A633.5.3.RB-Reflections on Chaos- Trey McNeil

One thing I have learned in this life is that chaos can be found anywhere, but it is how the chaos is handled that makes the difference. According to Obolensky (2014), success lies in balancing order and chaos. As I write this blog, I am in a hospital waiting room of the surgical ward and am witnessing the epitome of balance.  The chaos is on the faces and in the actions of the others waiting for patients. Some individuals could be waiting on individuals having more serious surgeries, so the worry is leading to the chaotic nature.  Some individuals are up and down, looking at the monitor that relays surgical progress or pacing frantically around the room. But, the balance lies in the nurses and volunteers. They are the definition of order. They remain tranquil and have a strategy to make sure everyone is as calm as possible. Though this example does not relate to an organization, it is proof that a balance could be a success in a company.

Obolensky (2012) introduced a game, or as he called it working experiment, that demonstrated how simple complexity could be if a few simple parameters were followed. When I first began to read about this task, I grew weary about the predicted outcome. I thought the complexity and chaos would get in the way of the intended goal of the experiment. This game is to be played with a minimum of eight people and a maximum of eighty, though twenty-five is the ideal amount of participants. The goal of the experiment is to pick two random individuals that will become your reference points, and at a directed time move slowly around the room until you are at an equal distance from your two reference points. With that many people moving about it seems like complexity and chaos could have been extreme, but they seemed to work themselves out during the experiment. What I thought would take at least ten to fifteen minutes took less than a minute according to Obolensky (2012). That was surprisingly quick! But what would have been the result if a leader was appointed to be in charge of the experiment? This question received a laugh from the participants on the video.

Why did this experiment go so effortlessly without leadership? According to Obolensky (2014), there are eight principles of leadership including clear individual objective, a few simple rules, continuous feedback, freedom of action, skill/will of participants, purpose, a clear boundary, and a tolerance of players for uncertainty and unambiguity.  The game directed by Obolensky (2012) followed most of these rules leading to a successful balance of order and chaos.

The game consisted of one clear and simple objective- cease moving when you are an equal distance between your two reference points. Obolensky (2012) did explain a few simple rules. He said the participants should move slowly as to not disrupt the flow of the game. He also said that the participants are not allowed to reveal or talk to their reference points, though they will feel a strong urge to do so as the game continues. The final recommendation was to use all of the space provided. There would be a desire to crowd one another in an attempt to get closer to your reference points, but the game will work better if this desire is avoided. The participants also had freedom of action. They were allowed to choose how and where they move. The freedom of their action created empowerment.

The skill and will of participants were also elevated. Obolensky (2014) described that the majority of the time he holds this experiment, the participants are members of his graduate class. As these individuals are willing to learn, they are also willing to participate in the game. Since there is not much skill involved in the game, only walking, judging distance, and following directions (which, honestly, could be difficult individuals), anyone willing to participate has the skill to participate. This experiment also has a direct purpose- stop moving when you are equal distance from each reference point. But, it also serves a much larger purpose. The creator of the experiment hoped to reveal how chaos and complexity could be tackled and subdued without leadership.

The experiment also had a clear boundary. The participants were made aware of the boundaries and were asked to not cross the boundaries for the purpose of the experiment. The players were also forced to tolerate uncertainty. I am sure more than once a player thought they were an equal distance from each reference point only to have one of the other participants move, which could result in frustration. In business, leaders are forced to adapt to moving targets and this game literally had moving targets. The only principle that Obolensky (2014) warned to stay away from was continuous feedback. He stated that there would be a desire to step in and try to help, but doing so would skew the results.

So, what does this experiment imply to leadership and strategy? In this instance it proved less is more. This game could have been very complex and chaotic. The truth is that if a leader had been appointed then the experiment would not have been as smooth and would have taken much longer. An appointed leader would have mirrored the oligarchic system that makes up traditional hierarchies. So, this game played through the eyes of one individual would have been disastrous. Their strategy would have most likely been to move people around like puzzle pieces until, after a very long period of time and much frustration, each individual would be an equal distance from their chosen reference points. In my opinion, this proves that a strategy should be generated from each person participating in the organization. One person’s viewpoint or idea could lead to chaos.

In terms of chaos, this experiment proves that letting it play out usually results in success. I am sure the first time this research was directed by Obolensky (2012), he wanted to give direction during the process-I know I would.  But, he trusted the process, let complexity theory work itself out, and the result was a success.

This research experiment opened my eyes to how chaos could be simplified if the correct parameters are in place. I was a skeptic when introduced to the terms and rules of the game. But, the test proved that complexity and chaos are not always complex or chaotic.

References

Obolensky, N. (2012). Who needs leaders? Retrieved  from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E

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

A633.4.3.RB- Changing dynamics of leadership- Trey McNeil

According to the common statement, the only thing that remains constant is change. Change is all around us and affects all portions of our lives. Strategies in an organization are no exception and should be expected to be altered. But where are these solutions and changes generated in the organization? In reference to business strategy, Obolensky (2014) asked: “Of the 100 percent of the solutions that actually make specific changes happen on the ground to get positive results, what percentage of solutions do you think originally came from/ are first thought at the top?” (p. 35). What would be your guess in relation to your organization? Do you think you and your “leader” would agree on the percentage?

As I contemplated this thought provoking question, my first thought was that the top must come up with most of the significant solutions that guide strategy. But then I had a debate with my pre-leadership student self and adjusted my answer. One thing I have learned throughout the journey in this program is that the false idea I had about leadership does not exist. The leadership program has taught me that leaders do not have to come from the top, they can come from anywhere in the organization.  My final answer was that the solutions that influence strategy were probably divided equally between the three groups (thirty-three percent each).

 So, where do the solutions come from?  Believe it or not, more than sixty percent of the solutions come from the bottom of an organization, and the top portion of the organization produces less than ten percent of the solutions! I bet not many people would have guessed that. So, it is evident that the thought about where leadership and ideas come from must change.

The general notion is that leaders create solutions because they are leaders and part of their job description is to correct the problems that occur in the organization. But, according to Obolensky (2014) leaders are beginning to change their thought process about solutions. One CEO, when faced with this question, answered that zero percent of solutions come from upper management. “We all understand it is not our job any longer” (Obolensky, 2014, p.36). According to Watkins (2012), leaders must begin to focus less on solving problems and begin to determine the problems the organization should be addressing.

Another reason the percentage at the top is dwindling is the changing of some organizational structures. There are some companies that are throwing away the playbook that says that a successful company must be a hierarchy.  According to Denning (2014), three companies who have broken away from the traditional structure and remained successful are Morningstar, Southwest, and Zappos. These three companies cut managers down to a minimal. No managers? How were they able to remain successful? More decisions, ideas, and solutions being made at the lower levels of the organization.

With more and more research being done on leadership and the structure of organizations, some companies are beginning to understand that the opinions of the employees on the bottom of the totem pole do have worth. Being a member of the bottom of the totem pole club, I believe the individuals who are more hands on with the work can provide valuable solutions and ideas. In retail, these employees are closer to the customer and know what they desire. Hamel (2011) stated that the most powerful managers, who are furthest away from the daily activities, tend to have the worst solutions.

I also believe that as members of the Millennials and Gen Z begin to infiltrate the workforce, the dynamics of leadership will continue to change. Millennials and Gen Z grew up win a world where nearly all information was quickly available. With the advent of the internet and smartphones, driven individuals had an opportunity for infinite knowledge. So, they have access to more ideas and are not used to waiting for others to come up with a solution. If they are determined, they will find a solution on their own, without the help of their leader or manager.

I would have to say my organization is like a child trying to pick out their toy at the store. They cannot make up their mind about the dynamics of leadership. I want to say that we are a company that is altering the traditional leadership role. Employee ideas are welcomed in my department. The Vice President allows for antiquated processes to be revamped. She also frequently asks our opinions in the monthly staff meeting, so in that aspect, I feel like we are moving away from the typical leadership cycle. But, the organization and department still operate under a traditional hierarchal silo and the culture that goes along with the silo is strong.

The managers are under the impression that they must know everything and fear that relinquishing any power or knowledge will make them a worse manager. When in reality, leadership would become greater if they were able to surrender knowledge and power. The greatest leader is not the person who knows everything about the goal; they are the individual who best knows how to help the team accomplish the goal.

The followers at my organization can also help to change the leadership culture. Followers must learn that they too are capable of creating changes and should speak up when they believe they have the solutions. According to Bielaszka-DuVernay (2009), individuals can offer thoughtful suggestions for improvement simply by providing honest feedback.

I believe my organization will have to begin creating a new culture for a shift in leadership to fully occur. Because I do not see the organization flattening anytime soon, followers will need to begin to provide more feedback and suggestions and managers will need to release power and allow for suggestions from the bottom to rise up. They could be surprised how helpful the ideas of the followers could be.

References

Bielaszka-DuVernay, C. (2014). How to lead when you're not the boss. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2009/02/how-to-lead-when-youre-not-the

Denning, S. (2014). No managers? No hierarchy?  No way! Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/04/18/no-managers-no-hierarchy-no-way/#3a95362728f9

Hamel, G. (2011). First, let's fire all the managers. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers

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

Watkins, M. (2012). How managers become leaders. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/06/how-managers-become-leaders

A633.3.4.RB- Complexity Science- Trey McNeil

Daytona Beach Junior College was founded in 1957 and in its inception did not even own any buildings. The stories I have heard during my tenure at the college reveal that the first classes were offered in a grocery store that was rented at night after closing. The first bookstore was the trunk of the professors’ cars. According to the History of Daytona State College (2010), the college’s three divisions included college credit, adult education, and vocational school. Obolensky (2014) stated that two approaches to strategy exist. One strategy reflects the yin while the other reflects the yang. The intended strategy (yang) consists of analysis and is the more traditional approach. The emergent strategy (yin) is the more dynamic of the two approaches.

I can imagine the intended strategy of the inaugural president of Daytona Beach Junior College to be to hire the best professors, provide the best material, and offer the lowest prices in the Daytona Beach area in route to accomplishing the mission of the college of providing a great education in each student’s chosen field. As time passed and the number of students began to grow, the president and staff had to adapt a new strategy that included acquiring a campus and offering more programs.   I imagine the feedback was minimal to all employees and that the strategy of the college in its infancy relied mostly with the president and upper level staff. Obolensky (2014) said that if individuals are not involved in the development of the strategy then they tend to have less understanding of the strategy, and I can envision that being the case in the early days of the college.

The college that began in 1957 as Daytona Beach Community College without an owned classroom is now known as Daytona State College (DSC). DSC has seven campuses in central Florida and has an enrollment of nearly seventeen thousand students. What began as a two year junior college with three divisions now offers over one hundred certificate, associate, and degree programs (History of Daytona State College, 2010).The small junior college has seen a lot of changes over the last sixty years. Though the goal of offering a quality education at competitive prices has not changed, the strategy has evolved and adapted over the years.

At some point during the college’s life, a board was developed to govern the college. The board members were selected by the Governor of the state of Florida and serve three year terms. This change resulted in the strategy development no longer lying in the hands of the college president. The board would now guide the college to success or failure and would be the main conductor of the college’s strategy. Having a board in place also changed the feedback at the college. In the traditional hierarchy of a silo, the board added another level of leadership which most likely resulted in the lower level employees being even less informed.

Being in the accounting department of the college, I generally do not feel like I am part of the organization’s strategy. Our interdepartmental strategy is to submit clean reports to the State of Florida and conduct clean audits by following all laws and audit guidelines. Obolensky (2014) discussed that strategies can be defined by how fixed or fluid they are and that strategies should be clear so followers will take initiative. Over the last 2 years, the strategy at DSC has gone through changes that are even visible in our department.

Being a subdivision of the state of Florida, DSC receives state funds each year that are a crucial part of our operational budget. Prior to 2014, each of the 26 community colleges in the state of Florida would get an equal piece of the state funds. In 2014, it was announced that a ranking system would be developed and the colleges would receive funds based on the rankings.  The areas that were involved in the rankings included: completion rates, average years to graduation, average salary after graduation, amount of time it takes to earn employment, matriculation rates, GPA, etc.

The initial rankings showed DSC at the bottom creating two results.  First, the college’s share of the revenue was reduced. Secondly, one half of the awarded revenue was held until the college could prove that they had a plan in place to increase the performance that resulted in the poor ranking. The strategy of the college shifted to increasing the areas that were included in the rankings.

Working with local employers, the college was able to create a network that would text and email students local employment opportunities in their field to help reduce the time it takes for students to earn employment.  The Admissions department began devoting their attention to working with students who were facing issued with matriculation. The goal was to make sure all admitted students enrolled in a class before the matriculation deadline. The enrollment department began working with students to attempt to enroll them in each semester. The mission was to make sure that students seeking a  two year degree earned the degree on time and the same mission existed for the for year degree. With the mission and strategy clear to all employees of the college, DSC was able to raise their ranking from a third tier college in the initial rankings to a second tier college in the second rankings. The strategy for the college has been forced to adapt over the last couple of years and the new strategies support the goal of becoming a top tier college every year.

If I had to guess the next stage in the evolution of DSC and where the college will be in ten years, it would be extremely difficult to do so. Over the nine years I have been employed at the college I have seen two presidents whose contracts were not renewed, two CFO’s whose contacts were not renewed, and three controllers in my department. I have witnessed bad economic times where enrollment skyrocketed resulting in new programs being added and great economic times where the college was forced to lay off employees. The strategy of offering classes online has also grown exponentially in the time I have spent at the college. With the new ranking system, I would expect DSC to continue to strategize on how to increase their performance on the judged areas. As technology changes, I could also see DSC adapting to the changes and offering more technology friendly classrooms.

I would never want to make a guess about where I will be in ten years in my relation to the company, but with the increased knowledge of leadership and logistics I am gaining through my Masters journey, I am hoping to bring a leadership and logistical view that will help to develop and implement the strategy at DSC.

References

History of Daytona State College. (2010). Retrieved from https://www.daytonastate.edu/catalog/facts/history.html

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

A633.3.3.RB- Complex Adaptive Leadership

The business world we operate in today is fast-paced and intertwined. Organizations today must have the ability to react and adapt to the changes that occur or they could become obsolete. Due to the progressing circumstances, Obolensky (2014) made his thoughts on organizational development very clear. He boasted that organizational evolution equaled survival. The typical functional silo or hierarchal organization, which we all most likely work for, is becoming outdated. According to Obolensky (2014), this type of organization is beginning to fail due to them being very expensive and too slow. The second stage in the evolution of organizations is cross-functional matrices.

Compared to hierarchal silos, cross- functional matrices are more efficient. In this type of organization, functions are spread throughout the entire organization creating faster reaction times. Obolensky (2014) warned that this type of organization will prosper in a vacuum that faces no external changes, but tensions will appear as external changes occur. The company will begin to alter organization functions in order to reduce costs, which will be the beginning of the end for cross-functional matrices. According to Obolensky (2014), “The trend is toward more cross-functionality and flatter hierarchies, with more informality and enablement” (p. 22). Enter complex adaptive systems (CAS) like a superhero to save all organizations.

Not all complex adaptive systems are the same, but they do share some common features including informal hierarchy, the rare formal hierarchy remains flat and is focused on meeting the needs of the stakeholders, pronounced emphasis on personal responsibility, open communication, underperformance is not tolerated, and clarity in the company’s processes. Like all companies, stresses will occur in a CAS, but according to Obolensky (2014), the pressures and strains that a CAS will face are natural and hint a healthy evolution. One company that Obolensky (2014) listed as a CAS was Johnsonville Foods, Inc.

Before this week’s reading and research, I did not know much about Johnsonville Foods, other than they made delicious bratwurst. But, an exploration into the company left me with a more informative and different view. The evidence that Johnsonville acts as a CAS is shown in its mission statement which reads, “Together, we will create an environment that requires each of us to fully develop our God-given talents” (Our Culture, n.d., n.p.). This mission statement goes along with the idea that CAS places an emphasis on personal responsibility. Johnsonville Foods also encourages each employee to live the Johnsonville way, which entails each employee being the best they can be (Our Culture, n.d.).  Johnsonville also believes that each team member should be held personably accountable to live up to their promises. Goals are set and plans are developed where each employee will make a promise to be personably accountable to each other team member.

Obolensky (2014) stated that a CAS involves the formation of teams. At Johnsonville teamwork is an essential part of the organization. Johnsonville believes that employees should work together to help each other succeed. The mention of teamwork and holding each team member personally accountable at Johnsonville hints that hierarchy is informal, flat, or non-existent Our Culture, n.d.).

Obolensky (2014) stated that, in general, a CAS is not a nice place to work, but Johnsonville attempts to squash that belief. Johnsonville not only offers traditional benefits such as great insurance, a 401K, and paid time off, they also offer profit sharing plans which will “put a contribution into your plan account based on a percentage of the company’s annual profits” (Indirects, n.d., n.p.).

My current organization does not share the same company style or beliefs as Johnsonville Foods. Unfortunately, I would classify my organization as a traditional silo-filled hierarchal system, but I would include an asterisk as a company suffering from an identity crisis. Most of the departments at the college operate as a hierarchal system. My department, the finance department, includes a lengthy chain of command. As an accountant, I report to the director or cash management, who reports to the Controller, who reports to the Vice President/Chief Financial Officer, who ultimately reports to the College President. From my position, that is a dizzying view up the hierarchal ladder. Unlike most CAS, Johnsonville included, the hierarchy at the college is neither informal nor flat.

The college also includes many of the traditional silos mentioned by Obolensky (2014) such as Admissions, Enrollment, Advising, Student Accounts, and Financial Aid. But, each department (or silo) depends on inter-department and intra-college teamwork, which is where the asterisk comes into play. In my department, I have been asked to be a part of a team several times.  I recall once being asked to be part of a finance-based team tasked with determining a new method to encumber student scholarships. This team worked together for several weeks to determine a new method and then disbanded. I have also been involved in several teams with other departments of the college. I was once asked to join a team including members of the department of student accounts, financial aid, the Foundation, and accounting to develop a new process to award scholarships.

The college also consists of many committees made up of members from various departments. Each committee or team is equally important in reaching the college goal of helping students. The college recently went through the process of updating to a new computer system, which caused glitches and problems all throughout the college. My supervisor was asked to be a part of a committee that helped develop queries to stop a glitch that would not allow students to pay for classes online. Just like Johnsonville, the College comes together to work as a team to create success for each employee and student as well.

Another similarity between my organization and a CAS is the emphasis on personal responsibility. Each month we have a departmental meeting and the VP always says two things at some point during the meeting. First, she talks about how blessed she is to have such a hardworking and competent staff (or the best staff at the college as she puts it). The second message she always works into the meeting is the importance of personal responsibility. She wants us to see the department as a team or family, but always makes clear that a team is only as strong as each member.

The VP of my department has also placed an emphasis on open communication in our monthly meetings. She makes it a point to tell her staff any vital information discussed in the president’s cabinet meetings.

So, what do I believe are appropriate actions that could be taken by the College or my department to move towards a CAS? First, I believe the hierarchy could be flattened. As I previously mentioned, the hierarchy in my department is very steep and that is common all throughout the college. Since reading about the structure that Zappos went to several years ago, I have been enamored with holacracy. I believe thinning out the middle management and implementing more teamwork would be a great idea to get the lower level employees more involved with the strategy of the company. Also, I believe processes could be less static and more flexible. I have been in several situations where I was told this is how we have to do things. I thought to myself, there are many other options that could be done to be successful in this scenario, so this is not how we have to do things, it is how we choose to do things.

I believe my organization is a great place to work. The comradery, teamwork,  and feeling of family is very strong. But, I do believe changes could be implemented to create a greater and more successful organization. As Obolensky (2014) suggested, most hierarchal silos eventually perish due to the cost and speed at which it operates.  It is suggested that these companies evolve or die. Though my company shows signs of evolution, I hope it gets the message and starts to completely evolve before it is too late.

References

Indirects. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://jobs.johnsonville.com/why-johnsonville/indirects.html

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

Our Culture. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://jobs.johnsonville.com/why-johnsonville/our-culture.html

A633.2.3.RB-Butterfly Effect- Trey McNeil

Before this week’s readings, when I thought of the butterfly effect one of two things would immediately come to mind. First, would be the movie starring Ashton Kutcher that shares the name of the theory. In this movie, Ashton Kutcher discovered he had the ability to go back in time and change moments from his past. What started out as a relief quickly became disastrous as each time he went back in his past to fix a situation for himself or one of his friends, he ended up making something else worse. At one point, he goes back in time to stop his friend from blowing up a mailbox with a cherry bomb, because after the friend was caught, he began to live a very troubled life. When Ashton wakes up from stopping the explosion, he finds himself missing his legs which were lost during the mishap. Aston learns that no matter what he does to correct instances in the past the future is affected by the altered actions.

The second thing that usually comes to mind when I hear the term butterfly effect is any movie or TV show where the characters go back in time. The number one rule is never to disturb the past because it will have an adverse effect on the future. After the readings this week, I understand that the movie was more than likely named for the theory developed by Edward Lorenz (Lorenz strange attractors), or more commonly known as the butterfly effect. The discovery made by Lorenz was an accident. In trying to study a previously run weather simulation, he left off a couple of digits in numbers containing lengthy decimal points while entering the beginning parameters (Obolensky, 2014).

What he thought was an insignificant change in the starting parameters produced, at first a minor, and then a colossal change in the ending numbers. Lorenz then wanted to determine why a small change could have such a large effect and discovered that even complex systems that seem chaotic have a core pattern.  “When a situation has a great sensitivity to initial conditions, a small change can have a disproportionate effect” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 70). In other words, in an organization, a small change can have a massive effect on the company.

As I contemplated complexity science and the butterfly effect this week, I wondered if a small change has ever yielded large results for my organization. I thought about many examples and would like to discuss two in this post. With our previous computer system, when a check was voided and purged the check numbers had to be adjusted to mirror the changes. Why is that piece of information important? Because the implications that would occur if the checks numbers are not corrected could be catastrophic.

Several years ago, on a Friday morning, hundreds of student checks were administered for returns and scholarships. This was a seemingly fluid and easy process, but the individual who processed the checks was unaware that a check was previously voided and the check numbers remained unadjusted.  By Wednesday of the next week, the finance department received a call from the bank stating that several checks were numbered incorrectly and therefore must be voided. Several was a very generous phrase as there were much more than “several checks.” Because most of the students had already picked up their checks, chaos ensued. The department had to reach out to the students to let them know about the mistake.

Though it was the fault of my department, some students were purged from their classes because the money they received was to be used to pay for their classes, which represented a lack of communication by the departments of the college, but that is a different subject for a different blog. There were even a couple of students that stated that their bank allowed the check to be deposited, only later to realize that the check was voided and the funds were then debited out of their bank account. In the end, the checks were re-issued, all the students were placed back into their classes, and the department learned a very important lesson about the check process.

The implication of complexity theory was visible in this example.  This small change caused a large ripple that created work for the bank, the accounting department, and student accounts.  The department learned the chaotic result and process that can result from one small change. Improvements were created from this example. A checks and balances system was generated where another employee must verify and sign off that the check numbers are correct before they are delivered to student accounts to be mailed out to the recipient.

I recall another instance where transposed numbers almost caused a group of music students to have to cancel a trip to Nashville. The college has several hundred cost centers and each center is managed by a cost center manager. For big ticket items, the cost center manager will request the funds to be placed in their budget at the beginning of the fiscal year, and the Vice Presidents would approve. The trip was approved and the funds were placed in the budget for that particular cost center. The problem began when the cost center manager sent the request to accounts payable to pay for the chartered flight. This individual accidentally transposed the numbers in the cost center. When accounts payable tried to pay the invoice a budget error occurred explaining that no budget existed, leading accounts payable sent the invoice back cost center manager saying that there was no budget.

The ping-pong match then began with one individual saying that the trip was approved and the other individual saying that the cost center did not have the budget to pay the invoice. Because things used to move slowly around the college, and an attempt to pay the invoice was not made until the due date, the airline canceled the chartered flight due to an unpaid invoice and alerted the cost center manager, which did not go over well. The final result comprised of a check being cut quickly, once the error was discovered, and mailed overnight to the company. Like my first example, lessons were learned. The cost center manager learned to be more careful and timely when filling out check request and accounts payable learned to pick up the phone and call if they notice an invoice may be late, instead of sending the invoice back through the college mail system. This example also illustrates how a small change or mistake can create a large wave in an organization.

A leader or organization will never know exactly what is around the next corner.  Complexity theory explains that no matter how prepared you are a small change can alter the destiny of a project. Therefore, a leader must be aware of how everything fits together in the big picture, because when dealing with the butterfly effect everything matters. “Even studying the small things can tell you about the complexity of the real world” (Onion, 2016, para. 19).

References

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

Onion, A. (2016). Science behind the butterfly effect. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99596&page=1 

A633.1.2.RB-Leadership Gap

Growing up, I had two different ideas about leadership. My first idea centered on my parents, teachers, principals, grandparents, and even characters like Papa Smurf or Master Splinter from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I believed a leader was an individual who would guide a person into doing great things. They were there to “lead” by example and direct someone to reach a goal, whether it be learning to ride a bike, drive, grasping algebra and geometry, or even fighting the foot clan and Shredder. I also had another vision of a leader that stuck with me well into my twenties. This vision was the thought process Obolensky (2014) warned about. The assumption that leaders must be “gifted, charismatic, articulate, ambitious, knowledgeable and well-educated” (p. 18). As a child, I assumed that my parents’ bosses were leaders because they held the title of supervisor or manager. When I got my first job after college, I was under the impression that my manager was a leader because of their title. As I spent more time in the working world, I began to realize that the title did not make a leader. A leader is defined by the actions of the individual.

My attitude on leadership began to change drastically when I started the MSLD program. My thought process started to shift from the leaders are the individuals who are in charge to the leaders who are the individuals who take charge. Recently, my accounting duties were altered and I now report to a new supervisor. As I began my new job, I believed that my new supervisor would lead and teach how to be successful in my new position. But, I was wrong. The individual who has been most helpful is my fellow co-worker. They have been there to teach and guide me and help me grasp the new information.

I have never considered myself as a leader. I never believed that I had the qualities or skills to be a leader, but the leadership program has helped me see that I am a leader in my job. One of my responsibilities is to allocate funds for student scholarships. Every year I allocate and award approximately one million dollars in student scholarships. Though I am in the background and not visible with my cape, I still believe I help lead these students. I help guide them to be successful which, in my opinion, is leadership at its core.

The truth is that the attitude held by the younger generation (Gen Z) compared to the older generations (Traditionalist or Baby Boomers) toward authority and leadership has drastically changed. My grandparents are Traditionalist. Both of my grandfathers fought in the Korean War. They were raised by their parents to be respectful to everyone. The lessons their parents and the military taught them created individuals who had respect for leadership and authority. Unfortunately, they had the belief that leaders were the best of the best and were always right. I do not believe they would ever question leadership or authority. 

In regards to their beliefs on leadership and authority, my parents are complete opposites. Over the last several classes, I have had conversations with my mom about the concepts I have been fortunate enough to learn. I have discovered that she shares the views of my grandparents. She does not like to question leadership and authority and does so very rarely. My dad, on the other hand, finds nothing wrong with questioning leadership or authority if he is steadfast in his beliefs about the correct things to do. He has a healthy respect for leadership and authority but also likes to voice his opinion every now and then. Though I am a millennial, I do not question authority often. My beliefs about authority and leadership have shifted recently, so I do find it myself occasionally voicing my opinion when I believe I know the correct answer or process.

If we fast forward to the younger generation, the attitude toward leadership and authority is much different. The attitude is almost one of disrespect and disdain. At some point, leaders have begun to be viewed as non-authoritative. But how did this happen? In my opinion, there are two reasons for this alternative view on authority- pop culture and technology/knowledge. Pop culture today is full of disrespect and lack of manners. Music videos and popular music seem to degrade women and that spills over to how the younger generation feels about authority. I recently found myself watching an episode of Scared Straight. In the clip, I saw a young girl with behavioral problems being scorned by an officer and she was laughing at everything the officer said. As a teenager, my authority consisted of my parents, police officers, and teachers/principals. If some kids cannot respect police officers, how will they ever respect teachers or supervisors?

Another reason I believe the younger generation views authority and leadership differently is because of the accelerated pace of technology and knowledge. Obolensky (2014) discusses the rapid growth of knowledge in the 20^th century. Everyone these days has access to information at the touch of a button. The instant technology and knowledge has created a generation that does not believe leadership is as “all knowing” as once perceived, which may not be a bad thing if combined with the respectful leadership view of the past generations. Millennials and Gen Z have also seen their parents pushed out of jobs after giving many years to the company just because someone younger could be hired. The fact that their parents got pushed out causes a lack of trust in leadership and authority.

Though our modern technology has created a world filled with information about leadership, a gap still exists in the quality of our leaders. Why would a gap exist given the plethora of information available? One reason is because most businesses are out for the revenue and not the employee. This mind frame could lead to a lack of trust in the workplace. In a 2014 TED video entitled Why good leaders make us feel safe, Simon Sinek discussed the topic of trust in the workplace. Sinek (2014) discussed how leaders should sacrifice the results for the people to create the largest return. I agree with Sinek (2014) if companies begin to care more about the people and not the revenue, a trust will be renewed and both the organization and leader/follower relationship will be the beneficiary.

Also, leaders need to understand that they do not know everything about the job. Today I was called into the office of one of my managers. He asked me to show him how to run a report in the accounting system. This act was a breath of fresh air and more leaders should understand that the employees sometimes have the correct answers.

References

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

Sinek, S. (2014). Why good leaders make you feel safe [TEDGlobal]. Retrieved from: https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_why_good_leaders_make_you_feel_safe?language=en

A633.1.2.RB-Leadership Gap

Growing up, I had two different ideas about leadership. My first idea centered on my parents, teachers, principals, grandparents, and even characters like Papa Smurf or Master Splinter from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I believed a leader was an individual who would guide a person into doing great things. They were there to “lead” by example and direct someone to reach a goal, whether it be learning to ride a bike, drive, grasping algebra and geometry, or even fighting the foot clan and Shredder. I also had another vision of a leader that stuck with me well into my twenties. This vision was the thought process Obolensky (2014) warned about. The assumption that leaders must be “gifted, charismatic, articulate, ambitious, knowledgeable and well-educated” (p. 18). As a child, I assumed that my parents’ bosses were leaders because they held the title of supervisor or manager. When I got my first job after college, I was under the impression that my manager was a leader because of their title. As I spent more time in the working world, I began to realize that the title did not make a leader. A leader is defined by the actions of the individual.

My attitude on leadership began to change drastically when I started the MSLD program. My thought process started to shift from the leaders are the individuals who are in charge to the leaders who are the individuals who take charge. Recently, my accounting duties were altered and I now report to a new supervisor. As I began my new job, I believed that my new supervisor would lead and teach how to be successful in my new position. But, I was wrong. The individual who has been most helpful is my fellow co-worker. They have been there to teach and guide me and help me grasp the new information.

I have never considered myself as a leader. I never believed that I had the qualities or skills to be a leader, but the leadership program has helped me see that I am a leader in my job. One of my responsibilities is to allocate funds for student scholarships. Every year I allocate and award approximately one million dollars in student scholarships. Though I am in the background and not visible with my cape, I still believe I help lead these students. I help guide them to be successful which, in my opinion, is leadership at its core.

The truth is that the attitude held by the younger generation (Gen Z) compared to the older generations (Traditionalist or Baby Boomers) toward authority and leadership has drastically changed. My grandparents are Traditionalist. Both of my grandfathers fought in the Korean War. They were raised by their parents to be respectful to everyone. The lessons their parents and the military taught them created individuals who had respect for leadership and authority. Unfortunately, they had the belief that leaders were the best of the best and were always right. I do not believe they would ever question leadership or authority. 

In regards to their beliefs on leadership and authority, my parents are complete opposites. Over the last several classes, I have had conversations with my mom about the concepts I have been fortunate enough to learn. I have discovered that she shares the views of my grandparents. She does not like to question leadership and authority and does so very rarely. My dad, on the other hand, finds nothing wrong with questioning leadership or authority if he is steadfast in his beliefs about the correct things to do. He has a healthy respect for leadership and authority but also likes to voice his opinion every now and then. Though I am a millennial, I do not question authority often. My beliefs about authority and leadership have shifted recently, so I do find it myself occasionally voicing my opinion when I believe I know the correct answer or process.

If we fast forward to the younger generation, the attitude toward leadership and authority is much different. The attitude is almost one of disrespect and disdain. At some point, leaders have begun to be viewed as non-authoritative. But how did this happen? In my opinion, there are two reasons for this alternative view on authority- pop culture and technology/knowledge. Pop culture today is full of disrespect and lack of manners. Music videos and popular music seem to degrade women and that spills over to how the younger generation feels about authority. I recently found myself watching an episode of Scared Straight. In the clip, I saw a young girl with behavioral problems being scorned by an officer and she was laughing at everything the officer said. As a teenager, my authority consisted of my parents, police officers, and teachers/principals. If some kids cannot respect police officers, how will they ever respect teachers or supervisors?

Another reason I believe the younger generation views authority and leadership differently is because of the accelerated pace of technology and knowledge. Obolensky (2014) discusses the rapid growth of knowledge in the 20^th century. Everyone these days has access to information at the touch of a button. The instant technology and knowledge has created a generation that does not believe leadership is as “all knowing” as once perceived, which may not be a bad thing if combined with the respectful leadership view of the past generations. Millennials and Gen Z have also seen their parents pushed out of jobs after giving many years to the company just because someone younger could be hired. The fact that their parents got pushed out causes a lack of trust in leadership and authority.

Though our modern technology has created a world filled with information about leadership, a gap still exists in the quality of our leaders. Why would a gap exist given the plethora of information available? One reason is because most businesses are out for the revenue and not the employee. This mind frame could lead to a lack of trust in the workplace. In a 2014 TED video entitled Why good leaders make us feel safe, Simon Sinek discussed the topic of trust in the workplace. Sinek (2014) discussed how leaders should sacrifice the results for the people to create the largest return. I agree with Sinek (2014) if companies begin to care more about the people and not the revenue, a trust will be renewed and both the organization and leader/follower relationship will be the beneficiary.

Also, leaders need to understand that they do not know everything about the job. Today I was called into the office of one of my managers. He asked me to show him how to run a report in the accounting system. This act was a breath of fresh air and more leaders should understand that the employees sometimes have the correct answers.

References

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

Sinek, S. (2014). Why good leaders make you feel safe [TEDGlobal]. Retrieved from: https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_why_good_leaders_make_you_feel_safe?language=en