A Diversion

HA! Boy did it miss the mark (hat tip: Dave)... as surely anyone will know that I am far from an introvert...

I have to declare that I have completed the MBTI accreditation and do selectively use the instrument in support of some of my consultancy work. I find it quite useful in drawing out some of the differences that people display particularly around communication and mostly with regard to workplace harmony. (Mind you, I make no commercial gains conducting them as I my work is internal).

I take on board the issues raised in Skepdic but I also feel some sympathy for the readers. That being said I might take the liberty of offering my own $0.02. 

The use of the instrument as an absolute or final say in something as important as whether or not someone gets a job is quite abhorrent. I use the dichotomies that the instrument draws out merely as a means to draw out the normal variations in individual preferences and then as a platform to discuss group preferences. 

The main criticism that I personally have heard about MBTI is that people use the instrument as an excuse for the worst examples of behaviour attributed to the Type. Unfortunately, this has been a behaviour that I have witnessed myself. That being said, a well administered MBTI session (i.e. not one online, which lacks the various stages required to be anywhere near useful) should show the participant the ways to realise their strengths and manage their weaknesses, no matter how they are derived.

And how they are derived are hardly that concerning when someone identifies as an Extravert they might be more comfortable in large noisy groups and their weakness might be that sometimes they exclude those who identify as an Introvert... sounds fairly uncontroversial to me

On the shoulders of GIANTS

I was listening to a podcast from the Duke University public lectures from iTunesU (the podcast is titled Values-Based Leadership, sorry I can't work out how to link directly to it). For me this podcast has probably done what the Leadership Exchange was meant to... I am definitely inspired after listening to it. I can recommend that you hunt it down and have a listen (or a watch, there is a vodcast too)

But it did lead me to question how often do we acknowledge those giants? There has been discussion in our organisation about getting in touch with our former members, but as yet nothing meaningful has been done. I would like to see not just a list of names and numbers but some interactions, maybe presentations at the Annual Conference or get togethers in the regions... I think personalising the giants is the first step to standing on their shoulders...

The Superheroes

For the last week I have been playing on a Leadership Exchange and whilst I am not going to go into my frustrations with the Mice right now, I will introduce you to my little friends...

Introducing Captain Common Sense, Logic Man and Sir Sarcastic... feel free to call on them as you need.

The Yin-Yang of it

Alot of organisational change and focus is centred in Changing the Culture in a so-called positive way. I put to you the traditional change management principles of conversion through enthusiastic souls. By this I mean identifying Change Champions, and influencing Opinion Leaders and so forth. When the process is called out in this way, it sounds kind of sinister... In fact it reminds me of an atheist tale.

So then what of the counter-culture (I am looking for a better name for it)? We kind of know about this, I mean our anxiety must on average be correct some of the time when we suspect that everything is not fine... That sometimes the attitude at the proverbial watercooler is a little different to the 'Everything is awesome, Boss'... So what of this counter culture?

The current approach is to first try to convert them, picking off the weaker resistors, then claim the remaining Neutral ones and cry VICTORY in the name of Goodness!

I pose that the counterculture is equal in importance and represent some different views, are you so sure that your plan can withstand the critique? If not, then allow the plan to be improved... If so put it to the test... How? Encourage the questions...

To what end? We seem to be comfortable that things find their equilibrium, yet for some reason in organisations we engage in change that is out of balance...

Equilibrium does not mean stagnation, I think if we look around everything is changing and rebalancing thus why should an organisation be different? At any given time a thing may be in balance but over time it responds to its environment, thus change is inevitable...

So my thoughts are to embrace this so-thought darker side, otherwise an equal and opposite force will meet you in a less favourable way.

Hierarchy

I recall as a high school student being allowed to do work experience at the Gympie station of the Queensland Ambulance Service. The majority of the work was mundane but I did get to spend sometime with an early form of mentor. He and I had a discussion at one point about hierarchies and how people will go and look for a 'person in charge'. he observed a similar behaviour through his experience that went something like

'... we were out at a crash scene and this was after we had change our rank insignia to all look the same. It seemed that people would go up to the oldest looking member of the team to ask questions but in fact he was only qualified as a driver and not really able to help with the queries.'

I think that hierarchies are a natural thing that we rely on and are probably linked to our idea of family that in case of emergency head toward the grey hair. But there are always exceptions known experts (medicine men), known Confidence men (Charlatans), Dominant types (Alpha) and influencers (the King's Physician). I think that these roles tie into crews but I will await Dave's thoughts to fully emerge before I come back to my application. I think that these roles run deep... and can be used in many and varied ways

With all of this in mind, I was told by a friend that when I see anything to do with the Public Sector (particularly the Military) I just zone out thinking it is not relevant? I would really like to hear some thoughts on matrix organisations and hidden hierarchies formation?

Mind you I don't think that all of the archetypes are brought out in the open when the hierarchy is ritualised it just gives you a map.

Values Based Leadership and Emergence

A conversation about values-based leadership recently had me thinking about emergence, surely this values-based leadership has something more to it than Walking the Talk. This conversation irked me a little as the experienced guy spoke about pulling out this card with the values on it, reading it and then doing something inspired by that... I found this no different than rules based operations, for the blind adherence of idiots and the guidance of the wise... I would reference that, but not sure who to attribute it to.

Aspirational values are a lovely to have and serve as a gross-error check to see if you are really aligned to the organisation. In most cases they are fairly generic and reflective of some societally aspirational values. I suggest then that managing the environment and not the tasks is actually more of values-based leadership. The fact is despite what is on the wall the values of the workplace are often not nearly as aspirational as the writing on the wall. I daresay that during the job hunt or choosing an employee a fair bit of value-based decision making goes on but once the employee-relations is sorted, the values probably fall into a more natural order of seeking the lowest energy method for achieving the optimum outcome given the parameters (i.e. reward structure, workplace layout, regulations and consequences). Thinking about values reminds me of the Dave Snowden story of his daughter's birthday party... they should be monitored so that the good ones are encouraged and the bad ones cancelled out.

I put to you that sometimes the real values of the workplace are knocking off early on a Friday and if you have to look at a card in your wallet you might not really get it.