A633.1.2.RB_SiegmundWayne

Leadership Gap

     Through reflection, I find it amazing how different the leaders I have had in my life were. When I was a child, I began gymnastics classes with an old high school recreation coach. He often began our class with a warm-up of running, a few minutes of stretching, and then skill development with drills. We often finished the classes with the strength conditioning and stretching. For the next 10 years of my life, I would experience similar behavior from other leaders in fitness that carried with them vast amounts of experience and degrees in Human performance, kinesiology and physiology. It was not until I went to college and competed for Southern Connecticut State University's Varsity Men's Gymnastics Team. The head coach was not only a world renowned Olympic gymnast and coach, but was a pioneer of the sport, carrying multiple degrees in biomechanics, and physical fitness, on top of major international recognition. Ten years later, I discovered a whole new approach to physical fitness from those who were seen as leaders in the field.

     After enlisting in the Navy, I volunteered for Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training where the instructors had a holistic approach to physical fitness and skill development. Instead of telling you what you need to do to accomplish certain tasks, they left it upon each service member to take the initiative to prepare themselves physically, and mentally. With little guidance, many failed due to ill-preparation. Soon, the program's leaders developed informative and assisted classes that would become the transformative turn in increasing recruitment numbers, as well as graduates.

     Through this reflection, while there is value in experience and credentials, there are other traits and beliefs of leadership that come into play. Unfortunately, without something to initiate a change in leadership style, leadership will, for the most part, remain the same. The old saying of 'if it is not broke, don't fix it', I have seen taught from generations prior to mine. However, I feel up and coming leaders, and perhaps even leaders of old, can become more self-aware of their leadership style and make adjustments to their approaches, setting a new example to the rest of the team.

     Listening, and watching the leadership approaches of my grandmother's generation, as well as those of my parents and my own, showed a great difference in their ability to consider a new way of doing things. It seems as time went by, it became more acceptable to try something new. Back then, there was the way that worked, despite any blocks, or potential gains. Nowadays, it seems to be the norm, from my perspective, that there is a treasure trove of effective ways to lead out there, depending on one's environment, the team that is being led, and the goals, mission and vision being held. I feel the future holds more of this behavior, a desire to seek a more effective way, as society offers up the awareness that there are better, and more effective ways of leading.

     I believe this trend of change has occurred out of necessity; the need to reach goals that are not being accomplished; the need to accomplish the mission that has been changing due to environmental factors, and the need to stay on track with a vision. When market and organizational evaluations are conducted, and it shows that progress is not occurring over time, it would only make sense to me that a change is needed, and perhaps that change comes in the way leaders lead. In a review of Gary Yukl's, Leadership in Organizations (2001), the National College for School Leadership (2003) shares that "Transformational leaders make followers aware of the importance and value of the work as well as encouraging them to think beyond self-interest". I feel the primary gaps in leadership effectiveness exist due to our innate tendency to repeat behaviors that have been taught to us from the generation before us, as well as having a fear of change and even some being risk averse. However, it seems this gap would be temporal as we move forward as a global society in competition and a drive to improve performance as a whole.

     As a global society, I believe there will always be gaps as we transition from one generation to another due to knew ideas, and new technologies that will aid and assist us in bridging these gaps, flattening communications, willingness to share through mutual benefit, and becoming more transparent in the way we all do business, inspiring one another (Canwell, Dongerie, Neveras & Stockton, 2014). Brining these new innovative ideas of complex adaptive leadership styles, and the benefits that come with them, to the venues in need of them via the cutting edge technologies that awaits to show them of a new way, is one of many to help bridge this gap (Tessman-Keys, 2015). In the Academic Medicine Journal, Blumenthal, Bernard, Bohnen & Bohmer (2012), explains that in order to develop the requisite skills for tomorrows leaders today, providers must be prepared to take on the complimentary roles of 'clinician' and 'leader' through deliberate, systematic and interdisciplinary efforts.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd Ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

National College for School Leadership (2003). What leaders read 1: Leadership in organizations. [Review of the book Leadership in Organizations]. National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/26015119/media-f7b-97-randd-leaders-business-yukl.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1490529745&Signature=MQELL18kzUUw%2Fuhj62alEi85dzQ%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DLeadership_in_organizations.pdf


Prive, T. (2012, December, 19). Top ten qualities that make a great leader. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyaprive/2012/12/19/top-10-qualities-that-make-a-great-leader/#15db45987754


Tessmann-Keys, D. (2015, October 31). Leadership: Bridging the leadership 'gap.' Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/252350


Canwell, A., Dongerie, V, Neveras, N. & Stockton, H. (2014, March 7). Leaders at all levels: Close the gap between hype and readiness. Retrieved from https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/focus/human-capital-trends/2014/hc-trends-2014-leaders-at-all-levels.html



A632.9.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Role of Emotion in Decision Making

     I can not say that I have always been the most confident decision maker with respect to subjects I was even quite familiar with. Areas of in-depth knowledge in my life include gymnastics, personal training, Newtonian physics, billiards, drafting and special operations. However, depending on the environment, persons involved, and the circumstances in which decisions would be made, an element of emotion may directly, or indirectly effect those decisions. Emotional decisions can have far reaching consequences unknown to the decision maker at the time who is 'blinded' by the emotions in the first place.

     While conducting a team navigation exercise during Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL (BUD/S) training, five of us were working together finding our way through mountainous terrain back to base camp. Although we all knew how to conduct basic orienteering, I was quite confident in my own abilities to navigate under most circumstances. Throughout the day, I typically determined where we were supposed to be heading and watched the others take lead and decide. For the most part everyone agreed, thus followed the lead navigator. For some reason, I felt a couple of the team members were not quite sure, yet agreed anyway.

     As the day progressed, we were preparing to depart stake number six out of eight. After the team discussed the our current location on the map, the location where stake number seven was on the map, and the path we were going take to get there, I had confidently interjected requesting a second look at our presumed current location, resection, and heading. As with most type A personalities, two of the team members concurred, defending their original assessment. I had asked them to show the rest of us what point they were using to conduct a resection in determining our current location. It turned out, after carefully pointing out their misidentification of a resection point, that they were incorrect, and after showing what I believed to be a resection point, put the team back on target and schedule again. Knowing we all agreed on my resection point, boosted my confidence even further. While walking, I continuously conducted map studies en route to our next way point, and already knew we would get back without any further miscalculations. Thankfully, I enjoyed the challenge that land navigation offered me.

     At another time, as a new Navy Chief, I was asked, along with my peers, to grade and rank the First Class Petty Officers for their first soft ranking prior to their final breakout amongst their peers. While sitting around with the other Chiefs with the E6 evaluations in hand, I did not know exactly what I was looking for. While I was getting an idea from each evaluation as to how each E6 compared to each other, the Chiefs began taking votes for rankings. Still confused a bit, I decided to raise my hand along with the majority who raised theirs. As each member was getting ranked by our votes, I was placing their evaluations accordingly in my hand. I continued to vote as such until the session was over.

     Although I took the evaluations and read through them again to make sense of their new ranking, I felt bad that some of these E6s may not make Chief because of my lack of understanding, as well as those making Chief that may not yet deserve it. My disposition that led me to deciding to vote with the majority rather than not voting at all, was one of doubt and fear; doubt from lack of confidence in understanding the criteria in ranking, and fear that the other Chiefs would find me unprepared, uncaring and unmotivated.

     The emotions I was able to recognize and acknowledge from the team land navigation decision making was confidence, pride and appreciation. As for the E6 soft ranking, guilt, fear and embarrassment. However, in both situations, the feelings I experienced served their purpose throughout the decision making process, both for myself and those around me. Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther (2001), states that "emotions can become dysfunctional when they persist indefinitely, or when they are situational inappropriate" (p. 32). Not knowing whether or not keeping my ignorance a secret was going to bode well for me, but if I remained 'lost in the crowd', then I should be able to safely 'move with the crowd', so to speak.

     "There is now a growing body of evidence that affect and emotions play an important role in people’s decision processes for choices when there are uncertain outcomes" (Hoch et al, 2001, Ch. 15).

References:

Hoch, S., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton on making decisions (1^st Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Shiv, B. (2011). Brain research at Stanford: Decision making [YouTube Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRKfl4owWKc

A632.8.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

Cynefin Framework Reflection

     Applying the Cynefin Framework model, I feel, can be thought of as a very malleable, ever-shifting decision-making tool that can be influenced by the most subtle changes in any given domain that one may find them self. Keeping in mind that one's environment can shift ever-so subtly and quickly, will require an appropriate, and corresponding domain to be applied for an effective resultant to appear. The ability to timely identify this potential environmental shift, and apply the appropriate, corresponding domain in the moment is the hopes that I have for myself and my organizational peers (Snowden, 2010).

     In the simple domain, where I can predictably, and quickly sense, categorize and respond, I find a few tasks on a daily basis that I apply best practice (Snowden, 2010). At the office, I am tasked to take all of the outstations' weekly input for their daily situation report (SITREP), and compile them into a particular format, and sent out to specific individuals via email for their notification by a certain time every morning. Applying the simple domain here occurs automatically. I have elements that get copy and pasted to particular sections of the SITREP. When this is complete, I add a preset email distribution group address, and hit send. The same occurs for me at home with organization that I require the night before, so in the morning, when I am still waking up, I can collect all the items that I will require at work from one location, such as my security clearance badge, wallet, car keys, coffee, and phone, instead of having to look for these items, or forgetting them completely. In addition, time management, based on that day's schedule, forces me to see what requires my attention, where, when, and for how long, and determine with these factors in mind, along with priority of urgency, how to organize my schedule for the day. However, when an unforeseen event occurs, this schedule can quickly shift into a complicated, complex, or even chaotic domain. Generally, deliberately applying the simple domain to all three examples would provide me with a greater sense of situational, as well as self-awareness within the domain allowing a third party view, rather than a feeling of being within the problem, reacting off habitual behavioral patterns (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

     Approaching a complicated environment, such as that of experiencing a plumbing clog and leak from my kitchen sink, left me analyzing the full extent of the issue and determining whether or not the leak was due to a clog, poor fittings, or both. Using logical deduction, I systematically approached the issue from a couple angles; testing the tightness of all fittings to determine potential sources of leaking, and disassembling the plumbing to look for clogs that may be contributing to the problem. I had a similar approach to a problem that I encountered with my computer while working on homework. In this case, I was experiencing a malfunction in a typical download scenario. The download was not occurring, and I had to troubleshoot it to determine if it was a software issue, or hardware compatibility issue. After not resolving this issue on my own, I had it professionally looked at, and fixed. Deliberately applying the complicated domain would have, again, provided the insight and awareness of a system that allowed for a good practice to be exercised while minimizing wasted time (Snowden, 2010). The same applied to an expensive Omega watch I own whose time was too fast. After replacing the battery, resetting the time, and comparing its pace to another watch that functioned properly, it still ran fast. The only logical thing to do was to send it off to Omega for a functional check. After it was returned, it was working fine. The basic checks, followed by a more analytical assessment by Omega in my opinion was a good practice to adhere to.
     One Saturday morning I went outside to find my car missing from where I left it parked and locked up. Not knowing what happened, or how, or why my car was not where I left it, was beyond me. Not knowing what to do in Germany, I continued to look around the place I lived to no avail. Shortly after, I decided to call the police to file a report. I figured, if I do what I would have done in the states, how can I go wrong? Not knowing how the police would help, I spoke with them, and waited for their response. After a police officer searched the area, they found it parked on the street around the corner. Confused, I took receipt of my car, and thanked the police officers, and drove my car back into the driveway. To this day, we do not know how, or why it was moved. Deliberately applying the complex domain, again would have brought a greater sense of organization and awareness to the situation for me. During a recent military Sensitive Activities conference, a discussion ensued where multiple members brought forth information that was received by 3rd and 4th parties that was quite different than what the actual facts were. In addition, others had made a number of assumptions, further confusing the discussion. Not being clear as to where people were 'coming from', we all had to wait for certain conversations to shift that would eventually provoke questions bringing forth the assumptions made and false information that had been relied upon. Never deliberately deciding to use the complex domain framework, most likely kept me from truly hearing what was being said, acting as a block to a more objective perspective with a plan. Another example where the complexity framework would had facilitated the decision-making process was when I had arrived late to a team training evolution that was fairly new. Arriving without knowing where in the evolution the team was at, or my place within it, left me a bit confused on the sidelines attempting what to decide next. Interjecting a question here, and there to some of my team mates, and supporting the answers with those from the training cadre, as well as the current place the evolution was in, my decision became clear as the environment developed around, along with the information I had gathered (Snowden, 2010).
     It is not often I find myself experiencing a chaotic environment, where I have to take intuition and my gut instinct to quickly act in hopes it does not turn out badly for those involved. However, more often than not, my choices basically reflect the process of applying the chaotic framework domain in such an environment that calls for an immediate decision be made prior to reassessing. One evening, while on the phone with a friend, I had heard my wife's voice reach a tone of panic. As I turned around to look in her direction, she was facing my daughter who was apparently choking on something. As I turned, jumped over the back of the couch, I grabbed my daughter to discover the look on her face that expressed panic and choking. Quickly applying the Heimlich maneuver, the hotdog piece was dislodged from her throat, allowing her to breathe again. At another time while deployed in Iraq at the height of the war, my unit was engaged with small arms fire. Immediately, I looked to take cover, determine where the small arms fire was coming from, and engage. The obvious problem of not getting yourself and the situation stabilized immediately is that you and you teammates can die. Thankfully, we all made it home. However, applying the chaotic domain would have probably provided me with a little more tactical patience in the moment - a very valuable asset to have in the heat of battle. In a final instance, I received a knock on my door at home to discover a women who was begging for help with her child who was apparently epileptic and was having a seizure. As I ran out of the house to the road where she was parked, I opened the door to find the child choking on her own tongue, and biting down with great force. Asking my wife to grab me a wooden spoon, I had immediately put my finger in the little girl's mouth to prevent her from biting off her own tongue. Once my wife returned with a wooden spoon, I laid it across inside the girl's mouth, removed my bloody finger, and had my wife call for an ambulance. With the girl breathing again, I gently whispered in the girl's ear to relax and reassured her that she is okay. Shortly after, her body's tension gave way to relax just prior to the ambulance arriving. In this situation, I felt I was applying the chaotic domain throughout the event, making decisions to stabilize the situation before reassessing and sensing the domain, which eventually turned to what appeared to be a simple domain in the end (Snowden & Boone, 2007).






References:




Snowden, D. J. (2010, July 11). The Cynefin Framework. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8&feature=youtu.be


Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A leader’s framework for decision making. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/3459515/A_Leader_s_Framework_for_Decision_Making_-_HBR.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1488655914&Signature=Ke2GuPAsTzsxCs1WHzmw2qdfZQI%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DA_leaders_framework_for_decision_making.pdf


A632.8.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

    

In today’s complex business environment, most leaders typically rely upon their intuition and gut instincts when it comes to unordered environments, such as complex and complicated contexts. Unfortunately, it not enough to depend solely on these natural capabilities. Leaders will need to depend on external guides and cues informing them of the contexts of their surrounding environment and how best to integrate their organizations into the appropriate approach for the given contexts (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

In dealing with multiple contexts across the five domains; simple, complicated, complex, chaotic and disorder, leaders will be required to learn how to identify multiple contexts occurring at the same time, and be able to shift their decision making processes as well as the relative behavior in order to successfully manage a collaborative environment in each of the domains. Likewise, leaders must be open-minded during these shifts to keep themselves from controlling a particular environment at any given time, remaining neutral, all the while assessing and partaking in the decision-making process with the group (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

Within my working environment, a Joint Special Operations military command, I have had to shift contextual environments two to three times a day. In these cases, they were all separate, giving me time to reset and get organized and mentally cleared to approach the next domain without expectations, so that I may be able to more readily be able to identify the next context. Typically, I would say it would be easy to carry over the same contextual mindset from one environment to the next being in the military environment as long as I have been. However, getting entrained in this line of thinking does not help myself, or my organization approach the respective domain from a more effective collaborative decision-making perspective.

I was asked to take over an ‘Operations and Intelligence’ (O&I) meeting as an adhoc request. While I did not have the experience of running this meeting before, I had relied on what I had witnessed, and well as any relative experience I was able to bring to bear. My approach to this complicated process included a slow, methodical, yet authoritative disposition that allowed me to direct the meeting, yet remain approachable for others to chime in and offer matter of value. Focusing on running the meeting by topic, and issues for discussion, left me with less than normal time to listen and process external input from the group.

Immediately following this meeting that felt empowering, I was again asked to join in on a Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Video Teleconference pertaining to Global Force Manpower concerns. However, under these circumstances, I was to be a fly-on-the-wall more-less, for the sake of situational awareness, and learning the concerns of the JCS on this particular issue. Shifting from a complex domain (probe, sense, respond) where the answer to successfully running the meeting was being divulged as it emerged from the meeting itself, to a complicated domain (sense, analyze, respond), was a rather easy and enjoyable experience for me. While there was not much collaboration occurring for me during the JCS VTC, there was much internal dialogue and planning for responding to my Non-Commissioned Officer-in-Charge (NCOIC) with relative questions.

Another example of cross-domain interaction was while I was at home discussing how to plan out a trip with a male counterpart over the phone, all the while emotionally sharing in my wife’s frustration with how she was feeling and how the children were behaving, as well as relating to my children as they were interrupting my phone conversation. While possibly seen as a mundane shift in focus from one group to another, there can most certainly be some formidable consequences if handled inappropriately. It was quite easily identifiable as to which approach to use with my male friend over the phone; sense, organize, respond (simple domain), my wife; sense, analyze, respond (complicated), and my children as they dropped and broke a glass around their bare feet; act, sense, respond (chaotic) (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

In all cases, I relied on my intuition and gut instinct based on experience, and what I had learned from that. Had I known about, and learned to integrate the Cynefin Framework, I may have been more deliberate in identifying and approaching the O&I meeting with an intention to probe. While I have yet to approach an environment to identify the context deliberately for the sole purpose of sensing, and integrating decision-making, I have begun to become aware of the framework, and self-aware in the need and benefits of employing it intentionally and deliberately as an optional tool to align behaviors and decisions with the environmental context (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

In critically analyzing the Cynefin framework to show how it can provide an improved context for decision making, I offer the following:

1)      Each domain offers an opportunity to make sense of the leader’s contextual environment by understanding what the context consists of, how to approach it, and other domains from which to shift to/from if appropriate.

2)      Each of the domains provide the leader with opportunities to explore an environment without assumptions by removing entrained thinking and focusing on an identifiable domain for behavior and decision making processes.

3)      Offers the leader a framework from which to share contextual nuances with their organization if effort to collaboratively decide how best to work with one another in the decision-making process.

4)      Can assist in Operational Risk Management by offering control elements in which leaders can systematically assess the framework’s context of a given environment.

5)      Provides the leader with another tool within systems thinking to prevent organizational, cultural, political, and personal bias from entering into negotiations, storytelling, and decision making.

References:

Snowden, D. J., Boone, M. E. (2007, November). Decision making: A leader’s framework for decision making. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making

Stout-Rostron, S. (n.d.). Coaching leaders: Understanding complex environments-by dr. sunny stout-rostron. Retrieved by http://www.wabccoaches.com/blog/coaching-leaders-understanding-complex-environments-dr-sunny-stoutrostron/

Norton, D. (2016, February 2). What’s the “best” leadership style? Retrieved from http://www.wearecto2.com/blog/2016/1/1/contextual-leadership