Month: November 2018

Response to Sea Breeze’s Post 8.1-LDRS 501

Blog 8.1 Strategic Competencies at Work

Thank you, Sea Breeze, for sharing. I would like to have some input into your second principle.

The teachers are “moral change agents” (Fullan, 2001) and the moral purpose of schools is to make a difference in the lives of students and making a difference is literally to make changes that matter (p.10). Applying innovative thinking to your challenges as a leader is one step in creating an innovative, organizational response to change and challenge. Therefore, Leaders show support and confidence in the work and value individual contributions. Leaders encourage innovative process by neutralizing negative people, watching out for corporate system and responses that quash innovation (Horth & Buchner, 2014). Inviting diversity at the workplace can really amplify the ability to innovate and harness employees’ diverse perspectives for innovation. I wonder if your school consider the new invite.

Reference

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. Routledge.

Horth, D., Buchner, D. (2014) “Innovation leadership”. How to use Innovation to lead effectively, work collaboratively, and drive results [white paper]. Retrieved Nov 24, 2018, from Centre for Creative Leadership: https://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/InnovationLeadership.pdf

Response to Sadie’s post 8.1-LDRS 501

Competencies, Principles and Me

Thank you, Sadie, for sharing some of your principles, and I would like to have more input on your second principle.

Creating supportive and understanding learning environment is to collaborate with students to develop and generate many viewpoints. Also, capability at this point is the “integration of knowledge, skills, personal qualities and understanding used appropriately and effectively – not just in familiar and highly focused specialist contexts but in response to new and changing circumstances.” Additionally, establishing a culture of learning where teachers convey the importance of their roles in the learning process; therefore, teachers help students to understand the significance of why they are learning and the impact of their learning on to their lives. Teachers also reach beyond their own life experience to connect with students’ backgrounds, then support them to reach excellence. Nevertheless, Teacher’s role is not limited when providing support. It reaches families and communities by building positive relationships that impact the school climate. Building positive school culture by using the Boys Town Education Model to improve school culture around.

The most important part of this program is SODAS acronym which teaches students the skills of problem-solving.
S – Define the SITUATION.
O – Examine OPTIONS available to deal with the problem.
D – Determine the DISADVANTAGES of each option.
A – Determine the ADVANTAGES of each option.
S – Decide on a SOLUTION and practice.

Observing the actions of students on how they respond to their surroundings will help teachers finding the proper caliber to support students to reach success. “As an educator, when we learn to manage our response that’s when we can become positive agents for change” (We Are Teachers, 2014).

Reference

We Are Teachers (2014). Improve School Culture Now. Retrieved from: https://www.weareteachers.com/wp-content/uploads/weareteachers-guide-to-positive-school-culture.pdf

Stephenson, J., & Yorke, M. (2013). Capability and quality in higher education. Routledge.

Strategic leadership in LDRS 501, created a vision for us to challenge our way of strategic thinking. It is a formal and emergent process that provides us with strategic choices and have room for spontaneous evolution.

Moving forward, I believe the most important competencies to me and my organization:

1. Demonstrate vision with strategic leadership (Hughes, Beatty, Dinwoodie, 2014)

Demonstrate vision with strategic leadership is one of the competencies I will always employ at my workplace when leading team. A shared vision centered on a commitment to meeting the patient’s needs. The value of developing and communicating a vision people can see (Hughes, 2014, p.66) is to successfully manage any change to align the personal and organizational conduct with professional standards to attain successful performance. Commitment as explained by Hughes et al. (2014, p.66) “depends on whether the organization has clear and compelling aspirations.” Strategic leadership task at this level is aspiring members to embrace higher levels and quality of efforts and enact the organizational vision.

Becoming an effective visionary leader with strategy is learning to see potential in individuals and initiative in an organization. Then enact on a strategy to develop the vision required to step back to see the big picture (Hughes, 2014). Reframing as defined by Hughes (2014) as “seeing things differently, including new ways of thinking, organizational challenges and questioning or restating the implicit beliefs and assumptions that are often taken for granted by organizational members” (Hughes, 2014, p.79). “The vision helps drive execution because it communicates the results an organization expects over a specific time frame and it becomes the context for organizational goal setting” (Lepsinger, 2010). Finding the gaps and assessing where I am now and my organization as well versus where I want to be within my organization, starts from a “broader performance target to more specific program and projects” (Lepsinger, 2010). Measuring progress towards my vision start by rating my current performance, then, identify the specific program and projects to reach a standard of excellence (Lepsinger, 2010). Strategic leaders propel their organizations through successive iterations of a learning process to reach optimal success. Additionally, it’s the iteration in a continuous cycle in the organization strategy process; “that views successful strategy as operating in an ongoing state of formulation, implementation, reassessment, and revision” (Hughes et al., 2014, p. 21-23), and align with mission, vision, and values of the organization. Considering strategy as a selection of choices influences the best decision when achieving a specific goal to the precise extent.

2. Create an environment that supports and foster capabilities (Lepsinger, (2010); Hughes et al., 2014)

Leader’ choice of being honest and real with their employee and make choices in the face of conflict and policies, and attend the human element of the system. “View the environment from the perspective of human, informational needs and focus on the environmental/informational patterns that have the potential to make it easier for people to help themselves” (Kaplan & Kaplan, 2009, p.329), and foster learning along the way. Supportive environment as suggested by Kaplan et al. (2009) “must speak to the human desire: to explore, to understand, to enhance competence, to be part of the solution, and to participate with others toward meaningful goals” (p. 338). Therefore, the ability to understand human qualities and create environments that bring out the best in people resulting in a new direction, alignment, and commitment of the employees in service to achieve organizational performance potential. Hamel and Prahalad support the idea of “the organization should create their own environments, rather than adapting to existing ones” (Ungere, Ungere, Herholdt, 2016, p.36). Three conditions that are important for the performance of individuals that has positive impacts on the performance outcomes of the organization at large: “the motivation to perform, the ability to perform, and a work context that provides an opportunity to perform” (Blumberg & Pringle, 1982; as cited in Hughes, et al., 2014, p. 232). Therefore, I will provide the employees and students the opportunity to steer the conversation and contribute when staring the brain swarming process as a team. Ensure clear communication either direct or indirect and confirm everyone is on the same page. Mapping out individual goals on a set timeline, then, they can see how they need to progress. Furthermore, use a teamwork contribution in performance review to enhance team progress.

3. Building organizational decision making (Hughes et al., 2014)

Decision making is a very complicated process that involves interaction among multiple subsystems of the brain (Lepsinger, 2010). Maximizing the group’s emotional intelligence described by Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2015, p.10) as rising its collective self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management will increase decision quality if the participants have the relevant information and problem-solving skills. Therefore, the decision-making process and accountability of leaders will have an impact on steering the strategic direction of the organization (Hughes et al., 2014). Viewing decision making as navigating through trade-offs will help to make a conscious selection of action, optimizing the organizational objectives and remove the stress associated with making a decision. Evidence-based Decision-making tool will provide “a good quality based on a combination of critical thinking and the best available evidence” (Stonebraker & Howard, 2018, p114). Therefore, I will use a combination of activities adapted from Rousseau (2012) as follow:
1. Use of the best available scientific findings.
2. Gathering and attending to organizational facts, indicators, and metrics systematically to increase their reliability and usefulness.
3. On-going use of critical, reflective judgment and decision aids in order to reduce bias and improve decision quality (Stonebraker & Howard, 2018, p114).

Additionally,  Employ evidence-based practice and integrate the best research with clinical expertise and patient values for optimum care, and participate in learning and research activities to the extent feasible (Greiner & Knebel, 2003). Lastly, considering other tools when weighing evidence like a decision tree, Pros and cons may bring more choices and develop a considerable path to take.

The competency that may not be important to me or my organization at this stage:

Business perspectives: when adopting the stand-alone model to business, where it is not possible in the current economic climate. “It has little value on the organization through synergy” (Galbraith, 2014, p. 256). Modern healthcare does need consolidation or integration to this model to meet the breadth of the needs of health care providers. Therefore; the stand-alone competency might not apply to my leadership context at this point. However, once the organization assumes accountability for each consolidated service, therefore, the working solution is to provide quality service to all participating organizations based on a service agreement. Furthermore, achieves specific cost savings through more collaboration and standardization and integrated structure to increase buying power and shared resources (Provincial Health Services Authority, n.d).

The three principles I found most important to bring to my organization are:

1. Create culture built on service and virtuous leadership (Ungere, Ungere, Herholdt, 2016) that serve patient first.

Creating a culture built on service, excellence and transformational approach develops cohesiveness, collaboration, and sustainable relationships for a tremendous turnaround in any organization. “The transformation would require commitment from all of us as leaders” (Northouse, 2013, p. 223). Hughes et al. (2014) noted, “strategic influence is expansive: ……, exist in an environment of cross-cultural work, require virtual team interacting with other virtual teams, involves a diverse workforce, and can expand the organization itself” (p.175). Therefore, the principle serves to create cohesion inside a given group, and the strategy reflects in the coherence and alignment of the collective actions of the group inside the organization. Healthcare professionals should provide patient-centered care (Greiner et al., 2003) as an interdisciplinary team and communicate cooperation, collaboration to provide quality patient care and prevent long-term complication. Emphasizing evidence-based practice and integrate care where quality improvement and measure always in place to identify and mitigate errors to support the decision-making process in the context of the organizational culture and serve patient safety first. To reach this point, I will be committed to implementing the Transformational Servant Leadership approach into my department to reach the organizational MVV.

2. System thinking and Strategic thinking (Hughes, Beatty, Dinwoodie, 2014; Ungere, Ungere, Herholdt, 2016)

Effective strategic thinkers can discern the interrelationships among different variables in a complex situation (Hughes et al., 2014, p.92). The power to understand the situation systematically and “the importance of practicing collective strategic thinking and make common sense with others (Hughes et al., 2014, p.92) will help to understand the situation and reaching ultimate goal and commitment. According to Ungerer, Ungerer, Herholdt,(2016, p.15) and their seminal work, I identified some old economy thinking and practices in the past that require adjusting to becoming a more effective strategic leader. My old economy thinking includes Leadership as position and hierarchic power. When leadership perceived as title granting access to a platform for personal gain, rather than a privilege or partnership resulting in an opportunity to serve; we will continue to find ourselves in a crisis of leadership. Recognizing the limited resources and being driven by repeating ideas and languishing the challenges because the title makes my leadership context unable to see beyond the patterns set in the minds within the restrictive practices in the organizational structure. Poor leadership cripple business and ruins economies and loses its uniqueness and purpose. A new initiative into my leadership context may have a unique insight and opportunity for growth and make an effective change into my organization to fulfill the Vision, Mission, Value. Christo Nel developed a view of new economy leadership practices as a response to old economy way of doing things. He states, “every facet of leadership practices and organizational life is an extension of deeper underlying values” (Ungerer et al., (2016, p.15). As a result, adopting new economy thinking through practicing servant leadership and stewardship in one side, and unleashing energy and diffuse leadership on the other hand.
Navigating solutions for crafting the big picture required a valid change to my leadership process. The transformation to a new-economy value perspective, whereby, needed leading differently by serving the interest of others – where patient care is the potential. Planning to have effective change and use the genuine ‘both/and rather than either/or leadership’ to embrace a paradox thinking (Ungerer et al., (2016, p.15) approach and learning opportunities like curiosity, Inquiry, humility, open to a new advice, and collaboration with others (Hughes et al., 2014, p. 21) to reach an optimal solution.

3. Change readiness and clarify assumptions (Lepsinger, 2010)

The term readiness evokes “a state of being both psychologically and behaviorally prepared to take action (i.e., willing and able).” (Weiner, 2009). Diverse teams can challenge assumptions and mental models more efficiently and develop solutions that are acceptable and will make sense to a wide variety of stakeholder grouping (Ungerer, Ungerer, Herholdt, 2016, p.252). “Implementation entails collective (or conjoint) action among interdependent individuals and work units. Coordinating action across many individuals and groups and promoting organizational learning are good examples of collective (or conjoint) capabilities” (Weiner, 2009). Therefore, the ability to appropriately analyze the problem, assess the risk and manage the reaction of the employees is part of the change management process. Musselwhite & Plouffe (2010) note change mechanisms should encourage clear goal alignment across functions, the ability to integrate change into existing systems, accountability for results, and reward systems that reinforce desired change behaviors. “The people tend to participate in cross-functional teams” (Galbraith, 2014, p.140), where everyone interacts on the execution of common goals; thus, they can connect to everyone else frequently. When making a change, I will adopt Hughes et al., ‘s principles as follow:
1. Clarify the assumption
2. Collect the information and chartering the team
3. Navigate possibilities and strategic options and risks.
4. Weigh the pros and cons
5. Collaborate between disciplines and cross-functional teams
6. Formulate action plan
7. Follow action plan
8. Assess the outcome
9. Encourage commitments and sustain the desired change.

Through iteration between the nine elements as mentioned above, I have to keep in mind the greater readiness leads to more successful change, implementation when organizational members are more likely to initiate change and exert more effort in supporting the desired change.

The three least important principles to my organization and me:

1. Lean canvas model (Ungere et al., 2016)

I found this model more product-centric approach deals with customers demanding on having the best product; therefore, is not suitable for health care system. Instead, lean thinking approach is a “people-centric” strategy which recognizes the people are doing the work, they understand their problems best and have good ideas of how to solve those problems. The focus on patient-centric approach, now, everyone in a position to find problems that are standing in the way of providing patients with the best quality faster at an acceptable cost.

2. Multidimensional structure, and its application (Galbraith, 2014).

For instance, product and component team combination as described by Galbraith (2014) has no place in my organization, especially when dealing with patients and results. Simple team design, with end to end responsibility for its task, will add more value to the leadership context in my organization.

3. Take aggressive action to avoid the commitment dip (Lepsinger, 2010)

I believe, committed employees bring added value to the organization, including their determination and proactive support, high productivity and an awareness of quality. A non-committed employee can work against the organization and hold back the organization success. Therefore, “Servant leadership is considered as a controllable independent variable that affects the dependent variable of organizational performance.” (Aij & Rapsaniotis, (2017).

The least useful course text is

Galbraith’s text “Designing Organizations” does not imply to my organization. I do not see much opportunity to bring to my organization at this stage. Furthermore, I do not see Galbraith has described any of the applications, that, will apply to my work and my personal life at this point. However, I did have some benefit from reading through the concept of designing an organization that may consider some takeaway lessons. Thank you, Galbraith, (2014)!

Reference

Aij Kh, Rapsaniotis S. (2017). Leadership requirements for Lean versus servant leadership in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Healthcare Leadership. 9,.1-14. doi.org/10.2147/JHL.S120166

Galbraith, J. R. (2014). Designing Organization: strategy, structure, and process at the business unit and enterprise level. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN:978-1-118-40995-4

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2015) Primal leadership: learning to lead with emotional intelligence summery. Retrieved from: https://create.twu.ca/ldrs501/activity-0-2/

Greiner, A., C., Knebel E,(Eds.). (2003). Health Professions Education: A Bridge to Quality. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Health Professions Education Summit. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221519/

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

John S. Toussaint, Leonard L. Berry (2013). The Promise of Lean in Health Care. Mayo Clinic Proceeding, 88 (1), 74 – 82. doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.07.025

Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (2009). Creating a larger role for environmental psychology: The Reasonable Person Model as an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 329-339. Retrieved from: https://ezproxy.student.twu.ca:2132/science/article/pii/S0272494408000960?

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

Musselwhite, C., & Plouffe, T. (2010, June 02). Four ways to know whether you are ready for change. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/06/four-ways-to-know-whether-you

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice, Seventh Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 971452203409

Provincial Health Service Authority (n.d). Lower mainland consolidation. Retrieved from: http://www.phsa.ca/about/accountability/lower-mainland-consolidation

Stonebraker, I., & Howard, H. A. (2018). Evidence-based decision-making: awareness, process, and practice in the management classroom. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(1), 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.09.017
Retrieved from: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=7de52f08-0795-420d-9fc0-842d3284f63c%40sessionmgr4009&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=128392848&db=lxh

Ungerer, M., Ungerer, G., & Herholdt, J. (2016). Navigate strategic possibilities: strategy formulation and execution practices to flourish. Randburg: KR Publishing. ISBN 978-1-869-22623-7. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.student.twu.ca:2956/eds/ebookviewer/ebook/ZTAwMHhuYV9fMTQyNzAyOF9fQU41?sid=978ecd5d-68db-489c-9ecb-1f013269a988@sessionmgr4010&vid=2&hid=/&format=EB

Weiner, J., B. (2009). A Theory of Organizational Readiness for Change. Implementation Sciences, 4,67. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67

Response to Robert’s post 7.1-LDRS 501

Post 7.1 Conflict and Cooperation

Thank you, Robert, for sharing your experience, and I would like to share with you some thoughts

Lederach (2003) consider conflict resolution is content-centered, aims at an immediate agreement and is committed only to de-escalate in comparison to conflict transformation which is relationship-centered, points at the long-term process, including escalation and pursue constructive change (Ramsbotham, Miall, & Woodhouse, 2011, p.9). However, resolving conflict must involve a set of dynamic changes that mean de-escalation of conflict behavior, change in attitudes, and a transformation of relationships or clashing interests that are at the core of the conflict structure. (Ramsbotham, Miall, & Woodhouse, 2011, p.10). Conflict transformation (beyond intractability, 2017) is an engaging self in constructive change initiatives that include and go beyond the resolution of particular problems. “Conflict transformation is a comprehensive orientation or framework that ultimately may require a fundamental change in our way of thinking” (Lederach, 2015).

Defining features of systemic conflict transformation by Wils, Hopp, Robers, Vimalarajah, and Zunzer (2006, p.14) summarised as follows:
1. Systemic conflict transformation based on the recognition that highly escalated inter-group conflicts constitute highly complex “systems” which can only be “modeled” to a limited extent so that all interventions can only draw on limited knowledge.
2. An appropriately complex analysis of the conflict system is therefore especially important; this must be undertaken with local actors and take particular account of the self-reinforcing nature of many inter-group conflicts.
3. When analyzing and intervening in a system, it is essential to define the system’s boundaries precisely and be aware of the interactions and interdependencies in supra- and sub-systems. Here, a shift in perspective offers an overview of the system as a whole (“bird’s eye view”) and individual sub-systems (“frog’s eye view”).
4. Interventions in the system require an analytical reduction of complexity to a series of working hypotheses which permit viable interventions with a “leverage effect” as well as facilitating the identification of agents of peaceful change and the critical mass needed for political and social change.
5. It is helpful to make use of the methodologies of applied systems theory (especially in the areas of organizational development consulting, psychotherapy and cybernetics).

Peter Senge, argues that “the art of systems thinking lies in seeing through complexity to the underlying structures generating change.” Not yet, “Systems thinking, according to Senge, does not mean ignoring complexity, but organizing it into a coherent story that illuminates the causes of problems and how they can be remedied in enduring ways” (Wils et al., 2006, p.13).
Additionally, Wils et al., (2006) argue in favor of “a creative systemic approach, which means not being forced into the narrow confines of one particular school but utilizing the innovative opportunities afforded by systems thinking and interpretation as creatively as possible” (p.13). Conflict transformational begins with a central goal to build constructive change out of the energy created by conflict (beyond intractability, 2017). The key is to move the conflict from a destructive process toward constructive processes. The idea of using transformational conflict strategy is not to have a quick solution to immediate problems, instead, is to generate a creative platform that can communicate and address surface issues and change the underlying social structure and relationship patterns.

Lederach (beyond intractability, 2017) considered human relationships at the heart of conflict transformation. Therefore, consider when dealing with conflict the four primary modes that have impacted on conflict when arise.
1) The personal dimension: this includes the cognitive, emotional, perceptual, and spiritual aspects of human experience throughout conflict;
2) The relational dimension: this covers emotions, power, and interdependence, communicative and interactive aspects of conflict at the central;
3) The structural dimension: deals with the underlying cause of conflict in which social structure, organizations, and institution built and sustained and the intuitional relationships to meet basic human needs and provide access to resource and decision-making;
4) The cultural dimension, which refers to the ways that conflict changes the patterns of group life as well as the ways that culture affects the development of processes to handle and respond to conflict (beyond intractability, 2017).

The ideas for practice transformational strategies suggested by Lederach are (beyond intractability, 2017):
Practice 1: Develop a capacity to see presenting issues as a window
Practice 2: Develop a capacity to integrate multiple time frames
Practice 3: Develop a capacity to pose the energies of conflict as dilemmas
Practice 4: Develop a capacity to make complexity a friend, not a foe
Practice 5: Develop a capacity to hear and engage the voice of identity and relationship

Conclusion

The transformation strategy brings to the table multiple avenues of responses dealing with the complexity of today’s very complicated and rapidly changing conflict landscapes. It is a potential seed for change both peacemaker as well as in the society in conflict. Considering conflict as normal in human relationships and also is a motor of change. Applying the systematic approach to conflict transformation guides individuals, organizations and social network towards a complex-sensitive way of thinking; therefore, acting without losing focus on the necessary details and factors.

Reference

Beyond Intractability. (2017, April). Conflict Transformation. Retrieved from: https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/transformation

Lederach, J. (2015). A little book of conflict transformation: Clear articulation of the guiding principles by a pioneer in the field. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.

Ramsbotham, O., Miall, H., & Woodhouse, T. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution. Polity.

Wils, O., Hopp, U., Robers, N., Vimalarajah, L., Zunuer, W., (2006). Systematic Approach to Conflict Transformation: Concept and Field Application. Berlin, Germany: Berghof Foundation for Peace Support. Retrieved from: https://www.berghoffoundation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publications/Other_Resources/SCT_Systemic_Conflict_Transformation_Complete.pdf

If addressing conflict is so important, why do so many organizations ignore or avoid it?

HC 1 Leader Post 7.1

Thank you for sharing your experience Jessica, and I would like to share with you some thoughts on conflict resolution.

Conflict is not necessarily a bad thing. Lepsinger (2010) says, “Conflict between what is best for the individual and what is best from a collective point view;” therefore, conflict is a natural part of any team’s communication and the ability to resolve it is the key to success.
However, clear communication, clear roles, shared goals, all they are important and set the stage for cooperation and collaboration, but alone are not sufficient (Lepsinger, 2010). Furthermore, to Sustain collaboration and cooperation, we need to gain support from others for our ideas and constructively resolve differences (Lepsinger, 2010). Turning the energy of conflict into positive problem solving enables these organizations to remain relevant and effective when working in multiple countries and complex conditions (Fowler, Field, and Mcmahon, 2019).
The members of a high-functioning team are equipped at negotiating with each other and thus avoid the escalation of a conflict. Conflict is detrimental and damaging when it is poorly handled or left to escalate without resolving.
The differences between people can turn into personal dislike and damage a team’s ability to function as a whole. However, the extent to which individual opinions result in conflict depends on the personalities of the team members (Hughes, Beatty, Dinwoodie, 2014).
In the 1974s, Kilmann and Thomas designed an instrument (TKI) to measure a person’s behavior in conflict situations. They described an individual’s behavior along two dimensions: (1) assertiveness, the extent to which the person attempts to satisfy his concerns, and (2) cooperativeness, the extent to which the person attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns (Kilmann Diagnostics, 2015).

Figure 1. Two basic dimensions of a person’s behavior in a conflict situation

Kilmann and Thomas (2015) identified five types of response to differences of opinion.
1) Competitive people tend to take a firm, this is a power-oriented mode and refer to “standing up for your right” sometimes unyielding stance;
2) Collaborative people are both assertive and cooperative; they try to satisfy the needs of all the people involved;
3) Compromising people are moderate in both assertive and cooperative, they address issues more directly and seek solutions that at least partially satisfy the group;
4) Accommodating people are unassertive and cooperative; they are the complete opposite of avoiding. They express a willingness to sacrifice something to meet the needs of others;
5) Avoiding people, are unassertive and uncooperative. They try to avoid conflict entirely (Kilmann Diagnostics, 2015).

“Chronic stress may make collaborative conflict management and problem-solving more difficult as its impact on the brain and body alters how people interact with others, especially those who are perceived as different or threatening” (Fowler, Field, and Mcmahon, 2019, p. 36). “When a significant disagreement arises, if an organization does not positively channel the energy associated with a personal commitment to a moral mission, its efforts to find resolution may increase in cost and difficulty” (Fowler et al., 2019, p.37). An organization can significantly strengthen themselves by confronting conflicts and adopting what Fowler et al., (2019, p.37) calls a “Healthy Conflict Perspective” (HCP). “This philosophy involves an intentional and sustained orientation to treat “disharmony” as a normal, desirable, and creative feature of organizational life.”

Fowler et al., (2019, p. 37-41) suggest four elements of a healthy conflict perspective to be considered by an organization deals with conflict management.

Element 1: conflict-competent leadership, which deals with and dedicated to addressing conflict early and collaboratively and constructively. When necessary, a conflict- competent leader will drive a process to change an organization’s attitude and approach to conflict. In such a leadership context, leader acknowledges that conflict is ubiquitous and can be an essential driver of better performance. Hughes et al., (2014) say that often “too little attention is paid to the human element of strategy” and “organizations need to be as intentional about leadership strategy as they are about business strategy” (p. 12)
People you depend on having the work done have different perspectives on when and how to do them or even whether they should be done at all. In such instances, you need to be able to gain their support and cooperation (Lepsinger, 2010). Therefore, considering proactive influence tactics may help rescue the situation rather than sweep it under the carpet. Leaders in a unique position try to improve their organization’s perspective on conflict management and model the desired attitude and behavior and hold themselves accountable. For instance, open discussion and present disagreement in a healthy way. Lepsinger (2010) suggests “rational persuasion” versus “inspirational appeal” as most effective tactics. Otherwise, consultation will help in carrying out the implementation of a proposed change. Also, Lepsinger (2010) suggest, “Greater involvement occurs when you present a general strategy or objective and ask the other person to suggest specific action steps for implementing it,” and the outcome is gain commitment. Fowler et al., (2019) consider “developing skills that enhance conflict competence: empathy, communication, cross-cultural awareness, listening, and emotional intelligence. Integrate these skills into leadership development programs, training, and other channels” (p.38).
Element 2: Open and inclusive organization
Open communication and feeling confident and comfortable when presenting a new change or challenging a status quo, questioning ways of doing things and suggesting a new alternative will promote a healthy culture for an organization to last with minimum conflict issues. Therefore, mutual trust is developed, sustained and valued. Diversity in such organization is positively affecting the organizational performance and have a key to success when encouraging different perspectives, experiences, functions, and identities. “Productive conflict management can also foster creativity” (Lepsinger, 2010). Fowler et al., (2019) say, “A healthy culture of conflict is crucial for innovation…………and good innovation comes when poking holes in another’s ideas” (p. 38), they also suggest some ways to put this element into practice
1) Have well-known, identified space and moment for dialogue outside formal meetings and routines.
2) Cultivate mindful meetings and practices
3) Declare respect for Each person’s dignity.
However, Lepsinger (2010) suggest some moderate effective tactics for influencing direct report and peers like Ingratiation exchange, Apprising, and Personal Appeals; however, they are difficult to use with your manager.
Element 3: Fair and effective conflict process, which in regard, establish a coherent, organization-wide response to conflict occurring within the organization. It aims to transform the conflict to an “upside” condition, have a clear communication policy, strategy and practice, and work on the principle of fairness with processes that generate respect for the outcome.
Element 4: Respectful relationships and interactions found on conversational competence [robust discussion]. Organizations must ensure that discussions and interactions at all levels have to be open, direct, respectful, and candid. Therefore, participation is seen as a positive attribute. Participants are patient, have an active-listening skill and respectfully to better understand the situation, and speak to aid understanding. Conversational competence is crucial to building a relationship which in turn drives individuals performance and motivation.
Manage difference and reach an agreement (Lepsinger, 2010), which, deals with encouraging collaboration between individuals, departments, and teams are the key to execution and getting things done. The word “conflict” often conjures up images of confrontation and significant disagreement, but this is frequently not the case. Many people minimize conflicts in an attempt to maintain harmonious relationships.

Conclusion

Dealing with disagreements before they have a chance to grow can help the people involved more effectively to resolve their problems in the future. Strategic teams where “trust and strong relationships must also exist between the team and other key teams in the organization” (Hughes et al., 2014, p. 210).
“Evidence from other types of organizations indicates that, under the right conditions, internal conflict can improve performance. Positive efforts to
prepare for and respond to disagreements can, among other gains,
meaningfully improve people’s morale, working relationships, and creativity, and increase openness to change” (Fowler et al., 2019, p.36).
Managing conflict productively (Lepsinger, 2019) is to manage differences effectively, your mindset should accept people who have the right to think or feel differently than you do and that is your benefit to developing solutions that will be acceptable and beneficial to everyone concerned.

Reference

Fowler, A., Field, H., Mcmahon, J., (2019). [Review of the Stanford Social Innovation Review: The Upside of Conflict]. Retrieved from: https://learn.twu.ca/pluginfile.php/171693/mod_resource/content/1/The%20Upside%20of%20Conflict.pdf

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

Kilmann Diagnostics (2015, August). An overview of the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument (TKI). Retrieved from: http://www.kilmanndiagnostics.com/overview-thomas-kilmann-conflict-mode-instrument-tki.

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

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

Thank you, Lyla for sharing your experience, and I would like to share with you some thoughts on communication and cooperation.

Communication is a two-way process of reaching mutual understanding in which participants not only exchange information, ideas, and feelings but also create and share meaning. In business, it is a crucial function of management and organization can’t operate without communication between levels, departments, and employees (Business dictionary, n.d). Communication is a prominent driver for organizational strategy, and strategic way to ensure the information is being disseminated effectively at all levels.

Communicating openness to influence strategic vision is essential for superior in interactions with those lower in the organization. This openness has several outcomes, including creating a climate that allows ideas critical for strategic thinking to come forward and emerge in finding certain resolutions. It is also vitally important in peer relationships, where the competitive pressures can overwhelm such an approach. Openness to influence with peers is an outcome-a benefit-of having formed and trusting relationships (Hughes, Beatty, Dinwoodie, 2014, p.155). Additionally, the strategic leadership foster cooperation rather than competition across organizational units (Hughes et al., 2014). Think about it this way, Does the team start by listing their critical decisions and activities for which they are accountable and then discusses and reaches arguments on who has which role? (Lepsinger, 2010). Formally and explicitly working out roles at the early stage of the team’s formation, or whether a noticeable lack of cooperation, helps accelerate the process and preserve trust within the group and the organization as a whole. Clarifying roles and responsibility not only defines when cooperation is necessary and what it looks like but also reinforces the norm that collaboration is expected and appropriate (Lepsinger, 2010).

The consistent contributors are a catalyst for cooperation especially among people who are inclined to be cooperative will influence the cooperation as behavior benefits all in the organization. Therefore, modeling cooperation will be increasing the likelihood that people you depend on to get the work done will do the same way (Lepsinger, 2010). Building and fostering collaborative relationships to the extent that can build and maintain working relationships with co-workers and external parties rather than fostering competition, whereby, “negotiating and handling problems without alienating people and get their cooperation in non-authority relationships” (Hughes et al., 2014, P.269). As a result, transparency in communication provides constructive feedback by generating a new way of seeing things and insight into the change preferences. Keeping the information at one level will limit transfer the organizational vision to the participants and diminishes the effectiveness of communication and lose the sense of purpose and goals (Maxwell, 2011, p.248-250).

Christensen, Marx, and Stevenson (2006) suggest; assessing the existing level of agreement in the organization along two critical dimensions. The first is the extent to which people agree on what they want. The result they seek from their participants is their values, priorities, and trade-offs they are willing to make to achieve MVV agreement. The second dimension is the extent to which people agree on cause and effect. Therefore, finding which actions will lead to the desired outcome. When people have shared an understanding of cause and effect, then they will probably agree about the process to adopt and find the alignment that was absent. They noted that there is no best position for managers to aspire to in the agreement matrix.

Therefore, Shared goals increase cooperation and collaboration because they ensure everyone is working toward the same outcome. Any difference in object among the group will result in the efficiency and reliability suffer (Lepsinger, 2010).  Therefore, in making a change, there is a need to move from agreement to cooperation.

Four types  of cooperation 

There are four types of cooperation tools suggested by Christensen, Marx, and Stevenson (2006).

Figure 1: The four type of cooperation tools.

1)    Power tools can be extremely effective in a low-agreement situation. The key is to have the authority to use them. “Manager in a low-consensus environment would not agree to lead a change without the authority to wield the right power tools.”

2)    Management tools focus on coordination and processes. They include training, standard operating procedures, and measurement system. In regard, the group members need to agree on cause and effect and not necessarily on what they want from their participation in the organization.

3)    Leadership tools tend to be result oriented rather than process oriented. Leadership tools can elicit the cooperation as long as there is a high level of consensus that a change is consistent with reason employees have chosen to work in the enterprise even if the consensus is low on how to achieve the change.  For example, TSL (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004, p.83) emphasis on the need of others, motivate and inspire members through creating a shared vision and communicate expectations. Also, encouraging innovation and creativity, giving attention to employees needs for achievement and growth. Create a new learning opportunity and empower to make decisions; therefore, cultivate the ownership thinking among employees. “When members of a group agree on what they want to achieve, statement that articulate, where the organization needs to go, can be energizing and inspiring” (Christensen, Marx, & Stevenson (2006).

4)    Culture tools, where employees have the essence of a strong culture, they will cooperate automatically to continue in the same direction. Their deep consensus on priorities and set of actions allow the company to achieve those priorities (Christensen, Marx, & Stevenson (2006).

Eliminating the need for cooperation-Using the tool of disaggregation

Wielding the tool of disaggregation, result in, separation of organizations into units and allows managers at the new unit to build different consensus among its employees regarding what they want and how they want to get their; while the prior culture continues to thrive in the original unit ((Christensen, Marx, & Stevenson (2006). The reconfigurable mini-business units are the reconfigurable part of the structure. The functional structure was the stationary part and provided homes for the talent who cycled into and out of the mini-business units (Galbraith, 2014, p.148). The final element is a top management team that sees its value-added as designing and supporting the organization’s reconfigurability during aligning interest and establishing common ground for fulfilling their envisioned practice of MVV and create healthy communication and productivity within a corporate work environment.

Conclusion

As a result, cooperation (Lepsinger, 2010) is more likely to “trump competition-namely.” To sustain collaboration and cooperation, we need to gain the support of others for our ideas and constructively resolve differences (Lepsinger, 2010). When communication is clear, and there is transparency about intent, then people understand what they can expect from each other and how they work together. When the interest of individuals or groups is aligned, the successful corporate achieve attainable MVV.

References

Business Dictionary (n.d). Communication. Retrieved from: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/communication.htm

Christensen CM, Marx M, Stevenson HH (2006). The tools of cooperation and change. Harvard Business Review. 84(10):72-80. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17040041

Galbraith, J. R. (2014). Designing Organization: strategy, structure, and process at the business unit and enterprise level. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN:978-1-118-40995-4

Hughes, R. L., Beatty, Collarelli-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, CA: Jossey-Bass

Maxwell, J. (2011). The 360 Leader: Developing your influence from anywhere in the organization. USA: Thomas Nelson

Smith, B.N., Montagno, R.V. and Kuzmenko, T.N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-92. Retrieved from: https://ezproxy.student.twu.ca/login?url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/107179190401000406.