A635.3.3.RB - 50 Reasons Not to Change/The Tribes We Lead

            Even when necessary, change can be difficult; it can also lead to unknowns, which can be scary.  These feelings not only lead to reluctance, but also to excuses.  As Brown (2011) stated “members may have a psychological resistance to change because they want to avoid uncertainty” (p. 152).  This opposition can manifest itself into excuses, many of which were referenced by Watkins (n.d.), these justifications for avoiding change can have a large impact on the culture of the organization.  When others hear coworkers making negative comments about the impending change one of three things happen, they either join in, ignore them, or they disagree and confront them. 

            I have not only heard coworkers using these excuses, I have been guilty of using them myself.  Early in my teaching career, I was very resistant to change, especially if I did not understand the reasoning behind it, or if I flat out disagreed with the direction the organization was heading.  I am a big believer that education is the backbone for overcoming the resistance to change.  I truly believe that misunderstanding and uncertainty are the main reasons behind resistance, both of which can be addressed by offering information and education around the idea of and reasons for the change.  Communication is the best way to convey information to others, and by communication, I mean listening as well as speaking.  The person who is resistant may have a valid point, fear, or concern which can be handled by simply listening and making sure both sides understand each other.  Brown (2011) pointed out that “an effective communication program can minimize the uncertainty and fear of the unknown associated with change” (p. 154).  Even if an agreement cannot be reached, at least the avenue of communication has been opened.

            On the other side of the coin, initiating change can also be difficult.  In his talk, Godin (2009) stated that tribes drive change; I would have to agree with him.  While we all like to believe that one person can bring about change, while they can initiate the change it often takes a following to make the change happen.  As Godin (2009) talked about the key to finding a tribe is to find a group that has a yearning and lead them.  This can be the easiest and best way to lead change, there is little resistance in the group, which will put forth a strong and unified front. 

            I was able to relate to Godin’s (2009) explanation of heretics and the circle it creates.  The idea that if a leader tells a story, connects with a tribe, leads a movement, and then makes a change.  This seems simple yet is able to produce a large outcome.  I feel this is one technique I would use throughout my professional career, due to its simplistic yet effective method.  Another theory Godin (2009) pointed out was to ask yourself three questions when it comes to change: who are you upsetting, who are you connecting with, and who are you leading?  Sometimes the who is more important than the what when it comes to change, as we can all think of a time when a leader was tried and fail to make change not because the change was a bad idea but because the people backing them were not the right people.

            Change is one of the most difficult situations for an organization, even when it is a welcomed change.   There are always going to be differences of opinions and resistances to one part of the change or another, the key is to find the best way to deal with these struggles and it starts with communication.  Whether a leader is trying to find a tribe to help make a change or helping an employee understand the change that is currently happening, communication will always help.                          

             

Brown, D. (2011). An experiential approach to organizational development (8th

ed.).  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Godin, S. (2009). The tribes we lead. Retrieved August 28, 2016, from

http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead    

Watkins, D (n.d.) 50 Reasons Not to Change!, [Prezi Presentation].  From

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/00/change.html

A635.2.3.RB - How Companies Can Make Better Decisions

            When a company is able to make effective decisions it can affect everyone involved with the company.  Blenko (2010) pointed out that decision effectiveness correlates positively with employee engagement and organizational performance.  Employees feel more secure and supported in a company where decisions are handed appropriately and timely.  When a company struggles with making decisions it can make their employees feel uneasy, and question just how much control the leaders of the company have.  It is also reassuring for an employee to know that if they have a question or problem that it will be dealt with efficiently and effectively.  At a former employer, I had a hard time trusting the leaders within my department, as they were consistently unable to make decisions, which directly impacted my interactions with the guests.     

             Decision-making can be difficult, especially when there is no clear choice in the matter at hand.  Blenko (2010) talked about a few obstacles that can interfere with making decisions, such as complexity and the assignment of decision-making roles.  When it comes to the idea of complexity, it makes sense that the more parts that are involved the more difficult the decision can be.  If a company consists of only one layer and few employees then the outcomes of decisions can be more visible.  On the other hand, when a company is made up of multiple layers, offices, and employees there are more factors involved and often time’s decisions are not as obvious.  This was the case at my former employer when decisions needed to be made resort wide they would often take months and would still not encompass exactly what the president intended.  It can be difficult to make a decision and account for every single department, system, and employee in the company, when this happens the good of the many outweigh the good of the few. 

            Many things go into decision-making, as Blenko (2010) pointed out four major ones are quality, speed, yield, and effort.  While I find all of them to be important that two that stand out to me are quality and speed.  A leader often times needs to react and make a decision within a quick turn around time; all while assuring the decision is a good one.  This can often time be the difference between getting out ahead of the competition and being behind.  

            I have always been good at making fast decisions on my feet in times of chaos, but I need to work on decisions where there is time to contemplate.  I feel I tend to overanalyze situations when I am given too much time, I will often second-guess my decisions and information that I have gathered.  This is an area I am working on currently in my personal/family life as I am not currently employed outside the home.               

Blenko, M. (2010). How Companies Can Make Better Decisions, Faster. Retrieved

August 21, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxpg6D4Hk8

A635.1.3.RB - 21st Century Enlightenment

The idea of 21^st century entitlement was interesting; the fact that there are specific ideals set forth and they are cohesive is helpful.  The idea of enlightenment in the 21^st century is a large undertaking.  Just when it seems like we have come a long way we find out we still have a long journey ahead.  Taylor (2010) talked about inventing and adapting to the world today, but what I feel needs to happen is we need to recognize and change the world before us.

When Taylor (2010) said, “to live differently we have to think differently” he meant we needed to break away from the mold and think for ourselves.  He gave examples of how in the past science proved that some religious beliefs were not accurate, such as the sun revolving around the earth.  These types of theories are just the ones that should be questioned.  Sometimes breaking away from the norms is exactly what is needed. 

The idea that the familiar is right and true and that whatever is strange is wrong and false (Taylor, 2010), is what drives us to question societal norms.  Not that long ago the idea of gay marriage was not a widely accepted notion, now there are laws in a growing amount of states that both allow and recognize it.  If we had not questioned the norms of society then this achievement would never have happened. 

These same principles are what drive us to be empathetic, to accept things that we may not agree with or understand.  The world today lacks empathy in general, there are too many people who are attacking others simply because they do not agree with or understand their ideals.  This starts at a young age; I see it at my children’s school, the playground is full of kids judging other kids based on the beliefs of their parents.  If empathy isn’t taught at a young age then it is difficult to possess as an adult.  This lack of empathy shows in the workplace.    

Instead of focusing on what is different and wrong with people in the world maybe we should focus on what we have in common and how to strengthen that.  In life as in business, it is important to find a common ground with others it only strengthens relationships.  The more empathy one has the more open to change they can be.  They can understand why the change needs to happen and are more open and willing to go along with it. 

The main idea that our society has been overcome by the ideas that what they have always known is the end all truth, and that anything strange or different is to be feared and not accepted.  This thought pattern could make accepting change difficult, in both personal and professional lives.  Open-mindedness is the key to any change, without it there is only resistance.  Empathy is also a key factor in the implementation and acceptance of change, which it seems to be lacking right now.          

Taylor, M. (2010). RSA ANIMATE: 21st Century Enlightenment. Retrieved August 14, 2016,

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo

A634.9.4.RB - A Reflection of Our Learning

            This course on ethics has opened my eyes up to exactly what it means to live life according to certain morals and ethical values.  There were a few concepts that I never realized I used in everyday life until I read about them in the text.  The three key lessons for me were; acting in certain ways based on the possible outcomes vs. acting in certain ways regardless of the outcome, relativism, and the differing amounts of obligations placed on certain individuals. 

            The difference between consequentialism and deontology is all in the outcome.  Consequentialism is about being morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences, however, deontology is about how our moral obligations are defined by the rules, independent of the consequences (LaFollette, 2007).  While it may make sense to act in ways that produce the most desirable outcomes, does that mean those actions are always the most ethical, not always?  It would seem that acting morally and ethically all the time regardless of the outcome would be a better road to take. 

            Relativism is a theory about how moral judgments are not objective in any important sense; they are relative to the individual or culture.  Just as different cultures have different beliefs different families and groups have different ways of seeing and doing things.  This can make it difficult for people of a different culture or even different upbringing to understand each other.  This is where it is helpful to be sympathetic and understanding to those around you.  It can often be difficult to see through these differences and move to a place where discussions can occur.

            The idea that acting morally happens in a universal way is naïve at best.  As LaFollette (2007) explained there are certain reasons why differing levels of moral responsibility may be placed on an individual, such as their age, lack of knowledge, or understanding.  No one would expect a child to comprehend that idea of morality, yet some feel that any and every adult should, even those with limited mental abilities.  The same may hold true for physical capabilities also, there is a point where it may be dangerous to a person to physically step in and help someone in trouble.  This does not excuse them entirely; if they are capable of making a phone call then they are capable of getting help.  Unfortunately, too many people have used the “unable to assist” card to simply do nothing, and that is where things fall apart.  In today’s world, most people have a cell phone or access to one, so there are very few excuses for why someone didn’t or shouldn’t help out. 

            While I did value the ideas and theories in this class, I do wish it had touched more on the business side of ethics.  A good portion of the text dealt with issues more suited for personal morals and ethics, which are certainly pertinent, I would have like to have addressed the ideas around acting morally in the workplace more.  I believe that everyone has a need to improve on his or her morals and ethics, as no one is perfect. 

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.