A631.9.2.RB_HallMike

For this assignment, I am supposed to write a well thought out blog discussing how my professional profile would relate to an environment of a start-up tech company with Steve Jobs at the helm.  Not much thinking is required here – I would probably not fit in very well at all.  It’s not that I wouldn’t want to be part of a new company with tons of potential, especially when its founder has already helped create an amazing company; I just think that my experience in the Navy has led me down a specific path that isn’t conducive to being in a creative environment.

First, I could bring stability to the company by “creating rules and structure for the organization and its people.”  When building a company from the ground up, entire work processes and flow charts must be created to ensure that the right people are informed and that lines of communication are open across the different interfaces.  Although I haven’t had any experience in the business world, I have created multiple shipboard regulations and step policies that helped my boat streamline some of its processes.  Per the debrief with Tom, I have a very good balance of needing independence yet not over-stepping my boundaries, I am highly goal oriented (which could also be a bad thing if goals are not established for me), I am willing to take calculated risks, and am a pretty good multitasker.  All of these traits would probably be an asset to a company looking for a mid-level manager (which is where I see myself currently).  With respect to the video, I really like his mentality he states at the 12:00 mark.  Specifically, he states that he isn’t interested in the fact that they failed last time; they aren’t going to fail this time.  A leader must be able to move the team past the failures and to have the re-focus on the current situation, something that Jobs clearly did there and something I would respect in him.

                On the flip side, I also had some scores that would be detrimental to an organization that is creating new technologies and is relying on my innovation.  My job in the Navy not only doesn’t provide for me to be creative, it almost downright doesn’t want it (except when ship driving which is still an art form).   In the 11 years or so, I have been trained to follow procedure – don’t get creative because you think you are smarter than the books – if you think you know something the engineers that designed the plant didn’t know, stop what you are doing and contact them for support.   This type of mentality is essential in ensuring that nuclear plants are operated in a completely safe manner (on a historical side note, it was exactly creativity that caused the Chernobyl disaster when a couple of plant engineers decided they wanted to see what would happen when they cut power to the reactor).   This mentality has snuffed out what little creativity I had before joining the Navy (I have been called many things in my life but creative is not one of them).  Finally, and by no means the least of all of these statements, I am a mechanical engineer that switched from electrical engineering specifically because I couldn’t stand programming so the mere thought of me working as a programmer almost makes me sick!  Additionally, in the course of my studies, I realized that I am much better at refining current processes than creating new ones.

                In summary, I think for the most part I have found the niche that suits me!

                On a side note, something I really liked from the video was the way that Jobs goes about creating the company from a company of the heart.  This makes me recall week one of my first MSLD class, MSLD 511.  In that module, a video talked about how truly great companies create mentalities first and then go about producing products that fall under this mentality.  For example, Jobs stated with Apple that they wanted to create truly groundbreaking consumer products that will push technology to its limits.  He didn’t say I want to create the best .mp3 player or the best smart phone – those products are just the byproduct of his mentality.

A631.8.4.RB_HallMike

Few people can argue that I didn’t get a honest, realistic personality label given that I took the test at 0230 in the morning while holding my son with essentially no sleep – if your true personality doesn’t come out there, I don’t know if it ever will (I took again right before writing this and ended up with the same personality).  As it ends up, I am a INTJ, or an Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging personality, and I think that suits we rather well when the percentages of each are taken into account.  I would hardly call myself an extroverted person, but I also wouldn’t call myself an introvert either.  This makes sense given that I was 33% inclined towards introverted.  I was rather heavily intuitive, coming in at 56%.  I was barely a thinker with a 1% leaning, and I was strongly judgmental with a 67% leaning.  Reading the description of an INTJ definitely fits much of my personality as I tend to be rather reserved but not a recluse, I have never been described as someone in tune with my senses but have been described as keeping the big picture in mind, am certainly a thinker more than in touch with my feelings (especially when thinking is described with lots of synonyms for integrity), and am much more likely to think things through rather than act spontaneously.

It is incredibly important to understand what type of personality you are in order to understand how you communicate with the world around you.  One might question why they are always taken the wrong way or are perceived in a light that was unknown to the person.  Knowing that you have a hard time expressing emotions (as is my case) can make you aware that you need to take the extra effort to show that emotion when it is called for.  For example, I might need to go out of my way tomorrow to ensure that my subordinates understand that I appreciate their efforts and that they are doing a great job; I need to ensure I verbalize my inner thought process.  So knowing what your personality is will help you overcome the shortcomings associated with it and help you understand how people are going to perceive you.  On the other hand, knowing the descriptions of other types of personalities can help you communicate with them as well, assuming you are able to label them.  Just as it is important to understand your short comings, knowing some problems associated with the different types can help you overcome those weaknesses and allow you to communicate more effectively.  Continuing from my previous example, if I knew my boss was also an INTJ, I would understand that his praise of my work might be spread a little thin and to not take it to heart.

In the end, communication skill is probably the most important trait for a leader to possess.  Any skill you can learn to help your communication ability will only help you as a leader.  Knowing and understanding the different traits of the various personality types will help you mitigate the weaknesses while exploiting (in a purely ethical manner) the advantages.  At the very least, knowing someone is a feeler will help you cope with some of the emotional fatigue that one might experience while working with them (the general I worked for in Iraq was an extrovert feeler that was prone to wild mood swings).   

  

A631.7.4.RB_HallMike

Over the past 16 weeks, I have learned a great deal about organizational development and high performance teams.  Now that we have finished our book, a final discussion on whether or not OD is just as fad or a permanent field has been brought up.  I think beyond a doubt organizational development is a discipline that is here to stay, and I’ll tell you why.

First and foremost, companies are becoming more and more complex as their structures become more and more flat and dispersed.  Given how complicated managing these organizations can be, I would venture to say that few CEOs truly understand all of the advantages and disadvantages of the various work groups are.  Additionally, considering how hard it can be to drastically change organizations for the better, if I was a CEO I would rather have an expert come in to execute the change rather than me attempt to do it myself.  One must also add in the fact that the speed at which this change must has markedly increased since the world has speed up its rate of change.  This is where the OD practitioner comes into play.  As an expert in the field, he or she can study the organization in question and make a recommendation of how the company should restructure based on their education and experience, and then develop a plan to get it done.  Few executives in major companies would have the time and resources to dedicate to studying and creating a plan, so an OD practitioner is needed.

Secondly, the people working in today’s organizations are far more complex and knowledgeable about the wants and desires as a worker.  Gone are the days of the tyrannical leadership who treats his/her employees like slaves.  Understanding the complex social and cultural interconnections within organizations is crucial for the success of the organization and the change they might want to enact, and again, I doubt that many CEOs have a firm grasp on developing the culture and social structures within their companies to the fullest potential.  Further, it is said that the only true way to change an organization is through changing its culture – without fully understanding it (culture), you might have a hard time changing it.

Thirdly, with the world becoming smaller and the competition in markets becoming more cutthroat, companies are willing to take drastic steps in order to get that last little bit of revenue that can be saved by tweaking their organization.  Again, the OD practitioner should have the ability to look closely at a company and determine where this can occur.

                Finally, I have come to realize through my study of OD in particular and leadership in general that each is just practical applications of sociology and psychology.  As each of these disciplines determine more and more about how and why we think and interact in the manner in which we do, so to can leadership and OD apply these lessons to organizations in order to make them more effective/efficient.  After all, most of OD is arranging the company to maximize the human potential.  100 years ago, the human potential was drastically underestimated as a whole, and who is to say that we are still not underestimating?

A631.6.4.RB_HallMike

After watching the video, I see direct parallels from them to topics in our text - both of them focused on changing culture to create a better organization.  With the first video, Gallery Furniture had taken a huge hit and decided that they needed to revamp the organization in order to survive the housing market crash.  Originally, their focus was on new home furniture so their sales force did not have to go out and seek people, the customer came to them.  When the market changed, this was no longer the case.  Now the salespeople needed to reengage with customers that might leave the store (an action called prospecting) and as a result, they needed to get the customer’s contact information prior to leaving.  Many employees were against this because they felt like this was extra work – it went against their moderate culture.  Because the change was incompatible with existing change, McIngvale went about changing the culture by sharing the vision.  He did this by using 6 sources of influence (2 of which were not described) that manifested themselves by creating the following things within the organization: prospecting (as discussed earlier), coaching (helping weaker personnel out by showing them better sales techniques), enablers (providing tech savvy personnel to assist less tech savvy personnel with the implementation of new technology – specifically iPads to aid in gathering customer information), incentive pay (their original commission program was ineffective at increasing motivation), feedback (they created a feedback system for both the employees and the customers), and recognition (recognizing good employees).  These 6 items easily fit into the sharing the vision discussion within the text.  An aggressive training program was implemented to ensure employees received the necessary skills, focus was placed on employee health and wellness (something that increased moral while cutting health costs), a programs were implemented to limit rework (thus increasing customer satisfaction – another goal was to create customers for life).  With that being said, when looking at fig 15.5, I am not able to determine which block of the matrix he went with.  Their needed to be a culture/strategy change and the change was not compatible with existing culture – none of the blocks really fit this scenario.

GEN McChrystal’s lecture was incredibly informative and full of nuggets of wisdom that I am no kidding going to start using immediately.  His discussion was focused almost entirely on creating strong culture within organizations through listening and caring.  When looking at fig 15.5, I would say his discussion focused on managing change and reinforcing the culture.  His multiple stories described how the Army develops their personnel to share a common bond and knowledge that everyone is looking out for everyone else (i.e. culture).  This team unity (shared purpose) is essential – with a sense of security, much more focus can be placed on accomplishing the task at hand.  He also discussed how modern times have led to new challenges for leaders, specifically inversion of expertise.  Older people might not be as well versed with new technology as younger people.  As a result, a leader must be willing to listen to subordinates and be reversed mentored to get the leader up to speed.  Finally, he stressed that leaders must be willing to watch out for his followers, and the followers must know that their leader has their backs. 

As mentioned, there are several quotes that I am going to start spreading.  First, “A leader can let you fail but not let you be a failure” – failing is an important part of the learning process, however often people get caught up with the singular failure and lose sight of the big picture.  A leader must be able to allow someone to learn through their mistakes but keep them focused on the big picture.  The second quote: “A leader isn’t good because they are right; they are good because they are willing to learn and to trust.”  Finally, “if you are a leader the people you have counted on will help you out and if you are a leader the people who count on you need you on your feet.”  Absolutely fantastic quotes about leadership!

A631.5.4.RB_HallMike

Leadership is something that is so extraordinary in the way that it can get people to do great things.  Just as the blog question states, people do not come into a position of leadership by happenstance – it is often the culmination of years of hard work in both a technical and personnel sense.  This very reason is why leadership is such an amazing trait.  Many people have interpersonal skills but have the technical skills of the pencil sitting in front of me.  Likewise, there are many an engineer that is brilliant in the technical sense yet have the personality of the afore mentioned pencil.  Leadership requires such an interesting skill set in order to be effective at it and sometimes, the traits exhibited to get into a position of leadership might not be compatible with effective leadership traits. 

I think one of the big reasons the armed services in general and the Navy in particular is having such a hard time with leadership right now is related to this problem.  As a naval officer progresses, the responsibility he has increases.  This trend continues until he commands a ship however there is a significant difference between the management and leadership skills required of a CO versus a Department Head.  A department head can get results by displaying marginal management skills only. 

Navy FITREPS (your effectiveness) are mostly an objective form that shows your accomplishments (in rather frilly language at times) so that you can be ranked against your peers.  What this form fails to capture is your personality/the intangibles associated with leadership.  A slave driver (substituted here for a marginal department head) can accomplish similar feats that a leader can, however the morale, wellbeing, and general effectiveness of the command is going to be completely different.  Due to the inability of the FITREP to accurately capture this, people that produce results but are poor leaders are promoted to positions where the skill set changes.  The CO of the ship isn’t just a producer of results; he is the main individual that is responsible for the general wellbeing of the ship.  They fail to grasp that yelling, abuse, and micromanaging are ineffective ways to manage groups of people and as a result, the ship suffers.  Low retention rates, poor morale, and lacksidasical attitudes throughout the ship are key indicators that the CO is in over their head.  In my short time in the Navy, I have one specific example of this.  During my qualifications, I rode another ship that had just been cleared of a CO that produced explicit results (i.e. he got the ship out of the yard on time and through sea trials) however every officer on the ship was leaving the Navy due to his personality (or lack thereof).  Included in these officers was a 14 year nuclear engineer and the highest rated Navigator in the squadron.  This CO had left the ship about 3 weeks before I showed up, and he had been replaced by an outstanding officer.  The new CO was firm but personable.  He had patience with the crew, punished them when appropriate, and rewarded them likewise.  Everything we did on that underway had a purpose that was explained.  In the 4 months I was on board, the aura of the ship went from dark and gloomy to bright and cheery, all because the cancer had left.

So what do I think is required of a successful leader?  First off, I think they must unequivocally stand by their morals – they should be a beacon for you to live up to.  Secondly, they must have technical skills – nothing shakes confidence in a leader like watching one flop and twitch in a situation they should know about.  Thirdly(and probably most importantly), they must genuinely care about the people below them – I was fortunate to be part of a command that made you truly feel like you were part of a team and a team that looked out for one another.  Fourthly, they must have a vision for where they want the team to go.  Fifthly, they must be an excellent communicator – you can’t accomplish the vision unless you can effectively tell people what the vision is.  Sixthly, a leader must have patience – things will not go according to plan, yelling about it will not accomplish a thing other than driving solutions away.  Finally, the must be open to criticism and feedback – there is nothing more frustrating than being asked for your input, you put time and effort into providing it, only to find out that it was completely blown off.

A631.4.4.RB_HallMike

Self-Managing Work Teams (SMWT) are something that I am rather skeptical of as I think they only apply to certain very specific situations.  My experience in the Navy has shown that supervision is required in even the most mundane of situations and leadership is very handy at all levels.  From the video, the speaker describes SMWT as a group of highly skilled individuals that often have years of experience doing their jobs.  I see this as drawback statement number 1 – you have to have a skilled and disciplined group of workers in order for this to be feasible, something that companies would have a hard time finding (or at least I would imagine) and is the reason why organizations tend to apply this method to specific areas vice entire organizations.  This also creates an advantage – if you have such a work force, all you need to do is give them the end and let them figure out the means.  Their collective experience allows them to perform the job in the manner in which they see fit, which is probably more efficient and effective compared to what a manager might order.  The flatter organizational structure I would imagine saves companies salaries of management but it also limits the opportunities for advancement as there are limited positions available.  I think the major advantage to these teams is the morale boost one would get from being in the team due to an increased level of meeting the core job dimensions and job enrichment.  They are more involved with the product they are making, receive perks for doing a good job, control their lives to a much greater extent, and allows for growth as a person.  I also see a disadvantage as having to deal with team decision making processes.

If the situation warranted, the proper work force was available, and the SMWT was properly applied, I think I would enjoy being part of a SMWT, as long as I myself had the necessary skills to be part of the team.  However, I could also see how I would not enjoy being in an environment without clearly defined leadership (for lack of better words).  I don’t think that a group of people can exist together in an environment where decisions have to be made without someone moving to the forefront and becoming at the very least an impromptu leader.  I understand that there are internal team leaders that can be elected or appointed, however these guys/gals aren’t getting paid any differently than other team members.  As such, I see SMWT as a savvy way for businesses to eliminate higher paying management jobs and pushing the responsibilities to people that are not getting paid to do them.

Skills that an external leader would have to have are many.  Communication would be first and foremost in my book.  Being able to communicate inspiration, teaching, and facilitating team meetings would be crucial for the leader.  Additionally, being able to track the progress of different teams doing potentially a wide variety of different things would be quite the challenge.  Along that same line, having the technical knowledge to be able to advise and mentor the many different functions the SMWT have within them would require tons of learning.  As the book clearly states, the external leader often takes the role of a practitioner using process interventions.  I would imagine that many external leaders are promoted team members so they have more technical knowledge than management knowledge.  This would lead to the practitioner aspect of the role being incredibly challenging.

A631.3.4.RB_HallMike

Feedback and goal setting is something that I would have thought pretty much everyone that is successful does.  Without goals, you essentially wander aimlessly going from one point to another, dealing with things that strike your fancy.  On the other hand, if you have goals, your waste of our most precious resource – time – will be limited.  In my personal life, I have goals set for both the long term and short term in both my private and professional life and they are what drive me day to day.  Feedback is something else that I must have in order to accomplish things to my standards.  From a professional standpoint, I strive to produce deliverables that are essentially error free and ready to be immediately used pending a quick review from my superiors.  I don’t want my supervisors to have to spend hours adjusting my work; after all, that is generally why they delegated the task to me in the first place (to take it off their plate so they can focus on more pressing matters).  In order to ensure this, I am constantly asking for feedback to better my work processes and methods.  If I can learn what my boss wants to see, I can eliminate the rework for the both of us by doing it right the first time.  From an operational standpoint, feedback is also crucial.  I became a very good Officer of the Deck (OOD) by always inviting feedback from my superiors.  I would think out loud so they could hear my thought processes and critique them, and I would also ask how they would have done things differently to obtain their perspective.

From the research on feedback and goal setting I conducted, I was both surprised and not surprised by some of the findings.  It is not surprising that when feedback and goals are intertwined, the performance level of personnel increases.  What was surprising was that positive feedback contributes little to this phenomenon.  According to studies, positive feedback can lead to levels of complacency and lack of aggressive pursuit of goals.  To me this was initially counter-intuitive but after some thought, I figured out where my misunderstanding was.  My first thoughts of positive feedback would be a coach saying good job after making a great play, or your boss saying that the report you turned in was outstanding.  I would be glad to hear it but on the other hand, I know that my work isn’t perfect and without me knowing what I did wrong, I can’t fix it.  The same thing applied to sports when I thought about it – even my best swims during my career had aspects that I could improve on and my coach was sure to tell me about them after congratulating me on a good swim.  Sometimes they were big fixes, sometimes small, but the only way to pursue perfection is to constantly look for ways to better yourself (through goals) and you can’t do this without having feedback provided to you.

Given that my experience in the work force is with a younger than average age group (the CO is the oldest guy on the boat in his early 40s), I can’t really speak for the generational gap in feedback.  I can say that in my limited experience in a small community, feedback is both highly encouraged and sought after.  As I described above, you can’t get better unless you know what you are doing wrong, and that is the purpose of feedback (learning after the fact as opposed to teaching – learning that is done prior to the fact).  I generally like to receive feedback as long as it is constructive but I will admit sometimes I don’t like it in the moment (operationally speaking).  This was especially true in my early days on the sub when my engineer would pick me to pieces during drills (he would get me on the small things that I would overlook) - it would drive me nuts during the evolution but once I cooled off I greatly appreciated the help and applied the lessons learned.  I can honestly say that my attention to detail is a direct result of him picking at me for the 30 months that he did.  As far as giving feedback, it really depends on my comfort level with both the person and the evolution/task.  If I feel very comfortable with the material, I will probably offer feedback; if I am very comfortable with the person, the feedback will probably be unsolicited if it is appropriate.  The way I usually approach feedback is from a discussion point of view – I ask them why they did something in the manner in which they did it (this often allows them to realize their own mistakes as they hear themselves say something wrong) and then explain why what they did was wrong or inefficient.  This worked out really well on my first sub and is something that I will use again once I get back out to sea. 

With respect to the final portion of this blog, clearly I think that feedback is a crucial aspect of being a professional.  If you are not constantly attempting to better yourself, you are regressing.  Goals and feedback are tools to help you ensure that you achieve all that you can.  I firmly believe that feedback is an essential tool in the work place and one that should be stressed at all levels.  I can attribute much of my success to both the goals that I have set for myself and the goals that others have set for me, as well as feedback that I have received over my career.

A631.2.5.RB_HallMike

As I think about the process that our team went through to create our learning charter, I can’t help but think that it was not a very complicated process that required a small amount of interaction.  The main behavior that help the team successfully (if successfully means submitted a document for review vice actually getting a good grade on it which is what I would deem successful) complete the charter was definitely motivation.  We were discussing the charter half way through the first week of the class and had a draft created by the first Sunday.  Sure we could have waited longer and still submitted a document, but the longer you wait to do something the less time you have to review it, which at times could mean trouble.  I wouldn’t say there were any real factors that inhibited decision making or problem solving as there were really no big issues.  If there would have been one that required a discussion, I would imagine that a big problem would have been getting the 4 of us together all at once to discuss the problem, develop solutions, and decide on the course of action.  All of us have varying schedules with some of us working in the morning and others working later in the night so this might end up being an inconvenience in the future.  There were a couple of minor issues regarding the format of how individual inputs would be reflected in the charter.  We worked around this by discussing the options on the discussion board.  Again, I think this is a suitable solution for small problems; however if a larger problem occurs on future projects, we might have to establish real-time communications to solve it.

As I discussed above, information was shared on our group discussion board via posting of thoughts and of the charter itself.  One person would provide their inputs into the charter, and then the next person would review, provide their inputs, and provide their feedback for what the other person provided.  This process repeated until we had our final document.  In the end, I think this was effective for the charter as all of us have similar opinions on how the group should or should not be run, but in the event that there are real problems that must be solved, I think real time comms will be required.  So far there hasn’t been any issues with authority or power within the group.  Obviously with most of us being type A personalities, there could be a potential for problems, but as long as we all stay cordial and professional, I see no problems.  One of the great things about being in the military is you learn how to be a follower very quickly regardless of your position as an officer or enlisted – I can lead if needed or I can follow if needed!

There was no discussion or information passed about other teams so collaboration was not existent.  I am a competitive person by nature but to be honest the competitive bug didn’t even cross my mind with this project, and I would imagine that it didn’t cross the other team member’s minds either base upon their posts in the group discussion page.  In future projects I might want to get a bit more competitive but not with the charter.  The last question of process interventions made me go back and read through the discussion posts we made – I don’t really think we did on ourselves however this assignment is pretty much a big process intervention on your part to help us understand how our group worked on this basic assignment, thus helping us get better as a team for better performance on more challenging assignments.  

A631.1.5.RB_HallMike

With so much of the business world switching to a team oriented environment for tackling big problems, it is not surprising that a company would take team building to the extreme.  Seagate’s team annual outdoor experimental laboratory training exercise known as EcoSeagate is a challenging 5 day course is the remote areas of New Zealand that pushes the selected employees to the limit of their capabilities.  I personally see great value in the process for a variety of reasons. 

This kind of program has got to be a huge attraction for members within the organization – who wouldn’t want to take a trip to the outback of New Zealand, hang out and learn from some of the best and brightest your company has to offer, and in the meantime better yourself both physically and mentally?  From the looks of it, the program really encompasses the saying, “That which does not kill you only makes you stronger.”  By pushing people to the limits both mentally and physically, you can truly see into a person’s true character and without doing it, I would argue that you are only scratching the surface at making deep rooted changes within a person.  I also would imagine that this program has got to be an incentive in attracting people to work for them and has got to be a huge morale and pride builder for employees.  With this being said, I do think that they have taken it to the extreme and could probably get similar results by doing something a little more scaled back and less costly, but again, it is a unique program within the business world.

So why would something like EcoSeagate be something that is necessary in a high-performing organization?  I think there are 3 reasons for it.  First, if you are not constantly learning and keeping ideas fresh, you fall behind in the business world.  One only has to take a quick look at companies that have gone bankrupt over the past several years to see what happens when you lose the creative edge within you sector - Kodak is the big one that comes to mind.  They failed to stay up with the trend in technology, fell behind in the race, and have gone from one of the most recognizable companies in the world to a mere shell of what they used to be.  Secondly, just as the CEO said, people don’t work hard (or die as he said) within an organization for money/God/country, they work hard for the people around them.  This team building has got to develop, if nothing else, a strong bond between people within the organization that have completed the course.  This bonding probably goes a long way in generating the strong feelings for your co-workers.  Thirdly and again as the CEO said, it is better to do something than do nothing (or in military terms, no decision is worse than the wrong decision) because nothing will happen if nothing is done.  As I just said above, at the very least, this builds espirit-du-corps within the company - this wouldn’t be there without EcoSeagate.

Could my organization benefit from a similar activity?  We already do and it is called deployments.  Deployments break you down both mentally and physically – you see a person’s real personality after a month of underway.  You also develop a bond knowing that other people around you are going through the same hardships that you are, and that they have your back in the event that something goes wrong.  I think that EcoSeagate is attempting to quickly create the conditions you might find on mission or deployed in order to build the person back up (also similar to initial military training – you can’t buy into the system until you have broken yourself down).

A630.9.4.RB_HallMike

Reading through the transcripts of Schmidt’s brief, I would have to take my typical stance on Google – it works for them because they have built their company from the ground up using this format.  Let me explain: they have always used this approach to hiring and personnel development.  As a result, they have an organization that is top to bottom in line with the way the company runs and is full of people that are committed to the organization.  I do not know if you can say that many other companies are full of completely committed people.  Due to this, it could take years of hiring and attrition to get the people needed in place in a company that didn't start this mentality in the beginning (if they wanted to switch to a Google approach).  This commitment is exactly what allows them to take the hands off approach to management that they do.  If they didn’t, you would need much more intrusive leadership to ensure the necessities where getting done.  Additionally, they have an outstanding reputation in the business world which allows them to have the pick of the litter, whereas many other companies do not. 

                This approach to their company would not work in my organization (the US Navy), due mainly to the fact that the mindset of the employees at Google is a little different from the mindset of the average sailor.  The typical junior sailor is around 19 years old, is fresh out of high school and their follow on Navy training, has never lived away from home, and in general knows little about the real world.  As a result, there is some necessary supervision that is required to ensure that the items that need to get done get done in the proper fashion.  If the Navy was full of 10 year Chiefs and First Class Petty Officers, I could probably say that the Google approach might work as most sailors at that rank understand what needs to get done so they get it done without having to get told to do so.  Google on the other hand is full of the best and brightest engineers/sciences people that have studied for several years and have degrees.  Don’t think that I am saying that just because you have a degree you are automatically better than anyone else without one, however in general there is a huge maturity difference between a kid fresh out of high school and a recent college grad who just spent the last 4 years of his/her life studying to make it through the program.  This only multiplies when you are talking about the best graduates from major universities.

                It certainly does take courage to take this approach.  Essentially, the management at Google is like a parent that is telling their kids to behave and “oh by the way I won’t be back to check on you anytime soon”.  If things don’t work out, the first statement out of anyone’s mouth is going to be, “well why did you leave them alone unsupervised?”  Google’s hands off approach is putting the course of the company in the hands of the workers.  Again, they can do this since they have only recruited the best of the best.

                Although Google’s setup wouldn’t work in the Navy, there are still things to be learned.  First off, the more you empower your employees, the more they will feel like their inputs really do matter, thus increasing job satisfaction.  I also liked the discussion on meetings.  Disagreement brings out alternative solutions which leads to better developed solutions to problems.  In the future, I definitely will attempt to create a discussion in the event that a meeting comes to an agreement without sufficient dialogue.

A630.8.4.RB_HallMike

After watching the video, I think that Mr. Wujec’s analysis is accurate.  The MBA students spend their entire time developing a single plan and put all of their proverbial eggs into one basket.  They do not know if it will or will not work out until the end of the allotted time period when they cap off their tower with the marshmallow – it is only as time is expiring that their plan comes to (or does not come to) fruition.  On the other hand, the kindergarteners go with the trial and error approach – they try something out and see if it works.  If it fails, they move on to something else, but they get instant feedback on the design and can move on to better ones in the event the current design doesn’t work.  Now I understand what he is saying here with the prototype argument, however what is lost is that in the real world, prototypes can often be very expensive, can take long periods to build (especially if fine machining is involved), and often does not lead to full solutions to problems.  I would argue that physical prototypes in real business environments employed in the manner he is insinuating is nowhere near the cost effective approach that most employers are looking for.  With that being said, today’s technology allows for different forms of design plans.  For example, 3D CAD programs can lead to outstanding simulations of new equipment that is much less costly than a physical prototype.  Further, there is technology that allows you to extrude a plastic replica of your design – this would cover the physical prototype (albeit non-functioning) while minimizing cost.   

Another possible reason why kindergartners outperform MBA students is that group dynamics are probably much more prevalent in a group of MBA students compared to a group of kindergartners.  Mr. Wujec specifically mentioned that a decent amount of time is spent jockeying for power and talking about how to start the design in many groups.  I would imagine this is not the case with kindergartners where their egos haven’t had the opportunity to fully develop yet.  Essentially, having a group full of leader type personalities can lead to inefficiencies in time usage that a group without a strong leadership dynamic wouldn’t experience.  I think this is the main reason why a group with executive assistants and CEOs together do better than a group of just CEOs.  Executive assistants spend all day communicating between different power hunger people and as a result are able to maintain the power struggle at lower levels than what would occur without them.  Essentially, they keep their CEOs’ egos in check, allowing them to communicate for effectively and thus resulting in better solutions.  If I had to relate this to a process intervention workshop, I would break out and refer to table 8.1 in the book.  Going back to the CEOs, I would imagine that many of them would attempt to dominate, seek recognition, or would block ideas they didn’t like.  On the other hand, kindergartners would probably not have any of those things going on within their group dynamics.  Seeking opinions, asking questions, elaborating, and summarizing are all great communication skills that would at the very least allow you to more efficiently develop your solution if not a correct one.  Ultimately, the video further proves that the current trend in business towards a flatter command structure is probably a good one – positional power often breeds egos that tend to get in the way of group tasks.  If, on the other hand, people can put their egos aside, group dynamics and efficiency only goes up.

A630.7.4.RB_HallMike

First off, it is cool to see Raleigh-Durham getting represented in the video.  The research triangle of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill combine to provide companies with a fertile ground for developing future technologies.  Secondly, it’s also cool to discuss the workings of 2 former Navy men.  Now for the questions: I am not sure that punishing people for not coming up with new practices will be effective.  If the person failing to come up with the culture change was getting paid to do so, that is one thing, but in my opinion, that is exactly what leadership should be doing – dissecting the two different companies, analyzing the parts, and deciding which piece was doing better to move forward with.  Additionally, this type of reward/punishment system might create an atmosphere of competition between the merging companies – something that I would imagine would be the exact opposite of what you would want (I would think you would want to concentrate on brining the companies and the people together to form 1 as opposed to creating a rift between them by having them argue over who is doing what better).  Ultimately, if I was working on the merger, I would bring in outside personnel to analyze the two companies in an objective manner that way whatever was decided; someone would have very little credible complaints as to which one was selected or not selected.  Considering that this video is 11 years old and the merger went down in 1999, one could argue that it was and was not successful.  As mentioned in the video, Honeywell missed its earning in the summer of 2001, sending the shares of the company falling.  They fell so much that it took up until 2007 for the company to reach its pre-merger price – I would say this was an indication that the merger did not go as well as it could have.  Additionally, the CEO during the merger stayed on with the company for another year following the merger, another indication that his policies might not have been well liked (purely speculation though).  On the other hand, the company did survive and is now valued at $39bil so the system he used during the merger has to be considered somewhat successful.

There are a couple lessons learned from this video, however they are not breakthrough thoughts.  First, both CEOs mentioned that communication was the key.  Specifically, Honeywell’s CEO stated that he met with employees for lunch and other meetings like that so that he could hear what was going on in the lower levels of the organization in an unfiltered manner.  I can understand this – often critical feedback that is fed up the chain of command tends to get filtered/watered down a bit so that by the time the information reaches the top, it is just a shell of what it used to say/mean.  Secondly, punishment and reward systems are not the only thing that motivates people.  There are many things other than explicit items that can make people work harder – establishing a sense of teamwork, working for a higher goal, for the better of mankind – all things you can spin other than the carrot/whip routine.  Finally, greed can only take you so far in life, and don’t ever forget that whatever you make in this world monetarily speaking will not carry on to the next.  Honeywell has seen its upper executives increase their pay up to $50mil for the top 15 people in the company whereas they have laid off thousands of people during the same time span.  

A630.6.4.RB_HallMike

Change.  It can be both a great thing for people and a bad thing.  I have seen at least 40 out of the 50 reasons not to change on the list from the presentation and I do not work in the business sector.  Instead I work in a very stable government organization where very little changes aside from technology.  That doesn’t mean that no change occurs however.  I have described several different changes that occurred on my boat in my time on her, and every change event was prefaced with statements like, “it’s not possible,” or “the CO isn’t going to like that,” or the best answer, “but that’s the way we have always done it.”  Every one of those answers is comprised of different words yet they all have the same meaning – I see that you want to change things and I’m not willing/ready for it.  As someone who tends to look for better ways to do things, nothing irritates me more than to hear one of those excuses as soon as I finish talking about the proposed change.  If you have a logical reason why something might work, by all means, express that; if however you have no real reason against the change other than that it is going to take you out of your norm, please keep it to yourself!

Knowing that these statements irritate me as much as they do, I try very hard to not give them myself.  As I said above, I am always looking at ways to improve efficiency and am often willing to go to great lengths to give things a try.  If a proposed change passes my logic test (i.e. I do not have a factual reason why it won’t work, for example it is against written procedure), then I will be more than happy to allow that to get passed up the chain of command.  If the idea doesn’t pass the logic test, I will explicitly state why it won’t work.  I think that you must have an attitude similar to my own in order to not put up road blocks to change.  Keep an open mind and look out for factual reasons why something might work.

I completely agree with Seth’s point on change being driven by tribes.  So much of our existence is associated with our desire to be part of a group, and the internet has drastically increased our ability to do so.  As part of that, people often do not want to go against what the group wants; additionally so much of our actions are based on how we think we will be perceived by the group.  As a result, change can be a taboo topic with many people.  One must be willing to break away from the group sometimes in order to make change occur.

The big take away from this week’s discussion is that you must facilitate change in order to be an effective leader.  Sometimes there will be hard decisions to be made, and often change will be viewed as highly undesirable, however as the leader of the organization, you must have the future vision of where you want your organization to go – people can either change with you or get left behind.

A630.5.5.RB_HallMike

After reading the Assessment and Plan for Organizational Culture Change at NASA and watching the video, I must admit I am surprised that some of the shortfalls in the program existed.  For safety to not be the number one concern at an organization, none-the-less an organization that puts people into space strapped to several million pounds of rocket fuel with several hundred million dollar payloads, is quite shocking.  With that being said, communication was the underlying problem at NASA.  People did not communicate safety concerns because they thought that deadlines were the only thing important to their managers (i.e. managers communicated neither their priorities nor their culture norms).  As a result, Columbia was lost upon reentry over the Southeast US in 2003.  All of the shortfalls within NASA’s culture were identified during the investigation, during which lack of communication was specifically cited.  It was exactly this lack of communication that resulted in the NASA director going on TV to talk about the changes that were being made.  He had to make a personal showing - communication was going to be very important to the new NASA and to prove it he was communciating the new ideas.

Watching the clip, I would say that he was believable during his discussion and he absolutely had to be.  The shortcomings identified were almost inexcusable and it was up to him to fix them.  For him to address his employees and to come across as not genuine would have been a disaster.  If he ended up not being believable, I can almost see the eyes rolling of the NASA employees as he talks about the proposed change (I have seen eyes rolled in many culture change discussions).

He chose to discuss NASA values because it was NASA not following the values that led to the disaster.  Had they strictly followed their own values, perhaps none of the problems that occurred would have happened.  He needed to stress that the values were how NASA was going to do business in the future and that everyone within the company would uphold them.

Ultimately, there are several lessons that can be learned from this scenario.  First, communication in both directions is paramount in any organization.  Talking down but not listening to what is coming up has just as many bad outcomes as the opposite.  You must be able to talk to your employees just as easily as they can talk to you.  This not only aids in the flow of information, but it establishes trust, cohesion, and maintains morale.  Secondly, many organizations have values that are specifically listed out as the way that company does business.  If you fail to uphold them, you are letting your employees know that certain things that you do or say are nothing more than lip service.  You must have your employees understand that everything that is said or done is done for a purpose and is expected to be followed.  Values, like integrity, is an “all or none” situation – you either have the values that you espouse or you do not.  Finally, safety is something that must always be on the forefront of everyone’s mind.  The CEO all the way down to the entry level worker must know and push for safety – there are very few reasons why it shouldn’t be the number one priority.

A630.4.4.RB_HallMike

After watching the video, I can’t help but think of a common Navy nuke term – MOTO.  MOTO stands for Master of the Obvious, which is somewhat how I think about this video.  I was not shocked to hear that there is a positive correlation between decision effectiveness and organizational effectiveness.  Unless I am misinterpreting what effectiveness means, I took that statement to say good decisions makes good companies.  I would not have thought that a statement like that needed research, but the research was conducted just to make sure.  Something that was not surprising but at least not a “no kidding” moment was the statement that employee engagement leads to better decision effectiveness.  When employees are engaged by upper management, their satisfaction with their job goes up, which means a more effective employee.  This not only leads to more production but more importantly it leads to more/better information getting up to the right people.  When making decisions, having the right information is key to ensuring you make the right decision – and getting this information can only occur if the support structure is operating properly. 

Good information is a necessity when making decisions, however it can also be an impediment to decision making.  Information overload is something that people must constantly guard against in both the civilian and military world.  This is especially the case now that the internet –and all of the information that is available on it - is accessible from literally anywhere.  One can quickly be overloaded with too much information very quickly, and this will certainly bog down the decision making process.  Complexity can also lead to challenges in decision making.  If you are middle management, you might feel like you are not the right guy to make a certain decision due to the implications of the question at hand.  Luckily, the military does not have a very complex chain of command and everyone knows exactly who should make the majority of the decisions.  This is not always the case in the public sector, especially in the huge multinational corporation.  Going back to the statement on employee engagement, if your employees are not supporting their leaders, decision making can quickly become fouled due to lack of information or bad information.  Finally, Clausewitz’s Fog of War is a hindrance to all decision making, whether it be in battle or in business.  No matter how much information you try to collect, there will always be unknowns in the equation.  You can try to mitigate the unknown’s effect in your problem, but in the end, the unknown is there.  This creates a “fog” on the periphery of your knowledge that shields what the correct solution is.

The four elements addressed in the video with respect to decision making make sense.  Quality, speed, yield, and effort (as described in the video) all play a part in ensuring that you are make the best decision (quality) in the correct amount of time(speed) with the correct amount of preparation(effort) and the proper amount of execution (yield).

The major point I took away from this video is the emphasis on how your employees play a huge role in the decision processes.  They might not be the ones making the decisions, however they are the ones that have to live with them.  If you can get them more involved, you will get a better product from them which means you can make a better decision for them.  Additionally, I did like the fact that she discussed breaking down the command chain into a series of who makes what decision.  Thinking about my CoC on a ship, that is pretty much how the command chain is already structured, however I do intend to keep that in mind when I hit the business world several years down the road.

A630.3.3.RM_HallMike

Southwest Airlines really is a cool story surrounded by a bunch of bad ones within the airline industry, and you really can feel the difference when you fly them.  Sure you don’t get all of the extras that other airlines provide, but you also don’t get all of the extra fees associated with them either.  Additionally, I don’t think I have ever had a pilot joke over the intercom on any other airline other than Southwest.  As someone who does not necessarily enjoy flying (I have no problem going down to test depth on a submarine but I don’t like flying), a little humor goes a long way.  This type of service has resulted in Southwest growing from a small regional carrier to the 4^th largest in the US.  In addition to this no frills service, a large part of how they keep costs down is by the manner in which they employ their workers.  Southwest has one of the strongest company cultures out there and it greatly contributes to the company’s ability to do business.  Teamwork within the organization is a hallmark of the company.

Due to the fact that teamwork is such an important factor within Southwest, I would imagine that the Culture Committees are very effective in spreading the company’s cultural norms.  I know that if I was a flight crew member that was concentrating on getting the people off the plane so I could clean it when all of the sudden the Culture Committee comes around, gives me food, and tells me that they will do the cleaning, I would be both very grateful for their help and I would also feel very thankful to work for a company that does little things like that.  Sometimes it is not the magnitude of the gesture that is appreciated but the gesture itself, and in this case I think just the fact that Southwest is going out of its way to make its employees – or as they call them, their people – feel appreciated, that certainly does help spread the culture.

The literal purpose of the culture committee (or at least the example provided in the video) is to go out and help the flight crews get the plane turned around while the crew relaxes.  As I described above, a further purpose of these committees is to make the employees feel appreciated, which in turn makes them happier with their employer.  As many studies have shown, a happy employee is a good employee.  In this case, Southwest is ensuring that their people make the customers feel welcome while providing an enjoyable flight experience, in accordance with Southwest’s mission statement.

As a member of the US Navy, there is a pretty easy parallel – Flag officer tours.  As I mentioned above, the gesture is often more appreciated than the magnitude of the gesture, and in the case of the Navy, just having a Flag Officer come by, address me by my name (which means he took the time to learn the crew’s background), and tell me I am doing a great job and to keep it up really does make me feel much better.  Also, the USO is another organization within the military that is there solely to say thanks for your service, we appreciate it, and oh by the way here is some free stuff or a concert.  Knowing that you are actually appreciated really does increase the morale!  So, the idea of a culture committee is something that is not foreign to me and is something that I already try to perpetuate when I go around and talk to my sailors.  I want to know what is going on in their lives not to be nosey but so I can ask them how things are going when we are half way through the patrol, dog-tired, and just wanting to go home; showing that I care about them and their families, and them knowing that I will fight for them with the upper chain of command leads to a sailor that will go out of his way to help the entire organization.  As I learned very early in my life on a ship, morale is the largest contributing factor when it comes to success and the ability to meet and overcome obstacles.  A crew with good morale can accomplish almost anything whereas a crew with poor morale will do little more than get the job done.  The culture committees at Southwest are essentially a morale tool that ensures that their employees feel appreciated and have good morale, which in the end results in a better employee and a better product.

A630.2.4.RB_HallMike

I am going to go ahead and warn you up front, this blog is quite pessimistic – I get downright depressed when I think about what our society has become…

 This talk is titled 21^st century enlightenment to promote the author’s proposed change in the way we think, the magnitude of which would be on the scale of the great enlightenment.  The author proposes that we move away from the individualism that has been prevalent during the last couple of centuries and instead move towards a more conscious society that is self-aware of both societies’ needs as well as their own needs.  While I also wish we were a more conscious society (both within our country and the world), you must first believe that mankind is not a selfish creature – something that I am nowhere near ready to accept: one only needs to look at areas where western society breaks down to see that we are still animals when it all comes down to it (see New Orleans after Katrina).  Also, I think this enlightenment has already happened, just not in the west: many Asian countries are great examples of an empathetic society that is willing to sacrifice some of their own freedoms/comforts for the greater good of their society.

When he states, "to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange” he is referring to people’s desire to resist change within their lives.  If something is new to someone or upsets their rhythm, they tend to think that it is not correct, even though it can be shown to be 100% correct.  I completely agree with this statement and actively think about this when change is introduced into my world.  I discussed an experience with this last week.  When my new CO came on board and decided to hold people accountable to using the procedure, many people where very reluctant to do so, even though they knew he was right – using the procedure wasn’t familiar which meant it wasn’t right.  You could further generalize this with every change of command – every time a new CO comes in and shakes the boat, people are quick to say the new CO is wrong when in reality they are just upset that he is changing the status quo.

I think it would be great (marvelous would probably be a better word) if we could move away from pop culture as it stands now, however that would require society to completely change and that’s not going to happen anytime soon.  I am not sure how to really go about explaining it however I do have an example of it:  on the YouTube column to the right of this video – a political commentary – there was a road rage video showing 2 guys fighting on the side of the highway.  People want to see that sort of thing – train wrecks – it is the same reason why people slow down to 10mph when they pass a car crash… they just want to see what is going on.  As long as channels are owned by businesses, the channel will always move towards things that draw in the viewers and the sad fact is that shows like The Jersey Shore gets rating whereas shows like Modern Marvels do not.  I picture our society moving towards what the populous was like in the movie Idiocracy instead of the enlightened one that the author wants us to move towards.

Towards the end he discusses moving society towards one that is more creative and intolerant of negativity, rigid thinking, and self-promotion.  I think that these again are great goals and are goals that are achievable in the small groups and businesses, however applying them to the population writ large is not possible as the world stands today – people are way to self-centered.

As I just said above, there are some things that can be taken away from this video and instantly applied to current life.  First and foremost is the discussion that not all things that are new are wrong – actively keeping an open mind about change is instrumental in today’s world that is always changing.  Secondly, applying the empathetic ideals to your business is achievable and would result in an efficient company.

On a side note, I am not sure where he gets the statement that our history is one of diminishing person to person violence – the 20^th century saw the 2 most destructive wars ever known to man and the invention of the most deadly weapons ever created.  One could argue it is precisely the fact that we can kill each other so efficiently that has reduced the war casualties over the last 50 years however millions of people die annually due to violence throughout the world, and will continue to do so – us killing each other is one of the only things that has been constant throughout human history.

A630.1.4.RB_HallMike

If there is one thing the Navy has provided me with, it is a plethora of stories that can be applied to many different situations.  I could probably think about several bridging the gap scenarios that have happened in my short time as an officer; however the first one that comes to mind is how my second CO turned my boat from a good ship into a great one. 

My first ship, the USS ALASKA, was coming out of a refueling when I joined her towards the end of 2008.  It was immediately apparent that the crew was something special – after almost 2 years in the yards, they still had incredible morale and great spirit-de-corps – 2 things not normally found in a boat that had been in dry-dock for that amount of time.  The CO at the time was able to get the ship out of the yards and back to deployments under both time and budget.  He was a great man but he did have some weaknesses, mainly that procedural compliance was not nearly stressed enough.  Following our recertification as a strategic asset, he was relieved by my second CO.  This CO immediately recognized that we did not have near as much experience as we thought we did and demanded (rightfully so) that we will use the procedures during all evolutions.  At first, many old timers on the boat complained about how using the procedures slowed them down while others said it wasn’t required, but anyone that was against the change was wrong.  The first several months of his command was summarized by the struggle to get the entire crew onboard with his message of procedural compliance, but he had a dedicated wardroom and chiefs mess that was ready to enforce the standard.  Eventually, using the procedure turned into second nature for the crew.

The results of this were amazing.  First off, the vast majority of the crew had a drastic increase in knowledge of the boat.  This was due to the residual effect of reading the procedure.  Secondly, and most importantly, we cut down on our mistakes and went about our business knowing that rework would be limited to unexpected outcomes of procedures (as it turns out the guys that wrote the proverbial “book” really do know what they are doing).  Inspection after inspection commented on how judicial we were with our procedures.  First, some divisions won squadron awards; the next year the boat won the battle “E”; and just last year the ALASKA was awarded the Omaha Trophy as the best strategic asset in the fleet – the apex of the community.  I truly believe that this can all be traced to the gap between not always using the procedure and using the procedure.  We had pessimists and pragmatists that said it couldn’t or shouldn’t be done, but in the end the CO with his vision and his senior leadership bridging the gap, we were able to turn the boat around into the envy of the fleet.    

A521.9.4.RB_HallMike

3 courses into the MS in Leadership curriculum, I find that I understand what it is to be a leader much better than I did 6 months ago.  I have done many of the things that are incorporated as being a good leader, however I did not understand what I was doing or better ways to employ them.  Denning’s book was a great read and something that I plan to use as I continue my path towards better myself, while his dimensions of leadership are also a great thing to keep in mind also.

Denning breaks down his requirements for today’s interactive leader.  First, he says that the interactive leader works with the world rather than against it (Denning 2011).  I completely agree that if you look for ways to allow the momentum of the world to work in your favor, you can use the energy you didn’t use in fighting the world and place it into other areas.  Second, he says that an interactive leader both adds and subtracts elements from the leadership palette (Denning 2011).  What he was trying to say was that the interactive leader cannot submit himself to performing manipulative tactics or other less than ethical means.  I also agree – it is hard for you to stand up in front of an organization and proclaim that you want an ethical company and then turn around and be unethical yourself.  You must embody your organization at all times in order for your people to believe in you.  As a naval officer, I strive to be the best officer I can be by attempting to embody what it is to be a naval officer.  I stand by the core values of honor, courage, and commitment, I am in good physical shape, I have rock solid integrity, and I demand the same from my sailors.  Thirdly, he says that interactive leadership builds on personal integrity and authenticity (Denning 2011).  Continuing from my previous statement, people will not follow you if you can’t practice what you preach.  In this case, no one would say that they run an unethical company therefor you must be ethical.  Also, today’s workforce is much more in tune with the ethics associated with business practices (or at least I would like to think that) – they will (should) not stand for someone who acts in a questionable manner.  Again, this is something I already incorporate into my daily life and something that I will continue to do.

The fourth dimension is something that I have a hard time swallowing as a military leader, however I get what he is saying.  Denning states, “Interactive leadership doesn’t depend on the possession of hierarchical authority” (Denning 2011).  Although I am in an organization that has a very strict hierarchy, what he is trying to say is that leadership can occur within all levels of an organization and not just from the top down.  Even though the military has the hierarchy, it fully supports and promotes leadership at all levels, from the junior most seaman up to the senior most admiral.  This is also something that I work very hard to promote within my subordinates – deck plate leadership development is key in developing a strong senior enlisted corps.  Fifth, interactive leadership benefits from an understanding of the different narrative patterns that can be used to get things done in the world (Denning 2011).  Here he is saying that you must be able to use different communication means in order to connect with your subordinates.

In summary, Denning’s view on interactive leadership is right in line with what my opinion of a leader should be.  Being ethical, accepting of things he can’t change, promoting subordinate development, being a good communicator, and having integrity are all things that a good leader must do in order to be successful.  I hope that some of my guys that I have worked with would say that I meet these dimensions, but regardless of whether or not I did then, I will certainly strive to meet them in the future.  LT Mike Hall signing off from the MSLD 521 blog!

Denning, S. (2011). The leader's guide to storytelling. (2 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.