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?