A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Changing Dynamics of Leadership 

 

 

     The way people are viewing leadership is changing. I believe one of the reasons for this change has a lot to do with companies looking for different solutions to problems that will help increase their bottom line and help the company to grow. One of the places that companies are looking for these solutions is within their own companies and towards the people that are doing the job. Now, companies are taking a more “collaborative approach that empowers employees” (Jartese, 2013, par.1). Leaders within these companies are recognizing the power that their own resources have and they are taking a more open attitude instead of the more corporate hierarchy. 

     Another reason for this change is that companies are taking a look around at the other companies that have been doing business this way and seeing just how much more successful they are; for example, Apple and Google do business a completely different way. They rely solely upon the innovation of their people and collaborative thinking process that happens. Their companies are coveted places to work because people don’t feel like just another worker-bee, they feel they can and are making real differences. 

     Another reason for the change is that people are demanding more out of their companies. People are not happy being the worker-bee and they want to know that they can be heard. As more and more people speak up and try to make differences, they are rewarded with satisfaction of making a difference. 

     I do think that this is happening within my organization to a certain degree, but not completely. There are too many legs on the body so-to-speak. There is change in leadership within the body, but the body needs the support of the legs. Each leg is a silo organization (or leg) has one main leader that reports back to the body. At the body however, those leaders of the silos are part of a CAS organization and there is a whole lot of collaborative efforts being made in order to make the changes necessary. It is here where the worker-bee can see where their efforts and ideas might make a difference, but because the other leadership within the body is so far removed from the actual work going on, usually those ideas get lost in the mix. 

     If things were going to change, the leadership dynamic would definitely have to change. The first thing that would have to happen is to change the mindset of the individual legs to thinking in terms of “team”, versus “me”. When each leaders is at their respective organizations, they do have the “team” mentality, but that gets lost once they are dealing with they body organization. They do still think in terms of teams, but it’s a different team. My organization needs to take out the separation of teams in their own minds and think of the organization as one big team. If they were to do this, then the strategy of the company could be different as different team members have their input. 

References: 

Jartese, 2013. 8 Differences Between Traditional and Collaborative Leadership. Retrieved from http://blog.innocentive.com/2013/11/21/8-differences-between-traditional-and-collaborative-leaders

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Growler

 

A632.4.RB - Deception in Negotiations

Deception in Negotiations

 

     I would love to be able to give some fantastic example from work where I have dealt with negotiation, but all I can think about is my children. When you have children, all you seem to do is negotiate whether it’s bedtime, another snack, eating their veggies, etc. As they have gotten older, the negotiating sessions that happen could rival that of high executive business men. You have to have skills at this game or you are going to lose and losing at this game has more long-term personal consequences. However, the kids are just as good and every now and then they will through me a curve ball that keeps me on my toes. 

     During these little negotiation sessions, we both have ways in which we evaluate the information that we are presented with. The first thing that I do is to evaluate the content of the negotiation. Am I interested in engaging in battle over this issue? Will I win this battle if I engage? Will the outcome produce the desired result? The next thing I do is to try and anticipate what they really want out of this negotiation and what my bargaining range will be. I ask open-ended questions that will give me more leverage when he ends up saying things that he doesn’t know will be detrimental to his case. But the biggest way for me to evaluate information during negotiations is watching for their nonverbal cues. Kids are infamous for these type things and when you know your kids like I do, you can spot the lie before it even comes out of their mouth. 

     For example, my son recently came to me with wanting his bed time to be 11:00pm on school nights. He is 13 after all, practically a self-sustaining adult, so why shouldn’t he get to stay up till then? Well of course that is insane and there is no way I was going to let that happen, but pushing the time back a bit was well within my range of what I was willing to give. After talking with him about it and asking him questions I was able to figure out that his real desire was to play video games and not stay up late, even though he never directly said that. At the moment, he only gets to play for an hour on the weekends only. So while in the midst of our discussion I offered him one hour a day all week, but only in the afternoon after homework, or no time during the week but 4 hours a day on Saturday or Sunday. I also gave him a third option that for every hour spent reading, he would earn 30 minutes of game time on the weekends. My personal agenda was for him to not play any games time during the week, so by making the weekend more enticing, I knew which one he would pick. I did what Dan Ariely talked about and I offered up three offers, one that awful, one that didn’t seem so bad, and one that seemed awesome in comparison to the other two. Of course, he picked the one I wanted him too. 

     Sticking with the examples of my children, I most recently led a negotiation with my daughter. We are building a house and they have each “called” which room they would like. My daughter picked the basement bedroom and my son picked the loft. My daughter is only 10 and I don’t want her in the basement, so when I was negotiating with her, I overstated just how big her room would be if she picked the loft. I also overstated the furniture she would be able to buy if she picked the loft. I made the loft seem way more enticing than the basement, even though the basement was the better room.

     In both cases, because we are talking about my children, I would go as far as I needed to in order to make sure that I won whatever negotiating we did. I do whatever is necessary within my moral confines to leverage my position to make sure that I do win.

A633.3.4.RB - Complexity Science

    

 Organizational Strategy

 

     The Department of Transportation (DOT) was created in 1965 as an executive department of government under the suggestion of then Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) Administrator Najeeb Halaby. He recognized that if the government transportation programs would do better if all transportation agencies were under one department. This shocked everyone in government that the head of the FAA would be willing to take his independent agencies and roll it in with another agency. Halaby’s decisions were based on the fact that he thought if the government embodied all transportation under one agency, then he wouldn’t be left out of some of the top-secret aviation developments. Halaby recognized that the needs of the economy were not being met with the current transportation system and Johnson agreed, so DOT was created. Since then, DOT has drastically evolved from five initial operating elements into twelve. In order for this to happen there was a strategy that they followed and goals that they focused on. The main goal of the DOT is to 

“Serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible, and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future” (DOT, 2018, par.1).

     DOT set forth objectives that they wanted to meet and a time frame for which they wanted to meet those objectives. The strategic plan is to evaluate the safety issues that involve behavioral, vehicle, and infrastructure, so that they can determine what is needed. Each department is set up to do the same thing and then they discuss their findings with each other and come up with plans of action to solve the current issues. This feedback also comes back to them by way of the public input. For every project that DOT does, the public can go onto the website, view it, and then address their concerns, opinions, or even suggestions. As the needs for transportation grow, DOT grows to meet those changes. Because they have a solid plan in place already, it is easy for them adapt to the new demands. 

     One division of DOT is Statewide Aviation. This is the section I work for. Here in Alaska, approximately 82% of the communities are not served by roads and have no connection to a road system; therefore, aviation is the bloodline to these communities. DOT’s strategic planning has allowed them to maintain the 240 airports and help them to develop. DOT's structure is more of silo structure with many different departments who all have someone in a hierarchical position they answer to, but that is what works for this type of organization. DOT would not be able to achieve its goals if the company operated as a complex adaptive system. 

     Within the next 10 years, DOT will have constructed, managed, and developed most these Alaskan airports to better serve the community. As for my role, I see where I could possibly contribute to this development of this strategy and possible help bring the organization to a more matrix style of organization.

Reference:

DOT.com. 2018. Retreived from: fhttps://www.transportation.gov/50/creation-department-transportation-summary