A631.6.4.RB_DellElceCamila

A631.6.4.RB – Transformational Strategies

            According to Brown (2011), organizational transformation can be defined as “drastic, abrupt change to total structures, managerial processes, and corporate culture. It requires a redesign of everything in the organization, including the norms, and the culture, the very soul of the organization” (p. 399). Gallery Furniture, a company in business for over thirty years, faced economic downturn and a warehouse fire that forced them into an organizational transformation that enabled the business to not only stay afloat but thrive. In order to re-inspire his sales force, Jim “Mattress Mack” McIngvale had his entire team attend Influencer Training so they could change their behavior in order to positively impact the company’s bottom line. After watching both videos the “Influencer” and the “Listen, learn and the lead,” I believe that both Jim McIngvale and Stanley McChrystal have something in common; both leaders have had to deal with organizational changes beyond their control. 

            Brown (2011) suggested that, “cultural change efforts include activities designed to improve the skills, ability, structure, or motivation of organization members” (p.399).  McIngvale’s approach was to focus on strengthening the motivation of his workforce to innovate the way they did business. He concentrated on several areas including revamping the sales approach, reducing delivery reworks, improving safety and employee wellness, and reducing inventory (Gallery Furniture, n.d.). After the training was completed, he provided his sales force iPad’s to keep in contact with the customers. As soon as a customer left the building he’d have his salesmen send them an e-mail thanking them for coming in the store. He estimates this customer follow up added several hundred thousand dollars in sales each month that they would not have gotten otherwise. He taught them to love what they hated and provided performance data to keep them focused and engaged.  When someone made a sale they would ring a bell and celebrate with the whole team. By going through an organizational transformation process the results were astounding.  Sales increased, expenses decreased, on-the-job accidents were reduced, but most importantly the transformation yielded healthier and happier employees who were committed to establishing happy customers for life (Gallery Furniture, n.d.).

            On the other hand, Gen. Stanley McChrystal faced just as drastic change as McIngvale, but yet it was completely different. McChrystal’s workforce was highly motivated. They had the best in technology available to them. However their challenge was to change the organizations orientation from fighting a classic land battle to small groups of insurgent forces. The environment had changed. McChrystal faced an environment where his workforce was physically fragmented into smaller self-sufficient teams. Their relative strength of corporate culture was a “Strong Culture” (fig, 15.4), but the environment made for a need to change the command and control system governing their actions. This placed the organization in Quadrant 1 of Browns figure 15.5 “Manage the Change”. Each small team, rather than consisting of pure active duty Army personnel of the basic same age and training, now consisted of personnel from several of the uniformed services, civilian organizations like the CIA, and civilian contractors. Each member of a team came with their own value system, vision, and power system. This gave each team its own unique sociotechnical system that McChrystal had to deal with.

            Both McIngvale and McChrystal faced organizational threats that would make or break their respective organizations. Both responded with winning approaches and strategies, but approached the task from a unique point of view. Both provide us with an excellent example of how leaders can respond to the modern business environment.

References

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

Gallery Furniture: Case Study. (n.d.). Vital Smarts. Retrieved from  http://www.vitalsmarts.com/casestudies/gallery-furniture/

McChrysta, S. (2011, March 1). Listen, learn ... then lead. Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal

A631.5.4.RB_DellElceCamila

A631.5.4.RB – Leading System Wide Change

No Respect for “Status-Quo”

            It is not a surprise or secret how difficult it is for a leader to grow into an individual with the sufficient skills to lead a system-wide change effectively. There are so many obstacles that will always try to be on the way and interrupt the progress. And only a few, very few, will defied the odds and will push forward into the impossible. One of the greatest examples that tried to over come those difficult times and failed and then succeed again after many attempts is Mr. Steve Jobs. He truly wanted to be unique in every single way possible. His ambition pushed others into striving for the impossible. Nevertheless, his strict demanding persona pushed others to hate him and even have his on company fired him.

            A successful leader can transmit many different things, but a successful organization is ultimately linked to monetary performance. The level of impact coming from a person can determine leadership. Impact is the amount of change coming from an influence. In this case a leader can be measured by the amount of change that happens in an organization. Without change, what is the benefit of a good leader? Therefore, leaders may climb to their positions during periods of poor performance. Striking out in new ways, a bold leader may make a good name for themselves and provide many good reasons why they are the leader, but the application of change management in a struggle is significantly different than using an organizational intervention to improve efficiencies.

            Changes in a learning organization, for example, are constantly occurring as the organization constantly observes and corrects where it lacked good performance. Also predicting where problems can possibly arise, learning organizations improve where it is not apparently necessary. In cases where a major struggle is not apparent, bold leadership means implementing change processes when they are not obviously needed. A good sign of leadership also means conducting surveys and providing feedback. Constant evaluation allows for problems below the surface to become apparent where something can be done about it. This means assessing the state of the organization, policies and procedures, job satisfaction and morale, and problems that hinder people from doing their jobs and satisfying customers (Brown, 2011, p. 374).

            Reengineering is a change process implemented system-wide and involves radical change to processes that hinder top performance. This is a behavior and change process that can be easier to come to bold leadership. It is, knowing when to use the appropriate intervention that counts. Rensis Likert provides that a leader can use a system of survey questionnaires to identify the type of leadership in the organization (Brown, 2011, p. 380). Working toward empowered employees in the organization improves their effectively.

            As the apple commercial mentioned, those who are misfit and different, the outcastes; those are the true leaders. Those who have “no respect for status quo” (1997). In order to proceed with change processes, one must be fearless. The leader who is in the constant lookout for the next new “thing” or innovation will find him or her self turning the impossible into something very possible. Paul Arnold (2015) suggested that, “To be effective, organizational change must be able to genuinely transform the business. Yet in the relentless search for new techniques to revolutionize the way things are done, and in the haste to manage technological discontinuities, many organizations fail to adequately develop, communicate and execute their vision for the change” (para. 10). Leading system wide changes it’s not about knowing what to do in every situation, but knowing that working a as team would lead to better successes as a whole.

References

Apple - Think Different (1997) (YouTube). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmwXdGm89Tk

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

Arnold, P. (2015) "Evidence and leading indicators of change success", Strategic Direction, Vol. 31 Iss: 10, pp.1 – 5 DOI http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1108/SD-08-2015-0128

A631.4.4.RB_DellElceCamila

A631.4.4.RB – INSEAD Reflection

           After reviewing the video, Middle Managers Linchpin to Dynamic Team Leadership (2008), some of the biggest benefits of self-managed teams are the developmental opportunities that the team members have with one another. They are expected to communicate effectively, develop relationships; delegate and plan work assignments, and operate seamlessly as a team. This experience allows them to develop one another and immerse themselves in learning opportunities that they would not get in other capacities. Moreover, being able to truly succeed and fail as a team, which promotes teamwork, learning, and relationship building is also a benefit. Self-managed teams may be closer than any other team based on the nature and scope of their work. They are “autonomous group whose members decide how to handle their task” (Brown, 2011, p. 349).

            On the other hand, having to diffuse problems and strategizing to remove obstacles within the team without the help of a manager, at least not on a regular basis could be considered a drawback. There are times when peers and teammates fail to come to a resolution and managers are necessary. Other drawbacks associated with self-managed teams are as follows:

• ·      Self-managed teams may not be appropriate for the task, people or context.
• 
  
• ·      The organization does not perceive the need to change.
• 
  
• ·      Managers and leaders are vague and confused about their roles.
• 
  
• ·      Organizations fail to reward for performance.
• 
  
• ·      The lack of training can cause self-managed teams to fail.
• 
  
• ·      Lack of advancement opportunities.
• 
  
• ·      Complications in constructing a successful

            I believe it would be very enjoyable to work within a self-managed team as I respond well to autonomy afforded to me from leadership, and this is typical in self-managed teams. In addition, when it comes to being a medical assistant, brainstorming with teammates, sharing work assignments, and collaborating with my coworkers to solve problems is a routine. I do, however, think that the autonomy of self-managed teams is by far the most attractive benefit to me. If the relationships and teamwork were to be there, the need for a leader would not be necessary because the team would overcome any obstacle as a group.

            I feel that one of the main competencies I would need to develop to be the outside manager of a self-managed team is giving the team the autonomy to take on projects and tasks by themselves. I do not consider myself a micro-manager, but I do tend to get involved in certain processes of the teams’ assignment to make sure policy, quality, and quantity are been met. This is because I am naturally a curious and detail-oriented person who enjoys observing and interacting with others, so it would be hard for me to completely hand over all control of work to the team. Needless to say, I sometimes have a hard time trusting others into doing their work. At this time, I am not considered a manager, but I do have a leadership position, which I believe I am handling well, but like I always say, there is always room for improvement.

            To conclude, I have to say, I agree with Mr. Quy Huy, the INSEAD Professor of Strategy, as there is no “one size fits all approach to leadership.” We are all very different and in order to have a successful self-managed organization, we, the leaders, must start taking good detail observation into what works for whom. Some individuals are more self-directed, where other are in constant need of guidance.

References

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

INSEAD. (2008, September 22). Self-managing teams: debunking the leadership paradox [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/GBnR00qgGgM

A631.3.4.RB_DellElceCamila

A631.3.4.RB – Feedback and Goals

            It is understood that feedback and goals go hand-in-hand and depend on each other. Nevertheless, each on their own make little to no benefit to the individuals receiving it. In other words, “giving feedback on performance without having previously set goals does not lead to improved performance” (Brown, 2011, 321). Interestingly, Donald R. Brown (2011) also made suggestions about the existence of generational differences in the amount of feedback desired by employees. I have two hypothesis about Brown’s contention; the first one is why would the older generations prefer to have less feedback. I believe the reason is because before, employees used to have more work ethic and were more respectful to their superiors. Therefore, employees were more focused on doing and presenting good job through excellent performance. Hence, the older generations are not comfortable with being approached with constant feedback, as they may feel micro-managed.

            On the other hand, the Gen Y (those born after 1980), with time, they have gotten used to technology and having quick access to anything with short waiting time. With that in mind, our generation, and I say that because I come from this Gen Y, has grown to be less patient and demanding answers as time is at the essence. This generation wants to dominate the world, for lack of a better word, and feedback helps them achieve it. However, that does not mean that the previous generation is not any better. On the contrary, our generation lacks the tenacity and commitment that older generations used to come from. An old-fashion father raised me, and I can attest, working for an organization is nothing like it used to be before. Today, we conform ourselves with having a “feedback zone” where employees are advised of their performance via a survey. I am not sure about you, but I really appreciate the warmth of a voice telling me where I am failing and where I need to correct my performance.

            Needless to say, having monthly surveys is not all that bad of an idea. Unfortunately, I am not the kind of person that sees black or white, but sees all shapes of grays. Normally, people are only approached for feedback on their performance during the time they are about to receive an increase in salary according to how well they have done. So, imagine not having to wait until your employers call you in to let you know you are only getting have of a raise because you did not performed accordingly? The surveys would save people a significant loss in the long run. Anna M. Cianci, John M. Schaubroeck, and Gary A. McGill, suggested that, “the valence of competence feedback (negative vs. positive) has different effects on task performance and associated motivational antecedents depending on whether the individual is pursuing a performance goal in which competence is defined in absolute (or socially comparative) terms or a learning goal in which competence is defined in intrapersonal terms” (2010, para. 4).

            Working as a Podiatry Medical Assistant, you are constantly called in for feedback. Although I love the medicine world, and I aspire to be a doctor one day; I have learned that doctors are very demanding and also perfectionists. I do not believe is a bad skill but they do want their M.A. performing above average. Nonetheless, I do not minded, as I feel I learn more and in the end, my performance can be evaluated according to what they have thought me. One good example is, the doctors or manager at the practice I work for, check on everyone way of doing a foot cast, and then provide feedback on better ways to achieve better results. “Because leadership competence is so consequential, it is important to understand which behaviors are most strongly associated with leader effectiveness” (Zimmerman et. al., 2008, para. 2).

            With time, I have realized that since I do have specific goals I would like to achieve, such as going to Medical School and become a doctor; Doctors and the practice managers tend to provide more feedback and they are more rigorous with me to learn more. I am always being called into the room to listen to the doctors explain a disease to a patient or to be explained how to read an x-ray or ultrasound. Therefore, their feedbacks have definitely improved my overall performance to the fullest. These feedbacks have made me more confident and passionate about what I do. When patients have questions, the majority of the times I can accurately answer their questions without hesitation. I believe this has led me to demonstrate higher performance in my end and provided me with the benefits of having creditable sources and a reputation of being a quick learner. With that been said, the only drawback I can consider is the fact that doctors demand a lot more work from me but more work means job security and I feel completely comfortable with that.

            After reflecting about this topic, the implication is that feedback is an excellent source that could lead to success in an organization. Nevertheless, feedback on its own means nothing. First, you need to know if that person knows there is a specific goal set. Then, another point to take into consideration is how does the other person take feedback. Some take feedback as a great lesson and others will banished and take feedback as criticism. To conclude, feedback sound always be approached accordingly with the organization’s standards.

References

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

Cianci, A. M., Schaubroeck, J. M., & McGill, G. A. (2010). Achievement goals, feedback, and task performance (Vol. 23, Issue 2). Human Performance Journal. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959281003621687

Zimmerman, R. D., Mount, M. K. and Goff III, M. (2008), Multisource Feedback and Leaders' Goal Performance: Moderating effects of rating purpose, rater perspective, and performance dimension. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16: 121–133. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00417.x