Rules and boundaries are the first thing to be set when a group comes together. This takes a lot of the questions out of the equation of how to interact with other members of the group. From this point it is possible to get to work effectively. The group was chosen on abilities and attributes; so when the team becomes acquainted and familiar with the other members abilities and attributes they are in a position to take on tasks.
Task-facilitating roles come into play as soon as objectives are laid out. These roles are accepted by task oriented members of the group by choice. These members are inherently task-focused and are looking to be the first to be in the know. They reach out to other members to familiarize themselves with the content, they ask probing questions, they give insight into their knowledge base, they process the information they are obtaining, test it, enforce it, and are able to summarize it. They want to get the task done expediently and nothing but the understood facts will allow this to happen. These roles can often be abrasive and require a counter part.
Relationship-building role bearers achieve their own victories; they gain consensus throughout the group to allow others to probe and bring more information to light, they feed each other with positive supportive feedback, and try to keep negative attitudes out of the lime light by confronting the issues seen as non-productive redirecting momentum towards solution resolution. These group members are a glue to which remaining members will stick. They give the members of the group the emotional return they require by empathizing and asking developmental questions "How can I help you?"
With both sides working together to achieve cohesiveness while attaining mile stones within projects, the end product will undoubtedly turn out better. Yen and Yang of team projects is a good way to describe this relationship, both roles have goals and the abilities to accomplish goals but with added direction, a lot of the grey matter is taken from the scene without either side having ever focus on its presence.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
A520.5.3.RB_MarshallJohn
Russ Foresters' article "Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea" focuses more on what not to do than what you should do, but he does cover both extremes well. I find his examples poignant and informative; and I understand that when you are trying to achieve something, it is very beneficial to understand what not to do and where not to turn.
Both the text and the article describe the inputs needed to empower others yet they have different names for most of them. Self-efficacy is explained in both and seems to carry the torch leading the charge into empowering all levels of the organization. You have to allow everyone to feel like they are contributing to the cause. You have to bare witness to attitudes and competencies of individuals at this point to ensure that abilities and attitudes match tasks given and that they are ready to accept the responsibilities.
Self-Determination plays a key role in empowerment and sets the pace for amount of delegation. People will show you how driven they are by the way they cut their path, more responsibility will go to those who have demonstrated their worth and are scratching at the door for more.
Tooling those who have made it this far is a necessity, you have to train them in various aspects of their responsibilities in order to make them effective. This is costly and may be a deal breaker for some organizations. Ambiguity may become an issue here as well, people are going to be chomping at the bit to gain as much from the company as possible. This is beneficial but can be costly, not only to the budget but also the structure of the organization. If you give the person the tools to accomplish a variety of tasks they may find that they are now highly employable in other fields. So scrutinize those trying to grab across the line into other levels yet be open to the idea for proven company individuals who have bled with the company and interject positive ideas regularly.
A major motivator in the empowerment system is personal consequence, most people think they want more power but are ignorant to the consequences that coincide with their choices. This drives individuals to do more research to empower themselves with knowledge and foresight to be in a position to make crucial decisions quickly and effectively. This all ties back into determination and efficacy because those who want to empower themselves will do what they can for the company in hopes that the company will respond in kind.
Trust and meaning are other crucial building blocks of an empowered organization and also holds close ties to the aforementioned criteria. Those in power have to trust those under them to make decisions on their behalf, and those on the underside have to trust that the delegation given to them is for the organizations benefit.
A meaningful job is something that most of us strive for. We want satisfaction and reward for our accomplishments. This a balancing act for an empowered group because they are incorporated into so many facets of the structure. They may do a lot of things that they don't particularly enjoy but it is important that they give their all for each sub-task. If not personally balanced some will move into a comfort knowledge base and fall short on other duties.
The main implementation criteria with delegation empowerment is to take it slow and assess everything and everyone individually to ensure cohesiveness and structural feasibility. Some people will still have more power then others, but that will be on their own accord in conjunction with their personality.
Both the text and the article describe the inputs needed to empower others yet they have different names for most of them. Self-efficacy is explained in both and seems to carry the torch leading the charge into empowering all levels of the organization. You have to allow everyone to feel like they are contributing to the cause. You have to bare witness to attitudes and competencies of individuals at this point to ensure that abilities and attitudes match tasks given and that they are ready to accept the responsibilities.
Self-Determination plays a key role in empowerment and sets the pace for amount of delegation. People will show you how driven they are by the way they cut their path, more responsibility will go to those who have demonstrated their worth and are scratching at the door for more.
Tooling those who have made it this far is a necessity, you have to train them in various aspects of their responsibilities in order to make them effective. This is costly and may be a deal breaker for some organizations. Ambiguity may become an issue here as well, people are going to be chomping at the bit to gain as much from the company as possible. This is beneficial but can be costly, not only to the budget but also the structure of the organization. If you give the person the tools to accomplish a variety of tasks they may find that they are now highly employable in other fields. So scrutinize those trying to grab across the line into other levels yet be open to the idea for proven company individuals who have bled with the company and interject positive ideas regularly.
A major motivator in the empowerment system is personal consequence, most people think they want more power but are ignorant to the consequences that coincide with their choices. This drives individuals to do more research to empower themselves with knowledge and foresight to be in a position to make crucial decisions quickly and effectively. This all ties back into determination and efficacy because those who want to empower themselves will do what they can for the company in hopes that the company will respond in kind.
Trust and meaning are other crucial building blocks of an empowered organization and also holds close ties to the aforementioned criteria. Those in power have to trust those under them to make decisions on their behalf, and those on the underside have to trust that the delegation given to them is for the organizations benefit.
A meaningful job is something that most of us strive for. We want satisfaction and reward for our accomplishments. This a balancing act for an empowered group because they are incorporated into so many facets of the structure. They may do a lot of things that they don't particularly enjoy but it is important that they give their all for each sub-task. If not personally balanced some will move into a comfort knowledge base and fall short on other duties.
The main implementation criteria with delegation empowerment is to take it slow and assess everything and everyone individually to ensure cohesiveness and structural feasibility. Some people will still have more power then others, but that will be on their own accord in conjunction with their personality.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
A520.4.3.RB - Motivation Beyond Money
This video was very relevant, I have always been one to move with the money. I have a family to support and I feel that in some cases I need to do things that I may not want to do to support them. This is clearly not fully the case. Sure money is nice to have and it alleviates some of the stressors in our lives, but money really does not equal happiness. I have left jobs in the past that I really enjoyed doing, and I left for either for the internal politics or the money. Hind sight right, I can now call it foresight because I have the inside scoop on what basic kinds of work atmospheres make me happy.
I feel that I have always felt that my jobs were interesting, and that I have wanted to be amazing at my job. In fact right now I feel that my current job is the most interesting yet, million dollar decisions based on facts and not interpretation. I get to find the answers and act upon them, I dig that.
One thing is seems curtain, employers give the employee more in the long run than the employee contributes to the company. The company training along with the access to additional tools add so much to the employees resume to take with them when they find the next big offer is a great motivator. I feel as though I am drinking from a fire hose with my current position, so much information and so many new tools; if I can become competent with the half of the tools I have been given I will be setup for universal success.
My work is scrutinized by all levels of the company, I have to do the research and make smart decision all day everyday. This level of exposure brings recognition constantly, sometimes not all good, but the negative instances allow me to find a balance for output, and feedback allows me to make smarter choices.
I feel that one of my major motivators is the flight benefits that receive, when I have weighed out other jobs in my field with comparable work environments and wages, they are offset by this benefit. I know that a lot of my cohorts feel the same way are motivated to stay within our community to keep these privileges.
Another motivator would have to be company success. Working for a regional airline is tricky, we are not paid as well as larger carriers and the smaller size of the organization means that we pay more for things like healthcare, but the drive to grow a small company is intrinsic in all employees. We want to set the standard for other carriers, even the larger ones. We want them to look at our practices and find the merit and devotion that goes into them.
I also find that subordinate feed back is also a major motivator. I want to know that what I am doing is being perceived and accepted the way that I intended. You can't make everyone happy with every decision, but if subordinates understand the goals behind the decision, then they are less likely to get disgruntled because of it. Blanket actions with no explanation leave a lot of room for ambiguity and misunderstanding. I follow up with all my people to make sure that we are on the same page goal wise.
I feel that I have always felt that my jobs were interesting, and that I have wanted to be amazing at my job. In fact right now I feel that my current job is the most interesting yet, million dollar decisions based on facts and not interpretation. I get to find the answers and act upon them, I dig that.
One thing is seems curtain, employers give the employee more in the long run than the employee contributes to the company. The company training along with the access to additional tools add so much to the employees resume to take with them when they find the next big offer is a great motivator. I feel as though I am drinking from a fire hose with my current position, so much information and so many new tools; if I can become competent with the half of the tools I have been given I will be setup for universal success.
My work is scrutinized by all levels of the company, I have to do the research and make smart decision all day everyday. This level of exposure brings recognition constantly, sometimes not all good, but the negative instances allow me to find a balance for output, and feedback allows me to make smarter choices.
I feel that one of my major motivators is the flight benefits that receive, when I have weighed out other jobs in my field with comparable work environments and wages, they are offset by this benefit. I know that a lot of my cohorts feel the same way are motivated to stay within our community to keep these privileges.
Another motivator would have to be company success. Working for a regional airline is tricky, we are not paid as well as larger carriers and the smaller size of the organization means that we pay more for things like healthcare, but the drive to grow a small company is intrinsic in all employees. We want to set the standard for other carriers, even the larger ones. We want them to look at our practices and find the merit and devotion that goes into them.
I also find that subordinate feed back is also a major motivator. I want to know that what I am doing is being perceived and accepted the way that I intended. You can't make everyone happy with every decision, but if subordinates understand the goals behind the decision, then they are less likely to get disgruntled because of it. Blanket actions with no explanation leave a lot of room for ambiguity and misunderstanding. I follow up with all my people to make sure that we are on the same page goal wise.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
A520.3.5.RB - MarshallJohn
The first thing that I could see changed at my work, in terms of supportive communication, would be the amount of electronic communication that takes place. Inundated, is the best term to describe the amount of correspondence that occurs over these low quality medium. I have been thinking about creating a template to use for all technical correspondence; this way all the information that I require to do my job would at minimum have some detail into the problem that I am asked to correct.
Another problem area with our communication, is expectation criteria. Ambiguity is not the best way to start a project; and much time is wasted because of the need for clarification. This entails many facets of the eight attributes including: descriptive problem description, individual specific tasking instead of the global "this is what you need to address", conjunctive elaboration (we weren't all at that meeting), owned responsibility for tasking (we need to know who we are trying to communicate of resolution with), and supportive listening (hear me so that I can confirm that we are on the same page).
I think that all of these can be addressed with more face time question and answer at the beginning of a project in lieu of the comprising and interpretation of multiple emails. Looking at someone in the eyes while they are conveying their views and expectations allows for a more pertinent acceptance of responsibilities. You are less likely to miss a deadline or lack sufficient information if you were tasked and didn't ask any questions for clarification of expectations.
Meet regularly to maintain the lines of supportive communication. These meetings would greatly improve the amount of missed information through-out the organization. If you have questions about how to move forward with a task, ask probing questions that you feel will bring all underlying issues to the forefront, "what are you hoping to see happen through the implementation of this program".
Another problem area with our communication, is expectation criteria. Ambiguity is not the best way to start a project; and much time is wasted because of the need for clarification. This entails many facets of the eight attributes including: descriptive problem description, individual specific tasking instead of the global "this is what you need to address", conjunctive elaboration (we weren't all at that meeting), owned responsibility for tasking (we need to know who we are trying to communicate of resolution with), and supportive listening (hear me so that I can confirm that we are on the same page).
I think that all of these can be addressed with more face time question and answer at the beginning of a project in lieu of the comprising and interpretation of multiple emails. Looking at someone in the eyes while they are conveying their views and expectations allows for a more pertinent acceptance of responsibilities. You are less likely to miss a deadline or lack sufficient information if you were tasked and didn't ask any questions for clarification of expectations.
Meet regularly to maintain the lines of supportive communication. These meetings would greatly improve the amount of missed information through-out the organization. If you have questions about how to move forward with a task, ask probing questions that you feel will bring all underlying issues to the forefront, "what are you hoping to see happen through the implementation of this program".
Saturday, April 7, 2012
A520.3.1.RB_MarshallJohn
I find myself to be more cautious than ever before in my decision making style. Currently it is based on the agonizing associated with the decision. I have so many tools at my disposal for making decisions and a lot of the time the tools give conflicting data.
In turn I also find myself concerned with the most logical decision, in my job there aren't many ways to solve an issue without the correct solution. It's not a matter of opinion I have to find the issue, be it an electronic, pneumatic, mechanical or hydraulic discrepancy, and find a cause for the problem.
I occasionally find myself making many decisions based on the influence of people who have worked directly on my current issue in the past. When this is the case I act prior to doing all the leg work myself, I have no reason to question the information given and will waste time researching the information for myself.
Impulsive decisions would fall on the other side of cautious decisions. I feel that with the decisions I have to make at work, impulsive decisions are not credible. You have to KNOW what is wrong with a system in order to give a corrective action, and if you act on impulsive thought processes you take a high risk of wasting a lot of money and resources . There may be times when the decision needs to be made in a very timely manner, and the risk of making a wrong decision out ways the costs associated with a correct fix. But at the end of the day you have either made the correct decision or an incorrect decision. Compliant, for my job, tends to be the opposite of logical. If you take the advise from someone whom you aren't familiar with, who has an authoritarian job title and attitude, you take the risk of smearing your name and not theirs. This is not a good place to be in my position, people need to know they can count on my decisions every time. This also falls in with my influenced decision making style, because I do like to get information from people who have crossed the bridge before and tailor my decision process around their suggestions. This is a case by case process and I need to make sure that every time I throw my name on something I take advantage of all my resources to make an informed decision.
In turn I also find myself concerned with the most logical decision, in my job there aren't many ways to solve an issue without the correct solution. It's not a matter of opinion I have to find the issue, be it an electronic, pneumatic, mechanical or hydraulic discrepancy, and find a cause for the problem.
I occasionally find myself making many decisions based on the influence of people who have worked directly on my current issue in the past. When this is the case I act prior to doing all the leg work myself, I have no reason to question the information given and will waste time researching the information for myself.
Impulsive decisions would fall on the other side of cautious decisions. I feel that with the decisions I have to make at work, impulsive decisions are not credible. You have to KNOW what is wrong with a system in order to give a corrective action, and if you act on impulsive thought processes you take a high risk of wasting a lot of money and resources . There may be times when the decision needs to be made in a very timely manner, and the risk of making a wrong decision out ways the costs associated with a correct fix. But at the end of the day you have either made the correct decision or an incorrect decision. Compliant, for my job, tends to be the opposite of logical. If you take the advise from someone whom you aren't familiar with, who has an authoritarian job title and attitude, you take the risk of smearing your name and not theirs. This is not a good place to be in my position, people need to know they can count on my decisions every time. This also falls in with my influenced decision making style, because I do like to get information from people who have crossed the bridge before and tailor my decision process around their suggestions. This is a case by case process and I need to make sure that every time I throw my name on something I take advantage of all my resources to make an informed decision.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
A520.2.6.RB_MarshallJohn
My time management skills are always improving, this is because it wasn't very long ago that they were nonexistent. I have always been able to get things done on time, but I would only do them when the stress and pressure of due dates drove me to complete them. Through some self-reflection I came to the determination that I need timelines and due dates to be aggressive with projects. This is why I am now making these timelines myself and holding my calender up to the almighty as his word. Deviating from my calender will mean something else will get bumped and next thing you know I am in the same situation as before working late every night to finish everything. Reworking the schedule is possible but the end goal is the same.
I would have to say that this has not affected my locus of control, because mine is of the internal nature. I have always been able to hold things as my own, even in group settings. My goals may have some outside influence, i.e. must dos and emergency contingencies, but are never completely out of my control when it comes to the final product. I feel that I am able to adjust well to issues and make the adjustments necessary to meet the timeline in place, and even if one occasionally passes this timeline I own it and don't scape goat my way through it.
With my new job, and taking a new direction for my masters it quickly became apparent that my old habits weren't sufficient to keep track of everything. I have started to use MS projects, this allows me to keep my work and school projects in order and also allows me to update them from anywhere with my phone or tablet. This is such a great tool because I can also have some data mining from access sent to this program to allow me to edit priorities in seconds when the need is there. I think that this is one tool that will allow for me to be on top of my obligations so that I won't fall victim to deadline stress again.
Another thing that I have started to do is write down everything that comes my way. This ties into the Projects software, but it is separate because things only get put into project if you remember to do so. This gives me confidence that I will not forget something, in the past this was one of my main stress agents. So much info is now thrown my way that it is impossible to remember all of it, quick notes on the tablet and then transferring those notes into projects should eliminate the stress associated with it.
The last thing that I have started to do, is early morning mantras, one of them is "I'm good at my job and my work gets done in a very timely fashion" this allows me to take demands from executives and prioritize them properly. Executives want results NOW, and if you let this stress you out it will forfeit the priorities you already had going. It has to be added to the list every time and assessed in relation to your other obligations. By doing this you have the tools and answers to give the executives when they come by for a follow up. "Why isn't this done?" "Because, the following compliance issues took precedence."
I would have to say that this has not affected my locus of control, because mine is of the internal nature. I have always been able to hold things as my own, even in group settings. My goals may have some outside influence, i.e. must dos and emergency contingencies, but are never completely out of my control when it comes to the final product. I feel that I am able to adjust well to issues and make the adjustments necessary to meet the timeline in place, and even if one occasionally passes this timeline I own it and don't scape goat my way through it.
With my new job, and taking a new direction for my masters it quickly became apparent that my old habits weren't sufficient to keep track of everything. I have started to use MS projects, this allows me to keep my work and school projects in order and also allows me to update them from anywhere with my phone or tablet. This is such a great tool because I can also have some data mining from access sent to this program to allow me to edit priorities in seconds when the need is there. I think that this is one tool that will allow for me to be on top of my obligations so that I won't fall victim to deadline stress again.
Another thing that I have started to do is write down everything that comes my way. This ties into the Projects software, but it is separate because things only get put into project if you remember to do so. This gives me confidence that I will not forget something, in the past this was one of my main stress agents. So much info is now thrown my way that it is impossible to remember all of it, quick notes on the tablet and then transferring those notes into projects should eliminate the stress associated with it.
The last thing that I have started to do, is early morning mantras, one of them is "I'm good at my job and my work gets done in a very timely fashion" this allows me to take demands from executives and prioritize them properly. Executives want results NOW, and if you let this stress you out it will forfeit the priorities you already had going. It has to be added to the list every time and assessed in relation to your other obligations. By doing this you have the tools and answers to give the executives when they come by for a follow up. "Why isn't this done?" "Because, the following compliance issues took precedence."
A520.2.3.RB_MarshallJohn
I very recently got a new job as a technical publications writer for an airline. I say this because I am on the opposite side of the table for previous conflict issues. As a mechanic I would get documents written by my current department and if they did not fit into my perceived workload I would defer them to be done at a later date. I now realize how they came to be in the first place and the amount of eyes checking into to completion of the assigned task.
The conflict: Oftentimes a document written by one person with a known scope for it's completion is misinterpreted by the reader. The document I am mostly talking about is a technical order, I see a trend or delay taken for an issue and I write a document to mitigate the issue. This is done through a statement in the discrepancy and then troubleshooting suggestions to help accomplish the fix.
Upon taking this job I immediately went to the floor to get suggestions to help me write better documents, in comparison with the current format.
When I approached a certain mechanic who holds several decades of company seniority on me, the first suggestion was to let the mechanics do their jobs without interference from my department. I am on call for technical advice as well, and this is what the mechanic assumed my job was limited to. Being able to understand his suggestion, from feeling the same in the past; I was able to explain that this was part of my job. "I find recurring or fleet wide problematic issues and take a proactive approach to solving these issues before a issue stands customers in stations with no resources to fix them." This was something that he already knew, but these TOs are something that is more of a suggestion than an order, so it is easy to find reasons not to accomplish them in a timely manner.
In our discussion, I asked "what would make these easier to accomplish?" His response has now changed the way that my department writes TOs. His suggestion was to give verbiage allowing the technicians to start on the task and blow off the rest if time or resources become an issue.
This in it self is a non-issue, these documents have had this capability all along, but they have never stated this fact within the task itself.
For several more minutes we discussed the topic, at the end I asked "if a TO came to you with this new format would you be more likely to start it." Yes, was his answer.
So to explain, I have to add a few more words to my documents, without changing the scope of what I want to accomplish, and the technicians are more likely to work these tasks. WIN WIN.
The conflict: Oftentimes a document written by one person with a known scope for it's completion is misinterpreted by the reader. The document I am mostly talking about is a technical order, I see a trend or delay taken for an issue and I write a document to mitigate the issue. This is done through a statement in the discrepancy and then troubleshooting suggestions to help accomplish the fix.
Upon taking this job I immediately went to the floor to get suggestions to help me write better documents, in comparison with the current format.
When I approached a certain mechanic who holds several decades of company seniority on me, the first suggestion was to let the mechanics do their jobs without interference from my department. I am on call for technical advice as well, and this is what the mechanic assumed my job was limited to. Being able to understand his suggestion, from feeling the same in the past; I was able to explain that this was part of my job. "I find recurring or fleet wide problematic issues and take a proactive approach to solving these issues before a issue stands customers in stations with no resources to fix them." This was something that he already knew, but these TOs are something that is more of a suggestion than an order, so it is easy to find reasons not to accomplish them in a timely manner.
In our discussion, I asked "what would make these easier to accomplish?" His response has now changed the way that my department writes TOs. His suggestion was to give verbiage allowing the technicians to start on the task and blow off the rest if time or resources become an issue.
This in it self is a non-issue, these documents have had this capability all along, but they have never stated this fact within the task itself.
For several more minutes we discussed the topic, at the end I asked "if a TO came to you with this new format would you be more likely to start it." Yes, was his answer.
So to explain, I have to add a few more words to my documents, without changing the scope of what I want to accomplish, and the technicians are more likely to work these tasks. WIN WIN.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)