A633.4.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.4.3.RB – Changing Dynamics of Leadership

            The shift in leadership is happening more and more today as we see many organizations that are restructuring themselves, kind of reinventing if you will, to be better than before. I believe a lot of it has to do with more and more people who work the front lines on a daily basis, standing up and saying enough is enough. More employees are becoming frustrated with their organizations because the people who were picked to lead them do not know the solutions to most problems. This leaves the lower level employees wondering what the heck happened to knowing and understanding the job at hand no matter what that job may be.

            Some companies deal with this by hiring and promoting from within their organization (I have seen this in some retail stores, as I have worked for Dick’s Sporting Goods). This way a manager knows how the organization works from bottom to top and can actually come up with solutions instead of playing that charade of hoping no one asks them a question they cannot answer. Having someone who starts out at the “bottom” and works their way up can actually help upper management get a better grip on what is happening in their own organization. 

            There has to be open communication from the top down and from the bottom up. We have to ask questions and not bluff our way out of it with some ideal of what we think is the right answer. With more organizations becoming more complex, we have to be able to adapt and change by asking questions, blurring that line a bit between leaders and followers and understanding how to stay in the know instead of getting lost in the management mentality. Getting feedback from your followers lets them know that you want their suggestions and thoughts of what works and what does not. Leaders cannot hide behind their big desks and expect their organization to run smoothly.

            One way to do this is to be the example of what you want. If you expect your front-line workers to know how to perform certain functions, you, as the leader need to know how to do this as well. For example, it has been my experience with different jobs, where managers expect results from their followers, but when they are asked to demonstrate a task of anything in particular; they are unaware on how to proceed.  How can followers rely on their managers to help them when they do not know the answers themselves?

            In my organization there has been a lot of changes recently that I feel were made to better serve the patients as well as the organization itself.  Hiring and putting different people in charge of different areas will have a positive impact overall. A big part of change comes from the fact that my manager is that type of leader that everyone wants to be like or are jealous of because of how well she gets alone with everyone and how welcoming and helpful she can be. She started as a medical assistant and worked her way up to practice manager and was recently selected as the Vice Presidents of the Podiatry Medical Assistant’s organization. She truly leads by example and never says she cannot help us. She makes time for our problems and us, whether they are personal or work related. Additionally, she has never yelled when you mess something up, but instead, she will ask you how can you fix it and how you can make it better next time. My manager empowers her employees and there is open communication. She also gets our feedback and asks us questions. These are the things that help make a good leader great.  

            She also asks what challenges we each face and what we think can make it better. For example, we send out many emails explaining changes that happen and we follow up with training so that medical and front desk assistants can get the information shown to them in a training setting, where they can feel they can ask questions and get clarification as needed. All these things are what will make a good organization better and help everyone embrace changes for the better.

A633.3.4.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.3.4.RB – Complexity Science

            The organization, which I work for, has evolved over time through trial and error, we work using a complex system that is sensitive to change and each individual involved must be adaptable to the circumstances. Furthermore, changes in leadership have helped develop the organization to teach each person within the department to work autonomously to be as efficient as possible. Obolensky (2010) stated that personal feedback is done to evolve in an organization from the typical one-way process of boss to subordinate towards a more fluid and inclusive 360-degree approach. This also places self-correcting responsibility on an individual rather than controlling from the top.

            In order for the organization to continue to develop and evolve strategy development is needed. Through the evolution of strategy Obolensky (2010) explained that there is a move away from content of what the strategy is to process of how the strategy is evolving. Organizations must continue to develop and change as time, technology, and demand happen. Therefore, the organization I work for will continue to progress and changes of leadership, management, and practices will continue to evolve and adjust, as strategies need to change. One means of finding out what is working currently and what is no longer needed is sending out surveys to patients and employees, this helps guide the changes needed and provides feedback that leadership can use to make adjustments where necessary.

              In 10 years, I hope to be done with medical school and practice as a doctor, and to change how the health organization leads their employees. I would like to obtain a position, in which, my leadership skills will come in handy and teach others the magic of team and ethical work. There is really no way to know what exactly will happen in ten years from today, but I can certainly say, that I will always advocate for organizations to have leadership more so than management. As Heraclitus said, “Change is the only constant in life.”

Reference

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (2^nd Edition). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

A633.3.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.3.3.RB – Complex Adaptive Systems

            Module three of this course focused on the movement of the traditional corporate hierarchy. It started with an understanding of the past (functional silos), to the present model. We now have a cross-functional matrix, to what Nick Obolensky, author of “Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty” refers to as what future innovative companies will call a Complex Adaptive System (2010). In the CAS system, traditional management levels have been removed, flattening the organization’s hierarchy. Employees, at all levels, now have increased responsibility and greater control over how they perform their job. For this task, I was asked to find a company that reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS). St. Luke is a small British company that has adapted an aggressive CAS strategy. Some very prominent business critics have described this company as experiencing a monumental growth spurt. This little company has the determination of “the little engine that could” when it comes to its goal to reach the global market.

            My first thought process was to look at Zappos, a shoe company developed by CEO, Tony Hsieh. His company has gained the reputation of a work environment that is about people who believe in shoes and the importance of customer service, not about profit; thus blowing away the shoe industry by breaking the mold. If you research the company and its organizational core values you will see something different; the ten organizational core values never mention profit. 

            However, I soon discovered there was a company that more closely reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS). The company I am referring to is Valve Corp., a videogame maker in Bellevue, Washington. The company was founded in 1996 by former Microsoft software developers Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington. Like St Luke’s, the most astonishing aspect of life at Valve Corp is that there are no bosses. In this successful organization, there is no explicit hierarchy. Employees, at every level, are involved in hiring and firings, which can be initiated by something as simple as a conversation between employees. Here bonuses are based on peer reviews (not management or leadership) and can be as large as 10 times an employee’s base pay. Now as great as this may sound, it is important to understand that such based spontaneous enterprises rely to a large extent on individuals who actually believe in the social norms that govern their existence. 

            This system could potentially work for my current organization, the medical field for numerous reasons. Having such a system requires taking a lot of risk. The health administration department, which is ruled by the government, is a profit based organization and it operates a normal everyday business. Sometimes, success is measured by achieving set objectives; however, often times the objectives are not tangible. I do, however believe the health administration can learn from the CAS process. They could start the process by learning about and implementing better ways to understand all internal and external stakeholders. Like Zappos, they can learn how to developing a plan to achieve specific financial and budgetary goals (Glassman, 2013). Last but not least, I feel it is important the medical facilities, etc., learn the company culture is something that many corporations take for granted, not realizing how important it actually is to employee morale, work quality, and overall success.

References

Glassman, B. (2013). What Zappos Taught Us About Creating The Ultimate Client Experience. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2013/05/13/what-zappos-taught-us-about-creating-the-ultimate-client-experience/

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Unlimited.

Wagreich, S. (2013). A billion dollar company with no bosses? Yes, it exists.  Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/samuel-wagreich/the-4-billion-company-with-no-bosses.html

A633.2.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.2.3.RB – Butterfly Effect

            The Butterfly Effect is something I heard about many years ago. I didn’t really understand what it meant other than it was part of a chaos theory in that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Hawaii there will be an earth quake in South America or something similar to this. There was also a movie called The Butterfly Effect (2004) where the main character Eric has the ability to change things by focusing his mind he could go back to a time period and make subtle changes. When something bad happens to his friend he tries to go back to change just that one thing but instead it changes everything. Each time he goes back to fix what he messed up he made things worse. The premise of the movie is, change one thing change everything. In this case, the take away is that small choices can have the biggest impact in anybody’s life.

         Under the concept of chaos theory, attractors are “plots of movement in phased space” and “most have a specific and easily understandable pattern” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 69). An attractor that does not follow such a pattern is known as the butterfly effect. In the 1960s, Edward Lorenz, a meteorologist attempting to develop a comprehensive computer model of global weather, discovered that insignificant changes in temperature, pressure, and wind speed resulted in significant differences in the outcomes of the simulation. When he graphed his findings, they resembled the wings of a butterfly and the butterfly effect was born (Obolensky, 2014).  When you apply this effect to organizations it reminds us “small changes can yield large results” (Obolensky, 2014, p.71). Such changes can be positive or negative.

            So unlike the movie where one small change caused more chaos, making a small change within your organization can yield very big results. A prime example of this is when my organization decided to go with a call center to answer all patient and non-patients calls about six months ago. By simply routing our calls to one central location that was open 24/7 our new patient’s visits went up, customer satisfaction went up, and a substantial amount of money was earned, which in turn, made upper management very happy. Just one change created vast improvement within the whole organization because the issue of not being able to keep up with the call volume, we were losing patients, and ultimately, the staff was overworked and stress for no reason.

            Another example; I recall when Facebook started to become popular; everyone was posting personal things about themselves online. When our human resources personnel were considering an applicant for employment, they started checking out the candidate’s Facebook pages before they would offer permanent positions. It is absolutely amazing what people post for the world to see. By implementing this new way to vet potential employees, many candidates lost their opportunity to work in our organization. This small change resulted in a whole new tool for recruiting (or not). After many years, our human resource department continues to utilize Facebook as a tool to do some “background check” on applicants.

            By implementing the complexity theory into our organization we can learn that we may not always have the same views and may even work independently of each other but the goal is still the same in the end. We can also use the Wu-Wei approach by observing without taking immediate action and actually learn a lot about our followers and our customers. It can also be used to show that it is ok to let go of certain control and the fear of chaos reigning will not be an issue in most of the cases. 

            We continue to make small changes to better improve our relationship with customers, in these case patients, and the organization as a whole towards a vastly changing future. By adapting and embracing change and understanding the complexity instead of being afraid of it we can propel ourselves to the next level. Right now there are many changes happening within our organization that will put into place a better strategy for the operation as a whole. Some changes may not make sense at first, especially to those who have a hard time embracing change but as it is being implemented, everyone will learn to adapt to change as well. Progress is inevitable and cannot be stopped. It will happen with or without us.

References

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (2^nd Edition). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

A633.1.2.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.1.2.RB – Leadership Gap

            While evaluating my attitudes toward leaders, I realized that they have changed over time. As a youth, I looked at leaders as individuals of authority and I was told that I must respect their authority regardless of how I felt about their ability to lead. Over time, my attitude towards leaders has evolved. I still look at them as authority figures, but for a different reason. They are people with authority empowered to make a difference. They are empowered to influence and impact change. Additionally, leaders are not considered to be above anybody despite their authority level; instead, they are a support system standing by your side. They are leaders who sometimes stay under their follower’s side to bear the weight needed to keep an organization afloat.

            Taking a starting point with those in authority or leadership positions as held by my grandparents, parents, self and younger generations views regarding leadership; attitudes continue to evolve. Evolution and the perspective of that evolution can vary depending on your role and the responsibilities in your family or your organization. There is not one perspective that prevails. What is apparent is that the access to knowledge and the access to technology have influenced the way leaders lead in a global environment. The reason I believe this has occurred is because, priorities have shifted over time, and today we are in the look out for compassionate, authentic leaders capable of standing the high demands of organizational changes and remain approachable to those around them.

            Without a doubt, the existence of a gap between the qualities of leadership is real. This gap in the quality of leadership is attributed to a lack of emphasis in creating a leadership environment that considers the global environment. As much of the literature suggest, we are increasingly moving into a global environment. With that movement, it is important that we consider a new way of thinking. The leadership skills and techniques used in the prior centuries leading up to the twenty-first century may not be effective today. To do this effectively leaders must learn to be adaptive, strategic, and aware of the changing global environment. We must consider how the world is evolving and adjust our perspective to fit the situation.