A634.5.4.RB - Is Marketing Evil?

This week's entry is a question and answer so let's dive in!

1. Do you feel ethical guidelines make a difference to marketers? 

This is an interesting question. Of course marketing ethics exist; there are whole schools of management that teach ethics. A quick Google search turned up 11 million hits regarding teaching ethics in marketing.  The question is asking my opinion on if those ethical lessons matter to marketers. I think the answer largely lies in the attitude of the person answering the question.

Above we see two advertisements that would be considered unethical by today's standards. These were taken from a marketing paper I had written for my undergraduate. I knew they would come in handy one day. A trip to a website these days may offer a multitude of advertisements for cheap insurance, wrinkle prevention, or the promise of great riches simply by clicking a link. Clicking said link may leave the unwary with plenty of time to be angry at unethical practices as their computer is being raided by malware.

However, there are millions of advertisements on any given day at any given time. From billboards, to taxi cabs, to buses, to TV, radio, banner ads, or the ever-popular blimp there are advertisements everywhere a potential customer can be found. How many of these are actually unethical? I would question the accuracy of any study that seeks to measure ALL marketing. Such a herculean task would be susceptible to a great number of statistical errors. So, strictly opinion, I would say that ethical guidelines matter less than legal guidelines. Abercrombie and Fitch is a great example of a modern unethical marketing campaign (Lutz, 2013). Social media has also given rise to a great number of unethical media campaigns but in my opinion these are largely unintentional. (Paul, 2013)

2. How can companies balance the need to win with being ethical?

Constant vigilance. The Internet has given voice to millions of people they aren't afraid of using it. This voice can be used to hold marketers accountable. In the last article referenced above those campaigns were largely social media. The uproar is quick, loud, and damaging. Companies need to stay aware of the global impact of their campaigns; especially social media campaigns. Self-awareness is key to a large part of success and this is no different in marketing. That being said, highly competitive markets give rise to the desire to skirt the line ethically. This is not a justification but it is a reality that must be examined. How one stays within those boundaries is answered in question four.  

3. Is it ethical to track your buying habits or web visits to target you for marketing purposes?

I think it is safe to say marketers have tracked customer usage since the first guy traded three goats for a cow. In any market there will be a need to see how customers shop and how they spend their money. This, in and of itself, is not unethical.  I feel the line needs to be drawn regarding  tracking search histories and personal data such as phone numbers and addreses but I see no problem tracking clicks on a webpage. This is no different than tracking which shoes a customer tries on in a traditional brick and mortar store. Digital stores are still stores and stores have a vested interest in knowing how their customers shop. 

Targeted marketing is the next logical step in this form of marketing. I feel it is a bit creepy seeing targeted ads based on theater tickets I've purchased online, but how is it any different than my favorite shoe store sending me advertisements based on shoes I've bought in the store? If you walked into a store that you frequent and the proprietor says, "Mr. Smith I've gotten some great hats in stock that I think you will like seeing as how you bought a fine watchcap last week" is that so much different than Amazon tracking your purchases and recommending new buys?  

4. As a leader, how will you manage the ethical aspects of your marketing efforts?

  

In much the same way I mange the day to day ethics of my life. I have a vision of how I think the world should operate (compassion, good of the society, honest, integrity) and I make choices to match that vision. This isn't to say that I always make the correct choice however it does mean that I feel I have an ethical value system that provides a framework in which I can make choices. This can be translated to marketing or any business endeavor. When you have an ethical corporate culture and a consistent set of values you can make choices that support those values and reinforce that culture. 

Lutz, A. (2013, August 22). 13 Reasons Why People Hate Abercrombie & Fitch. Business Insider. Retrieved July 3, 2014, from http://www.businessinsider.com/abercrombie-and-fitch-worst-controversies-2013-8?op=1 

Paul, R. (2013, December 13). The Worst Marketing Disasters of 2013 | Search Engine Journal. Search Engine Journal. Retrieved July 3, 2014, from http://www.searchenginejournal.com/worst-marketing-disasters-2013/80679/

A634.4.4.RB - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

The title of this post sums up this week's reflection quite nicely.  I should just be able to say "yes", get my grade and move on. To me this is a very simple issue, we built an entire civilization upon the enslavement, genocide, and repression of different ethnic backgrounds and it is incumbent upon our society to offer ways for people of these ethnic backgrounds to regain the ground they had lost. Some would say I am exaggerating with genocide but I think the Native American population tends to disagree and I bring it up as it is not something I've seen widely discussed. I could discuss slavery and Jim Crow but I have seen those brought up a great deal and a large discussion on the ills of our history is outside the realm of this blog post. This post assumes those ills are widely known and accepted.

So accepting that there are significant horrors in our nation's history why should it not be ethical to seek to redress those affected. Some opponents of Affirmative Action say that since those polices are no longer in effect or have long since past that there is no need to give preferential treatment to people of any ethnic background. This is only appealing on a very basic level. A deeper understanding of the effects of racial discrimination is needed. In short, centuries and decades of oppression have left affected ethnic backgrounds way behind in opportunity. This is plainly evidenced in wealth gaps among ethnicities. Hugh LaFollette touches on this in his work The Practice of Ethics by arguing that the parents of blacks in our current society had to start much further behind on the socio-economic ladder than the parents of whites (LaFollette, 2007). This is an inarguable point. It is preposterous to assume that blacks are all of sudden going to have the same opportunity as whites in 2014 as their parents were largely prohibited from succeeding at all.  Success in life is largely determined on where you start and this is just as true in America. In fact, many Nordic countries enjoy greater economic mobility than the US.  Knowing all of this, it is imperative that we open as many doors as possible to those that are further behind. It isn't enough to say, "Well we are all equal, sorry for that stuff we did to your parents. Good luck getting out of that crushing poverty."  A society should be judged on how it treats those that are most vulnerable and I feel that in that light we fail.

Another argument is that affirmative action discriminates against whites as they may be the most qualified candidate and therefore deserve the job. I have sat down with HR professionals and hiring managers across a spectrum of industries and I can confidently say the best qualified candidate is rarely chosen for a position. It is the person that is the best overall fit for the position that is chosen. So what if you have the best production numbers? If no one likes you, you aren't getting that job. So that particular argument tends to fall a little flat. I get that the larger point is that candidates that would have been chosen cannot be chosen as they are of the "wrong" ethnicity. This does happen. But does it happen so often that the policy should be thrown out? No.

In an ideal world, a workplace should be diverse as diversity is actually better for the bottom line. However, if poor education opportunities and lack of support structures make it harder for certain ethnic backgrounds to acquire the necessary qualifications to acquire leadership roles all the best intentions are worthless. There simply aren't qualified candidates. Why? The education requirements for leadership positions are, typically, post-secondary and lack of available credit, funds, and opportunity leave minorities struggling to meet the basic criteria much less face any overt racial challenge.

Getting back to the discrimination argument; yes there may be some discrimination against qualified white candidates but it is in such a small number as to make that ethical choice in favor of affirmative action. Once again, the answer lies in the statistics. In that first link you should notice the trend is increasing though numbers of minorities in CEO positions is painfully small. This should be taken as a need to continue affirmative action policies, not remove them.

A634.3.5.RB - The Harder They Fall

This article in the Harvard Business Review begins a discussion on how leaders self-destruct as they reach the pinnacle of their careers. A disregarding of rules, a flaunting of regulation, and selfish behavior are revered rather then discouraged. Kramer, the author, does go on to mention that leaders that stay in their position often portray the exact opposite of behaviors. They are humble, work towards the truth, and keep their lives simple. This post will briefly discuss my take on the subject as as well as, hopefully, provide some insight into daily dilemmas.

Recent work has led to the conclusion that narcissists make better leaders; just not too much. Narcissism has self-confidence as one of its defining traits. An over-abundance of narcissism and self-confidence is a pathological condition that is typically viewed negatively. However, I think as a society we have elevated the corporate raider, the narcissist, to a coveted status. This may be because as a culture we have decided to value selfish behavior over altruistic behavior. This can be seen in everything from the financial crisis of 2008 to election of self-professed Ayn Rand acolytes for whom selfishness is a moral virtue. The point of this isn't to devolve into a deconstruction of objectivism but rather point out that altruism and concern for the many has fallen out of favor. Combine this with a narcissistic personality and you have a recipe for disaster. It's been seen time and again from Enron to Bank of America. I view the problem as a cultural flaw rather than a select few "bad apples" ruining it for everyone. If it were only a select few the problem would be self-correcting. I am realistic enough to know that on all ends of the spectrum people will take advantage of the system. Altruism, in its purest form, pretty much sets itself up to be taken advantage of. However, when is the last time a bunch of folks on welfare crashed the national economy and sent millions into unemployment? 

This brings me to my larger point and the insight that I use to guide my decisions. With a greater responsibility comes a greater moral imperative to behave in an ethical fashion. The more people I am able to hurt with a choice, the greater the need to ensure that choice is as ethical as possible. There are times when there are no "good" choices in a situation but there should always be a need to minimize any harm done. I aspire to leadership roles and in self-disclosure I probably score somewhere on the narcissism scale. However, I refuse to let pure self-interest guide my direction. I now care for several patients and I while I cannot always make choices that make them happy I can make choices that minimize their harm or attempt to provide a greater good.  I carry this over into my personal life as well. I think we have a responsibility to each other.

The temptations that come with increased personal power are numerous. I feel it is important to establish firm ethical guidelines early in my career. As I learn more about leadership and experience real-world stressors I am open to examining those guidelines with an eye towards improvement. I believe self-awareness is one of the most important traits a leader can posses. I am not so naive to think I am the first young leader to write a review of their ethical guidelines, I do think that I can establish positive ethical habits that will serve me well into the future. I steadfastly reject the notion that selfish behavior somehow increases the health of the group.

A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

Consequentialism and deontology are often seen to be at odds in the realm of philosophical thought. Where consequentialism holds that the consequences of an action are what determine if an action is morally correct, deontology argues that the moral mindset or devotion to a duty that make an action morally correct. The basic assumption is that one must be in a given camp tends to permeate discussions of morality. 

I feel that I have a duty to society so I often fall into the deontology camp. However, perversions of deontological thought can often be seen. Nazi Germany is everyone’s favorite whipping boy for corruption of societal philosophy but it does serve as a good example of how deontological arguments can be taken to extremes. Did a citizen of Dresden feel they were serving a greater societal good by shipping the Jews to Auschwitz? After all it was their duty. If you want to take deontology to a gross conclusion, these citizens were not acting in a morally corrupt manner. However, this is a perversion of deontological thought. Kant, largely considered to be a deontologist, argued that only “good will” is the deciding factor in moral actions. If the police chief of Dresden truly believed that he was operating in good faith and to achieve a higher purpose, the systematic killing of a group of people could be argued as morally correct. I argue that most people would view this as morally reprehensible and that is where moral absolutism takes over. Some actions, such as murder, are viewed as morally incorrect no matter the reason behind it. 

Going back to consequentialism things are slightly more defined. Only the consequences of an action matter. In this case, taking an immoral action such as murder may be justified if the consequence of such an action is seen as “good” or morally correct. Once again, the police chief of Dresden could argue that the consequences of killing a group of people are a societal gain and thus the immoral act of murder is acceptable. It gets even easier to justify when you don’t view the target of the action to be human in the first place.  

Utilitarianism is a school of consequentialism that teaches, at its core, the more happiness is created, the more morally correct an action. Like any school of thought this can be taken to extremes; a common example being harvesting the organs of a healthy person to increase the happiness of five other healthy people. For many this is an adequate measure of moral actions.

Where consequentialism fails is that it is impossible to know all the consequences of a particular action. This unknown means that a given action may ultimately be immoral. Deontology solves this riddle by saying the ultimate consequence isn’t the guiding factor on morality. Both have flaws when taken to extremes. 

I don’t think the average person, or average leader, is consciously making choices based on a school of thought. I do think that consequentialism tends to permeate United States culture and that is creating a sense of selfishness and entitlement on all ends of the demographic spectrums. Rugged individualism is often celebrated and personal achievements are highlighted far more that group achievements. Much attention is focused on individual sports players, often neglecting that without their team, the players are ineffective. Where I see an interesting paradigm is that individual sports such as tennis, golf, and boxing are often less popular in the public sphere; where in a culture that purports to celebrate the individual the opposite should be true. Sure there are devoted fans of these sports and those that master it are able to command great salaries but on a national scale think of the fervor that surrounds the Super Bowl versus Wimbledon. I think that on an instinctive level, most people understand that the group, team, or society is what creates ultimate success or failure. The betterment of the group is better than the betterment of the individual. 

I look at this as being in the deontological camp but borrowing from utilitarian principles. I see that people have a duty to adhere to moral standards or truths but these truths need to advance the group as a whole. A truth that only benefits one person isn’t much of a truth.

A634. Ethics in Schools

The teaching of ethics in schools provides a valuable context in which future managers can make choices. Ethics is mainly concerned with making choices in a fog of uncertainty. Whereas legal choices can be fairly straightforward, ethical choices may not; a common saying being “what is legal is not always ethical.” Therefore managers need to understand both themselves (emotional intelligence) and the corporate culture in which they operate. The former can be taught outside of ethics classes. Emotional intelligence is large umbrella that covers all manner self-assessment and self-awareness attributes and then seeks to apply them in a leadership role. Corporate culture cannot be taught in a class, what can be taught is how to influence and create positive corporate cultures that embody and reward ethical actions.


This is all well and good for people, like myself, that have spent close to six years study management and leadership; to include several dedicated courses to ethical leadership. However many people in leadership positions are not trained managers. They may be experts in medicine, finance, retail, or marketing but they lack a formal background specific to management. It is safe to say that most managers have advanced degrees (though in some fields it is not required) but are those degrees heavy on managerial principles. For example, a young doctor graduates from school and goes to work for a local hospital. After many years of diligent work this doctor is promoted to a Chief of Staff position. The doctor undoubtedly has a wealth of medicinal knowledge, a great deal of practical experience, and most likely some ethical training. But was that training in managerial ethics? Most likely it was in the ethics of practicing medicine. To be sure there would be some overlap but does this equate to being able to make organizational decisions regarding everything from finance to patient care? Maybe…and the variances can be much greater in organizations where leadership roles do not always require formal education such as store or regional managers in a retail environment. In many instances schools may take a shotgun approach to ethics where they hope something sticks while their students graduate with finance degrees. 

This does not mean that these other courses are not teaching ethics. Accounting degrees require ethical guidelines as do law degrees, or any other professional path. Ethics is required across many spectrums. However not all ethics focuses are created equally. Accounting may focus on making ethical accounting choices; leadership ethics focuses on social, personal, and corporate responsibility. It is a fine but very important point.


This begs one final question. Do you want managers that are only trained in Organizational Leadership being in charge of doctors and surgeons when they have no formal training as such? A case can be made that one should need medicinal training to make informed choices regarding the leading of medical organizations. This argument can be extended to any number of professions.


MBA’s are just one form of leadership school but really ALL schools are graduating future leaders. Ethical management, not just the ethics of a particular field, needs to be a focus in all forms of higher education, not just the MBA.

A633.9.3.RB - Polyarchy Reflections

"Most leadership models have the assumption of oligarchy – leadership is done by a few leaders over many followers. If polyarchy is fast replacing the old oligarchy assumptions does this make these old leadership models redundant? Reflecting on traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership, address the implications and how they will affect you as a leader in the future. What impact will they have on your future strategy?"

I am realist. I understand that polyarchic principles are most-likely some of the best forms of leadership out there. However, most organizations are not equipped to fully implement such leadership styles. Of course this is personal opinion but I think in addition to not being equipped, many organizations understand they need to change but are unable to implement such changes. Once again, this is all strictly opinion. I do think that as newer leaders mature this will start to change with a few caveats. Not all organizations require management degrees to move into management positions. Do you really think polyarchy is being taught in finance degrees? Or in criminal justice degrees? I will wager they aren't. So when bankers are being hired for finance degrees and promoted with such, they are not trained in polyarchy. This isn't to say that they are bad managers but they are trained to lead in whatever culture in which they exist. Even in organizations that are attempting to replace oligarchic structures, depending on the size of the organization, there are hosts of managers that are comfortable siloed in there little fiefdoms. If tomorrow Coca-Cola decided to go strictly polyarchic in style it would still take years to train new stables of managers. Do I think that oligarchy is redundant? No...oddly enough it will take oligarchic directives to establish polyarchic principles.

For me this means that I must be aware of the culture in which I am working. Only so much can be expected, the world will not change overnight. I can, however, begin to quietly lead by example. I've touched on this in a few class exercises but by controlling the things within my circle of influence I can begin to initiate small changes. If my programs get results than others may start to take notice. If I am noticed in a positive light, I will be given more and more programs. With that greater circle I can create greater change. Of course, some organizations embrace polyarchy more than others. It comes down to awareness of corporate culture and having support of other leadership. In an honest reflection I will admit to not wanting to shoot my career in the foot just because I think polyarchic leadership is a great model; and I do. I want to see this form of leadership percolate throughout my organization but it won't happen just because I want it. I have to demonstrate where I can and move up!

Therein lies the trap, you can't change the beast from outside you must be within. In order to change the beast from the inside, you must first look like something the beast wants to eat. As you increase in power and influence it becomes important to cultivate friendships and that may mean that office politics takes a role. To avoid this, I will have to be aware of my emotional intelligence and biases. Power and influence can be used to affect change for the better but it requires a great deal of self-awareness.

A633.8.3.RB - How Do Coaches Help?

"To be an executive coach, it is necessary to know that clients are the first and best expert capable of solving their own problems and achieving their own ambitions, that is precisely the main reason why clients are motivated to call on a coach. When clients bring important issues to a coach, they already made a complete inventory of their personal or professional issues and of all possible options. Clients have already tried working out their issues alone, and have not succeeded." 

Given the statement above what is it that coaches do to provide value to their clients?

I should first mention that I disagree with the above statement. I do agree that clients are the first and foremost experts; I don't agree that they have already tried working out their problems on their own. This is assuming a great deal of motivation on the part of the client and that coaching only takes one form. In strategic leadership we focus on executive coaching, and in executive coaching this model may hold true, but coaching as whole does not fit one mold. Many of my clients lack the motivation, for whatever reason, to have tried solutions on their own. However I think I can answer the question and satisfy both ends of the spectrum.

Coaches provide motivation, feedback, framework, goals, and can help build confidence. This has value for anyone seeking coaching. Those five things provide value across any number of relationship types; coaching being one of them. Using those tools a coach can help a client either learn more about themselves and their capabilities or to see problems from new dimensions. 

Why is coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy? 

Coaching is vital to the creation of new leaders in that coaching helps a person explore conflict, difficulties, or challenges in new ways. Leadership is about the development of people. People drive strategy, people create vision, people implement visions, and people both create and solve problems. It makes sense to develop people in the best possible way. Leadership is about knowing yourself . In many places this is called emotional intelligence. In order to develop emotional intelligence a leader has to challenge the way they view the world. Coaches can provide that challenging viewpoint; be a Devil's Advocate. It is important for leaders to have confidence in their actions but to not always assume their actions are correct. Learning to take the extra time to challenge a viewpoint, accept new information, and work through biases is a skill that needs learning; coaches provide that skill. 

How can it make a difference in an organization?

How can it not? It only makes sense that developing confident, thoughtful, well-trained leaders will create huge differences in an organization. Those differences won't be obvious within the organization as the members are all well-trained, confident, and thoughtful. That being said, I think that organizations can plot success as they learn to employ coaching techniques. 

What does this mean to you and your organization?

My organization is fairly well-run. This is a funny time to ask this question as I am in the process of changing organizations! I will say that since my undergraduate studies I've had a greater appreciation for coaching. It sounds horrible but I think it speaks well of my school that this week's studies didn't add to my appreciation of coaching as I already knew it was vital. I take these lessons with me into any role I take. I will provide, seek, and accept coaching and mentoring where I am able. I hope that through my actions and the effect I can have on others, that a culture of coaching is developed around me. As I move into greater leadership roles I want to be able to create a much broader cultural impact where coaching and mentoring are the norm.

A633.7.3.RB - Leader Follower Relationship

This week offers a few questions regarding my development as a leader in reference to the learning material over the past six weeks. It's fairly straightforward so let's jump right in.

1. Has your thinking changed over the course of the past six weeks, if so; why, and, if not; why?

I would have to say both yes and no. I will explain both in turn.

Yes is has changed in that I have a better understanding of self-organization in chaos theory. I was particularly impressed with the video displaying a group of people self-organizing with only a few simple directions. Learning to embrace a certain amount of messy chaos up front led to the best possible solution in the shortest amount of time. I found that to be a pretty fascinating. I've always appreciated a hands-off style of management but I never quite saw how the theory works in practice. Coming from a military leadership background there were always quiet a few barriers to true flat management.

Where I can say it hasn't changed was mostly academic. Complexity theory in management, seems to me, to be placing scientific underpinnings to what has been called flat management in the past. Other terms are empowerment or even parts of transformational leadership. Embry-Riddle teaches these concepts in their BS of Technical Management courses. I know this as that is the exact BS I hold. So this course has built on steady concepts to which I had already had exposure. In short, this course demonstrated some amazing science that I hadn't thought to apply to management though I had been taught a great deal of it in other courses. If that makes any sense you are ready for chaos theory.

2. What is the significance of this in the context of your future leadership goals and objectives?


My biggest take-away has been the leader that leads the least, leads the most. This doesn't mean be lazy, I think knowing when to get out of the way is very difficult. Cultivating and developing followers that trust themselves and their work isn't easy either. The trick is to do these things without appearing to do these things. I want to be able to develop into a leader that can be confused for a follower at any given time. To be honest I enjoy success and career advancement. I like knowing I can make a difference or manage programs to the effective. However, this class has demonstrated that groups of people can, with minimal guidance, produce great results. It isn't as simple as "don't micromanage" though that is part of it. I view it as more the role of a gardener, sorting good ideas from bad ideas and providing an environment for development. I feel that if I am being a positive influence rather than a direct manipulator the team will produce greater results. Of course, things are never cut and dry and I've seen great leaders step in and assume a firm control. I still think this is warranted on occasion; eventually leaders need to make choices. Sometimes those are tough choices, but if that leader has a strong team the information needed to make tough choices will be of better quality.

A633.6.5.RB - Circle of Leadership

There is a vicious circle of leadership where a follower demonstrates a weak skill to a leader, the leader feel he or she needs to take a stronger approach, the follower loses self-confidence, refers to leader again, and so on and so forth. I've been asked if this occurs in my organization. I can say that yes it does but only with certain followers.

The leader/follower relationship is largely symbiotic. They both need each other in order to be successful, though I wager leaders need followers more than followers need leaders. In the end a group of leaderless people with begin to self-organize and while they will most likely choose a leader (formally or informally) they will get on with whatever task at hand. Even in a Lord of the Flies scenario leaders, of a sort, came forth. This just means that leaders will be found. However, leaders can be quickly replaced or rebelled against. This may not always be a clean or even civil process but followers, when pushed too far, will remove leaders. A leader without a follower is pretty useless.

However, not all followers are capable of such independent thought. This is where I differ slightly from the principle that says it is the leader's responsibility to be aware of this cycle and break it. If the relationship is symbiotic than both parties need to be aware and take steps to change the cycle. To be fair, I don't think the text Complex Adaptive Leadership is stating that it is all on the shoulders of the leader but I do think students of leadership begin to see things from the leadership standpoint (Obolensky, 2010). This perspective can be hard to shift.

Getting back to my organization, there is one person in particular that stands out as a perfect example of the cycle. This person lacks self-confidence and while the heart is always in the right place his/her execution is often poor. This leads to the manager stepping in more often than the manager cares to do. I've seen the manager give projects (not overly complex tasks) to this person only to see the project go awry and then, though the manager had attempted to stay out of the process, the manager has to step back in. I see this happening more and more. So in this case the follower lacks the skill to break out of the cycle. The manager is trying to break it, but keeps getting drawn back. This cycle cannot be broken by one person alone. I think leadership training needs to be aware that there in not a magic solution to this problem. This employee isn't a bad employee but lacks the skills to move into a high level of followership. The assumption that all followers can be moved into a high level of followership is a dangerous fallacy.

However, a new cycle that attempts to break the vicious cycle only needs an additional step. That step is analyziation of the problem with a will to empower. Once a skill set has determined to be weak, leaders can train or otherwise focus on the skill, and ways to build this skill. This will take honest feedback and a willingness to actively engage with the follower in a constructive manner. This demands that the leader have a great deal of emotional intelligence. The leader must be aware, and this is where I think the leadership role is most crucial, of their own tendencies to over-reach or react in an emotional manner. If after all the retraining is offered the follower is still struggling it may be that the follower is in an incorrect role. Termination should be the ultimate last resort and re-assignment into other roles should be explored.

A633.5.3.RB - Reflections on Chaos

This video is a real life representation of chaos theory in action. It is only a little over three and a half minutes long and well worth a watch. Especially if you would like any of this post to make sense.

From this video I think a few simple thoughts on chaos (not that chaos theory is simple) start to emerge as it relates to leadership. Simple and clear directions, self-directed participants, and trust in order/results are three concepts that immediately sprang to mind.

The directions were simple and clear. This may sound constraining but it is actually quite liberating. The followers are able to exercise a great deal of freedom within the boundaries of a few rules and having a few rules makes objective very clear. This allows followers to direct themselves towards objectives free of confusion and conflict. Many rules tend to conflict with each and the more rules are written to clarify the worse it can actually become. The old adage, "keep it simple, stupid" can be applied to chaos theory and leadership.

The participants are self-directed. This is almost self-explanatory. Within the framework of the few simple rules the participants were free to decide their own paths. So it is in leadership, allow people to flow towards their destinations without a great deal of hindrance or constraint and solutions will manifest themselves; often more quickly than had a leader meddled with the process.

The third thought I want to touch upon was that "leader" had to trust in the underlying rules of chaos theory to work and that the participants would produce the optimal result. The rule, of course, being that complex systems left to produce their own results will tend produce the best result in the shortest amount of time. That is a very brief statement of the foundation of leadership and chaos theory. There are obviously other facets that must be present for any complex system to be sustained but those facets are dedicated to providing the energy or environment for that foundation to build upon.

I do want to be clear on another point. To simply give a few directions and step out isn't the idea, true laissez-faire environments are (in my opinion) nothing more than pipe dreams. Every system needs a certain amount of constraint or framework in which to operate. Chaos theory in leadership is no different, though I believe the quality and skill of the followers determines the success of chaotic leadership far more than the leader.

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Why do you think the shift in leadership is occurring (to complex adaptive systems and flatter structures) and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization?  List three reasons that support or refute this position.

I think like any system or school of thought, leadership will change over time. It's inevitable. I believe the underlying reason for these changes is an attitude shift in the population as a whole, corporate changes to stakeholder management, and globalization.

There has always been a conflict between profit and labor. In past there was the attitude that labor was an expense to be minimized. Some companies still have this mindset. Wal-Mart has recently come under fire, as has McDonald's, for their labor practices. I tend to think these companies, being so big, make for easy targets but the problem still remains. They drive labor costs to the bare minimum. However, that may be counter-intuitive. Wal-Mart is posting losses and they blame economic forces for their hardships. However, if that were true the losses would be equal across retail as a whole, and they are...with exceptions. Costco, who is often praised for their labor practices is posting gains. Naturally there are several different market forces other than labor that decide profitability but it does point to an attitude shift in labor and since Costco is bucking retail trends it is obvious that generous labor practices do not damage a business on their own.

It is my opinion that the Internet has provided a platform for these practices to be viewed and discussed. If Costco can post gains with a very labor-friendly workforce why can't another company? When questions like these aren't answered to the satisfaction of the populace they take their business elsewhere provided they are capable of doing so. One of the reasons Wal-Mart refuses to change, other than profit, is that they have a captive market in a sluggish economy.

Hand in hand with this is stakeholder management. Stakeholder management is defined here and it sheds some light on new managerial practices. In short, it's about what's ethical not always what is profitable. It is starting to be seen that being ethical is also translating to profits. Let's be real, altruism isn't a guiding force in strategic decisions though it is a by-product of ethical decision making. Stakeholders are also employees, so executing proper stakeholder management means changing the leadership role to a more inclusive, bottom driven process.

Globalization, in the context of leadership shifts, means that companies, such as Coca-Cola that span continents need to trust the people in these countries to manage effectively. To be sure, Coca-Cola is sending workers to these countries to provide a framework and a mission but there has to be a sensitivity to local culture. In some ways this may mean that at the middle-management level decisions are left in the hands of those in-country. As a company grows it needs to trust sub-units to handle their own tasks. This can still lead to a top-down structure but it does still force the relinquishing of control to a certain degree. In order to maintain profitability a company needs to be flexible enough to respond to multiple stressors at once, and these only grow with size. Strict top-down structures are not known to be flexible. Globalization is forcing the divestment of authority.

If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes? What are the implications on strategy?

I think the dynamics are already changing. Costco doesn't hire MBA's. They prefer to promote from below. As Obolensky mentions, a great deal of problem solving comes from the bottom up. By promoting from within those problem-solving skills are cultivated. I think this is double-edged sword as they run the risk of stagnant think and institutionalized group-think but it appears to be working well for Costco.

Overall, I think change will be very slow.

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems

Complex adaptive systems (CAS) are beginning to form the nucleus of several companies. Nick Obolensky mentions Morning Star and St. Luke as two examples in his text Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Flat heiarchies, open information sharing, great emphasis on personal responsibility are all common features Obolensky says these companies share. This week I was to find a company that also used CAS and to also extract meaning for my organization.

A recent stay in the hospital and a second, more recent trip, to the emergency room led me to think about healthcare and CAS. A quick Google search turned up this article from the National Academy of Engineering regarding health care as a CAS.  They make a compelling argument and without reproducing their work here I can summarize why I agree.  

1. The health care industry is huge. Take a trip to the emergency room. How many parts are in motion? Ambulance crew, nurses, nurse aides, the doctor, maybe some clerical staff...that's just the obvious. What about behind the scenes? Cleaning staff for your room, lab technicians for your blood, staff to stock tools, sterilization of equipment, scheduling of MRI's and other equipment (MRI machines run on quantum theory by the way). Now expand to your insurance company and billing. The system has countless parts that all interact in their own way.
2. Hierarchies are relatively flat. Sure the doctor has the final say but nurses and technicians all have power. The doctor relies on the radiologist and the veteran nurse. The nurse relies on assistants and lab technicians. This means authority shifts from person to person and the players involved must trust each other
3. If done correctly the system is self-correcting. Lab work is done, information gathered, results are generated. Even in the event of a system failure (death of a patient) there are resources dedicated to finding out why and generating a results to aid in the prevention of future deaths.
4. There is no main point of control. Sure hospitals have administrators and doctors but control is fluid. Control shifts as a patient is in various rooms. There may be a framework in place to guide treatment but ultimately the locus of control is dependent on variables that often change.

When you stop and think about how massively complex healthcare can be just for a trip to the emergency room you can get a feel for how the system may start to exhibit traits of chaos theory and complexity science. Personally I think it's amazing it all works as well as it does. 

My organization responds to the whims of politicians and it is very hierarchical in nature. Applying complexity science to such an organization is difficult. The system is strangled by concerns that are often without form, by which I mean they are chained to opinion rather than fact. The foundation is shaky when it is dedicated to the whims of voters that, quite frankly, may or may not have any idea what they are talking about. I have made it clear in the past that opinions that are not based on verifiable information are not as valid as opinions that are. But isn't that the essence of complexity theory? What a mass of voters may or may not do is sometimes hard to predict. As Obolensky tells us, we have to go with these ebbs and flows. Therein lies a paradox. The system is chained to a chaos theory mass but in and of itself is very top-down and rigid. It actually makes very little sense. Chaos theory is part of quantum mechanics and as the great Richard Fynman said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." 

A633.2.3.RB - Butterfly Effect

Whomever first coined the term "The Butterfly Effect" never worked for the government. Small changes don't really lead to big changes as changes never happen in the first place. Bureaucratic inertia pretty much brings any real change to a grinding halt. It's unfortunate as see, from within the beast, a great capacity to do bigger and better things.  Every change requires a committee, every committee wants a study, every study needs another committee to figure out how to study whatever it is they are supposed to be studying in the first place. It's maddening.

But let's assume you manage to get something changed. A few months ago I proposed a switch to a digital file search system (our files "searches" are really matching seekers to jobs in a database. As a job comes into the office we search the files to find matches) in an effort to reduce paper usage and save on time. In the past people would have to print copies of files needing searching and deliver them to various people around the office. I proposed saving these as a .pdf file in a central location and the people responsible for searching the files would be able to access them. It was a small change and it actually wasn't too hard to implement. The managers are supportive of internal changes that make the office more efficient. However, that's where it stopped. Our office saves money on paper and time but the change never trickled anywhere else. Even internally, there were not many ripples from this change. Entrenched thinking is difficult to change.

I think that each system is unique even though they are built upon the same rules that govern any complex system. Some systems are more resistant to change than others. In these cases, smaller changes see their effects diluted as more and more layers of resistance are piled on top of one another. I think this is incredibly dangerous as change is the only way to survive in any environment. This isn't to say that governmental agencies do not provide a good service. I think that what the people in my office accomplish is amazing. However, things aren't always done efficiently or with the best practices available. I have seen some new thinking in a few agencies with whom I partner and I believe that change is happening. However the old guard still clings to out dated processes because I believe they feel if those processes change than they themselves will become outdated.

This need not be the case, people must be open to change; be open to the unconventional! This may mean taking some risks but that's OK! We learn from our failures, if we are smart, much more than we do our successes. Success after success can breed hubris, failure should foster introspection and systems analysis. When the people become more accepting of change I think that we will see more of the Butterfly Effect in agencies where change is an abstract concept rather than a reality.

A633.1.2.RB - Leadership Gap

Leadership and attitudes towards leadership change, or should change, as new theories are validated however this isn’t often the case. Below I am asked a series of questions regarding those changes.

1. Has your own attitude to leader’s changed in your life?

I have grown more distrustful of leaders as a general rule.  To be honest I have had some great managers and some not so great managers. However, the bad leaders tended to have qualities like dishonesty, turf guarding, stubbornness, backstabbing, or plain intellectual dishonesty. Those are tangible traits that the good managers in my life do not have. They have tended to be more transformational leaders or charismatic leaders with transformational (though not fully transformational in and of themselves) qualities.  Once again these are tangible traits. And I’ve had more good managers than bad. So why my attitude change?

When I look at leadership on a national level I get a bit more discouraged. The constant attacks on proven science by people that seem to either ignore or not care what the term scientific theory actually means are some of the most egregious broaches of leadership I can find. In this “Age of Information” confirmation bias is easier than ever. If I want to find information that tells me climate change is a hoax I can certainly find it. Of course, such information is wildly inaccurate, but that’s ok. I’m not looking to learn, I am looking to have my preconceptions validated. This has led me to believe that not opinions are created equally. If an opinion is grounded in ignorance or factually incorrect information than that opinion is not valid and shouldn’t be considered.

Some would call this an arrogant approach to leadership but if we are making choices that affect the lives of millions of people wouldn’t we want those choices based on valid information rather than whatever makes you feel better?  On smaller scales such as an office or small team leadership such concerns are not as important but it does matter that leaders are making choices based on the best evidence available. My attitude has changed because I don’t feel that leaders are making choices based on actual evidence but instead on massive levels of confirmation bias.

2. Is there a changing trend in attitudes towards leaders across generations?

I think this is a harder question to ask. This is pure opinion as for every new generation there are questions about what they either are or aren’t doing in comparison to previous generations. Attitude shifts are internal and people tend to seek out those that have similar attitudes. If I view leadership with a more cynical view than my parents it stands to reason I will find people with similar attitudes and reinforce my perception of leadership. Likewise for someone that doesn’t perceive an attitude shift. You can find evidence of people distrusting politicians ever since politicians were a thing. The same thing can be said for an innate distrust of leadership. Slogans such as “Don’t trust anyone over 30” have been around since the 1960’s or earlier. The 1950’s saw a counterculture form around rock and roll. These are not isolated occurrences.  I think that people like to think that their distrust of leadership is something new but in reality the same wheel has been turning since the first caveman lead a group of cave-people into the wilderness.    

3. Why has this occurred?

This question assumes that there has been a shift in attitudes towards leaders. I’m not convinced there has been a shift. I think the Internet has made it possible for that distrust to have a louder voice. It has allowed countercultures to coalesce and share ideas. It has brought people together that may never have communicated in the past. This may have accelerated attitude shifts but I don’t think it has created attitude shifts.

4. Additionally, while we live in a world with more information about leadership and leadership practices why is it that we have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders and how do you think we can close this gap?

Once again this question is making an assumption. There are plenty of influential leaders in the modern world that are doing great things. Take for example Pope Francis. I’m not a spiritual person but Pope Francis is turning heads with his compassionate and humble approach to leading the Catholic Church. Not everyone is on board with his changes. He has moved the dial from abortion and gay rights to compassion for the poor and unfortunate. It is a profound shift in thinking when compared to his predecessors and whether or not you agree with the Pope no is saying there is a gap in the quality of his leadership. If anything there is a gap in the quality of some of his followers. And that’s the rub.

Good leaders require good followers and vice/versa. It is a symbiotic relationship, a wheel that turns. There will always be people that distrust leaders and the Internet has given them greater power as it has allowed them to unite. I still don’t see this as a unique shift in attitudes but a unique shift in the power of the followers and that may be more important. I hope that with better and more powerful followers we can produce better leaders.

Personal Power and Influence

Am I comfortable using influence to gain personal power? It’s a bit of an odd question that I am not sure I can answer as it is asked. Do I use influence to gain personal power? Yes. Am I comfortable with it? I am comfortable only so far I need to be. In order to be a good case manager I need to be able to put my clients at ease and have them believe that I care about them as people; not just another file in my computer. I also need to have community resources in place to help my clients. These other agencies and employers need to feel that I have an interest in their operations so they trust the clients I send them are a good fit for THEIR organization. In a lot of ways it is a performance art. Just like the entry I wrote a few weeks ago about “working a room” it’s a performance art mixed with sincerity. I do care about their lives, needs, and goals. If I didn't I would not be as good at what I do. I've discussed my philosophy on work being part of our identities so it is important to me that I am recognized for work I do well. Therefore I HAVE to care; it’s my job to care. If it wasn't my job to care I might not care as much, but I will say this: I have learned that caring goes a long way towards making me a better person. And above all else, I strive to better myself as a person not just as a worker.

So how does all of this tie into personal power? When I perform my job well I gain influence. To perform my job well I have to care about others. In the professional world I have learned that caring about others builds goodwill. Can this be seen as a negative? Yes I think it can. This is where power and influence can quickly take a nasty turn and it’s why office politics is such a touchy subject. I strive to never advance myself by hurting others. But if I get a promotion where others competed for the same slot, by definition I have advanced where they haven’t. However, if I can improve a program or gain an edge for my clients through my influence with others, I consider that a good use of influence.

Like it or not, we do not operate in a vacuum. We live and work in a world that in which we are increasingly connected to each other. To be sure there are good and bad connections but even in the professional world our success is largely dependent on others. We don’t have to like it but we do have to accept it. Anyone that does what I do for a living will tell you the most qualified person is not always the person that gets the job. It’s the person that fits with the organization the best that is usually picked. In order to sell that principle in a job interview you need to be personable and take an active interest in the company (people) by whom you are being interviewed.

Personal power and influence are tools and like most tools they depend on the wielder. However, unlike most tools you can’t escape influence and personal power. Humans are social animals and it’s going to happen. Much gnashing of teeth has been done regarding office politics but once again, it’s going to happen. One must decide how they intend on using personal power and influence. I choose to try and do the best I can for my clients; in doing so I also help myself. The quality of my work speaks for itself and the quality of my work is largely dependent on my ability to use personal power and influence. Let me be very clear: I don’t always like it. But I have a job to do and as long as I have a job to do I will do it well. It’s a tricky subject and I don’t feel like I've adequately covered the topic but personal power and influence mean many things to many people. I’m learning how to balance my work life and my personal life. I've been very lucky lately to have someone in my life that has been providing me feedback on keeping those two things separate. In many ways a lot of this is still new to me and I’m learning as I go. Because personal power and influence are such personal topics they are dependent a great deal on the individual. I am doing my very best to leave things better than when I found them.

A520.7.2DQ Importance of Mentoring and Coaching

Having a mentor or coach is a wonderful way to develop professionally and personally. When talking about professional relationships it is important to understand that professional development often leads to personal development. People identify themselves, in large part, by what they do. In truth, the world is going to judge you by the quality of the work you put back into the world. I don't care if you're the smartest guy in the world, what you do with that intelligence is what matters. And that is what you will ultimately be judged upon. Because of this, your work can define you. So when you develop professionally, you are often developing personally as well.

Because of this intermingling of personal and professional development, I prefer the mentor/mentee relationship. I view coaching as more task orientated and mentoring as more person related. A coach provides motivation and strategy to reach a goal. A mentor is concerned with bringing about change in a person and developing them into someone different from when they began. This isn't to say a coach doesn't do the same thing but the focus is different. Personal change is a by-product of coaching; it is the crux of mentorship.

When choosing a mentor for your professional journey it is important to be able to indentify with the person. You will need to be able to develop in such as way that you are comfortable discussing goals and how certain things make you feel. Professonial development becomes about finding a role that fits for you. It goes beyond just a "job you like" into something you are comfortable wearing as part of your identity. A mentor needs to understand what drives you in order to help you become who you want to be. Do you want to be a successful managerial consultant? One of the first questions a mentor should ask is "Are you comfortable with the world seeing you as consultant? Because like it or not, that is the first thing you are going to seen as being.

Another harsh truth, the world doesn't care about how good of a father,mother, son, daughter, boyfriend, girlfriend,etc you are. Most certainly your family does, and maybe a few close to you will, but the world, as a whole, does not. You will always be judged by your product. What you produce is what you will always been seen as by society at large. This is not to say that being a good father or mother cannot translate into a good manager. In fact, many of those skills in one area can be moved to the other. Some of the best managers I've known have treated their staff as extentions of their family. What I AM saying is that the world, as a whole, will only see what you put into it; and it must have some sort of value.

Mentors will HAVE to understand this. What you develop into professionally will turn into what you are seen as personally. There is no getting around it. How many times do you ask someone new, "So what do you do?" You have to be comfortable with that answer and the judgements that follow. Mentors, far more than coaches, will have to understand this. That is why the mentorship is so important. It is going to develop you into something that the rest of the world is going to assign you as an identity.

A520.6.5.RB: Team Roles

Team work is the topic this week and how I facilitate team membership and relationship building roles.
A few considerations will be how I relate as a team-member, how I engage with a team to accomplish its mission, and how I work to improve team cohesion and collaboration.


First, how I relate as a team member. I've been on good teams and poor teams. My last posting in the Air Force was a horrible team. Turf guarding, entrenched ways of thinking, and active sabotage permeated that team. It affected me in a negative fashion and I, in turn, let it affect how I interacted with subordinates. I was angry and upset and took some of that out on the people that I was leading. I learned from that experience and gained a bit of insight into myself that I now find valuable. Part of developing emotional intelligence is being aware of weaknesses, I found a few on that team.


Other teams I have been on have been good teams, and I learn a great deal there as well. Teams that run well often become more than the sum of their parts. However, even here I encounter flaws in my personality that I need to be aware of. I get easily frustrated if I feel teams are not producing at a level that I feel they should. This doesn't mean that I am right, just that I am frustrated. I have to remind myself to slow down and take a larger perspective. This ability to see the bigger picture is starting to serve me well in other parts of my life as well.

I do actively engage with my team; otherwise why be a part of one. My level of engagement depends on my role. Where I was the junior member I often did more listening and offered input only where I was confident I could contribute. As a senior member I often did more listening and offered input only to guide discussion or learning. On both ends of the spectrum I did more listening but I was still engaged with the team. On points in between it really just came down to understanding what was needed of me.

Lastly, working to achieve cohesion and collaboration is paramount to building a team. Even in the often tumultuous times at the onset of team formation if you keep in mind the need to collaborate to achieve synergy you will start to improve cohesion. Not every team will make it that far. It's a given that some teams will fail despite best intentions. However, from those failures it is important to learn what caused those failures and take those lessons forward.

A520.5.3.RB - Empowerment

Empowerment comes in all shapes and sizes. Indeed, from a management standpoint empowerment can be double edged sword; especially if not implemented correctly. The class text, Management Skills for Leaders, outlines the dimensions of empowerment by providing a framework for the act of empowerment as well as some benefits of empowerment (Whetten & Cameron, 2011). A few benefits are self-efficacy (being confident in self) and self-determination (sense of having a choice). There are others but those are the most important as I feel trust, personal consequence, and meaning flow from feeling that you are competent and in control of a situation. At its core, empowerment seeks to give subordinates a greater sense of self and ownership in an organization's direction. It lets them feel directly linked to the organization's successes and failures. Over time this breeds very loyal employees and more competent teams. Much is written about synergy, and I've touched on it when discussion small team management, and I think that synergy is also derived from empowerment. By letting a person or team take ownership and control they feel compelled to produce more than the sum of their parts. Whetten and Cameron go on to discuss how to implement empowerment and much of their guidelines boil down to setting a goal and allowing the empowered person to first feel connected to it and then to own it. After that it a manager needs to provide resources otherwise the empowerment is doomed to fail.

There are a few other pitfalls associated with empowerment. Russ Forrester in his article "Empowerment: Rejuvenating a Potent Idea" shares some of these pitfalls. Narrow focus, precipitous mandates, and one-size-fits-all are three of the traps mentioned. (Forrester, 2000) They are all unique but I want focus on one-size-fits-all as I think this would be a major barrier for myself and the broader implications strike at fundamental problems managers may face.

When seeking to implement empowerment programs you have to work towards a goal in mind, If your goal is better customers service you have to set metrics by which to measure success. Likewise for less waste in production, or less turnover in front-line personnel. One trap of one-size-fits-all is that measures are implemented across the board and it is hoped that metrics follow. This is setting yourself up for failure. Different business units have different needs, different employees have different needs, and customers (both internal and external) have different needs. Empowering everyone equally leads to chaos. There has to be a measure of discretion when deciding whom to empower and why. Also, be careful to not empower two groups in such a fashion that they compete for resources. Empowerment is a great tool but everyone has to be playing from the same set of rules.

Great football teams win when they realize that everyone from the special teams to the quarterback have separate roles to play but those roles are intertwined. A good set of plays from the quarterback, even if not ending in a touchdown, can place the kicker in a good position. Strong defense allows the offensive advantageous starting positions. Each of these units is empowered to train and coach in their own way but they are guided by an overarching philosophy and constrained by a framework set in place by the coach. In this way the units are guided to work together for mutual benefit. So it needs to be with empowering business units. Accounting needs to understand how they support production and their guidelines for empowerment should be different than the guidelines that empower the administrative personnel in human resources. They have different functions but the same goals. Empowerment is a wonderful tool to use in any organization but you must tailor your approach to the needs of each unit and then provide a framework for each unit to work together. Then you must provide support for those units and work towards results.



Whetten, D., & Cameron, K. (2011). Management skills for leaders. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Forrester, R. (2000). Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. The Academy of Management Executive,14(3), 67-81. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4165660?uid=3739904&uid=2134&uid=378680471&uid=2&uid=378680461&uid=70&uid=3&uid=3739256&uid=60&sid=21103403490471 

A520.4.3.RB - Motivation Beyond Money

There are a number of motivating factors beyond salary that motivate people. This link is to a video where Andy Mulholland discusses three things that motivate beyond a salary. These three things are to expand skill sets, do interesting work, and (most critically) recognize the worker. These types of discussions are often interesting for me as it assumes that workers are paid enough to have enough security to worry about interesting work or even being recognized. As I've mentioned before, I can't eat good feelings. Telling me I did a wonderful job and giving me an award does not pay my electric bill. You know what pays my electric bill? Money. As income inequality widens in the US to levels not seen since the Great Depression I think the discussion needs to stop focusing on intangible motivators and get back to helping people pay their bills. The real wages of the American worker are lower now than they were in the 1970's. Want to know why the guy at Wal-Mart could care less about your problems? His food stamps just got cut and his daughter's school no longer has funds for low-income lunches. Quite frankly the whole idea of providing interesting work, expanding skill sets, and recognizing people is insulting in an atmosphere where people with full time jobs need to rely on SNAP to feed their children.

Now, assuming that you are in job where your basic needs are met and you are able to possibly save money than yes; these three motivators become more important to the worker than basic pay. The speaker has a point, overpaying people will not make them happy with their jobs in the long run. I agree with that statement. Providing interesting work and expanding skill sets tend to go hand in hand. Workers will want to learn as they grow. However, as people take on more and more responsibility they expect to be rewarded for it. Recognition is one form of reward. Pay increases are another. It is my opinion that organizations are looking for any excuse they can find to not pay their workers. There are exceptions. Costco does very well and pays decent wages. The other firm listed here (Great Little Box) is raising wages at the bottom and providing promotions and incentives. I am going to quote at length from the link above. These are the take-aways from Costco and Great Little Box.

"1. Understand who performs the majority of the essential work. At professional services firms, this may be lawyers or paralegals; in surgical clinics, this could include surgeons, nurses, technicians, paramedics, and individuals preparing the operating room; and in manufacturing, those working on the factory floor clearly carry out most of the essential work.

2. Realize that the firms’ success depends on the quality of the work performed by the majority of workers. Remarkably, few firms currently design their organizations to optimize the efforts of employees at the bottom of the corporate ladder—even when these employees are central to the firms’ ability to add value. At Costco, the sales staff was instrumental in ensuring the high-quality shopping experience that would draw customers to return. At Great Little Box, the company beat competitors because of its ability to respond rapidly to customized orders.

3. Recognize that the quality and productivity of employees at the bottom of the ladder depend on whether these employees are motivated, healthy, adequately rested, and well-prepared to carry out the tasks they are asked to perform.Employees at Costco were motivated to work harder and perform better by a combination of higher wages and opportunities for promotions. Great Little Box employees had a direct financial stake in the company’s performance.

4. Realize that line workers are often the ones who know best how to increase efficiency. Great Little Box benefited from suggestions from line workers that led to cost savings and greater flexibility in production. Managers at Costco had a better understanding of how to improve production because most had served as hourly workers. "

Go back and read number three again; "motivated, healthy, adequately rested, and well-prepared..." It sounds like these companies are making both my point and Mr. Mulholland's point. These organizations are experiencing great success by A) Paying living wages...not minimum wages AND providing benefits. B) Utilizing the three principals of interesting work, expanding skill sets, and recognition. You have to have both.

A520.3.5.RB - Supportive Communication

This post will discuss how I can integrate supportive communication into my present position. This is an interesting topic as my present position requires me to be a coach, mentor, criticizer, cheerleader, and whipping boy usually in the span of about ten minutes. Ehow has a concise definition of supportive communication here. If you are unfamiliar give it a read...I'll wait.

All done? Okay! moving on.

In my role it is important that supportive communication be the norm rather than the exception. No one lands at my desk if their lives are going well. People usually accept my service after they've reached a sort of crisis point in their lives and careers. This can lead to tension rather quickly if they perceive I am lecturing from a pedestal or if I am making their problems into personal failures. As the case manager/client relationship matures it becomes even more important that supportive communication permeate all of our meetings.


When working with people that have addictions or a history of self-destructive behavior you can expect relapses. This isn't to say that everyone relapses but the odds are good you will get one or two relapses over the course of a year or two. Often times this leads to shame and guilt on behalf of the addict, it is CRUCIAL that you are supportive yet assertive as you move them onto the next challenge. This may mean starting from square one in the process but you can't let that color your language or approach. Everyone is fighting a battle you cannot see, be kind...always.

This means being aware of your language, your posture, you eye contact, gestures, and even how you arrange furniture in counseling sessions. Use barriers like desks or tables judiciously and understand that those barriers can give you an air of authority but can also distance you from the person needing help. Make sure that your words match your actions and that you communicate feelings clearly. This will be tough once your emotional responses take over, be aware that in supportive communication it isn't about how YOU feel, it is about how you BOTH feel regarding a situation. Lastly, focus on solutions and let the other person be a part of the solution process. This will enhance outcomes.

Supportive communication is exhausting at first but becomes easier with practice. Once again you will have to develop self-awareness and emotional intelligence to move into true supportive communication but if you're a regular reader of this blog you should already have those tools. Until next week.

A520.3.1.RB - Decision Making

1. What are a few words that describe your decision-making style and their opposites?
Just going to jump right in this week. Instinctive (intuitive), rational, and comfortable with ambiguity.

I tend to make choices based on my gut feelings towards many things. Here lately I have been doing the opposite and carefully planning my new moves. I am moving into uncharted territory with my career and personal life and I don't have a read-made background of experience in these areas backing me up. I still trust those instincts but I'm mixing in some planning as well.

I like to work with what is rational. I find that allowing to much emotion into leadership activities can lead to poor choices. That being said, in relationships I am working on allowing more emotional elements to take over my decision making. It's interesting.

Comfortable with ambiguity is three words but it defines a leadership style that I am able to use. Rarely do we have all the information we need. Maybe because for so long I've learned to trust where my instincts take me, I'm okay working in a bit of a fog. I will still actively seek information where available. The opposite would be having this ambiguity cause distress.


2. Could you see any benefits to making decision using an approach that is based on either the opposites or somewhere in-between and what outcomes would you expect to see?


I think the new areas of my career and personal life that I am experiencing are forcing me to rely less on my instincts and more on planning. I expect that this will allow me to weigh various pros and cons and move forward. However, too much analyzing will start to stress me out. At some point I will just jump in and go. I've done that with my personal life but my career is where I am really doing some careful planning. I'm gathering information and trying to get a good idea of what my risk/rewards might be. This is mixing my emotional and rational decision making styles in new ways that I am still trying to sort out. It's odd for me to not be able to lump choices into neat little boxes but I feel like my ability to work with ambiguity is what is keeping me from going nuts!

A520.2.3 Conflict Resolution

Conflict is inevitable. It's what drives our species, our need to achieve, desires to learn, procreate, and it fuels our creativity. Conflict comes in all shapes and sizes from internal struggles to external wrangling. Even intense interpersonal conflicts can be beneficial if the participants are open to learning about new things. Conflict, in organizations (and properly harnessed in a respectful atmosphere) leads to increased productive and better solutions (Whetten & Cameron, 2011).


Conflict comes with personal growth and a change in attitude can lead to a better manager. This week we are asked with defining a conflict that we were a part of and then exploring it. I have a feeling that the spirit of the question is to describe an external conflict but I am going with an internal conflict that made me a better manager. I am also going to pick a very touch subject, gay marriage. Why you ask? What does this have to do with leadership? To answer the first one I want you, the reader, to be conflicted as you read this. Some of you may support gay marriage, others won't. I want you to feel that conflict as you attempt to remain impartial to this blog. This is an academic blog and not a personal one but this week we are also learning about diversity. While we aren't being asked to blog on diversity I am going to address it in this post as part of conflict. It is my hope that I can use my conflict as a teachable moment. For the second answer, read on.

1. What was the conflict?

I grew up in a Catholic household, went to Catholic school, and was surrounded by conservative principles for a great deal of my formative years. While it was never overt in my family it was taught, mostly by my former church, that homosexuality is a sin and marriage is between a man and a woman. My parents didn't weigh in on that topic until much later in my adult years and their answers surprised me.


Naturally, I opposed gay marriage for a long time. I opposed gays in the military, I was in-line with Catholic teachings on the matter. However, as a young adult I befriended a man that I later learned was gay. I am straight, he knew I was straight, and I had no idea he was homosexual. He chose to not bring up the subject of sexuality as he had a suspicion that I may have reacted badly. I wouldn't have but I may not have had such a good friend later in life as I hadn't had that exposure and had I known from the start it may have colored my choices. We became pretty close friends and one day he introduced me to his boyfriend. I was shocked to say the least. Being raised to never be rude, and to always have a certain class, I didn't react negatively and we went on with the day's events. Over time our group of friends grew to include a mixture of gay and straight people. Also with this time my attitudes were changing. It's easy to say,"hate the sin and love the sinner" but what if that hatred of the sin meant telling my friends I couldn't support them?


What a conflict! I wanted to be there for my friends and yet my internal conflict was saying something was wrong. I have always believed that we must question ourselves and question myself I did. The results are below. 

2. What role did you play?

I was the protagonist and the antagonist
Who were the other participants in the negotiation?
None in the conflict but my friends were happy to discuss their lives with me when I had questions. One can't resolve conflict without information. 

3. What was the result?

I supported my friends, and with that one leap I was placed in a situation where I was forced to question everything I thought was accurate. That lead to a cascade of perspective changes and a whole host of other internal conflicts. Many of which have made me the man I am today. I am not going to get into all the ways I changed as that would detract from my main point; conflict creates growth and creates better leaders.


To answer the second question from above. Diversity means acceptance. It's easy to accept differences in people when those differences don't strike at core beliefs. Assume I chose to not support my friends and stuck to my old principles. Now assume I am managing an openly gay employee that has relationship troubles affecting his work. Do you think I will be able to see past that core belief and be a supportive and transformational leader for a gay employee? Maybe...maybe not. It would take a great deal of emotional intelligence and self-awareness to see past my own prejudices to help that person. That isn't to say that it isn't possible, but I honestly don't think many people have the ability to see past such a huge fundamental aspect of themselves. That last statement is opinion and feel free to disagree, after all conflict can be used to learn.


As many companies are embracing diversity it becomes imperative to hire managers that can embrace diversity and manage conflicts both internally and externally. Do I think all managers need to accept gay marriage to be good managers? As much as I would like for them to accept it, I don't think it is a requirement. I do think emotional intelligence and self-awareness are requirements. In order to develop and mentor positively we must question ourselves and be accept that we must be equitable even when things are making us uncomfortable.




Whetten, D., & Cameron, K. (2011). Developing Management Skills. (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ.

A520.2.6 Time Management

This week time management is a topic for discussion. Time management skills are important in just about every facet of life. Although the primary aim of my class and this blog is to approach time management from the leadership perspective, time management can be applied most anywhere.


1. Assess your time management skills.


It really depends on my mood. I have one technique for time management for work and one for home. My work time management skills are pretty good. At home, not so so much. I tend to procrastinate unpleasant tasks, occasionally this has caused me some problems. I meet my financial obligations because I enjoy a high credit score and don't want to lose it, but chores may get put off. I live by myself so that isn't a huge concern! However, I'm aware that it may not work in situations where I may no longer be alone. I'm adaptable.

All in all I am pretty solid with time management. I control what I can and I don't lose much sleep over things I can't control.


2. Evaluate how these skills have increased your locus of control


I would say that a proper usage of time management has decreased my locus of control. This may sound counter-intuitive but hang on. I minimize my tasks into the most efficient ways of doing them. I build in extra time for surprises and then I roll with the punches. There are things I cannot control that affect my workload. In these situations I find that having positive professional relationships with partner agencies and co-workers will allow me access to better information and decrease negative trends in my workload. It's almost like delegation via mutual respect. Most places call it office politics, and that may be the case, but every tool has a use and politics are no different.


This minimization of tasks into efficient blocks allows my quality of work to improve. What used to be major time sinks, have become more manageable tasks. Time management, to me, isn't about finding ways to do more things, although that is inevitable as you increase responsibilities or gain promotion. Time management is about minimizing the stress that comes from tasks. My locus of control may expand to include more tasks, but if I am managing my time effectively it will appear, and feel, as if I am not exerting control.


3. Identify three new areas in which improved time management skills would reduce stress.


I am going to need to improve my time management skills with household chores. I have a stack of paperwork creating a fire hazard that needs my attention in my upstairs office. I did have a bit of stress being caused by financial obligations but I've learned to set aside time to pay bills and check accounts. Lastly, I have an unpleasant work project that requires constant attention. It's a time sink when done correctly and it has very limited utility but it is high-profile so I need to find a way to better manage that task.


4. Add an action plan to integrate these to your daily routine.


For me it comes down to just setting aside the time and getting over my tendency to procrastinate. With the household chores I may ask a friend to hold me accountable until I get it done. After that it will be more maintenance tasks rather than playing catch-up. With that unpleasant work task I will have to dedicate a chunk of time and just do it. Which is pretty much what I do every month with it. I am playing around with different database designs and I'm hoping to find a more efficient way to organize the information.


My advice for anyone regarding time management is to find a means that works for YOU in YOUR life. We all have unique needs and situations and while many tools online or in texts are tried and true methods don't be afraid to experiment and adapt. If it's your process rather than one taken from a book you will be more inclined to stick with it.

A520.1.6.RB - MOAR! Self-Awareness

Describe how your level of self-awareness has changed since you began your MSLD program with respect to the "Five Core Aspects of Self-Awareness"

The five core aspects of Self-Awareness are defined as: Emotional Intelligence, Core Self-Evaluation, Values, Attitudes Toward Change, Cognitive Style (Whetten & Cameron, 2011).

I started this MSLD program in the middle of a time of great personal change. I had a divorce, career changes, possible moves, relationship upheavals, and therapy. Aside from major illness, jail, or death, I've pretty much maxed out the score on the Holmes and Rahe scale; scoring a 459. For those that don't click the link a score of over 300 is linked to illness. So yeah...a good time to learn about some self-assessment.

I can say that my attitudes towards change have actually improved. I've learned to be more adaptive and I have come to accept change as inevitable. I've always been a champion of progress and social change but I balk at personal change, or at least I did. Now I'm more open to idea, and have begun a process of personal change that has been most fulfilling.

As much as it will seem that I am not writing much about emotional intelligence, core self-evaluation, values, and cognitive style it really comes down to those variables not changing as a result of this MS. That isn't to say that these things don't develop and change over time but they aren't linked to this degree; which I think is the spirit of the question. All that being said, education will change a person, otherwise why need it? I have found that my values have changed outside of the scholastic realm but those changes are positive and are in line with sound leadership principles. However, they occur independently of each other.

I think this strikes at my attitude towards academia. I think education is invaluable. I believe that a constant pursuit of learning is paramount to a civilized society. We are better people when we push the boundaries of human knowledge, and (in this class) we will be better leaders when armed with research and tools to build upon. All of that is useless without context and experience. It is one thing to take a quiz in a textbook, discover that your values are wonky and move on. It is quite another to see a value system damage a relationship. However, by pairing the two we are able to link the knowledge with the background and from there draw conclusions and shape plans.

With regard to the initial question: I think my level of self-awareness is complemented by my MSLD but it is not what drives it.

Whetten, D., & Cameron, K. (2011). Developing management skills. (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.