“Success
is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose.”
― Bill Gates
Week 5…it’s hard to think that we are about half way completed
with this semester. The work load was trying this week; trying to balance it
all without just going through the motions was a challenge, and to top it off,
our team project. I have so many conflicting priorities this week, but hopefully
I managed well. This week our focus was on learning to cultivate a great team…a
“volunteer army” if you will, that shares the passion and vision we need to accomplish
great things throughout our organization while avoiding many of the common
group pitfalls that arise. Of all of our reading, the one that I think held its
own the best was done by Sunstein & Hastie.
One of the uniform messages throughout
all of our reading was the importance of assembling the right team. As I submitted
in our research paper this week, although Kotter and Canfield give us a great
deal of information, Sunstein & Hastie’s approach to problem solving,
progressing our groups towards success, as well as how we can specifically
counterbalance the many ways groups begin to fail, offers an introduction, a
process and a myriad of benchmarks to check our selves at every interval during
the group improvement process.
Their keys, such as learning to
“silence the leader”, “prime critical thinking”, assigning roles, and
appointing a “devil’s advocate” (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014) has shown us this
week that these types of elements, when identified, can insulate and protect
“…group members from reputational pressures…”
(Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, p. 98) and thus reduces the
likelihood that the teams shared
information, critical thinking, collaboration, and communications will become
silenced or ignored at the detriment of the goals and accomplishments at stake.
As
previously researched, leaders of innovation encourage a culture of critical
thinkers, foster an environment that welcomes, supports and demands innovation
and critical thinking, a workplace where leaders are consistently
“…demonstrating openness to new ideas…”, as well as challenging our employees
to “…develop deeper understanding…” of our business and strategic goals (Gobble, 2012) . Critical thinking
is imperative to creativity and innovation; “When engaged in high-quality
thought, the mind must simultaneously produce and assess, both generate and
judge the products it fabricates” (Paul & Elder, 2008) . The Sunstein &
Hastie perspective not only get into much needed detail, but also bring forth
the science and psychology behind their methodologies and why they should work.
As I uncovered in my research last week, innovation comes from perseverance, “…focus,
discipline and patience…” (Tobak, 2014)
and a burning desire to identify challenges and remain committed to a solution
focused culture. Leaders must understand that importance of critical thinking
skills and their impact upon the entire process of innovation (Paul &
Elder, 2008). Where I feel that Canfield began to lead us astray was as I
posted in our discussion this week, our readings pulled together the idea of
“strategic agility” and how important it is for leaders to learn to
“…capitalize on opportunities and dodge threats with speed and assurance” (Kotter,
2012, p. 46) .
The Canfield linear model by definition then does not truly allow for agility,
adaptability and restructuring as the team goes along the improvement process.
Therefore, the Canfield model feels somewhat antiquated and complements a more
rigid rationale or hierarchy of how things are supposed to work, entirely
ignoring the necessary feedback and realities that come from growing pains,
failures, collaboration and support of critical thinking.
Where both Canfield and Kotter complement each other, however, is
by pointing out and supporting the importance of having a team in order to
productively collaborate, in comparison, they more importantly both discuss how
crucial it becomes once the team is actually assembled to find those whom are
genuinely interested in building effective decisions “…while building effective
support (Canfield, 2011, p. 61) .
For example, as listed in my research and posted in my
discussion, I mentioned how as leaders, we need to identify how to “build and
maintain a guiding coalition…which is made up of volunteers throughout the
organization” (Kotter, 2012, p. 51) . This measure lends
us the opportunity to see many perspectives of the big picture within the
organization and allows us to “…process information as no hierarchy ever could”
(Kotter, 2012, p. 52) while uncovering
vital information deeply embedded within each units unique contributions and
work efforts.
In contrast to Canfield, Kotter explored in greater detail
that the eight accelerators discussed reinforced the steps taken usually drive a
“…powerful core group…throughout the organization…to form a volunteer army” (Kotter,
2012, p. 47) .
This type of strategy which is the framework for the eight accelerators allow a
“…dynamic force that constantly seeks opportunities, identifies initiatives
that will capitalize on them, and completes those initiatives swiftly and
efficiently” (Kotter, 2012, p. 47) . Canfield in his
work only merely mentioned “great team traits” but never truly delved into any
dynamics of what makes a great team, why you want to establish a team whom is
able to articulate a “…vividly formulated, high-stakes vision and strategy…” (Kotter,
2012, p. 54)
as well as taking the time to align a team whom shares a commitment to the
cause.
That being
said, as I uncovered previously, neither Canfield nor Kotter ever mention the
errors that often take place when groups are formed. As we read about this week
from Sunstein & Hastie, “groupthink” isn’t the only shortfall we have to
remain aware of (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014) . Other areas that
they dive into include that leaders need to remember that groups create their
own problems by falling into patterns. This includes where the team will “…fall
victim to cascade effects…” or becoming “polarized” where the team takes a
stance based on whomever spoke or acted first or because they haven’t taken the
time to focus on any other information in front of them because they “…focus on
what everybody knows already−and thus don’t take into account critical
information that only one or a few people have” (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, p. 92) . Sunstein &
Hastie further complement the physiological needs of the group that Kotter
brings into focus; Sunstein & Hastie talk about the human nature that can
influence the groups progress, critical thinking and fallacies that come about
when groups are formed and why they tend to “…go astray” and bias begins to
unknowingly form (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, pp. 92-93) .
I truly felt that Sunstein & Hastie are
able to articulate specific problems and solutions to what happens with the group and what changes
can be implemented to yield more practical, yet creative, necessary results. They talk in great detail about how and why
the problems occur and what “informational signals” leaders need to be tuned
into so that “group members pay attention to the arguments made by other group
members” (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, p. 96) all in unison
towards leading to a “smarter group” dynamic. They were able to discuss not
only the problems and the ways in which the group actually tends to amplify
them, such as groupthink, convergence, political correctness, intimidation, and
polarization; they also brought to the table the science and tried and true
ways that others have identified that the “…central goal in group decision
making should be to ensure that groups aggregate the information their members
actually have and don’t let faulty information signals and reputational
pressures get in the way” (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, p. 96) .
In
unison, however, as Crystal Cobb posted this week, “Even if a dual system isn’t a reality in my office, I think
the overall sentiment is important. If you put your heart and effort into
something you believe in, then the results will be more complete” (Cobb, 2015) . In totality, both
of the articles in conjunction with our texts this week offer us a great deal
of information and as well as a multitude of solutions. Efforts such as trying to remove barriers (Kotter, 2012, p. 54) , and preventing only
leaders coming up with ideas and allowing others to contribute may help
collaboration efforts and cultural dynamics to begin to be a way of life here
for my facility.
All of our reading this week focused on things we
know at face value, but seldom get the chance to dig into the “why” these
reasons work. The accelerators show us, even by incorporating one of them into
our repertoire, that these efforts can lead into grooming others to supporting
the idea that we can all participate in successfully renewing, transforming and
positively disrupting the status quo to “…create a better world” (McKeown, The Innovation Book, 2014, p. 96) .
Canfield showed us
how we can, in some instances, use his linear model as a basic foundation
towards process improvement. Kotter underlined the importance of
underestimating the critical values embedded in forming our groups with just a
few people in need of solving a problem, versus assembling a “volunteer army”
for our cause that will spread throughout the entire organization.
All four of
our reading resources will no doubt prove invaluable to all of us as emerging
leaders in one way or another; there is no one-size-fits-all plan that works in
every situation. All points have their strengths and their weaknesses; as
leaders we know we have to take the good with the bad, and apply what appears
to work best at that moment. If what we decide doesn’t work, we can then switch
to another prescription that may heal what disease has been uncovered at that
exact moment and move forward until we hit another barrier to greater health
within our organization.
Until we blog again!
References
Canfield, J. (2011). Imagine. Holland: Black
Lake Studio, LLC.
Cobb, C. (2015, April 19). A642.5.2.DQ -
Accelerate. Retrieved from Erau.edu:
https://erau.instructure.com/courses/14127/discussion_topics/48356
Gobble, M. M. (2012). Motivating Innovation. Research
Technology Management, 67.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). The Big Idea Accelerate! Harvard
Business Review, 45-58.
McKeown, M. (2014). The Innovation Book.
Harlow: Maverick & Strong Limited.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008, June 08). Critical
and Creative. Retrieved from Critical Thinking.org:
http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/CCThink_6.12.08.pdf
Sunstein, C., & Hastie, R. (2014). Making Dumb
Groups. Harvard Business Review, 90-98.
Tobak, S. (2014, October 16). Where Does
Innovation Come From? Retrieved from Entrepreneur.com:
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/238545
No comments:
Post a Comment