A633.9.3RB_SeabournBeau

 Well now that we’ve reached the end of the course, I can honestly say that there is no successful future in oligarchy organized models. I say that because things are changing to fast, things aren’t how they use to be and how can one leader have all of the answers? I think it has become quite clear that the bottom or the organization has most of the problem solving abilities and ideas already, the top needs to embrace that and create a working environment to foster that growth. Old leadership models will have their place, they’ll be used in organizations who cannot adapt, who cannot accept change and that will end up closed. Adaptability and growth are the driving forces behind any organization today. Not only do leaders need to embrace change, they have to understand that there is power in interlinking creativity. Yes, someone can still be the in-charge. The way to do that is through suggestion, drive, flexibility and idea motivation. Our reading said “from an organizational level, 360 degree feedback processes seem to be growing” (Obolensky, 2014). If getting feedback is so important now, how can an oligarchy model still be successful? When feedback is received, it cannot be dictated to be changed by one person. The change has to occur as a whole organization, through the entire organization.

Reflecting on traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership, address the implications and how they will affect you as a leader in the future. 

I see complex adaptive leadership being the new way of business. We cannot allow one person to dictate the direction of one organization anymore. Personally, I cannot even begin to think how I though that was okay nine weeks ago. That operating procedure is based on people never being wrong and leaders having all the answers. I now know that opportunity stems from interaction and information sharing across the company. Organizations can no longer place their eggs all in one leaders basket. We saw how that worked out for Home Depot when they resorted to a one man takeover. One piece of advice I found helpful this week is “Once you've got your plan in place, stick to it while being mindful that flexibility is sometimes necessary. You may find that different circumstances require a change in approach. Similarly, as individuals develop and mature in their roles, they are likely to require less handholding and more degrees of freedom” (Bvywate, 2012). That is the essential thing that we have to remember as leaders, flexibility and adaptability. Long gone are the days when one person was in charge and things are only done their way. Successfulness now comes from information sharing, coaching, adapting, listening and leading/following.

  

What impact will they have on your future strategy?

In my suture endeavors, I plan to encompass this philosophy in everything I do. Are there times where as the leader I’ll want to be correct? Most likely. I tend to have some control issues when it come to my role as a leader but when I look at the benefit of communication and complex systems, the benefits outweigh the need to be selfish. As a new leader I want to embrace change while keeping the culture of the organization in tact. What can sometimes happen is, new leaders get to zealous and loose their ability to connect to the workforce. They tend to forget where they came from. This also increases tension, decreases information sharing and allows an oligarchy model to creep back in. We have to be able to adapt and change based on the needs of our organization. I look forward to taking this information with me as I continue in my work. Complex adaptive leadership practices, here I come.

  

References

Bywate, L. (2012, April 1). The Flexible Leader: An Adaptable Approach to Managing Your Team. Retrieved October 6, 2015, from https://www.wjmassoc.com/insight/the-flexible-leader/

  

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership. (2nd edition.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate

A633.8.3RB_SeabournBeau

Given the statement above what is it that coaches do to provide value to their clients?

I think there are a couple of things that a good coach can due to assist their clientele. First, they can explore the situations in depth through a question and answer session. Based on the results of that session they can make recommendations grounded in realities and using goal setting. Second, I think a good coach can look at a matter with a fresh set of eyes and initiate an objective to determine what restraints are holding the client back. Based on their findings, they can give direction and advice from a third party perspective. One source said this about coaching in the organization, “A company that is intentional about integrating a coaching culture as a comprehensive and enterprise-wide approach has the potential to move its entire workforce toward peak performance” (Greene, 2012). With that being said, organizations who are using a coach can accept that they need help and get insight to what changes and direction they should take.

Why is coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy? 

I personally feel like using a coach gives a competitive advantage to the organization. By using or gaining a coach, they organization is saying “we need a fresh set of eyes on the issues here and we could use an outside perspective on the matter”. Strategically, they could also help identify some things that leadership might not have. Using the GROW model, they could identify areas of weakness, find out the goals and offer solutions to obtain those goals. Often times what happens is, companies (like people) become complacent and comfortable. They have lost the long term sight and direction of their organization. A coach can really help them get back on track. One source says “Coaching is used to increase management competencies and practices that facilitate the planning process can have a positive impact in making strategy development and implementation achievable with confidence, efficiency, and full use of organizational resources” (SIOP, 2013). All of those factors lead to strategic monetary gains for the organization. With long term planning, goals, and understanding in place, the organization is then set to thrive.

How can it make a difference in an organization?

Well at the current time we do not have anything in place at all. So to be honest, anything we do is a step in the right direction. Often times when controllers have been in a facility for awhile, they become complacent and under motivated. Their daily job is to show up and work for their eight hours and go home. There isn’t any specific reward for going out of your way to be a good controller and your boss isn’t likely to motivate you do go and better yourself. Like I’ve mentioned in the past, there isn’t really anywhere for anyone to progress to unless they are leaving the company. Once a person makes the manager level (if they even want to), there isn’t anywhere but the home office to advance to. So that really does limit the amount of motivation anyone might have. So based on the reading there needs to be a focus on people before anything else can begin. “This means there is an opportunity or need to develop people both in terms of their ability as well as in terms of relationship with them” (Obolensky, 2014).

What does this mean to you and your organization?

What this means to my organization is that we need to care a little bit more about the everyday controllers. How can we keep employees motivated when they do the same thing everyday at the same place? Generally speaking, each airport deals with the same type of traffic and the same users. There really isn’t any incentive right now to go outside anyone’s comfort zone to improve. I agree that organization’s can solve their own problems and that they can deal with their employees. However, I feel as though sometimes the organization has no idea that it has an issue or that it might need a coach to help it reach its best potential. We haven’t even reached the point of realizing out issues or understanding the possible options moving forward. This means that we have a long way to go before we are successful in maintaining and keeping employees engaged. This is important especially in long term planning and success for the organization.

References

Greene, B. (2012, December 12). The Power of a Coaching Culture on Organizational Performance. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://www.cpiworld.com/knowledge-center/white-papers/the-power-of-a-coaching-culture-on-organizational-performance

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

SIOP. (2013, September 14). Linking Coaching with Business Strategy. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://www.siop.org/workplace/coaching/linking_coaching_with_business_s.aspx

A633.7.3RB_SeabournBeau

Each time I take an assessment, I think I know exactly what the outcome is going to be based on my interpretation of myself. What ends of happening is I get gainful insight that opens my eyes to what is actually taking place. This week was no different. After taking the assessment I scored seven (7) points in “involve”, five (5) points in “tell”, and two (2) points in each “devolve” and “sell”. The results were a little revealing in that I spend to much time trying to make suggestions and trying to lead my team to initiate contact with me to much. According to our reading, a person in the strategy three (S3) category is used when “either when the leader does not know or choose to hold back to allow others to discover the solution. A variety of involve strategies exist ranging from asking an individual “what do you think?” to running small teams focused on problems” (Obolensky, 2014). I find myself a fit in that category because I think it is appropriate to let people problem solve on their own. By allowing them to explore and have some leniency, they become more independent and assertive. 

Has your thinking changed over the course of the past six weeks, if so; why, and, if not; why?

My thinking has changed over the last six weeks for sure. The first thing I see that has changed is that I am thinking about how complex leadership actually applies to a successful workplace. Do we have to have a single leader in a hierarchal structure in today’s market? I would now argue no. Prior to this class I still had a slight notion that people need to be told what to do and they need to know when to do it. I would still argue in some cases that is applicable but for employees to be successful, independent and assertive, they need some space and room to work. They don’t need a million people to answer to and they don’t need a direct supervisor in all situations. This plays well into my strategy 3 case. What I have to do however is actually make sure that when I ask for input from others, that they have the correct skill set to answer my questions. Sometimes I find myself trying to have a very in depth conversation with people who do not care or have no idea what I’m talking about.

Secondly, I like to tell people. I find it hard not to, to be honest. Yes, people are hired for their expertise and there credentials but how else can we expect someone to fit into the culture that is already in place in the workplace? I get ahead of myself in the sense that I take on the role of the person who is responsible for making sure their transitions happens correctly. As a leader, I think we have to allow people to learn and give credible feedback. How else can we ever learn from our shortcomings if we do not allow the workers ot give us feedback on what is actually happening? I want to encourage feedback lines and encourage outside the box thinking, not force my way on subordinates. One source says “Feedback is the cheapest, most powerful, yet, most under used management tool that we have at our disposal. Feedback is powerful as it helps people get on track, it serves as a guide to assist people to know how they and others perceive their performance” (Lang, 2015). In my case, I think that was true until this class. I didn’t fully understand that in complex circumstances, feedback is vital. I look forward to using my freshly gained knowledge.

What is the significance of this in the context of your future leadership goals and objectives?

My objective as a leader is to understand my role in the organization, apply my skill set to the situation and get as much feedback from the user (no matter who it is) about how things are operating. I also think that it is important to adapt to the culture that I am in or placed in. Once I get to a different facility in the leadership role, I’ll have to tread lightly but ultimately adjust the culture or procedures to a more effective operating procedure as I see fit and inline with what I’ve learned thus far. Sometimes there are employees in the facilities that have been there awhile and that do not like change. Being a new leader, I have to consider their needs but look out for the organization for long term success. I read an article this week about facilitating change and helping new employees adapt. They stated “Through teaching and training of all employees communicate the expected cultural change and the resultant change in values and goals.  Communicate in large settings, small groups, and one-to-one, if need be” (Shedd, 2011). I think that fits right into my style of leadership and S2 and S3. That is probably why those areas stood out this week. Although I still have some learning to do, this class has already helped me see the future in complex adaptive leadership techniques.

References

Lang, F. (2015). The Importance of Feedback | Why Is Feedback Important? Retrieved September 25, 2015, from http://www.fullcirclefeedback.com.au/resources/360-degree-feedback/360-power-of/

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership is embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower

Shedd, D. (2011, April 19). 9 Keys To Driving Cultural Change. Retrieved September 24, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/9-keys-to-driving-cultural-change-2011-4

A633.6.5RB_SeabournBeau

 Considering all of readings in this module and the learning exercises regarding upward and downward leadership; reflect on the diagram (figure 9.5; p.152) "the vicious circle for leaders".  Does this happen in your organization?  What are the effects on the organization? Create a new circle that would promote strong followership and even leadership at the lower levels of the organization.

The impact of upward and downward leadership practices need to be understood in each organization so the best leadership practices can be implemented. This week we looked at the impact of followership and how be a good follower, can lead to be a good leader. For example, “followership sides of the equation is as important as the leadership side. The two combine into a dynamic which can get better results in a more sustained way than typical oligarchic approach” (Obolensky, 2014). As a follower there is a balance of asking for feedback and taking initiative. Employees need to take action while making sure it is the direction of the organization.

In the “circle of leaders” we see a rotation of behavior that is never ending. When I think about my organization, I do not think that the entire circle applies to us, we are immune to it because of the scope of work we do. There are so sections however that do apply to us and that in turn create our own little revolution of feedback to leader response. First, in our company, everyone is a trained expert so there is little low skill demonstration at the qualified employee level. There is generally not to much concern either at the middle manager level/ air traffic manager level because they know that the staff is trained for their environment. When issues arise, it revolves around the manager taking to much of a hands on approach toward employees. This can happen in different forms such as scheduling, micro-managing staff, constant oversight, and to much feedback. Just like the circle indicates when this happens, the controller’s confidence does decrease. That can really jump start the circle into an un-needed spin. Here’s an example: a qualified air traffic controller comes into work and begins to work the traffic. At some point the ATM comes up to the tower and begins to watch the evolutions (which is standard generally). Then instead of giving constructive feedback, the manager says something to the effect of “well you should have done…this…or that”. This really makes the controller feel under appreciated and under qualified thus starting the circle. The circle breaks down because in our organization there is no need to ask for advice from the leader because we all hold the same knowledge and qualifications. It was mostly the boss taking the wrong approach toward an employee. One source said this about feedback, “Feedback becomes a gift of someone investing in the recipient’s career” (Phoel, 2009). In my example, that is really not helpful toward that person’s career.

As far as a new circle for our organization, I think there are a couple things we can do to make things better. First, we can allow for constructive feedback to be received when there is a actual need for it. So if the controller is confused or actually does something incorrect, then we can look at giving some feedback. Second, when the feedback does occur, we need to eliminate any type of confidence issues taking place. There is no need to have the employee question themselves. Last, when there are questions or concerns exposed, the employees should converse and meet amongst themselves and leave management out of the loop until they have to. This would have to be a joint task, you cannot have one employee tattling on the rest of the controllers. Everyone must be on board and agree to the procedures. One source gave this option to organizations for communication, “Companies should identify all of the various options available to them and then, based on the type of communication, decide which communication tools--or combination of communication tools--will be most effective and appropriate given the specific communication goal and audience” (Richards, 2013). In this case, employees can effectively communicate through any open discussion technology they like. Just as long as the management/leadership is not aware of the issues.

Obviously this is not a good circle to be caught in. The circle just keeps going and going until something is done to remedy the issue. It does not matter what type of organization you’re in, something can always be done to help foster more effective upward and downward leadership. In our case, we can take the middle manager out of the equation until it is absolutely needed and avoid the concern from the home office. The more issues that are handled by the level at which they occur, the better. A thought that the reading mentioned that I’m still thinking a lot about is “the leadership we all like is often not the leadership we need” (Obolensky, 2014).  Perhaps there is some way to get stringent leadership through interaction without demoralizing the employees and making the manager feel useless. We just have to find that happy medium here.

References

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership, (2nd Edition). London: Gower / Ashgate.

Phoel, C. (2009, April 27). Feedback That Works. Retrieved September 17, 2015, from https://hbr.org/2009/04/feedback-that-works/

Richards, L. (2013, April 3). Effective Employee Communication. Retrieved September 18, 2015, from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/effective-employee-communication-691.html

A633.5.3RB_SeabournBeau

Create a reflection blog on what this exercise meant to you and how it impacts your understanding of chaos theory, include the implications that this has on strategy.

Video Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E

Until this week, I really had a hard time seeing how this all might play out in the practical application in my organization. Currently, we are made up of a corporate office and the personnel there that are responsible for being “that leader’ in this exercise. What I’ve found to be interesting is that in some ways we need the structure but in most applications we do not. The reading describes leadership this way this week “many leaders do not fully understand the concept of allowing others to take the lead” (Obolensky, 2014). I think that is true from the corporate level down to where we are. Most of the leaders there, I think, have forgotten what it is like to deal with all of the side distractions and personal issues associated with being in the schedule platform we are and to deal with the constant change in hours.

The chaos theory was hard for me to visualize happening in practical understanding until this week. After watching the video, I’ve come to understand two things. First, initially things will be crazy and people will have to adjust to their surroundings. Second, although it took a small amount of time, everything seemed to work itself out relatively quickly. I relate that directly to the work place. If things are crazy or chaotic for a small time, it is worth the rewards of fluidity and communication lines improving. After watching the video, I see the actual leadership role being the actual guy who laid out the activity to the group. He simply told them what to do and they did it. In my organization, that is sort of how things work but there is a lot of oversight and skepticism. I feel as though if one thing went wrong and we were at fault, we would have to fear the repercussions.  I understand that fear is coupled with intention and unawareness (Obolonesky, 2014) but I wonder how much fear can really derail the willingness of a participant.

When a lot of change occurs there is growing pains. I took away from this exercise though that growing pains will resolve themselves overtime and everything will fix itself. That is the point of the process anyhow. One source talked about changes in the workplace this way “The first thing managers must appreciate before considering any change initiative is how change affects employees – both how readily they will accept the change and the emotional 'pain' that always accompanies change” (Group, 2015). I think that is something important to understand. People are resistant to change but if they knew the outcomes, they’d be more willing to cooperate in the process. Lastly, one source mentioned that “Being open-minded means you have a willingness to listen to other ideas and opinions and consider the possibility that you are wrong or may change your own perspective” (Kokemuller, 2012). I perceive that if everyone in the organization from top to bottom really took on the task of moving into a chaotic approach, everything would work itself out and be a lot more effective and beneficial to the organization.

References

Group, F. (2015). How to manage organisational change. Retrieved September 11, 2015, from http://www.fortunegroup.com.au/managing-change-in-the-workplace

Kokemuller, N. (2012). Is it Important to Be Open Minded in the Workplace? Retrieved September 9, 2015, from http://work.chron.com/important-open-minded-workplace-6124.html

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

A633.4.3RB_SeabournBeau

Reflecting on the opening exercise at the beginning of Chapter 4 of the of Obolensky text and other readings, why do you think the shift in leadership is occurring and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization.  List three reasons that support or refute this position. If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes?  What are the implications on strategy?  

The reading and exercise were interesting to say the least. The shift in leadership is happening because there has to be more fluidity in the organization and communication has to flow through the organization to each member without breakdowns occurring. For the exercise portion, I selected 40% as the number of ideas that came from the top. To be honest, I was giving them more credit then I though I should but I assumed that there was a lot more interaction taking place then there actually is. I interpret that to mean that I’m somewhere in the middle management think process and not entirely seasoned. The reading states “generally speaking, they know that they do not know. However they cannot say that they do not know” (Obolensky, 2014). That in and of itself is an issue. In the more fluid flowing organizations, openness and transparency allow for assistance and problem solving to occur instantaneously. When the higher ups in a hierarchal structure do not know and don’t disclose they do not know, they are preventing any type of progressions from happening through arrogance.

In my organization, this is not happening although I don’t think that is intentional. Ideas can and do flow from the bottom upward and there are new systems in place that allow lower level employees to share insights on procedures and organizational policy. I however am not a huge fan of that because you never know if YOUR idea was heard. There are a few reasons that are preventing this from happening in our organization.

1. The FAA dictates what procedures we follow and sets precedent for any scheduling and hours employees can work. Their oversight puts limitations on our leaders and prevents them from implementing new and creative ideas that might help solve some safety issues.

2. There hasn’t been a need for major changes from controller to the upper echelon. What I mean is, the company perceives that each individual facility is operating as required and things are okay if they don’t hear from them. If there isn’t any issues, why should they change? The communication lines are not open from bottom to top in that regard which creates the issue.

3. The people who are in charge now, like being in charge and they have a slight God perception of themselves. It seems that anytime anyone wants to achieve anything at the ground floor, it has to go to corporate. When that happens, there needs to be some sort of “need” for the change other than some idea someone had. Ideas and insight are often not heard because they weren’t thought of at the top level; that ties into point number two.

As far as strategy goes, we are in a quarterly fight right now to try and keep our budgeting and funding in place from the government. During the sequester, one of the major things that was considered was de-funding the private control towers. The idea was absurd, they politicians were playing soccer with us and using us as a bargaining chip. It is hard to form a strategy for a long term plan when there are short term issues. One source states “Scenarios facilitated dialogue in which managers’ assumptions could safely be revealed and challenged. They enabled consideration of unexpected developments” (Wilikingston, 2013). I reference that because there are multiple scenarios that could be affecting the strategic direction our organization takes in the next couple of years. We have to plan a strategy on the unexpected and try and formulate different agendas determined by financial oversight committees. 

Conclusively, I feel that ideas taken from the ground floor levels can really make a large impact through the organization. I think that is why early unions were so effective. They were the voice of the lower level employees. One source states however that “Government data show that labor unions have become less of a factor in the overall U.S. economy in recent decades – most notably in the private sector” (Labor, 2011))”. What I take that to mean is that more and more companies are becoming fluid and dynamic to meet employee needs and market necessity.

References

Labor Unions Seen as Good for Workers, Not U.S. Competitiveness. (2011, February 17). Retrieved September 3, 2015, from http://www.people-press.org/2011/02/17/labor-unions-seen-as-good-for-workers-not-u-s-competitiveness/ 

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and             uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

Wilikingston, A. (2013, May 1). Living in the Futures. Retrieved September 3, 2015, from https://hbr.org/2013/05/living-in-the-futures

A633.3.3RB_SeabournBeau

Find a company which reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and reflect in your blog what the implications are for you and your present organization (or any organization you are familiar with). Identify what you believe are appropriate actions to move your organization forward.

To understand this task, we must take a look at both companies and determine what differences there might be in them and then apply that to a third party organization. I’ll then look into my own organization and try to make reasonable comparisons and try to determine the best course of action for us moving forward.

First let’s look at St. Luke’s Complex Adaptive System (CAS).  St. Luke’s Website states “We are a top 10 independent creative agency, owned and run by our management team. What sets us apart is our ability to help clients set powerful new agendas in their market. Any good creative agency can provide you with a good campaign. We will help you set a new agenda” (St. Luke’s, 2015). What this tells me is that they are very complex, fluid, and adapting to the needs of the marketplace. In our reading this week, we learned that cross functioning organizations are becoming more and more popular and effective. What happens is, reaction times grow and more information is being shared at a higher rate throughout the organization because there are multiple lines open for communication. It appears that St. Luke’s utilizes that aspect of business and applies it to their daily work.

Next we have to look at Morning Star and their Complex Adaptive System.  Morning Star is in the food industry and they produce tomato products. Their website spells out their CAS this way “an organization of self-managing professionals who initiate communication and coordination of their activities with fellow colleagues, customers, suppliers and fellow industry participants, absent directives from others” (Morning Star, 2015). The main difference here is that they allow employees to work together while being responsible for their actions to an organizational leader or someone above them at all times. What actually happens is, employees are responsible to themselves and they are responsible for creating different opportunities and motivations for themselves. That is unique because in other systems, organizations set the precedent for that type of stuff. They are actually allowing the employee to enable one another and themselves.

I found a company called Connecticut Spring and Stamping this week. Their website describes them this way, “Family values have been at our core since 1939, and we share a sense of pride in CSS with each new generation. Our commitment to training for the CSS family enables us to deliver topflight products far more efficiently because our employees are able to seamlessly interact and collaborate across all our departments” (Connecticut, 2015). Because departments interact uniquely, they are allowing the flow of information and the interaction of employees to manifest. According to the book reading, “there will be a need for a more fluid structure and so the next stage of evolution occurs” (Obolensky, 2014). Here teams are constant but they fit the need of the organization. They go onto say that “As a family managed company, we treat our team like family and hold a vested interest in the professional and personal success of our employees. Each and every team member brings a depth of unparalleled knowledge and experience that we share every day across all our locations with the help of our 27 Self Directed Work Teams (SDWT) and trained team facilitators” (Connecticut, 2015). It seems as though they are heading in the correct direction and they’ve been successful for all these years because of their willingness to adapt and overcome.

For my current company, I think we have a unique mixture incorporating both organizations talked about above. At the lowest level, the controller level, each employee is responsible for creativity and they are hired for their ability to do the job. They are also responsible to themselves and in some cases, the tower team they are working with. Because of the job, things are instantaneous, the “market” is always changing and controllers have to be able to adapt to those changes spontaneously. In our additional reading this week, one source states “Like all forms of complexity, strategy is poised on the border between perfect order and total chaos, between absolute efficiency and blind experimentation, between autocracy and complete ad hocracy” (Hamel, 1998). If I had to describe air traffic control in itself, it is living chaotically and using experimentation based on past experiences to initiate complex control patterns. On one hand, we are operating in a complex environment everyday while on another, we are responsible to our self and to the company. It is a goofy thing to balance. Organizationally, I feel as though we still operate in a Silo functioning environment. Everything is directed by either our company or the FAA in a directive manner. What comes from the top goes and there is little feedback reception from the actual controller level. Because of that, retention levels are low and our organization has to constantly worry about replacing people at each facility. When the FAA hires, we loose people and we gain people when FAA employees retire. The problem is, those retired FAA controllers will eventually leave again and the circle continues.  Until we open communication lines from the bottom up and become more fluid, these issues will not change. Issues at the lower levels are hardly ever responded to unless they are operationally significant to air traffic control.

References

Connecticut Spring and Stamping. About Us. (2015). Retrieved August 30, 2015, from http://www.ctspring.com/who-we-are/about-us

Hamel, G. (1998, Winter98). Strategy Innovation and the Quest for Value. Sloan Management Review. pp. 7-14.

Morning Star; Self-Management. (n.d.). Retrieved August 29, 2015, from http://morningstarco.com/index.cgi?Page=Self-Management

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership. (2nd edition.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

St. Luke’s: Who we are | St. Lukes. (2015). Retrieved August 29, 2015, from http://stlukes.co.uk/who-we-are/

A633.2.3RB_SeabournBeau

I find the butterfly effect to be an endless prediction of outcomes based on a situation that is changed, even by the slightest of factors. In my career field, air traffic control, I often think about certain situations that I have encountered and wonder what the outcomes might have been like if just one thing went a different way. It is often times associated with some sort of wrong doing or an accident. In a way, I find myself always thinking about the butterfly effect. Our reading points out that “the butterfly effect is very significant as, on the face of it, it seems to break the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes known as the Lay of Conservation of Energy, which can be summarized as: the effort you put in will dictate the result you get out” (Obolensky, 2014). I find that interesting as I couple it with the “what-if thoughts”. What if something would have changed just slightly because of the input of effort? I find myself always thinking about the example from our reading about the butterfly flap causing a tornado in Texas. Thanks a lot Obolensky!

Example One

In the last year, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has changed a procedure know as Taxi Into Position and Hold (TIPH) to Line up and Wait (LUAW). The line up and wait procedure changed the TIPH to a ICAO standard, adhering to international pilots and making the phrase universal globally. In basic terms they changed the way air traffic controllers implement a departure sequence to pilots. This procedure tells the pilot to go out and park on the runway while the air traffic controller waits for another aircraft to 1. land and turn off the runway or 2. Take off and adverted from the same runway. Now implementing this one small change in phraseology is not a big deal to the public but to the aviation industry it is. First all air traffic controllers, managers, pilots, crew members and so on have to learn the term and drop using the old term. Checklists are changed, operating procedures are updated and everything has to be done on the same day, at the same time. You can only imagine how hard that is to do for the entire flying public. One small implementation/change affects the whole industry basically over night. So when the FAA determined that LUAW was better then TIPH, they essentially implemented a small change that effected millions of people. We can only speculate what incidents or issues arose from that one “little” change.

Example Two

A couple of years ago, there was another change with the FAA that trickled down to have a major effect on the contract air traffic control industry more than anyone else. If you can recall from the news, air traffic controllers were falling asleep on the job. They linked this to overtime, lack of sleep, and crazy schedules. The FAA regulated that:

-Controllers will now have a minimum of nine hours off between shifts.  Currently they may have as few as eight.

-Controllers will no longer be able to swap shifts unless they have a minimum of 9 hours off between the last shift they worked and the one they want to begin.

- Controllers will no longer be able to switch to an unscheduled midnight shift following a day off. (FAA, 2011).

Now these changes did not reach the contract air traffic control environment right away. Sometimes what works for one organization will not work for another. It also takes time for the rules to apply themselves downward on occasion. When the schedule changes did reach the contract world, it changed a lot of things. Like the things listed above from the FAA, our company also had to implement the changes to our needs while following their direction. Overnight, controllers schedules changed, the time they come and go from work changed and the overall schedule they worked drastically changed. In that event, people had to change the way they operate within their family, how they schedule their free time and work around the demands of the new system. Although we often face changes at work procedurally, we often times do not face things like this that change things that much. The ramifications are endless. Imagine how many things changed because of those rules being implemented in the contract tower world.

Conclusively, there are numerous implications for complexity and changes in our industry. When a small change occurs, there has to be some detailed look into how big that change is actually going to have on the system and the operators in the system. Sometimes what seems small is rather large, hence the butterfly effect. I can’t speculate on how large the actual ramifications are at this point because this is a rather new procedure and we have not felt the full change yet. I can’t imagine how vast the reach of these changes actually were.

References

FAA. Press Release – FAA Announces Changes to Controller Scheduling. (2011, April 17). Retrieved August 21, 2015.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

A633.1.2RB_SeabournBeau

 Has your own attitude to leaders changed in your life, and if so how?

As I have gotten older, I find that my perception and attitude about leaders has changed. The first major change that I’ve come to realize has to do with trusting someone in a leadership right away. Generally speaking, there are reasons why people are in leadership roles and we trust that they are there for their competencies and qualifications. I joined the Navy right out of high school. After I completed my training and moved into the operating field, I was surrounded by “leaders” who were suppose to help guide me and who were at the facility to help complete the mission. What I found however is that not all of these people were actual leaders. I didn’t understand that at the time, I just assumed anyone who out ranked me was a leader. I know now as an adult and someone who has been through the leadership courses that these individuals lacked any real attributes of a leader. Our reading this week says it this way “leadership in any form cannot produce results without a context within which to exist” (Obolensky, 2014). So my major observation from then until now is that I am skeptical and analytical when it comes to who I assign the role “leader” to. Leaders now also have to prove to me that they are capable of leading me and not the other way around. I don’t want to take advice from someone who has less experience in a certain area than I do. I guess that is probably an annoyance to some people based on their age and their tenure.

If we take as a starting point the attitude to those in authority/leaders as held by your grandparents, and then look at those attitudes held by your parents, and then by you, and then the younger generation, is there a changing trend? If so, what is it?

I think that there is a changing trend. I think there have been a wide variety of changes to attitudes in leadership as generations have progressed. For instance, my grandparents lived in a much different economical time then we did. Those economical influences played a large part in why a leader might be the way they are. People set in an economy were jobs are sparse are more willing to work for leaders that they might not normally want to based on the opportunities available to them. As for the gap between my generation and the next one, I’m not sure there is that big of a gap. I’m sure people would argue that there may be one, but I feel as though the economic impacts, experiences and technology haven’t jumped as they had between my parent’s generation and mine. I think the trend has to be the work ethic changing from manual, hard labor, to smarter less aggressive work styles. There isn’t a need to be close minded in leadership positions and people are able to freely leave organizations now based on benefits, personnel, and need. That wasn’t always the case. One article I read describes a way to create a culture fro all generations. They state “you want to tailor your generational bridge-building to suit the specific needs of your enterprise. For some companies, the need is more urgent than others. Take an inventory of where things stand and develop your plan accordingly” (Biro, 2013).

Why do you think that this has occurred?

I think this has occurred because of the experiences that different generations have had. For instance the baby boomers have gone through Vietnam, woman’s rights, civil rights, and rock and role. Generation X has gone through dual earning parents, high divorce rates (I link the two together) and a poor economy. Millennial’s have experienced September 11^th, 2001, a better economy, and more diverse families (Scouts, 2014). Assuming that these events change generation’s perception on things such as business, leadership and personal interests, I would make the conclusion that people and generations are the way they are from those events. I do think that the rotation might be cyclical though. I think it varies with the success of the economy. Leadership is present always, in every environment but I think people gain the most knowledge from leadership through a bad experience. I would point out that people can recall good leaders too but I would imagine people often say to themselves “I don’t want to be like “______” because they were terrible to work with. So based on experiences and world events, our leadership and authority towards leaders is formed.

References

Biro, M. (2013, October 13). Five Ways Leaders Bridge the Generational Divide. Retrieved August 13, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghanbiro/2013/10/13/five-ways-leaders-bridge-the-generational-divide/

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

Scouts of America, B. (2015, August 11). Unique Experiences Shape Generational Differences. Retrieved August 14, 2015, from http://www.scouting.org/Home/Marketing/Resources/MarketingResearch/UniqueExperiences.aspx

A634.9.5RB_SeabournBeau

Reflect on the three key lessons you take away from the course. Reflect on your perceived value of this course.
The first lesson I’ve learned is that often times, ethical decisions are based on a number of different contributing factors and that given a situation, people might respond differently. Each person is different. Their past and their experiences help shape who they are today and based on those experiences, they make moral and ethical decisions. Through the course we were often times given ethical choices to make and we all made different choices. It was the reason we made the choice we did that stood out to me the most. I learned that people make choices based on what is best for them, or their perceived notion of being right; not someone else's.

Second, I learned that making ethical decisions is hard. I think we all know that but to actually justify why you would do something or react a certain way is tough. During the class, we were all given the chance to answer ethical dilemmas and justify why we made the choice we did. What I sometimes assumed I would do actually changes as I tried to identify why I would actually do that. I think, thinking about a situation really shines light on why we choose to do something or not. This class has taught me to rethink my ethical and moral choices in some ways.

Lastly, the reading states “the best overall moral practice is one in which normative questions arise from our attempts to wrestle with concrete moral decisions” (LaFollette, 2007). What I think I took away the most is, just because I think something is right, doesn’t mean it is. I don’t mean that in the simplest terms, I mean deep down when we think we are right, we may not be in some situations. The situation and the circumstances will dictate what actions we take to do something, or not to do something. We can all argue about things until we are blue in the face but until we all understand one another and each other’s perspective, we will never truly understand the point of view of the next person. This course has really opened my eyes to a lot of exciting perspectives, judgment calls, and critical thinking objectives. It really did help me to understand why I think the way I do and why I make the moral and ethical decisions I do. I was a true honor to learn about the things we did.

Reference

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing

A634.8.3RB_SeabournBeau

Do citizens have a right to bear arms?

The age old question here; My simple response is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (U.S. Constitution, 1776).

The required reading this week states “so our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control, but to decide who can own which guns, under what conditions” (LaFollete, 2007). To that measure I would have to agree. My interpretation only applies to my beliefs in a free country in which I reside. What I mean is, I can understand the perspectives of other people living in other countries who may not believe in gun rights as much as I do. My gun right stance stems from the understanding that no matter what, people are ultimately responsible for defending the United States of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic. If we don’t have guns, how can we ensure that happens? With crooked politicians and liberal peace keeping? I think not! We have to be able to defend a secure what is ours. Now that can apply to any one person or to the country. The rights on man, given to us by our creator God, should not be regulated by man. This country was founded on God loving, gun carrying men. They day we give that right up, we sign our own death warrant.

Now the ethical debate here comes from who should be able or not able to have a gun. Examples include, mentally unstable, felons, and illegal aliens. There isn’t much ethical debate to me in these cases but non the less, the exist. In the last few weeks the President has issued remarks that would ban the gun ownership by people who receive government assistance like social security. The source states “the Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs” (New, 2015). This is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard. Maybe he should spend more time focusing on fixing the nations real problems instead of attacking gun owners all the time. That is another topic for another time.

Last, I feel as though everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their families. We cannot rely on other people to do things for us. I’ve heard it said that guns kill people. I don’t see cars being blamed when a drunk driver kills someone so how can they blame guns when someone shoots someone else? I think there should be little or no restrictions on a person at all in the way of government assistance and regulation. I feel as though this topic, however long we talk about it, can go on and on for days. I don’t understand how people feel as though guns are the cause of violence or wrong doing. It’s not the gun, it’s the person.

Reference

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell

New Obama plan: Ban gun ownership for some Social Security recipients based on “incompetency” - Hot Air. (2015, July 20). Retrieved July 24, 2015.

A634.7.4RB_SeabournBeau

How does you organization portray its values?

The company I currently work for has a couple of different ways of portraying its values to different audiences. First, the way employees interpret the values or get insight to them is through the organizations employee manual and through annual, monthly and weekly training. Through those programs and training we are given guidance as to what is expected of us, how we can improve in weak areas and where our projections could take us if we are successful. Secondly, the company does a great job of sharing public information with the general public. Through outreach programs and more recently, the media, they make sure that the public knows what services we provide and how efficient we are at doing that.  In recent years, the control tower contract program has gotten a lot of attention due to the government shutdown and the government budget cuts. That exposure has allowed our company too really showcase how valuable and effective we are for the flying public.

Behaviors portrayed positively by our leader’s…example

Like I mentioned above, our company and the contract company in general has got a lot of attention in the last three years. It is a hard task to get the public to understand the level of service air traffic controllers provide, especially in the private sector. Without the support from our leaders, we would not have got the exposure we did that allowed the public to see our successes. In addition to that, there were some key players in the government that really looked out for us and got the public to understand why funding us and allowing us to keep our jobs is important.

Someone was unethical in the workplace…..example

When I was in the Navy, there was a person I worked with that did some pretty unethical things. It was the policy of the base I was at to not allow younger sailors to journey to far away from the base on weekends/days off. This prevented accountability issues and general issues from arising. One weekend, this person decided to drive from our base to their home town that was about 8 hours away. While they were there, they set their car on fire (tried to make it look like it was stolen and it wasn’t them) and then took a bus back to base. While at work, this person often talked about the situation and how they needed rides, special attention due to the situation, and special consideration for training. They basically made it seem like the world ended and they needed all of the attention. This created huge problems at the base because everyone was trying to accommodate this person and their situation. After a couple of weeks, the local police department from their hometown called and said they had arrested this person and the base was to come and get him. As you can imagine a lot of things went wrong. The only thing this person knew how to do as say that they were in tha Navy and serving their country and so on and on. That is totally unethical and their actions, like the video talked about, started with some minor issues and slid into the illegal realm pretty quick. Needless to say, the person was kicked out of the Navy and banned from air traffic control for life.

A634.6.3_SeabournBeau

According to the online test this week, I’m not to far off of what Benjamin Franklin’s program outlined. I think that is at least what the results showed. The results state “You're on the right path. Even though you made a few choices that didn't reflect Ben's plan for becoming more virtuous, overall you scored pretty well. Although Franklin gave up on his formal effort to be more virtuous, he devoted much of his life to self-improvement” (Franklin, 2015). The areas they think I should work on include: silence, resolution, and sincerity. As for my thoughts on the areas of improvement I need to work on personally, I chose silence, cleanliness, and sincerity.

I first chose silence, described as “speak not but what may benefit others or yourself. Avoid trifling conversation” (B. Franklin, 2015). I feel that I gossip to much, which plays into our class discussion this week also. I want to be able to be the quiet one in the room occasionally. I mostly feel as though I need to come in, control the room, and make sure everyone knows that I’m ready to be involved in anything I can be. I sometimes talk when I should listen and I think that prohibits my learning occasionally. I hate the quiet, it makes me feel uncomfortable.

The second one I chose was cleanliness. That is described as “tolerate no uncleanness in body, clothes, or habitation” (B. Franklin, 2015). I chose this because I am not one who wants to clean very often. I do it out of respect for my family now, when I was single and living alone, it was a lot easier to stay clean. I take this to also mean that we should keep our bodies clean, or in shape. It plays into the idea that we should care about ourselves and our things. I want to associate that to being grateful for what we have and not to waste what we have been blessed with. Currently, I lack in this department. It’ll be something to work on as I move up into management stages.

The last thing I chose was sincerity. It is describes as “use no hurtful deceit. Think innocently and justly; and if you speak, speak accordingly” (B. Franklin, 2015). Like I mentioned earlier, I like to gossip or get into to many details sometimes.  I prefer to have the inside scoop and then share that with everyone. That is a bad thing to do and it sometimes hurts me in the long run. I would like to improve upon staying on topic and only talking when I need to. That includes only sharing information about things or others when I absolutely have to.

It was interesting this week to see how I related to Benjamin Franklin’s virtues. I see some areas of improvement I need to make but I feel like I have a good application of compassion, understanding, and hard work. I find it increasingly difficult to work on my problem areas listed above but if I want to be the best leader I can, I need to try as hard as I can to make sure I try my best. This was a good learning experience and a good tool to use.

References

Franklin, B. (2015, July 10). Retrieved July 10, 2015, from http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html

Franklin, Benjamin (2015, July 10). Retrieved July 10, 2015, from http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/exp_virtue_results.html?a=323234143333

A634.5.4RB_SeabournBeau

After reading the article by El Sayed and El Ghazaly (n.d.), discuss your views on the following:

1. Do you feel ethical guidelines make a difference to marketers?

Personally, I think that marketers all make ethical decisions based on their job requirements, just like anyone else. The problem I see is that marketers are responsible for getting people to stay (either in person or on the phone) around and to get them to end up buying the product or service they’re selling. Assuming I was in their shoes, it would be difficult to make ethical decisions because you don’t know what the other person see’s as ethical or not. You are obviously trying to persuade the consumer to purchase the product/service and you want them to continue to purchase so as long as they follow the regulations set by the law and their company, I think they know what decisions to make. After all, they are all people like us although sometimes I think they forget that.

2. How can companies balance the need to win with being ethical?

I think if a company wants to be successful and remain ethical, they have to take the needs and wants of their consumers into account. For example, if a marketer wants to remind you that your subscription is almost up, they can do that through a simple, professional call that doesn’t make the consumer feel invaded or disrespected. Often times, after I may cancel something, the company will not stop following up with me. It’s as if they didn’t hear me the first time. Additionally, they can try and offer the consumer the best deal they have right away. That way on the second or third contact the consumer doesn’t feel like the company tried to take advantage of them the first couple of times. What if the person had agreed to the original terms and they found out later they were offering a better deal? The reading states “they make decisions in an organizational environment that is less ethical than their own values and beliefs. Therefore, marketing practitioners may be faced with conflict in structuring how to think and act ethically toward consuming publics” (Sayed & Ghazaly, 2007). I take that to mean, the marketer doesn’t think like they actually would at home. I think that produces a number of problems for the consumer and the company. The culture at the organization should dictate the ethical behavior of the employees.

3. Is it ethical to track your buying habits or web visits to target you for marketing purposes?

So I could go on and on about this topic but to be short, no. I don’t think that it is appropriate for any company or government to track any person’s habits. Let’s focus on businesses. There is a local store here that always asks what zip code we are from in order to check out. Often times I want to tell them that’s none of their business. What difference does it make, I’m shopping here. What they are doing however is keeping track of where people travel from to shop there. That’s a form of free marketing. Second, there shouldn’t be any reason to track anyone’s purchases. Just because they purchase one thing, one time, does not mean that they should be tracked. I think it is a total unethical behavior that needs to end. It’s to bad that Google and Yahoo use personal email scanning to market to their users and that they make billions of dollars doing it. That needs to end!

4. As a leader, how will you manage the ethical aspects of your marketing efforts?

In my current field we don’t market directly but we do provide a service in which we want the users to return. We try and ensure that return by providing excellent customer service, short delay times, and feedback. As a leader, I will do my best to make sure that everyone uses there best judgment and ethical decision making to handle each situation correctly. Often times, we are able to look back on a situation and see what we could have done better. I would want the people working for, and with me to try and make those choices the first time around. By having a good customer service program and excellent training, I think that we can have sound marketing procedures in place.

Reference

El Sayed, H., & El Ghazaly, I. (n.d.) 2007. Ethics-Based Marketing :: Ethical Articles ::.             Retrieved July 4, 2015.

A634.4.4RB_SeabournBeau

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

So after going back and forth with myself, I’ve decided that affirmative action is not ethical. Our reading this week defines affirmative action as “the practice of giving special consideration to minorities and women in hiring and school placement” (LaFollette, 2007). Additionally, our reading goes onto say that “according to the principle of universalizability we should treat cases the same unless there are general and relevant differences between them that can justify a difference in treatment” (LaFollette, 2007). Making an ethical business decision should be made with no prejudice and with complete dedication to the direction of your business. With that being said, a business should be able to select the candidate that best fits the position the business has the need for. There should be no external pressure from anyone to correct that decision for the organization. Ethically speaking, we cannot as a country or as a governing agency, require what staff an organization selects. I would however understand if there were serious issues with a particular company openly and selectively hiring people because of their race or any secondary factor other then their work skills. To clarify, if Bob owns a landscaping business, he should be able to hire anyone he wants that will best get the job done for him. No one should have a say in that process. However, if Bob openly states that he will not hire someone because of his preference, not taking job skills into account, then we have to be careful in allowing that. Ultimately however, it is the owner’s preference to do what they like with their company. No one can tell someone what is going to be successful or who is going to do the best job for them. 

Observing the other side of the coin, the reading states “A person’s life chances are heavily shaped by their economic and social standing, as well as the educational attainment, of their parents” (LaFollette, 2007). I reply to that by saying that we currently live in a capitalistic state where anyone can succeed. My second source agrees when they say “you get to choose what kind of work to do, where to work, and have the freedom to decide how to spend your paycheck” (Tomasovic, 2014). I have serious doubts that in today’s society that people can still hold their parents accountable for their successes or failures. The source goes onto say that “Capitalism creates competition in the market by allowing people or firms to enter the market freely. Governments are not allowed to butt in other than to keep things fair and legal” (Tomasovic, 2014). If you focus on the last part of that reference, he says “fair and legal”. I think that plays in to my observation. We have to ensure that people can hire who they want, as long as it is lawful and just. The other only hang up might be determining who thinks the situation is fair. I think that debate can go one forever.

  

References

Lafollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Tomasovic, N. (2014, May 24). Advantages of Capitalism: Freedom to Succeed. Retrieved June 24, 2015, from https://blog.udemy.com/advantages-of-capitalism/

A634.3.5RB_SeabournBeau

To begin, I want to focus my attention to a “good” dilemma that has recently come about in my professional life.  Recently it has been made clear that there will be an opening for a manager’s position at facility located around 15 miles from my current facility. I was called by my boss’s boss to consider the position. He outlined everything that was going to happen from now until the position is open. Currently, this new facility has a couple of employees who are making things hard on the manager there and they’ve basically caused that manager to move onto a new job. To rectify the current situation, they have assigned an interim manager to the location to smooth things over and get things back on track. Between January and June of next year, that interim manager will be leaving to go back to his old facility thus leaving the positions vacant again. That is were I come in. Once he leaves, they mentioned that I’m first inline for the job. The dilemma comes in because as a first time manager, should I take a job that has issues/personnel problems? I’ve been ensured most of the personnel issues should be resolved by the time I’d report but that’s not for sure. Secondly, the new facility is a longer drive from my home and the hours are completely different then what I work now. I don’t want this to sound like a bad thing though; I actually am looking forward to the challenges ahead. The dilemma is small career wise, I want to move up and this is my opportunity. If I pass, I’ll have to wait at least 3-4 years for another local opportunity like this to present itself. The reading mentions that “big time success usually comes after enormous sacrifice” (Kramer, 2003). That is the case here and it’ll be worth doing.

What I’ve learned this week is that once I get to that new position (assuming it happens as planned), I have to be careful not to let the power consume me. Kramer states “leaders create trouble for themselves when their indulgences become to out of sync with what other people believe is right or fair” (Kramer, 2003). I’ll have to remember that the people I’m going to lead are in the same position I am now. I have to keep their best interest in mind without taking advantage of them. Kramer also says “leaders can abandon practices once they’re at the top” (Kramer, 2003). I’ll have to make sure that I spend a lot of time trying to make sure that I don’t forget where I came from and how I felt when I was in the subordinate’s position. When I recall my time in the Navy, I always remember the people who made E-7 (Chief) rank. They’ve moved from a general rank to a move selected and established rank when that happens. When they make chief, they go through indoctrination and they become part of a “club” if you will. I would say that in nine times out of ten, they would become a different person. I don’t mean a different leader, I mean they immediately let the positional power go to their head and it is as if they forgot where they just came from. Kramer states that “successful leaders strive to become more reflective” (Kramer, 2003). In my experience in the Navy, those new chief’s were hardly reflective and mostly forgetful of their past.

Lastly, for me I have to take time to know that I actually did put in the hard work to get to where I am. Kramer states “getting ahead means doing things differently from ordinary people” (Kramer, 2003). What I assume that to mean is that the leaders often times work harder and more effectively then their new subordinates. After all, leaders are leaders for a reason. If becoming a good leader was easy, everyone would be in a management role. Sometimes hard work and sacrifice will lead to a better outcome. What I’ve learned from this reading this week is that we have to remember that things will change going into management level jobs but we cannot let things change us otherwise we may face our own demise. I look forward to taking this lesson and applying it to my potential new role in my company.

Reference

Kramer, R. M. (2003). THE HARDER THEY FALL. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

A634.2.4RB_SeabournBeau

When I’ve made a lot of decisions in the past, I made them based on the outcomes or consequences that would be associated with the failure of my plan. The reading this week opened my eyes to the actual mental thought process that is associated with my actual pattern of thinking. The reading states “consequentialists claim that we are all morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (LaFollette, 2007). I wouldn’t say that I’ve always thought in terms of long term consequences but more in the “what do I do if this fails” mentality. I’m not sure those two are the same thought patterns but they’re close. I think of consequentialism as predicting the outcomes of larger scale decisions we make. Like the reading says, we don’t often think about the smaller ramifications of our actions. Consequentialist theory “must specify which consequences are morally relevant, how much weight we should give them; and how, precisely, we should use them in moral reasoning” (LaFollette, 2007). Personally, I feel like I don’t go through that entire process but it seems like it would be exhausting to do in every major thought/decision. I’m more free spirited in that I go with what feels correct. 

On the other hand there is Deontology. We all know by a young age, the things that our family and social setting deems appropriate. Deontology says we can “be confident that we know how we should act and how to morally evaluate ours and others actions” (LaFollette, 2007). I wonder how many times I think to myself, “doesn’t this person know how to act here?”. Sometimes I pair the two together. I want to project outcomes and consequences based on my knowledge of a situation. Deontology gives us an outline of the things we should not do and we are taught these things at a very young age. My initial thought is that a lot of people must base deontology to morally correct decision making which in turn, equates to sound ethical decision making. I would argue that both consequentialistm and deontology can lead to sound ethical choices. 

I personally feel that there isn’t one correct way to process information. I like to think in terms of outcomes and consequences if I fail. Some people like to make choices based on moral reasoning. I also think that in order to be totally successful, you have to use moral reasoning and consequential outcomes. As leaders, we should try to always do what is best for our long term success and the success of our business, even if that means trying new techniques or observing from another person’s point of view.

Reference

Lafollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

A634.1.6RB_SeabournBeau

            Like most things this week, I was unaware of the growing issues within the business school MBA programs. To be very honest, I didn’t know there were any issues. After the reading this week, that all changed for me. I am now well aware that there is a very real issue with the ethical decision making processes MBA graduates are leaving with and taking directly into the workplace. One thing that stood out for me in the article was “teaching one ethics course doesn't ensure that a marketing professor will, for instance, discuss privacy-related issues while describing the Net's use as a marketing medium” (Podolny, 2009). The reason that caught my attention is because of the outcomes and consequences of not linking real time information with ethical decision making. Any student can take an ethics course and talk about the “what-ifs” but until the actual business classrooms identify those ethical situations in practical application, I don’t think we will see any really change in the way things are being done.           

            Personally, I feel as though the monetary gains linked to an MBA far outweigh any actual ethical decision making. What I mean is, when a graduate leaves and starts looking for a job, I’m sure they’re not looking for the most ethical and responsible company out there. They are looking for someone who is going to pay the bills and put lots of money in their pocket. The ethical principles of the company are only secondary to the salary. If we want there to be more honesty, integrity and trust in the financial institutions, maybe we should start holding companies to a higher standard. If we don’t do that, why would institutions change their procedures for churning out graduates? It could work the other way also; companies could and should be looking for the most sounds decision makers they can find. I feel as though they are focusing their attention on performance and outcomes rather than the ethical principles an employee brings with them. They then wonder later why they have employee issues and HR problems. The article states “In order to reduce people's distrust, business schools need to show that they value what society values” (Podonly, 2009). I agree with that observation but society values the dollar now. So how can we expect that observation to help anything?

             I actually found some information in reference to a business school that is worried about this issue. One source states “Stern, which claims to have been one of the first business schools to require an ethics course more than 30 years ago, was ranked eighth on the Aspen Institute's 2009-2010 Global 100 List of business schools that prepare M.B.A.s for "social, ethical, and environmental stewardship” (Wecker, 2011). I think that it is imperative that institutions like this continue to be recognized and understood. One last observation mentioned “colleagues at his institution, which requires a course in business ethics and government, have noticed more professors integrating ethics into syllabi” (Wecker, 2011). If they are already trying to implement the ethics into practical use, we need to get the businesses to offer financial rewards for ethically sound MBA graduates. It won’t be until that happens that we see a major swing in more ethical behavior from our financial institutions.

Podolny, J. M. (2009). The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business School (Links to an external site.). Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 62-67.

Wecker, M. (2011, September 20). Retrieved June 5, 2015, from http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/articles/2011/09/20/business-schools-increasingly-require-students-to-study-ethics