Module 1 Introduction for MSLD 633

A633.Reflective.Post

A Journey to Discovery (Reflective Exercise)

Date: October 18, 2016

This blog post will reflect upon the following questions taken from Nick Obolensky’s excellent book “Complex Adaptive Leadership, 2^nd Edition”.

Has your own attitude to leaders changed in your life, and if so how?

My own attitude to leaders has changed over time in my life.  When I was younger, I resented most leadership that I encountered.  I resented the authority that they had over my life and the potential to abuse that particular authority.  I probably resented the fact that I felt that they weren’t as capable as I was in certain areas of professional life, yet they held the position and I did not.  In order to work through these issues, I had to examine the root causes of my personalized view of the leaders that I encountered in my early working career.  What made me resent their authority, or any authority for that matter?  Did I simply not like to be told what to do?  Why?  Was that a rebellion against my mother and father who represented authority over me in my formative years?  As a parent, what would I have done better than them?  Did my parents ever abuse their authority?  Did I have supervisors abuse their authority?  I don’t hold the belief that my parents abused their authority.  Parents do not have an instruction manual.  They do what they feel is best in the tradition that has been handed down to them from their parents.  That being said, a teenager may well feel that his or her parents are edging up to the line of abuse when their authority and punishment rights are exercised.  I did have supervisors that abused their authority early on in my career and that caused issues for me early on, but now I have turned it into a strength to realize that a leadership position entails great trust.  Care must be taken not to violate that trust to subordinates, or one will run the risk of “losing” their subordinates.  Once the damage has been done, it can be almost impossible to fix.  The final issue to address was this:  if I thought that my supervisors weren’t as capable as I was, what should be my response to that situation?  Resenting the situation and lamenting that it was “unfair” did not adequately resolve the underlying issue.  How did they get ahead in this job?  How does anyone get ahead in an organization?  Until these issues were properly analyzed and addressed, then the situation and the resentment would not change.

If we take as a starting point the attitude to those in authority/leaders as held by your grandparents, and then look at those attitudes held by your parents, and then by you, and then by the younger generation, is there a changing trend?  If so, what is it?

I believe that there is a changing trend within the generations and timeline mentioned.  We could probably make this into an entire book in and of itself, but in the interest of time and space, I will attempt to summarize it succinctly.  This is what I can surmise of the trend that I identified.  With my grandparents, the philosophy that they held was: “Respect your elders and your betters, keep your family ties close, work hard and you will succeed, and your connection with God is important”.  With my own parents, the philosophy shifted slightly to: Respect your elders, keep close family ties, work hard to gain recognition and you will succeed, and God is important.”  You will see that there is not a huge difference between these generations, but there is a slight shift.  My parent’s generation dropped the respecting of your betters, added the recognition factor in career path, and slightly altered the religious/spiritual aspect of life philosophy.  While my generation has been defined and redefined several times, I will only speak of what I know or think I know.  My philosophy has also evolved over time, so this will be my current version:  “Respect your family elders, keep your family close, respect positions of authority but not necessarily a person holding one of those positions, keep a strong work ethic, be known as someone who can fix things that are broken within an organization, recognition will follow, God is important, keep your spiritual focus”. 

Finally, what I see of the current generation is: “I don’t feel like I should have to work hard to move up, I don’t feel as if I should have to start in entry level positions within the work-force, respect only those who are able to achieve near-impossible feats, education is the ONLY ticket to success in a career, God is not real important (or not nearly as important as he was to earlier generations of superstitious people), I am spiritual but not religious”.

Why do you think this has occurred?

There are a number of reasons that these shifts in attitudes has occurred.  Many of the current shifts are the result of that changing standards and demographics of our own educators.  Whereas my dad felt proud as a GM executive that he was sent to numerous training seminars with other executives, and he was the only one in the seminar without a college degree.  In our current culture, he would not be proud and he would not be acclaimed.  He would be “education shamed”.  In my grandfather’s era, the saying was “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”.  In other words, if you don’t like your job, then quit.  In the early 1900s and up until the 1960s, the prospect of an employee simply quitting and going somewhere else was rare.  I am in the middle ground between the attitudes of the generations.  My resentment of authority early on in my career, has morphed into a disdain for entry level jobs by people (current generation) who have never held a job before in their life!  I do believe modern society, from education, to entertainment, to other aspects of pop culture has weakened out spiritual focus.  God may be for real, but he is definitely not in the forefront of people’s lives as he was even a hundred years ago.  The list could go on further and an analysis of all of the root causes that I named would take an extensive amount of time.  Simply to answer the question above is to say: “Respect for authority is down, the work ethic is severely diminished, people are good at pointing out problems but not solutions, our educational system has dumbed down students for that past 50 years, and our spiritual focus has also declined.”  All of these trends can be reversed.  Maybe they aren’t the proper root causes.

John H2O

A500.9.3RB - Course Reflections

October 3, 2016




Reflections on my experience with MSLD 500 - Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

I should have better prepared for this course by managing my time better in order to complete the assignments.  In the early modules, I did not even start thinking about my homework assignments until about Wednesday.  I also was taking another course at the same time, so this lack of time management put me in a huge hole.  After about the second week, I realized that I needed to get going earlier on the assignments in order to produce a quality product and not feel stressed all of the time.  I have a stressful job at work, and doing things such as this added to the stress of life in general.

 

To add to the problems, I lost my marketing textbook on a flight that left Corpus Christi, TX on Thursday, September 1^st.  I lost all my notes associated with a major paper that I was doing for that class, and lost the Internet for a period of 5 days or so.  This put me far behind the power curve.  I ended up turning in (8) assignments on a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday following Labor Day Weekend.  I didn’t feel as if I was actually caught up mentally, emotionally, or academically until the end of Module 7 (week 7).

Online courses can be tough.  They are impersonal, lack physical contact, and rely heavily on email and digital feedback.  I believe that the instructor could have helped with the course by providing a short 5-10 minute video of his or her self that covered the main points of the module.  This visual effect would have added another sensory input to the overall learning process and maybe would have prevented some confusion in expectations.  This is not to blame the instructor or the university.  I blame myself for not having a positive re-entry into the world of academia.  I didn’t make it easier on myself either by jumping in with both feet and taking two classes in my first semester back into school.  That I need to do so based upon my professional timeline and military retirement is of no concern to the university or the instructor.  It is what it is.  I will be taking two classes again next semester.

This course can be relevant to the majority of students.  The main relevancy for me came from reading the assigned textbook cover to cover prior to the start of the semester.  I found good, useful information and tips that I could employ in my professional life.  For example, the SEE-I method of writing was a tool that I plan to use for the rest of my life.  SEE-I is an acronym for writing that stands for: State it, Explain it, Exemplify it, and Illustrate it.  This course also sharpened my research and APA skills.  Those skills had atrophied in my long absence from school.  The readings were interesting.  The circle of logic approach and attributes of a critical thinker were essential.  Most of the critically thinking techniques presented in this course were already things that I had been practicing for years.  Without knowing the terminology, I used the circle of logic technique for problem solving in the military.  The military has a pretty logical system that they use for planning.  It is called the military decision making process (MDMP).  Extensive training in this technique probably lead to my unconsciously using the circle of logic to solve problems. 

I understand that courses such as this cannot be designed for the full spectrum of students.  Where I was weak at, was the APA format of writing required by the University.  Having a special video module of what was expected would have been useful.  Examples could have been given of common mistakes, problems from citing references drawn from Internet sites and so forth.

I was a bit frustrated with the “self-disclosure” requirements for this course.  I have a skeptical view of information safety in the modern world.  I resisted it at the beginning and still have resistance to it now.  I plan on taking more MSLD courses as electives to my MBAA major.  I will simply utilize past supervisory experiences in order to participate and self- disclose for the coursework.  I do not enjoy revealing things about my military background.  That is a negative take-away from this course, but again, it is not the instructor’s or the university’s fault.  The fault lies with me.  I should have just self-disclosed parts of my earlier life as references to the material presented.  This blog is a perfect example of what I am referring to.  Many members of the military are cautioned about what and what not to put in a blog.  They are not “censored” so to speak, but they are expected to fall within some professional guidelines.  The writings seen here are part of my frustration.  To further illustrate the point, telling a person that values their privacy that they need to publicize various aspects of their life can cause cognitive dissonance.

I think my experience at ERAU will end up being a positive benefit.  I really need to earn my graduate degree.  I will just have to persevere through the challenges to do so. 

John Hescott   a.k.a. John H2O

A500.5.1.RB_HescottJ

A500.5.1.RB – Critical Thinking About Critical Thinking

 

September 9, 2016

 

I believe my critical thinking has gotten better since enrolling in the Critical Thinking Course offered by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.  I found myself looking at the various tools and traits that embodied critical thinking and began comparing myself against the checklists.  I was happy to see that I already utilized most of the tools.  However, in a challenge to be intellectually honest, I had to accept that there were various tools that I did not utilize.

 

As an example of this, I was always taught that effective writing was:

1. Telling the audience what you were going to tell them
2. Tell the audience what you are telling them
3. Tell the audience what you just told them.

This is too easy!  Right?  Well, maybe.  I found the SEE-I program for effective writing to be a much better and fully developed tool for effective written communication.  The SEE-I program is as follows:

1. S = State it
2. E = Elaborate (explain it better in your own words)
3. E = Exemplify (give a good example)
4. I = Illustrate (give an illustration: maybe a metaphor, a simile, and analogy, a diagram, a concept map, and so forth)

SEE-I is a powerful tool and I have been actively integrating that too into my arsenal.  That is one example of improvement from learning about critical thinking. 

 

Another tool that has helped sharpen my critical thinking is the process of analysis known as going around the circle.  Going around the circle requires analyzing an issue by incorporating the following 10 steps:

1. What is the main purpose?
2. What is the key question?
3. What is the most important piece of information the person is using to reason through this issue?
4. What are the person’s major conclusions?
5. What are the main concepts the reasoning depends on?
6. What are the main assumptions the person is making in this piece of reasoning?
7. What are the main implications and consequences of the persons reasoning?
8. From what point of view is the person addressing this question?
9. What is the context of the issue the person is addressing?
10. What alternatives are there?

I have to admit that I did not utilize at least half of these insightful questions when conducting analysis.  I hate to admit that because I have been part of military planning teams that extensively used the military decision making process (MDMP).  MDMP is a very thorough, analytical, logical, decision-making system.  It involves a lot of the elements of critical thought.

 

I knew many of the elements of critical thought instinctively.  I had never been formally trained in the discipline.  The standards of critical thinking and the personal traits exhibited by higher level critical thinking were also useful to me.  I began to ask questions of myself.  Do I do that?  Why do I do that?  What possible things in my background could cause me to act or think like that?  Everyone has a subjective point of view, but higher level thinkers, and those that strive to attain that status, need to be able to separate themselves from that natural tendency and actively strive towards objectivity.

 

For the purposes of clarity and brevity, and I am not going to discuss all of the standards in depth.  I believe the list speaks for itself.  I also believe that the personal traits speak for themselves.  However, I think that I would be remiss if I didn’t at least list them out for someone to read and learn from.  From my perspective, it was helpful to see the list and refer back to it periodically as a reference guide as to how well the concepts have been internalized and utilized in the long run.

 

The critical thinking standards are: Clearness, Accuracy, Importance/Relevance, Sufficiency, Depth and Breadth.  The critical-thinking character traits are: Confidence in Reason, Intellectual Humility, Intellectually Courageous, Intellectually Empathetic, Intellectual Integrity, Fair-minded, Intellectually Engaged, Intellectual Perseverance, and Intellectually Autonomous.  As I stated previously, I already possessed or practiced these standards and character traits.  Some of them were presented to me a way that I had not thought of before.  Therefore, I have made an effort to assimilate them into my critical thinking arsenal.  For more information on this topic, refer to:

 

Nosich, Gerald M. (2012). Learning to Think Things Through 4^th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

 

John D. Hescott

A500.4.3.RB_Hescott_John

This post is going to discuss video by Dr. Lyengar, found online (YouTube).  In the video, she was discussing choice and how that varies by culture.  The name of the video is Ballet Slippers or Adorable.  I will try to discuss her points without making it necessary to see the video, but it is worth the 20 minutes or so of your time to do so.  It discussed some very interesting concepts.

Dr. Lyengar starts her presentation about trying to order green tea with sugar in Japan.  She was unable to do so because Japanese culture frowns upon sugar in green tea.  Therefore, she was refused an order for green tea in a restaurant!  The point of the example was that Americans are used to having things our own way, but Japanese culture wants to “protect” someone from making a bad choice.  Those are very different approaches in how one perceives the world around us.  Can we have too many choices?  It depends.  Our American culture fine-tuned into making choices, but having too many choices and the authority to make them all may not always be optimal.

To illustrate that point, she talks about the difference between European families who had doctors make a decision to take a child off of life support versus the American families.  European families seemed to adjust to the tragedy better when the choice was made for them.  American families did NOT want anyone to make the choice for them, but suffered great guilt and emotional trauma as a result of making that hard choice.  Who is better off after the result?

Dr. Lyengar also discussed the East European Block mentality of choices versus the West.  In a culture that has far fewer choices, it appears that they grouped what all Westerners would view as separate choices, into a large set.  The video talks about how Westerners view choices in soda as many but the Eastern Block viewed it as a choice between having soda, and having none.  In this instance, is limiting that choice to soda or nothing better or worse? 

Her final example was to demonstrate choice and how it can be affected on one’s cultural view of motherhood.  Asians tend to revere their mothers more than their Western counterparts.  It transcends into how they perform based upon their mother’s expectations of them versus what they choose to do as an individual.  This is the exact opposite of how Americans view things and set their goals and standards. 

She even delved into the fanatical devotion to “choice” by Americans by giving the pink nail polish example.  She was trying to decide her “choice” of two different brand names of pink nail polish, which were essentially the same but had different names.  In other words, no matter which choice she made, she would still get essentially the same product.  However, she would be able to choose and that was the highest order of priority for her and basically all Americans.

Dr. Lyengar makes the following assumptions for Americans:

1. Make your own choices,
2. More options leads to better choices
3. Never say no to choice.

I agree with Dr. Lyengar’s assumptions about Americans.  I also happen to agree with her that having choice be the highest priority in every decision may not always be for the best.  The implications on leadership is that a good leader may limit the choices he presents to his subordinates by framing the issue.  A good description of the issue and what the end-state needs to be may limit the number of options available to accomplish that mission.  However, giving the flexibility to subordinates plays into the American desire for choice and the freedom to choose.  This framework would be important for Americans due to our cultural affinity for choice.  I am not saying that one should not give subordinates the ability to free-style into solutions.  If proper parameters and metrics are given as part of the problem set, and then looked upon as necessary, then creative solutions are possible to attain the desired end result.  Everybody wins.

The same style of leadership may not work if one were a supervisor overseas in an Asian market, or an Easter European country.  Knowing what cultural expectations are will help a supervisor in determining what sort of style that he needs to have as a leader.  That was the most important concept that I received from Dr. Lyengar.