Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
A631.9.2.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN
After watching the video
of the NeXT company retreats, I feel that I have quite a few qualities that
would be beneficial in this environment.
Based on the video, it seems that the members are used to working as a
group on projects. The members seem to
be participatory in the retreats and are respectful of each others
opinions. On the other hand, Steve Jobs
demonstrated a very autocratic style of management. He feigns wanting to know everyone’s
opinions, but in the end, he has already made his mind up. In essence, he is already setting up the
parameters within which the members need to work. According to the assessment profile that was
conducted on me, I am someone who is very comfortable working in a stable environment
with set policies and procedures. Although
I am a creative person, I am comfortable working with set standards. Also, in working under the leadership of
someone like Jobs I would probably do very well since I generally tend to seek
advice from top level members before making a decision. My need for leadership feedback would
make me a very "moldable" person for this type of environment.
Another aspect of my management attributes is my need for
high achievement. I am naturally
impatient and therefore require quick action and quick results. This is very similar to the types of results that
Jobs looks for and what seemed to be displayed in the video. He needed things to be done in 18 months and
he expected results in that time. I am
very results-oriented which would make me a great team member for the NeXT
group.
Lastly, the video depicts a group of very talented
individuals who are creative and strive for innovation. As my assessment profile demonstrates, I am
not good at creating new products but
would do well in an environment where I can contribute creatively. My personal assessment also shows that I have
a diplomatic leadership style which I believe would complement the more logical
and rational thinking that is exhibited by IT-oriented mindsets such as those
members of NeXT. I also have an
extremely high talent in identifying problems.
I think these types of analytical skills would be helpful in guiding the
problem-solvers towards resolution.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
A631.7.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN
Based on what I’ve learned in these last two courses, I believe
that Organizational Development (OD) is not some fad business trend like a new
diet. Unlike other business practices
that have lived and become extinct, OD in itself is a practice in continuous
transformation. In my opinion, the
ideology of OD is based on the whole idea of transformation, adaptation and
change, therefore, it is only natural that the OD practice also evolve to meet
current environmental changes. Because
of this I believe it will be an evolutionary trend that will survive the rapid
changes of this modern era.
I liken OD practitioners to a kind of psychologist for the
organizational psyche in that they try to understand the “thinking” of the
organization, how it’s “mind” works, and how to make it better. When I first began my leadership program, I
honestly believed that I was going to be learning some straight-up-no-nonsense
boring management concepts. In fact,
other students I knew had chosen management programs and many confessed that the
courses were dry. Leadership and the
concepts of organizational development are beyond anything I imagined. To me these fields are more related to
humanities, social work, counseling, communications and international
relations. Personally, I feel that the
OD profession allows “soft-skilled” individuals such as myself, to contribute
in the business industry. In fact,
looking at my past experiences professionally, I feel that I have been
practicing many of the OD practices that I’ve learned in this course and just
wasn’t aware of it. Going back to my
previous statement about the OD professional acting as the psychologist for the
organization, I feel this alone makes this profession so valid and
exceptional. In viewing the organization
as an entity, I also think we can apply the Johari Window model to further
validate the need for OD’s (Brown, 2011). In the case of an organization, we can see how
an OD would assist an organization in uncovering its blind area. Being that the OD is a force outside of the
organization, it is able to see a bigger picture. Also, untainted by emotional and personal
attachments, the OD has a more unbiased view of the areas that need
improvement. I don’t imagine the OD
field becoming obsolete, instead, I see it as a field that adapts easily to
changes. The difference I see between the
OD field and other management trends that have come and gone is that other
management trends might have been more rigid or more organization-focused. OD has the advantage of being people focused
first, and then organization-focused second.
Essentially the difference is working from the inside out.
I read an interesting article entitled 7 views on the future of O.D.
Four OD experts share their experiences and thoughts on what they
describe as an “often misunderstood field” ("7 views of," 2012). Some of the points that are made in the
article further endorse the OD profession as one with longevity and not just a
passing trend. One thing the article
mentions is that technology is making the pyramidal style of management, or
top-down, more difficult to maintain. As
businesses become flatter and rely more on collaboration of groups and people,
the OD profession becomes more relevant. The article stresses that OD practitioners are
“soft-skill oriented which biases the
field in the eyes of the left-brain, operational executives” (2012). As long as businesses keep transitioning to
this new flatter model of operating, OD’s will continue to be necessary in
guiding these transitions. Another
statement straight out of this article is that “social media is forcing
companies to make ‘soft’ changes and they’ll need OD to do it”. I fully agree with this statement since social
media is not something that businesses can ignore and can be very messy and dangerous platforms to play in.
OD’s can help organizations leverage
this new way of managing business.
To close, I envision OD practitioners as the individuals or groups
that will be guiding businesses into the technological era and teaching them
how to adapt and transform to the changing environment of business. With globalization in full swing and
technology evolving faster than many can keep track of, OD seems to be a
profession that is armed for the long ride.
References
Monday, May 5, 2014
A631.6.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN
After
watching the two videos about the leaderships of Jim McIngvale, owner of
Gallery Furniture (VitalSmarts,
n.d.) and four star general Stanley McChrystal (McChrystal, 2011), I see how each
individual has approached their unique obstacles and experiences and learned to
overcome them. McIngvale has a more
traditional story to tell. His story
speaks of a company that was strong and successful and then succumbed like many
others during the housing market crash.
To add insult to injury, this historic economic decline was followed by
a fire that almost wiped the company off the map. In many cases, a company so severely damaged
in such a short period of time would have gone bankrupt, but McIngvale was able
to keep his company above water. His
true leadership skills showed through when he decided to implement the
influencer training. One of the biggest problems
he was facing was a decline in sales due to a drop in customers. He attributed this to less customers visiting
the store therefore less sales. He
needed to find a way to retain the customers that visited his store, even if
they didn’t purchase anything on the first visit. He also realized that his sales force had
little to no experience in prospecting, which meant that once those customers
walked out that door, any future opportunities would walk out with them. Using the influencer training he was able to
change the behavior of his employees.
First of all, he needed to retrain the way they thought of prospecting
and turn a negative into a positive. The
training served as a way to demonstrate the benefits of prospecting and
contacting and how easy it was to be successful. In the case of Gallery Furniture, McIngvale
realized he could not change the environment, which was an unstable economy and
a customer-base hesitant to spend money.
But, he could change the behavior of all the members of his
organization. This is a clear example of
how one leader was able to change and transform his company from the inside
out.
In
the case of general McChrystal, he speaks to us as well of environments in
transformation and how organizations stay current by being adaptable and
sharing in a common vision. McChrystal
talks to us about one of the oldest organizations, the military, and how he has
had to adapt, mold and transform his own behaviors in order to survive in an
ever-changing technologically evolving environment. He explains to us that as long as you have a
shared vision, are willing to adapt, and as he explains “a lot more willing to
listen, a lot more willing to be reverse-mentored from lower” (McChrystal, 2011) that you can
become a good leader. McChrystal shows
us that good leaders not only lead from the top, but also from the bottom.
In
relating this to our readings, I believe that both leaders in the video
understand how important it is for companies to be adaptable. Brown states that “organization
transformation refers to these drastic changes and how an organization functions
and relates to its environment” (Brown,
2011, p. 398). I think the key to successful leadership is understanding
your relationship to the current environment and knowing when and how to
evolve. In nature, species live or die
dependent on their ability to evolve; this metaphor is equally true for
businesses.
Brown
explains that the more committed members are to the values of the company and
the more members that share those same values, the higher the chance for
success during transformation (Brown, 2011). In the case of Gallery Furniture, I believe that
the commitment to the company was strong, but maybe not all the members shared
the same values. Although I do believe
from watching the video that the desire to move the company in the right
direction and the member commitment is what made the members eager to embrace
these new values such as prospecting. In
this case we could say that they had a moderate culture to begin with and moved
towards a stronger culture. In the case
of McChrystal, I believe the military has always had high commitment and high
values which can make transformation either very easy, because members are
mission-centered or very difficult because change is more difficult.
When
we compare these two companies with the quadrants of the strategy-culture
matrix, it’s easy to see how Gallery Furniture was in need of immediate
strategic change, but the culture was resistant to the new techniques and
processes. Brown would categorize this
strategy as managing around the culture. Strategies for military leadership would fall
more between managing around the culture and managing culture for the mere fact
that there is a huge generational gap. Some
mature leaders may have their “standard” ways of doing things that clash with
newer methods, while younger soldiers are easily groomed for these newer environments.
I
remember when the economic crisis hit and I was working at an IT firm. Our company was lucky and only a few people
were laid off. Yet, certain sacrifices
had to be made and job roles were adapted to the current situation. For starters, bonuses, incentives and pay
raises were put on hold. People were
more than happy as long as they kept their jobs. Another transformative strategy was to make
all of us salespeople. We had a sales
department that executed this role, but times were tough and therefore everyone
from accountants to executive consultants were asked to prospect. I was given cold call lists to follow up with,
although this was outside of my arena and comfort zone. We all pulled together and were able to
maintain the company afloat.
My
takeaway from all of this is inspired by what general McChrystal said during
his TedTalk. He said “if you're a leader, the
people you've counted on will
help you up. And if you're a leader, the
people who count on you need you on your feet” (2011). When our IT firm faced the option to sink or
swim, everyone assumed the leadership position. We all understood that we stood together or
fell together. I don’t remember people
griping or complaining about their new roles. Sales were what the company needed, and so
sales is what we all put our efforts into. Brown (2011) tells us that “organizations are
driven by a vision, not by directives from the chain of command” (p. 404) and I
believe that we all shared in that vision and this is what kept our company
alive while others crumbled around us.
References
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
A631.5.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN
Ironically yesterday I watched the movie Jobs and today I am being
asked to reflect on what it takes to become a successful leader and how
successful leaders unlearn some of the habits that got them to the top so they
can succeed in their leadership roles.
If you have not watched Jobs, then I can tell you that it is the story
of Steve Jobs, one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time and founder of the
company Apple. Jobs was well known for
being a jerk, neurotic, arrogant, cruel and a little bit insane; all qualities
that propelled him into technological stardom.
The movie moves us through the many stages of his life from college, to
his early endeavors and then to the formation of Apple. There is one scene in the movie that really
stood out. The scene takes place in his
early days when his boss tells him, “You’re good – you’re damn good—but you are
an asshole” (as cited by Garber,
2013). The boss goes on to tell
him that he needs to learn to work with other people. Later on in the movie, we see Jobs speaking
with a friend and admitting that he cannot work with other people, At this
point I think the switch turns off in Job’s mind, the switch that subdues us
into conformity. From then on he decides
he will stop trying to mold himself to society and instead make a new mold. Jobs is a great case study that represents great
leaders who lack in many of the elements that make for a great leader such as
interpersonal skills, communication, loyalty, trust, and still went on to
become one of the great men of history.
The one great leadership trait that Jobs did embrace purely, and in all
its totality, is the passion and vision to change the world. And he did this with Apple.
This raises the question, how far should a leader go to reach to
achieve their vision or the vision of the company? Good leaders learn to maintain their balance
and drive towards the “vision” while never losing focus of the road that takes
them there. That means awareness of the
people who you interact with on that path.
It is about the bridges you create on your road to success, not the
loyalty you accumulate. Loyalty comes
from building bridges.
One important characteristic about a good leader is to understand
that failure opens doors to opportunities. It is easy to run a well-oiled machine, but
the challenge comes when we have to run a machine in need of repairs or broken.
A leader learns to profit from their
mistakes. Problems are viewed with
multiple solutions. We can take Walt
Disney for instance. He was fired once
because "he lacked imagination and had no original idea.” (Truong, 2011). Disney’s first company went bankrupt. Every experience is another stepping stone. A wise leader sees in all directions, past,
present and future and anticipates change.
References
Truong, L.
(2011). 13 business leaders who failed before they succeeded. Retrieved from
https://www.americanexpress.com/us/small-business/openforum/articles/13-business-leaders-who-failed-before-they-succeeded/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)