A631.9.2RB_SeabournBeau

The first thought that came to me is that I would be like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. In NeXT they spent an enormous amount of time brainstorming, projecting how and when they are going to fit into the market and a lot of time reevaluating their thoughts in company retreats. Steve Jobs was the facilitator and he was responsible for keeping everyone on track and directed at his projected future of NeXT. His team was made up of very intelligent people and people who knew his personality and knew how to deal with Steve Jobs. The team worked well together because they all shared the same goals and the all had worked together before.

Why I wouldn't fit in

The main thing Steve Jobs wanted the team to focus on was changing how personal computers were accessible to the higher education participants, whether that was the student or the teacher. He was trying to solve a problem. For me to feel accomplished and motivated, I must be part of a team that already has established the direction they are going to take. In the video they spent a lot of time trying to determine the course they wanted to take in order to achieve their success. I would probably go mad doing that. Secondly, Steve Jobs dictated the direction of the company. Although other people had input, he would often times change their thought path to meet up with what he saw as being more successful. I personally would have had a hard time there because although my objections and observations are welcome, ultimately it was left to Steve to make the decisions. Based on my characteristics, I need to get recognition and a lot of support for accomplishing tasks; I just don’t think that would have happened there.

Why I could have been successful

I could have seen myself being successful there in large part that this was a start up and the upside for recognition was immense. If the company succeeds, then I get some notoriety also. I also have been made aware that in order to be more successful as a leader I need to be able to be more open minded about being innovative. At the current moment, the idea of sitting down and figuring out complex solutions does not appeal to me. The NeXT team however could have given me the opportunity to explore my creative side and apply that to something that was new to the market place. Last, I think that having a newer start up like NeXT would have really allowed me to showcase my drive and initiative as a leader.

I personally feel as though I wouldn't have fit into the overall culture of NeXT. I do not thrive in situations where there is constant brainstorming, trial and error, and a dominant member vetoing my thought processes at every turn. I would feel out of place and useless. According to my assessment results, I am a tactical leader. Tactical leaders are self driven, assertive, and hard workers. Being self driven would have been hard to do when Steve Jobs keeps re-directing everything I think is successful. 

Reference

Steve Jobs Brainstorms with NeXT Team. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loQhufxiorM&feature=youtu.be  

A631.8.4RB_SeabournBeau

Until I took this test, I had a general idea that I was outgoing but never actually took any time to identify what thoughts or actions make me that way. After taking the HumanMetrics Jung Typology Test, I learned that I’m ESFP which is Extravert (100%), Sensing (38%), Feeling (38%), and Perceiving (22%).  According to my source this week, “People with this personality type are often the first to help someone talk out a challenging problem, happily providing emotional support and practical advice” (ESFP, 2014). I took time to analyze how I felt about that and how it is going to affect me in a leadership role.

Being an ESFP means that we are impulsive and we can jump from thought to thought very quickly without thinking about it. To me, that can be a slight disadvantage to being a good leader because often times leaders are people who have to keep employees on task and they have to help them stay focused. As a ESFP, that may be a struggle for me at first. Secondly, ESFP generalized people tend to “talk to people about people” (Description, 2014). I find that to be a downside because as a leader sometimes you have to use discretion and talking about people to other people can create trust issues and confidence issues in your subordinates.

ESFP people however have some upsides to there leaderships styles. First, they are people who can start a conversation with almost anyone in any situation and they feel comfortable almost anywhere. Second, “ESFPs recognize value and quality” (ESFP, 2014). I can see that being useful when trying to find the correct employee for the correct job. Sometimes it takes a person with a keen eye and a good gut feeling to lead a team. I feel as though EFSP type personalities do just that. I now understand that ESFP type people can also take a long time to answer a simple question. I personally know that I fall into that categorization. I feel as though it gives depth to the situation and sometimes depth is needed in order to be understood correctly. That c an ultimately waste people’s time though and as a leader, I may want to work on not doing that.

Lastly, I am now more self aware of my personality type not just as a leader but as an employee. Being able to identify where my strengths and weaknesses are this week allowed me to set some personal goals and to really think about how I can use my personality traits to my advantage. When someone points out a potential fault of mine, I can either ignore them or try and reevaluate my way of doing things to be more effective in the future. I hope with this understanding of my personality, I can be more effective as a leader in the future. One last observation from my source this week, “ESFPs are welcome wherever there's a need for laughter, playfulness, and a volunteer to try something new and fun - and there's no greater joy for ESFP personalities than to bring everyone else along for the ride” (ESFP, 2014). I can’t think of a better leader to bring in when they situation requires a light hearted approach challenged with new undertakings.

ESFP Personality ("The Entertainer"). (2014, April 13). Retrieved May 15, 2015, from http://www.16personalities.com/esfp-personality

ESFP Description. (2015). Retrieved May 15, 2015, from http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/esfp

A631.7.4RB_SeabournBeau

I given some thought to my actual perspective of organizational development in the workplace this week. After reading chapter sixteen, I can see how some people view it as a fad. I do not see this being a fad. There is a lot to gain from OD interventions and changes. So to answer quickly, yes, I do see the future of OD in the workplace. One source this week states “ OD interventions are inclusive methodologies and approaches to strategic planning, organization design, leadership development, change management, performance management, coaching, diversity, team building, and work/life balance" (ODN, 2015).

In our reading, Brown states that “there are increasing trends toward greater diversity of the workforce, including multinational corporations and a need for the integration of diverse cultures, values, and skills. I’d like to share how I encountered such integration in the U.S. Navy. Toward the middle of my service time, all of the base personnel were being informed that the Navy was going to be shifting toward a more informed, well rounded sailor. We were told that it was important for us to have more than one skill set, whether that is our primary job or a secondary one. The more we were able to show we knew, the better off our career paths would turn out to be. I now see that in some ways, the Navy was trying to make personnel changes along with streamlining the average worker. The more one worker can do, the less people they have to hire. In OD, “the course of change anticipated for OD will predominately surround the issues of a changing workforce, global competence, and transformation within the organization” (Brown, 2011). I would assume that if the U.S. Navy has taken on some OD techniques, that the government must see it as beneficial in some ways. Generally, things that work will be around for awhile longer.

In our class discussion this week, there were multiple accounts of how OD is already at work. Tracy Michael (a fellow student) stated, “Because the culture of our company is one that understands the need for organizational development and its criticality for implementing change, we are focused on our vision that is effective to our meeting the goals of air and space integration” (Michael, 2015). You can see that his company has narrowed down their agenda and how they use OD to be more successful. So if there is any doubt of OD techniques and the future of OD, I don’t see it in the near future.

  

Brown, D. (2011). An experimental approach to organizational development. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Michael, T. (2015, January 1). [Online].

ODN, What is Organization Development? - OD Network. (2015). Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://www.odnetwork.org/?page=whatisod

A631.6.4RB_SeabournBeau

 The most important observation I made about both of the men was that they both were involved in and created a successful culture that was always changing. According to Brown, “A strong culture is characterized by the organization’s basic values being intensely help and widely shared” (Brown, 2011).  In figure 15.4 we see that the more people who are willing to commit to the values, the stronger the culture becomes. For Jim McIngvale, he has created a culture around making sure employees are well taken care of. He does this by providing endless education on products, techniques, and customer relations. I found it most interesting that he actually saves over one million dollars a year in health insurance because his employees engage in physical activities during company work time. I think he has found a way to engage employees both physically and intelligently. The employees seem to be responding more, creating a better culture, because their leader is taking the time and investing in them.

Stanley McCrystal was successful because he was able to take advice from people who worked under him who had more knowledge of the technologies he had to use. One source states “Revealing you are human is helpful; good leaders go and find the answers the team needs” (Brandon, 2014). I think Stanley lives that each day. He understood what it took to be successful; sometimes he doesn’t have all the answers and he needs to outsource the information gathering to someone more qualified. Often times leader are not successful because the do the opposite of that. They think they have all the answers and they implement things that are not successful like that of Napelli from our discussion about Home Depot. A classmate (Phillip), said it best in his discussion observing that “The negatives were apparent at Home Depot during his tenure due to index score fell from 75 to 67 while rival Lowes remained at 75” (Boylyard, 2015). In our discussion this week, it was obvious that the new CEO has made a number of huge errors that, in hindsight, must not make a lot of sense to Napelli. 

I think that there is a lot to learn from these two leaders. Each one of them admitted that they needed to look at the way they are doing business and reevaluate that technique in order to be more successful in the future. Stanley had a lot thrown at him in a short amount of time and was able to use his tools to his advantage. Jim knew that in order to keeps his business going, he would have to look outside the box and understand new management techniques. Those techniques are making him more profitable and successful now.

Brandon, J. (2014, August 29). 20 Ways to Become a Better Leader Right Now. Retrieved May 3, 2015, from http://www.inc.com/john-brandon/20-ways-to-become-a-better-leader-right-now.html

Brown, D. (2011). An Experimental Approach to Organizational Development (8th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Boylyard, P. (2015, January 1). Class Discussion [Online].