MSLD 511 Organizational Leadership Course Reflections

At the outset of MSLD 511, Organizational Leadership, as our very first assignment, we were asked to develop and write down our own, personal definition of leadership. How entirely appropriate that as our very last assignment in this course, after studying several leadership approaches and theories, we are now asked to determine if we would make any changes to our definition of leadership. My original definition, from that first assignment, follows:

“Leadership is a person, or persons acting in coordination, who: oversees the activities of other persons assigned to them, or hired by them; develops and communicates the vision, goals, objectives, work assignments, policies, and constraints of the organization or team; provides direction or instruction and necessary resources; evaluates performance and provides feedback; inspires and coaches their people to achieve the vision, goals, or objectives of the organization or team; evaluates and manages the organizational interaction with the outside environment; and otherwise enables individual, organizational, or team success in fulfilling the stated vision, goals, or objectives; assumes responsibility for the organization or team performance and its continued viability; sets and communicates the standards and expectations for performance, fairly rewards good performance, and takes corrective action when necessary.”

The first thing that strikes me about my original definition is that it contains elements from several of the leadership theories that we studied in this course. For example, “communicates the vision, goals, objectives” is found, or implied, in several of the theories that we read about, from the Behavioral Approach, to the Situational Approach, Path-Goal Theory, Leader-Member Exchange Theory, and especially in Transformational Leadership where “Inspire a Shared Vision” is listed as one of the early and essential steps of leadership. (Northouse, pg. 174) Similarly, in his chapter on Servant Leadership, Northouse lists “Conceptualization [as an] individual’s ability to be visionary for an organization, providing a clear sense of its goals and direction”. (Northouse, pg. 228) Finally, in my Leadership Interview, setting the vision came out as one of four key “must-do” activities of a leader. The other three were: getting the chain of command rightly established, align the organizational structure with the vision, and hiring talented people and letting them “run”. I would daresay that the development and communication of an appropriate and clear vision for the organization, however that is done, is at least as important as all of a leader’s other actions, behaviors, and talents, if not more so.

The second element of my original definition that I would like to highlight are the words “inspires” and “coaches”. These leadership actions or behaviors stood out prominently in our study of Transformational Leadership, the Situational Approach, and Path-Goal Theory where the role of a leader to encourage, support, motivate, and even to inspire were brought out as essential leader activities and behaviors in situations where followers either needed help with figuring out a task, or where the communication of direction and vision to inspire already highly developed and talented followers would help energize the organization to excel. The leadership style of “coaching” was explicitly stated in the Situational Approach, where the leader needs to be both highly directive and highly supportive for followers with low to some competence and low commitment to the organization and its objectives. This also relates to the words “provides direction or instruction” in my original definition. In all approaches or styles, development of the follower was either explicit or implied.

Providing resources and “otherwise enable[ing] individual, organizational, or team success” figured prominently into Path-Goal Theory as the leader was seen as one who removed obstacles between followers and the successful achievement of the stated goals or objectives of the organization or team. Specifically, in Path-Goal Theory the leader “defines goals, clarifies [the] path, removes obstacles, and provides support”. (Northouse, pg. 116) However, Path-Goal Theory, as do the others, goes above and beyond my original definition, citing greater complexity regarding the type, or level of development of the follower, the complexity of the scenario in which the leader may find himself or herself, etc.

So while my original definition did contain several key aspects of the various theories that we studied, it also omitted key details and even entire theories (e.g., Adaptive Leadership and, to a large extent, Servant Leadership). This leaves me with the rather obvious question of “How do I improve on my initial definition?” Developing an accurate and concise definition of leadership that includes all of the key styles, approaches, theories, etc. remains a truly challenging task and I’m not entirely certain that I can do so without introducing yet more inadvertent exclusion or error than I did the first time. I think that Leadership Theories can be defined, and I believe that each of those theories provides ideas, techniques, and even prescriptions for the myriad of combinations of environment, objectives, follower development, constraints, and scenarios which a leader may face. But whole chapters and long articles were devoted to the adequate definition and description of each theory; again, how to come up with a concise and clear definition of leadership that one may find satisfying?

In reading about each of the leadership approaches or theories, I recognize portions of each that I have used in my career, without necessarily knowing the formal definition of same. I find therefore that, much like struggling with a revised definition of leadership, I cannot label myself as one particular brand or style of leader. My initial definition I know was heavily influenced by my experience and my tendencies toward leadership. I have long recognized the importance of, and tended to favor things like vision, supportive and directive behaviors, coaching, removing obstacles from the path to success, and also aspired to be an inspirational leader who tries to motivate (rather than coerce) followers to achieve our mutual goals and otherwise succeed and grow in talent, knowledge, and character. Within the past few years, primarily through church and also the works of Ken Jennings, I have heard about servant leadership and done a lot of thinking about, and aspiring to, that style. But I’m not there yet.

Along the way, and especially in this course, there has also been introduced Authentic Leadership. This is the theory or approach that I find most satisfying. A leader who possess high moral standards and integrity, who is transparent, who is self-aware, and able to be balanced in his or her processing of information; this is the type of leader that I most want to be. I realize that such is a lifelong process as Authentic Leadership inherently grows out of significant life events, extensive experience, the process of self-discovery and awareness, and the sharpening of moral reasoning and commitment. As such, it does not seem probable or suited to the young and impetuous.

So what of this definition of leadership? Perhaps it should go something like this:

“A leader is someone who understands the various leadership theories and approaches, who has experience with each, and who, based upon the particulars of environment, organizational objectives or requirements, and follower development and needs, selects and uses the appropriate leadership approach, or elements from several approaches, to successfully guide or enable the organization to succeed, while having a positive influence on its members.”

To be continued….

Inner Work for Authentic Leadership

Most places that you go these days, and with most of the people that you talk to, we appear to be suffering from a dearth of leadership.  I frequently hear this lament at work; society at large (fueled by the media) is bemoaning lack of leadership among the leaders of The Congress, President, and other elected or appointed officials. And corporate scandals (e.g., the bank failures and home mortgage crisis of late, as well as the need for government bailout of two of the big three automakers) abound. Instead of leaders with integrity, a moral compass, and a backbone, we instead see corruption, indecisiveness, and otherwise weak-minded “leaders” who are in it for the big money. It is the in-authenticity of many of today’s leaders that seem to plague us in all areas, from corporate, to non-profit, to governmental sectors. In fact, Barbara Kellerman wrote a book back in 2012 entitled “The End of Leadership”, in which she makes the case that we have “lost the recipe” when it comes to leadership; universities and training centers no longer teach good leadership principles and the “leadership industry” (the vast array of seminars, etc. available) largely don’t know what they are doing.  So it should come as no surprise that, collectively, we find ourselves in trouble where leadership is concerned. True, we still have some notable exceptions, but by and large we appear to lack authentic leaders to lead us into this 21^st century.

What is Authentic Leadership? At present, there is not one single, unified definition.  Northouse (2016) cites three points of view on Authentic Leadership.  The first is the “intrapersonal perspective” that focuses mainly on the leader and what goes on inside the leader’s mind.  Self-knowledge, self-regulation, and self-concept are the three main components of the intrapersonal perspective.  Through these well-developed qualities, an authentic leader leads with conviction, not by necessarily emulating someone else. Also, life experiences and their meaning are critical to the development of the authentic leader. The second perspective, as described by Northouse, is interpersonal; in other words, the leader-follower relationship. “Authenticity emerges from the interactions between leaders and followers [ with the emphasis on the reciprocity of the affect each have on the other]” (Northouse, 2016). Third, authentic leadership may be addressed from the developmental perspective wherein authentic leadership develops over time and influenced (or triggered) by major life events (e.g., death of a loved one, loss of a job, etc.).

Bill George, developer of the Authentic Leadership approach, in a short YouTube video, talks about how you become an authentic leader, or a better (more authentic) leader, and touches on three main points: 1) real-world experiences to help you gain self-awareness; 2) the need to process the experience(s) through some type of introspection (e.g., meditation, prayer, or some sort of intimate relationship where you have someone whom you trust to talk to); and 3) receiving honest feedback from a person (or persons) with whom you have a more intimate and trusting relationship, and who will tell you the truth.

As I think on my own leadership experience in the real world of acquisition program management within the Department of Defense, and as a defense support contractor (now on the “other side of the table” in certain situations), I too lament the on-going decline in leadership within DoD and the federal government at large.  Failed programs, huge cost overruns, contractors caught defrauding the government, a crop of leaders who seem to prefer to not “rock the boat” by making any tough decisions (and who operate on political correctness instead of unvarnished truth), a lack of mentoring…the list goes on and on to make the case that we lack authentic leaders; and it would appear that we aren’t going to get well anytime soon.

For me, though, the real-world experiences that have had the most impact have included observing and working with what we would have called authentic leaders some 25-30 years ago. I had the extreme privilege of working with The Lockheed Skunk Works as I was starting out in my career.  In observing the kind of up-front, no-nonsense, completely honest, and attention-to-detail practices of that company, I learned how successful acquisition leadership and leadership practices could work. I learned the value of operating on a person’s word and a handshake. I learned how to cut to the chase on complex acquisition programs and focus on the essentials. And I learned what a leader with integrity, morality, and a solid work ethic looked like, acted like, and performed like.  I learned the essential qualities of forming good, trusting relationships with folks at all levels of the hierarchy, from the production and assembly floor worker, to the Vice President and General Manager for Aerial Reconnaissance Programs.

I also remember one experience that literally made all the difference for me with another contractor with whom I was working and trying to solve some significant production and performance issues.  Along with our contracting officer, I negotiated an “omnibus” contract settlement where the contractor owed the government some things and vice versa.  During that negotiation, I agreed upon a particular contractual arrangement with the contractor for production deliveries.  Two weeks later, a briefing chart on that very issue was presented by the contractor during a program review with my boss and our chief of contracting in attendance.  They both stopped the presentation and questioned the arrangement since they had a different interpretation of how things should read. The contractor person giving the briefing turned to me and asked point blank, “Which is it, Dan? The way I have it written up on the screen, or the way they just said they believed it to be?”  Moment of truth. I took a deep breath and said, “The words up on the screen are what I agreed to in negotiations.” A huge sigh of relief was felt around the room, my boss and our chief of contracts said that was okay too, and we moved on. I could have acquiesced to what I thought were the wishes of my boss and our chief of contracts and said that their interpretation was the one we would go with. I could have gone back on my word at the negotiation table, but I didn’t. The amount of professional respect that I earned that day paid huge dividends with the contractor as we made our way through the problems on the program.

So, real-world experiences (especially real-world tests) I believe are essential to the development of leader authenticity. And leaders need to reflect on these experiences, both before they may occur (if such a thing can be foreseen), and afterwards.  Like the old saying goes, “Always tell the truth and it’s much easier to remember what you said.” My two main forms of reflection are “daydreaming” when I have the chance; to just sit and replay the experience in my mind and relive the emotions and thoughts that were running through me at the time; and prayer, where I also replay critical successes and critical failures in my career and my personal life. Part of reflection is the absolute necessity to learn to forgive yourself for mistakes that you have made; learn from your mistake, then move on.

Many times, it is essential to have a close, trusted friend or two with whom you can share your experiences and receive honest feedback, grace, emotional support, and encouragement for the way ahead. I am lucky enough to have two such friends, to whom I can tell anything and not be judged, but instead be understood, constructively criticized, and supported to move forward with either new ways of looking at a problem or affirmations that I’m on the right track.  These two gentlemen are both older than me, they both understand the DoD, and they are also exceptional mentors to me along the way.  Though they are senior to me, we talk on an equal footing.  We learn from each other; it is not simply a one-way street where I go talk about my problems and they tell me what to do. And we share and analyze successes as well as failures. These two confidantes are my lifelines when I’m stuck and need advice. They are also accountability partners, mostly when I ask them to be and sometimes even when I don’t.  Relationships liked these are difficult to find sometimes, but essential.  I have known and worked with these men for 12 and 24 years, respectively.  We talk regularly, and without their guidance and inputs, I would be left to fend on my own. These relationships make and keep me authentic out there in the world.

The last bit of advice on authentic leadership that I’d like to close with is to find and attend at least one good leadership seminar or summit per year where you can hear directly from proven, great, and authentic leaders. It’s inspiring; it’s insightful; and in my mind it’s essential to “recharge your batteries” when it comes to leadership and leadership in the context of your own life. I’m not trying to “sell” anything here, but if you are unsure of what I mean, look up the Global Leadership Summit online and you’ll see one such example of such a gathering. Day-to-day work inside any organization can take a toll on you, and seeing and hearing great leaders of our time not only reminds you that they still exist and authentic leadership is still possible, but it can prove inspiring to you as you face your own leadership challenges. All leaders should be authentic; I would go so far as to say that if you’re not authentic, then you aren’t really a leader.

A Leader From the Past

I have never worked for a purely, or even highly, transformational leader.  I have seen a few; two different Pastors from churches that I have attended come to mind.  These two were charismatic, excellent orators, extremely knowledgeable and insightful, and inspiringly visionary. They each grew their congregations not only in numbers but (more importantly) in Faith and moral character as Christians.  In the course of their ministries, they did indeed transform the membership and the position of their respective churches; in essence, they raised their congregants to a “higher level” and left their churches stronger and more cohesive than they were when they first arrived. One of these Pastors is now deceased, and the other is about my own age and still going strong.

In my professional career, I would have to say that the closest I came to working for a transformational leader would be my first boss on active duty in the U.S. Air Force. He was also my first mentor, and in retrospect the best mentor that I ever had; mentoring is an inherently transformational act of service. This man was a civilian who knew the business of acquisition program management as well, or better than, anyone else I have known or met since. I was indeed fortunate to have landed in my first assignment with such a strong and capable mentor. He was intensely professional, yet mild-mannered and easily approachable. I remember clearly how he would spend time explaining all of the various concepts and knowledge components of program management, then he would give me work to do that built upon those explanations. He would have me learn by doing, answering questions patiently, but quietly insisting on high-quality work and output.

Bernie was his name and one day he took me through the Air Force budgeting and programming process, teaching me all of the different types of appropriations, how we developed our official budget submissions to The Pentagon, and so forth. Then, he handed me our last budget position documentation and asked me to update it, after which he reviewed my results and then tasked me to build a briefing on our budget and travel with him to Washington DC to present this same briefing to various program personnel from The Pentagon! Bernie taught you how to swim, then asked you to dive off the high board at the deep end of the pool like that. Early on, he also talked to me about our weekly Program Staff Meeting, Action Item tracking, etc., then he had me take over running those same Staff Meetings the following week. One thing that I observed about Bernie is that he would not tolerate anything being “put on the street” about our Program that was not perfectly accurate and represented high quality and pride in workmanship. One of our financial managers once let a budget document go out that had errors in it and I suspect that the whole of the first floor of our building heard Bernie dress this person down before he threw them out of our office.

Those are some examples of how Bernie operated. Everything that he did was carefully planned and timed to provide the most benefit to the health and successful execution of our acquisition program possible. To this young Second Lieutenant, watching Bernie in action provided me with a high degree of Idealized Influence. In the business of acquisition, he was a superb role model and certainly someone that I wanted to emulate. He commanded the respect of everyone associated with our Program, from the local office and various functional personnel on our team, to senior leaders at The Pentagon, and also among our Prime Contractor folks. His knowledge and business ethics were second to none. I used to joke with people through the years that all I ever really learned about acquisition program management, I learned from Bernie in the first six months that I was in the Air Force. This turned out to be a good thing as everyone, including Bernie, in our program office either moved on to other assignments or retired shortly after those first six months and I was left there by myself to carry on and run the Program. Day in and day out, I was able to succeed in this endeavor by remembering all that Bernie had taught me, and doing everything just as he had instructed and demonstrated.

Bernie also provided Inspired Motivation. His expectations were indeed high, as I have stated, and through the many “learn-by-doing” activities that he coached me through, I became knowledgeable and “bought in” to the overall mission and vision of our program office. In fact, the examples that Bernie gave to me of how to effectively run a program stuck with me for all of my career and many is the time over the years that I drew upon what he had taught me to sort out and fix other programs that I would run later on. By his having me work with our program representatives in The Pentagon, he also inspired me to want to become a Program Element Monitor (PEM) and nine years later, when I was transferred to Washington DC, that is exactly the job that I got. And through Bernie’s examples and insights, I knew the PEM job well and got to fulfill one of my biggest career aspirations.

After all that I have said, I don’t think that I need to spend much time relaying that Bernie’s assignments for me provided a great deal of Intellectual Stimulation. One thing that I will always remember is that he would task me with work that I thought was beyond my capabilities, and then he would provide instruction and mentoring to grow me into those new and more responsible activities over time. He continually challenges what I thought were my limits and then he helped me to exceed them. In an Aristotelian fashion, Bernie would also hand me open-ended challenges and then help me to figure out the solution, asking just the right questions at just the right times to prompt me to take the next steps in figuring things out.

The last major element of Transformational Leadership, Individualized Consideration, was a given with Bernie. He always had my back and whenever I truly got “stuck” on something, he would talk me through it with patience and empathy. His biggest interest was to not only teach me the business, but to see me succeed and to eventually stand on my own two feet where I could see what needed to be done and (without prompting) I would go do it. It’s a bit cliché these days, but Bernie taught me how to do things well enough that he enabled me to also “think outside the box”. Later, after he had left the Program, I was able to use those abilities to challenge our prime contractor to take on a technical issue that had plagued the program for several years. And in the end, we found and successfully implemented the new technical solution to the amazement of several senior Colonels in Strategic Air Command (SAC), who were our customers for the system we acquired.

So I guess that I’d have to say, as I draw to a close, that perhaps my opening statement was in error. I did indeed work for a transformational leader at the very beginning of my career. I’ve given a lot of examples of how Bernie exhibited these behaviors and qualities for me, but he also did the same for everyone who worked on our Program. I watched him coach and mentor others, both in our program office and across the cross-functional team that supported us (financial managers, contracting officers, manufacturing specialists, and engineering). Whenever I lament that we don’t have good mentoring going on in the Air Force today within program offices, Bernie is the guy I’m thinking about. If all of our young acquisition program management troops today had a Bernie to teach them the ropes, our acquisition programs would all be in far better shape than they are. I was lucky.

Mid-Term Reflection

As I watched the TED Talk by Talgam, ideas and affirmations about leadership at its finest began flowing like water.  Conductors, at the level of which Talgam speaks, are leaders of what we would otherwise call “High Performing Teams”. In LMX jargon, each member of the orchestra is part of the In-Group. They can all be trusted by the Conductor to perform their individual and collective duties in a thoroughly outstanding manner; each musician is at the top of his or her game and a consummate professional.  Furthermore, they have all practiced together for enough time, that they are truly a team where no one individual, or a few individuals are playing for themselves, but they fully recognize, behave, and focus on blending with one another to “speak” as one “voice” under the leadership of the Conductor.

Again, as I watched the video, I was immediately reminded of a time in my program management career where I quite unexpectedly became the leader of an extremely high-performing team for about eighteen months. When I came on board, everyone was indeed “warming up” before the concert. I want to make clear, before I go any further, that I take very little credit for the development and performance of this high-performing team. I had the extreme good fortune to have brought together individuals who were indeed at the top of their game, and eventually I became like the final conductor that Talgam showed in his videos; I almost literally could just stand in front of the group and enjoy the “music” as the team “played” it.

I learned from my experience, as Talgam discussed in his talk, that the highest form of leadership or at least the highest experience in leadership is to facilitate the bringing together of talented people on a project and helping them to weave together their talents and energies into a single story that we all tell together. I had the distinct honor to almost literally play the part of a Conductor. Everyone knew their part; I made sure of that, but not by edict, rather by dialogue and capitalizing on their ideas and talents to make them part of the unified whole. Everyone played their part to perfection. Everyone challenged one another, helped one another, and delighted in the combined accomplishments of the team.

This doesn’t happen by accident, but obviously some amount of good fortune is involved. It is not often that a leader inherits a team where everyone is a star performer, yet no one puts themselves above any other member of the team. I merely needed to have the good sense to set the objectives and get out of the way of progress. Every last member of that team took extreme pride in their performance, but even more in the performance of the team. It was an experience I will never forget. The trick would be to build and mold such a team regardless of what you have to start with as a leader. Like a Conductor, the leader would need to spend long hours with individual performers, long hours with groups of performers, long hours with the more senior and experienced performers to ensure that the right kind and amount of mentoring was happening, and long hours with the team as a whole to practice in real time how to reach for and achieve the goals and objectives set forth.

The real leaders can do just that. They can take a diverse group of individuals with varying talents and levels of development, and they can make them into a high-performing team by setting expectations, developing high-quality relationships with each individual, teaching, coaching, delegating appropriately, growing and developing the individuals, and also growing and developing the team. I think that the example of top Conductors of orchestras is a great simile to that of a top performing leader; likewise, I think that the example of the orchestra is a great simile of a top-performing team. And yes, even the audience participation is a great example of the context or external environment that leaders must also include in the equation.

We have studied many theories of leadership thus far in this Course. What I have found is that each theory contains at least some elements of what great leadership looks like, acts like, and performs like. One may argue whether traits are genetic or conditioned, but every great leader does possess some degree of personal characteristics that set them apart and make them effective. Likewise, a great leader must possess a skillset that, while variable and somewhat situation-dependent, must nonetheless be employed to achieve results. The behavior and situational approach also described inherent truths in what leaders should do, and how they might adjust their style to best fit the situation, or to fit their followers (or both).  Path-Goal Theory clearly put forth the relevant role of a leader in helping to remove or overcome obstacles in the path of the followers. And LMX showed us how the social aspects of leadership usually do evolve within an organization as relationships between leaders and followers develop; and how it is only natural that leaders come to depend on followers who have demonstrated certain qualities that the leader can depend upon to get things done.

The Conductor of the orchestra has no doubt established high-quality relationships with every musician in his or her charge. Mutual respect has no doubt been established between the players and the Conductor, and among every musician. Everyone understands that they are uniquely talented and uniquely responsible for the performance of the team as a whole. To the extent that a leader can achieve those qualities or characteristics across his or her team or organization, everyone wins. In every leadership theory we have studied thus far, there are elements of truth in how a leader should go about creating such conditions.

A511.4.3.RB - Locus of Control

Locus of Control

Within the Path-Goal Theory of leadership lies a concept known as “locus of control”.  Basically this concept holds that if a person has an external locus of control, then they believe that they have little to no control over the events or things that happen to them in life.  In other words, the “forces” that shape their lives are external to them.  Conversely, people with an internal locus of control tend to believe that they have a significant degree of control over what happens to them in life, whether or not they succeed in their endeavors, etc.  This becomes important in Path-Goal Theory in that leaders need to be directive in nature toward people with an external locus of control, and supportive in nature toward those who have an internal locus of control.

So what about this locus of control concept?  Is it real?  Does it matter?  I believe that it is real and it does matter and in this reflection I will explain my beliefs and hope to at least cause you to think about the matter as it pertains to your own experiences and perceptions.

I took the Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale Test and, not surprisingly, I scored a 67%, indicating that I tend to favor the external locus of control perspective.  As I said, this is not surprising.  I have come to believe in life that a person can control very little of what happens to them; the only thing that they can control is how they respond to those external forces.  I used the word “respond” on purpose.  I have also learned that it is better to respond than to react to external forces or events.  One who responds does so with thought, reasoning, and a calm demeanor.  What one does, therefore, is a rational act as opposed to an emotional (often angry) reaction. It has taken several classes in Boundaries by Cloud & Townsend and some therapy sessions to learn this material.  I used to react to what I perceived were “unfair” or “inappropriate” things that happened to me; now I try to respond and the outcomes are much more favorable in terms of my own peace of mind and what happens next as life unfolds.

When I graduated from college in 1984, the Air Force Officer who commissioned me was a young Captain.  This man had arrived at Michigan Technological University (MTU) Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC), Detachment 400 (Det 400) two years prior to my graduation as a First Lieutenant.  Shortly thereafter, he pinned on Captain and was my AFROTC instructor during my junior and senior year of my undergraduate program.  He used to say back then that he was unsure of just how long that he would stay in the Air Force, and that he may very well serve his four years and get out.  Ironically, today, he is the only person associated with the MTU AFROTC Det 400 class of 1984 who is still on active duty, and he is a Lieutenant General.  No one, including him, ever imagined that he would go this far in the Air Force.

A couple of years ago, I talked to this 3-star about how he got to where he is, and he said very simply to me, “Dan, it was about 99% pure luck. I ended up working for the right people, in the right place, at the right time.  There is no magic formula for getting to where I am”.  Now obviously, he is an intelligent, hard-working officer who always gave (and gives) his best effort in every assignment that he has had.  But that is exactly my point.  The best that anyone can ever do is to get well educated, perform well and learn all that you can in each and every job that you have, and generally work hard in life.  Those things are within your control.  However, getting to the top of the pyramid is pretty much the result of what happens to you, and not within your control.

I have met and talked to several Medal of Honor recipients and every one of them has stated that the only reason they received the Medal of Honor, as opposed to someone else in their unit, is because they didn’t get killed in the process of doing their job well on the battlefield.  Like the 3-star I mentioned above, these Medal of Honor recipients put their achievement down to “good fortune”.

Conversely, I have seen people who were so focused on controlling their careers that they very nearly drove themselves insane in the process.  I would also add that they usually turned out to be the exact opposite of what they tried so hard to achieve (for their own sake).  These “careerists” were generally poor leaders and their own worst enemy as they tried again and again to rack up “points” and get to the top.  I remember attending Squadron Officer School (SoS) in residence in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1988.  One day, we were out at a site on Maxwell Air Force Base where they had set up several “stations”, each with a different mental and physical problem-solving challenge.  We were divided into groups of six people (teams of six) and rotated through these stations where we were given the problem, and then as a team we had to solve it and perform.  Each problem (each station) was timed and scored, and the leadership and followership of each team member was observed and recorded by the instructors.  About halfway through the exercise (called “Project X”), there was a huge commotion a few stations away from where I was involved with my team.  One guy and one gal (both young Captains) had completely lost it because they so desperately wanted to become Distinguished Graduates of SoS that when they say their team failing one of the challenges, they knew that their point score was taking a nosedive.  The guy was yelling and cursing; the gal was sobbing uncontrollably.  Two prime examples of what happens when you attempt to control everything in life.  Needless to say, they ruined their chances of being recognized as top performers in our class.  A strong internal locus of control can get you into all kinds of trouble. It took me several years to learn this lesson, and to this day I would refer to myself as a “recovering controller”.

So what does this mean in terms of how I perceive leaders?  Well, I do appreciate directive leaders (a nod toward my external locus of control) but only to a point.  If I feel that I am being “talked down to” by a leader and that his or her words reflect a perception on their part that I am of low intelligence, I get angry.  If the problem is complex, I do indeed like clear direction.  But the longer that I have spent in leadership and followership positions, I have come to prefer a supportive leader who encourages you, challenges you, rewards you, and works alongside you as part of the team.  Overly directive leaders seem to me to have a tendency to be distant or detached; they therefore don’t usually seem to truly appreciate their people.  Directive leadership may be fine if you are a restaurant manager of shift supervisor.  But I much prefer supportive leadership in professional settings, even though I tend toward an external locus of control.  I suppose this is true because if leadership is supportive, then I am content that my external environment is in good shape.

A511.3.3.RB - Directive and Supportive Behaviors

Directive and Supportive Behaviors

Kenneth Blanchard, et. al., developed a leadership approach widely known as Situational Leadership in which are defined four leadership styles or behaviors, and four follower categories.  (Northouse, 2016, Chapter 5) Included in the four leadership styles are two categories of behavior: directive and supportive.  The directive behavior is, as the name suggests, a “one-way” communication wherein the leader tells the subordinate (or follower) what to do, how to do it, when to get it done, etc.  Generally, the leader gives detailed instructions and the follower does as they are directed.  The supportive behavior is a “two-way” street wherein the leader and follower are mutually engaged in determining the what, how, and timeframe, etc. of the task (or tasks) to be performed by the follower.  Supportive behavior encompasses a participative approach that provides for emotional and social support to the follower on the part of the leader.

With these basic definitions in mind, I would like to reflect on my directive versus supportive behaviors as I exhibit (or exhibited) them in my various roles as a leader, follower, parent, child, friend, and I’ll even take the risk and throw in spouse.

I am an only child who grew up with a strict mother and father, where I learned my work ethic starting at a young age.  I had a 21-year career in the military and have now been a defense support contractor and consultant for approximately 11.5 years. I have been married for 33 years, and I am the father of two sons, now ages 28 and 26.  In my military career, I had many opportunities to lead teams, both small and large, and to direct a large acquisition program organization.  I also had many opportunities to follow leaders, most of whom I considered quite good at their jobs.  In my role as a support contractor and consultant to various acquisition program offices, I have had ample opportunity to serve as a follower, often as a follower of people in leadership roles who are considerably younger than I am.  This can present some interesting challenges and, if I’m lucky, can also provide me with mentoring opportunities.

But let’s start with my role as a child.  I was certainly a follower and throughout my younger years especially, my parents were directive leaders.  This is not to say that they were cold-hearted or distant; but when I was young, I was told what to do, how to do it, and generally when it must be done.  I had assigned household chores, like keeping my room clean, emptying the waste baskets in the house, and helping both parents with odd jobs around the house, in the yard, etc.  When my parents told me to do something, they always expected me to comply with their instructions and not have to be told twice.  Of course, I oftentimes violated those instructions and suffered the consequences.  I can remember, as I grew older, my dad’s seemingly favorite words of sage advice: “If you had spent half the time doing what I asked instead of complaining, you’d have it done by now.”  Those words were usually followed by the consequences of not doing what I was told, and having to be told more than once.

In my later teens, and living with my parents in northern Michigan, we heated our house with a wood furnace.  I worked at a local restaurant, often in the evenings, and didn’t arrive home until after midnight on a Friday night.  But I experienced many 7:00 am wakeup calls from my dad, telling me that we were going to go cut a load of wood.  My father was a carpenter and worked extremely hard his entire life (which is probably why he is now 85 and in many ways more fit than I am).  He expected his only son to grow up used to hard work without complaint.  I cut a lot of wood.  I did a lot of chores.  And though I didn’t completely realize it at the time, those experiences were preparing me to work hard, and diligently, as an adult.  My parents prepared me well for my military career.  Rarely was my parent’s leadership style a “two-way street”, but in my late teens there were instances where their leadership, their parenting, did both allow and even encourage me to participate in decision-making, as well as allowing me more flexibility on when I got things done (as long as they were done!).

When I became a parent myself, I expected things to work with my two sons in basically the same way that they had worked between me and my parents.  The thing is, my wife and I never really discussed our parenting approach before we had our first son.  My wife is one of five children who grew up in a small house, and whose parents were more lenient with the chores, with direction, and with consequences.  Looking back now, I can see that my wife’s parents had their hands full with five kids and the kind of directive approach that I had experienced growing up wasn’t nearly as feasible when dealing with five children instead of one.  The point is that my wife and I found ourselves at nearly opposite ends of the spectrum when it came to parenting.  I attempted to be directive and establish consequences for misbehavior.  My wife was almost entirely participative in her approach with our sons, even when they were quite young.  After some parenting-skills disagreements, I dialed down my directive approach and more or less followed her lead.  As a result, our sons usually listened to me and di what they were told; my wife had a harder time in that department but in the end she is today much closer to our sons than I am.  My sons respect me and my work ethic, but they usually turn to their mother first when they need help since mom always provided the social and emotional support in their formative years.

Given my upbringing, I was more or less ideally suited to the military’s typically directive style among the leaders for whom I worked as a junior officer.  I followed orders without question (although I did ask clarifying questions if I didn’t understand the task at hand).  As more work was pushed my way, I simply worked harder and longer because that’s what my dad did.  As the years went by, this became problematic for me when I would constantly be consumed by work to the detriment of family time.  I did not really know how to balance work and family, even though I heard that refrain countless times from senior military leaders.  So I missed much of my sons growing up, which is something I will always regret.  But my military bosses thought highly of my work ethic and I fared well on my appraisals.

As I began to assume leadership positions in my military career, I started out highly mission oriented and low on the social-emotional support scale.  I had grown up, and I had spent the first few years in the military, believing that mission was everything and people are just supposed to do as they are told.  Besides that, I was an introvert so the social side of things was not my strong suit early on.  But after five years on active duty, the Air Force sent me to the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) to get my Master of Science in Systems Management.  I was lucky enough there to be exposed to professors who knew, and taught, the theories of people like Dr. W. Edwards Deming.  I quickly began to see that the people side of the whole leadership thing really mattered.  And one of Deming’s cardinal rules was that if an organization’s output was not right, it was the fault of management and not the workers.

When I finished at AFIT, I was assigned to an acquisition program office where I was given a significant leadership role.  And I began to act on the people side of the equation, while ensuring that our mission was successful.  I applied what I had learned about Deming, and about Blanchard (from my Organizational Behavior class at AFIT).  This introvert found that I actually liked the social-emotional aspects of leading teams.  I began to have off-sites; I structured meetings and reviews to give my followers direct participation in decisions about strategy, and execution.  Over the years, starting with that first assignment after AFIT, I have naturally tended toward what Blanchard would call a “supporting” and “coaching” leader.  I find that I’m happier at work, and my followers are happier at work, and we are more successful at accomplishing the mission when I hover between those two leadership behaviors.

Now that I’m a support contractor and consultant, I am back to being a follower.  I am fortunate in that I usually get to be a behind-the-scenes supporting and coaching leader of sorts in providing recommendations to my clients and even sometimes being asked to mentor some of the more junior government people.  I just need to be careful.  Some government personnel (military and civilian), and leaders, know how to best employ a support contractor’s skills and experience and tap into that knowledge for the benefit of all.  Other government folks can view contractors as “second-class citizens” who should be seen but not heard; those types of people take offense if a contractor “steps out of his lane” and tries to make suggestions or give recommendations about the conduct of the business of running acquisition programs.  I can work with both types of people in that regard, and I can still salute smartly and do my work quietly when required.  But I much prefer the two-way street when I am a follower.

Now we’re down to my roles as a friend and spouse.  As a friend, I am never directive.  In my mind, friendship is by definition a two-way street.  If asked specifically for advice, I will offer steps that I would take, or the things that I would do in a given situation.  But I would never presume to direct a friend.  Unfortunately, when my wife and I were first married, I did assume the role of a director at times.  Looking back, I don’t really know why I would have thought that was appropriate, but my upbringing and my youth (and lack of relationship experience) probably had a lot to do with it.  Needless to say, my directive approach as a spouse was met with more than a little resistance and I gradually began to learn (often the hard way) that directive behavior in marriage is the wrong approach.  I have that message, and these days I do not direct anything.  Sometimes my wife does, but that’s okay (listen up husbands!).  Marriage is a lifelong learning process and I continue to work on my supportive, social-emotional skills as a spouse.  I have found that I am a problem solver, so when my wife is concerned about something and brings it to me, I have to be careful not to try to immediately “fix” the problem.  Part of being a good husband is about listening and empathy, and not jumping in with directions in any situations unless specifically asked to do so…and even then one must be careful.  If anything is a true two-way street, it is (and must be) in marriage.

I know that Blake and Mouton have sharply criticized the Situational Approach (Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, 1981), asserting that only the Management Grid theory yields the one, best leadership style, but I find the Situational Leadership approach by Blanchard extremely useful and directly applicable to the real-world fact that leadership situations or scenarios vary.  Common sense tells us that we cannot act one way, and one way only in all situations.  For me, paying attention to directive behavior and social-emotional behavior has proven an important guide in my leadership, followership, friendship, marital and other roles that I have in life.  Adjusting those two behavioral factors in dealings with my adult children, as well as my aging parents, I find to be necessary with each situation that arises.

A511.2.2.DQ_VoreDan

Reflecting on Leadership Traits

In his book “Leadership: Theory and Practice”, Northouse describes the Trait Approach to leadership, or “great man theory” as “focused on identifying the innate qualities and characteristics possessed by great social, political, and military leaders.” (Northouse, 2016, p. 19) He then goes on to cite several researchers who list several leadership traits that have been identified over the space of the last one hundred years or so which great leaders possess.  But the key point is that these essential qualities of a leader are “traits”; in other words, they are qualities that leaders are born with.  So either you have them, or you don’t.  The bottom line to this theory is that some people were born to be leaders, while others (the vast majority of others, I might add) were not.  Leadership then is open only to a select few who were born with some or all of the traits identified.

I want to state up front that I do not agree with the Trait Approach.  I believe that while certain individuals, through the effects of their early childhood development, may possess certain aptitudes that make leadership easier to learn and to come by, all individuals with a desire to lead may acquire the necessary tools, knowledge, and abilities to become a great leader.  I therefore believe more strongly in the Skills Approach as identified by Northouse in Chapter Three of his book.

That said, my task at hand in this Reflection is to identify some of my “traits” and to discuss the extent to which I possess them, or my lack thereof is hindering my leadership abilities.  I will further reflect on how the traits that I identify are important to my leadership style.

This then begs the question: What is my leadership style?  Reflecting back over my 32-year career in acquisition program management, where I have been a Team Lead (what was called an Integrated Product Team, or “IPT” Lead) on several occasions, and also as a Program Director or Division Lead of a large organization, I would have to say that my style is participatory, structured, coaching, mission-oriented, yet servant as well.  I tend to make as many decisions as I am able with the considered inputs of team members or key section leaders within my organization.  I value the opinions of others and I depend upon the expertise of the various functional discipline leads for their sage advice.  In terms of structure, I am mostly about centralized control and decentralized execution.  I delegate and I hold people accountable while checking up on them along the way and ensuring that I remove any roadblocks to success.  When necessary, I provide “top cover” to my people.  I highly value coaching and mentoring and so not only do I perform those functions as necessary, I encourage my subordinate leaders to do the same.  Ultimately, I do my best to take care of my people while ensuring that my organization and its assets are aligned to accomplish the mission.  I try to make my enthusiasm for the mission become an infectious example for others to see and thereby become inspired to work together and to work hard to achieve mission success.  Finally, I value servant leadership above all else.  I believe that the highest calling of a leader is to serve not only his or her leaders, but to serve their subordinates as well by supplying them with all of the tools, education, and support possible to enable them to succeed in their individual roles.

With all of that said, what are some of the traits that I possess, and where might I be lacking?  Northouse cites the work of Stodgill (1974), particularly his second survey that included 10 characteristics or traits associated with good leadership.  The first is a drive for responsibility and task (or mission) completion.  This one, I can see in myself.  Granted, I know that I have blind spots, but for purposes of this reflection, I am going to stick with what I believe is true of me.  I am driven; I seek out responsibility and even additional responsibility; whatever it takes for me to assure that I complete the mission.  I learned my work and responsibility ethic from my parents, mainly my father, and if anything, I drive too hard at times.  The second of the ten is vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals.  I believe this is closely tied to my drive for responsibility; I do have to be careful at times to not be overly persistent.  The third characteristic is risk taking and originality in problem solving.  I am all about that.

When I was a junior officer in the Air Force, I was put in charge of the Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) Targeting Pod Production IPT.  When I took this position, the program was in serious trouble.  Because of the first Gulf War, Central Command (CENTCOM) demand for targeting pods was high.  But the production program had only just begun and we had fielded 17 pods that ended up being in 15 different configurations due to numerous production and performance deficiencies.  The support equipment did not work, and the technical orders were generally a mess.  These things happen when you rush a new system into the field.  One of my career mentors was the LANTIRN Program Director and she told me to go pick someone at (then) Martin Marietta to be my contractor counterpart, and then see what I could do, working with this person and the company, to fix the program.

I picked a guy who had some experience with the targeting pod, was several years older than myself, but someone who was highly regarded and had the reputation of being a good and strong leader.  I should note that by this time, we had gone through two Vice Presidents, and had even brought back a retired VP to try to resolve the issues but all had failed.  John, the man that I picked, and I hired a process improvement and statistical process control guy, one of the best in the country.  We sent him to the production floor and also to visit with the design engineers about all of the problems we were having.  At the same time, I flew to Luke Air Force Base and visited with the maintainers.  They had five targeting pods in the shop that they could not fix.  They showed me some of their issues with the support equipment and tech data.  I called up the VP and the Director of Logistics and told them to get on an airplane and that I would pick them up at the airport.  When I got back to Luke with the two of them, I drove directly to the pod shop, where the guys had put a pod in the intermediate-level support equipment, and I handed them their own tech data, and asked them to fix the pod.  They took off their coats and ties, rolled up their white sleeves, and began to follow the tech data to troubleshoot and then fix the pod.  In about ten minutes, I could see them flipping back and forth among the pages of the tech data, looking confused.  Within thirty minutes, they sheepishly look at me and said, “Okay, you’ve made your point.”  I got complete buy-in from the company after that and we went to work.  We began to identify the key mechanical and performance measures on the production line and to establish statistical process control.  Eventually, we ended up with nearly 500 measurement points.  We got the engineers involved where critical tolerances were specified and began to align the manufacturing operations with the design to a degree that had not been done before.  We also ensured that the support equipment in the field was calibrated to the same tolerances and indicators that were used in the factory to measure performance.  And we went to work on the tech data with the help of the Air Force maintenance personnel.  Within 14 months, we had the number of fielded configurations down to two, the support equipment fixed, and the tech data perfected.  The program when I inherited it was 16 months behind schedule.  It went on to finish all 454 pods one year ahead of schedule.

Now that was a long story so that I could say this: everything that we did to fix the targeting pod problems was a calculated risk and required the kinds of problem solving that had never before been done within the company, or on many Air Force production programs in general.  But once we began to achieve some successes, it caught fire.  Everyone became inspired and hugely dedicated to getting this program fixed and superior product out the door.  This brings me to the fourth characteristic: drive to exercise initiative in social situations.

I am an introvert by nature.  Give me a choice, and I’ll pick the good book and a quiet afternoon, or the small gathering over the big party any day.  But that does not mean that I cannot socialize and exhibit drive in social situations.  When I am in a leadership role and working should-to-shoulder with people to fix problems and succeed, I am in my element.  When I led the Suite 5 development and fielding (software and hardware modifications) to the A-10 aircraft fleet, I inherited problems.  Pilots and maintainers felt that they were not being heard and that the things that they needed were not making into configuration block upgrades.  We also had a software development and fielding process that took three years from start to finish.  Luckily, I had a few counterparts within the company that, along with me, loved a challenge.  With the lead Air Combat Command representative, all of the key software engineers, the project managers, and the contracting officials in a big conference room one afternoon, I and the lead company program manager led the discussion to overhaul the process.  We then committed to the pilots and maintainers on an historically large number of new function points and maintenance features that would be included in Suite 5.  We took the gloves off, we got extremely innovative, and without making this an overly-long story, we fielded Suite 5 in 363 days (hardware and software mods, along with complete tech data) without a single pilot or maintainer write-up on anything.  Unfortunately, due to several bureaucratic changes, mostly on the part of the Air Force, nothing like this has ever been accomplished since.  But our efforts were all about risk taking, drive, and initiative in intense social situations with scores of naysayers on the outside looking in (and even some actively trying to sabotage our efforts).

The fifth characteristic is self-confidence and sense of personal identity.  I make decisions as described above with a strong self-confidence.  The trick is to not let your personal identify get swallowed up in the larger picture.  I tend to identify strongly with what I’m doing as a leader when I know we’re moving in the right direction and I see tangible results.  In fact, my identity gets tied up in that whole process.  But through the years, I have managed to develop and maintain a good sense of personal identity that can remain apart from my work identity.

The sixth characteristic is the willingness to accept consequences of decisions and actions.  I believe in this one with all of my heart.  More than once, when briefing my Team’s or Organization’s plan to address and fix broken programs, I have sealed the deal in telling the senior people at the table, “If I’m wrong, fire me.”  I stand behind everything that I do and I also take responsibility for the actions of my subordinates.  There is no alternative for me on that score.

The seventh characteristic is the readiness to absorb interpersonal stress.  I struggle with this one.  What I try most to achieve is to head off interpersonal stress through frank and honest conversation with the folks involved.  Talking it out up front and early is usually a recipe for success, before things get out of hand.  Twice in my career, I have had to call in the “warring factions” and close the door, and get very blunt about their attitudes and actions and basically tell them to knock it off.  I did so with respect and decorum and the situations were resolved.  Sometimes leaders have to do this, and I’ve found that subordinates will respect you for it if done with their best interests at heart.  Don’t let it get to where you are actually angry with someone before you call them in to chat.

The eighth characteristic is willingness to tolerate frustration and delay.  I struggle with this as well.  I am not a terribly patient person, but I can force it if I have to.  Once my Team and I have launched on a course of action, or comprehensive plan to achieve some goal or mission, I have little patience for those who circle back around and start playing the bureaucracy card on me.  I expect people to execute what we’ve all decided upon; and also to not bring me a problem without a few alternative solutions.  I am more than willing to help someone if they are stuck.  What I’m not willing to do is to tolerate someone who sits at their desks “admiring the problem”.

The ninth characteristic is ability to influence other people’s behavior.  I have to admit that this one is becoming more difficult with the passing years than I would like.  I say this because I don’t find the same work ethic in the majority of the workforce today that I could count on 20 or 30 years ago.  When I try to influence people’s behavior, I usually do so by appealing to their sense of personal pride and accomplishment; or to their willingness to rise to a challenge.  That personal pride and willingness to rise to a challenge is still out there, but increasingly I find it being replaced by a more bureaucratic mindset that wants to focus on all of the reason why we can’t do something instead of helping to figure out how we can do something.

Finally, characteristic number ten is capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand.  I used to joke that I was a chemical engineer, not a social engineer.  To a large extent that was true.  But from the perspective of a leader, I actually find it gratifying and enjoyable to engineer the necessary social interaction that gets the job done and allows people to have some fun along the way.  I delight in seeing relationships spring up and take hold within the context of an organizational construct or timely introduction that I have made.  I like to put the right people together in a team setting to achieve success.  But I play straight up.  What you see is what you get.  When faced with hidden agendas or disingenuous people, I have issues and these situations are where I am prone to losing my temper.  So I am always careful with social interaction systems to try to make sure that I’m seeing reality.

In Chapter Two, Northouse goes on the present a table of various other traits that different researchers have evolved.  I chose to concentrate on the ten characteristics identified above.  As I said at the outset, I believe more in the Skills Approach, where leadership abilities are open to everyone who truly desires to learn them.  In that vein, the ten "traits" that I have addressed above, to me, are actually skills that I have learned over the years from mentors, good bosses, and hard-won experience.

A511.1.3.RB_Vore_Dan

A511.1.3.RB_Vore_Dan

Leadership Is a Two Way Street That Can Be Life Changing

When I was a young Captain in the Air Force, I was assigned as the Team Lead for the Low Altitude Navigation and Infrared Targeting for Night (LANTIRN) Targeting Pod production program.  When I stepped into this role, the program was in terrible trouble.  The Company producing the Targeting Pods had only delivered 17 of them and they were in 15 different configurations.  Video issues plagued the performance of the pod, as did several mechanical and electrical problems.  The technical data was inaccurate and incomplete, the support equipment generally did not work, and the using command, while they loved the capability of the targeting pod, was complaining bitterly about their maintainability, reliability and performance in the field.  In short, things were a mess.  We had over 450 total pods to produce and with each new pod there seemed to come yet more new problems to add to the existing ones.

I began a series of reviews, including an extended trip to one operating location where the pods were being used on the F-15E aircraft.  I visited the intermediate-level maintenance shop where they had five pods in-house that were not working and which they could not fix with the existing technical data and support equipment.  I had them show me some of the examples and late that same evening, I called the Company VP and his Director of Maintenance and Logistics and told them to get on an airplane in the morning and that I would pick them up at the airport.  When they arrived, I took them straight to the “back shop”, had them take off their ties, roll up their sleeves, and try to diagnose and repair one of the pods using their tech data and support equipment.  Within about ten minutes, they threw up their hands.  I had their attention.

The Colonel for whom I worked at the time told me to pick someone within the Company to be my industry counterpart as their lead Program Director for the Targeting Pod Program.  I made my selection, that gentleman was promoted and handed the reins.  From the start, he was one of the best leaders with whom I have ever worked.  In a very real sense, we worked for each other.  Together, we had the responsibility to right the ship, and we had our work cut out for us.  We quickly agreed at the outset that together we would work on a handshake and that when we said we were going to do something, we could trust each other’s word that it would be done.  So how were we going to take this broken program, with a whole workforce that was demoralized (on the Company side), and several military organizations and offices (on my side) that were completely disillusioned and make it into a successful program?

This gentleman and I did a lot of talking, strategizing, and interviewing of several people on both sides of the table (USAF and Corporate).  Up to the point of my selecting this man to become the new Company Program Manager, the Company had gone through several of its top executives, engineers, logisticians, and production managers to no avail.  But we began to sift through all of the problems and issues and gradually some patterns began to emerge.  We also formed a lifelong friendship and healthy mutual respect for one another, the likes of which I have never since experienced.  A real, solid partnership emerged fairly quickly.

We hired two process control experts and paired them up with design engineers, manufacturing engineers, and logisticians.  We sat down with the folks on the manufacturing floor who actually built the targeting pods.  Likewise, we sat down with the folks who produced the support equipment and the technical data.  Following the guiding principles of Dr. W. Edwards Deming, we began to identify key processes and key variables where measurements were needed.  To make a long story short, we implemented a system-wide statistical process control system wherein the critical design variables that were identified by the design engineers were evaluated on the production line.  A whole new picture emerged, data was analyzed, processes were adjusted, tolerances were re-evaluated and adjusted as required, and the measurement criteria used for acceptance testing of the pods was aligned with the test variables and measurement techniques of the support equipment.  The technical data was overhauled and corrected.  In the end, we went from 15 configurations of pods to two, and we went from more than 18 months behind schedule to finish all 450-plus pods one year ahead of schedule, and the mission capable rate in the field, as well as overall performance was exceptional.

That’s a long story and a lot of technical detail to make the point that leadership is indeed a process.  It is a process of establishing mutual trust, mutual goals, of keeping those goals and indicators on how well you are doing visible to all people involved; to show everyone that necessary changes are being made and that they are achieving favorable results – that we are “winning”.  Winning is motivation.  Being on a winning team, solving difficult problems working shoulder-to-shoulder is motivation.  Morale skyrocketed as followers became justifiably proud of their efforts, their work, and their products.  And for the two of us as the leaders (myself and my Company counterpart), we learned more from the followers about the product, the manufacturing processes, and how to “fix” problems like this than we could have ever imagined.  On top of that, we got the privilege of directly implementing and experiencing the teachings of Dr. Deming and seeing the results.  As I worked with my Company counterpart, I get to learn how leadership works inside and industrial organization.  I learned more about leadership from that man than I have ever learned from anyone before or since.

As I said, my Company counterpart and I became lifelong friends.  In recognition of his efforts and successes, the Company promoted him to Vice President.  I saw him a couple of times when he came to The Pentagon to discuss what eventually became a Navy program to put targeting pods on F-14s.  Everyone won.  It was the most rewarding experience in my professional life.  Unfortunately, a few days before I was to travel to Orlando, where he and his wife and young daughter lived, to visit him, he died in a diving accident at the age of 54 (the same age that I am now).  So instead of going to his house for dinner, I went to his house for his wake and to express to his wife how terribly sorry I was about his very untimely death.  Leadership experiences, if you are very lucky, can come along that will change your life for the better and forever.  I was one of the lucky ones.

A500.9.3.RB_VoreDan

A500.9.3.RB_VoreDan

Course Reflections

I view my learning experiences in MSLD500 to have extremely high value.  I will probably repeat here entire sections of my comments from A500.9.2.DQ, Self-directed Learning, because I think that my earlier words apply to the questions asked here for Course Reflection.  As discussed in the Self-directed Learning writing assignment, a great deal of the value of this course lies in the manner in which it was structured and how that structure enhanced my own desire to dig in to the topics and direct my own learning.  This is the first online “classroom” experience for me.  Therefore, this is also my first, truly self-directed learning course and degree program.  Compared to my undergraduate degree experience (Michigan Tech, class of 1984), and my first Master’s program (Air Force Institute of Technology, Class of 1990), this degree program reflects a huge culture shift from what I was used to in academia.

Online, self-directed learning, which offered the ability to voice our own opinions, research topics of our own choosing (e.g., we weren't told what to research for our Action Research effort), and interact with the curriculum and our virtual classmates on our own terms was completely new to me.  At first, I was somewhat bewildered and a bit overwhelmed because I had never been exposed to this kind of learning environment, and with the relative freedom that we had for self-directed learning, well...it took some getting used to.  Sometimes, at least initially, that much freedom is difficult to handle.  But as I got used to it, and finally figured out that this was indeed how things were going to work, I came to like this approach much more than any previous programs.

As I get older, I have much less patience for the traditional lecture in a classroom setting.  I've had enough of that in previous degree programs and professional training.  As a general principle, I don't much care for "meetings".  What I prefer is that you tell me what you require, point me in a general direction, and let me go dig into it on my own time and to the degree I believe is warranted to maintain a high academic or professional standard.  I did the readings when it fit my weekly schedule, and I felt more motivated to push myself than I would have with the traditional "class-is-done-and-it’s-time-to-go-home" format.  In my last Master's program, I'll never forget the first day of statistics class when the Professor walked in, put his notes on the podium, looked at us, and said, "You all are going to get at least a 'B' in this class, so stop worrying and now show me what you can do."  I worked harder in that class (because I wanted to) than in any other.  My competition was with myself at that point.  I believe that the same general philosophy holds with self-directed learning.  You truly get out of it what you put into it.  At this point in my life, I believe it's the only way to truly get educated.  You don’t just talk about it, and answer some homework or test questions; instead you live it.

If there was one thing that Embry Riddle might have done slightly differently, it would have been to explain (perhaps in a short reading) how this self-directed, online course thing works.  While some may have already known what to expect, I was brand new to this approach and thus a bit “off balance” for the first week or two.  But maybe that’s an intentional part of the experience.  In retrospect, having to figure out how this course worked on my own was in itself a good and challenging learning experience.  And let me answer two more of the “prompt” questions right here: The University and the Instructor did a fine job on this course in every respect.  I also want to say that I was continuously impressed with the deliberate structure and method of this course where we didn’t “talk” about each topic (like critical thinking); instead we were immersed and we experienced each aspect directly.  We each had to figure it out; it was not spoon-fed to us.  Sure, we did some reading, but we were caught up in doing all of the things that we needed to learn and not just passively observing or hearing about each topic.  Additionally, I found this course to be cleverly designed to teach us about leadership from day one by putting us to work directly on tasks that reflect the kind of thinking and doing that any leader must be engaged in on a daily basis.

But the biggest thing that I got out of this course was a reinvigoration of lifelong learning.  In a way, lifelong learning is (and has been) a requirement in my profession; but I had lost the overall picture over the years and therefore sensed that my mind was stale.  Lifelong learning is a mantra for me now and this course has both reawakened me to my love of learning and to the critical importance of seeing this degree through to the end.  My Action Research dealt with Intellectual Perseverance, and if one develops such perseverance throughout life (because it's a journey, not a destination), then one will also develop a love of lifelong learning.  Going a step further, as I said in my Action Research report, a leader must be a lifelong learner.  There is no sitting back and thinking, "Okay, I know how to do the leader thing now."  No, everything is in a state of constant change.  Technology, the external environment, business practices, legal requirements, company policies, constraints…the entire corporate landscape continuously shifts beneath our feet.  If you're going to lead, you have to remain at the top of your game, and that means that you must continually learn, adapt, and thereby improve so that you can not only deal with the challenges of leadership but you can anticipate them.

I did not necessarily have this perspective, at least not to this extent, before taking this course.  This is one of the reasons that I decided to pursue another Master's degree; I wanted to see what new things were out there.  And this course, not unexpectedly, was right on target.  In fact, it far exceeded my expectations.  Critical Thinking, Intellectual Perseverance, Action Research, Lifelong Learning are the synergistic elements of Leadership.  I'm sure that as I proceed through this program, I will add other things to that list, but this course has certainly given me a solid foundation for all that is yet to come.  The things that we have been exposed to here, studied here, and done here are not just "coursework" activities.  They are the very things that leaders must do every day.  I've rarely seen any curriculum, or course, more directly and immediately applicable to my job, which is leadership.  The key thing that this course did, through self-directed learning is to add an entirely new dimension on top of what I have learned over a thirty-two-year career involving many leadership experiences and positions.  To me, this is how learning should be; the things taught (or, rather that we learned) in this course are now almost as second nature as breathing.  Through the work I have done here, I now have a framework, or roadmap on what leadership is.  Going forward, I foresee completing the map.

I expect, from the “preview” in MSLD500 to build upon these foundations, expand them, and to use the skills and concepts that we have learned here to complete the work that is to come.  I further expect now that each succeeding course in the MS in Leadership program will be designed in much the same clever, self-directed learning way.  I expect that we will continue to learn by doing and to enjoy the freedom to pursue the various topics to the places we want them to take us.  As I said above, we will each get out of this program exactly what we put into it.  And being self-directed, I will enjoy the freedom to delve into as many particulars as I want and especially those that deal directly with previous problems that I have faced, but perhaps never fully understood, in my leadership positions.