Sunday, November 24, 2013

Can't Make Change Alone

It's difficult to implement change in a historical organization, but it's even more difficult to do it alone.

Eric Shinseki, the secretary of veteran affairs, took on the daunting task to revamp the Department of Veterans Affairs. We learn in class that people can often be adverse to change in an organization because they fear the change will be difficult and timely. However, we also learn that this is not true and as long as an organization makes changes for the better it will get done over time.

The most difficult part of changing the structure of the DoVA is the historical aspect. The Department is set in historical standards and does what has always been done, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate and sometimes structures get outdated and are no longer best for the organization. Shinseki's greatest obstacle is that he is working alone to create change.

Bolman and Deal identify Kotter's eight stages towards a successful organization change. Shinseki's steps to improve the DoVA can be applied to Kotter's stages of change. Stage one is a "sense of urgency." Shinseki does this by applying the symbolic frame and political frame. He tells a compelling story in an interview about the baggage that everyone experiences. By relating himself to the rest of the veterans he shows that the issue at hand is vast and urgent. He also is seen as President Obama's spokesman for veterans' care. His networking with key players reinforces his credibility.

Stage three of Kotters stages is "uplifting vision and strategy." Like I stated before, the DoVA is based on historical values and goals. Shinseki appeals to this by applying the symbolic frame to stage three. He creates a hopeful vision of future when he talks about bring a "change of culture" to the department. He maintains the organization's history by acknowledging that he is making a change and that the changes are better suited for the veterans.

Shinseki continues to communicate his vision and strategy by creating structures to support change process. He does this by advocating for the DoVA to work on Saturdays in order to help the veterans attending college receive payment. Even though this task may be small, he implements a vision of caring rather than a "tough, deal with it" outlook. This good deed symbolizes his compassion for the veterans and allows people to understand what it is he is communicating.

He also creates long and short term goals. These goals keep people on plan and allow them to plan for short-term victories. Shinseki created an original goal of three years to revamp the DoVA, but instead he worked hard and already had viable changes within the first nine months. These "early wins", as Kotter would describe them, empower people to see change. He also created a goal to be succeeded six years down the road about getting veterans off of the streets. This numerical goal keeps people on plan so that his workers have something to work towards and will know they have succeeded when they meet the goal. Shinseki also requested the largest single-year budget increase. This demonstrated the political frame in action for early wins because by investing his resources and power he can guarantee more early wins to motivate the organization forward.

Rather than coming in to the organization and continuing it's failing ways, he proposed a new way to do things. Major General Olson acknowledges that Shinseki is going about things differently than they typically do in Washington. By reshaping the org. he is aligning structure to new culture.

I feel Shinseki did not approach the "Guiding team" stage of change. In a big, federal organization it is impossible to implement a new structure alone. Shinseki may be more influential if he divides and conquers his goals amongst different leaders. I feel it would have been helpful for him to develop a coordination strategy for his goals. It would have been more impacting if he had called upon other influential people to take up certain tasks.



Thursday, November 14, 2013

Make Awesomeness

Leadership (n): a position as a leader of a group, organization, etc.
In the beginning of the TEDTalk Drew asks the audience who considers themselves a leader and only a select few people raise their hands. This is probably because the definition listed above (that was pulled from the Merriam-Webster dictionary) is out of date for society and doesn't relate to most people.

Our current class unit on the structure of organizations tends to lead back to examples of companies, but what about the leadership that isn't defined by the way your business is set up or by the tasks delegated by one person to the larger group?

Drew's talk was really compelling just because of how relatable it is to the average person. While I was listening to him tell his story I was blown away by how easy he made it seem to be a leader. Yes, I was involved in SGA (Student Government Association) in high school. And yes, I'm a mentor to prospective and new UMD students, but what about the other things I do just in my daily life?

Drew ignited a fire and changed the attitude of a stranger just through his actions unknowingly. I think realized from his talk is that leadership isn't just guiding a group or being able to delegate tasks, but that you can be a leader just from inspiring someone.

Yes, we talked about Inspiring a Shared Vision in our Kounz and Posner book, but I connect that more to how you run an organization and inspire people to work towards the mission, rather than just inspiring a single person to do something different.

The craziest part of his story is that he didn't even know that he was changing that girls life in that moment. Most leadership activities we all engage in and work towards are mission driven. Like we join clubs in high school so that we can put them on our extracurricular sheet for college applications. And we join one of the 500 clubs at UMD to put on our resume for job applications. And when you join a club, for example Habitat for Humanity, you know the goal of the group and you identify with that and want to support that goal. But how often do we take a moment to take pride in ourselves as people?

I think a lollipop moment can just be a time where something you did or said affected someone else's view of the world. The first thing that comes to mind for me was in a meeting with a faculty member last year just to talk about my interests and the future, she said "If you go in asking for a job, you'll come out with advice. And if you go in asking for advice, you're more likely to come out with a job." It's not a difficult concept or anything really taboo, but it really stuck with me and I find myself reflecting on it often. I never told her how her words have helped me move forward in life, but maybe I will have to.

The view I had of leadership was completely blown away by his story. I really think it will change every day actions for me. Maybe that one thing I said to someone will inspire them too? But I do feel challenged by his question about who has had a lollipop moment in their life. Like David Silvers identified, we tend to only see the world from our perspective and that comes with accepting things about ourselves. It's easy think that someone has inspired you, or to see leadership qualities in another person, but it's against human nature to analyze and praise ourselves for something good we may have done.

You also have to consider that Drew had no idea about this impact he made on the girl until she told him the story and he reflected on it.

Maybe if we all just told others what we appreciated about them more often then we would be more confident to lead in this world.