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.