Month: November 2017 (Page 2 of 3)

Unit 8 activity 3

My take away from the video ‘Unconscious bias @work- making the unconscious conscious’ (2014), was that our environment and past experiences exert influences on our decision making that we are not always aware of. To avoid letting our unconscious bias affect our perception of people and hence decision making, we need to always be on guard about it. This is also an exercise in critical thinking. In another YouTube video titled ‘Understanding unconscious bias’(2015) the speaker mentions that the “unconscious mind can process information faster than the conscious mind… by creating shortcuts”. Since then I have consciously been critical of my first impressions, and not always trusting them, since they might be a product of my bias.   

In the Trusted 10 exercise, at first I was floundering and not able to make sense of my results. I then decided to split the exercise into 2 part: in the first part I wrote names of 10 people I know socially and the second part was done with 10 people I know professionally. The results surprised me! My social group were 8 women and 2 men. They were all in the age group 40-50 years, similar ethnicity and background as me. In terms of education they were variable from high school to post graduate. In the professional group, there was more diversity. Out of the ten people that came to mind, 6 were women and 4 men, they were mixed in terms of religion and ethnic background, all with graduate or post grad education, ages 40-60. A possible theory to explain this difference is that I don’t have control over work place demographic mix, whereas in my social life I can choose who I interact with. I did not attempt the ring activity with the workplace people. In the social group the people in the innermost ring were the ones who were most like me, or similar to me in most of the parameters on the worksheet. My explanation for this is that when it comes to ‘people i can trust in my home’, there is an instinctive gravitation towards people who are alike you in as many respects as possible. 

I am very glad that in the workplace my results were more varied and diverse. I know it for a fact that at work I am very comfortable with people from different backgrounds and with different abilities. I will take this awareness into my future role as leader. In any hiring or promotions, I will always be critical of my motive behind the decision, and most importantly not let first impressions be the determinant of a person’s ability. As for allocating ‘stretch assignments’ to motivate employees, as mentioned in the Unit notes, I would be more cautious. I agree that giving someone a task that is slightly outside their comfort zone, could be a great motivator to excel. At the same time leaders have to be aware of the limitations of employees’ abilities, so as not to give them a task that is beyond their ability, and hence set them up for failure. There is a very thin line between ‘pushing the boundaries’ and failure. Leaders carry the responsibility of ensuring that employees are adequately challenged, but not at the cost of having them fail and hence lose confidence, and jeopardizing organizational goals in the process.

References

Unconscious Bias @ Work — Making the Unconscious Conscious. (2014, September 25). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW5s_-Nl3JE&feature=youtu.be

Understanding unconscious bias. (2015, November, 17). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVp9Z5k0dEE

 Unit notes, Unit 8

Unit 8 activity 2

In the Gender-Leader Implicit Association test, I scored -1. This indicates that I do not associate male with leader, and female with supporter. I suppose this is not surprising given that I am female, and pursuing education in leadership. After I went through the test, I did think of a few other women in my life and wondered how they would fare on this test!

The Catalyst Report did not have a definition for inclusion that I understood and connected with, so I researched other resources. “Inclusion is a call to action within the workforce that means actively involving every employee’s ideas, knowledge, perspectives, approaches, and styles to maximize business success.” (Shirley Engelmeier, 2012, as quoted in an interview to Forbes). As per the catalyst report employees feel included when they experience ‘uniqueness’ and ‘belonging’. When employees feel unique and that they belong, they report feeling team oriented and innovative. When they feel excluded or devalued, it might compromise job performance and satisfaction.

I am fortunate to work in a field that has a significant female representation. This is particularly the case in my organization; most of the staff in my clinic is female, and there seems to be proportionate representation in leadership. Healthcare in my opinion is one of the fields where gender bias is not as predominant as in some other fields. I believe another field where the gender representation is more or less balanced is education. I confess that this is my anecdotal experience, and not supported by data. This in fact was disproved after I read the article provided by our prof in her update- “even in culturally feminine settings such as nursing, librarianship, elementary education, and social work (all specifically studied by sociologist Christine Williams), men ascend to supervisory and administrative positions more quickly than women”. (Eagly & Carli, 2007). This was indeed an eye opener for me! I stand corrected, and humbled.

I will list a few of the things that I think any workplace would benefit from having in place, to foster sense of belonging amongst women-

-educate and train leaders and employees about gender based bias and prejudice.

-promote opportunities for women to bring up their concerns without fear of retaliation, especially if the leadership is male predominant.

-provide opportunities for flexible work hours, or work-from-home options where applicable.

-adopt family friendly policies for women with families, especially younger families.

-peer mentorship.

-non punitive culture towards women in relation to pregnancy and maternity related issues.

-consider allowing women of child bearing age and women with young children a few more days of leave (I say this with some trepidation, as I am sure this could open the doors to a plethora of other questions and concerns, and could be construed as biased in itself)

Following are some ideas that the Catalyst report enlists to improve overall employee sense of inclusion:

“-pay attention to the human elements.( Travis & Pollack)

-monitor progress and communicate with employees.

-have one to one meetings, seek feedback.

-role model inclusive behavior.

-avoid making jokes about a particular demographic.

-make inclusion visible to employees.

-be liberal in giving credit.”

There were some very valuable suggestions by Eagly & Carli (2007), to help navigate ‘the labyrinth’. These are more applicable to our previous activity, but I will mention it here since I read this article after I had posted my blog for the first activity-I quote from the article:

“-Increase people’s awareness of the psychological drivers of prejudice toward female leaders, and work to dispel those perceptions.

-Change the long-hours norm.

-Reduce the subjectivity of performance evaluation.

-Use open-recruitment tools, such as advertising and employment agencies, rather than relying on informal social networks and referrals to fill positions.

-Ensure a critical mass of women in executive positions—not just one or two women—to head off the problems that come with tokenism.

-Avoid having a sole female member of any team.

-Help shore up social capital.

-Prepare women for line management with appropriately demanding assignments.

-Establish family-friendly human resources practices.

-Allow employees who have significant parental responsibility more time to prove themselves worthy of promotion.

-Welcome women back.

-Encourage male participation in family-friendly benefits.”

I will close by mentioning a few other noteworthy points from the Catalyst Report. As per them inclusion and exclusion co-exist in the workplace. Inclusion is usually invisible, and exclusion is more obvious, or ‘salient’ as the authors call it.They also point out that there is a common perception that diversity is synonymous with inclusion, whereas this is infact not the case.

References:

Eagly, A. & Carli, L.L. (2007).  Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2012/05/13/how-companies-can-benefit-from-inclusion/#736344dd223d

http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/the_day_to_day_experiences_of_workplace_inclusion_and_exclusion.pdf

Unit 8, activity 1

The term ‘Glass ceiling’ was first coined by Hymowitz & Schellhardt (1986), who were Wall Street Journal reporters. The glass ceiling is defined by Wikipedia as “a metaphor used to represent an invisible barrier that keeps a given demographic (typically minorities) from rising beyond a certain level in a hierarchy”. A very famous example of this in recent times is Hillary Clinton not getting elected to the US presidency despite being a very qualified candidate. Eagly & Carli (2007) argue that this term is a misnomer, as it inadequately represents the challenges that a certain demographic might face on their way to the top. They argue the term ceiling implies that the lower positions are more easily accessible, and that there is this “single, invisible, and impassable barrier”. They propose an alternate term- ‘the glass labyrinth’- representing the challenges that women must face at multiple levels, and not just at the top.

The Case Study 15.1 (NOrthouse, 2016) is a classic example of this metaphor. The glass labyrinth model as described by Northouse, citing several authors, gives three types of explanations for this phenomenon (Northouse, 2016, p. 399-406) – difference in investment in human capital, gender differences in men and women, and prejudice. In the case of Lisa the first explanation does not seem to be applicable; from her educational achievements we can assume that she is at par with her colleagues. There is also no mention of family commitments. She does appear to have a different style of leadership from her peers. She appears to be engaging more in a transformative style of leadership, by being available for advice to her peers. She also has trouble with self-promotion as is evidenced by her reluctance to correct her boss’ misconceptions about her competence. She is eager to be seen as a team player. Eagly and Johnson (1990); van Engen & Willemsen (2004), say that ‘women lead in a more democratic, or participative, manner than men’. Lisa is epitomizing this statement. The third explanation of prejudice seems to be very much in play here. For undisclosed reasons her boss seems to be convinced that her male colleagues have more knowledge than her. She is forced to make the decision to quit the firm because she does not see a future for herself in the face of such bias.

In the section ‘Navigating the labyrinth’, Northouse (2016, pp. 406-408), the authors propose some solutions- changing gendered assumptions, encouraging flexibility and diversity in hiring, women starting their own ventures etc. What I found interesting is that there isn’t much discussion about how to tackle work place prejudice. Lisa is stuck working for a boss who is clearly prejudicial. Bosses like everybody else are a product of their upbringing and background; biases and prejudices included. I think everybody who is making decisions about promotions, should have education and training in recognizing their bias. There should also be personality tests to promote awareness among leaders about their often-unrecognized biases. A great example of gender bias was reported by Goldin & Rouse in 2000, where they found that orchestras that auditioned applicants while hidden behind a screen increased the proportion of women applicants being selected. How can this gender blindness be applied to hiring and promotions is a challenge that organizations needs to take up.

Our Unit notes mention that somehow blinding resumes could help reduce the bias. While this would help getting women selected to a position within an organization, this does not ensure they will be given an equal chance at promotion, as was the case with Lisa. Organizations must focus on training and education to ensure that gender discrimination is acknowledged and dealt with, so that women leaders are allowed the same opportunities as their male counterparts.

References

Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L.L., (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Eagly, A.H., & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership and style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.

Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90, 715-740.

Hymowitz, C., & Schellhardt, T.D. (1986). The glass ceiling: Why women can’t seem to break the invisible barrier that blocks them from the top jobs. The Wall Street Journal, pp. D1, D4-D5.

Van Engen, M.L., & Willemsen, T.M. (2004). Sex and leadership styles: A meta-analysis of research published in the 1990s. Psychological Reports, 94, 3-18.

Glass Ceiling. (2017, November 12). In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 12, 2017), from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling.

Unit notes. https://create.twu.ca/ldrs500/unit-8/unit-8-notes/.

This is in response to Rob’s post

Unit 7 Activity 1: Ethics in Leadership

He is right in quoting that teachers are held to higher standards and are judged more strictly. Having said that, I am very intrigued with the rest of his quote-” Don’t be in any rush to become a teacher, my friends” or ” We get it wrong nearly every time we open our mouths “. I don’t understand the source of this quote- sounds like it might be scripture. Yes, I agree that being the people who are shaping our next generations is a task that is loaded with responsibility, and comes with great pressures . I appreciate the humility of this quote but I do not think that everything that comes out of teachers’ mouths is wrong . I for one am a great admirer of the contributions of teachers to society. In no other profession are integrity and ethics more valuable than in teaching. Teachers are role models for students. A teacher has the power to consciously or subconsciously influence many students in their lifetime. Looks like in Rob’s experience non profits are scrutinized more carefully, as has also been mentioned in the video by Van Buren. As per her the predominant reason for this is that the source of funding on non profits makes them more liable to scrutiny.

Reference

Van Buren, J.A. ( 2013, March 29). Retrieved November 6, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks2QGoIq5nA .

Unit 7 activity

Implications for managers as per Wang & Oh ( 2011) : The authors quote Barling, Weber, & Kelloway (1996) saying that transformation leadership is trainable. They also have some suggestions for organizations in their selection of people to managerial positions. They refer to previous research by (Bono & Judge (2004) that transformational leadership can be predicted from characteristics like extraversion and stability. In jobs requiring little interdependence or collaboration, transactional leadership is preferable. On the other hand transformational leadership is more valuable in settings involving teamwork and collaboration among employees (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997). These are very interesting conclusions which could be applicable in various organizational settings. These observations could be very helpful in choosing the right person for the right job. It is also important to know that transformational leadership is more appropriate in settings where contextual performance is important, and transactional leadership is more appropriate in situations where task performance is required. Knowing this, a leader can determine what model of leadership to adopt in various settings.

The five principles of ethical leadership as per Northouse (2016, p. 341) are: respect, service, justice, honesty, and community building.

Respect: Beauchamp and Bowie (1988) point out that we should not treat others as means to an end; rather persons should be treated as having their own goals. Respect in leadership goes beyond the simplistic meaning taught to us in childhood. Respect in leadership means: approaching other people with a sense of their unconditional worth and valuable differences (Kitchener, 1984), giving credence to others’ ideas (Northouse, 2016, p.342), nurturing followers to become aware of their own needs, values, and purposes (Burns 1978), being tolerant of opposing views (Northouse, 2016, p. 342)

Service: Service in leadership is akin to beneficence in medicine, where providers have a duty to help others pursue their interests and goals (Beauchamp, Childress, 1994). Service to others is also the basis of the Servant Leadership model proposed by Greenleaf (1970, 1977)

Justice: Ethical leaders are just, they make it their priority to treat all followers equally (Northouse, 2016, p. 344). Northouse also posts that resources, rewards and punishment should all be distributed fairly

Honesty: “To be a good leader, one must be honest”, (Northouse, 2016, p.345). Why does one need to be honest to be a good leader? As per Jaksa & Pritchard (1988), dishonesty creates distrust. Northouse explains that honesty does not just mean telling the truth. It also includes being open, and representing reality fully and completely, while at the same time being sensitive to other people’s feeling.

Community building: This can also be construed as working towards a common goal. This is  incorporated in Burns’ model of transformational leadership (Burns, 1978) . In this context the organization is considered a community. Rost (1991) takes the meaning of community beyond the organization and states that the leaders and followers need to attend to community goals in addition to their own.

It is very hard for me to choose 2 out of the five principles that I think are the most important. I believe these 5 tenets are the basic requirements of any collegial human environment, and especially the workplace. If I had to rank them in order of importance, the top 2 would be honesty and respect. We spend a major proportion of our day and hence our life at our workplaces. Treating our co workers with respect and honesty goes a long way in reducing work place stress. In the leader and follower relationship, honesty and respect are a 2-way exchange. It is important that leaders are honest with their employees for the employees in turn to be honest and sincere to their work. I believe this would have a positive effect on their performance. Honesty should not only mean not telling lies. It also means “do not promise what you can’t deliver, do not hind behind spin-doctored evasions, do not suppress obligations, do not evade accountability, do not accept that the ‘survival of the fittest’ pressures of business release any of us from the responsibility to respect another’s dignity and humanity”. (Dalla Costa, 1998, p. 164).

Furthermore, employees should respect their leaders for the vision and oversight they provide. This should be reciprocated by the leaders by showing respect to employees by listening closely, being empathic and tolerating opposing views ( Northouse, 2016, p.342).

Having elaborated on 2 of the 5 principles as instructed, I would like to reiterate that in my opinion service, justice, and community building are no less important for the development of ethical leadership.

References

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827-832.

Beauchamp, T.L., & Bowie, N.E. ( !988). Ethical theory and business (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Beauchamp, T.L., & Childress, J.F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Dalla Costa, J. (1998). The ethical imperative: Why moral leadership is good business. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1997). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York-Paulist.

Jaksa, J. A., & Pritchard, M.S. (1988). Communications ethics: Methods oof analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262-270.

Rost, J.C. (1991). Leadership for twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.

Wang,G & Oh, I.S. (2011)Transformational Leadership and Performance Across Criteria and Levels: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Research. Group & Organization Management: An International Journal Volume: 36 Issue 2

This is in response to Sadie Thompson’s post

Unit 6, Learning Activity 1

It is very interesting to me that how she feels about her high school and university education is similar to my thoughts. I clearly was an externally motivated student until recently. Reading her post made me wonder if I knew back then that whatever I was learning would be applicable later in some form or the other, I might have accepted it differently .

I do find a certain contradiction in Knowles’ last 2 principles- ‘adults are mostly driven by internal motivation, rather than external motivators’ and ‘adults need to know the reason for learning something’. If all we as adults need to learn is the internal motivation, then why does there even have to be a reason for us to learn something new? I have tried to find the answer to this in my personal choice of reading- I have noticed that any reading I have  to do for work ( journal articles etc.) , is externally motivated. I read them because I need to know the latest advances in my filed. This is similar to Sadie’s example of learning more about to teach a child with Down’s syndrome once she knew she would have the opportunity to teach such a child. Would she have been motivated to read if there wasn’t this external motivator ? On the other hand my non medicine related reading is not externally motivated. I recently picked up a book titled ‘Red  Notice’, by Bill Browder. This book is about an American-British investor and his experiences in Russia. This was an internally motivated choice, as there was no reason for me to read this book. I was intrigued by the synopsis and wanted to learn about a foreigner’s experience in Russia. This phenomenon to me is quite interesting , I hope to hear from some of my other co-learners what they think.

I am not sure I understand the requirements of this assignment, but will attempt to share my thoughts.

Medicine is a field that is driven by people more than technology. Having said that , there are instances where technology is and can be used for the development of employees and also the employee-client relationship. We also have to understand that even though medicine is a lot about human interaction, it is not a ‘service’ industry in the traditional sense. As per Kadampully, Bilgihan and Zhang (2016) “combining…people and technology produces the hybrid organization that benefits from new technology but still provides and appropriate climate and culture to nurture creativity and innovation through people” . This statement is applicable at my work place, if we replace ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’ with ‘caring’.

For a health care organization to grow it is very important to make sure that the right people are posted to the right place. Our organization puts a lot of effort into making sure that employees are taken care of. We have online trainings and safety modules . There is an anonymous hotline where employees can post their complaints, without fear of retribution. Employees also have the opportunity to participate in online reviews of co workers and leaders.

If I had the opportunity I would like to develop a blog for the people working in our clinic. It is not possible to put this in place for the whole organization . I would like all of us to be able to post and share our daily experiences on the blog . I think this would help create a greater sense of belonging.

“Firms….should create a service environment that asks back feedback from their customers both online and offline” ( Bowen, 2016). My organization provides patients with opportunity to provide feedback , but these are paper surveys that are mailed out to them. I think if these were made available online , there would be an increased number of responses. We also offer our patients the ability to check their medical records online. There is a patient portal through which they can check their labs and other tests, check their upcoming appointments and ask to scheduled appointments. They can also send online messages to their physician through this portal.

I would like to close with this comment by Wong 2015, “customer behaviors are shaped by providers, while employee performance and commitment are shaped by the organizations they are embedded within”. Organizations that care of their employees will have employees that take care of their customers.

References

Bowen, D.E. ( 2016). The changing role of employees in service theory and practice: An interdisciplinary view. Human Resource Management Review, 26(1), 4-13.

Kadampully, J., Bilgihan, A., Zhang, T. ( 2016). Developing a people-technology hybrids model to unleash innovation and creativity: The new hospitality frontier. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 29 ( 2016) 154-164.

Wong, I. A. (2015). Linking firms, employees, and customers a multilevel research agenda for hospitality studies. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly