Month: November 2018

This is a response to Layla’s original post, who is responding to Palak’s post leader post found here:

Response to “Competencies at work”

Changes in organization is complex and rarely work out the way it is planned.  Just as Layla had eluded to in her post, organizational change is more about people than plans, strategies, or policies (Hughes, Beatty & Dinwoodie, 2014).  People are complex and different people have different agendas and goals when working for an organization.  While some people strive to climb the corporate ladder and wanting the promotions, others are comfortable to continue what they are doing and not to be bothered.  With this point in mind, I have to agree with Palak in her original post (https://create.twu.ca/psonvane/2018/11/20/competencies-at-work/), where she suggests that it is “impractical to determine what stage of the change process the employee is in and what amount of motivation does he [or she] needs”.

Between 2013-2015 , my department has undergone a major change management initiative, a systems transformation project where the information systems for Health Protection will be upgraded to a more modern and user-friendly inspection program.  The scope of this project included the complete redesign of  business workflows and new methods of inputting data to the system.  Prior to implementation, our project team was responsible for delivering training to approximately 150 Health Protection staff members that spanned over 25 days of in-class training sessions.  The outcome of the project implementation was a success, but not without its challenges along the way.  This project required significant change management strategy and just Palak has mentioned, the evaluation of five levels of change-readiness as suggested by Lepsinger (2010) is just not a feasible option because there are not enough resources to create specific actions plans for each individual just like if we are treating addicts.  However, I do feel it is important to evaluate the change-readiness of the staff, but instead of on a individual basis, I would suggest to evaluate as a whole to determine the percentage of staff who falls in each of the five stages.  I believe having these larger numbers will facilitate the strategic planning of what the most beneficial next steps would be.  In the example of my project, there are some staff who falls in what Lepsinger (2010) describes as Level 1, with zero intention to change, where these individuals have decided that they new system is not for them and so they took an early retirement!

While we can draw some inspiration on what addicts can teach us about change management, we have to caution in attempting to over simplify a highly complex initiative with many variables and possible outcomes.

 

References:

Hughes, R. L., Beatty, K., & Dinwoodie, D. L. (2014). Becoming a strategic leader: Your role in your organization’s enduring success.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lepsinger, R. (2010). Closing the execution gap: How great leaders and their companies get results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

This is a response to Kunal’s original post found here:

Strategic Leadership Competencies

Thank you, Kunal, for your post and sharing your insights into Strategic Leadership Competencies.  Kunal has highlighted some very important leadership principles that I would also employ at my own personal workplace such as Active Leadership and Clarifying Assumptions and Priorities.  However, there is one paragraph that I found interesting where I want to challenge Kumal to reconsider.  Kumal states in the post:

“Personal competency might not work as it involves self-management (Ungerer, M., Ungerer, G., & Herholdt, J., 2016). I believe self-management would not work in our organization. As it involves prioritizing time in thinking about managing oneself and it doesn’t involve practicing such competencies as taking a team in the account and thinking about others while working as a team would be much better for the growth of the organization.”

When I read this statement, I see Kunal has concluded building personal competency will not work because it involves self-management and that is not compatible with the organization.  While I understand the challenges that it comes with self-management, I would like to share why it is important for staff to build the capacity for self-management and how a strategic leader can assist with staff on achieving personal competence through self-management.

Ungerer, M., Ungerer, G., & Herholdt, J. (2016) suggests Personal Management is essentially the same as self-management and self-regulation, where the individual is responsible for his or her own livelihood, daily tasks, deciding what to do, how to do it, and when and where (pg. 366).  When putting this in a business or organizational context, this can be interpreted as self-development,  where an individual is seeking and using feedback, setting development goals, engaging in developmental activities, and tracking progress on one’s own. (London, M., & Smither, J. W., 1999).   With the nature of work constantly changing and organization structure becoming more complex, individuals must continuously adapt to new technology and performance standards.  This can only be done if the individual practices self-management and self-development.

In reality, this is very difficult to do by an individual.  The truth is if everyone can self-manage themselves well, then everything will be completed and execute perfectly.  When I worked as an Environmental Health Officer (EHO), I know first-hand of the challenges of self-management.  EHO’s is typically assigned a work area within a community where it may have upwards of three-hundred facilities that require regular inspections and audits.  While there are certain guidelines and direction as to how the workload is to be handled, all EHO’s are responsible for setting their own schedules and determine which places require inspections and at which frequency.  In addition to regular inspections, EHO’s are also responsible for following up on complaints from the public and other emergency response situations such as a fire in a restaurant.  The freedom of the ability to create your own work schedule is considered a great work environment by many EHO’s.  However, the caveat this freedom is some EHO’s would lack the motivation to do the work.  This example illustrates the challenges of self-management.  While we can say self-management just does not work for EHO’s, there are strategies where the leader can implement to motivate individuals to be effective in self-management:  using intrinsic motivation and having accountability.

When people are asked about the reason for doing their job, many will answer “money” and this is true for many people.  The fact is we need money to live and for our enjoyment.  Money or financial rewards are extrinsic motivators and while it is a necessity for employees to work, it is rarely the motivation for employees to strive for achievement.  On the other hand, Intrinsic motivation is derived from the sheer joy of performing an act. Intrinsic motivation energizes an individual, and these energies can be directed towards the improvement and innovation of a system (Ungerer et al., 2016, pg. 382).  Employees who are intrinsically motivated naturally enjoys their work and strive to do well, which will greatly benefit the organization.  An effective leader of the organization can motivate employees intrinsically with the following strategies:

• Create Empowering Work Environments.  This includes fostering an environment in which everyone is individually self-managing and can interact directly with everyone else in the system.  Empowerment is also allowing the sharing of information and knowledge so employees can contribute to organizational performance, rewarding them based on organizational performance, and giving them the authority to make decisions that affect important outcomes (London & Smither, 1999).
• Allow Continuous Learning.  Organizations that establish continuous learning cultures provide training, and they reward the use of new skills and knowledge on the job.  This will enhance employees’ awareness of the need for, and value of, acquiring knowledge, skills, and abilities (London & Smither, 1999).
• Effective Feedback.  Effective feedback focuses the employee’s attention on the task and highlighting specific behaviours that needed to be done differently.  General feedback, even when it was meant to be motivational (e.g., “You’re doing great, keep up the good work”), tended not to be effective (London & Smither, 1999).

After creating an environment which allows employees to be intrinsically motivated, the strategic leader must hold them accountable as well.  People who have a high level of accountability will take initiative to ensure the success of a project, provide early warning of potential problems, and take action to resolve a problem even when it is not their fault (Lepsinger, 2010).  I would suggest using the following methods to increase accountability: Clarifying actions and expectation, Agreeing on due dates for deliverables, and Establishing checkpoints.  For example, the leadership from my organization have various accountability systems to ensure EHO’s are on the right track.  EHO’s have quarterly meetings with their direct supervisors to address any issues or concerns and inspection targets are set at the beginning of the year to assist with workload balance and allow monitoring of performance.

 

References:

Lepsinger, R. (2010). Closing the execution gap: How great leaders and their companies get results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1999). Empowered self-development and continuous learning. Human Resource Management, 38(1), 3. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.student.twu.ca/loginurl=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=13641396&site=eds-live

Ungerer, M., Ungerer, G., & Herholdt, J. (2016). Navigating strategic possibilities: strategy formulation and execution practices to flourish. Randburg: KR Publishing.

 

This is a response to Sea Breeze’s original post found here:

Blog 8.1 Strategic Competencies at Work

Thank you, Sea Breeze, for a great post to conclude our Strategic Leadership course.  It has been very insightful to be able to participate with everyone’s journey in Leadership.  Sea Breeze mentioned three strategic competencies to be implemented at work: Strategic Planning, Vision, and Strong Moral Base.  My post will be responding to Sea Breeze’s description of Vision and expand on the idea of Visualization.

Sometimes the term Vision and Visualization is used interchangeably and I believe it is incorrect.  Hughes et al. (2014) suggest a vision represents a view of what the organization (or a department, group, or other unit) can and should become (pg. 74).  The vision of an organization is usually an expression of aspiration and is related to the organization’s purpose and core values.  The act of developing a vision is termed visioning.  According to Hughes et al. (2014, pg. 77), effective visioning requires strategic thinking to:

• Express ideals and values (not just short-term goals or mere tactics)
• Affirm the human dimension (not just financials)
• Put the organization’s story in a meaningful context that connects members to its core identify
• Clarify expectations about the kind and amount of desired growth
• Describe key drivers of change

Visioning can be described as an inside-out process where an organization or individual is considering the potential future, where it is uncertain and undefined (Payne, T., 2015).

Visualization is a process starting with the goal of what an individual or an organization is trying to achieve and it is the mental practice of going through the imaginary steps required to achieve this goal in a vivid mental state.  The process of visualization is described as an outside-in process, where the goal is already defined but to rehearse how to get there (Payne, T., 2015).

The most decorated Olympic Champion of all time is an American swimmer, Michael Phelps.  Phelps has won, to date, a total of 28 medals in both individual and team events, of which 23 of them are Gold medals from 2004 – 2016 (Sousa, G., 2017).  To put things to perspective, the next athlete with the most medals won in Olympics is Larisa Latynina from the Soviet Union, competing in Gymnastics, with 18 medals won.  Phelps and his coach, Bob Bowman, has been an advocate of the concept of visualization and how it helped Phelps in his races.  Here is how Bowman describes it in the article by Gallo, C. (2016):

“For months before a race Michael gets into a relaxed state. He mentally rehearses for two hours a day in the pool. He sees himself winning. He smells the air, tastes the water, hears the sounds, sees the clock.” Phelps take visualization one step further. He sees himself from the outside, as a spectator in the stands. He sees himself overcoming obstacles, too. For example, what would he do if he fell further behind in a race than he intended? Phelps practices all potential scenarios.”

Bowman further describes Phelp’s process and how Vision and Visualization work together.  Bowman suggests Vision and Visualization are “two sides of the same coin” and it is important for any leader and individual who wants to achieve peak performance (Gallo, C., 2016).  I want to echo on Sea Breeze’s point on the importance of vision and how that can be implemented in her teaching and leading.  I also want to point out the importance of visualization, especially when Sea Breeze mentioned about being a coach for swimming.  When both techniques can be used effectively, it will greatly influence the desired outcome.

 

References:

Gallo, C., (2016, May 24). 3 Daily Habits Of Peak Performers, According To Michael Phelps’ Coach. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/carminegallo/2016/05/24/3-daily-habits-of-peak-performers-according-to-michael-phelps-coach/

Hughes, R. L., Beatty, K., & Dinwoodie, D. L. (2014). Becoming a strategic leader: Your role in your organization’s enduring success.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Paybe, T., (2015, April 26). Visualization vs. Visioning: The Difference. Huffington Post.  Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/tova-payne/visualization-vs-visionin_b_7145140.html

Sousa, G., (2017, April 25). Greatest Athletes In Olympic History – Who Has Won The Most Gold Medals?  World Atlas.  Retrieved from https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-top-athletes-of-the-olympics-who-won-the-most-gold-medals.html

 

 

 

This is a response to Sea Breeze’s blog post, as a response to Avisha.

Blog 7.1 Response to Avisha Advancing Organization by Conflict Resolution

What Sea Breeze has mentioned in her blog post is one of my pet peeves in terms of how organizational leaders do not value an employee’s time.  Sea Breeze in her post mentioned:

“In public education, all of our meetings happen outside of our work day on our free time after school is out. This is one grey area that I do not feel is right. Teachers should get paid to attend meetings that go outside of our scheduled work hours” (Sea Breeze, 2018).

I realize the idea behind a manager’s or leader’s decision to arrange for work meetings could be born out of practicality and necessity rather than being mean-spirited.   There are only limited hours in a workday and it is already occupied by regular tasks and responsibility.  So the logical choice for the manager is to arrange meetings that are outside of those hours.  In a similar example, my wife works at a medical imaging organization and they often arrange staff meetings and medical rounds during lunch hour.  Staff who attend these meetings will be paid for their time as well as permitted to have their lunch during the meeting.  However, then the staff members will lose their required meal-break, a time that is personal and potentially required for someone to work at a high capacity.

What managers and leaders fail to realize is these type of arrangements is a way of disvaluing staff member’s personal time.  It is the organization saying, “my time is more important than yours” and so the employees must make the sacrifice in their own schedule, rather than adjusting the work schedule to accommodate work-related meetings.  This will essentially negatively affect staff morale and to lead to resentment from staff and more disengagement.

On the flip side, when managers and leaders are scheduling mandatory meetings within paid work hours, it will increase staff engagement and attendance of these meetings and also reinforce the importance of participation and how the organization is making this a priority rather than normally scheduled work.   In some ways, this will also be an incentive for staff members, acting as a reward system (Galbraith, 2014).  What I tell my wife with regards to the practices of her organization is:

“Imagine if your company decides to close the clinic early by booking down a few patients and have your paid staff meeting during the last hour of the day.  Does that not make you feel valued as an employee? Does it not say to you the company rather puts employee’s time first rather than making money?”

I believe organizations who strive to be effective companies should consider the value of time and how that could potentially affect the organization’s morale and health in the workplace.  The transformational servant leader would prioritize staff member’s needs and determine how that can be aligned with organizational priorities.

 

References:

Galbraith, J. R. (2014). Designing organizations: Strategy, structure, and process at the business unit and enterprise levels (3^rd ed.).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

This is a response to Layla’s original blog post found here:

Cooperation in a National Company of China: Seems Effective, yet Conflicts Lie Underneath

Layla in her blog post shared some very insightful experiences working at State Grid, a national electric utility monopoly of China.  In particular, Layla mentioned within the context of a Communism, the impact of conflict in the company and how the company deals with conflict is quite fascinating.  While this type of leadership can be more efficient in terms of eliminating conflict, the nature of the communistic style of leadership is being authoritative and coercive.  As Layla was eluding to, on the surface of the organization seems to be working as a highly cooperative team; however, underneath is a conflict-ridden environment where staff members seldom listened to or ideas being ignored.  In the short term, conflict avoidance may be helpful in avoiding and postponing confrontation and may be able to maintain a relationship, otherwise could be hurt after the confrontation.  However,  in a long-term may intensify the conflict itself (Lepsinger, 2010).

As an individual of a Chinese descent, I can identify some of the cultural practices and beliefs that shape the structure of Layla’s organization. But being born as a Canadian and have lived in a western culture all my life, it’s very difficult to fathom the challenges that Layla may need to go through.  My first thought from reading Layla’s original post is with the current challenges of how senior leaders deal with conflict in the organization, what are some strategies that can be implemented to potentially increase opportunity for staff members to be heard?  Are there any organizational or financial benefits that could entice senior leaders to take a more collaborative approach? 

Another point that Layla mentioned in her post is the very last one, where there is gender bias in the company and how some of the staff have accepted this as the “invisible policy”.  Northouse (2013) describes these gender barriers as “leadership labyrinth” for women and has three factors:

1. Human Capital (i.e. education disparity, work-home conflict)
2. Gender Differences (i.e. style, self-promotion, “women take care, men take charge”)
3. Prejudice (i.e. gender stereotypes, biased perception)

Many of these factors, in fact, are simply not the case.  Women are obtaining undergrad degrees, professional, and doctorate degrees at an equal, if not higher rate.  Another explanation of the disparity indicating the fact women and men are different in leadership styles. However, meta-analysis of research examining leadership styles did not find women would lead in a more interpersonally oriented and less task-oriented manner compared to men (Northouse, 2013).  One robust difference found was that women led in a more democratic or participative manner, which should be more effective in contemporary society.  My second thought on Layla’s post is what can someone working in the organization do to help remove such barriers in order help ensure equal opportunity, access to the greatest talent pool, and increase diversity?  And my last thought on the post is also Layla’s last thought on her original post.  I am curious to hear what Layla think is the reason on even though her organization has been ignoring conflicts for many years but resulted in “nothing bad”?  Does it mean the organizational structure is working?

Overall, I really appreciated Layla’s honest insight into her organization and I look forward to hearing more from her.

 

References:

Lepsinger, R. (2010). Closing the execution gap: How great leaders and their companies get results. John Wiley & Sons.

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

This is a response to Jessica’s HC1 Leader Post 7.1 found here:

HC 1 Leader Post 7.1

Jessica mentioned in her blog post on some of her personal experience working for her organization, Fraser Health, and how staff members experienced resistance and opposition to the corporate mission, vision, and values.  While Fraser Health’s vision is an inspiring one, “better health best in care” (Fraser Health, 2018), I propose there are three reasons on why the mission statement is not resonating with the staff: 1) corporate vision was from the top-down so there is no buy-in; 2) corporate vision is missing key components; and 3) corporate vision is not meaningful to staff members.

The need for a vision statement will always be a “top-down” directive, but its development needs to come from the “bottom-up” (Chaneski, W. S., 2011).  When the vision is created and handed down by top executives and management,  it is often difficult for frontline staff to appreciate the reasons and explanations behind the corporate vision.  When there is no understanding and no ownership to the process of developing the vision collectively, it leads to very little buy-in.  I have also mentioned this in one of my previous blog posts as well (https://create.twu.ca/chiefanalyzerofthings/2018/10/24/strategic-renewal-in-health/):

Corporate vision is just as mentioned, belongs to corporate.  There is no buy-in from staff members to the corporately developed vision.  As a strategic leader, we must be visioning collectively to allow staff members from all levels to participate in the vision-setting process.  This provides the opportunity for people to share personal versions of aspirations for the organization to create ownership of the organization’s vision (Hughes et al., 2014, p. 76).  The vision must also be meaningful to the entire organization and not just for the leadership team in order to reinforce the greater purpose of the organization.

The second reason that could explain the lack of acceptance by staff to the corporate vision is key components are missing from the corporate vision.  As mentioned in Hughes et al. (2014), there are a few guidelines when crafting an organizational vision (pg. 77):

1. Express ideals and values
2. Affirm the human dimension
3. Put the organization’s story in a meaningful context that connects members to its core identity
4. Clarify expectations about the kind and amount of desired growth
5. Describe key drivers of change

While I can see how Fraser Health’s corporate vision included some of the components as indicated by Hughes et at. (2014), it has failed to clarify expectations about desired growth as well as describing key drivers of change.  When components are missing, employees of the organization are confused as to what they can do to achieve the corporate vision or what success looks like.  When there are confusion and misunderstanding, staff members will immediately be disinterested and disengaged, resulting again to no buy-in to the corporate vision.

Finally, the third reason that could explain the lack of acceptance is that the vision is not meaningful to employees.  Chaneski (2011) states “the vision statement must be something to which everyone can relate [to]”.  When reviewing Fraser Health’s vision statement, the goal of “better health best in health care” is inspirational and even motivational.  However, for employees who work for Fraser Health, I believe it may be difficult for some to find meaning to the vision statement because the scope is too broad and for some department staff, it may not be relatable.  How well does the janitorial staff employed by Fraser Health relate to this vision?  An example of a clearer vision statement is found at the Cleveland Clinic: “Striving to be the world’s leader in patient experience, clinical outcomes, research and education” (Cleveland Clinic, 2018).

“Without a genuine buy-in from the workforce, the vision statement is nothing more than words on a page” (Chaneski, 2011).

References:

Chaneski, W. S. (2011). Creating a Meaningful Vision Statement. Modern Machine Shop, 83(11), 34–36.

Hughes, R. L., Beatty, K., & Dinwoodie, D. L. (2014). Becoming a strategic leader: Your role in your organization’s enduring success.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mission, Vision, Values. Cleveland Clinic.  Retrieved November 15, 2018 from https://my.clevelandclinic.org/about/overview/who-we-are/mission-vision-values

Our Vision (November 15, 2018). About Fraser Health.  Retrieved November 15, 2018 from https://www.fraserhealth.ca/about-us/about-fraser-health#.W-5bFRNKhV8