Each member of the team interviewed a set of employees and we all came together and discussed their generals views of the company. This was not an unrealistic way to determine what the company was thinking since no one individual could interview 20+ people in such a short amount of time. After developing some general themes from all the interviews, we quickly wanted to look for solutions.

However, I realized that we needed to develop a plan first. Just an the IOPT survey suggested, some of the team wanted to just do it and others felt more comfortable making a plan. We actually had one team member just start picking choices within the simulation and doing things by ‘trial and error’ through the simulation. While this member did learn a few things about how the simulation worked, it was a little distracting to those of us who wanted to make a plan. Additionally, this is not a very realistic way to execute change – there are no second chances.

So, ultimately, we decided on two main problems within the firm: the desire to change technology sector/focus, and the need to improve communication (between departments and from upper management to floor workers). Next, we read through all of the available options available to us in the simulation. We went through each one, one-by-one, and discussed if we thought it’d be a good idea and worth the time and money. While this seemed like a good idea, I think we should have put together a “game plan” before looking at the specific options. We got caught up in wanting to do some of the specific options that we didn’t focus enough on the lecture notes and the correct process of leading change.

Next, we started to develop our plan and had a good discussion on when to do what activities. We went moving things around and had good thoughts on how to execute it. I believe we worked well together and discussed all of our options before executing anything. This pre-planning on paper did not account for our time and budget constraints so we were a little nervous if we were going to be able to do everything that we wanted. We entered everything into the program and started the change!

Our very first action was rejected – we wasted a week’s worth of time. It was pretty disappointing to start off with such a rejection. We changed our game plan and gained some momentum and increased our percent acceptance. However, we just making small increases here and there and half way through the time-frame, we only had about 20% acceptance. After a few bad decisions, we all became frustrated and didn’t understand what happened. On top of that, another group walked by and said they were successful. It was almost like another company in the industry had been successful at something that we failed at…

We quickly became dejected and class time was running out and we quickly executed the rest of our horrible plan and then got the “news flash” video that our company was going under.

I think we started out very well – we planned and thought through all of our options and decisions but still we were unsuccessful. Looking back, I think we had “blinders” on and we were able to convince ourselves of all of our decisions. Only one of us has direct reports and I don’t think we fully utilized that member’s experience to help make the decisions.

Overall, it was quickly crystal clear that you can have a well-thought out and developed plan and you never know what you’re going to get. This simulation actually makes me more nervous when I am going to try and lead change in my current role – even though I’m not in management, leading change is similar at all levels. I lead change across functions and will definitely be able to take what I learned here to better implement changes and improvements.

The John Wooden video and the computer parts shop video were great examples of how to keep is simple. There were not any complicated messages or difficult to follow statements. Everything straightforward and they made it sound so easy. So why isn’t it easy? Is it because the people in the video of full of crap? Or is it because we over complicate things…

At my place of work, we have values and everyone knows what the company’s values are. They are very good ones and straightforward. But rarely do we talk about the company’s vision. And maybe the company’s vision is at such a high level that ‘s harder to define. But what is our site’s vision? What is our group’s vision? We have goals and targets and things we want to do but I haven’t come across a solid vision. Is it because the leadership has communicated it? Or do we not have one? Is it over complicated?

Maybe I’ll just have to find out these answers…

Team – As I leave on my job for six months to learn the wonders of brewing beer for six months, I leave you with the following value system. I hope you will follow it to improve the team morale and ensure better decision making. Good luck!

1. Work hard! Each one of you has their own talents and skills but they can’t be fully utilized if you don’t work hard at it. Most things that you want will come if you just work hard – your abilities are why we hired you!

2. Keep your integrity… In other works, be ethical. Don’t compromise your values and standards for someone else or for gaining a few days or even a few hours on a schedule. It’s not worth it.  This principle includes respect; for people, for the environment, for technology. Treat others as they want to be treated.

3. Trust each other and leadership. Start over and give people a chance to come through with their committments. The leadership group are not bad people; sometimes they make decisions which may seem wrong but they have their reasons and some of them you may not know about. They aren’t perfect but no one is and no one should be held to that high of expectations.

4. Give and take feedback! This can be done respectively and honorably. Don’t take it personally. The long-term benefit will far out-weigh the short-term “pain”. Learn from the feedback and don’t just blow it off. This “feedback” also includes getting other people’s ideas during decision making. The more opinions the better, as long as it can be done in a timely manner.

I have a heavy desire for my leaders to know what the hell they’re talking about. Looking at the leaders that I am often frustrated with, many of them just don’t know some of the details and processes that they should. And what’s even more angering, is that some TRY to appear that they know. However, when they open their mouth, it’s obvious that they lack the specifics and background. Now I respect those leaders that admit what they don’t know; I don’t have a problem with people not having the experience.

Being “competent” and “intelligent” implies that leaders know what they’re talking about and can interupt and use that information to make more informed decisions. But those that aren’t “honest” with themselves about what they know and what they don’t know are really just setting themselves up for failure.

My background and “ambitious” attitude drives to me to know all the details and gather all the information. I don’t speak about things and topics that I am unsure on; I’d rather follow-up with the subject matter experts than to have to correct my statements.

Don’t get me wrong though, I do admire some of my leadership. What some lack in knowledge, they more than make up for by being “dependable” and “determined” and “supportive”. But I think it takes a combination of all of those seven (and even all twenty) characteristics to be an admired AND effective leader.

The data that my site leadership uses for decision making seems random. One minute they’ll use deviation data to support some change and the next minute someone will pull out their “trump” card to force a change approval. And rarely do any of the decisions we make involve any sort of financial data. I understand that some improvements are more about preventative maintenance to reduce impact to our patients, but I don’t know how we justify some projects. I’ve heard rumors from management they want to implement some sort of ROI during the impact analysis phase of a change, but I haven’t seen anything materialize.

Part of the data funnel concept (at least how I understand it) is to gather better data. I believe decisions are made too many times based on insufficient data. I’ve been told my whole career, from college to work, that decisions must be made without enough data. Obviously if we had all the data, then the correct decision would be made 100% of the time. My point here is that some important decisions require more analysis and more testing before a solution is decided on. This “knee jerk” reaction causes more headaches and more problems down the line. Now somewhere along the line risk is involved but how do we quantify that? Can we? Should we?

Ultimately I’m just looking for some consistency, which is part of the responsbilities of leaders. It’s hard to look for improvements and innovation without knowing how ideas will be evaluated. I think this relates to the Ford Pinto case as well. If the recall engineers had metrics on which cases had priority or needed more investigation or analysis, then maybe the quantity of cases needing more data would have become evident. The professor in the lecture video used the excuse over and over that he had files upon files and investigation reports coming in at high volumes so the Pinto got put on the back burner. Well, if this data would have escalated, then I would hope that leadership would have hired more people and would have a found root cause and a solution (e.g. recall) earlier.

I wasn’t thrilled about the article “Business Ethics: Four Spheres of Executive Responsbility” (it was too wordy for things that should be obvious). And the four questions for resolving a dilemma all centered around maximizing shareholder value – which is what executive must do.

I was really impressed with the Exhibits in the HBR article “Ethics: A Basic Framework”. But as I read the article, I couldn’t stop thinking: are there that many people who aren’t ethical? Earlier in class we were discussing core values that everyone must know and feel. And as I think about unethical people, I get this disturbing, awkward, achiness feeling that really conveys my core belief in being ethical. I hope that I don’t ever have to use or give the Exhibits from this article to someone.

Another topic that is discussed in another article is the idea of ‘self-awareness’. It seems like such a simple topic and thing to do but after reading the specific passage in “What Makes a Leader?” by Daniel Goleman, I must admit I feel like I am missing this component. I just go day to day with the same work ethic and attitude without realizing what is really driving me. Sometimes when I’m at home I know when I’m in a “crabby” mood but rarely at work do I reflect on the surroundings and what just happened. And without self-awareness, I don’t see how anyone could have much self-regulation (the second component listed in the article). Sounds like I have a lot of work to do…

I am impressed that the second article (“Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership” by Goleman and Richard Boyatzis) had a section on HOW to become socially smarter. A lot of these articles make broad statements about what leaders must have or skills that they must learn. I’m even more impressed (and happy) that the article’s example starts with a 360-feedback analysis. This is exactly what we will be doing in the class and will be a good spring-board into developing self-awareness skills.

How valid are all the biological-leaderships connections which are made in the second article? Sure there are a few examples but really? I guess its seems a little simplified for something like leadership.

I recently read two HBR articles: Managing Oneself, by Peter Drucker and Discovering Your Authentic Leadership, Bill George, et al.

Out of the first article, one of the more intriguing comments was about how “managers are the lubricating oil of an organization” (page 3). I believe this really speaks to the people-side of management. Often overlooked are one’s people skills – how they interact with others, how they motivate a team, how they listen and learn. When talking (or hearing rumors) about the next manager, everyone talks about their experience and knowledge but rarely do you hear someone being evaluated based on their interpersonal skills. Sure they obtain some of these skills via experience but is that really enough? Isn’t there a side of people that cannot be taught? Different leadership theories have different answers but there should little doubt that how managers interact with people is a major component of their success.

Of the seven sub-sections of the same article, five of them begin with a question or statement about “I” or “My”. The title of the article itself also emphasizes how important it is to know yourself. I rarely consider reflecting back on situations which may have shown my leadership skills. But the article sold me on how important it is to do this in order to become an effective manager.

Moving on to the second article, the biggest take-away I had from this article was my organization’s lack of passion and engagement. Maybe it’s taken for granted due to the nature of the business but I just don’t see the excitement and motivation from my management and leadership. Are they not aware of this? Do they not care? Do I not see it because they’re never around? Regardless of the answers to these questions, it is inexcusable and I only hope I do not follow in their footsteps.

A lot of the second article was also around self-awareness and knowing yourself and your surroundings (situations and people). I’d like to think that my leadership style just comes naturally but I should not be so naive; I need to reflect on situations and my past to figure out what is really important to me and how to convey that to others.

Quick comment about the readings from the class book (The Leadership Challenge, by Kouzes and Posner) – I was surprised and disappointed that there was not more materialon the “secret”: love. If it truely is one of the most important aspects of leadership, then why only discuss it in a few paragraphs?