A633.2.3.RB_SIegmundWayne

Butterfly Effect

     Simple things can, and have yielded big results. For example, a simple note passing in class can turn into two strangers fighting in the parking lot after school; making a culturally sensitive gesture to another colleague can turn into a long, drawn-out lawsuit; and accidentally shooting an innocent bystander in a foreign country can thrust an already politically sensitive environment into conflict.

     Complexity Science is a study of how general and basic pre-existing rules and laws can be discovered to explain and even control that of which creates a complex environment (Phelan, 2001), and ..."shows an inherent and underlying simplicity of a self-organizing nature" (Obolensky, 2014, p. 54). Science uses formulas and equations to help explain mathematics and physics, are quantifiable and provable. Why not utilize this behavior to explain a complex organizational environment. From a distance, becoming aware of all activity and their interactivity with other associated elements throughout an organization can be determined to be overwhelmingly complex, and even complicated. However, is it feasible to consider where decision points are located, can, up close, be adjusted so as to alter the second and third order effects, if the results from a macro perspective are undesirable? Ultimately, Obolensky proposes that even though older, more traditionally accepted theories of leadership may be suitable for certain environments, must give way to more polyarchal types in order to explain, clarify, understand and control more complex organizational environments and their contextual domains  whose results of uncertainty, paradoxes and non-deterministic results find themselves on the other end of the equal sign (Obolensky, 2014).

     In my organization, currently a joint military special forces environment, numerous occurrences display a butterfly effect, a phenomenon by Lorenz known as 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions', (Bradley, 2010). Under a similar dynamic, people in my environment often uses policies, guideline, standard operating procedures, operational directives, executive orders, concepts of operations, memorandums of agreement, and so on, throughout the day. Unfortunately, there has never been a repository for all these references, leaving people at their own behest to search and locate, if possible, the relative reference needed, wasting tens to hundreds of man hours. Approximately four months ago, our knowledge manager, simply collected in a very organized and accessible format, all the references for operations in a single location without ever telling anyone. When one person discovered this, they told another person who had asked about how to go about locating a particular reference. This passing of information over time change the way business was conducted at our command due to all the time saved.

     In another example, when I arrived at my command, people tend to dress the same way everyday, in casual civilian clothing. New to me, I arrived in business casual clothing. Knowing that I could never go wrong looking professional, I remained dressing as such even though everyone else dressed in their 'street clothes'. Over a period of eight months, members of my directorate slowly added collared shirts, sweaters, khaki pants and dress shoes. Today 85% of my directorate dresses in business casual on a regular basis. It appears that the introduction of a flutter of casual wear sparked a small change over time creating a whole new, unforeseen change in our dress code. Since then, we have increased our inter-agency partner relationship 200-fold since May of 2016, which in turn is reporting positive brief-backs to our Commanding General once a week on operational developments.

     Where I am concerned with respect to my organization, complexity theory can be utilized where multiple leadership styles and strategies intermingle generating uncertain results on multiple levels. Understanding who all the stakeholders are, their interests and strategies in a complex domain, provides location inside the complex perspective where self-organizing and evolving mechanisms can be modified over time in order to provide rudder steerage towards an organization's vision. Anderson (1999), offers, "Strategic direction of complex organizations consists of establishing and modifying environments within which effective, improvised, self-organized solutions can evolve". Where my organization exists at the higher echelon levels of the military, these self-corrected measures can be established at identified system nodes at each directorate level (gateway) that has a given effect as decisions move forward up and down the chain of command, as well as laterally and across interagency domains clarifying what once was a complex environment without known nodes of influence.

References:

Anderson, P. (1999, June 1). Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.3.216

Bradley, L. (2010). Chaos and fractals: The butterfly effect. Retrieved from http://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/butterfly.html

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

Phelan, S. E. (2001). What is complexity science, really? Emergence, 3(1), 120-136. Retrieved from https://faculty.unlv.edu/phelan/Phelan_What%20is%20complexity%20science.pdf

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

A632.7.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Collaborative Decision Making

     Several months ago as a relatively new Desk Officer to a country in Africa representing a special operations command, I had inquired about how to get specialized communications equipment down to that country in a timely and secure manner so the personnel who will be working there can safely retrieve and use the equipment as soon as they arrive. It turned out that there was not a process in place, and no one had yet been identified to look into options of feasibility.

     Those that were in the pre-collaborative process was more less meeting for the sake of identifying alone through fact gathering, what the current understanding was of our Diplomatic Pouch (DIP) process, who was leading it, and what the expected end result would be. During this meeting, these concerns were brought up by my boss, as well as another high ranking officer who was in charge of ensuring the correct equipment was properly prepared in time for shipping. A question asked by this communications Officer-in-Charge (OIC) was, who is the Action Officer? As I looked around to see who that might have been, my boss looked at me and said, go ahead, raise your hand. As I raised my hand, I could feel an overwhelming sense of embarrassment come over me as if to say, why did I not know this? Truth be told, I was never informed I was the 'Action Officer'. In addition, the communications OIC, a Lieutenant Colonel, assumed I knew what an Action Officer was. Luckily, the collaborative process came next.

     The next meeting, a couple days later, myself, our logistics officer, a communications technician and trainer, and our Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) met to discuss what options we had for getting our equipment from our office to a particular country in Africa in a secure and timely manner. Our Logistics officer would follow through with the Frankfurt Consular Office in the event we determined if the DIP process, or an escorted flight proved most beneficial. If it was determined the equipment would go down to the continent with the actual service members that would use them, then our NCOIC would ensure that all consulate offices en route to the final destination were kept informed of the equipment traveling through their respective country.

     Entering and throughout this meeting, each of us shared a similar vision of finding an established method, and or methods to ensuring the specialized communications equipment traveled quickly and securely to the respective country. However, each member of the group had a different idea as to how to accomplish it best. Thankfully, there was some constraints, as well as guidance. 

     As I opened the discussion on the topic, I had asked the group what they all thought the preferential method would be. As we discussed each method in as much detail as possible, one at a time, we came to some conclusions; 1) non-standard aviation (NSAV) aircraft would not be accepted to land in all countries; 2) there could be issues with the consulate's office of countries the service members would need to travel through with the specialized communications equipment; 3) the DIP process was fairly unknown since it had never been used before; and 4) the procedure may be determined by the destination U.S. Embassy and country team. Each member was given the task by the NCOIC to take a deeper look into each of the processes now that all four methodologies have been identified, and to return in three days with all information gaps filled.

     Three days later, we had all reconvened to collaborate on the way ahead for getting specialized communications equipment down to African countries. Having been the Desk Officer for one of the destination countries, I had discovered over the past few days what the method would be for that country. However, while feeling an urge to share what I had learned, I restrained myself to just listening, as the NCOIC opened the floor for discussion. Naturally, everyone wanted to share what they had learned. Bennett & Gadlin (2013) shared that "self-awareness can provide a foundation for self-control in a wide variety of situations." In this case, as the Action Officer, I felt compelled to hear everyone else's finding first before I inject my own along with a final decision.

     Some of the benefits that came from the stakeholders that were involved in the decision-making process included presenting ideas based on personal experience, or based on creative thinking, the disposition to agree, or disagree and providing  reasons as to why, the ability to help gather relevant information, and help trouble-shoot and test methodologies and processes from different point of views.

     In the end, it was determined that all processes of shipping the specialized communications equipment could be utilized and tailored for each country's requirements. In this respect, the outcome went beyond my expectations, as well as my hopes for a single reliable and secure method, alone. The only other asset that could potentially have added value to the collaborative decision making process may have been the experienced OIC. However, due to the embarrassing pre-collaborative meeting with him, I was not inclined to include him in the decision-making process. In fact, in designating me the Action Officer, he had preferred not to be part of the process.

     In the future, in the name of saving everyone's valuable time, I would seek out all identifiable stakeholders and request a period of fact and information gathering prior to convening for a collaboration session. In addition, I would identify who exactly the final decision rests with if delegated to one person, and I would ask more often, who, or what is missing? (Levine, 2009).

References:

Bennett, L. M. and Gadlin, H. (2012, June). Collaboration and team science: From theory to practice. HHS Author Manuscripts, 60(5). 768-775. doi: 10.231/JIM.0b013e318250871d

Coleman, D. & Levine, S. (2008). Collaboration 2.0: Technology and best practices for successful collaboration in a web 2.0 world. Retrieved from http://www.fg.uni-mb.si/predmeti/gi/Viri/Collaboration%202.0-DR.pdf

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration (2nd Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

A632.6.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

The High Cost of Conflict

     A few months ago, I applied for the Navy Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) Program through my command, Special Operations Command, Africa. during the early stages of application, I discovered that the command did not have any program to process applications in place. With my timeline to process and submit the application getting short, and the relationship between my Officer-in-Charge (OIC) and myself having been strained due to his expectations of how I should do my job, and my experience telling me otherwise, I sought other guidance outside my chain of command. This decision ultimately brought me face to face at the 11th hour with my OIC telling me how wrong I was not to seek him out for guidance sooner.

     As I explained why I chose the path I did, excluding our uneasy relationship and emphasizing why I utilized the subject matter experts within the Warrant Officer community for guidance in the absence of an actual command CWO program for the Navy, I realized my OIC and I was just not going to see eye to eye. However, in the light that my OIC out-ranked me, I  chose to stop defending the reasons for my decisions, and conceded to his disposition about how wrong I was. It was apparent to me at this time that there was a good chance that all my efforts to complete my application and submit it could very well have been in vain without all the proper recommendations, to include the one from my OIC.

    Looking at this scenario from Levine's (2009) eyes, his 10 Principles of Resolutionary Thinking indicates that Believing in Abundance would had provided me the the vision of seeing my OIC helping me had I trusted him to act in my best interest. Creating a Partnership with my OIC would have been key in feeling we could work out the dilemma of not having a process for submitting a CWO application at our command. Had I been in the mental disposition of being Creative, I would have been looking for ways to include my OIC in the problem solving process rather than employing the constraints of resolution between us.

     Attempting to Foster a Sustainable resolution with my OIC would have open the door for receptive feedback, offering a coalition of efforts, rather than going it alone without the potential weight of an experienced, well-networked 05 pay grade by my side. In turn, this approach would have kept the relationship from hitting a critical emotional threshold that left us with an even more uncomfortable relationship than previously experienced. Becoming Open in the process of conflict resolution was in fact a disposition I was attaining while my OIC was sharing with me how wrong I was to have made the decisions I did. If I was not humble, or genuinely vulnerable, it would have been detected, and our discussion would have gone worse than it had (Levine, 2009). 

     The relationship between my OIC and I had been strained for the previous five months. Typically, we keep to our own space and counsel with minimal to say to each other. When you do talk, it is often on professional terms with even perhaps injects of humor now and then. However, Forming a Long-Term Collaboration with my OIC would have been the perfect state of mind to keep from focusing on having to avoid a challenge, or surviving one. I feel if I focused more on cultivating a relationship that allowed for a collaborative effort with my issues, I would have been apt to avoid his person. While I always pay attention to my OIC's emotional disposition, which is typically difficult to read since he often keeps to himself or overlaps humor in most conversations he has with my peers throughout the day, it has been challenging to Rely on Feelings and Intuition. Although it may be challenging at times, approaching relationship with the intention of considering others feeling, and listening to your own intuition can aid in understanding where the other party may be coming from, as well as possibly discovering their true intentions during conflict resolution (Levine, 2009).

     In our relationships at work, it is rare for anyone to disclose all information for the sake of getting to know everyone and what they bring to the table. During the course of a conflict, in my experience, people tend to share new information in attempt to be right, win an argument or debate, or to persuade others to join them in their ploy. In the case of Disclosing Information and Feelings between my OIC and myself, it would have done us some real good prior to the conflict as well as during in the way of helping one another understand each other (Levine, 2009). 

     Learning through the Process never took hold during our conflict except the awareness of what I should have done, and how upset my OIC was that I did not include him earlier in the process. Had my OIC been open to learning how wrong I already knew I was, he may have focused on helping me through the remaining process instead of getting frustrated and giving me a non-favorable recommendation with my application. Becoming ResponseAble is our responsibility as leaders in resolving our own internal conflict on the path of getting know and understand ourselves in the process of resolution. We must take responsibility of our own emotional conflict inside us, as well as the decisions that can lead us through  creative, considerate, and collaborative resolutions (Levine, 2009).
     I cannot say it would have reduced the cost of conflict between my OIC and myself, as the results ended with his recommendation not in favor of supporting my application, and nothing else. Never having been in such a potential position with this OIC before, it is difficult to say what his reaction may have been otherwise. However, this process would have definitely reduced the internal conflict that I had with myself just by knowing I had extended myself to him fairly, honestly, and openly. Knowing that the other parties will see how far I am willing to partake in the resolution process, may very well in turn provide them the non-threatened opportunity to meet me halfway in the process, creating that initial, yet vital vision of the hope for a resolution from both parties.

References: 

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Levine, S. (n.d.). Resolution works. Retrieved from  http://resolutionworks.com/writings/resolutionary-view-10-principles-for-developing-the-attitude-of-resolution/

Stahl, R., Levine, S. (2011). Executive s&op and the cycle of resolution: Resolving conflict to align human energy. Foresight, 20-26. Retrieved from http://www.tfwallace.com/files/docs/Executive_SOP_and_Cycle_of_Resolution.pdf