Confidence in our decisions can be gained through experience with trial and error. In making decisions and having them be successful you gain confidence in your abilities. Outside of experience the critical thinking process can also give you confidence in your decisions. The critical thinking process allows you to take the thoughts and actions of others into consideration before you make your decision. Knowing what others have thought before you gives you a basis to work from in making an informed and educated decision. Once you have the basis of your thinking in the analization you are then able to asses the information for accuracy and reliability. This assessment builds upon your confidence even more by confirming and supporting your analization. Both of these steps are essential to developing your confidence in your decisions.
The critical thinking process increases your confidence because, in a sense, it takes you out of the equation. The doubts or questions you may have about your understanding and grasp of the information is removed through the process of critical thinking. You remove yourself from the process and you remove the doubt in the decision. The less the decision relies on your understanding the more assured you are that the decision is correct. Your confidence in your decision grows because you are not a factor in the decision.
May 31, 2009
May 30, 2009
Different Types of Thinking
There are numerous factors that affect how people think about things. Everything from personal experience to cultural impact can be factors in how a person thinks. Understanding how these factors impact a persons thinking is essential to having a better grasp on how to relate to and work with individuals. To know the difference in thinking types is to understand how someone responds to and comprehends information.
Within my current employer the leadership staff went through a day long training on personality types. The goal was to get a better understanding of how each other thinks about the decisions they make and why they respond the way they do. One of the interesting things that came of the training was the realization that some people, who seem so different, have similar personality types. Knowing this information helps each of us to work on our weaknesses individually and also to appreciate the differences in others.
Within my current employer the leadership staff went through a day long training on personality types. The goal was to get a better understanding of how each other thinks about the decisions they make and why they respond the way they do. One of the interesting things that came of the training was the realization that some people, who seem so different, have similar personality types. Knowing this information helps each of us to work on our weaknesses individually and also to appreciate the differences in others.
May 29, 2009
Critical Thinking - Does Maturity = Consistency?
Being more experienced in the process can be a positive and negative for critical thinking.
When you are more mature in the process you have an understanding and comfort with the process that makes it easy to apply the steps at a moments notice. You can look at almost any situation and find a way that the critical thinking process can be applied to making the right decision.
When you are so comfortable and versed in the process it can be difficult to see how outside factors may be involved and you may not feel as comfortable making a decision without using the critical thinking process. Decisions are made all the time based on the idea that, "that's the way it's always been done," but just because that is how it has always been done doesn't mean that is the only way to do it. This is how maturity can be a negative. As long as maturity done not get replaced with tradition the critical thinking process can continue to be applied and evolve to fit any situation.
When you are more mature in the process you have an understanding and comfort with the process that makes it easy to apply the steps at a moments notice. You can look at almost any situation and find a way that the critical thinking process can be applied to making the right decision.
When you are so comfortable and versed in the process it can be difficult to see how outside factors may be involved and you may not feel as comfortable making a decision without using the critical thinking process. Decisions are made all the time based on the idea that, "that's the way it's always been done," but just because that is how it has always been done doesn't mean that is the only way to do it. This is how maturity can be a negative. As long as maturity done not get replaced with tradition the critical thinking process can continue to be applied and evolve to fit any situation.
Steps in Critical Thinking - Time Priority
I don't think there is a clear-cut answer on which component will take the most time. Depending on the situation and implications of the decision one component may take more time or less time.
When there is a variety of resources to consider data collection may take the most time. Data needs to be carefully and sufficiently collected to support and substantiate the necessary decision. Not taking the time to effectively gather the appropriate data can result in a decision being made based off information that is not reliable or relative. This first step in the process is critical because if not done correctly the next 2 steps will be useless.
After the information is gathered the analysis of the data needs to be carefully done to make sure that the data is understood and applied appropriately. This step could take more time and attention depending on the depth of the data gathered. Even if all the data gathered is reliable and appropriate if it is not analyzed effectively it will all be for not. An output selection made off hasty analization could result in lackluster results.
The data has all been collected and analyzed. The next step is to make the output selection for best results. The decision on how to act can appear to be the easiest step in the process but this perception can be misleading. The decision is not just how to act but should you act. The critical thinking process is there to lead to an action step but what if the action it suggest is to do nothing at all. Taking the time to make the right call is a critical final step.
In the critical thinking process all three steps are important to the process and the should be given the time and attention necessary. It is the challenge for all managers / leaders to know which step needs more attention based off the importance and weight of the steps information.
When there is a variety of resources to consider data collection may take the most time. Data needs to be carefully and sufficiently collected to support and substantiate the necessary decision. Not taking the time to effectively gather the appropriate data can result in a decision being made based off information that is not reliable or relative. This first step in the process is critical because if not done correctly the next 2 steps will be useless.
After the information is gathered the analysis of the data needs to be carefully done to make sure that the data is understood and applied appropriately. This step could take more time and attention depending on the depth of the data gathered. Even if all the data gathered is reliable and appropriate if it is not analyzed effectively it will all be for not. An output selection made off hasty analization could result in lackluster results.
The data has all been collected and analyzed. The next step is to make the output selection for best results. The decision on how to act can appear to be the easiest step in the process but this perception can be misleading. The decision is not just how to act but should you act. The critical thinking process is there to lead to an action step but what if the action it suggest is to do nothing at all. Taking the time to make the right call is a critical final step.
In the critical thinking process all three steps are important to the process and the should be given the time and attention necessary. It is the challenge for all managers / leaders to know which step needs more attention based off the importance and weight of the steps information.
May 28, 2009
Can Critical Thinking be Applied Consistently?
Consistently applying critical thinking skills in decision processes is challenging for several reasons. Depending on the situation there may be time constraints that prohibit thinking through the decision. There may be moral or ethical factors that weigh on the decision that contradict the results of critical thinking. There may also be instances where the decision seems so obvious at first only to have it come back against you when it is not completely thought through.
All of these factors played a part in my families recent decision to not declare bankruptcy. I lost my job last May and my house has been in foreclosure for the past 9 months. We were given the suggestion many times to look into bankruptcy. We put it off for a while but when there seemed to be no other option we met with an attorney to begin the process. Neither my wife or I were in favor of doing bankruptcy but did not know where else to turn. It came to the point of making the decision to file and we had to decide if we wanted to or not. We had time constraints on our decision because we had to decide whether to do bankruptcy before foreclosure moved forward. We had moral difficulties with bankruptcy because we were not disputing that we owed the money we just needed to be a able to develop a plan to get caught back up. Although the decision seemed obvious to many people around us we just did not feel good about the decision.
We ultimately sat down and weighed the pros and cons of filing now and in the future. With kids just few years from college we have to keep that in mind and how bankruptcy might factor in. We looked at our current financial situation to determine if we could work something out and how. Lastly we had to feel morally like we fulfilled our commitments to our lenders and how bankruptcy would affect that. Although filing seemed like the best and easiest way to get back on track it did not feel or seem to be the right thing to do. We decided to try and work with our individual lenders ourselves and have worked it out to get out of foreclosure without losing our house.
All of these factors played a part in my families recent decision to not declare bankruptcy. I lost my job last May and my house has been in foreclosure for the past 9 months. We were given the suggestion many times to look into bankruptcy. We put it off for a while but when there seemed to be no other option we met with an attorney to begin the process. Neither my wife or I were in favor of doing bankruptcy but did not know where else to turn. It came to the point of making the decision to file and we had to decide if we wanted to or not. We had time constraints on our decision because we had to decide whether to do bankruptcy before foreclosure moved forward. We had moral difficulties with bankruptcy because we were not disputing that we owed the money we just needed to be a able to develop a plan to get caught back up. Although the decision seemed obvious to many people around us we just did not feel good about the decision.
We ultimately sat down and weighed the pros and cons of filing now and in the future. With kids just few years from college we have to keep that in mind and how bankruptcy might factor in. We looked at our current financial situation to determine if we could work something out and how. Lastly we had to feel morally like we fulfilled our commitments to our lenders and how bankruptcy would affect that. Although filing seemed like the best and easiest way to get back on track it did not feel or seem to be the right thing to do. We decided to try and work with our individual lenders ourselves and have worked it out to get out of foreclosure without losing our house.
May 24, 2009
Four Functions in Everyday Life
To limit the application of these four functions to use only for business would be a great loss. The concepts that we have been learning about should be able to be used in just about every aspect of our lives to some extent. I think a shorter list would be where can't you use these functions ... can't think of anything right now.
The planning function is vital when setting goals for retirement, raising children even taking a family vacation. A lot of unnecessary stress and frustration can be avoided by making plans that are thought through and that everyone can get behind.
The organizing function will help in community volunteering to know what resources are needed. There is also usefulness of organizing in carpooling with other parents and investing in a house to use resources wisely. Many people today are in fear of losing their homes and some of them didn't organize ahead of time to know what their resources and limitations were.
Everything from parenting, coaching to community BBQ's require leading of some form or another. The knowledge of the various types and strategies of leadership will help to give a basis for stepping up to lead when and where necessary.
Last, but certainly not least in the functions is the controlling function. Everyday there are obstacles and changes that must be monitored and adjusted for. We use the controlling function every day and don't even realize it most of the time. Our culture has slogans to praise it's use, "go with the flow," and "roll with the punches."
The four functions of management, how would we survive without them?
The planning function is vital when setting goals for retirement, raising children even taking a family vacation. A lot of unnecessary stress and frustration can be avoided by making plans that are thought through and that everyone can get behind.
The organizing function will help in community volunteering to know what resources are needed. There is also usefulness of organizing in carpooling with other parents and investing in a house to use resources wisely. Many people today are in fear of losing their homes and some of them didn't organize ahead of time to know what their resources and limitations were.
Everything from parenting, coaching to community BBQ's require leading of some form or another. The knowledge of the various types and strategies of leadership will help to give a basis for stepping up to lead when and where necessary.
Last, but certainly not least in the functions is the controlling function. Everyday there are obstacles and changes that must be monitored and adjusted for. We use the controlling function every day and don't even realize it most of the time. Our culture has slogans to praise it's use, "go with the flow," and "roll with the punches."
The four functions of management, how would we survive without them?
May 23, 2009
Controlling - Why The Negative
The controlling function has to be used with the right emphasis and intention. Managers are the authority at work and employees understand and respect that when the manager is working in the best interest of the organization. Sometimes the use of the controlling function is seen as managers throwing their authority around and being over zealous with their power. Managers who don't use their authority with good intentions give the controlling function a black eye because they use it for personal benefit and don't take into consideration the impact on others.
I think the negative connotation is perceived when the actions are not tempered with explanations or understanding for why the changes have to be made. Most employees will work with and adjust to changes if they know why they changes need to be made and what it means for them directly. This comes back to the idea of open discussion and communication through all levels of the organization. Implementing a system to keep employees in the loop and understanding the goals of an organization will make the controlling function easier to swallow with everyone being on board from the start. In today's economy the controlling function brings about fear of loss of jobs and uncertainty of job security.
I think the negative connotation is perceived when the actions are not tempered with explanations or understanding for why the changes have to be made. Most employees will work with and adjust to changes if they know why they changes need to be made and what it means for them directly. This comes back to the idea of open discussion and communication through all levels of the organization. Implementing a system to keep employees in the loop and understanding the goals of an organization will make the controlling function easier to swallow with everyone being on board from the start. In today's economy the controlling function brings about fear of loss of jobs and uncertainty of job security.
May 22, 2009
The Impact of Virtual Organizations
For my previous employer I did sales through phone and email communication. I am located in Ohio and the offices were located in North Carolina so I did all the work from a home office. I worked this way for 8 years. I set my schedule and managed my time from an office at home. This set-up was necessary for me to do the job for the organization but more often than not I was envied by my fellow co-workers. They thought it must be wonderful to work from home and not have to commute to work. They failed to realize the negative aspects of this in contrast to the positive.
Although I did not have to commute to work, I was always at the office. They look at it as working from home where at times it felt more like living at the office. You couldn't call in sick. Vacation days were a waste. These were all things that made it a challenge to enjoy working from home. I enjoyed the freedom to do this but at time missed the traditional office environment.The changes in virtual business practices give the opportunity for more freedom in the workplace that in turn can turn into more committed and motivated employees
Although I did not have to commute to work, I was always at the office. They look at it as working from home where at times it felt more like living at the office. You couldn't call in sick. Vacation days were a waste. These were all things that made it a challenge to enjoy working from home. I enjoyed the freedom to do this but at time missed the traditional office environment.The changes in virtual business practices give the opportunity for more freedom in the workplace that in turn can turn into more committed and motivated employees
May 20, 2009
Controlling & Leading
I have never understood this technique of regional or executive management visits. If you want to truly see how people are working and experience what customers are experiencing it would seem to me that an un-announced visit would be the best way to do this.
When I studied psychology we were looking at the effects of positive and negative reinforcement. Research has shown that people respond better to random acts of positive reinforcement. If you give a positive award on the same day every week employees will make sure and show up and give there all that day because they want to get paid. Whereas if you gave positive awards once a week but the day was random employees will show up every day and work because they want to be there to get paid whenever it happens. Too bad we can't do pay days this way or people would show up every day to work not just on the payday.
With my leadership experience and training in staff development / team building I have been asked to consult on guest experiences. I have always asked that I not be announced or introduced ahead of time so that I can get the true experience of what the environment and guest interaction. Tough to do sometimes but I feel it is a much better representation of the function of an organization.
When I studied psychology we were looking at the effects of positive and negative reinforcement. Research has shown that people respond better to random acts of positive reinforcement. If you give a positive award on the same day every week employees will make sure and show up and give there all that day because they want to get paid. Whereas if you gave positive awards once a week but the day was random employees will show up every day and work because they want to be there to get paid whenever it happens. Too bad we can't do pay days this way or people would show up every day to work not just on the payday.
With my leadership experience and training in staff development / team building I have been asked to consult on guest experiences. I have always asked that I not be announced or introduced ahead of time so that I can get the true experience of what the environment and guest interaction. Tough to do sometimes but I feel it is a much better representation of the function of an organization.
May 18, 2009
Leading, Organizing & Layoffs
I saw that you have posted a summary of this discussion but thought that I would contribute my 2 cents anyway's. I have had personal experience with layoffs that I have shared in other posts but I think is still relevant here.
As I have detailed in other posts I was laid off twice from the same company. The first time I was one of 150 employees who were laid off when a division of the organization what shut down. I, unlike everyone else not an executive, was not aware of the decision until it was made. There is no way that the decision to lay people off is easy for anyone. Would I have like to have known sooner, yes. Should I have, no. During the process of making this decision I am sure every opportunity was given for the company to succeed and continue on. If those who were to be let go would have known what was coming there ultimately would have been nothing they could have done to change the outcome. There was a decision to be made for the best interest of the organization as a whole and we all believed in and trusted our executives to make that decision when necessary.
The second time I was let go we had restructured and were now an organization of 13 people from other on down. Everyone was aware of and contributed on a daily basis to the direction and decisions of the organization. I believed in and supported the vision of the company and wanted to see it succeed whether I was part of the organization or not. When the time came and we ran into financial difficulties I knew the best decision was to layoff someone or the company would not be able to continue on. I knew it was the right thing to do for the overall success of the company and so when the call came to me it was time to move on. The company is still going strong today, a year later, and I hope it does for many years to come.
As I have detailed in other posts I was laid off twice from the same company. The first time I was one of 150 employees who were laid off when a division of the organization what shut down. I, unlike everyone else not an executive, was not aware of the decision until it was made. There is no way that the decision to lay people off is easy for anyone. Would I have like to have known sooner, yes. Should I have, no. During the process of making this decision I am sure every opportunity was given for the company to succeed and continue on. If those who were to be let go would have known what was coming there ultimately would have been nothing they could have done to change the outcome. There was a decision to be made for the best interest of the organization as a whole and we all believed in and trusted our executives to make that decision when necessary.
The second time I was let go we had restructured and were now an organization of 13 people from other on down. Everyone was aware of and contributed on a daily basis to the direction and decisions of the organization. I believed in and supported the vision of the company and wanted to see it succeed whether I was part of the organization or not. When the time came and we ran into financial difficulties I knew the best decision was to layoff someone or the company would not be able to continue on. I knew it was the right thing to do for the overall success of the company and so when the call came to me it was time to move on. The company is still going strong today, a year later, and I hope it does for many years to come.
Manager vs. Leader
There are strengths and weaknesses in each role that when developed and collaborated can be highly effective. I find it interesting that when researching the behaviors of the role of managers more often than not the behaviors are seen as negative. The managerial role is seen as a negative one that people shy away from because they do not want to be associated with the position. This is in direct contrast to the information on leaders which paint them as these visionary unthreatening open book people who always get the best out of their team.
It is challenging, especially in today's culture, to develop someone into a manger. It is much more accepting to develop leaders and hope they can manage than it is to develop managers and hope they can lead. As with many things, it is amazing how the human mind can develop to a point that the negative connotations of a simple word "manager" can cause so much resentment for the position.
I have held the position of manager at many organizations and was always proud to do so. I took the opportunity as a chance to step into the role of a leader and use my abilities and knowledge to guide and nurture the team to success. This should be seen as a positive position not a negative. I do think that leaders can develop into good managers and vice versa depending on the responsibility and maturity of those in the position.
It is challenging, especially in today's culture, to develop someone into a manger. It is much more accepting to develop leaders and hope they can manage than it is to develop managers and hope they can lead. As with many things, it is amazing how the human mind can develop to a point that the negative connotations of a simple word "manager" can cause so much resentment for the position.
I have held the position of manager at many organizations and was always proud to do so. I took the opportunity as a chance to step into the role of a leader and use my abilities and knowledge to guide and nurture the team to success. This should be seen as a positive position not a negative. I do think that leaders can develop into good managers and vice versa depending on the responsibility and maturity of those in the position.
May 16, 2009
Everyone Gets An "A"
The philosophy of looking for what is on the inside rather than judging by outward appearances can be very beneficial for leaders. When you look for the best in others and give them an opportunity to grow in their abilities you create an environment of growth and possibilities. I think everyone has the ability to achieve and be great but it is a matter of giving them the freedom and support to realize that greatness.
Although I think the "Giving an 'A'" philosophy can be used to great benefit it can also be misconstrued as a way to level the playing field. Within many things today, especially youth activities & sports, there is a big push to recognize everyone and not judge or grade the individuals. Although I believe everyone deserves the opportunity to achieve I don't think that should mean we don't recognize and reward success. When you recognize success not only do you reward those who have excelled but you give others a goal to shoot for. The responsibility falls on the leader to develop and encourage everyone to succeed and achieve. Not everyone will reach the same goals but so leaders need to be able to recognize individual successes among the team.
Although I think the "Giving an 'A'" philosophy can be used to great benefit it can also be misconstrued as a way to level the playing field. Within many things today, especially youth activities & sports, there is a big push to recognize everyone and not judge or grade the individuals. Although I believe everyone deserves the opportunity to achieve I don't think that should mean we don't recognize and reward success. When you recognize success not only do you reward those who have excelled but you give others a goal to shoot for. The responsibility falls on the leader to develop and encourage everyone to succeed and achieve. Not everyone will reach the same goals but so leaders need to be able to recognize individual successes among the team.
May 15, 2009
My Leadership Style
I enjoy the study of psychology and looking at how people respond to situations. The strategy of how a team works together and compliments each other is a challenge that I enjoy developing. I have worked very hard to develop my abilities to read people and figure out what pushes their buttons to get the most out of my team. I believe that there is no blanket method for motivating a team that will work for everyone on the team. Some people respond better to one method over another. This enjoyment of psychology and reading people has developed into my leadership style.
I was not aware of the terminology and names of the different leadership theories. Looking over the three theories my philosophy most closely matches up with the Hersey and Blanchard's situational theory. Having used the theory, without knowing that I was, I can't imagine not taking a persons psychological and job maturity into account when leading a team. I think the LMX theory contributes to the functions of a good leader but I believe it should be used in conjunction with other theories not on it's own. Again, I also see the benefits of the Path-Goal theory but as a tool for leaders to use not as a stand-alone method of leadership.
I was not aware of the terminology and names of the different leadership theories. Looking over the three theories my philosophy most closely matches up with the Hersey and Blanchard's situational theory. Having used the theory, without knowing that I was, I can't imagine not taking a persons psychological and job maturity into account when leading a team. I think the LMX theory contributes to the functions of a good leader but I believe it should be used in conjunction with other theories not on it's own. Again, I also see the benefits of the Path-Goal theory but as a tool for leaders to use not as a stand-alone method of leadership.
Do Managers Do More Today?
I don't know that I would go as far as to say that managers today do more multitasking. Over the past 20 years, with the advances in technology and the development of new business models, the expectations of managers has changed. With technological advances the speed at which decisions are made and the amount of information that is available has changed the face of management for all businesses. Managers today are expected to manage not only the brick and mortar side of the business but to also have a handle on the digital aspect of the business. This expectation was not there 20 years ago but that is not to say there were not other challenges. Managers from 20 years ago may not have had the technology to deal with but many of them were expected to much more hands on than some managers are today. Managers of yesterday not only were expected to manage the business but also to be part of the frontline staff that related to the customers on a regular basis.
While the expectations on managers may have changed the amount of work done by managers has not. The type of work being done by managers has changed over the past 20 years and i'm sure the next 20 years will bring even more changes.
While the expectations on managers may have changed the amount of work done by managers has not. The type of work being done by managers has changed over the past 20 years and i'm sure the next 20 years will bring even more changes.
May 14, 2009
Leading a Flock of Buffalo
Within a team of leaders there are going to be various personality styles and gifting's represented. Taking the time to evaluate and share the various styles helps everyone on the team to see where their strengths and weaknesses are. The team members are also able to see who on the team can complement them in their areas of weakness. When leaders take the time to know their own gifting's they can work to build a team around them to support and compliment their weaknesses. When this is done effectively there will be times, like in a flock of geese, that it will be necessary for leadership to change to get through a particular phase in the organization.
My organization has directors over each department and depending on the event or activity that is occurring any one of them will be the leader at that time. Each of the directors understands the expertise and abilities of the other directors and knows when to let someone else lead. This philosophy has helped us to build a team of strong leaders who at any time can lead the organization.
On the negative side I have worked for buffaloes who didn't want to give up their position of authority. These leaders seemed to be threatened by others trying to step up and lead. This caused many to feel they were not needed in the organization and, like myself, moved on to other organizations.
My organization has directors over each department and depending on the event or activity that is occurring any one of them will be the leader at that time. Each of the directors understands the expertise and abilities of the other directors and knows when to let someone else lead. This philosophy has helped us to build a team of strong leaders who at any time can lead the organization.
On the negative side I have worked for buffaloes who didn't want to give up their position of authority. These leaders seemed to be threatened by others trying to step up and lead. This caused many to feel they were not needed in the organization and, like myself, moved on to other organizations.
Leadership Theories
The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory focuses on the leaders behavior towards the group as a whole and also towards the individuals on a personal basis. The LMX theory works to build behaviors such as trust, open communication and mutual respect. These behaviors build a stronger team and one that is more committed and supportive of their leader. The pitfall can come in a blurring of the lines of authority and the possibility of someone feeling left out if they do not receive as much personal attention.
Hersey and Blanchard's situational theory is based on the concept that a manager should consider an employee's psychological and job maturity before deciding which behaviors are most important. Depending on the employees psychological maturity the behaviors of trust, performance or maintenance may or may not fit the situation. The same is true with job maturity. The theory works on the basis that the maturity level dictates which behavior to focus on. A high maturity employee will respond best to the trust behavior knowing they are believed in to get the job done. A moderate maturity level employee will respond best to the maintenance behavior whereas low maturity level employees will respond best to the performance behavior. The challenge for managers is in analyzing the employee and determining the behavior that will bring about the best results.
The Path-Goal theory is concerned with how leaders influence employees perception of their goals and the path they must use to achieve the goals. This theory depends on the leaders ability to provide good direction and coaching to make the path easier to travel so that the employee will experience as little frustration as possible. The leader also needs to develop a reward system to compensate employees for reaching their performance goals. With the Path-Goal theory leaders need to be keenly aware of outside factors that could cause problems for the employee. If the leader is not on top of and proactive to remove or reduce these outside factors the employees can become frustrated feeling that they have been given an impossible task.
Looking at these three theories there are situations where one may work better than others. The task of leaders is to know your staff, know your situation and know yourself. You need to have a grasp on the personalities of your staff to know how to motivate them without discouraging them. The situation you are leading in may require a the tools of one theory over another and knowing the benefits of each will help you to apply them correctly. Lastly, know yourself and your abilities. Don't try to lead in a style that you are not comfortable and knowledgeable in.
Hersey and Blanchard's situational theory is based on the concept that a manager should consider an employee's psychological and job maturity before deciding which behaviors are most important. Depending on the employees psychological maturity the behaviors of trust, performance or maintenance may or may not fit the situation. The same is true with job maturity. The theory works on the basis that the maturity level dictates which behavior to focus on. A high maturity employee will respond best to the trust behavior knowing they are believed in to get the job done. A moderate maturity level employee will respond best to the maintenance behavior whereas low maturity level employees will respond best to the performance behavior. The challenge for managers is in analyzing the employee and determining the behavior that will bring about the best results.
The Path-Goal theory is concerned with how leaders influence employees perception of their goals and the path they must use to achieve the goals. This theory depends on the leaders ability to provide good direction and coaching to make the path easier to travel so that the employee will experience as little frustration as possible. The leader also needs to develop a reward system to compensate employees for reaching their performance goals. With the Path-Goal theory leaders need to be keenly aware of outside factors that could cause problems for the employee. If the leader is not on top of and proactive to remove or reduce these outside factors the employees can become frustrated feeling that they have been given an impossible task.
Looking at these three theories there are situations where one may work better than others. The task of leaders is to know your staff, know your situation and know yourself. You need to have a grasp on the personalities of your staff to know how to motivate them without discouraging them. The situation you are leading in may require a the tools of one theory over another and knowing the benefits of each will help you to apply them correctly. Lastly, know yourself and your abilities. Don't try to lead in a style that you are not comfortable and knowledgeable in.
May 13, 2009
Leadership & Employee Engagement
Within my organization our leadership has taken the initiative to look for ways to help staff get more engaged in the business. My organization provides health and fitness programs to our local community. Although there is a lot of focus on being physically fit and exercising we have noticed a mentality that looks at membership and fitness classes as an expendable item that is not high on the priority list for a lot of people. This mentality has caused us to have to re-evaluate our programs and staff needs to support them. Even with the hard economic times we believe physical fitness and exercise is important and beneficial to assist in relieving stress and not allowing physical ailments to complicate things even more during this time.
As my organization has worked through this the leadership teams has challenged everyone to contribute ideas and/or suggestions that could lead to new members or classes. This development would in turn create a need for more staff or more hours for current staff. All of this will hopefully lead to a deeper sense of ownership and support of the vision and mission of the organization.
Leadership and employee engagement can be very beneficial to both the staff and the organization if everyone is supportive and participating in the process.
As my organization has worked through this the leadership teams has challenged everyone to contribute ideas and/or suggestions that could lead to new members or classes. This development would in turn create a need for more staff or more hours for current staff. All of this will hopefully lead to a deeper sense of ownership and support of the vision and mission of the organization.
Leadership and employee engagement can be very beneficial to both the staff and the organization if everyone is supportive and participating in the process.
Leading & Micromanaging
Micro-managing can and should be done when it used for training and development purposes. When someone is new to a procedure or concept and their needs to be some on-the-job training micro-managing can be an effective tool. The decision for managers is to know when to step away from the process and let the employee take off on their own. Micro-managing someone when it is not necessary can be seen a as a lock of trust and/or confidence from management in the employee.
Many people do not work well when they are micro-managed depending on their personality type and level of experience. There may be instances with programs or procedures that managers need to be more hands-on and aware of what is happening but that can be done without micro-managed the process every step of the way. My philosophy, as a manager and non-manager, is that if someone is qualified to do the job then make sure they know the goal and what is expected and then release them to produce. This is not to say that you do not keep tabs and stay aware of progress but there are many ways to get the job done. Just because someone does not take the same steps and process that I would does not mean it won't work. Releasing someone to lead without micro-managing gives them a chance to develop their own leadership style and to grow in confidence of their abilities.
Many people do not work well when they are micro-managed depending on their personality type and level of experience. There may be instances with programs or procedures that managers need to be more hands-on and aware of what is happening but that can be done without micro-managed the process every step of the way. My philosophy, as a manager and non-manager, is that if someone is qualified to do the job then make sure they know the goal and what is expected and then release them to produce. This is not to say that you do not keep tabs and stay aware of progress but there are many ways to get the job done. Just because someone does not take the same steps and process that I would does not mean it won't work. Releasing someone to lead without micro-managing gives them a chance to develop their own leadership style and to grow in confidence of their abilities.
Manager or Leader
In my experience working in sales there seems to be a trend that both hurts the sales of the company and devalues the management position over sales. In most sales departments I have worked in when a position of manager came open it was not the most qualified that was given the position but rather to best salesperson. Promoting the best sales rep to the position of manager, when they are not the most qualified for the position, creates a couple of problems. First off the sales team takes an immediate hit to its productivity because they have just lost their top producer who lead the team in sales and challenged the rest of the team to reach for their level. The second problem with promoting the top sales rep to manager is that when they are not trained or experienced in leading they do damage to the respect and credibility of the position.
In relation to this trend I do believe a manager may not be a leader. Whether it be in sales or in an other organizational structure when someone is given a position of management as a means to appease them and not because of qualifications the whole team suffers. Within the context of sales a salesperson works everyday to achieve their goal knowing that if they do they have contributed their part to the overall success of the team. When this same person is put into a position of management and does not have the leadership abilities and training for the position they may struggle. They may not have the leadership abilities to understand why others cannot perform at the level they were or know how to motivate a team. This may cause those on the sales team to struggle with motivation to do the job and not fully get behind the manager because he seems to be in it for their own gain.
I have worked under some very good managers who had seen others before them manage in such a way that they were able to learn from their example. The culture of the organization was such that they wanted to see everyone succeed. The management of the organization was not threatened by others success. I had one manager I worked for tell me, "the measure of my success is teaching those who work for me to be better at my job than I am." I have carried this philosophy with me ever since. A corporate culture where the leadership is secure enough and encouraged to teach others creates an environment where not only can you have top sales reps succeeding but you can develop managers who are equipped and ready to lead.
In relation to this trend I do believe a manager may not be a leader. Whether it be in sales or in an other organizational structure when someone is given a position of management as a means to appease them and not because of qualifications the whole team suffers. Within the context of sales a salesperson works everyday to achieve their goal knowing that if they do they have contributed their part to the overall success of the team. When this same person is put into a position of management and does not have the leadership abilities and training for the position they may struggle. They may not have the leadership abilities to understand why others cannot perform at the level they were or know how to motivate a team. This may cause those on the sales team to struggle with motivation to do the job and not fully get behind the manager because he seems to be in it for their own gain.
I have worked under some very good managers who had seen others before them manage in such a way that they were able to learn from their example. The culture of the organization was such that they wanted to see everyone succeed. The management of the organization was not threatened by others success. I had one manager I worked for tell me, "the measure of my success is teaching those who work for me to be better at my job than I am." I have carried this philosophy with me ever since. A corporate culture where the leadership is secure enough and encouraged to teach others creates an environment where not only can you have top sales reps succeeding but you can develop managers who are equipped and ready to lead.
May 11, 2009
Organizing Function & Morale
Employee morale can be affected by so many things it may not be as obvious to consider the impact of an organizations structure on morale. Depending on the experience level of those within an organization and their willingness to share in the credit some organizational structures will boost morale and some may hurt it.
With a team of highly experienced and educated mangers the matrix structure may seem like a slap in the face for all their hard work. The matrix structure seeks to give everyone a chance to contribute and be part of the decision making process no matter their title or experience. For someone new or trying to move up in the company this may seem like a great environment because they are not limited by their lack of positional title or education level. They will feel excited and welcome to contribute to decisions. The opposite may occur for those with the experience and education. They may feel like they have earned and deserve to be making the decisions and someone comparable experience or education should not be part of those discussions.
While a matrix structured organization will benefit those with less experience and education a functional organization will benefit those with more experience and education. In a functional structured organization those with less experience and education may feel frustrated and forgotten. They do not have the experience and education to move up to through the hierarchal levels of the organization but they are not being given an opportunity to gain that experience either. Whereas someone with higher education and experience will feel justified and challenged within the functional structure because they are reward for all their hard work up to this point.
With a team of highly experienced and educated mangers the matrix structure may seem like a slap in the face for all their hard work. The matrix structure seeks to give everyone a chance to contribute and be part of the decision making process no matter their title or experience. For someone new or trying to move up in the company this may seem like a great environment because they are not limited by their lack of positional title or education level. They will feel excited and welcome to contribute to decisions. The opposite may occur for those with the experience and education. They may feel like they have earned and deserve to be making the decisions and someone comparable experience or education should not be part of those discussions.
While a matrix structured organization will benefit those with less experience and education a functional organization will benefit those with more experience and education. In a functional structured organization those with less experience and education may feel frustrated and forgotten. They do not have the experience and education to move up to through the hierarchal levels of the organization but they are not being given an opportunity to gain that experience either. Whereas someone with higher education and experience will feel justified and challenged within the functional structure because they are reward for all their hard work up to this point.
The Matrix Structure
The challenge of the Matrix structure is both a positive and negative. Within an organization that functions in the matrix structure there is an interconnectedness from one department to another. This connectedness seeks to create an environment where there is not concern over who is getting credit for something but rather are we succeeding to accomplish the goal set before us. This same environment can turn into a negative if those in the organization do not believe in and get behind the structures intentions.
The negative of the matrix structure is the flip side of the concept of not worrying about who is getting credit. When things are going good and succeeding the concern is over who gets credit. When plans do not succeed and someone needs to be held accountable for the lack of success the matrix structure works against the organization. The structure can be used so well to break down walls and get away from turf wars that when problems arise responsibility is not easily determined. In the same way that departments may disagree over credit for success, they may also disagree over responsibility for failure.
I recently saw a quote that read, "You will be amazed by how much you can accomplish when you don't care who gets credit." This is the goal of the matrix structure but there needs to be a system in place for determining responsibility and administering corrections when necessary.
The negative of the matrix structure is the flip side of the concept of not worrying about who is getting credit. When things are going good and succeeding the concern is over who gets credit. When plans do not succeed and someone needs to be held accountable for the lack of success the matrix structure works against the organization. The structure can be used so well to break down walls and get away from turf wars that when problems arise responsibility is not easily determined. In the same way that departments may disagree over credit for success, they may also disagree over responsibility for failure.
I recently saw a quote that read, "You will be amazed by how much you can accomplish when you don't care who gets credit." This is the goal of the matrix structure but there needs to be a system in place for determining responsibility and administering corrections when necessary.
Organizing - Networks
I previously worked for a music distribution company. I worked as a sales rep for the company during a time of transition and restructuring. We were, at one time, a self-contained organization that did everything from recording & mixing to warehousing & distribution. There was not a step in the process that we did not have our hand in. This ultimately contributed to our downfall because we were so concerned about providing every service necessary in the process that we did not excel or specialize in any of them. That is what lead to our restructuring.
After a purging of resources, both personnel and departments, we re-emerged as a strong and focused sales & marketing organization. This was one of our strongest departments and as such we were identified in the industry as having a good track record in this area. This meant though that we had to rely on others with various specialities to support us with the products and services we needed to be successful. In the post-sales needs we hired out our recording and mixing of music to some of the best studios in the industry. After the product was recorded we had partnerships with graphic artists and photographers to develop and create marketing materials and packaging to get the product noticed. Radio marketing and support was provided by a company that only handled radio promotions for our genre of music. Not having the resources available for warehousing we developed a partnership with a fulfillment company who handled all our warehousing, shipping, billing, returns and customer service. After the product was sold into our accounts the booking for artist touring and personality appearances was handled by outside agencies.
In the end we were what we set out to be, a great sales team with longstanding and strong relationships with our accounts. We did sales and we did it really well. We did not record the music, create the advertising, work with radio, warehouse, ship or bill the product. We had strategic relationships with other organizations that had made the same decision we had. They picked the area they felt they could excel in and did it the very best they could. All of us worked together to support each other because without any one piece of the puzzle all pieces could be affected.
After a purging of resources, both personnel and departments, we re-emerged as a strong and focused sales & marketing organization. This was one of our strongest departments and as such we were identified in the industry as having a good track record in this area. This meant though that we had to rely on others with various specialities to support us with the products and services we needed to be successful. In the post-sales needs we hired out our recording and mixing of music to some of the best studios in the industry. After the product was recorded we had partnerships with graphic artists and photographers to develop and create marketing materials and packaging to get the product noticed. Radio marketing and support was provided by a company that only handled radio promotions for our genre of music. Not having the resources available for warehousing we developed a partnership with a fulfillment company who handled all our warehousing, shipping, billing, returns and customer service. After the product was sold into our accounts the booking for artist touring and personality appearances was handled by outside agencies.
In the end we were what we set out to be, a great sales team with longstanding and strong relationships with our accounts. We did sales and we did it really well. We did not record the music, create the advertising, work with radio, warehouse, ship or bill the product. We had strategic relationships with other organizations that had made the same decision we had. They picked the area they felt they could excel in and did it the very best they could. All of us worked together to support each other because without any one piece of the puzzle all pieces could be affected.
Prevalence of Hierarchy Structure
The hierarchy structure of organization is so prevalent because of the adaptability and efficiency of this structure. No matter what type of organization there is the opportunity to use the hierarchy structure within the organization. The hierarchy structure creates the ability to set up various departments or branches within an organization that specialize in certain tasks which are relevant to the overall success of the organization. The specialized tasks lead to an efficient structure which works well for getting the tasks done with a high quality of work.
The hierarchal structure can be easily applied to an organization irregardless of the titles or roles in the organization. In my work history I have worked doing sales where the sales reps reported to the sales manager who then reported to the VP of sales who was accountable to the CEO and then owner. I also worked in a volunteer downtown business association where volunteer workers reported to event chairpeople who reported to committee chairs who were reporting to the board of directors. In either organization there is a hierarchal chain of command that facilitates who is accountable to whom and who is responsible for each departmental piece of the organization.
The hierarchal structure can be easily applied to an organization irregardless of the titles or roles in the organization. In my work history I have worked doing sales where the sales reps reported to the sales manager who then reported to the VP of sales who was accountable to the CEO and then owner. I also worked in a volunteer downtown business association where volunteer workers reported to event chairpeople who reported to committee chairs who were reporting to the board of directors. In either organization there is a hierarchal chain of command that facilitates who is accountable to whom and who is responsible for each departmental piece of the organization.
May 8, 2009
Team-based, Network-based or Boundary-less
Team-based organizations give the members an opportunity to have more input and ownership on decisions. Team-based organizations can bring together a diverse group to give a more in depth and varied response. This may lead to decisions and plans that are not typically used because of the diversity of those contributing to the group. The team-based structure has positive and negative aspects in the collaborative nature of the structure. The opportunity for team collaboration adds to the diversity of the decisions but can also hinder or slow down the process. Team-based organizations may end up needing more time for decisions because of the need for input from all team members for a decision to be made.
Network-based organizations are dynamic in structure if the right group of network partners can be found. The network-based structure brings together a group of individual organizations that are each specialized and focused on their core business. Each of these core businesses are brought together to achieve the common goal of delivering the goods or services desired. This structure is advantageous because of the ability of each separate organization to develop and perfect their core business to the benefit of the networks overall goal. This structure can pose some challenges though because of the need for a common structure for communication and collaboration. There needs to be a system in place for effective communication and accountability to keep the individual organizations on task for the common goal.
Boundary-less organizations may be the most challenging to develop because of the lack of structure. The information and cooperation in a boundary-less organization flows across traditional structure lines without hesitation. This structure gives flexible to the organization for responding to changes and learning in the development of the organization. The challenge for this structure is that because of the freedom involved it can be tough for those working in the organization to get used to and accept the structure if they are used to the more traditional chains of communication and responsibility.
Network-based organizations are dynamic in structure if the right group of network partners can be found. The network-based structure brings together a group of individual organizations that are each specialized and focused on their core business. Each of these core businesses are brought together to achieve the common goal of delivering the goods or services desired. This structure is advantageous because of the ability of each separate organization to develop and perfect their core business to the benefit of the networks overall goal. This structure can pose some challenges though because of the need for a common structure for communication and collaboration. There needs to be a system in place for effective communication and accountability to keep the individual organizations on task for the common goal.
Boundary-less organizations may be the most challenging to develop because of the lack of structure. The information and cooperation in a boundary-less organization flows across traditional structure lines without hesitation. This structure gives flexible to the organization for responding to changes and learning in the development of the organization. The challenge for this structure is that because of the freedom involved it can be tough for those working in the organization to get used to and accept the structure if they are used to the more traditional chains of communication and responsibility.
Allocation of Scarce Resources
Within an organization there are going to be times when resources needed to complete a task are scarce or limited. Whether it is a part needed to complete production, the information available on a new development or even the time availability of employees when organizing the resources necessary there needs to be a plan in place. Having a plan in place for the acquisition, allocation and application of resources will help in making sure that scarce resources are used in the most effective and efficient way possible.
I was on the board for a local business association that organizes community events for our small town. Every year we do an event on a particular weekend in September. Last year our community had the opportunity to host a regional event that was looking for a new permanent home and thought our community might be a good fit. The event just happened to be the same weekend as our previously planned event. Being a small community we had limited resources on volunteers, vendors and locations to work with. Wanting both events to be as successful as possible the boards from both events got together to collaborate on how we could support each other to make both events work. We ended up coordinating our schedules so that activities did not compete but rather complimented each other. We structured our schedules in such a way that the need for volunteers was high at one event while lower at another and vice versa. Vendors were shared between events by using common locations for the available resources. The collaboration between the two boards and the effective organization of our limited resources worked out great for both parties and ended up saving each one in the end.
I was on the board for a local business association that organizes community events for our small town. Every year we do an event on a particular weekend in September. Last year our community had the opportunity to host a regional event that was looking for a new permanent home and thought our community might be a good fit. The event just happened to be the same weekend as our previously planned event. Being a small community we had limited resources on volunteers, vendors and locations to work with. Wanting both events to be as successful as possible the boards from both events got together to collaborate on how we could support each other to make both events work. We ended up coordinating our schedules so that activities did not compete but rather complimented each other. We structured our schedules in such a way that the need for volunteers was high at one event while lower at another and vice versa. Vendors were shared between events by using common locations for the available resources. The collaboration between the two boards and the effective organization of our limited resources worked out great for both parties and ended up saving each one in the end.
May 6, 2009
Defining "Contingency Planning"
I don't think contingency planning should be looked at as strictly a positive or negative plan. A contingency plan is any plan designed to respond to changes or challenges to an organizations current action plan. When an organization develops a plan for growth there are three options on what can happen with the plan. The plan fulfills expectations and will continue to work going forward. The plan is not successful and adjustments need to be made for going forward. The plan exceeds expectations and adjustments need to be made. When the plan is not successful or exceeds expectations there will need to be changes made to the plan to continue to move forward. I believe this is where contingency planning comes in but it can either be for a positive or negative need.
I have coached pee-wee football for the past 6 years and each year we have a new group of kids come into the organization. There are always adjustments that need to be made because what worked for the team last year may not work this year depending on the personnel and their individual progression in abilities. There are also factors of new coaches coming onto the staff and how that affects the dynamics of the team. Within the league we are in there are 9 other teams that have the same changes and difficulties each year.
As within a business we have contingency plans for our team to adjust to these changes of new players, new coaches and the changes within other teams. Some changes are positive, some negative but all require us to be able and willing to adjust when necessary.
I have coached pee-wee football for the past 6 years and each year we have a new group of kids come into the organization. There are always adjustments that need to be made because what worked for the team last year may not work this year depending on the personnel and their individual progression in abilities. There are also factors of new coaches coming onto the staff and how that affects the dynamics of the team. Within the league we are in there are 9 other teams that have the same changes and difficulties each year.
As within a business we have contingency plans for our team to adjust to these changes of new players, new coaches and the changes within other teams. Some changes are positive, some negative but all require us to be able and willing to adjust when necessary.
May 3, 2009
Planning Input From All Levels
I think there are several factors that affect the decision to leave people out of the planning process.
In an organization the responsibility for a task being completed falls on the management and/or executives. If someone on the assembly line does not do their job sufficiently it is not always seen as their fault but instead the fault of the manager for not getting the best out of their team. Because of this reason the lower level employees and ultimately those closest to the work are left out of the planning process by management due to the fact that management is ultimately responsible.
Another factor in people closest to the work being left out of the decision process is that they may be too close to the work to make a objective decision. Working in such close proximity to the situation that the planning is for can make it difficult to make an objective decision especially if that decision directly affects you. For this reason some are left out of the planning process so as not to skew the planning in a direction that is not overall positive for the organization.
The other factor that sometimes, unfortunately, plays a role in executives not including others in the planning process is that they do not see those outside of the executive level as having the knowledge and understanding to make an appropriate decision. This can be a delicate balance in an organization because if not handled properly it can come across as an "us vs. them" mentality. Those not in the executive team will feel like they are not valued and appreciated within the organization and those at the executive level will feel no one can make a decision without their input.
Overcoming these challenges can help to build a stronger and more unified organization. Giving opportunity for input to people at all levels helps to increase ownership and value for the success of the organization and ultimately those within the organization.
In an organization the responsibility for a task being completed falls on the management and/or executives. If someone on the assembly line does not do their job sufficiently it is not always seen as their fault but instead the fault of the manager for not getting the best out of their team. Because of this reason the lower level employees and ultimately those closest to the work are left out of the planning process by management due to the fact that management is ultimately responsible.
Another factor in people closest to the work being left out of the decision process is that they may be too close to the work to make a objective decision. Working in such close proximity to the situation that the planning is for can make it difficult to make an objective decision especially if that decision directly affects you. For this reason some are left out of the planning process so as not to skew the planning in a direction that is not overall positive for the organization.
The other factor that sometimes, unfortunately, plays a role in executives not including others in the planning process is that they do not see those outside of the executive level as having the knowledge and understanding to make an appropriate decision. This can be a delicate balance in an organization because if not handled properly it can come across as an "us vs. them" mentality. Those not in the executive team will feel like they are not valued and appreciated within the organization and those at the executive level will feel no one can make a decision without their input.
Overcoming these challenges can help to build a stronger and more unified organization. Giving opportunity for input to people at all levels helps to increase ownership and value for the success of the organization and ultimately those within the organization.
May 2, 2009
Planning & Blinders
Through a grueling day of meetings you have developed a strategic advertising campaign for next months unexpected community open house. You knew it would take all day to get done so you did not have time to get feedback from all departments. Setting aside all other work for the day helped to keep focused and get the plan done in the time allowed but you missed an opportunity to partner with a local non-profit group for a fundraiser that could have brought additional traffic and publicity to your event.
Blinders on a horse are beneficial to the planning function of management in that they work to keep the planning process moving towards the goal. Managers can easily be distracted by other issues within an organization and need to have some system of checks and balances to keep from getting sidetracked and off goal. In meetings and within leadership teams managers who know their strengths and weaknesses will make sure there are those around them to compensate where they are week. These team members will work as blinders for the manager to keep them on task and focused on the goal.
Blinders on a horse are detrimental to the planning function of management because they do not allow the manager to compensate and adjust. If a manager is so focused on the goal that they don't see changes needed or include others in the process then they have missed some of the benefit of the process. Managers need to keep their peripheral vision clear to see situations or circumstances that may require them to adjust.
The idea of planning with blinders reminds me of a lesson a mentor of mine once taught me. He had said how when working on a project that would normally take 1 hour to complete if you allow your 5 year old to help you the project may end up taking 3 hours to complete. The question is how much more valuable is it to have that 3 hours with your child than to get the project done quickly. I have learned to see the benefit in working with others and taking more time over doing it myself and getting done quick. Not always easy but time spent learning with and from others is well worth it.
Blinders on a horse are beneficial to the planning function of management in that they work to keep the planning process moving towards the goal. Managers can easily be distracted by other issues within an organization and need to have some system of checks and balances to keep from getting sidetracked and off goal. In meetings and within leadership teams managers who know their strengths and weaknesses will make sure there are those around them to compensate where they are week. These team members will work as blinders for the manager to keep them on task and focused on the goal.
Blinders on a horse are detrimental to the planning function of management because they do not allow the manager to compensate and adjust. If a manager is so focused on the goal that they don't see changes needed or include others in the process then they have missed some of the benefit of the process. Managers need to keep their peripheral vision clear to see situations or circumstances that may require them to adjust.
The idea of planning with blinders reminds me of a lesson a mentor of mine once taught me. He had said how when working on a project that would normally take 1 hour to complete if you allow your 5 year old to help you the project may end up taking 3 hours to complete. The question is how much more valuable is it to have that 3 hours with your child than to get the project done quickly. I have learned to see the benefit in working with others and taking more time over doing it myself and getting done quick. Not always easy but time spent learning with and from others is well worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)