and an out-group at different points in my career, there are truths that I learned and can share about each.  First, while in-groups and out-groups are not announced or recognized by the organization, they do exist and they are real.  Second, everyone in the organization knows who is in which group.  Third, the groups create different classes of people in the organization.  Fourth, impressions are based on these classifications placing a stigma on the lower-class out-group members.  Fifth, once one is relegated to the out-group, finding their way into the in-group is extremely difficult, if not impossible. 

There are people that are content being in the out-group.  They are the ones that have not set goals for their career.  They are the ones that have not had a leader take an interest in them and discuss their career in terms of opportunity, goals, and accomplishment.  Perhaps they were nervous and did not make a good first impression with the leader and fell victim to expectations lower than their abilities (Rowe and Guerrero, 2018).  For whatever reason, they find it easier to do what is expected and nothing more, than it is to get the leader’s attention.  It is an unfortunate loss of organizational potential, but these people do exist.  However, most people in the out-group have greater aspirations and, for a while, they will work hard and do whatever they believe is necessary to be accepted into the in-group.  Time is of the essence though because everyone has a breaking point. 

In my case, I can honestly say that I worked harder and longer doing the jobs no one else wanted to do to demonstrate my worthiness to a leader that really did not care, than I ever did as an in-group member exceeding a leader’s expectations.   When I finally succeeded and found myself in the in-group, I resented the leader for his arrogance and never got past it. 

This explains the simple answer I provided earlier.  My easiest day trying to work my way out of the out-group and gain the acceptance of the leader who had previously rejected me was exponentially harder than the hardest day I ever worked exceeding the expectations of a leader that already accepted me.

What are some of the implications of being a member of the in-group? out-group? 

The things I have discussed are not the intent of the leader-member exchange theory of leadership, but they are reality within the organization.  When leaders only form high-quality relationships with a few select people, in-groups are the natural result.  If one is not in the in-group, then there must be an out-group.  The creation of these groups or even the perception that these groups exist is where the problems with the theory begin. 

There are implications for members of the in-group.  Everyone else will see them as ‘the chosen ones’ or as receiving preferential treatment.  Additionally, expectations of in-group members could become unrealistic.  Finally, they could begin to see themselves as better than others or give others that impression.

I have already mentioned several implications for out-group members, and will summarize here.  Out-group members may be seen as lower-class members or be put in a situation in which they cannot succeed.  The leader’s rejection could create a sort self-fulfilling prophecy resulting in even lower performance.  Finally, out-group members can be stigmatized unfairly and permanently. 

The implication for the organization is simple: low morale, in-fighting, and poor performance.

Rowe and Guerrero (2018) assert that in-group relationships result in responsibility, good jobs, rewards, and career advancement where out-group relationships include formal communications focused on job descriptions.  In-group members grow as a result of their relationships with the leader.  Out-group members stagnate as a result of their relationship with the leader.

Leader-member exchange theory is based on having high-quality exchanges between the leader and an individual.  The more high-quality relationships the leader can develop the better the organization will perform.  The existence of in-groups and out-groups is inconsistent with the theory.  The mere presence of an out-group implies that performance is not as effective as it should be.  Leaders cannot form high-quality relationships with a select few and expect to achieve organizational effectiveness, they must strive to form high quality relationships with all their subordinates and succeed.  Only then can the leader-member exchange theory of leadership improve organizational effectiveness (Rowe and Guerrero, 2018).

~Pete

References

Dunaetz, D. (2015, July 12). Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Northouse 7 ed. Ch. 7. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2kxaiDVFso

Rowe, W.G. & Guerrero, L. (2018). Cases in leadership (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc

A640.4.2.RB_BorutyAlan_Developing a Case (Post event analysis)

Developing a Case (Post event analysis)

Every now and then, I get a mental block of sorts over an assignment.  This was one of those assignments.  And the block lingered.  I finally did figure out what I was supposed to do and I got I done, albeit a bit late.

I tried to understand the reasoning behind the assignment and how it tied in to the weekly lesson, but could not.  In fact, I wrote the entire module off as a mistake.  Some understanding came after more information was added to the module.  In the end, I learned about the contingency and path-goal theories of leadership.  And, I wrote a case study.

I felt like I was good at analyzing case studies before I wrote one.  I do not believe writing one made me better at analyzing them, but it did help me to see the mechanics involved and some of the traps that are easy to fall in to.  Writing my own case study probably made me a little more critical when reading other case studies.  However, I did learn some things pertinent to case studies.

My tendency was to lead the reader where I wanted them to be.  This defeats the purpose.  I have to remain objective and present facts.  The reader will take them where they will.  It is all part of the learning.

I believed when I enrolled in this course that case studies would be an effective and interesting way to learn about leadership.  Nothing can compete with studying the actual cases and analyzing what could have been done better, differently, or not at all in order to get a better understanding of leadership in action.  This module did nothing to change my beliefs on this matter.  If anything, it confirmed that analyzing case studies is important to understanding leadership.  I am happy to be moving on to another module.

~Pete

A635.5.3.RB_BorutyAlan_Video Debrief of Team MA

Video Debrief of Team MA

Steve Jobs started NeXT with $7 million of his own money after he was forced out of Apple. The video presented a brainstorming session with Jobs and eleven people that followed him from Apple and the McIntosh program.  The team was highly technical and creative and they interacted freely and very informally.  The environment seemed egalitarian, but of course, everyone knew who was running the show.

It is difficult to try and place myself in that environment.  At least during the brainstorming session, there was little or no structure.  I found myself trying to figure out where everyone worked.  The lack of structure would be distracting for me at first, but I would eventually quiet my hierarchical mind and get used to it. 

I liked the independence and the confidence of the team members.  They spoke their minds, voiced their concerns, they were direct, and held nothing back.  Jobs treated each speaker the same, he was respectful and considerate.  I liked the communication and the forum.  The environment was not threatening, but laid back and everyone was comfortable.  The team interaction and communication fit well with my profile.  While it is good that everyone felt comfortable speaking up, for me it may have been a little too comfortable.  I know it was a brainstorming session, but everyone interrupting each other made me crazy just watching.  I would have had to stop the interruptions so everyone could be heard.  My concern is that it could change the flow of thoughts and the session would actually become less effective.  Jobs handled it better than I would have.

NeXT, of course, is a start-up.  The start-up environment is full of energy and excitement focused on an idea.  The product is a computer ten times more powerful than a home computer.  It will perform functions that technology does not yet support, running on software that has not yet been developed (Сергей Петренко, 2012).  However, the goals that the team are trying to set are final product delivery and price.  I am stuck on what does it look like and what does it have to do.  I cannot contribute or commit to the goal setting activity.  How can you set a delivery date for a product you cannot define or even know if it can be built?

A business venture of this type has the potential for enormous returns.  The cost of this potential is risk.  NeXT was very risky from the beginning.  I have a low tolerance for risk.  Start-ups are inherently risky.  The NeXT team has either fully accepted the risks or is oblivious to them.  They discuss risk items and indicate the importance and the impact if key risk items are not met, but they do so calmly.  At this point, I would be nervous and regretting leaving a great job where I was a rock star just to throw it all away…  Each day that passed that did not produce a machine that does what we said it could do would only serve to make it worse.  The environment that is born from risk and thrives on risk causes me the most problems.  They cause me to lose focus and would affect my performance.  It is irrational, but real.  I do not like to fail. 

Creativity and innovation, like risk, are deeply embedded in the start-up.  Without creative and innovative thinking product design would never happen.  Those of us that are not creative or innovative do not see things the same way as those people who do.  For example, while the team is building the product delivery schedule, I still cannot imagine what the product looks like.  I am not creative, inventive, or innovative.  Risk tolerant, creative, inventive, and innovative are qualities critical to the start-up.  I could not contribute to the team and therefore would become a liability to the team.

I fit in well with the start-up in terms of recognition.  If they are successful, it will be the team, not the individuals (other than Jobs) that will be recognized or credited.  I do not need or want formal recognition.  Being recognized as part of a team that achieved something good is alright.  Individual recognition generally overlooks the fact that very rarely does an individual truly accomplish anything significant alone. 

Steve Jobs and his NeXT team met again after six months.  The feel of the second retreat was different.  The energy was dampened and the excitement level had been turned down a click or two.  They were not where they wanted to be.  Six months of work began to uncover weakness in the schedule, and money was quickly becoming an issue.  Jobs handled the situation very well.  He was being very hard on himself for the lack of progress, then he said he realized that the company was only six months old.  He gave them a way to measure things and feel better about progress. Yet, he did not let NeXT off the hook.  He did this in a way that told everyone that it is not easy, but now is not the time to slow down or quit (Сергей Петренко, 2012).  I have never been a huge Jobs fan, but this video, if it is true to character, has changed my perception. 

Multi-tasking is most likely a given in a start-up.  It is safe to say there is more work in a start-up than there are people, at least initially.  At one point in the video Jobs said he had forgotten how much work a new company creates.  NeXT was Jobs and eleven others.  There is probably enough work to employ each of them multiple times.  I will assume that many, if not all, of the team members had multiple things in work that they had to keep up with and they were working long hours to do that.  Multi-tasking as I just tried to describe is not a healthy activity, but it is necessary in a start up that does not yet have enough people to do all the work.  Good or bad does not matter.  The people will do what they must do, myself included.  I will help, although it is not my best suited skill set. 

It is important to note that some people can multi-task better than others.  Detail oriented people that want to make sure their work is perfect before turning it in, people who meticulously manage their time, and people that cannot be interrupted without having to start all over are poor choices for positions that require multi-tasking (NextSteps Research, 2018).  Two of these statements apply to me.  I will admit, I am not good at multi-tasking. 

At the second retreat, they discovered that money was an issue; they would run out of money before getting the product out.   There was nothing to illustrate the problem and no charts that tracked spending.  They way they talked it sounded like a spending free-for-all.  They were searching for $100K buckets of money that was out among the team.  They wanted to pull everything back and, I assume, start over (Сергей Петренко, 2012).  What they were doing does not sound like something that would happen in a company founded by someone that build a $2B company from scratch.  It goes against all I know and is obviously not the way to manage company funds.  I would need to establish a process to track, control, and account for company spending. 

Without the results of an assessment, I could have told anyone that I would not do well in a start-up.  There are many detail-level reasons, but the overarching reason is that I am not good at building something where nothing previously existed.  I follow rules better than I write them.  I use operating procedures better than I create them.  The results of my assessment simply confirmed what I already knew.  There is nothing negative about this fact.  We all have things we are better at than others.  The key is to understand enough about yourself…the good and the bad…that you can put yourself in situations that allow you to perform at your best.  It benefits everyone. 

~Pete

References

Сергей Петренко (Publisher) (2012, January 19). Steve Jobs brainstorms with NeXT team [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loQhufxiorM

NextSteps Research (2018, August 10). Management assessment profile: Alan Boruty. NextSteps Research, (pp, 1-8). Electronic copy available upon request.

A635.8.3.RB_BorutyAlan_Transformational Strategies

Transformational Strategies

Organization transformation (OT) is “drastic, abrupt change to total structures, managerial processes, and corporate cultures” (Brown, 2011, p. 399).  Examples of OT, are takeovers, mergers, and plant closures.  Brown (2011) describes the OT process as “more revolution than evolution” (p. 399).  As such, OT approaches tend to use directive rather than participative approaches” (p.400).  Armed with the information I learned from the text, it was time for me to watch the videos required for this assignment.

To my surprise, neither video had anything to do with a takeover, merger, or plant closure.  However, both videos did, indeed, illustrate total transformations.  The first described the transformation of a retail furniture company in Texas and the second described the transformation of a senior military leader.

Jim, ‘Mattress Mack” McIngvale owns Gallery Furniture in Houston, Texas.  His business had suffered two major setbacks about a year apart that nearly decimated is business.  He quickly realized that if he did not do something to change the way Gallery Furniture did business, Gallery would be lost.

The transformation process at Gallery made sense to me and I felt it closely fit the textbook discussion.  Reading between the lines and making a few assumptions allowed me to assess the conditions at Gallery.  I personally assessed the corporate culture at Gallery as weak as referenced in fig, 15.4.  I think Galaxy enjoyed a ready customer base from the beginning that required little or no effort to attain.  When housing production dropped by 75 percent, so did his core customer base.  The sales staff never had to learn how to attract customers into the store.  Jim would not have questioned it because sales were good.  That was the culture at Gallery.  Wait for the next customer, wait for them to tell you what they want, and sell it to them.  Up until the major setbacks occurred sales were nearly automatic.  McIngvale would not have had a reason to change anything.  When the time came and McIngvale saw that change was necessary to keep Gallery afloat, he did not know what to change or how to change it.

Strategy under the circumstances would have fallen into the same trap.  A business successfully operating on autopilot for years will not see small changes in the environment and therefore, will not learn to adapt.  So, when the environment disintegrated, the need for strategic change was very high and extremely important to the company.  This coupled with a weak corporate culture meant that McIngvale could begin making changes to strategy with little fear that they would be incompatible with the existing culture.  Brown (2011) refers to this condition as “manage the change”(p. 407, fig. 15-5).  The fit here is not perfect because the culture is weak, but not necessarily compatible.  However, it may be the best fit under the circumstances because as strategic changes are made and emphasized by sharing the vision, reshuffling key people into positions important to implementing the new strategy, and reinforcing the new values required  by the new strategy would in effect serve to strengthen the corporate culture at the same time (Brown, 2011). 

The company McIngvale hired to help reinvent Gallery was quite successful in doing so.  They were able to transform Gallery by instilling practices that are fundamental to any sales organization to include following up with customers that had been in the store and left without making a purchase, learning to love prospecting for new customers, utilizing technology as an enabler to improve their effectiveness, emphasizing customer service by reducing post-delivery rework, and sharing data openly so that everyone could reap the benefits of their colleague’s success or learn from each other’s failures.  Finally, the practitioner provided reinforcement of the desired behavior through simple public recognition.  Whenever an individual makes a contact sell they must ring a bell.  This makes everyone aware of the achievement and reinforces the behavior for the individual that made the sale.

The results are very impressive for Gallery and its associates.  They successfully transformed the company in a participative manner over a short period of time.  This does not fully agree with the textbook, but I accept that between any two quadrants there is always room for deviations to occur.  Gallery fell somewhere between Participative Evolution and Charismatic Transformation.  The transformation resulted in a stronger culture for sales practices and customer service/appreciation which created a better Strategy-Culture Fit (Brown, 2011).

General Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Army, Retired, described a transformation that impressed me.  I understand the transformation he experienced although I have never really experienced it myself.  It was real for him and he was forced to overcome and adapt.  For me , it was  a recurring nightmare.  When it came time for me to act in the role I had been trained for, nothing I did worked.  The more I tried the worse things got…and so on.  So, his feelings of frustration and inadequacy were not lost on me.  I am grateful he was able to work through those issues.

Transforming oneself does not happen every day.  What transformation do you implement when everything has changed?  Changing how you think, respond, react, or behave in any given situation sounds difficult, almost unnatural.  However, if it is even possible, the situation the general found himself in would certainly provide the motivation to try.

Without doubt General McChrystal’s commitment to cultural values would be extremely strong, (as would the entire Army I assume) placing him solidly in the strong culture quadrant.  Brown (2011) warns that having a strong culture does not ensure effectiveness.  “The definition of the culture and the degree to which its solutions fit the problems posed by the environment seem to be the critical variables here, not strength alone.  A strong culture may also encourage the organization’s members to adhere to the demonstrated methods of the past and to blind members to new opportunities” (p. 406, also see fig. 15.4).

General McChrystal needed to implement important strategy changes not only to communicate with his people but to provide leadership, establish trusting relationships, and effectively guide their actions.  Changes of his nature would be compatible with existing corporate culture.  This places him in quadrant 1 of figure 15.5in the textbook.  This quadrant advises to manage the change.  According to Brown (2011) the General “can pursue a strategy requiring major changes and should manage the change by using the power of cultural acceptance and reinforcement” (p. 407).

Considering the circumstances, I believe the general probably eliminated the formality of a cumbersome and confusing process and took the quickest and most direct method possible to safely and securely communicate with his people.

~Pete

Reference

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

A635.7.3.RB_BorutyAlan_INSEAD Reflection

INSEAD Reflection - Self-Managed Work Teams

Self -managed work teams (SMWT) are a relatively new entity employed by companies.  Globalization, increased diversity, the speed of technological improvements, and the rapid rate of change in the work environment have forced companies to make changes to remain competitive (Esraelian, 2008). 

The benefits associated with SMWTs make them an attractive means of combating, at least, some of the challenges faced by companies today.  In broad terms, SMWTs increase organizational effectiveness and employee satisfaction.  Specifically, they increase customer satisfaction, lower operating costs, produce higher quality solutions, retain employees, rapidly respond to changes in technology, increase innovation and creativity, and promote organizational growth through learning.  On an individual level, SMWTs provide motivation, personal growth, job satisfaction, sense of community, fulfilling relationships, leadership development, empowerment, and trust (Esraelian, 2008).

Suffice it to say the benefits associated with SMWTs are significant.  One might wonder why every organization has not fully implemented SMWTs.  The answer is simple.  SMWTs represent a significant departure from ‘business as usual’ for the organizations that utilize them.  Employing SMWTs requires substantial changes in the way a company is organized, communicates, and operates.  Additionally, implementing SMWTs requires management commitment to carefully selecting members and patience while training team members and transferring responsibilities (Brown, 2011).  It is not an overnight process; it will take time.  After the teams are operational, they require continued attention from management for training and for performance rewards and recognition.  These teams are an investment, not a decision. 

SMWTs are not easy, cheep, or fast to implement in an established organization.  However, for some organizations they may be the only viable solution.  In these cases, proactive rather than reactive implementation is the smart choice.  Implemented correctly, the benefits gained can easily exceed the drawbacks they present. 

While the concept of the SMWT contradicts everything that I have experienced working in organizations throughout my career, I would like to be a part of one.  Brown (2011) provided me with an image of what a SMWT member might experience.  I like the idea of being in control of my work.  I like the idea of work beginning, maturing, and completing with the same team.  I like the idea of being able to learn every aspect of the job and being able to have an impact on the final product.  I would enjoy the close professional relationships that develop in SMWTs.  And finally, knowing that I make meaningful and important contributions to the organization’s objectives and ultimately its success is also very appealing to me.  I am certain that reality would hit me in the face almost immediately, but I would still like to try it anyway.

The role of the external manager was the primary subject discussed in the INSEAD video.  It is a paradox of sorts.  Why would you need to lead a team that leads itself?  SMWTs take on all the leadership responsibilities within the team.  Those skills have to be developed which is the role of the external manager.  Leadership within the team is the typical directive style.  According to Paul Tesluk, Associate Professor of Management and Organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, the external manager’s style is very different.  It is not directive or even suggestive, it is developmental, informational, and educational (INSEAD, 2008).

I think I would be a good external manager of a SMWT.  I would have to make some adjustments and I am sure I would make a few mistakes along the way, but I do not see any impossible hurdles in the way.  Brown (2011) described the role “as an energizer, teacher, and facilitator by encouraging the team’s self-managing behaviors, learning, goal setting, creativity, self-evaluation, feedback to one another, new ways of problem solving, and group problem solving” (p. 352).  To be effective in this role I would need to improve my coaching skills.  I would need to shift my focus from running the show and getting things done to teaching and guiding the team to do it on their own.  Coaching skills would have me asking questions instead of making statements or giving directions.  Instead of taking the lead, I would encourage them to take the lead (Obolensky, 2014). 

Another competency I would need to work on is emotional intelligence.  I would need to enhance my emotional intelligence and apply it at the work team level.  According to Jordan and Lawrence (2009), “emotional awareness and emotional management abilities have important consequences for performance within teams, helping to maintain effective and appropriate relationships with fellow workers (Jordan & Troth 2004), contributing to better information exchange and decision-making in teams (Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin 1999) and facilitating functional conflict resolution, rather than dysfunctional conflict resolution in teams (Jehn & Mannix 2001; Jordan & Troth 2004)” (p. 454).  This will help me to understand the team dynamic.  By understanding how the team works together, I can better determine when I should intervene and when I should allow the team to progress on their own. 

I like the idea and concept of SMWTs.  I admit my lack of experience with them could create blind spots, but the potential good they offer to an organization should not be overlooked.  Many say SMWTs are they way work will be done in the future.  The work environment today is changing fast enough to bring the future to us before we can effectively plan for it.  Perhaps SMWTs should be the way we work today.

~Pete

References

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

Esraelian, J. (2008, March 18). Creating self-directed work teams. Accessed 2018, September 22 from http://globalhealthleader.blogspot.com/2008/03/creating-self-directed-work-teams.html

INSEAD (Producer) (2008, September 22). Self-managing teams: Debunking the leadership paradox. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM

Jordan, P. J., & Lawrence, S. A. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial validation of the short version of the workgroup emotional intelligence profile (WEIP-S). Journal of Management and Organization, 15(4), 452-469. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/233255983?accountid=27203

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.