Sunday, December 27, 2009
Year in review – a personal reflection
This year’s blog posts discussed a variety of topics – from management style and setting a vision, to dealing with change and coaching others for success. Take some time to reflect upon what has been addressed here. What did you learn? What did you take away from reading this blog? Have you implemented any of the suggestions? Assess your current skills and consider your strengths and weaknesses. Do you truly consider yourself a leader/manager or is what you do on a daily basis strictly management? As you move forward with this personal reflection, prepare for learning and personal growth in 2010.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Influence Tactics
When it comes to influencing superiors rationality seems to be the preferred tactic. It only makes sense that when addressing someone who can say “no” to us, we try our best to present a good case. Another tactic trend is coalition. The idea of joining forces with others to strengthen our position can be helpful when trying to influence.
Interestingly enough, influencing subordinates seems to rely on rationality just as heavily. People respond much better to being told to do something when they know and/or understand the reasoning. Letting your subordinates know why you want them to do something illustrates your respect for them, encouraging a favorable response to the request. Interestingly enough coalition is the second most highly used tactic with subordinates as well. This seems to suggest team building by aligning ourselves with others within the company.
People relate to their co-workers on a more similar level, making our influence tactics a little different from those that they use on superiors and subordinates. Tactic choices seem more evenly spread out across the board. People still like to use rationality, but ingratiation, coalition, exchange of benefits, and upward appeal are just as likely to be utilized when influencing co-workers.
I believe rationality to be the most effective influence tactic. Presenting a case using facts and reason helps to paint a clear picture to the other person. It shows respect for the audience by suggesting that they’re intelligent enough to see the facts and make the right decision. Blocking and sanctions, on the other hand seem least effective. They’re negative in approach and they can result in unpleasant feelings for both parties. Blocking and sanctions alienate people and hurt the sense of teamwork.
Situational factors can greatly influence the effectiveness of each tactic. When the audience refuses to cooperate, rationality or the exchange of benefits may not work. Harsher tactics may have to be employed. In some instances, the audience may not have to capacity to understand the reasons behind the request (such as when dealing with children). Tactics have to be adjusted to tailor our approach in a way that improves our chances of influencing the other person.
Interestingly enough, influencing subordinates seems to rely on rationality just as heavily. People respond much better to being told to do something when they know and/or understand the reasoning. Letting your subordinates know why you want them to do something illustrates your respect for them, encouraging a favorable response to the request. Interestingly enough coalition is the second most highly used tactic with subordinates as well. This seems to suggest team building by aligning ourselves with others within the company.
People relate to their co-workers on a more similar level, making our influence tactics a little different from those that they use on superiors and subordinates. Tactic choices seem more evenly spread out across the board. People still like to use rationality, but ingratiation, coalition, exchange of benefits, and upward appeal are just as likely to be utilized when influencing co-workers.
I believe rationality to be the most effective influence tactic. Presenting a case using facts and reason helps to paint a clear picture to the other person. It shows respect for the audience by suggesting that they’re intelligent enough to see the facts and make the right decision. Blocking and sanctions, on the other hand seem least effective. They’re negative in approach and they can result in unpleasant feelings for both parties. Blocking and sanctions alienate people and hurt the sense of teamwork.
Situational factors can greatly influence the effectiveness of each tactic. When the audience refuses to cooperate, rationality or the exchange of benefits may not work. Harsher tactics may have to be employed. In some instances, the audience may not have to capacity to understand the reasons behind the request (such as when dealing with children). Tactics have to be adjusted to tailor our approach in a way that improves our chances of influencing the other person.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Integrating Knowledge and Values
Setting an example is a big part of the leader/manager’s responsibilities. One of the most important aspects of creating a multicultural organization is the examination of individual beliefs and attitudes. Being able to relate effectively in diverse settings helps us to create better relationships with our internal customers (other employees) and external customers (company’s customers). How we relate to others greatly affects our ability to work as teams. As we learn to not only tolerate and accept others, but to actually appreciate them, the amount of (service) energy we put into our dealings with them increases. As our efforts increase, so do our chances of success. Others can see how much energy we’re putting into something. Their perceptions of our efforts, in turn, affect how they interact with us. The idea of service energy offers a straightforward way of looking at how our own attitudes and efforts affect our ability to create a multicultural organization, and to then fully utilize it to better our business.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Expected Behavior
If you haven’t experienced this already, as a leader/manager you will have to learn how to lead and manage a multicultural department or organization. It can be challenging, but well managed, it can bring with it great strength and rewards. Consider the following. In order to create a multicultural organization, at what level on the Tolerance Scale is it reasonable to expect employees to interact with each other? What is your role as a leader if you observe repeated behavior that is below the level you want for your organization?
In an ideal world, people would work together as adults, leaving behind their “hang-ups”. Co-workers would not only accept one another, they would actually appreciate others. In valuing others’ talents and differences, these kinds of tolerance levels would likely promote healthy company cultures and good productivity.
In reality, acceptance seems like a good deal if we can get it. Tolerance is probably more common in the workplace. Teams can still work together fairly effectively as long as team members tolerate each other, but the quality of work is going to suffer. Coworkers that simply tolerate each other aren’t as likely to pull together as a team in tough situations.
Cox (2001, ch. 3) underlines the importance of strong leadership. True and effective leadership comes with a tremendous amount of responsibility. It’s up to management to make it clear what is expected from their employees. It’s also important to model the desired kind of behavior. Clear communications and effective demonstration of what is acceptable is crucial.
As a manager witnesses repeated substandard behavior, he must address it right away. Although consequences may be called for in certain situations, a proactive approach may be more productive. Cultural diversity training shouldn’t end at the training session. Positive behaviors should not only be expected and promoted, they should also be modeled.
Cox, T., Jr. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing the power of diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
In an ideal world, people would work together as adults, leaving behind their “hang-ups”. Co-workers would not only accept one another, they would actually appreciate others. In valuing others’ talents and differences, these kinds of tolerance levels would likely promote healthy company cultures and good productivity.
In reality, acceptance seems like a good deal if we can get it. Tolerance is probably more common in the workplace. Teams can still work together fairly effectively as long as team members tolerate each other, but the quality of work is going to suffer. Coworkers that simply tolerate each other aren’t as likely to pull together as a team in tough situations.
Cox (2001, ch. 3) underlines the importance of strong leadership. True and effective leadership comes with a tremendous amount of responsibility. It’s up to management to make it clear what is expected from their employees. It’s also important to model the desired kind of behavior. Clear communications and effective demonstration of what is acceptable is crucial.
As a manager witnesses repeated substandard behavior, he must address it right away. Although consequences may be called for in certain situations, a proactive approach may be more productive. Cultural diversity training shouldn’t end at the training session. Positive behaviors should not only be expected and promoted, they should also be modeled.
Cox, T., Jr. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing the power of diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Greatest Challenges
What are the greatest challenges in creating a multicultural organization, and what can be done to address these challenges?
Getting a group of people (be it large or small) to work as a team can be complicated. People’s personalities and differences can sometimes get in the way of productive teamwork. Creating multicultural organizations can be an even more difficult task. In addition to everyday personality differences, we have to consider all of factors that come with the territory. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998, p.13) state that “culture is a shared system of meanings.” Different cultures can vary in regards to so many things. Beliefs, behaviors, ways of thinking, and one’s approach to business can all come into play here. The challenge can present itself when creating an effective team that works well together, and one that also celebrates the strengths and differences found in a multicultural organization. It’s almost like attempting assimilation without giving up the individuality and differences – two opposite forces working in unison. In addition to all that, we have to somehow get people to work well together, regardless of who their teammates are. Finding ways to overcome personal prejudices can be a daunting task. If not addressed properly, multicultural issues can result in unhappy employees, poor performance, and lost time and money.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998, p.4) point out the importance of recognizing the multi-dimensional character of a company. Effectively addressing multicultural issues starts at the top. Managers have to model the behaviors that they expect from their employees. Diversity can’t be only words on paper. It has to be real and visible. Furthermore, managers have to create an environment that promotes the kind of company culture that fosters desired outcomes. To effectively address such issues we must begin with understanding and acceptance – first of self and then of other. It’s important to understand that we can approach business in more than one way, effectively tailoring our methods to different situations. In the same way, we have to remain flexible when building our multicultural organization. It’s important to remember that cookie-cutter solutions don’t effectively fit all situations.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Getting a group of people (be it large or small) to work as a team can be complicated. People’s personalities and differences can sometimes get in the way of productive teamwork. Creating multicultural organizations can be an even more difficult task. In addition to everyday personality differences, we have to consider all of factors that come with the territory. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998, p.13) state that “culture is a shared system of meanings.” Different cultures can vary in regards to so many things. Beliefs, behaviors, ways of thinking, and one’s approach to business can all come into play here. The challenge can present itself when creating an effective team that works well together, and one that also celebrates the strengths and differences found in a multicultural organization. It’s almost like attempting assimilation without giving up the individuality and differences – two opposite forces working in unison. In addition to all that, we have to somehow get people to work well together, regardless of who their teammates are. Finding ways to overcome personal prejudices can be a daunting task. If not addressed properly, multicultural issues can result in unhappy employees, poor performance, and lost time and money.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998, p.4) point out the importance of recognizing the multi-dimensional character of a company. Effectively addressing multicultural issues starts at the top. Managers have to model the behaviors that they expect from their employees. Diversity can’t be only words on paper. It has to be real and visible. Furthermore, managers have to create an environment that promotes the kind of company culture that fosters desired outcomes. To effectively address such issues we must begin with understanding and acceptance – first of self and then of other. It’s important to understand that we can approach business in more than one way, effectively tailoring our methods to different situations. In the same way, we have to remain flexible when building our multicultural organization. It’s important to remember that cookie-cutter solutions don’t effectively fit all situations.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Diversity and Paradigm
In today’s global nature of business, diversity is a part of everyday life. As a manager/leader, you must not only recognize and understand it, it’s in your best interest to nurture and utilize it to your advantage. What is your experience with diversity? Do you use it to help your organization? Consider the following paragraphs.
Taylor Cox (2001, p.3) defines diversity as “the variation of social and cultural identities among people existing together in a defined employment or market setting.” While this definition is narrow enough to avoid focusing on every little difference between people, it manages to encompass more than just the differences of race or gender. Thomas and Ely (1996) speak of workplace diversity as a focus on the recruitment of people from minority or underrepresented groups. The focal point of this approach may be women or people of color, for example.
Defining diversity is not a simple matter. Pros and cons can be found regardless of which approach is taken. Cox’s definition encourages that people find ways to work together despite their differences. This may suggest focusing on talents and playing up strengths. It can also be understood as a request to assimilate, minimizing the ever-important role of individualism.
Too broad a definition may seem encouraging of focusing on every little difference found among people. This approach is rather impracticable given the reality of various individuals working within one business or organization. If diversity is defined too narrowly, we can be left to focus on small subgroups such as race or gender. It’s very ineffective to focus on just those things ignoring a possible range other issues.
A multicultural organization that utilizes its resources to the fullest will look beyond simply hiring people of different races and genders, with different cultural and educational backgrounds. It will focus on identifying strengths and fostering talents in such a way that employees will feel encouraged to be themselves and to contribute to the company. Furthermore, a truly multicultural organization must remember to remain fair and accepting of every employee while encouraging building a team.
Cox, T., Jr. (2001). Creating the Multicultural Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Thomas, D. A. & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making a Difference Matter. Harvard Business Review, Sep/Oct 1996, Vol. 74 Issue 5, p79-90, 12p, 5c.
Taylor Cox (2001, p.3) defines diversity as “the variation of social and cultural identities among people existing together in a defined employment or market setting.” While this definition is narrow enough to avoid focusing on every little difference between people, it manages to encompass more than just the differences of race or gender. Thomas and Ely (1996) speak of workplace diversity as a focus on the recruitment of people from minority or underrepresented groups. The focal point of this approach may be women or people of color, for example.
Defining diversity is not a simple matter. Pros and cons can be found regardless of which approach is taken. Cox’s definition encourages that people find ways to work together despite their differences. This may suggest focusing on talents and playing up strengths. It can also be understood as a request to assimilate, minimizing the ever-important role of individualism.
Too broad a definition may seem encouraging of focusing on every little difference found among people. This approach is rather impracticable given the reality of various individuals working within one business or organization. If diversity is defined too narrowly, we can be left to focus on small subgroups such as race or gender. It’s very ineffective to focus on just those things ignoring a possible range other issues.
A multicultural organization that utilizes its resources to the fullest will look beyond simply hiring people of different races and genders, with different cultural and educational backgrounds. It will focus on identifying strengths and fostering talents in such a way that employees will feel encouraged to be themselves and to contribute to the company. Furthermore, a truly multicultural organization must remember to remain fair and accepting of every employee while encouraging building a team.
Cox, T., Jr. (2001). Creating the Multicultural Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Thomas, D. A. & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making a Difference Matter. Harvard Business Review, Sep/Oct 1996, Vol. 74 Issue 5, p79-90, 12p, 5c.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Assessment of a Diversity Change Model
Kotter (1995) discusses eight errors that most likely contribute to the failure of transformation efforts. These errors include: (1) not establishing a great enough sense of urgency, (2) not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition, (3) lacking a vision, (4) under-communicating the vision, (5) not removing obstacles to the new vision, (6) not systematically planning for and creating short-term wins, (7) declaring victory too soon, and (8) not ancoring changes in the corporation’s culture. Cox (2001) proposes his Model for Cultural Change. This model for organizational change is a “response to the challenge of diversity” (p. 18). The five areas of importance are leadership, research and measurement, education, alignment of management systems, and follow-up.
Leadership plays an important role in the Model for Cultural Change. As described by Cox (2001, ch. 3), successful leadership entails establishing a vision, creating a sense of urgency and motivating others. Furthermore, leaders “cultivate necessary conditions for achievement of the vision” (p. 18). Cox’s ideas regarding leadership in cultural change correspond with the first five of Kotter’s (1995) errors.
Cox (2001, ch. 4) underlines the importance of understanding baselines and measuring progress. It’s crucial to know where we are before we can define where we want to be and create a plan of how to get there. The research and measurement component of the model provides for effective planning, including short-term wins. This corresponds with Kotter’s (1995) sixth error.
The ideas of education and training, aligning management systems, and follow-up (Cox, 2001, ch. 5-7) all lend themselves to helping with issues addressed by Kotter’s (1995) final two errors. Education can help us to better understand change, which can in turn lead to preventing premature declaration of victory and help to anchor the change in the corporate culture. Similarly, the alignment of management systems promotes a better understanding of change and hopefully a smoother, more successful transition process. Effective follow-up means accountability, which provides an opportunity for ongoing improvement.
A successful cultural change model will incorporate a careful consideration of Kotter’s (1995) ideas regarding the most common transformation errors along with Cox’s (2001) proposed concepts necessary for effective transformation. Since real and lasting change comes from the top, leadership plays a crucial role in the transformation process. As they inspire others to follow them, true leaders lead by example. Aligning people and processes is as important as ongoing improvement and follow-up.
Cox, T., Jr. (2001). Creating the Multicultural Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kotter, J. P. (1995 March/April). Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, 00178012, Vol. 73, Issue 2.
Leadership plays an important role in the Model for Cultural Change. As described by Cox (2001, ch. 3), successful leadership entails establishing a vision, creating a sense of urgency and motivating others. Furthermore, leaders “cultivate necessary conditions for achievement of the vision” (p. 18). Cox’s ideas regarding leadership in cultural change correspond with the first five of Kotter’s (1995) errors.
Cox (2001, ch. 4) underlines the importance of understanding baselines and measuring progress. It’s crucial to know where we are before we can define where we want to be and create a plan of how to get there. The research and measurement component of the model provides for effective planning, including short-term wins. This corresponds with Kotter’s (1995) sixth error.
The ideas of education and training, aligning management systems, and follow-up (Cox, 2001, ch. 5-7) all lend themselves to helping with issues addressed by Kotter’s (1995) final two errors. Education can help us to better understand change, which can in turn lead to preventing premature declaration of victory and help to anchor the change in the corporate culture. Similarly, the alignment of management systems promotes a better understanding of change and hopefully a smoother, more successful transition process. Effective follow-up means accountability, which provides an opportunity for ongoing improvement.
A successful cultural change model will incorporate a careful consideration of Kotter’s (1995) ideas regarding the most common transformation errors along with Cox’s (2001) proposed concepts necessary for effective transformation. Since real and lasting change comes from the top, leadership plays a crucial role in the transformation process. As they inspire others to follow them, true leaders lead by example. Aligning people and processes is as important as ongoing improvement and follow-up.
Cox, T., Jr. (2001). Creating the Multicultural Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kotter, J. P. (1995 March/April). Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, 00178012, Vol. 73, Issue 2.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Comparing Change Theory
A number of previous posts have been dedicated to the examination of change (which in itself should underline its importance). You may have identified with one theory or school of thought over another, but consider the common thread among them.
Kotter underlines the need for vision and strategy along with communications and short-term wins, while Collins seems to rely on a culture of discipline as a way of eliminating many negatives and facilitating success. Upon closer examination, however, these differences have familiar roots. The common denominator is the human factor – our talents, abilities, and attitudes dictate the outcome of any undertaking.
It’s also important to stress that the successful completion of a change process starts with the right change leader. It’s the leader who selects and motivates his team, creates a compelling vision, and effectively removes barriers. An effective change leader knows how to deal with resistance and inspire enough people to create an unstoppable momentum. As skilled, influential, and charismatic as a leader can be, it’s not realistic to think that everyone will be on board actively participating in the change process. A good leader not only recognizes that, but is able to work around it. Change is a part of life (especially business life), and the sooner we learn to embrace it, the quicker we’ll be able to use it to our advantage.
Collins, J. (2001). Good To Great: Why Some Companies Make The Leap…And Others Don’t. New York: HarperCollins Publishers
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Kotter underlines the need for vision and strategy along with communications and short-term wins, while Collins seems to rely on a culture of discipline as a way of eliminating many negatives and facilitating success. Upon closer examination, however, these differences have familiar roots. The common denominator is the human factor – our talents, abilities, and attitudes dictate the outcome of any undertaking.
It’s also important to stress that the successful completion of a change process starts with the right change leader. It’s the leader who selects and motivates his team, creates a compelling vision, and effectively removes barriers. An effective change leader knows how to deal with resistance and inspire enough people to create an unstoppable momentum. As skilled, influential, and charismatic as a leader can be, it’s not realistic to think that everyone will be on board actively participating in the change process. A good leader not only recognizes that, but is able to work around it. Change is a part of life (especially business life), and the sooner we learn to embrace it, the quicker we’ll be able to use it to our advantage.
Collins, J. (2001). Good To Great: Why Some Companies Make The Leap…And Others Don’t. New York: HarperCollins Publishers
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Maintaining Change
Consider what is required to maintain change over the long haul. What steps need to be taken to make change stick and anchor the change in the culture? How will you ensure that your success of implementing change lasts?
As Kotter (1996, ch. 10) addresses the task of maintaining changes over long periods of time, he underlines the importance of anchoring them in the company’s culture. Timing plays an important role in this case. Changing a culture should be done only after new ideas/procedures have already been implemented and positive results are visible – towards the end of the process. Being able to see actual results helps to convince people about the validity of the change – facilitating culture change. Lasting change requires support and verbal instructions to help it take root. It may also call for replacing some key people (1996, p.157).
According to Collins (2001, ch.8), lasting change is likened to moving a heavy flywheel. It’s difficult to get it going, but once momentum is established and the wheel is continually moved in the right direction, the point of breakthrough is reached. Sustainable change is the result of buildup being followed by breakthrough (2001, 186).
Collins, J. (2001). Good To Great: Why Some Companies Make The Leap…And Others Don’t. New York: HarperCollins Publishers
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
As Kotter (1996, ch. 10) addresses the task of maintaining changes over long periods of time, he underlines the importance of anchoring them in the company’s culture. Timing plays an important role in this case. Changing a culture should be done only after new ideas/procedures have already been implemented and positive results are visible – towards the end of the process. Being able to see actual results helps to convince people about the validity of the change – facilitating culture change. Lasting change requires support and verbal instructions to help it take root. It may also call for replacing some key people (1996, p.157).
According to Collins (2001, ch.8), lasting change is likened to moving a heavy flywheel. It’s difficult to get it going, but once momentum is established and the wheel is continually moved in the right direction, the point of breakthrough is reached. Sustainable change is the result of buildup being followed by breakthrough (2001, 186).
Collins, J. (2001). Good To Great: Why Some Companies Make The Leap…And Others Don’t. New York: HarperCollins Publishers
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)