|
Appraise the Value of Leadership
OLB 7004, Assignment 6 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Rosa Cassell 18 February 2018 Organizational Disruption – Scenario One This scenario analyzes organizational disruption in the United Methodist Church in the form of an ongoing and heated debate regarding issues of gender and sexual identity within the denomination. In particular, an article published in The Wichita Eagle by Katherine Burgess entitled, “Could LGBT debate split Methodists? Some say it’s already happening.”, and the information reported in that article provides the information utilized in this examination (Burgess, 2017). In dealing with this issue, the leadership of the United Methodist Church has taken the approach of delaying any action in an effort to become better informed about not only the decision, but also the impact on the decision on existing church documents. Burgess reports that the denomination leadership of the United Methodist Church has voted to commission a study on the Book of Discipline, and delayed a vote unitl such a study was completed. Burgess (2017) reported that “In May 2016, General Conference delegates voted 428-405 to accept the recommendation of the Council of Bishops to delay a debate on homosexuality and let a commission instead study the Book of Discipline, the denomination’s governing document” (Burgess, 2017). One leadership approach to this particular issue of organizational disruption is to encourage and facilitate “employee reflexivity” (Carmeli et al, 2013). Reflexivity is a process of individual self-reflection in an effort to think innovatively and creatively about unique situations in an effort to discover new and better solutions. Carmeli et al (2013) suggests that “organizations should invest considerable effort in facilitating employee reflexivity, such that people can engage in information-processing activities that have the potential to enhance the capacity for creative problem-solving”. Investing in such endeavors leadership “facilitates the development of employees’ creative problem-solving capacity by shaping a climate of psychological safety conducive to reflexivity process” (Carmeli et al, 2013). In this situation, the denominational leadership of the United Methodist Church should seize the initiative in this disruption process not only to study the Book of Discipline, but to facilitate processes with and amongst those individuals most closely impacted by this disruptive issue. The end result may still be division, which is what Burgess reports that many in the church fear is an inevitable result, but there will be a process in which all those affected by the outcome have been given an opportunity to think through the process themselves. Hardy, Ness, & Mecca (2017) discuss this process and the creativity and innovation that are created, released, and implemented as a result of the facilitating of such a reflexive process by leadership. They conclude that “curiosity contributes to creative performance” (Hardy, Ness, & Mecca, 2017). While the United Methodist Church is not looking to encourage performance in an objective, measurable standard (such as units produced on an assembly line in a given amount of time), they are, nonetheless, hoping to produce something in their effort to find a meaningful solution to this disruption. This process could be accomplished by splitting districts up into smaller groups, with each group being assigned a facilitator by the denomination. This facilitator would then meet periodically at regular intervals with the group to encourage this process. There would be a series of “prompting” questions for discussion amongst the group at each meeting. The groups, with input from each individual within the group, would then produce a recommendation for the denomination which would, ideally, influence the final decision of the leadership body of the United Methodist Church. This process of “collective leadership” would allow and encourage input from all participants, while still leaving a focal burden on the denominational leadership to address this disruption (Friedrich, Vessey, Chuelke, Ruark and Mumford, 2009). Organizational Disruption – Scenario Two This scenario analyzes organizational disruption in the not-for-profit organization of “Doctors Without Borders” in the form of sexual misconduct by employees. Earlier this month, it was reported that “twenty-four cases of sexual abuse or harassment” were uncovered within the ranks of the organization and that “nineteen people were fired as a result (McCambridge, 2018). The article used in this examination comes from an article published in the journal Nonprofit Quarterly entitled, “Doctors Without Borders Says It Fired 19 Staff for Sexual Misconduct in 2017” (McCambridge, 2018). One suspicion of the author is that the numbers were reported in an effort to be completely transparent for the purpose of preventing any funding loss. She says that, “[Doctors Without Borders] takes this step as Britain’s development minister considers possible prosecutions and a potential withdrawal of funding from other aid organizations that do not learn from Oxfam’s missteps” (McCambridge, 2018). At this point, the concrete steps taken by the leadership of Doctors Without Borders are simply to communicate to the public by reporting internal numbers. The rationale behind this purposeful communication, as noted in one report, is “to promote transparency” (Associated Press, 2018). Much like the issue of negative organizational disruption within the United Methodist Church, this is an issue which, if not addressed properly, could lead to a much more serious and disruptive situation. However, unlike the issue with the United Methodist Church, Doctors Without Borders has already taken concrete steps to address this issue of organizational disruption within their ranks by firing those employees caught up in the disruption. The leadership of Doctors Without Borders needs to not only communicate these issues and fire such employees, but they also need to initiate movements within the organization to bring about change. This could be in the form of corporate briefings, one-on-one conversations by leaders with their employees, or numerous other methodologies. The primary problem with this solution, however, is that, according to Higgs (2010), nearly three-quarters of change initiatives fail. To increase the likelihood of their change initiatives succeeding, Doctors Without Borders should go through a process of “collective inclusioning” (Lysek, 2016). “Collective inclusioning is what leaders do to include everyone in their mission and vision without being selective to a few individuals” (Lysek, 2016). This reinforcement of mission and vision by the leadership is not only non-selective, but it also builds upon the values and strengths of the organization. Mather & Hess (2013) note that, in implementing collective inclusioning, leaders “must seek a way to connect to core values, which will provide energy and renewal in their own work so that they can translate this into their work with others”. This inclusioning process also builds upon what assets already exist within the organization in an effort to build upon existing strength and minimize or eliminate the weaknesses. After all, “leadership is not simply about solving problems, but about recognizing and leveraging organizational assets” (McKnight & Block, 2011). This leveraging of organizational assets combined with building upon values and organizational mission and vision will help to create the need for change within the existing culture and ensure the greatest chance of creating lasting change. This exercising of “collective leadership” creates a “dynamic process in which a defined leader, or set of leaders, selectively utilizes the skills and expertise within a network as the need arises” (Friedrich, Griffith, & Mumford, 2016). If Doctors Without Borders can implement a change initiative within their existing culture to address the disruptive issue of sexual misconduct by implementing collective leadership which builds upon their existing values, mission, and vision, then they will be much more likely to not only communicate and address such a disruptive issue, but also use their existing assets to overcome and build upon this disruption. References Associated Press. (2018, February 15). Doctors Without Borders issue statement on sexual misconduct. Retrieved February 18, 2018 from http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02/15/doctors-without-borders-issue- statement-on-sexual-misconduct.html Burgess, K. (2017, April 24). Could LGBT debate split Methodists? Some say it’s already happening. Retrieved February 18, 2018 from http://www.kansas.com/living/religion/article146517079.html Carmeli, A., Sheaffer, Z., Binyamin, G., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Shimoni, T. (2013). Transformational Leadership and Creative Problem-Solving: The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety and Reflexivity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(2), 115-135. doi:10.1002/jocb.43 Friedrich, T. L., Griffith, J. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2016). Collective leadership behaviors: Evaluating the leader, team network, and problem situation characteristics that influence their use. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(2), 312-333. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.004 Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M. J., Ruark, G. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A Framework for Understanding Collective Leadership: The Selective Utilization of Leader and Team Expertise within Networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 933-958. doi:10.21236/ada544438 Hardy, J. H., Ness, A. M., & Mecca, J. (2017). Outside the box: Epistemic curiosity as a predictor of creative problem solving and creative performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 230-237. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.004 Higgs, M. “Change and its Leadership: The Role of Positive Emotions” In A. Linley, S. Harrington, and N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work (pp. 67-80). New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Lysek, M. (2016). “Collective Inclusioning: A Grounded Theory of a Bottom-Up Approach to Innovation and Leading”. The Grounded Theory Review, 15(1), 26- 44. Accessed February 18, 2018. Mather, P. C., & Hess, M. (2013). Promoting positive leadership. New Directions for Student Services, 2013(143), 31-40. doi:10.1002/ss.20057 McCambridge, R. (2018, February 15). Doctors Without Borders Says It Fired 19 Staff for Sexual Misconduct in 2017. Retrieved February 18, 2018 from https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2018/02/15/doctors-without-borders-says-fired-19- staff-sexual-misconduct-2017/ McKnight, J., and Block, P. The Abundant Community: Awakening the Power of Families and Neighborhoods. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2011.
0 Comments
Investigate a Local Organization by Conducting an Interview
OLB 7004, Assignment 5 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Rosa Cassell 11 February 2018 The Need for Innovation Many factors are required to operate a successful and sustainable organization in the modern economy. While many organizations are focused on profit margins, leadership, team dynamics and chemistry, or improved technology, organizations must not forsake creating, cultivating, and developing innovation. Numerous studies have concluded that innovation is “consistently linked to sustained competitive advantage in the complex, dynamic environments that characterize contemporary markets (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008; Teece, 2010). In other words, an organizational focus on innovation will produce a “competitive advantage” which will manifest itself in profit margins and the attraction of quality leaders and team members. Innovation has been defined as “the introduction of new and beneficial ideas, process or products (Fay, Borrill, Amir, Haward, & West, 2006). These new organizational ideas, processes, and products have proven to be one of the most transformative and powerful tools in the success of modern organizations and companies. Shafie et al (2014) cited a Forbes report from September 2013 which listed the one-hundred most innovative companies in the world. In this report, a noticeable and positive correlation existed between innovation and growth. For example, over a five-year span, Amazon.com reported a thirty-two percent revenue growth, Apple reported a thirty-five percent revenue growth, and Google also reported a thirty-five percent revenue growth for the same period. Each of the three companies, according to Forbes’ criteria of company “innovation premium”, were also among the most innovative companies in the world. A large part of this reason for this correlation is the continued matriculation of Generation X into the workforce. As this new generation of workers assume positions within companies, innovation is perhaps the most important factor for attracting and retaining high-quality employees. Roger Herman, writing of “A Leadership Revolution”, says that, “worker attitudes are shifting. People in their twenties and early thirties, a cohort often called Generation X, are much more independent and self-motivated than their predecessors. They have a tendency to want more control, more autonomy, more power, centered in self-leadership. Their highest productivity comes when they understand the desired results, have the resources to get the job done, and are left alone to get results. Heavy supervision irritates them, motivating them to leave companies that limit their freedom to perform (Herman, 2013).” Again, research and studies highlight the importance of innovation and its potential for increased organizational performance and production. Innovation and Leadership Innovation, or the lack thereof, has consistently been proven to be directly related to leadership. Trung et al (2015) noted that “leadership is identified as one of the most important factors affecting organizational innovation, especially for transformational leadership in empowering subordinates and creating an appropriate climate for innovation” (Jung et al, 2003). Implementing innovation into the workplace is the task of the leader, which makes the selection of key leadership positions one of the most important tasks. In the modern, complex workplace environment of constant evolution, organizations must think differently about leadership if they wish to experience organizational innovation. Furthermore, this requires a fundamentally different approach to leadership from previous generations. Li et. al (2016) suggests that the “traditional approach to studying leadership and innovation does not adequately differentiate between circumstances in which leadership might both foster and hinder innovation”. Armed with this knowledge, the following consultation is a practical guide to creating a workplace of innovation which begins at the highest levels of leadership and trickles into every level of human resources within the organization. Innovation begins with the Individual Traditional leadership theories and formulas would suggest a “top-down” approach to innovation. Organizational leaders gather in the board room to develop a “master plan” which will then be presented to the organization corporately. This vision will then be communicated to the organization, and it is this vision which brings about the innovation required to bring about increased productivity. However, organizational innovation begins at the lowest level: the individual. “Individual cognitive processes are one of the key contributors to this generation of new ideas, a critical component of successful innovation” (Li et al, 2016). Consequently, team leadership cannot be understood or innovatively exercised “if individual-level processes are not integrated with group-level processes into a comprehensive leadership model” (Li et al, 2016). Earlier, we cited Herman (2013) who notes that those from “Generation X” are inherently more individualistic and prefer autonomy over management. Furthermore, Generation X is inherently more innovative than previous generations (Herman, 2013) which builds upon the research of Li et al (2016) and others which suggest that organizational innovative must begin at the individual level. Once this begins to take place, group-level processes will being to take place and organically form a “comprehensive leadership model” for the organization. This “bottom-up” solution, which is contrary to traditional leadership approaches, will bring about the greatest degree of innovation into the organization. Knowledge Sharing How does such innovation take place at the individual level? What can organizational leadership facilitate that would expedite this process of innovation? (Shafie et al, 2014) noted that one factor dramatically improving innovation in organizations is “knowledge sharing” amongst those within the organization. Knowledge sharing, they note, directly improves “various aspects of innovative product and quality which, in turn, lead to improved operational performance and positive financial result” (Wang & Wang, 2012). As individuals within the organization begins to freely express their ideas and experience the results of innovation, then such “knowledge sharing” will take place from one member to another throughout the organization. This will serve not only to develop group dynamics within the organization, but it will also spark new ideas for growth and innovation. When leadership endeavors to create a culture of “knowledge sharing”, they, in turn, create a culture of innovation throughout the workplace. This innovative culture gives companies and organizations their best chance to remain competitive and relevant in the modern market (Shafie et al, 2014). Course of Action This organization, like every other, is seeking to remain competitive and relevant. In order to accomplish this objective, creating a culture of innovation throughout the workplace is imperative. The best way to create a culture of innovation is to increase innovation at the individual level. Since leadership plays one of the most important and impactful roles in this process, what can and should be the course of action for those in positions of leadership going forward? Anderson (2017) notes the rising organizational structure of a “holacracy”. Within this structure, there is no hierarchy or chain of command, but rather individual are freed and required to self-mange their work. This, he notes, unlocks the innovativeness within employees by freeing them from a structure which emphasizes uniformity over innovation. Take, for example, Tony Shieh who serves as the head of the online shoe company, Zappos.com. In an article published by Business Insider, Feloni (2016) reported that 18% of Zappos employees took severance packages and left the company when faced with working under Hsieh’s “holacracy” where each employee is self-managed and traditional structures and titles are eliminated. This new working environment, while cutting almost one-fifth of his workforce, drastically transformed both employees and overall production. In this organizational structure, Shieh was somehow able to lose almost one-fifth of his workforce while simultaneously increasing production and employee morale. This shift could happen because the culture of Zappos.com was fundamentally changes by implementing a “holacracy”. Once this new organizational structure was in place, innovation was unleashed by the employees of the company which not only shaped the workplace culture, but also resulted in increased production. Within your organization, the leadership must create a “holacracy” which places the emphasis on innovation and creativity. This will require a certain amount of risk on the part of the leadership but, as we have discussed, innovation and an innovative culture cannot and will not exist apart from innovative leadership. Each employee should be given a workplace which is not only conducive to the completion of organizational tasks, but which also encourages experimentation and innovation by giving them complete autonomy over the workspace. These workers must be given the objectives of the organization by the leadership, while left to largely create how those objectives are fulfilled. When this happens, a budding innovative culture is being created and, subsequently, knowledge sharing is taking place throughout the organization between individuals. Summary The modern workplace demands that innovation become a priority for organizational leaders, as evidenced by the fact that the most successful companies in the world are also the most innovative. This is an initiative that, although it begins with leadership, cannot be accomplished without innovation and knowledge sharing at the individual level. The most effective way to create such a culture is to implement a new organizational structure which results in increased autonomy and freedom for the workforce. This autonomy and freedom to experiment, create, and explore results in an innovative culture, which benefits the productivity and effectiveness of the entire organization. References Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., Griffith, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). What works for you may not work for (Gen)Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new generation. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 245-260. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.001 Fay, D., Borrill, C., Amir, Z., Haward, R., & West, M. (2006). “Getting the most out of multidisciplinary teams: A multi-sample study of team innovation in health care”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 553-567. Accessed February 11, 2018. Feloni, R. (2016, January 28). Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh reveals what it was like losing 18% of his employees in a radical management experiment — and why it was worth it. Retrieved February 11, 2018 from http://www.businessinsider.com/tony-hsieh-explains-how-zappos-rebounded- from-employee-exodus-2016-1 Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). “Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 461-473. Accessed February 11, 2018. Herman, R. (2013, July). A Leadership Evolution. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://www.hermangroup.com/futurespeak/article_leadership_evolution.html Jung, D.I., C Chow and A Wu. (2003). “The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings”. The Leadership Quarterly, 14 (4-5), 525-544. Accessed February 11, 2018. Li, V., Mitchell, R., & Boyle, B. (2015). The Divergent Effects of Transformational Leadership on Individual and Team Innovation. Group & Organization Management, 41(1), 66-97. doi:10.1177/1059601115573792 Sarros, J.C., Cooper, B.K., & Santora, J.C. (2008). “Building a climate for innovation through transformational leadership and organizational culture”. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 145-158. Accessed February 11, 2018. Shafie, S. B., Siti-Nabiha, A. K., & Cheng Ling, T. (2014). “Organizational culture, transformational leadership and product innovation: A conceptual review”. International Journal of Organizational Innovation. 2014 Special Issue, Vol. 7, p. 30-43. Accessed February 11, 2018. Teece, D.J. (2010). “Business models, business strategy and innovation”. Long Range Planning, 43, 172-194. Accessed February 11, 2018. Wang, X.-H. F., & Howell, J.M. (2012). “A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower outcomes”. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 775-790. Accessed February 11, 2018. Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., Griffith, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). What works for you may not work for (Gen)Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new generation. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 245-260. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.001 Fay, D., Borrill, C., Amir, Z., Haward, R., & West, M. (2006). “Getting the most out of multidisciplinary teams: A multi-sample study of team innovation in health care”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 553-567. Accessed February 11, 2018. Feloni, R. (2016, January 28). Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh reveals what it was like losing 18% of his employees in a radical management experiment — and why it was worth it. Retrieved February 11, 2018 from http://www.businessinsider.com/tony-hsieh-explains-how-zappos-rebounded- from-employee-exodus-2016-1 Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). “Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 461-473. Accessed February 11, 2018. Herman, R. (2013, July). A Leadership Evolution. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://www.hermangroup.com/futurespeak/article_leadership_evolution.html Jung, D.I., C Chow and A Wu. (2003). “The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings”. The Leadership Quarterly, 14 (4-5), 525-544. Accessed February 11, 2018. Li, V., Mitchell, R., & Boyle, B. (2015). The Divergent Effects of Transformational Leadership on Individual and Team Innovation. Group & Organization Management, 41(1), 66-97. doi:10.1177/1059601115573792 Sarros, J.C., Cooper, B.K., & Santora, J.C. (2008). “Building a climate for innovation through transformational leadership and organizational culture”. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 145-158. Accessed February 11, 2018. Shafie, S. B., Siti-Nabiha, A. K., & Cheng Ling, T. (2014). “Organizational culture, transformational leadership and product innovation: A conceptual review”. International Journal of Organizational Innovation. 2014 Special Issue, Vol. 7, p. 30-43. Accessed February 11, 2018. Teece, D.J. (2010). “Business models, business strategy and innovation”. Long Range Planning, 43, 172-194. Accessed February 11, 2018. Wang, X.-H. F., & Howell, J.M. (2012). “A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower outcomes”. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 775-790. Accessed February 11, 2018. |
NG, LR, NCU, USARMy collection of personal papers written over the years Archives
June 2022
Categories |
RSS Feed