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



VitalSmarts. (n.d.). Gallery Furniture [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.vitalsmarts.com/casestudies/gallery-furnitu

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/

Sunday, April 20, 2014

A631.4.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN



As Paul Tesluk explains in his video interview, self-managed teams are no longer a rare occurrence in today’s businesses (Insead, n.d.).  Companies are moving towards flatter hierarchies and more decentralized management practices as both Tesluk and Brown conclude (Tesluk, n.d. and Brown, 2011).  I think there are a lot of advantages to self-managed teams and feel this is the route for improved performance in most cases.  I think that moving away from hierarchical team management allows for a more fluid way of working.  Removing the authoritative element gives employees more freedom to individualize their practices and I believe opens the doors for creative and innovative thinking.  Directive or even micro-managed environments stifle creativity which I believe is an important element for organizational growth.  I also feel that in self-managed teams, members feel more personally invested in the goal which increases not only performance but motivation.  When you are directly involved in the decision-making process you also have a higher degree of investment and responsibility in the outcome.  It is as simple as flipping the perspective switch between doing something for someone else and doing it for yourself.  In fact, you could have two teams working towards the same end   result, one team is organized, managed and led by management, while the other is self-managed.  Both teams may have the same objectives, same resources, and even the same talent, but the self-managed team will more likely perform better because they have the perspective of doing it for themselves or in this case, the team.  This type of perspective translates into everything we do in life.  Things are good and bad, depending on how we view them.  The end goal is always the same, but how we choose to arrive there and the state of mind we choose to have makes the difference between failure and success.   

Of course there is the downside to everything.  You cannot have ying without yang and nothing is ever perfect.  There must be synergy and balance as this is nature at its best.  Therefore, self-managed teams are not always the answer to everything.  There will be occasions were the cure-all self-managed team just won’t work.  I found this great article, although it’s outdated from 1994 but amazingly enough, the information in the article is still useful and practical in today’s businesses.  The author, Brian Dumaine, explains that sometimes companies create teams for situations where teams are not needed (Dumaine, 1994).  He explains situations where sometimes a single person will resolve a problem faster whereas a team will just become an obstacle.  Also, you cannot “force” certain individuals into team situations.  Some people are more productive and more creative on their own and will be more beneficial to the company when working alone with minimal management.  When I used to work for an IT firm, we contracted a lot of IT specialists.  They are the epitome of the “lone-wolf” workers that Dumaine explains in his article (1994).  Many of these folks lacked the social skills to work in groups which posed a challenge for me as an account executive.  My job was to make sure that things went smoothly for our clients as well as our contractors who were also employees.  That meant that I had to make sure that our IT contractors played well with others.  This was not always the case and I found myself intervening on many levels because our contractors had a difficult time integrating with the company teams that they were contracted to help.  An added stressor was that 95% of my contractors were Indian and therefore there were culture roadblocks we had to deal with.  A last factor to consider in regards to these ‘team dynamics’ was the length of the projects these contractors were hired to do which could be as short as a few months.  By the time everyone worked out the internal kinks and interpersonal conflicts, the contract was ending.  So to resume, self-managed teams are not always the one-stop solution to organizational evolution.

In the end, I think that self-managed teams are a very effective tool that companies can adopt for growth and success but they have to be formed and integrated properly.  Dumaine points out some very important factors to consider when forming teams (1994).  Here are the main takeaways from his article (Dumaine, 1994):
a) “Use the right team for the right job”.  Don’t just form teams haphazardly, instead think about the skills needed, the project at hand, types of personalities needed to make the teams work and type of team.  Will it be a problem-solving team? A product-development team? A virtual team?  
b) “You can’t have teams without trust”.  This takeaway needs no explanation.  Individuals who are working so closely together need to know that they can count on each other.
d)  “Tackle the people-issues head on”.  Clashing personalities and interpersonal conflicts need to be addressed first off.  This is where intergroup team-building sessions come into play.
Tesluk (n.d.) explains the difficulties of teaching teams how to lead themselves.  He describes it as walking a balancing beam.  His analogy makes me visualize someone walking on a balancing beam while someone holds their hand.  The balancing and the work is done by the individual on the beam, the other person is only guiding and supporting that person and ready to catch them if they fall.  I think this is a good way of looking at how external managers lead self-managed teams.  Tesluk also points out the importance of being an inspiring force and role model.  Our energy, excitement and way of behaving as leaders influence those we lead.  If you inspire trust in your team members, they will be more likely to model themselves after you.  A good external manager knows how to create the mold while giving teams the flexibility and control of filling it however they see fit.

I personally feel that being in a self-managed team would bring out my best qualities.  I also tend to be stifled by authority and become reserved in my opinions.  I like the idea of disclosing information and group communication.  I feel my organization is very hierarchical, and although I see an effort to make us feel equal and valued, the foundation of how my organization is run is more traditional.  I also feel that the geographic factor, of campuses in different countries, makes it difficult to adopt this type of model.  There is too much distance between all our centers and a hierarchical type of management is more convenient and appropriate.

References



Insead. (n.d.). Self-managing teams: Debunking the leadership paradox