MSLD 633 Module 6- Circle of Leadership

Today, my university is overall successful and continues to make a positive growth on delivering far-distance education to students across the globe. Despite the overall success, the challenge the university currently face is making close examination and communication between all 100 plus physical campuses. Since it is overwhelming to memorize and consider all physical campuses', I believe the university takes the more convenient approach by thinking that all physical locations are exactly the same. As a result, my university strongly follows the traditional top-down style of leadership.

Whether we're examining Obolensky's Circle for Leaders from the top-down or bottom-up perspectives, the circle often times become rigid when employees on the lower level (outside headquarters) becomes involved. One of the most common topic and problem my university face is the low enrollments for on-campus courses. From the top-down style, the circle likely starts from the statistics the university received. Noticing the low numbers, they then send all campuses effected an email notifying us about the low enrollments in addition to encouraging us to enroll more students. From this point, the circle almost always becomes rigid. When employees notice something is not working or have any information that can be beneficial to a company, it is encouraged for top leaders to hear out to make effective decision-making ("Feedback is Critical to Improving Performance", n.d.). Whenever low-level employees like myself provide feedback, it is usually read by someone but ends without taking any form of action.

The bottom-up style of leadership goes exactly the same way as the circle became rigid in the top-down style of leadership. Whether it's a problem or a suggestion that we may find helpful for the entire university, we either get a very broad, short response or the email becomes lost. In either case, there is almost always no further action taken after mentioning something to those at the top of the organization. While I understand the difficulties as top department receives hundreds of emails from all other campuses daily, being ignored or receiving very short responses often makes me think that I have no meaning or ownership of the organization. This then results in lower job satisfaction, that may lead to a domino effect of problems for the organization (Whetten & Cameron, 2016).  

Personally, I believe there's a large gap between top leaders and bottom employees in my organization. Obolensky (2014) states that if ones are working "blindly" within the organization, it can eventually lead to chaos. To avoid this, I believe that the organization should implement some "regional departments" to bring the gaps closer together. Rather than having the top leaders look at each individual campus, they can have employees work in-between to provide "summaries" of their region. For instance, the United States may have an employee or two focusing on all campuses on the Pacific Northwest. While this help ease top employees, employees in this department can likely obtain more information that top organizations had no time to examine. By summarizing all campuses, it reduces the complexity and establishes clarity for top employees. By understanding the situation better, they can then make more effective decision making for the entire university.

References:

"Feedback is Critical to Improving Performance". (n.d.). Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved from https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/performance-management/performance-management-cycle/monitoring/feedback-is-critical-to-improving-performance/


Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). UK: Gower Publishing.

Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2016). Developing management skills. Boston: Pearson Education.

MSLD 633 Module 5- Reflections of Chaos

Personally, I believe that Obolensky’s demonstration of the Chaos Game represented the idea of how self-leadership or lower levels of the organization are likely to yield more efficient results than top level employees and directive leadership. Unlike the past, organizations are much larger and more complex: consisting of many departments that work together to reach a common goal. With the many things that occur within the organization, it has become excruciatingly difficult for top leaders to fully run the organization and understand what's happening around them. To gather as much information as possible, Obolensky suggest organizations to implement autonomy and the bottom-up style of leadership: as those towards the bottom of the organizations are often times more informed than those on top (2014). 
The idea of the Chaos theory is a lot like systems of thinking. Rather than looking at the whole picture, systems of thinking examines the finer details that occur within the organization. The purpose is to gather as much information (from different angles) possible to gain a better understanding of the full system. Recalling the difficultly of top leaders knowing all this information, Obolensky suggest them to depend on the help of those on the lower end of the organization. Statistics-wise, Obolensky (2014) states that lower-leveled  employees tend to know as much as 60% of the information within the organization versus the 10 to 30 percent of those on top. As a result, when top leaders are unsure about a situation, they are encouraged to reach out to those at the bottom to gain as much information possible.
My university is one of few examples that illustrates the general idea of the Chaos Game. One of the overall university's goal is to reach out to potential students. From the top of the organization, the idea of which students we're targeting is likely very broad. Since there are over 100 plus campuses worldwide, top leaders depend on us advisors to reach out to potential students. As we go down the workplace hierarchy, university staff becomes more aware of the surroundings:  leading to more specific target groups. In my campus for example, we are located across the street from the Boeing Company. As a university mainly specializing in aviation and aerospace fields, they will make a great target. As a result, we periodically set up a small booth inside the Boeing Company's cafeteria and attend any events where they may be sponsoring.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). UK: Gower Publishing.

MSLD 633 Module 4- Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Technological improvements is perhaps one of the biggest factors to the change in leadership. Unlike today, many things had to be done by hand. A lot of time was spent to focus on meeting customer demand in addition to ensuring quality of the product or service. As a result, much less time was spent on employees: resulting a more directive leadership style (Institute of Learning and Innovation, n.d.).

Today, most organizations have shifted from a car-like approach to something more organism-like: where autonomy and interaction among employees is active than ever before. The Google Company is one of few examples that follows this approach. Innovation is critical for Google to efficiently run their business, and to promote this, they established an assortment of strategies. To encourage interaction among employees, Google established the Google Café. This not only help establish stronger relationships, but interaction among employees (from all levels) can be used as a learning opportunity to employees (He, 2013). Google also has their well-known 20 Percent Time strategy to promote innovation. The strategy aims to encourage employees to spend 20 percent of their work time to create something in their field of interest. While this help employees establish a purpose as well as enhancing their skills, the strategy also helped Google create some new and successful products such as Google News and Gmail (D’Onfro, 2015).

            People’s thoughts and beliefs are another reason to why leadership has changed over the course of years. Whether its political, environmental, or something tragic, people often “shift gears” to adapt to a particular event. The 1982 Tylenol Crisis is a good example of this. After Johnson & Johnson (J&J) learned that the several deaths in Chicago were caused by Tylenol pills laced with cyanide, the company immediately followed up with a thorough investigation of their organization. Eventually, the investigation led to a reconstruction of the entire organizations, as consumer safety became the primary focus. In the end, the company was able to regain consumer trust and successfully overcome the crisis with their new tamper-proof packaging and pills. While the crisis changed J&J’s ways of doing business, many other companies looked up to J&J’s actions: changing their perspectives on consumer safety (Markel, 2014).

            Another factor that changed leadership are the demographic changes. The world is coming closer together as many companies are doing business with people from different places around the world. Due to the different cultural differences, leaders have become more adaptive to their people and surroundings. For example, an American company working closely with a Japanese company may shift to a more context language than being directive. The Japanese are often uncomfortable being direct, as this is often seen as a rude gesture (Lim, n.d.).

            Over the course of years, leadership styles have shifted to a strict and directive style to something more fluid. In my current job as a university advisor, I see all three factors playing some role to the university. In terms of communication, technological improvements led us to do more “live chats” (phones and video calls) to help our employee come together (feeling less reserved). We’re always alert by the things that happen around us, and establish new degrees, procedures, etc. based on what’s happening. Lastly, as an online university, we deal with an array of people. I am starting to notice that employees are becoming more aware of cultural differences, and accommodating students as much as possible (example: reminding residential campus staff about the Ramadan).

References:

D’Onfro, J. (2015). The truth about Google’s famous ‘20% time’ policy. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/google-20-percent-time-policy-2015-4

He, L. (2013). Google’s Secrets Of Innovation: Empowering Its Employees. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurahe/2013/03/29/googles-secrets-of-innovation-empowering-its-employees/#7913604657e7

“Institute of Learning and Innovation”. (n.d.). The Evolution of Leadership [PDF file]. Mind Resources. Retrieved from http://www.mindresources.net/web/institutejournal5/Article2.pdf

Lim, T. (n.d.). Cross Cultural Leadership [PDF file]. Retrieved from http://www.regent.edu/admin/stusrv/student_dev/docs/Downloads/Professional%20Skills/Comparative%20Cultural%20Etiquette/Comparative%20Cultural%20Etiquette_index.pdf

Markel, H. (2014). How the Tylenol murders of 1982 changed the way we consume medication. PBS. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/tylenol-murders-1982/

MSLD 633 Module 3- Complex Adaptive Systems

Over the course of years, organizations are shifting from a very strict structure to something more fluid. The help of technology greatly reduced manual labor, which established additional time to focus more towards the needs and expectation of employees and external stakeholders (Obolensky, 2014). The workplace hierarchy is also becoming flatter and more obsolete: as many organizations are finding positive benefits of forming communities (Clark, 2012). Pixar Studios is one of few organizations that follow this structure: as they realized that establishing communities promotes collective creativity.

Pixar Studios is well known for their computer animated films such as Toy Story, Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo. They are the leading pioneers of computer animation and continues to adapt with emerging technology. Like all creations, they consist of an array of ideas and inspirations. Unlike most studios however, many of Pixar’s ideas are created internally by their community artists (Catmull, 2008). Whether it’s an animation studio or a university, all organizations are composed of different departments. While all departments share the same common goal, they often have different tasks and ways of thinking (Hill, 2014). This is what Pixar keeps in mind, and they encourage employees to communicate with one another. In addition to establishing relationships, the social network creates a learning atmosphere to not only educate one another, but to also inspire one another: sparking new ideas for future films (Catmull, 2008).

Currently, I work for a university as a student advisor. Overall, the university is doing well and continues to establish exciting, new learning opportunities for students across the globe. Despite the overall success, one thing that the university could improve to effectively move forward is to listen and consider other departments’ point-of-view more often. Every so often, the university send out emails and have web conferences to share new ideas and procedures to help improve our campus operations. While many of these are interesting and helpful, they don’t often work well with the campus. The university I currently work for has an online branch that consist of over a hundred campuses scattered across the globe. Similar to the idea of different departments of an organization, each campus is unique and have different demographics and geography.

Often times, the decisions made by the university are one-directional: sparking some issues. For instance, the university got concerned when a student complained to them about the lack of on-campus course offerings at my campus. The solution they provided was to have the student travel to the neighboring Seattle campus, which is 40 miles away. While the distance may not appear to be an issue, there was also a time and traffic issue that made this solution ineffective. Many of our students are full-time employees and typically get off a few minutes prior to when most of our classes start. In addition, Everett and Seattle, Washington are major cities, and we experience very heavy traffic during the evening. As a result, a usual 40-minute drive to the neighboring campus can take over an hour: which can result in attendance issues for the student.

Rather than focusing based on one point-of-view, organizations should always view from multiple perspectives to make effective decision-making (Hill, 2014). Whether it’s a campus a thousand miles away to another department inside a company building, every group has different procedures and thoughts. Despite some differences, coming together can establish a social environment, where people can learn and inspire one another. This could then result in an array of opportunities to help strengthen an organization.

References:

Catmull, Ed. (2008). How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2008/09/how-pixar-fosters-collective-creativity

Clark, D. (2012). Is Workplace Hierarchy Becoming Obsolete? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2012/08/08/is-workplace-hierarchy-becoming-obsolete/#6e5406ad291e

Hill, L. (2014). Linda Hill: How to manage collective creativity. TED. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/linda_hill_how_to_manage_for_collective_creativity?language=en

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). UK: Gower Publishing.

MSLD 633 Module 2: Butterfly Effect

Although complex information and situations may seem overwhelming, they are often rich in details: which may come in handy in certain situations. Eric Berlow stated that complexity should be embraced to increase the chance of finding simple answers. The key here is to gather as much information possible to make thinking and explanations easier (Berlow, 2010). Embracing complexity is a handy tool for many organizations, as this help pinpoint problems and outcomes. With more information and a better understanding of a situation, decision-making becomes more effective.

Organizations run like any complex machine. It consists of many different parts: each of them serving its own purpose. If even the smallest part of the machine becomes weak or broken, it can make a huge impact on the entire organization. This phenomenon is also known as the Butterfly Effect. As leaders, it is important to identify and be prepared for different situations to avoid and reduce potential damages. In 1982, the Johnson & Johnson Company dealt with a huge crisis that started from a few cyanide-laced Tylenol pills. This eventually led to several deaths, which ultimately lead to severe damage to the company. Despite the company’s losses, they were able to overcome the crisis by identifying specific areas that needed to be fixed and or enhanced. To regain consumer trust, the company established new tamper-proof packaging, and even refunded and provided other customer service to assist those effected by the crisis (Markel, 2014).

          As an academic advisor, I work directly with students and seen many different reactions from changes made from the university. One of the biggest reactions I encounter almost daily are student’s thoughts and experiences with online courses. Over the course of years, my university is becoming more and more digitalized. We went from hosting in-seat classes with professors physically in the classroom to mostly hosting courses with professors located elsewhere. While many of our prospects and current students understand the change, we struggle to maintain relationships with most of them. Due to the lack of physical interaction, course workload, etc., many of them go to other schools. This then leads to lower enrollments and admissions, which then leads to university headquarters questioning and encouraging us to bring students back. If many other physical campuses are experiencing the same issues, this will eventually lead the university to restructure their organization.

          As a past and current student, I understand and relate with students who prefer traditional classrooms. Just like them, I sometimes find far distance interactions to be difficult, and most importantly understanding how digital interaction is not the same as physical interaction. While I cannot do much in terms of how the course is built, one thing I try to do for my campus is to encourage a social environment. While emails and answering phone calls are part of our daily business, I also try to squeeze in some face-to-face interaction when possible. Unlike electronic communication, face-to-face interaction has more non-verbal communication involved. Whether it’s facial expression or tone, we’re expressing our true emotions. This often times make relationship building easier, which can lead to many positive outcomes for the campus (Nogales, 2010). Over the course of years, I’ve noticed that I not only made my students more social, but it reached out to prospective and students with online advisors (online campus). Since more than 90 percent of our students work at the Boeing Company, many are informed by word-of-mouth. Despite losing students who prefer in-seat courses, I am able to have a steady stream of students applying at my campus for face-to-face, local-time advisement.

References:

Berlow, E. (2010). Eric Berlow: Simplifying complexity. TED. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_berlow_how_complexity_leads_to_simplicity/transcript?language=en

Markel, H. (2014). How the Tylenol murders of 1982 changed the way we consume medication. PBS. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/tylenol-murders-1982/

Nogales, A. (2010). Facebook versus Face-to-Face: What’s missing when friends connect online?. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/family-secrets/201010/facebook-versus-face-face