Monday, July 11, 2016

A633.6.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN




After reflecting on the diagram “the vicious circle for leaders” and comparing it to my campus, I realize that my Director and I have fallen prey to this vicious cycle of a “leadership and followership charade” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 162 of 249).  Although there is a healthy amount of upward communication initiated by my Director’s behavior, we are both at fault for maintaining this circle alive.  Part of the issue is my Director’s micro-managing habits and need to control all aspects of the campus.  In her defense, she is also micro-managed and monitored by her leadership and her immediate supervisor also feels a need to control all aspects of the campuses under her direction.  I believe that the vicious cycle is something that trickles down from the top of the hierarchical pyramid.  It is difficult to pinpoint where the issue begins.  It is similar to the famous adage, “what came first, the chicken or the egg”.  She has a necessity to control and I lack self-confidence.  My lack of self-confidence causes me to make mistakes, causing her to lose trust in me, therefore she feels a need to take over and control.  When I make a mistake, the circle becomes more rigid with me now feeling that I need to counsel with her first for every decision, which causes her to question my abilities.  In issues that she feels have no margin for error, she feels a need to exert more control either by closely monitoring me, asking me to report back to her, or taking over completely.  I become more discouraged and lose initiative.  This is a pattern that we have fallen into at various points in the six years that we have worked together.  Most of the time, we have fallen into this cycle after a major crisis or major event.  For example, when my father died or when I got divorced, we slipped into the vicious circle for leaders.  In fact, we are now just coming out of one.  

The effects of this vicious circle are that it creates mistrust and doubt in our relationship creating an overall negative environment.  She becomes disillusioned with me and I become resentful of her behavior.  Neither of us is conscious of the fact that we are both responsible for creating and nurturing the circle.  Her need to retake control of certain aspects of my job make her less effective in hers since it takes time away from her specific duties.  I become less effective because I have to correct mistakes that I have made which affects the quality of my customer service and my relationship with my students.  

To create a new circle that would promote strong followership and even leadership at the lower levels of the organization would involve a general change of behavior on both my Director and myself (Obolensky, 2014).  Because we are a two-man team, I do not answer to anyone but her.  My organization follows a very strict chain of command.  A new circle that promotes followership and leadership at all levels would require that the leader analyze what level and state the follower is in (Obolensky, 2014).  For example, my Director would need to decide what skill/will state and what followership state I am in.  From that point, she can modify her behavior to move me into the next stages (Obolensky).  It is also my responsibility to adopt certain qualities of an effective follower.  Kelley (1988) suggests qualities such as self-management, commitment and purpose, building competence and traits such as credibility and courage.  In my case, I feel my skill is high but sometimes my will is lower.  This is due to how I manage my work/life balance and learn to deal with stressors both in my life and in my job.  My director also has to realize that when my will/skill is not adequate, it is not a reflection of my ability.  A “situation can change where in one moment a person is highly motivated and capable, and in the next due to a change of situation one or other of Skill/ Will can decrease” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 157 of 249).  During these moments in time my followership level is sitting at about a 3 or 4 depending on the task.  Some tasks I feel I need to seek recommendations before I exercise them and other tasks I feel more confident about and only seek approval before executing them.  Obolensky (2014) recommends that a leader strive to move their followers towards level 5 which is to “get on and inform in a routine way” (p. 159 of 249).  Obolensky (2014) recommends that leaders move their followers one stage at a time this way they build confidence.  Also, time for the leader and follower to adjust to the new stage is needed (Oblensky, 2014).  Since my Director knows my lack of confidence, she should allow me more freedom and flexibility and loosen the reigns.  This would help me gain more confidence in my decisions.  I know I have the tools and resources to do my job correctly, but the micromanaged environment has made me second guess all my decisions which in the long run cause errors.  

The end result of this new circle would promote more trust, greater confidence on my part and an improvement of our functions and services.  Although, as I mentioned I do not have contact with our other departments except through a parature system where we pose our inquiries through an electronic and have them answered via email by the appropriate department, this same circle could be imposed in any professional setting I find myself in.  

References


Thursday, July 7, 2016

A633.5.3.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN



The exercise that is demonstrated in the video is a visual representation of how chaos theory works.  A very specific definition that I feel defines the exercise we saw in the video is the following:
Chaos theory is an explanation of the behavior of a system that can be described by nonlinear equations where the output of one calculation is taken as the input of the next. After multiple iterations the calculation takes on the characteristics of non-linearity and becomes specifically unpredictable while all the time remaining in a determined pattern. The chaotic patterns that emerge seem to be bound by the influence of a "strange" attractor (Burns, 2002) .

In the exercise, the presenter gives the participants some very simple rules. These simple rules can be compared to nonlinear equations.  For example, one rule is to place themselves equal distance from two chosen points of reference.  Another rule is to refrain from sharing any information with any of the other participants, all the while, moving slowly and trying to complete the exercise.  In the same way, the participants, or their calculations, lead them to their next move, going back and forth from chaotic to some type of order.  As the definition points out and the participants demonstrate through their movements, they are becoming “specifically unpredictable while all the time remaining in a determined pattern” (Burns, 2002).   The Sierpinski gasket is another good example of how the repetition of simple rules can take chaotic patterns and find underlying similar patterns, “the application of a similar rule to a completely different shape (a square) results in the same complex pattern emerging” (Obolensky, 2014, p 77 of 249).  Therefore, as Obolensky (2014) points out “the application of a simple and deterministic rule can create a complex pattern” (p. 78 of 249).

I find the Chaos Game to be extremely exciting since it gives a very good explanation of how we can make sense of a complex environment (Obolensky, 2014, p. 78 of 249).  The traditional views of management and leadership can lead to an effort to organize our world and the elements around us in very straightforward and categorical ways.  For every action there is a reaction and traditional strategies are rigid and inflexible.  The chaos game is a reminder of the complexity of our world.  It is also a reminder that, although to the untrained eye it may seem like something we cannot control, understand or even begin to organize, there is an underlying pattern.  

Obolensky (2014) offers eight principles that can turn chaos and complexity into something flexible, tangible and something you can work with.  Some of these principles such as finding an underlying purpose, delineating clear boundaries, discretion and freedom of action, creating simple rules, are ways that participants in an organization can move through a complex environment and find strategies that are effective and that positively impact the organization.  The participants of the exercise were exercising these principles and in less than 2 minutes had reached their goals.  

My takeaway from the exercise is that chaos theory is a good perspective in seeing how complexity affects today’s businesses.  With the right resources, such as some of the principles I discussed, and with an open and flexible mind, members of a group can self-organize and be successful in meeting objectives in a complex environment.


References

Monday, June 27, 2016

A633.4.3.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN



I believe that the shift in leadership to a more bottom-up structure is happening because the traditional top-bottom model can no longer support organizations in this dynamic and complex environment that we live in.  As I have been learning in this course, globalization and technology has changed how business is done (Obolensky, 2014).  I believe that the whole of humanity is making a shift to a more holistic way of viewing the world.  Whether it be in the practices of science, medicine or business, humanity is moving towards a more integrated system of working with our environment.  Holism is the concept “that everything exists in relationship, in a context of connection and meaning -- and that any change or event causes a realignment, however slight, throughout the entire pattern” (Holistic Education Network website, n.d.).  In fact, we see something similar called Systems Thinking or Systems Approach that has been applied to both science and even business (Holistic Education Network website, n.d.).  In business for example, Senge (n.d.) describes systems thinking as a way of looking at the world or society as a complex system of interrelated parts.  Senge (n.d.) explains:


 In a systems approach to a problem, you start by realizing that there is no inherent end to a  system.    There is no such thing as a complete theory. The quest is to look at a problem more comprehensively. The resolutions come from rethinking how we deal with complexity.  


Obolensky (2014) points out this visible shift as well when he talks about the flow towards polyarchy and away from oligarchy.  Obolensky’s comparison to the Taoist philosophy further strengthens the idea that leadership strategy is naturally moving towards these holistic traditions because we live in a very complex environment (Obolensky, 2014).  He explains that there is a “swing towards Yin” (p. 7 of 249) thinking and gives the examples of the birth of quantum mechanics which he describes as a “sign of this deeper change” (p.7 of 249).   How this translates into the business world is the understanding that organizations are not just a machine with a bunch of moving parts working independently, instead it is an organic system with many parts or “organs” that rely on each other to make the entire organism survive.  The idea that all parts are equally important and contribute equally as much is something that many senior executive directors in companies are starting to realize (Obolensky, 2014).  There is a growing realization that the structure or foundation of an organization (the employees), are many times closer to the problem, and therefore can offer the best solutions (Obolensky, 2014).  Therefore, the trend towards a bottom-up strategy is an inevitable progression that mirrors this natural evolution that we are seeing in society.  

I believe that this is indicative of what is happening in my organization as well, because I have seen at least on my regional level a shift towards more bottom-up practices.  For example, in the last three or four years we have begun regional and campus level town hall meetings.  These meetings are held at regular intervals, and staff, faculty and leadership attend these meetings.  Sometimes they are simply open forums where employees can question leadership about things that are happening throughout the organization or  platforms where they can offer feedback and propose solutions.  I have actually seen changes come from these meetings and conference.  I personally feel that our organization values our expertise in the field and they understand that there must be a platform where we can express and offer our knowledge for the betterment of the organization.  On some occasions they have also requested staff members to volunteer for temporary teams for certain projects.  Team members are selected based on the skills and knowledge that the individual has and can contribute to particular tasks.  This is another visible example of how our organization recognizes the importance of bottom up strategic practices.

Three reasons that I feel our organization is supportive of a bottom-up structure and sensitive to the need to encourage interactive dialogue between top and bottom members of the organization, is first of all,  that we are geographically spread out.  We have three major campuses, two in the U.S. and our Worldwide campus that encompasses both our online programs and campuses in over 150 locations in the world.  We also have a campus in Singapore and Berlin.  All these separate entities belong to the same organization, yet due to logistics, military politics and resources, each campus is somewhat unique.  We cannot use identical strategies across the board and our leadership team is not familiar with the nuances of each campus.  The best resources for solving problems are the people who work at each campus.  The second reason that our organization supports a bottom-up perspective to problem-solving is the diversity within our institution.  Again, we have people from many different cultures, religions, and beliefs working together.  Even our leadership team is diverse.  For this reason, the bottom-up approach allows for a broader spectrum of ideas and solutions that can respect all these differences.  Lastly, the rate of technological change that happens just within our organization makes it difficult to adhere to a traditional top-bottom approach to business.  First of all, not all of our leaders have an engineering education, or experience in computer software, or even a military background.  With changes happening so rapidly, the organization relies heavily on the expertise of employees in these sectors to provide the solutions to complex problems that are beyond the scope of our leadership team. According to Obolensky (2014) the scale and pace of change has been extremely rapid in just the last 100 years.  It makes sense to pool the resources from the bottom of the pyramid where they are more plentiful.

My organization still has a long way to go if it is going to embrace and evolve into a CAS business model.  There is the deep rooted military influence at the foundation of my organization that will make evolution a slow process.  Yet, I do see our younger leaders, believe it or not, taking a more dynamic approach to leadership.  Also, at the bottom level of the organization, many of my co-workers take a more aggressive approach to change by being very verbal about their issues and openly providing feedback.  Some of the things discussed in the article How To Lead When You’re Not the Boss such as establish goals, providing feedback, engaging others and especially, learning from experience, are characteristics that I have seen from some of our more engaged employees (How to Lead, 2009).  I think that a step in the right direction towards incorporating a more bottom-up approach is going to have to be influenced and implemented from the bottom-up as well.

References

How to Lead When You're Not the Boss. (2009). Harvard Management Update, 14(3), 1-2.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

A633.3.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN


I have only been with my organization for six years, but in those six years I have seen a lot of changes.  I have also seen several major changes in strategy in the time I have been with my university.  First, there was a restructuring of the organizational chart.  Secondly, a push towards online learning and implementing strategies that provide a better structure and better technologies to further expand and improve the online learning platform.  Lastly, we have begun to integrate all the campuses more by incorporating regular townhall meetings and the formation of strategy teams.  It is a way in which employees on the bottom-end of the pyramid can contribute to the organization.

The first strategic evolution I experienced with my organization was the restructuring of the organizational chart.  They completely did away with a position or role that was directly in charge of academics and faculty at the campus level.  These roles were absorbed by each school or academic department.  On the negative side, power was stripped from the individual campuses and the ability to schedule our own classes was taken away.  The positive effect of this change was streamlining our schedules in a way that we could project our classes a year in advance.  As Obolensky (2014) explained, this new evolution or transition, caused our organization to take a step back before it could move forward.  A couple of years after implementing this change, I am now starting to see the benefits of these projections.  Instead of molding our schedules to our students, we mold our students to our schedules. 

Another major change was the emphasis and move towards online learning.  The university realized that the trend towards online learning was not slowing down.  To keep with the academic integrity of the university we needed to improve the platform that was used for our online learning and improve our technologies.  The introduction of programs such as Campus Solutions and Canvas really provided the university with the necessary technology to keep up with the latest online trends and still offer academic excellence through an online program.  Our technologies included going completely paperless, the use of web conferencing technology for online classes as well as meetings, trainings, webinars and other venues in which to share information.  

I believe in the next ten years the university will continue to make the move to more virtual styles of education as more and more students begin making the shift from the bricks and mortars universities to universities that offer online programs.  This is an inevitable evolution in the educational industry and it seems our organization is riding the cusp of this trend.  As of today, our Bachelor’s programs were rated as the number one online programs by the U.S. News Report (Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University website, 2014).  
I am not sure where I will be in 10 years.  As much as I enjoy the academic community, I feel that my leadership training is going to lead me more towards the nonprofit humanitarian sector.  I know that my education in CAS and other strategic leadership tactics such as Holacracy, will be very integrated in everything I do and how I work with any organization that I become a part of.  I hope to be one of the leaders to drive this kind of change in our future organizations and hope to be able to move the stagnant world of strategy to a point of evolution and transition.



References