Out of Mike's Head

Adaptive change

2012-01-10T12:45:00.000-08:00

Select and describe an experience as a leader or recipient of change.
Indicate whether the change was technical or adaptive, whether it was successful or unsuccessful, and assess why.

This is from the side of being the change leader.

Once upon a time … I was the technical lead in a trio of people assigned to an output device consolidation project. Essentially, in a large corporation you can save a lot of money by reducing the number of printers and copiers by consolidating them. The change was technical and we quickly found out that people can become very attached to their faithful old printer. The project itself was successful, but painful.

Heifetz et al 2009 says that “technical problems” “have known solutions that can be implemented by current knowhow. It would have been very easy for us to remove the existing devices and replace them with new devices and a map to where the new devices were. All the devices, connections and technology was very familiar. However, we had people who were set in their work habits, their configuration and beliefs about how things work. This was really and adaptive challenged that “can only be addressed through changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits, and loyalties.” (Heifetz et all, 2009, p 19). Our users priority was to get their output easily and quickly through their printer sitting next to them. They believed that by removing the printer we were going to be costing the corporation. They didn’t understand the cost savings of going from faxing to scan to email, from printing less and by using a larger common device.

We had no formal authority and were sensitive enough to people’s needs to not have to bring formal authority to the table. Overall it was a success via a bumpy road.

Resource

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership, tools and tactics for changing your organization and the World. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Corporate changes

2012-01-10T11:35:00.000-08:00

What types of changes is your organization undergoing and what factors are driving that change?
If changes are not being made as a result of environmental forces, why do you think this is the case? In either case, what might happen to your organization if changes are not pursued?

I work for an office furniture company celebrating its 100^th year in business this year. There have been times of stagnation and more recently times where change was required to survive. The Cawsey et al (2007) book outlines three change opportunities, macro changes, new organizational forms and competitive dynamics and new management challenges.

Macro changes that I see are:
*Changes in workplace environments.
*Changes in who is viewed as the customer.
*Changes in manufacturing environment.

The driving force behind changes in workplace environments are different views of what the workplace should be. Wireless technology and the decrease in the need to store paper documents in our personal filing cabinet have unchained the workforce from a static desk. The implication of that is that less traditional cube environments are required and spaces to fit the needs for nomadic workers are being thought about. That changes the mix of product produced.

Along that vein the change in workplace has meant a change in the view of who the customer is. If we’re making more flexible environments some of those products can cross over from being strictly corporate to other environments. The major customer focus additions have been first to healthcare and more recently to the classroom. The implication, or benefit has been that the competition in those environments are not the traditional competitors. Within both those segments the view of the environments haven’t changed much in years. This change for us has been and looks to continue to be very positive.

The challenges brought by the economy the past few years has brought big challenges for everyone. As orders became smaller, plant space was reduced, headcount was lowered and efficiencies were taken to the maximum. Of the three changes, this change has been painful and has a muddy future. We do employ “kaizen” methodology for “encouraging continuous change”, but what will the next big shift be? (Cawsey et al, 2007, p.17)

If we weren’t changing we’d continue to fight for the same slices of the pie in the market, we wouldn’t be expanding and evolving. I think we were that lethargic a decade ago and it almost killed us. There are some smart people here and I think they figured out that like the Heifetz et al book (2009) outlines, the kind of challenge we were facing was technical and adaptive and the solution required a lot of learning and difficult decisions. We’re a much healthier company now.

Resouce:
Cawsey, T. F., & Deszca, G. (2008). Toolkit for organizational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership, tools and tactics for changing your organization and the World. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Leading Adaptive Organizational Systems wrap-up

2011-12-14T18:02:00.000-08:00

*What are the five most important concepts, skills, or insights that you gained?
The concept I’ve referenced the most has to do with learning a new system. I think I read it in the Eoyang (2009) book. She compared it to chess. First you learn the individual pieces. Then you learn the rules for moving them on the board. With experience an “aha” moment will come when strategy comes clear. I love that moment and that comparison.
Next I’d say that thinking about relationships within a system was valuable. We have to keep in mind that a system isn’t just the paper it’s written on, but the people who are involved. People and the relationships between them really make up a systems.
I found Scharmer’s U process to be a really good tool for breaking down and examining a system. It’s a good tool to help you back and really think about what works well, what needs work. I like the heading “let come” as it encourages you to look at it with fresh eyes.
Self-organizing and how it affects a corporation was interesting to think about. It happens. Is it good? Is it bad? When do you let it happen? When do you absolutely not? How widely should it used? See! I don’t have it figured out yet! I think it can lead to good conversation and insight.
An insight I have is that sometimes people stretch a little too far to get a point across. I have about 30 sticky arrows in my Wheatley book, so it wasn’t all quantum physics and atomic particles. I found some useful stuff. I’m going to randomize and just open to one of those arrows and share it. From within the chapter “ Change, Stability and Renewal: The Paradoxes of Self-Organizing Systems”. “As relationships developed far beyond the plant, it created conditions within the plant for levels for autonomy and experimentation that resulted in extraordinary new levels of safety and productivity.”
*How has your perspective been challenged or changed?
I think more about how things fit together, how they relate to each other within a system than I might have before.

*What burning questions do you have as you step away from this course and think about applying what you have learned to your practices?
How deep and wide can self-organization go?
This is more a statement; I don’t think Neutonian is a dirty word.
How can I use Scharmer’s U to improve more things!

Mind Map

2011-12-14T17:59:00.000-08:00

I created a mind map for something I met with my manager on yesterday. We were talking about our group's internal website. She's finding it stale, I find it less than useful sometimes. Within the map you'll find the central issue in Green. The surrounding issues are in red, and the branches off of that are blue.

System Assessment

2011-12-12T12:28:00.000-08:00

Global Product Data Management and Product Development and Launch
The organization and system I’ve chosen to look at within this course has been the Global Product Data Management (PDM) and Product Development and Launch (PDL) groups and the system they share for taking products from idea to the shelf. I was brought into a role of coordination as a consultive project manager working for the PDM group.
The PDL (Product Development and Launch) group is in charge of getting a product to the shelf, from idea to shelf. Within that process PDM (Product Data Management) is in charge of data. PDM feeds data into our product systems, creates product specification books, CDs, marketing drawings, etc. There are a vast number of touch points between the two, processes that are not standard, awkward hand offs and schedule conflicts. Other things that affect the system are politics and the businesses desire to get a product on the shelf by a specific date, damn what it takes to get there. That is not an insignificant issue. PDM’s desire is to have smoother hand offs between the two groups with less “fire drills” when data is not provided in a timely manner.
The relationships between the groups and the groups around them (marketing, individual product category groups) seem good. The connections are sometimes blurry as people have changed position, but everyone seems to desire a good outcome for the products, the company.
The approach
I chose to use Scharmer’s (2009) “Theory U” as the primary lens to view the system. Throughout our readings it has seemed to both make sense and challenge how I view systems. For the first part of the paper I’ll include pictures of the process I’m going through. As I look at the individual assessment subjects I’ll take it from the “Pattern of the Past”, “See”, “Sense”, “Let Go” and “Let Come” areas. Later in the paper I’ll summarize a “Crystalized Vision” and what a “Prototype” might look like.
Boundaries
I started by documenting the boundaries I see within the organization. The clear and distinct boundaries I identified were pretty easy, they are departmental and categorical. The departments involved are PDM, PDL and Marketing. The categories are the different families of furniture. The indirect boundary was more difficult to identify, but I think that the fuzzy elephant in the room is “Statement of Line” (SOL) completeness. The SOL defines the product in every possible way and is often a source of contention.

That leads directly into what I’ve sensed from the group, frustration. My primary focus is helping the PDM group, and they are frustrated by a lack of information provided in the SOL. The lack of information leads to disruption of the flow of work, dates to be missed and ultimately fire drills.

Marketing and PDL desire more flexibility. Marketing desires to wait until the last minute to define things like price.

In meetings that I’ve had there is an obvious sense of responsibility and pride. These people want these products to go out. They deeply desire to hit the right dates to keep their internal customers happy and create value for the company.

In the “Let Go” space I wrote that old handshakes need to go away. I don’t see a “good old boy” network, but work that is non-standard that is allowed to pass. The work from PDL is extremely structured, but for some reason this communication of information is very ad-hoc. What we need to come are new strategies for bringing data into the group. Because this is a repeatable process it does need a little Newtonian structure in the way of standard formation. Fresh expectations should be set realistically for the presentation of data and time boundaries.
Patterns and Themes

What I see as a pattern or theme is products flowing through a system. They start out as a PDL project, involve several departments, make a stop in PDM and end up on a shelf (or as a modification). The stream of projects doesn’t stop and with globalization will only become more complex. There is also cooperation. Although there may be rocks in the stream there is always a level of cooperation that allows things to finish. Frustration was covered earlier, but it’s also a pattern. As the cycle of projects stream through there is also a cycle of frustration as bi-monthly deadlines approach.

I get a sense that much is said but not much changes. The monthly cycle brings on a lot of discussion, but it fades until 45 days later when it flairs up again. It seems that the complexity of the process paralyzes people. The projects have so many touch points that they’re difficult for one person to comprehend. It seems that what may need to be let go of is old ways. Not the old system, but how the system is viewed, how some resentment has been built up. What needs to come is new patterns, new ways of doing things formally and informally.
Flows

The main flow within this system is the path from drawing to product on shelf. The path isn’t different every time. There may be variation in type of product, but the system itself should be consistent. Within the umbrella PDL product vault there are defined, standard documents, pieces of work. I’m not close enough to that process to say if it flows well or not, but engagement with PDM seems inconsistent. My sense is that variation in presentation of information bogs down the flow. It seems to me that what needs to be let go of is the variation inside project. What should come is more standard practice, explicit date expectations agreed upon and better avenues for negotiation between groups (a light bulb turned on just then!) A feedback loop may do what Eoyang (2009) says about change “A change on one side of the boundary results in a change on the other side—a transforming feedback loop.” (Eoyang, 2009, p.45) That would be a valuable addition to both help PDL become more sensitive to dates and PDM to improve their performance.

Complexity
A book could be written about how complex it is to make a chair. I see the project information vault and am amazed that we ever really produce anything. The complexity that came to mind is a frontier that is just starting to be really recognized, the Globally Integrated Enterprise. There is a new product being developed with the intention to globalize all aspects of its birth. Samuel Palmisano of IBM (2006) produced a white paper discussing how “companies are investing more to change the way they supply the entire global market.” That’s a powerful and true statement and brings much complexity to how we view globalization. In this case the pattern of the past is thinking regionally but speaking globally. We obtained and built foreign operations and designed and built product within those regions without taking advantage of all the human capital potential we have if we work together. What I see currently is three separate groups of people (North America, Asia, and Europe) with redundant resources and different systems that do not collaborate. We need to continue to let go of regional thinking while bringing those systems together with common pieces accessible anywhere.
Equilibrium and Self-Organization
Eoyang (2009) states that “Many complex systems exist at equilibrium in a kind of dynamic balance of change and stability”. As much as I’ve picked on our system for being less than perfect, our people, our culture is great. As we’ve come out of a dark period we’ve become smaller in numbers and probably closer than before. We’re conscious of our international ties and regarding our corporate culture it feels like we’re at an equilibrium that allows us to seek change. In addition, an advantage, a by-product of the need to become global is how we’ve provided good, safe, stable working environments. Very practically, we’re improving people’s lives and taking some uncertainty away via equilibrium.
The company itself is in a good balance of equilibrium right now. It’s reached a stable point, out of the recent economic downturn and is ripe for making the changes need to improve processes globally. This sweet spot is an opportunity to get ready for the next business downturn and hopefully we’re all smart enough to weather it better than ever before.
Within the groups I’m talking about I haven’t noticed off the cuff self-organization. It is the main stream of product development and presentation running through the company, so what it does overall is pretty well planned. Eoyang (2009) states that self-organizing systems need to meet two conditions to support self-organization, differentiation and transforming feedback. I think I see glimmers of both. There is differentiation between groups, PDL consists of engineering people, PDM contains IT minded people and there is Marketing and management. They’re all after the same goal, all pushing to get that product to the shelf. I also see evidence of transforming feedback. Part of the lean systems concept is to continually review what you’re doing with feedback loops. Those reviews lead to change within the system processes.
Ecological Thinking
Within my company it’s seen as both a competitive advantage and a corporate value to think ecologically. Thinking ecologically doesn’t just mean that we recycle paper. Wheatley says that “We are learning to see systems rather than isolated parts and players.” (Wheatley, 2006, p.158) The chair that we all sit in used to be viewed as a collection of parts, and when it’s done being useful it went into a trash bin. Our chairs are now viewed as a system for our human form to rest in and to be recycled at the end of its life, they’re completely and easily disassembled for recycling. They use scientific ergonomic studies to determine how the chair should fit our shapes.
Agents of Change
Stevenson (2008) defines an Agent of Change as “alters human capability or organizational systems to achieve a higher degree of output or self-actualization”. Right now, as I go through this class and apply it to my work that fits me. Above I brought forward patterns of the past with things I have seen within the area, the issues I felt, what it looks like we should let go of and what we should let come. So where does it all go from here? What is the vision? As I stand back and overlay all the issues and what came to me as I wrote them down there are some themes that form a vision.
Coordination
The PDL, PDM and Marketing groups need standard coordination of their activities as they relate to PDM. The volume and varying sizes of the projects seem to naturally lead groups to self-organize into informal contacts that don’t track well and don’t receive the attention they need until there is an issue. Expectations should be formalized and standard checkpoints should be used. Within those expectations should be the reiteration of the hard boundaries of the bi-monthly cycle. When things are really due seems to be a combination of a drop dead date, tribal knowledge, management allowances for late work and manipulation of the system (let’s leave x out to save time!) If the checkpoints are spelled out and the steps tracked then there should be fewer surprises at the end of the day. I’ve been working on a method for tracking that.
The above may not look like a prototype for a flow, but it is. Along the top are milestones that start based on a request from PDL for a project be done within PDM. The PDM milestones currently may be managed by the project manager (PMO) for the whole product, or a leader (FL) within one of the areas to the left. This flow removes any ambiguity about who might lead it through the process, the leads are defined. Dates will be agreed upon and placed at all the milestones. The groups involved are defined and in a separate part of the spreadsheet they each have a section to track what they need and what they need to provide, presenting a percentage complete. That percentage should feed into this main sheet, giving an idea of how the process is flowing. There is a clearly stated section where the decision to proceed is made. The progress can be clearly seen, the flow of the product through PDM is clear and expectations are clear.
Conclusion

Scharmer’s lens is a good way to step back and assess a system or process that might need some help. I’ve been fortunate to have a real life system that is in need of some adjusting. It’s going to be interesting to see how the ideas generated by the U process help me with my work assignment.

References:
Eoyang, G. H. (1997). Coping with chaos: Seven simple tools. Circle Pines, MN: Human Dynamics Institute.
Palmisano, S. (2006). http://www.ibm.com/ibm/governmentalprograms/samforeignaffairs.pdf
Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Stevenson, D (2008). http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/original-thinking/what-is-a-change-agent-23764
Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler

Ecological Thinking

2011-12-07T06:52:00.001-08:00

Discuss the role of ecological thinking in the interconnections of organizations and leadership.

Wheatley (2006) says that within ecological thinking “we are more aware that we live in relationship, connected to everything else”. Like it or not we’re all a connected community within our work places. We may separate ourselves or dive right in, but we all have touch points we make every day to get the job done. In our reading Wheatley shows her distain for rigidity and formulas, and she seems to be to the far end of the fuzzy particle scale sometimes. As I read this, sometimes I think that they’re both making it all more complicated that it needs to be sometimes.

When we talk about Neutonian systems, they’re pretty rigid too. The rules are laid out, things need to be done a certain way, and sometimes that’s okay, but what’s important is us, how we treat each other, how we nurture the connections we have. We determine our ecosystem via the relationships we have. The portion of reading this week that I’ve enjoyed the most so far is Wheatley (2006) talking about how we should be more playful in our work. In other words, can we make our widgets and have fun doing it together too?

As a leader I’m part of that ecosystem. Just saying those words in my head reminds me that I’m just part of the a larger thing. I nurture of my part of the system, help those around me succeed and hope that others help me. If we’re all having fun it’s a bonus isn’t it? It’s just work afterall!

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Organizational Status Quo

2011-12-01T16:49:00.001-08:00

What happens to status quo in an organization where change has occurred? Be sure to provide an example and explain what happened to your example when the status quo changed. Did the change in status quo result in a change in leadership?

When I think of a status quo change in my corporation I think back to when I joined. In 1998 the manufacturing company I work for was coming off some fantastically profitable years as a private company. Then, over the next couple years they went public and the bottom dropped out of their industry. They went from a company where excess was barely blinked at to a company struggling to figure out how to survive and be competitive. When I was reading Wheatley's (2006) chapter on “invisible fields” it reminded me of those times. She says “We can never see a field, but we can easily see it's influence by looking at behavior”. I think about the waves of layoffs and people not knowing if they were going to be let go. The smell of that possibility hung in the air and you could see how depressing it was to people. Once the “all clear” was given then slowly people brightened up, but those traumatic days changed the company, changed the status quo. There was change in leadership and it got the company back to a balance.

A thought that I had in this direction was about the group I'm to be helping. They have a status quo and are struggling with some systems that need some help. I'm going to need to be the change lever for them and read something in the Eoyang (2009) text that helped me explain how I'm feeling as I enter this new group. She was talking about the game of chess and how you can learn the moves the individual pieces make on the board and the rules. At some point you'll have an “aha” moment where it all self organizes in your mind, you can start seeing strategy. That really struck a chord with me this week.

Reference:

Eoyang, G. H. (2009). Coping with chaos: Seven simple tools. Circle Pines, MN: Lagumo.

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Equilibrium and Self-Organization

2011-11-30T11:56:00.001-08:00

Leaders and organizations should be conscious of the level of equilibrium and keep in mind that self-organization can occur when things are pushed out of balance. I say “keep in mind” because Eoyang (2009) states that “In some cases the resulting organization matches the formal objectives of the group, in other cases the new structures interfere with the group’s work.” So, although pushing a group out of its comfort zone can be beneficial, it can also go astray.
I was thinking about this subject as I was watching the show “River Monsters” the other day. The host was at a lake where a non-native species of fish was introduced. It apparently eats about anything it can find, which has devastated the lake. I thought, “won’t the lake return to some normalcy once the currently overpopulated invasive fish eats it all”? The system may not be what it was, but the ecosystem can’t support those fish, so many will die and the lake will end up in some state of equilibrium that is different from before. That may be good or bad, but it will be different.
When I think about work, I’m being introduced to a new group. I thought about where they are in Eoyang’s (2009) self-organization matrix (Eoyang, 2009, p 124). Having sat in on their group stand up meeting this morning I can immediately tell that they have some racial differentiation. I don’t know about their feedback. From what I can tell they have a good system that is currently in equilibrium, but they always seem to be under stress. I’ve been told to bring some project management rigor to the group, but can’t help but feel that there are things that I can do to direct, partitions to define, but in other ways I should let them find some best practice as I can’t be the expert on the detail.
Reference:
Eoyang, G. H. (2009). Coping with chaos: Seven simple tools. Circle Pines, MN: Lagumo

Learning from the Future

2011-11-27T18:17:00.001-08:00

As we've been reading Scharmer's book (2009) and his “U” theory it has reminded me of an internal class I took this summer, the “THINK Workshop”. It's part of the “Critical Thinking Model” here at Steelcase of “Think > POV > Plan to Implement > Implement”. (see attached picture) The “Think” portion involves coming up with a central question and then doing research, analysis, synthesizing (insights) and realizing to create a point of view.

Between the two it's provided me with the insight to take a step back and think about things, as Sharmer would say, “with heart and mind wide open.” (Scharmer, 2009, p.378) I think that Scharmer takes things a bit further with not just planning to implement and implementing, but with his taking a higher view and looking at how it fits within the ecosystem and by “seeing and acting from the emerging whole.” (Scharmer, 2009) It all fits into what we've been studying, understanding and giving thought to business process through a different lens.

Personally I think that the degree work to this point has driven great leadership growth within me. There are things that I already did well, but the tools, like our “U” model are helping me be able to see things, do things differently. I'm not just a cog in the machine, but I'm getting a better understanding of how the machine works, how to improve it and become it's director. Cool beans. Speaking of food, Happy Thanksgiving!

Reference,
Scharmer, O. C. Uncovering the Blind Spot of Leadership. Leader to Leader, 2008(47) pp. 52-59.

Models and Flows

2011-11-17T13:28:00.001-08:00

Describe how models and flows play a role in leadership, organizations, and processes.
Model - a standard or example for imitation or comparison.
Flow - to move along in a stream
I’ve been at a loss for this particular topic, so I decided to define the words and then try to relate them to the books.
Based on what I’ve been reading I think of a model as the starting place, maybe like a cookie cutter for the start of something. CaChunk! Here’s the what you start with. Flow then leads me to thinking about fractals and chaos. Wheatley (2006) says that “The shape of chaos materializes from information feeding back on itself and changing in the process.” Our systems start in one space, and given the room, or avenue for growth can flow around into a nonlinear fractal with exciting possibilities.
In regard to leadership Wheatley talks about leaders not spelling out exactly what to do, but to provide a model with which people can work from. Provide clarity about what the organization is and let some chaos flow around it. She says that “if we retain clarity about the purpose and direction of the organization. When things become chaotic, this clarity keeps us on course.” So, be clear about direction, provide a model, but let creativity flow around it. (Wheatley, 2006, p.131)
Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Cross Cultural Tools

2011-11-16T06:33:00.001-08:00

Working cross culturally

At work I'm being asked more often to work cross culturally. There are some tools that I use when I'm asked to work with someone from another cuture or when coordinating between cultures.
Sometimes trying to figure out how two cultures - other than your own work together can be especially difficult. It's hard to get the perspective without any experience. If you're finding that a challenge then maybe these tools will help. A good place to start is to understand these things:

Social norms
Political climate
Religion
History

The first place I'll head is the general information found on Wikipedia. That should give you some basic information about all those topics.

The next tool I use for comparing countries against each other or your own is the Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions website. He uses up to 6 measurements to gauge how a culture would react to another. Those measurements are power distance, individualism (vs. collectivism), uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, long term orientation and indulgence (vs. restraint). On his site you can select either individual countries to see how they rate on the scale or select the comparison tool. Select the comparison tool, select a couple countries to compare (I chose Bangladesh and Belgum). The two obvious differences are in individuality and uncertainty avoidance. The people of Belgum in general are more independent, seek personal achievement and individual rights. In Bangladesh they are far more concerned with their group, their family, seek consensus. If they were working together the person from Belgum may be baffled by the need of a person in Bangladesh to seek input and approval from their group. To a lesser extent they differ in uncertainty avoidance. In Belgum they have a deep desire to know what the future brings them, in Bangladesh they do, but it's not as important. A person in Bangladesh may wonder why a person from Belgum is pushing for information about a 10 year business plan. The real fun comes in when trying to figure out more complex issues.

Why would a female from Bangladesh not be responding to a request for information about the long term prospects for a product from a project manager in Belgum? Maybe she's also asked to be removed from the project. Masculinity index is the same for both, so no problem there. Power distance index is slightly different and individuality is low, so maybe she feels she's being bullied and wants out. She's doesn't understand why she needs to provide such detail about the future, so she's frustrated. So, this tool is very good in helping you understand how to be sensitive to other cultures.

If you need to know the raw numbers, GDP, tourism data, fuel cost information, etc., then the Google Public Data Explorer is a fantastic tool. I gathered a lot of economic data from there for a paper I was writing that I just couldn't find anywhere else.

I hope these tools help you work with more sensitivity with people of other cultures as we work in a more global economy.

Edge of Chaos

2011-11-15T17:56:00.001-08:00

Explain the "edge of chaos" phenomenon. How do leaders or their companies benefit from operating in complex, rapidly changing times?

I liked a line from Wheatley that helped me cement this challenging reading, “From Chaos' great chasm comes both support and opposition, creating the light without which no form would be visible”. Much of it has been pretty abstract, but what struck a cord with me was when Nonaka (1988) started talking about “Creating Challenging But Equivocal Vision” and how it can transform an organization. It's meant to create disequilibrium, to shake things up into something new. At first, within these readings I was trying to grasp how this all applied, especially when they were talking about organizational chaos. Does that mean that organizational structure doesn't exist? We don't put names in a hat, toss it in the air and see what happens when we land in new cubicles. It's probably more about viewing pulling people off center. On occasion our CIO will take managers from different parts of IT and flop them, one was my manager. It was challenging, but it provided a new lens to look at the affected areas.

The edge of chaos? Wheatley (2006) on page 119 discusses the dip into depression, the chaos and then emergence into something new and better. That sounds like the edge. I can think of times when I've personally hit that point, muddled through it and came out a better person.

Resource:

Nonaka, I. (1988). Creating Organizational Order Out of Chaos: Self-Renewal in Japanese Firms. California Management Review, 30(3), 57-73.

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Systems thinking and thinking systems

2011-11-14T12:55:00.000-08:00

The Ackoff Approach Ackoff describes three types of systems in is 1994 article “Systems thinking and thinking systems”, mechanical, organismic and social. The system that most closely relates to my selected situation seems to be social, although there are some mechanics in there too.
Social System
Ackoff (1994) describes the Social system as having 3 characteristics; (1) “have purposes of their own”; (2) they have “essential parts” that “have purposes of their own; (3) “are parts of larger (containing) systems that have purposes of their own”. The situation I chose to look at was the Product Data Management (PDM) system and how it interacts with the Product Development and Launch (PDL) group. Both groups have purposes of their own. PDM handles all the data elements of a product and at a macro level PDL is in charge of getting the product from drawing to the shelf. Although PDM is a part of PDL, they do have a purpose of their own and essential parts with specific reasons for being. Their purpose is to support product data, from storing the product drawings to supplying catalog for ordering. PDL’s mission is to drive a product from drawing to the shelf and also have essential parts, one of those parts being PDM’s work. They both are parts of a larger containing system. PDM is a part of the PDL system and PDL is a part of the company as a whole.
Mechanical System
I can also see this is as being a mechanical system. The process is in place to create a product, therefore there is a progression of things that need to be completed. Ackoff (1994) describes the mechanical system as “one that operates with regularity dictated by its internal structure” and “display no choice”. Another important distinction is that the parts of the system by themselves have no purpose on their own. So, if some part were taken out of the system, say, “create statement of line”, it would have no usefulness outside of this process. However, the process requires it in order to function.
This mechanical system is an open system. It can be affected by external “conditions or events”. There was an issue with a PDL product last month where a designed element could not be produced cost effectively in the material the designer had intended (aluminum). A decision was eventually made to switch to plastic, which delayed the process, and delayed parts of the schedule.
Organismic System
I don’t see the process as organismic because Ackoff (1994) says that they may have parts with “no goal or purpose”. If there is no purpose to a step then ideally it shouldn’t be part of a business system.
Summary
I think that my situation can be viewed as either a mechanical or social system. There are elements of both within the system. Because it deals with product development, a traditional manufacturing process it feels very mechanical but also social.
Reference:
Ackoff, R. L. (1994, Summer-Fall). Systems thinking and thinking systems. System Dynamics Review, 19(2), 175–188.

Fractals and Attractors

2011-11-10T12:43:00.001-08:00

Describe a complex system and the roles that fractals and attractors play in it. Give examples of how these factors interact on an organizational level within the system.

The system that first came to my mind when thinking about fractals and attractors was a bee hive. I can see several examples inside.

Point Attractor – Eoyang (2009) says that within a point attractor “all activities in the system tend toward a single point. In my mind I picture the bottom of a cartoon bee hive, a big round basketball shape with an entrance at the bottom that everyone in the hive enters and leaves from.

Periodic Attractor – The bees have a defined schedule, they go out during the day and come in at night. That pattern repeats itself “in regular time intervals”. (Eoyang, p.93)

Strange Attractor – This is where I think it gets interesting, “patterned randomness”. (Eoyang, p.95) Different bees have different duties, but they do basic tasks, find flowers, guard the castle, take care of babies, etc. They repeat their patterns, but not always in the same way. The bees in search of flowers find them in different places, so they fly to different places, find different flowers, but they always fly back, they always pass on the pollen. They always do their little dance to tell all the other bees where the good flowers are. Then they go out and do it again based on what other bees have told them, or eventually stumble onto a new patch of flowers.

Fractals – I liked what Wheatley (2006) said about a starting equation, that it “provides the starting point for evolving feedback”. In the morning the bees figure out it’s time to go out and find pollen, a starting equation. Over the course of the day they find different paths, different solutions for the location of the pollen that evolves throughout the day. They couldn’t be as efficient if their system wasn’t that open, nor could they survive if they didn’t veer from their path.

Resources:

Eoyang, G. H. (2009). Coping with chaos: Seven simple tools. Circle Pines, MN: Lagumo.

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Working Moble

2011-11-10T10:42:00.000-08:00

It's hard to believe that I've been working moble for over a couple months now. First I think I need to say that I feel fortunate to be able to be so flexible in where I work. My old excuse for not being creative by being stuck in the basement doesn't float anymore :)

So, what works well? Variety. I love a variety of positions, locations and ambience. This morning I was using a walkstation for about 3 hours while looking outside. I'm not sure how far I went, but it was nice to get some exercise.

Yesterday I spent some time at a airtouch table - which I wish I could find at the company store. They're adjustable height work surfaces, but not electric. Manual and very easy to move up and down. I like standing about half of the day, so they let me do that. I've found the new cafe' space to be a little busy / noisy for my taste. I did however find a cubby hole down there that nobody apparently notices. If I told you were it was I'd have to kill ya.

What I don't like - I forget where I'm at in relation to things in the building on occasion! I've worked here for 14 years and I find myself taking wrong turns, or forgetting where I parked in the morning! Good think I drive a yellow vehicle.

Since the last time I wrote about being a moble worker a new space has been transformed. They took out a group of old cubicles and turned it into shared space. It's where they put the (2) walkstations, some cafe tables, bix lounges (you'd have to look - can't explain 'em), some fixed stand up stations and regular desk space. I've only used the walkstation and bix. Funny, but I like being away from my normal crowd - and that was my usual crowd. Maybe I get interruped less around people I'm less familiar with.

I almost feel like I've been a Steelcase commercial, but wanted to give you a taste of the spaces I've been hanging out in. It's all really cool.

System Evaluation

2011-11-04T05:50:00.000-07:00

Putting yourself in a leadership role, explain to your peers (who may be both leaders or followers) why a particular system is broken and how modifying it will remedy the malfunction(s) and create a positive shift in the way things are done. Use your readings to evaluate the system.

The system that I’ve seen lately that needs some help is the coordination between our product development and launch group and the product data management groups. Basically the folks who design and coordinate the making the furniture and the folks who coordinate the data behind it (database, specification tools). As I was reading what Wheatley (2006) wrote about the Second Law of Thermodynamics it reminded me of that system. The system was put together a few years ago by engineers looking for equilibrium. They wanted a stable system that was predictable; reliable, a closed system. Like in the book says, it has worn down. The world around it has changed, but it has not changed with it, it has degraded.

I hope to bring some openness to the system. It needs to be redefined, but it also needs a path to improvement, to help it become a system “capable of self-renewal”. (Wheatley, 2006, p.77) The leadership has recognized that something needs to happen, but the individuals are resistant to change. Right now I’m trying to understand the system, stepping back a little further than those who know it and understand what the connections are and how to make it all work better again.

Resource:

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Design Decisions

2011-10-27T12:56:00.000-07:00

Build a structure using the Restaurant Design Activity in the Resources section& below. Use the Export button in the activity to save your completed design as a .jpg file. Then write a post in which you describe the restaurant and what you envision goes on there, incorporating the ideas we have discussed so far in the course. Discuss how systems, patterns, archetypes, and boundaries affected your design decisions. Attach the .jpg file you

The restaurant I put together is similar to one I remember when I was growing up (Village Inn on 28th in GR!) It was a pizza place. I remember it being great fun because it was an active, shared experience. You’ll notice the long tables with benches. We sat next to strangers! Part of what made it fun was the music playing and the encouragement to sing along via the song books on the tables.

The first thing you do while walking in is order your pizza from the hostess. Behind her you see a permeable barrier, the glass that lets you watch them make the food. I remember being mesmerized by watching the cooks throwing the dough up in the air and assembling the ingredients. You are allowed to seat yourself, which reminds me of the patterns in nature. You may feel like keeping to yourselves and sitting at the lone table, or sitting at any of the longer tables. Your choice may be influenced by seeing a familiar face, attraction, disgust, wanting to be near a bathroom or the window. As the days go by I’d watch how the crowd reacts to each other “observe, observe, observe”. (Scharmer, 2009, p33) I’d then retreat, reflect and look at how different groups react to each other. Do certain mixes of people make a jollier time? Should I consider changing the system for seating people to increase their enjoyment? Should I place couples in the middle of families to get them away from making googly eyes at each other and draw them out of their shells?

There were a few things I did to make people comfortable in what at times is a cold climate. I chose a warm color for the wall; I separated the entrance from the seating area and have a place for coats. I want people to feel it to be a warm, comfortable, fun place for an evening’s entertainment.

Resource:

Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Patterns in nature / patterns in business

2011-10-27T11:31:00.000-07:00

Describe two different patterns in nature and apply your thinking about those patterns to things you see in a business environment. What makes those patterns similar or different? Why is this important?

Since its fall, the patterns I’m choosing are from the tree in my back yard.

In regard to the falling leaves, what I know is that I have a big Maple in my back yard. The leaves are large and around this time of year they start falling. When I got back from vacation I also noticed that it had shed a lot of branches. Every year I have to clean this mess up. I know from grade school that the tree is going into dormancy. It’s within its cycle of life it creates new, has a quiet period, and experiences growth. Within that cycle there are boundaries that may be distinct and in transition, indistinct to us, like Camazine said (2003) “develop so slowly that they appear as snapshots to the human eye” but consistent. It actually reminds me of the cycles of business in general. It has times when the business climate is up, and down and some quiet times.

I also thought about those dropping leaves and branches. Why does it do that? The tree drops leaves as it becomes dormant and stops sending nutrients to the leaves. But why the branches? I know that they’re always smaller, a half to a foot long. The part that has let go is always convex, it’s like the tree knows that it’s a temporary branch. During growth the boundary between leaf and tree is permeable, nutrients flow to the leaf through that boundary. In the fall the boundary becomes less and less permeable until the leaf dies and falls. The leaf cycle reminds me of a career, except maybe the choking off and killing it part. You begin small and through nurturing you grow and become a bigger part of the whole. You do your part, and move things forward until it’s time to retire. Then you fall to your death. Okay, not really. I think about business process when I think about the branches. They get created, but may not quite be the right fit. To keep the business strong we should drop ineffective practices and hold onto the ones that work well, letting them grow and change with time.

Carmazine, S. (2003). Natural History: Patterns in nature. 112(5), p. 34-41.

Death Valley 2011

2011-10-21T12:05:00.000-07:00

Death Valley 2011 was my 5th time in the desert, 6th Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Ride to Cure. This year, with your help I raised in excess of $4380 for JDRF. So, over the years through the ride program you and I have raised somewhere in excess of $24,000 (6 events x $4000+)! I really appreciate the continued support!

Every year seems to have a different theme:

2005 - Rookie year, fainting and mezmorized by the park
2007 - Year of the 40 mph headwinds!
2008 - Trike Mike year of a good ride
2009 - The Vermont downpour
2010 - The year of inspiration
2011 - The year of heat and brotherhood

Heat and brotherhood
My brother Tim reminded me of something over the weekend. The evening before the ride the group gathers around and talks about our inspiration. Tim said that his inspiration was two fold, Taylor, my daughter and my commitment. Specifically, what made up his mind was a text I sent him after the 2010 ride "I kicked Death Valley's ass!". I guess that day he decided to commit to ride.

For me fundraising actually starts before that years ride. In other words, I've already raised $300 for the 2012 ride! My suggestion for Tim was to do what I do, think about fund raising early. We both worked at the VanAndel arena throughout the year, pouring soda, making pretzels, washing dishes and cleaning floor drains. In November I started taking orders for poinsettias, a program offered by a team member who owns a greenhouse. You helped me put $325 into my account from those beautiful flowers. There are others who directly apply donation to my fund via the ride page. I love that! I also really appreciate it. So, I hit my goal of $4,000 around June. I could have had more, but from then on I applied my VanAndel hours to my brother. Tim hit his goal before we left. So let's get the finances out of the way. Mike $4380, Team Howard $8419, Team West Michigan $129,428, Death Valley Ride to cure 2011 $1.2 Million for diabetes research!

This year I had 37 team members going with me to Death Valley. Since I was staying longer on the trip Tim and I flew separately. However, I had the pleasure of flying with a few of my teammates. It's funny the number of friendships I've built through this program. We ride in the summer, we work the VanAndel, we participate in the JDRF rides. My life has been enriched by their friendship.

So, horrible flight in. Too early for my taste, delayed in Minnesota and late to meet Tim at the rental car. My friends at the Hertz Hub supported us by providing a voucher for our rental car (Tim and I had rented a Corvette). It was the first bright spot of the day. Once I got there it was great to see Tim, jump in the car and head out on our adventure. It was fun being with someone experiencing all this for the first time. As I drove through Pahrump in the direction of Death Valley Tim was surprised by both "how ugly and beautiful" it all is. I gave him the reigns and let him drive Past the welcome sign into the park. We stopped at Zabriske point on the way in and we talked about how amazing the view is.

Friday we suited up in our cycling gear and went down for the "tune up ride" speech and ride. This is when we heard about the heat. They were predicting record highs for the ride on Saturday and they talked about the possibility of shortening the course to keep everyone closer to the ranch. Last year they picked up 130 (of the 350) riders from the course and drove them back because of the heat. They also reminded us to drink drink DRINK! We all did fine on the short tune up ride.

In the afternoon Tim and I toured the park. Our first stop was Beatty NV for lunch. The town isn't so fantastic, but a good spot to get gas and lunch. The highlight was a cowboy coming out to have a look at the car. He was probably 6 foot tall with a well worn cowboy hat, boots, beard and big belt buckle. We talked to him for a few minutes before he disappeared back into the bar.

Next on the tour was Rhyolyte NV, a ghost town I've visted a couple times before. It's history is pretty interesting. I find it amazing that it's population was around 4,000 people in it's heyday. I know Tim will read this, so sorry, but he didn't really want to get out of the car much after we saw the rattle snake warning sign :)

The next stop was new for me. Scotty's Castle is about 50 miles from the ranch with no gas station, so it's pretty far out in the middle of nowhere. Tim was unfortunate to be driving while a park ranger followed behind us for a majority of the trip. Unfortunate because the speed limit is 55 or 65 out there, but most people go a bit faster. Like Sammy Hagar said, it's hard to drive 55! Scotty's Castle was really a good stop. The story of Scotty, the Johnsons and the house is really interesting. I highly recommend the tour.

We got back to the ranch in time for dinner Friday evening. It's cool having dinner outside with your 37 team mates and 300+ new friends. As the sun went down we listened to them talk about the future of JDRF, the advancements being made in diabetes research and how hot it was going to be Saturday! Actually, they announced they were going to shorten the course. They made it 25 miles out and back. If you wanted the 100 you could do that twice. Not a bad idea keeping everyone closer to the ranch on such a hot day.

The West Michigan team has two traditions we do Friday night. First we decorate our helmets. I know, it sounds silly, but it's also practical. We can recognize our fellow team mates right away when we're out on the course. This year was multi colored spinny things on springs (ended up making too much noise on our heads ride day!) Near the end of decorating we talk about our inspiration for riding. It's when I learned about the text I sent Tim. I was brief, but reminded everyone to be serious about hydrating, being one who has fainted from dehydration out there. There are funny and sad moments as we talk about how Diabetes affects our lives. Funniest moment was when Stewart said that Nathan got diabetes on his dog! Now he has to take care of both of 'em!

Saturday always feels like we're 350 people chomping at the bit to get in the desert. The National Anthem played and they started letting us go out in waves, strongest riders first. Tim and I left together, but the difference between riding styles on the trike and his road bike make it impossible to stay together for very long. Death Vally is hilly, and the trike is really slow uphill, but faster than anything out there going downhill. We rode in the shadow of the mountains for a couple hours and made good use of the shadow while I had it. My plan all along had been 36 miles and then cheering everyone at the finish. My route wasn't changed by the heat, I rode to Badwater, turned around and came back.

I had a good ride, drank plenty. I think the highlight for me was cheering people back to the ranch, especially Tim. I enjoyed helping my teammates by getting them water, holding their bikes, giving them a hug. Tim turned around at mile 25, came back and then went back out again. I believe he finished with 72! Excellent given his experience and the conditions! We also had a proposal at mile 25. One of the members of our team proposed to the other out there. Pretty cool!

Overall the ride was great. Because of the change in route fewer riders needed a car ride back. The medical tent was a boring place to be - which is really good. Our first time riders did great and hey! With your help the West Michigan team raised $129k for diabetes research! That's the important part. Next year is already in the works. I'm not sure if the venue will be Death Valley or another spot, but I know I'll be supported by friends, with friends doing some good work for a great cause.

Want to join this great group of folks? Send me a note! You can join the team or just do a shift at the VanAndel to help me raise funds. You can still contribute to this year's account too by clicking here.

Thank you for your support,

Mike

West Michigan Team

Stopped between Badwater and the Ranch. The 2 cards hanging below the windscreen are my inspiration cards the local JDRF chapter creates for us. It's a picture of Taylor and inspirational words.

Near The Finish Line

Tim at Dante's view on Sunday morning after we left the ranch.

Tim at lunch in Beatty NV.

Formal and Informal Corporate Structures

2011-10-21T06:43:00.000-07:00

Explain the difference between formal and informal structures in an organization (Capra, 2002). How do these distinctions affect an organization’s functioning? Give an example of both a formal and an informal structure in an organization and illustrate how each structure affects the organization's potential for growth and development. Why is this important from a system's approach? How might these differences affect the leader’s organizational role and effectiveness?

The formal structure is the framework for the corporation. Capra (2002) says that it’s the “sets of rules and regulations that define relationships between people and tasks and determine the distribution of power”. The informal network is the “fluid and fluctuating networks of communications”. I think of the formal as the building blocks, the standards. The informal network are the touch points we have with each other. They can transcend departmental, technical or hierarchical boundaries.

An example of a formal structure would be the organizations accounting system. It is well defined, regulated and made up of sets of standards. A corporation could not exist without it. When operated well it can make a corporation more profitable, and done poorly it can kill.

An example of an informal structure could be the relationship between IT people across a corporation. In order to solve a technical problem in a large corporation it often takes a little help from here or there and informal relationships are developed from that. Without those relationships issues would take more time to resolve and slow down the operation, or in some cases bring it to a halt.

These two systems are important in a systems approach because they need each other to allow a corporation to function well. The structure is important, but it’s also important to have the flexibility and creativity provided by informal systems.

Capra (2002) says that “to change the conventional style of management requires a shift of perception that is anything but easy, but it also brings great rewards”. Considering both the formal and the informal systems within a corporation can lead to leveraging power that may have not been fully utilized previously, or correct an informal relationship that may have been detrimental by looking at the system as a whole.

References
Capra, F. (2004). Life and leadership in organizations. In F. Capra, The hidden connections: A science of sustainable living (pp. 97–128). New York, NY: Doubleday

The New Science in Leadership

2011-10-21T06:41:00.000-07:00

How is what Wheatley (2006) calls the new science changing the way we think about relationships, beliefs, order, time, and predictability? Give an example demonstrating how these concepts influence problem solving and decision making in global organizations.

What I get from Wheatley is that “the new science” is a shift from a mechanical view to a holistic view of things. How does it change the way we think about things? We should take a view of systems as a whole and think about how pieces of it react to one another. I think that it means that if a team is not functioning well, traditionally we would look for the person performing the worst and replace them. Having a new science view we would look at the connections between people, or analyze the work to see if someone is better suited doing something else.

Scharmer (2009) talks about “The Blind Spot”, which honestly, confused me. I liked how he used both the painting and soil analogy to describe process and how things work together. In art he talks about observing from 3 dimensions, the result, the process and the painter in front of a blank canvas. The soil is much more than what we see at the surface, what is below the surface is as much if not more important. He talks about using the five movements of the U process to “illuminate our blind spot” (Scharmer, 2009, p.19). Those movements, Co-Initiating , Co-Sensing, Co-Presencing, Co-Creating and Co-Evolving should help us see systems in a different light.

An example might be the need to change a manufacturing process. You would get input from those involved, listening to what they had to say. Then the information gathered should be looked at with an open mind. I’d pull people from outside the process to look. Once new ideas are generated reflect, with knowledge on what was created. Then a prototype could explored and the system continued to be looked at as a bigger enterprise.

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Newtonian and Systems Perspectives

2011-10-12T12:29:00.000-07:00

Discuss the difference between a linear mechanistic Newtonian perspective (Eoyang,1997) and a systems perspective to leading.

Eoyang (2009) compares the Newtonian perspective to a machine and the systems perspective to a living organism. As I was reading and thinking about it the best metaphor I could come up with was hammering a nail. I know that I can take a hammer and a nail and pound that nail into a piece of wood. It seems obvious, there is no magic, and it will serve its purpose of holding two things together. That process seems mechanistic. However, it might not go in straight, it may be easy to pull apart what I’ve joined. Maybe, with the right relationship I can make it work smoother. If I think about the process maybe I can make the bond stronger. I can drill a pilot hole to make sure it goes in straight, I could put some spit on the nail and make it easier to drive in. Maybe I change the process and use a screw instead for a stronger bond, which achieves the objective too. That process seems to be a systems perspective.

What I was trying to convey is that the best route may not be the obvious route and the relationships between things are important. Wheatley (2006) says that we should “focus, instead, on relationships” and that it is possible that “nothing exists independent of its relationship with others”. It’s the relationships between the things that make up a system that are equally as important as the things themselves.

References

Eoyang, G. H. (2009). Coping with chaos: Seven simple tools. Circle Pines, MN: Lagumo.
Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Systemic Thinking

2011-10-12T08:11:00.000-07:00

Assignment: Assume a leadership role and describe the concept of a system to your leadership team. The system can be of any type such as an organizational system, a biological system, a mechanical system, or a process system. Based on the readings, explain how the system operates and identify key concerns that may require systemic thinking. Be creative. Charts, graphs, and pictures are often representational of systems in operation and may be included in your response.

When I picture a system in my head I think about individual things linked together like a flowchart. A system to me is a process defined for a moment in time. A quote that struck me last night was “a system is a set of processes that are made visible in temporary structures”. (Wheatley, 2006, p.23) After the reading I watched a video about systems, comparing a system to a stream. (Davison, 2007) The stream is not just water making its way downhill, but it’s comprised of many things working together. The stream is constantly evolving, carving a new, more efficient path to its destination.

The system I need to look at is the process of product data management and how new product data flows through our system to a point where a customer can order a “Wiget”. It feels complex as defined by the bullet points in the Eoyang book, it’s new to me, open to outside influences, involves people I don’t know well, and it feels nonlinear, possibly by my lack of familiarity. (Eoyang, 2009, p.11) The process is defined but not flexible. It works, but is failing. Wheatley says of living in a quantum world is “to weave here and there with ease and grace, we need to change what we do.” (Wheatley, 2006, p.39) It sounds like the river Davison talked about earlier, but not the rigid system I need to work on. I’m stepping back, confirming what the touch points are and the relationships between then.

References

Davison, R. G (2007). 6 Change in Thinking – Systems Thinking. http://youtu.be/7NCpdLKhY04, YouTube.

Women in the workplace - interview

2011-09-16T08:02:00.000-07:00

This is actually a response to an email I received that I thought was very insightful. She is a friend who is a professional and a higher level manager now at my company. We are global and here is what she had to say about her experiences with challenges she's faced:
" I can honestly say that I haven’t run into any more gender challenges with my international business interactions than in my local business interactions. However, I should point out that I am working with business colleagues in countries where women are active parts of the workplace (France, Germany, Malaysia, China, Mexico). There was a situation back in the 90s where I became aware of an opportunity that would have included interaction with our business Saudi Arabia. When I inquired about it, I was told that there was no way a woman would be accepted in that region in a leadership position, therefore consideration was not given to any woman for the position, even though most of the responsibility was not in the middle east. Given the relatively recent international events, I understand the Saudi Arabia situation much better now than I did back then. That position ended up being eliminated, and others absorbed the responsibilities (none were women, incidentally).
I mentioned that there are still challenges here in the US. Women are still very much in the minority in leadership positions. I have never been one to wave the unfairness flag because I am a women. But I do have first-hand personal experience that would support my belief that women are not given the same opportunities to compete for positions, especially for positions above 1^st level management. We are also not included in many social activities among co-workers that help build relationship that can help careers grow (such as casual lunches, golf outings, biking events, sports events, etc.). This may be due to the perception or reality that women don’t have the flexibility to take part in off-hour activities, due to family obligations.
From the perspective of women managing men, I have not had any issues in that regard. No one I have managed has been disrespectful or has displayed any other negative behavior toward me that I could attribute to a gender issue.
I would say that anybody who works in International Leadership needs to be aware of cultural differences. I’ve experienced some interesting situations where cultural misunderstandings lead to frustration in teams and negative impact on plans. However, I would not say that any of the misunderstandings that I’ve experienced had to do with gender."

Leadership Sunday / Service Leadership

2011-08-22T08:31:00.000-07:00

So I was sitting in (Catholic) church Sunday morning for mass. Father Christian was talking about Montecassino Abby in Italy. Over the ages it's been built up and then destroyed by invaders several times. His point was the resiliency of the Abby and in a larger sense the church. He then talked about the leader of the church being Jesus and the Pope as the lead servant. That struck me. I've always liked the idea of servant leadership in my readings, but hadn't really thought of it in the case of the church. Not that I want to expound upon how the Pope is that kind of leader. I just thought the connection was interesting. I've recently met a leader who it seems to me is at a higher level of that type of leadership. I'm going to be working with his group and as I was researching it seemed that there was a lot of emphasis on moving people forward. The process for career development was front and center with activities around it to support it. As I talked to that leader he also talked about that. His people speak highly of him and I think he's a good role model - I look forward to working with that group. One of my favorite servant leaders is Lee Cockerell - go get his book, good reading.

Second thought ... as Father Christian was talking about how the church endures it made me think about the corporation as a living thing. We had a couple chapters in a class I had last year that talked about how corporations endure. In the US we have several large companies that have lasted a century, but our history is really brief. There are some Asian companies who have been around for a very long time. Anyhow, we are stewards, possibly for a short time in the life of a corporation. Unlike the church we can kill it if we aren't careful. Maybe some need to die, maybe some will live for eons. Interesting to think about.