A634.9.5.RB_HallMike

I have always liked discussing ethics so it is no wonder that I enjoyed the class yet feel a little disappointed in it.  Some of my fondest memories of my undergrad days were debating the pros and cons of different ethical points of view in my leadership & ethics class my senior year.  While I knew that it wouldn’t be the same because of this being an online course, I had hoped for a little more discussion from the class.  With that being said, this is an extremely hypocritical statement coming from me as I posted around 4 posts per discussion question and could have made a greater effort to both get myself and others involved in the boards – probably the one thing I could have done much better in the class. 

That aside, I definitely did learn from the class.  While I already knew about consequentialism, deontology, relativism, and some of the other big points in the first several chapters of the book, it was great to get to go back and revisit the material to further solidify my understanding of the subject matter.  Additionally, I thought the author did a fantastic job discussing opposing viewpoints throughout the book which helped to solidify the knowledge I already had.  Other than that, I would say I was rather pleased with where my ethical evolution stands and I look forward to continuing my pursuit of standing atop an ethical pillar.

So, three key lessons I took away from the course.  First off, the author made me change my stance on affirmative action.  Going into that discussion, I was opposed to it based on it being reverse discrimination.  How in the world I failed to put several things together without his help was surprising to me.  I knew darn well that the economic and educational stance of your parents plays a key role in determining how successful one person will be in life.  That fact alone perfectly justifies the existence of the program as racial equality was only “establish” a generation ago.  The second lesson involves the use of the Golden Rule.  As I said during that week’s discussion, if I had to describe an ethical person prior to this class, I would have used the Golden Rule.  As LaFollette states though, that is an almost childish definition of ethics and it doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of complicated problems.  The fact is the Golden Rule is somewhat like Newton’s physical theories– it works 95% of the time but when you need to start digging into complicated problems, it completely lacks the ability to define the solution.  Finally, I really enjoyed the discussion on slippery slope arguments.  I knew they existed but had no idea what they were (I knew they existed because I have heard them before – essentially if my response is “well that is a stretch” it is a slippery slope).  Now that I have learned about them, I can be better equipped to identify them when used (and they are used all of the time) and can help others to identify them as well.

Addressing some of the other required points, I wouldn’t say this was what I expected in the course but then again I wasn’t sure what I was expecting.  In the end, learning about ethics is quite unlike learning other topics as it is a much more fluid process without many concrete anchoring points.  I did enjoy the book however as I previously stated.  More so than any of the texts I have purchased in this curriculum, I plan on keeping that book readily handy to read out of it.  Other than that, as the text stated and science has shown, ethical codes are related to the amount of education you have and the amount that you have discussed ethics.  From that stance, the class was a success as it brought up multiple current day ethical dilemmas and presented multiple points of view in the process.  I don’t think the class can get too much better aside from my already stated complaints about the discussion boards.  As it stands, I am glad the class is required in the curriculum as it reminds us all this is an incredibly complicated world we live in.

A634.8.3.RB_HallMike

Oh gun control.  How such a topic can become such a heated argument is really beyond me.  I think the answer to gun control is pretty simple and can satisfy those that want restrictions and those that want unabated access to any weapon on the market.

Pure and simple, the Constitution is a modifiable document for a reason – the founding fathers had the foresight 240 years ago to see that times will change and the Constitution will need to be updated accordingly.  As a result, I think the 2^nd Amendment could easily be altered to reflect a more modern definition of right to bear arms.  First off, when the Bill of Rights was written, the country was completely different – it was a largely agrarian society that had major issues with attacks from Native Americans, had hostile countries to the north and south of it, and lacked the funding to maintain a large standing army.  As a result, the solution was to allow the citizens of the country to maintain arms to both protect themselves while also providing a readily available source of manpower to form a militia in the event the country /state needed it.  Today, I would argue that the need for militias is completely removed considering the huge amount of money we spend on national defense.  Because of this fact, I do not think the common citizen needs access to military style firearms with high capacity magazines.  This doesn’t mean that you can’t own an assault rifle as you can use them for hunting, however you shouldn’t be able to have magazines with a greater capacity than several rounds as this only servers 1 purpose: putting as many rounds down range to kill people.  With that being said, I think the need for self-defense is still there so a common law abiding citizen should have access to self-defense weapons. 

This leads to my second point – this nonsense about not wanting background checks/mental health screenings for people to buy guns is crazy.  If you are mentally ill, have a criminal record, or have been part of an organization with ill-intentions as its primary purpose, you forfeit your right to own a firearm as you cannot be trusted.  To determine this, gun sellers must have access to this data and if there is anything the government is clearly good at (and too good at it in many ways), it is data storage.  The NRA (or at least some less than credible associates of the organization) has this ultimate conspiracy theory that by having to do background checks the government is recording where every weapon is in the country so that when they decide to take away all of our guns to prevent the next great revolution, they know exactly where to find them.  Being the engineer that I am, I actually ran the numbers on such an event if the government decided to do such a thing.  Assuming there are 150million firearms in this country, every single government employee (and I mean every single employee at the federal, state, and municipal levels – including the military, police, fire fighters, desk jockeys, etc…) would have to go out and fetch  almost 10 firearms apiece in order to accomplish the deed.  In today’s age of instant communication methods, there is zero chance that such an event would even get planned without the nation finding out none-the-less it getting started and the whole country flipping out before the evolution gets rolling.  It is flat out mathematically impossible.

So, in summary, I think that there should be restrictions on certain types of firearms, magazines, and ammunition, that there should be extensive background checks to determine eligibility, and that you must use the firearm responsibly in order to keep it.  I don’t think that outlawing all firearms is the answer as there are probably millions of unregistered weapons in the hands of people of ill-refute that would love to know that the person or house they are getting ready to knock off doesn’t have any real means of self-defense, so maintaining the self-defense aspect of the 2^nd Amendment is important.

A634.7.4.RB_HallMike

The Navy has a relatively small set of words that is supposed to define your values while serving in it.  Honor, courage, and commitment is something that is preached from the very get go regardless if you are an officer or an enlisted person and they follow you throughout our career.  Those values are part of our creed, are in every school house, and are displayed somewhere at every command I have ever been to.  The beauty of those 3 words is that they cover so much of your daily life and they seamlessly interact with each other to really become one big statement.  You can’t just have honor because having honor requires you to have the courage to do so and the commitment to having it at all times.  Conversely, if you have made the commitment to being committed to something, it will certainly take courage for you to stick with your honor and follow through with it.  The bottom line is you can’t have just one without the other two being right there.

With that being said, each individual entity in the Navy will probably have its own values that it wants to instill into its sailors.  For example, the nuclear Navy has the additional values of Understanding, Formality, Anticipation, Teamwork, Procedural Compliance, and Ownership.  While not as seamless as the Navy’s big 3, these additional 6 values speak volumes as to how important it is to operate nuclear reactors.  You must understand how the system will respond when you mess with it, you must anticipate those changes and take action to prevent casualties which will usually require teamwork to do so.  As serious as operating a reactor is, it goes without saying you should do so with the utmost due diligence and formality (no games on it), follow the procedures (since they were written by the people that designed the thing), and take ownership of your plant.  Additionally, there is the unofficial motto of the nuclear Navy – integrity.  Above all else, old Hyman G. Rickover wanted to ensure that anyone that touched a nuclear reactor had integrity.  This again rolls into the other six values.  The fact is without integrity, the other six will not exist. 

Time on board a submarine is littered with examples of people acting with integrity and without it.  I have messed up on many occasions and I had plenty of opportunity to cover my tracks to prevent anyone outside of a few people from finding out (especially the chain of command).  With that being said, at no point did I take any action other than the one that upheld both the Navy‘s and the nuclear side of the house’s values.  On the other hand, there are several people sitting in the civilian world with bad conduct discharges because they decided they wanted to forge some maintenance records when no one was looking vice taking the 15 minutes to do the maintenance.  Integrity lapses simply aren't tolerated.  Having integrity and doing what is expected of you no matter what the consequences are is something you just have to accept and do.  One of my least favorite phrases out there is the saying, “integrity is like a bank, you only have so much to use.”  To me, that saying goes against everything that integrity stands for.  You either have it or you don’t!

A634.6.3.RB_HallMike

Ben Franklin… what an interesting character in our country’s history - an inventor, a playboy, an incredibly important member of the founding of this country – and to top it all off apparently he tried to live a very ethical life.  His 13 virtues that he attempted to live by are still quite relevant to life 223 years after his death.  Virtues like temperance, order, resolution, silence, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility are all fantastic ideals for people to utilize in their everyday life (“Ben’s 13 Virtues,”).  While I was closely aligned with his virtues, there are some areas that I could improve on to bring myself into closer similarity with how he lived. 

For example, tranquility.  This is actually something I have been trying to work on for the past several months now.  Before I went to Iraq, I let petty things get underneath my skin.  While I wouldn’t act upon that irritation, people often could sense my change in attitude and I developed a reputation for being a hot head.  When I came back from Iraq, I was much more clam – after all, being in a combat zone for 7 months gives you a certain perspective on life about what is and is not important.  With that being said, I have slipped back into my old habits and let stupid things get to me.  Several months ago, I (admittedly) saw a quote from Elizabeth Kenny on Facebook that really got my mind going and that essentially resulted in an epiphany – “he who angers you conquers you.”  Since then, when I start to get heated about something trivial, I quickly remind myself that it is not worth it and whoever is getting under my skin will not own me.  In only several months, both my wife and I have seen improvements in my demeanor and is something that I plan to continue to work on.

Frugality is another one that both my wife and I have been trying to work on of recent.  We in no way hurt financially, however taking a step back and looking at where we are in life, we realized that we spend way too much money on material things and not near enough on things that matter like living life to the fullest.  Essentially, it occurred to us that we have all that we need and everything else is pure excess.  Since coming to that conclusion, we have drastically dropped our spending on materials and instead spent some on an experience – we just got back from a cruise (our first vacation alone in 6 years).  We didn’t buy anything except a few petty trinkets to remember the cruise by despite all of the “great deals” underway purely because we didn’t need them (to say it is a remarkable feat that my wife was able to abstain from purchasing any jewelry is an understatement)!

I am going to conclude with something that I have lived with for many years.  I am an ardent supporter of having humility.  I was taught pretty early on that being humble in life is a great trait to have and have ensured that I stayed so for years now.  This is almost to a fault now since I can’t brag about myself when that ability to do so is almost a requirement for the Navy evaluation system, however I refuse to be anything but humble.  I am just a man that tries to do his best which is all that I want out of anyone else.  That attitude has helped to win the confidence of both upper officers and the guys below me, and I have no intention of changing that anytime soon.

Ben's 13 virtues. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html

A634.5.4.RB_HallMike

When I first saw the title of this assignment, I was quite excited to get into the weeds and read what the authors had to say about marketing and then do a little research myself.  This was mainly because while I understand that marketing is a requirement for business, I whole heartedly believe that marketing is evil.  Marketing makes people buy things that they don’t want or need, caters to people’s subconscious minds, and alters people’s behavior to benefit an organization/business often at the expense of the person.  My prime example of this is the medical industry in general in the US and in particular the drug industry.

25 years ago, drug companies were not allowed to sell their product commercially directly to consumers.  In other words, the incessant commercials we now see almost every commercial break didn’t exist because the law prohibited them.  1999 however, that changed and the FDA decided that it would be ok for companies to provide information about their drugs to consumers (Huh & DeLorme, 2010.  Since then, advertising increased exponentially to where it is at today with companies spending almost $5bil a year pushing their products (Huh & DeLorme, 2010).  In fact, the US and New Zealand are the only 2 countries in the world that allows prescription drugs to be advertised (“Should prescription drugs” 2013).  While most companies would argue that it provides consumers with information about available drugs out there on the market, I would argue that this might be one of the key reasons why the US is the most heavily medicated population on the planet.  In fact, sales of drugs that are advertised outsell those that are not by 9 times (“Should prescription drugs” 2013)!  The facts out there surrounding medical commercials is astounding, including: for every $1 spent in advertising, sales increase $4.20; the US currently has a $291billion a year industry in direct to consumer drug sales (“Should prescription drugs” 2013).  Clearly advertising has drastically changed the money making in the industry by “informing” consumers about their options.  As a result, Americans might be the most medicated people in the world yet are far from the healthiest.

I whole truly believe that marketing is inherently evil.  If all it did was say “Hey, I have this product and if you want to buy it this is where you can get it” then I would be alright with that.  Instead, companies spend billions of dollars researching people’s psyche to determine the best way they can get people to buy their product.  They intentionally alter messages in order to put in subliminal messages to attack our subconscious’s and in today’s advertising have been blamed for some of the recent health problems in America (people getting fat due to the rampant advertising of fast food, getting people hooked on smoking early in life prior to cigarette advertisement getting banned, bulimia and anorexia because of the models used in campaigns, etc).  Yep, no doubt about it, I really think marketing is evil…    

Huh, J., & DeLorme, D. (2010, March). Direct to consumer drug advertising. Retrieved from http://www.minnesotamedicine.com/Default.aspx?tabid=3351

Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers. (2013, June 13). Retrieved from http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/

A634.4.4.RB_HallMike

I am not going to lie.  When I read the assignment my very first thought was “of course affirmative action isn’t ethical – its reverse racism.”  Man was I wrong.  After reading chapters 5 and 6 I can say I am rather ashamed of my short-sightedness when it came to the issue.  LaFoullette does a great job breaking down my thoughts against affirmative action (all of which he hit on in chapter 6) and then did a great job building a case for it.  I’m only going to hit on the one key point that really sealed the deal for me.

The thought that solidified my thoughts on affirmative action are based on how much of an effect past transgressions can have on the future.  Why I never really thought about affirmative action with respect to that fact is beyond me.  After reading other books (Freakonomics comes to mind where they discuss at length the fact that a person’s chances at success in life are directly linked to the parent’s education levels), I’m surprised that I never thought of this fact.  Of course discrimination 100 years ago has had an effect on people today.  Holding people down 100 years ago resulted in fewer opportunities 50 years ago, which has limited opportunities today.  Limited educational opportunities of people just 30 years ago has resulted in less opportunity for people entering the workforce today.  As a result, you must take steps to level that playing field for them since the past has harmed them.  If it was a level playing field in this country from the get go, the country/workforce might have a considerably different look to it.  For example, I know that the military officer corps struggles to find minorities to fill the ranks.  In a perfect world, the all parts of the military would represent the society we are protecting, however that is not the case.  I do not have exact numbers for all of the branches, but I know the Army is severely lacking in black officers, especially at higher ranks.  As a result, they have pushed to bring in young black officers into the corps in order to fix the problem.

The other fact that always made me give some support to affirmative action was the fact that its mere presence means that blatant racism can’t exist.  As much as I would like to think it (racism) doesn’t exist with people who are in positions of power, I know that there are people making decisions based purely on racist ideals.  These people must be held in check at a minimum, and affirmative action ensures that.  In the end, people that get upset about affirmative action very well maybe closet racists or just naïve.  Prior to the readings I would have thought affirmative action is wrong, but I was quite naïve also… 

A634.3.5.RB_HallMike

After reading the article by Kramer about how/why successful leaders makes meteoric rises to the top only to come crashing down a short while later, the first real dilemma that comes to mind is a very basic principle that we all are faced with quite often: integrity.  Integrity is a rather simple idea that has many definitions.  The nuclear navy has a pretty easy one to remember that I am a fan of: doing what is right even when no one is looking.  For example, you come across a valve out of position.  You know why it is in the wrong position and could easily reposition it with no one ever knowing but you also know that you should report this.  The nuclear navy would hope your only response would be to report the valve out of position and thus you have integrity.  Unfortunately however this is not always the case.  In my opinion, you either have integrity or you do not; you will either do what is right or you will not, and I think part of the problem with some of these leaders is a result of that.

The article directly mentioned that many successful CEOs have a winner take all mentality and are willing to do whatever it takes to succeed, including as we saw in the article, lying and cheating the system.  For example, the CEO of DreamWorks who forged a UCLA diploma in order to advance up the company.  Clearly this was a dishonest act aimed at promoting only himself.  I would venture to say that that was also probably not the only time he acted in a selfish, unethical manner.  So why then is it surprising to us when they do exactly what they have always done just because they are at the pinnacle of success?  They had no integrity to get to the top so why would they have any once they are at the top?  They aren’t going to change who they are; after all, it did lead them to some of the most powerful positions in the country. 

A634.2.4.RB_HallMike

Bottom line, I think that both theories are good in their own respects, however you must use pieces of each to get the best set of ideals out of them because each isolated is not complete.  For example, take consequentialism and specifically Utilitarianism.  As a military officer, there are multiple facets of being in the military that exude Utilitarianism.  For example, a triage – instead of wasting time and resources on people that are probably going to die anyway, I instead focus on people that might be saved.  This would go against some views other hold that all life is the same and that equal effort should be put in to conserve it.  Another example would be sending someone to their doom to save the lives of others.  Take for example the movie U571.  The officer orders the small enlisted guy to get back into the bilge to shut the leaking valve so that they can shoot a torpedo to save the ship knowing that he will probably drown in the process – under Utilitarianism, this is perfectly ok and to some respects I agree with it.  With that being said, you must be careful to not apply it to all situations.  For example, some Utilitarianism theoriest argued that from the theory you could conclude that it would be ok to sacrifice 1 person to harvest their organs in order to save the lives of others.  I do like Mill’s discussion on how the goal of people should be to promote happiness.  Additionally, the point that your own happiness must not be the overriding consideration – it should be looked at as if you are considering someone else’s happiness – would go a long way in this world if people thought about that more often.

Moving to Deontology, I concur with the author’s statement on page 31 when he states that, “deontology relects the way most of us acquired and developed our moral beliefs” (Lafollette, 2007).  In fact, I would have partially defined ethics by stating it is a set of rules to live by prior to this class.  I also like the aspect of Deontology that essentially there are universal truths out there.  It is completely irrelevant of the consequences associated with an act, something is wrong or right because it just is wrong or right.  I especially liked how the author compared breaking down complex rules in football and thus making them more understandable to why some moral rules are overly simplistic.  Deontologist would argue that when we say something like “don’t lie”, that is an overly simplistic version of an underlying rule that is just too complex to initially teach.  It is only when you are old enough to really understand that you are taught that it very well may be ok to lie in certain situations.  This then leads to a problem with Deontology which is which rules are more important than others.  Kant would argue that there is only 1 rule – the good will is the underlying principle (i.e. you can never act wrongly if you have good will in mind).  Clearly this isn’t true because there can be good will that is misguided. 

A634.1.6.RB_HallMike

I’m positive that if you asked people to name the least most trusted people on the planet, business executives would be in the top 5 responses.  Ethics and business just aren’t two words that people generally put together, and there is a reason for that.  Much of the economic hardship over the past several years was the result of business leaders looking to make some money by cutting corners and skirting by ethical considerations.  In addition to the economic woes the country has experienced, several other executives have made the headlines due to downright unethical decision making (see Bernie Madoff, CFOs at Seimens, Robert Rubin to name a few) (Kostigen, 2009).  In all reality though, I have a hard time really faulting these guys for doing what they do – in the end it is just a by-product or the nature of the beast when you deal with a free market, rather unregulated capitalist economy.  Your goal as a business man is to make money for the business and make a few dollars yourself in the process.  Understanding that I think that people are inherently evil and generally selfish, it is hard to fault someone for taking advantage of a situation when they think that no one is looking.  It is like trying to blame a 4 year old for trying to sneak a cookie out of the cookie jar.

With that being said, you absolutely can fault them because what they did was wrong and they knew it when they did so.  Many people point to the fact that business schools are at the root of this problem (executives doing what makes sense monetarily while removing all other considerations from the equation) because they focus on performance at all costs vice doing so under constraints.  What is strange in my opinion is that a more stressful environment – the battlefield – has a much deeper ethical understanding and application from leaders in general compared to the business world.  If leaders can maintain ethical standards on a battlefield then business leaders should be able to do the same in the meeting rooms.  The difference between the two cultures though is that military leaders receive extensive ethical training and are constantly reminded of what is right and wrong whereas business leaders might get taught some in business school but are then left to fend for themselves in the complex business world.

So what can these schools do in order to improve on the ethical decision making track record of their graduates.  Joel Podolny of the Harvard Business Review has some ideas that include stopping the ranking system of schools (and thus stopping the cutthroat mentality), increase the amount of qualitative research (diversifying education and limiting the focus on just hard numbers), and diversifying the education (have more ethics discussions) (Podolny, 2009).  Doing these things hopefully will show future business leaders that the bottom line is not always the bottom line; that numbers can be misleading, especially if they were achieved unethically.  As luck would have it, there are business schools out there that have taken notice of the unethical practices that have started to implement some of Podolny’s ideas.  Schools like Michigan State, the Universities of Colorado and Pittsburg, and Katz Graduate School of business have all started requiring ethical discussions in class (Korn, 2013).  While it will require some time to see if their efforts work since the graduates will have to work their way up the ladder, having at least a few ethical business leaders out there certainly will not hurt!

 

Kostigen, T. (2009, Jan 15). The 10 most unethical people in business. Retrieved from http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-10-most-unethical-people-in-business

Podolny, J. (2009). The buck stops (and starts) at business school. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 62-67. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail?sid=ae0a377b-bb55-41cf-bf1e-8cdd0619f018@sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==

Korn, M. (2013, Feb 6). Does an "a" in ethics have any value?. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324761004578286102004694378.html

A520.9.5.RB_HallMike

Power.  In the end, this is what drives many leaders to do what they do – they want the power to control their own destinies and that of others.  I can honestly say this isn’t what drives me to lead.  My experience has been that I would rather step back and let others take the show 90% of the time however when things start to mess up I have to step in (something inside of me pretty much forces me to step up).  So, essentially I have an uncomfortable relationship with power.  I accept that I need it in order to get things done but I also don’t want to be perceived as power hungry or abusive with my power.  The bottom line is I have no problem getting personal power because that comes about from me doing what I am supposed to do.  I must be knowledgeable about my craft else I risk the lives of 150 guys so expertise power is something I want to have.  Along with that, I work incredibly hard so I take effort power as a compliment, and the same goes with legitimacy power.  Attraction is something that I don’t necessarily work for but I’ve been told I’m rather charismatic so I guess I have that also.  All of that being said, I’m not doing those things to achieve power - it is just a by-product of what I do when I try to be a good officer – and the same goes for positional power.

Looking at the characteristics of a likable person, I would say that I hit the majority of them and maybe miss on one or two.  I think I support an open, honest, and loyal relationship with people (definitely the loyal aspect of it), I provide positive regard and acceptance (I’m not going to say unconditional because if you act unethically you will lose my support), I have endured sacrifices for the sake of others, provide sympathy and empathy if needed, and am know to shoot the “sh!t” quite often.  I think the one thing I is on is being emotionally accessible.  On more than one occasion I’ve been told that I come across rather coldly at times and I think this is due to my almost unshakeable logical train of thought – I just don’t let my emotions or others get in the way of thinking logically.  As a result, when people are looking for me to respond in an emotional manner I usually do not meet their expectations.

I would say that I am decent influence in both directions of the Navy.  I certainly have influence over my Midshipmen and I think I have a pretty good handle on what sort of person I am.  With that being said, I could probably understand my boss a little better.  While I know what his preferred style is and where his strengths and weaknesses lie, I don’t really know what his goals and objectives are (his personal ones that is) or what some of his professional goals are aside from being a great NROTC unit.  I also only have a basic understanding of what pressures are on him.  I’m not really sure how to go about gaining that knowledge from him unless I explicitly ask him what his goals are and where the pressure on him comes from, but I do know that he wouldn’t take too kindly to me asking those questions.

A633.9.3.RB_HallMike

One only needs to read the first paragraph of appendix B to answer the question of old leadership styles becoming redundant.  As Obolensky states, old models that worked are being updated/refined in order to bring them up to speed with the new trends in leadership like polyarchy (Obolensky 2012).  Just like most other facets of life, few things are permanent; instead, they morph/grow/change with time, which is exactly what is happening with old leadership models.  Old models are being revisited, complexity science is applied to them, and updated models are then promulgated to the world.  In fact, viewing the science of leadership as a complex system itself, failure of these theories to adapt would mean that it isn’t a complex adaptive system after all which it clearly is.

The biggest implication of this fact lies more with the change aspect of the above statement than the current specific trend of all things polyarchy.  Who knows what the new idea will be in 20 years?  No one can see into the future; however I would bet my house and my retirement that things will be in flux then just as it is now.  New ideas will continue to hit the industry as understanding of complexity science increases and further data is available to support or refute the ideas contained within it.  As a result, the biggest implication for how this current change will affect me as a leader in the future is that I must stay on top of the new ideas as they hit the streets – I must constantly be adapting my style as leadership theory itself adapts.  This will require staying tuned in to the latest models and academic thought regarding leadership and will also require me to keep an open mind as new ideas are often counter to established thoughts.  Moving a little closer to current times, in the immediate future my plan is to discuss complexity science and its leadership implications with my students in NROTC as well as push myself to be a polyarchic leader to the greatest extent possible considering the limitations I have placed upon me due to naval regulations.  More so than some of the other ideas learned to date in the leadership curriculum, I think that applications of complexity science could do a ton of good for developing leaders and I can only hope I can pass of a fraction of the knowledge I have gained in this class.

Obolensky, N. (2012). Complex adaptive leadership, embracing paradox and uncertainty. Gower Publishing Company.

A633.8.3.RB_HallMike

Looking through the statement we are supposed to respond to in this post, I think you see the essence of the toaist/pull approach of leadership.  The statement essentially states that the client has the answers within them because they know themselves the best but were unable to figure it out themselves.  So, a coach’s purpose is to help them realize the answer that already lies within them.  A great method to do this is to utilize the GROW method of coaching.  GROW (Goals, Reality, Options, and Will) utilizes non-suggestive open questions to nudge the client in the right direction (Obolensky, 2012).  The non-suggestive questions are merely the questions that need to be asked to force the client to self-reflect and pull the answers from within.

Coaching is a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy because it is powerful yet requires great skill (Obolensky, 2012).  Coaching allows for learning, growth, improvement within an organization but in order to accomplish it, you must go about it in very distinct ways (for example the GROW method) else you risk isolating either the coach or the client.  On one hand, often all that is needed is another set of eyes to solve problems, and a coach provides that for you.  Looking back on the 4+4 principles, coaching helps to achieve unambiguous feedback by correcting problems that exist or by making a person better at what they do.  As we learned in chapter 7, all of the principles must exist in order for them to be effective so coaching has a part in establishing the polyarchy business structure.  Finally, in the cutthroat world of business, if you are stable and not growing as a person you are falling behind so people and organizations put a premium on ensuring both continue to evolve.

Coaching is very much an important aspect of the Navy.  In some ways it is the primary method of knowledge transfer.  For example, during the qualification process on a watch station, you will stand under-instruct (UI) watches with a senior qualified person above you to monitor you.  Your first UI might be heavily assisted to get you introduced into the flow of the watch, but as you get more experience, a good over-instruct will slowly turn over the reins to you to allow you to develop your skills.  He should be standing by to correct you if you are wrong, provide advice into how things should go when there aren’t procedures, and give hints on where to find things you should know.  The bottom line is the over-instruct is coaching you at that particular watch station.  He has the knowledge that you need in order to be successful and over the course of several watches you get that knowledge from him.  Going back to the fundamental difference between a coach and a mentor, according to the Archway group, “Coaching is typically employed in instances where a specific issue or requirement needs to be addressed.  These might be related to a target, objective, performance of a set of skills, adoption of a desired behavior or mindset” (“Mentoring vs. Coaching,” 2008).  In this case, the skill set is the ability to stand that watch safely by oneself.  In terms of what this means to me, it means that I need to be a good coach in order to ensure that those that will follow in my place will be able to operate the boat safely.  Given that my life is in their hands when I am not on watch, the better tuned I can get my coaching skills to be, theoretically the better they will be as watch standers!

Obolensky, N. (2012). Complex adaptive leadership, embracing paradox and uncertainty. Gower Publishing Company.

(2008). Mentoring vs. coaching. Business Topics, 2(1), 3. Retrieved from http://www.archwaygroup.com.au/Assets/78/1/BusinessTopicsNov08.pdf

 

A633.7.3.RB_HallMike

After studying leadership for the past 15 months and living it for the past 5 years, I’ve learned that I shouldn’t be surprised when things go in a direction I didn’t think they would go.  Case in point: the quiz at the beginning of chapter 10.  I thought I knew about how to take a hands off approach to leadership however apparently I didn’t really understand what that meant.  My scores weren’t too bad: I had one 1, two 2s, seven 3s, and six 4s, however I still am a little hands on in some respects but I also don’t quite understand what exactly the author is trying to get at with others.

Before entering the class, I would have classified myself as a rather hands off leader – if you show me you are capable of doing your job, I will leave you to get it done how you see fit.  If you show me you need supervision, I will also provide you with plenty of that.  This class has definitely shown me that the further I can slide myself towards being hands off, the better things should turn out.  As a result, I would say that had I taken this quiz at the beginning of this class, I probably would have had less 4s than this time and probably more 1s and 2s (speaking of which, taking this quiz week one and week 7 might be an interesting way to judge how people have changed over the course of the class).  With that being said, I must not fully understand the extent to which the author wants us to take our hands off approach.  On a couple of the questions, the “4” answer had us do nothing at all.  In some situations I bought that, however when things are already tanking, I personally think that letting it tank further might not be the best option (especially for reasons expressed later).  Even further, I have got to question the “4” response to question 15 which asks when do you step into a team that is getting ready to quit due to poor performance.  The 4 response is to let a person quit before getting involved.  Other than the fact that you are saying you purposely aren’t going to get involved for complexity sake, I just don’t see how acknowledging there is a problem and asking them for plausible solutions isn’t the better route to take.  Team performance aside, I know I wouldn’t look to highly on someone who let another person quit before stepping in to stop the madness – anything they did after that would appear to be reactive rather than proactive (I understand that part of complexity is reacting vice being proactive but this scenario almost has the air of Nero watching Rome burn – at what point do you quit playing the fiddle before you get a bucket of water to put out the fire – do you wait until half of Rome is burning or do you put it out when it is just smoldering).

With respect to significance of this self-realization and my future leadership goals, I think this has solidified my belief that empowered delegating is key, and letting people go through things themselves is also good, but at some point you need to at least get involved as a leader – you just need to do so in an effective manner.  In the quiz, I scored 13 out of 16 in the 3 or 4 categories.  This showed that I am hands off but when I do get myself involved, I am using a low structure behavior type of style, whether it be coaching, democratic, or affiliative.  I would agree that I am more of a puller than a pusher, and this quiz showed that.  It also showed me that I can improve on this as I scored a 1 on question 11 (it was with only the most noble of intentions – I just wanted to ensure my guys got the training they needed!).  I also learned from this exercise that you have to be very careful with how hands off leadership can be viewed (or at least I viewed some of the 4 responses as being too hands off).  Perception is reality and to an untrained eye the hands off approach can sure look like someone who isn’t really doing much except worsening the situation through inaction (in the Navy especially we are taught to at the very least make a decision/act – indecision is the worst decision and I really think that someone could perceive letting complexity run its course as indecision).  I think if I chose to further my education in this field (which I am interested in), looking into how complexity approaches towards leadership are viewed might be an interesting subject matter – especially in the military.    

On a side note, I sure would like to see what my full breakdown is off this quiz.  The book has you go to their website however it costs 125pounds to get the full report – any chance we can work out a deal with them to get the results?

A520.7.3.RB_HallMike

At several points during the discussion board this week, I saw people asking each other whether they prefer a coach or a mentor.  Just like there are different methods of leadership to be applied at different times, I don’t think that one can really prefer one over the other – they are both superior to the other under certain circumstances. 

In cases where I need specific help, I would prefer a coach since according to Archway, “Coaching is typically employed in instances where a specific issue or requirement needs to be addressed” (“Mentoring vs. Coaching,” 2008).  In my, time in the Navy I can’t really single out any one person who has coached me at any given length about any specific subject – I have been taught a wide variety of things from a wide variety of experts so to name them specifically would be pretty much impossible.  I can say that my swim coach growing up had a significant impact on who I am today but now that I am thinking about it the life lessons he taught me were in more a mentorship role than a coaching one.  I swam under the same guy for the first 6 years of my swimming career and he took me from someone who couldn’t really swim competitively to a state champion.  His swim coaching skills are unquestionable as he not only coached me but several others, and he continues to coach today.  I still am quite a swimmer and enjoy sports like water polo and surfing because of the swimming skills I developed rather young.  As I alluded to though, he taught me more than just swimming, he taught me about dedication, determination, perseverance, and hard work – all of which would fall under a mentorship role.

In my professional life I have had several mentors.  First and foremost, the CO is supposed to be the mentor to all of the officers beneath him and I was fortunate enough to have 2 COs that cared deeply about their subordinates (or at least most of us).  They provided me a wealth of knowledge, understanding, and patience that allowed me to succeed as a JO.  I also had an outstanding “sea dad” aka a fellow JO that had just finished qualifying when I showed up.  He helped me get settled into life on board the ship during an incredibly trying time with the reactor testing that was going on, showed me how to get started qualifying, and went out of his way to make me feel welcome both in and out of work – compared to some other sea dads I have seen, I am very thankful.  With all of that being said, I think the two best mentors I have had were the 2 department heads I worked under - my Engineer and Navigator.   Both taught me how to perform at their level by providing me with just enough leeway so that I could get myself into trouble without providing so much to where I couldn’t recover.  They really were the bedrock for my abilities/capabilities today as I look on towards my own department head billet in the coming year.

If you haven’t figured out by now, I think that having both a coach and mentor are incredibly important.  One of the articles mentioned something to the fact of it would be impossible for someone to come in and learn everything by themselves – you must have a mentor/coach to help you on your learning journey.  I really thought that statement hit it home (although I didn’t take a note of where it was it unfortunately) – coaches/mentors are there to assist you in becoming a better person and worker.  With that being said, another discussion post mentioned how this relationship has to be both ways – the mentor has to be in a mentoring frame of mind just as much as the mentee has to be.  I am truly appreciative of the both that I have had in my time in the Navy to date, and I sincerely hope that I can be half the mentor to individuals below me as I have myself.

(2008). Mentoring vs. coaching. Business Topics, 2(1), 3. Retrieved from http://www.archwaygroup.com.au/Assets/78/1/BusinessTopicsNov08.pdf

A520.6.5.RB_HallMike

Some things I know about myself and others I don’t really understand.  One thing I am certain about however is that when I am involved in a team I tend to lean towards a task-oriented person.  Regardless of whether it is an effective team or a high performance team from the discussion board, or even a sports team, I tend to find myself performing more in the manner of a task person vice relationship person.  From table 9.5 in the text, a task-facilitating role person would be someone who tends to give direction, seeks and gives information, elaborates, urges, monitors, analyzes processes, reality checks things, enforces standards, and summarizes events (Whetten &Cameron 2011).  I have no kidding used several of the lines from the table, including some just last week during our weekly unit staff brief.  I have always been task oriented in my life, so it is no surprise that I would be classified as such since I carry that orientation into much of my life.  I am not one to like wasting time at work (although I love wasting it at home), so I always ensure that meetings are driving towards the goal for the meeting.  I learned early on that you never want to be the guy with the secret so I am quick to give out any information that might be useful to the group.  I think this probably is the result of my INTJ personality type where I am a user of intuition and thinking.  Essentially what I am trying to say is it just suits my personality more than being a relationship builder (especially since the I stands for introvert).

All of that being said, I find that I have performed some relationship-building roles in addition to the task-oriented ones.  Table 9.6 discusses some of the relationship building roles such as supporting, harmonizing, tension relief, confronting, energizing, developing, consensus building, and empathizing (Whetten & Cameron 2011).  As I discussed in the meeting discussion question, I am definitely not afraid to insert some comedy if it is needed/warranted.  I also don’t let arguments get out of hand when they are moving in that direction by using the exact harmonizing examples provided in the text.  I’ve always been a motivator (even if I use it in a sarcastic manner for humor sake), and often am one of the first people to acknowledge when a group is in consensus.

The bottom line is while I tend to associate myself with a task vice relationship kind of person, in practice I tend to fit the role of whatever is needed.  If a task-oriented person is required to get the facts out and the project moving, I will do so.  On the other hand, if the meeting needs some levity, some situation diffusing, or whatever else, I will do that also.  I can’t necessarily say that I have done it on purpose in the past; I guess I just tend to be able to sense what is needed and do it. 

Whetten, D., & Cameron, K. (2011). Developing management skills. (Eighth ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc.

A633.6.5.RB_HallMike

I think I’ve stated it at least several times in this class and multiple times in past classes – the most enjoyable aspect of this curriculum is the facts that I have either witnessed a ton of the material or I have had it actually happen to me and the “vicious circle for leaders” in another example of this.  In this case, I witnessed it, but I immediately recognized the scenario from my experience.  In the cycle, a leader gets concerned about an employee so he becomes more hands on, which lowers the confidence of the employee which then leads he to defer to the leader more (closer to level 3 followership), which demonstrates a lower skill to the employer which further makes the employer concerned (Obolensky 2012).  This cycle repeats itself until someone can break it.  With that being said, in my experience breaking this cycle is next to impossible.  The example that came to mind was when one of my buddies made a small mistake that he got lit up for.  This made him think he needed to get permission for everything (which wasn’t the case – was a good example of level 3 followership gone wrong) which further upset the CO, which further dug my friend into a deeper ditch of lower confidence (both his and the CO’s in him).  This cycle continued unabated until he was essentially useless as a watchstander.  It took months after the CO left before he was able to build back up his confidence.  Important to note is that his diminished confidence hurt his position with the crew as they sensed his unease when making decisions not to mention the fact that they also picked up on the lack of trust towards him from the CO.  The bottom line is that the vicious circle can affect the entire organization, not just one person (as I said, the lack of confidence in him led to his uselessness as a watchstander which meant the other JOs had to pick up his slack, adding more stress to an already stressful situation). 

So with the vicious circle in mind, what can a leader do to essentially create the opposite effect and turn the cycle into a positive one?  In 1 word, I think empowerment is a great start.  Empowerment is when an employer provides employees the freedom to successfully do what they want to do rather than getting them to do what the employer wants him to do (Whetten & Cameron, 2011).  This means that the cycle is starting at the bottom with the leader taking a less hands on approach.  The causes the follower’s confidence to increase which means he defers less, which means he demonstrates more skill (because he is moving towards level 5 followership of making decisions and informing the boss at a convenient time), which make the leader more confident in their ability, which make them less hands on with the employee.  The end result is you have an empowered employee that is actively utilizing level 5 followership.  Again, I don’t think you necessarily need a system or even a circle – empower your employee and everything else will fall into place.

Obolensky, N. (2012). Complex adaptive leadership, embracing paradox and uncertainty. Gower Publishing Company.

Whetten, D., & Cameron, K. (2011). Developing management skills. (Eighth ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc.

A520.5.3.RB_HallMike

After reading through the document “Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea” by Russ Forrester, my first thoughts were how well that article complemented the reading from the book.  While not necessarily in the exact order of the book and some ideas are stressed more than others, I’m not sure there are too many differences.  There are a couple of ideas that are not present in the text that will be discussed and in general Forrester tends to care a little more about the middle management that is surrendering some of their power, however there is no doubt the 2 are complimentary.  I think the easiest way to tackle this is to list the 6 ideas according to Forrester and then compare that idea to an idea from Whetten and Cameron so that is what I have done.

Forrester’s 6 ideas are: above all, enlarge power; be sure of what you want to do, differentiate among employees, support power sharers, building fitting systems, and focus on results (Forrester, 2000).  First, above all enlarge power.  What Forrester was saying here is that an organization should focus on increasing the power base that all employees have through increasing their knowledge/skills, access to resources, and opportunity to build new relationships (like with the customer for example) (Forrester 2000).  This is clearly in alignment with several ideas from Whetten and Cameron such as providing resources, providing information, connecting to outcomes, arouse positive emotions, provide support, and foster personal mastery experiences (Whetten & Cameron 2011).  Skipping a couple comes supporting the power sharers.  Here Forrester states that companies should not just give but grow power.  Additionally, there is a discussion that is almost identical to the personal mastery discussion from the book.  Both clearly state that you should start with small tasks to build confidence, distribute power from the top down (when actually distributing it), and to give employees the chance to flew their new muscles in a consequence free environment prior to setting them loose (Forrester 2000).  Next up is building fitting systems.  What this means is that the employers have to understand that most of the organization is interrelated so by changing the status of the power distribution you are going to set the entire organization off balance unless there is a healthy organization to support it.  While not necessarily discussed in the text, ideas from Table 1 in the article are definitely discussed.  These ideas include management culture (model successful behaviors), budget and resource allocation (provide resources), employee development (providing information, support, and personal mastery experiences), and performance management (connect to outcomes, articulate clear visions and goals) (Forrest 2000)(Whetten & Cameron 2011).  Finally, Forrester states that an organization should focus on results – a clear parallel to Whetten and Cameron’s statement of connecting to outcomes.

Two ideas aren’t really discussed in the text. The first idea is to be sure of what you want to do.  Here, Forrester is trying to say that too many managers and companies give lip service when talking about empowerment (Forrester 2000).  In order for it to be successful, managers must truly be willing to give employees more power.  If there is one that is not specifically discussed by Whetten, it would be this one – the only real point discussing the person giving up the power is that they should model successful behaviors.  Next up is to differentiate among employees.  According to Forrester, people are too different to share the power to everyone equally.  Instead, managers must treat everyone as separate individuals who receive power based on their individuality (Forrester 2000).  Again, there isn’t much comparison from the text.

In quick summary, Whetten and Cameron concentrate more on what immediate supervisors can do to support the empowerment of their personnel.  Forrester on the other hand seems to concentrate more on upper management who have to support both the employees gaining power and the management that is surrendering some.  With that being said, both complement each other and neither are contradictory of each other – both contain great ideas to keep in mind when attempting to delegate.

 

Forrester, R. (2000). Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 67-80. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4165660?uid=3739600&uid=2134&uid=370836281&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=3739256&uid=60&uid=370836271&sid=21102112182171

Whetten, D., & Cameron, K. (2011). Developing management skills. (Eighth ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc.

A633.5.3.RB_HallMike

The video “Who Needs Leaders” is a pretty eye opening example of self-organization in a complex system.  In the video, Nick Obolensky instructs a group of 30 or so people to quickly select 2 people, unbeknownst to them, and maintain an equal distance from these two individuals without any sudden movements – an exercise from him Complex Adaptive Leadership book (Obolensky 2012).  After only 1 minute, the group stabilized after everyone had followed the instructions.  At the close of the video, the author asked how that exercise would have gone with a leader there to direct it.  Trying to place myself in that situation, I’m not sure how I would have handled trying to instruct these people how to move accordingly based on the complex interrelationships between the people (i.e. he needs to stay equidistance from these 2 but each of them needs to stay away from this guy and so on).  This would have been way too complicated to try and figure out if not impossible.  Clearly the lesson learned here is that a complex system will self-organize, that solutions to problems will naturally evolve from the system itself, and that often the best leadership is to just sit back and let things work itself out.

I’m not sure I could say this video changed my understanding of chaos theory except to say that it further solidified my take that it doesn’t take more than a few variables to make a system a complex one.  More so than the previous classes to date, this class has really had an impact on how I perceive day to day operations and how I should go about attempting to tackle problems.  However it definitely has an implication on strategy.  Clearly self-organization is a natural phenomenon which means that people should trust some of the other aspects of complex adaptive systems and complexity science.  For example, and speaking from experience, I would have an incredibly hard time not trying to interject my influence into a system when looking at a solution to a problem.  This is against the Taoist approach to complexity science which states “go with the flow”.  Many people have a hard time accepting that sometimes problems are outside of their control and that it might be better to just sit on your hands for a bit to see what happens (myself included).  This video has shown me that I really need to do just that if I am dealing with a complex system.  Interestingly enough, this is in alignment with the Cynefin network of problem solving for complex systems.  In this network, you probe the system to sense how it responds while looking for underlying solutions (Cynefin, 2013).  Once you have probed and gathered information, you take action based on the results of your probing.  The whole idea is to look for emergent solutions (the purpose of probing).

The bottom line is that to deal with a complex system, you really need to be walking along the border between perceived chaos and control (again perceived).  On one hand, you want a controlled system so that you can make the system respond in the way you would like it to since that is how we have operated most of our lives (you are the master of your own fate).  On the other side, you have a system that appears completely out of control that responds to none of your inputs.  What you must understand/acknowledge is that even though a system may appear chaotic, it is just your inability to understand/see the complex inner working of the system and that it is just responding to its natural arrangement.  As a result, the recommended approach is to sit back and watch the system do its thing while looking for patterns to evolve and solutions to emerge from it – a definite tough sell to type a personalities but one they must buy into.  After all, patience is one of the 3 things taught by Lao Tzu who apparently did actually know a thing or two about complexity!

Obolensky, N. (Producer). (2008, April 12). Who Needs Leaders? [Web Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E

Obolensky, N. (2012). Complex adaptive leadership, embracing paradox and uncertainty. Gower Publishing Company.

Cynefin. (2013, March 28). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin

A633.4.3.RB_HallMike

This week’s readings focused on the fact that contrary to popular belief, a significant amount of solutions to problems originate from the lower levels of the organization.   As a result, the fact that leaders pretend to have all of the answer is referred to the “leadership charade” (Obolensky 2012).  Part of the charade is also the fact that subordinates expect the management to have the answer to all problems even though they know that isn’t the case (Obolensky 2012).  The argument is thus why does leadership have a problem not accepting the fact they don’t have all the answers and why does the subordinates play along.  At the beginning of the chapter, the book asked the readers to estimate the number of solutions that are generated at the lower levels of the organization.  Being that I have seen both tactical and strategic decisions made in the DoD, I know darn well that almost all of the solutions come from the lower levels of command.  As a result, I would say the DoD doesn’t have this problem that many other companies have.

But why does this problem exist and what is causing it to slowly disappear?  I think the reason that people are starting to realize that leaders don’t have the answer is threefold.  As Obolensky discusses, leaders might have been able to know everything about something in the past when the world didn’t appear to be as complex that it is now thanks to increased communications.  Now, however, the world is incredibly complicated and organizations have so many different aspects to them it would simply be impossible for a leader to know everything.  The increase in complexity has also coincided with an increase in overall education and specialization of the workforce.  As a result, subordinates are in general much more knowledgeable about their jobs.  Secondly, the increased communication methods allows for these ideas to move upwards through the organization much easier than before (not to mention the fact that flatter organizational structures means fewer people in the phone chain which means more complete ideas getting to the necessary people).  Finally, the increased communication has also increased the transparency of organizations.  This results in 2 things: 1) subordinates have a better understanding of what problems the organization is facing and thus can generate an appropriate solution; and 2) subordinates are now seeing sides of the organization they weren’t privy to before, i.e. they see that management doesn’t have the solution much more often than in the past.  There clearly is a correlation between the amount of solutions being generated at lower levels of the organization and the flatter organizational structures (although this is not the case in the DoD for reasons explained last week).  Some of the reasons I can think follows.  A smart leader might not know the answer but he knows where to go to get the solution.  Why bother going through levels of bureaucracy and management when you can go straight to the horse’s mouth for the answer.  Another reason could be that flatter organizational structures leads to more interaction between the leaders and the subordinates.  This in turn means that there is a greater familiarity between the 2 groups which results in an easier information flow between them (i.e. it is easier to talk to someone you know than the big bad boss – by demystifying them you make it easier to go to them with answers).  Finally, a flatter organizational structure usually coincides with a greater emphasis on teamwork.  This sense of teamwork could possibly cause people to be more willing to put forth their ideas when they were less emotionally attached to the organization when it was highly structured.

Looking at the blog instructions, I’m not sure I follow what exactly is being asked in the final part of this assignment so I’m going to answer what I think is being asked.  Even though there is a correlation between flatter organizational structures and solutions coming from the lower portions of the organization, this is not the case with the DoD, even though most solutions come from mid-grade officers.  The decision making model in the DoD goes something like this: a problem presents itself that needs to be solved.  The problem is officially designed and then sent to the appropriate portion of the staff that handles that type of question.  From there, the problem is farmed out to teams of action officers who study the problem, generate multiple solutions, and then start routing the possible solutions back up the chain (known as the Course of Action Development).  Each person on the route back up to the deciding person reviews the solutions and possibly puts their own inputs into it (after reviewing their input with the action officer)(COA review).  By the time it gets back up to the decision maker, he has several fully developed potential solutions for him to choose from, and usually a recommendation on which one to go with (COA Comparison and Approval).  This process, while structured, is exactly what the book is saying organizations need to do.  Upper level leaders in the organization just do not have the expertise or the time to fully develop solutions, but they do have people below them that do.  While problems are still defined at the upper level of the DoD, their solutions are almost always generated at mid-grade officers (usually O4/O5).  There is no charade in this process as both levels understand the situation (solutions come from below).  Because of the fact that the DoD already has a very good decision making process and is not going to move towards a flatter organizational structure, I’m going to say that there is no effect on strategy or the dynamics within the organization.

Obolensky, N. (2012). Complex adaptive leadership, embracing paradox and uncertainty. Gower Publishing Company.

While I know how the decision making process works in the DoD, a special thanks goes out to Wikipedia for giving me the exact terms used for the process:

Military decision making process. (2012, June 19). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Decision_Making_Process