This week’s MSLD511 blog will cover what
it means when we say that leaders must create a “cause” or "meaning."
Immediately preceding this discussion I will relate and use examples of how
creating cause or meaning relates to this week’s theme of leading change.
Let us begin by taking a critical
look, or “zoomed” in look at “cause” and “meaning".
What is “cause” and “meaning”?
Dictionary.com defines “cause” and “meaning”
in several ways. I have included the most appropriate in terms of leadership
and leading change.
Cause – The reason or motive for some human action.
Meaning – The end, purpose, or significance of something
From these two definitions we can
key in on two words that should be very familiar to students of MSLD511, reason and purpose. Yukl (2013) states this about reason “The success of a major change will depend to a great extent
on how well leaders communicate the reasons
why the proposed change is necessary and beneficial.” (p. 89). Further
examination of “why the proposed change is necessary” can be related to purpose of the change.
How Does Creating Cause and Meaning Relate to Leading Change?
When reason and purpose are
combined, what we have are two important foundational building blocks in
creating a vision for change. “Success is more likely if leaders articulate a vision of a better future that is attractive enough to justify the sacrifices
and hardships the change will require.” (Yukl, 2013, p. 89). The reason and purpose should justify the sacrifices in the minds of the team
members, otherwise the change is likely not to be as successful as had hoped. So
when creating a vision for change, ensure you begin with articulating the
reason and purpose in a manner that will resonant with the team.
About four and a half years ago our
organization made major leadership changes. A new director and managers were
put in place. Prior to these changes I worked for the company as a contractor
for about two years and experienced the “flavor” of the old management. During
my employment as a contractor, I tried very hard to get on with the company as
a direct hire and was unsuccessful. I became a bit frustrated by my
unsuccessful attempts and left the company for what I believed to be a better
opportunity in a direct positon somewhere else. About 6 months after departing,
I received a phone call from a former colleague asking me if I would be
interested in returning as a direct. The rest is history and I have been back
now just over 4 years. I was hired by one of the new managers. Within weeks
after my return the new director gathered the entire group for a briefing of the
changes being made. He described why the changes were being made, “the growth
of the company called for a new way of doing business” without getting into a
lot of detail and shared a vision of where the company thought they should be
in 2-3 years and 5 years out.
Personally I understood exactly what
the new director meant by “a new way of doing business”. Just prior to my
departure, the organization was close to severe dysfunction. I could see how
the old management was not able to sell the new technology that was being
introduced. Middle managers even supported the complaints about how terrible
the new technology was instead of remaining positive and trying to find solutions.
There was a lot of bickering and not very much cooperation among the internal
work groups. Consequently production of the maintenance publications suffered.
The “We don’t do it that way here” attitude was prevalent and the dysfunctional
leader/member exchanges was notably visible. It was obvious upper management
did not implement the new software change very successfully, and likely the key
reason was lack of clearly sharing the vision of the reason and purpose for
the new software.
From what I hear from my coworkers
the change in upper management occurred much like a coup d’ etat and most were
not happy about losing their old directors and managers in an “overnight” move.
They obviously had strong personal loyalties to the old management and
initially did not trust the new management put in place, but over the years the
animosity has receded as the organization has had multiple successes along the
way and the vision the new director articulated 4 years ago is coming to
fruition.
On the loyalties to old management,
I have tried to understand what made them loyal to them. Personally, as a
contractor, old management did not support my ideas and often treated me as an
outsider (to this day even as a direct I am an outsider). I suppose this is
normal in that a contractor is viewed as temporary help (more on that later). The
removed management consisted of people who were likeable, had been with the
company for many years and probably had a solid network of allies. The employee
group who supported the old management were also with the company many years and
had developed what seemed to be a closer, friendlier relationship than what I
would expect in a major aerospace manufacturer. I can only make an educated
guess based on the rather limited information I have about the old management /
employee relationship, and what I have read in Yukl (2013). I believe that
because the old management really did not exhibit a healthy form of leadership,
and certainly did not have the skills to lead the organization through a major
transformation, that perhaps they were more attuned toward a strong need for
affiliation. “Most studies find a negative correlation between need for
affiliation and managerial effectiveness. The ineffectiveness of managers with
a high need for affiliation can be understood by examining the typical pattern
of behavior for such managers. These managers are concerned primarily about
interpersonal relationships rather than the task, and they are unwilling to
allow the work to interfere with harmonious relationships.” (p. 146)
Back to the thoughts about the ratio
of contractors in our self-managed teams. After reading Yukl’s thoughts about
how important gaining and maintaining commitment is from team members and
building loyalty and trust (see Determinates of Team Performance, p. 248), I began
to wonder about the quantity of contractors we have within our self-managed
teams in our organization which is about 50%. I believe our approach to
contract work is wrong in that we are not bringing on contractors to see if
they fit the company values and expectations, and then offer them a direct
position…no, our organization seems to treat them as cheaper disposable labor.
This “throw it away” approach does little to build loyalty with the contract
employees and on average they probably stick around about 18 months before they
find something better. I had to leave when I was a contractor before anyone
noticed they needed my skills and offered me a direct position. We do not take
the “see if the shoe fits” approach and buy the shoe if we like them, but
rather we take the “don’t worry, we can get rid of it if we need to” approach. Consequently
because of our current approach, I typically have one contractor and one direct
as part of my team, I find myself about every 12-18 months having to train
somebody from scratch on how to create troubleshooting procedures for one of
the most technologically advanced aircraft in the world. This takes a lot of my
time and energy away from generating my own procedures and group productions
suffers. Out of all of the self-managed teams in our organization, fault
isolation is affected most by the high turnover rate because developing fault
isolation procedures is the uses the most unique and highly developed skill set
in our group.
We are about one year into another much
larger software change, and all of the frustrations and anxiety associated with
change are with us again. This time around we seem to be handling it much
better than we did 4 years ago. With my newly learned leading change information
I have read, it is time to exercise it. I intend to do what I can to improve
how we handle this change this time around.
Summary
Stating clearly the reason and purpose for change are the building blocks for developing a vision
for change. Articulating a clear and purposeful vision to team members is a
critical process in leading change. Vision provides the fuel needed to go the
first few miles in a marathon. Without the fuel to get started, getting a good
start in the marathon won’t happen and completing the marathon is unlikely.
Once the marathon has started, reflection on the vision can be used to regain
momentum to finish the marathon. I shared with you my own personal experience
with leading change and hope there was some useful information you could glean
from it.
References:
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership
in organizations. Boston MA: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment