Good to Great Principles

            This week we are going to cover a short piece of writing by Jim Collins called “Good to Great and the Social Sectors”.  It was a very interesting read and addressed the steps that non-profits, government organizations, charities, etc. should take in order to become great.  Collins starts out by saying that the principle that the primary path to greatness is to become more like business (2005).  When he said this to a group of top executives from the business sector he did not get a very good reception.  A member of his audience spoke up and said that he has noticed most non-profits or charities need a greater level of discipline (Collins, 2005).  Of course the businessman in the audience considered discipline to be a concept of business.  Collins did not quite see it that way and said that “greater discipline is not a business principle, but a principle of greatness” (2005, p. 1).  Collins then points out five principles that he says will make you good to great.

            The first Good to Great principle is Defining “Great”- Calibrating Success Without Business Metrics.  Collins says the basic idea is to separate inputs and outputs while holding yourself accountable for the success of the outputs (2005).  The discussion of inputs versus outputs will come up in other subjects such as strategic management.  An example of an input would be the number of homeless people helped by a program.  An output would be the percentage of the homeless people helped that are no longer homeless.  An input is what you do and the output is the results.  In this principle, Collins is saying the outputs need to be identified, separated from the inputs, and success measured by the outputs (2005).

            The second Good to Great principle is Level 5 Leadership- Getting Things Done Within a Diffuse Power Structure.  Collins defines a diffuse power structure as one where no individual leader has enough power to make the big decisions on their own (2005).  An example of this would be the Federal Government.  The President cannot make the really big decisions like going to war or selecting a new Supreme Court Justice without the approval of Congress.  Congress needs the President to sign the laws that it passes and needs a greater majority to override the President.  Persuasion, political currency, and shared interests are required for the right decisions to happen (Collins, 2005).  Obviously if level 5 leadership is required there are 4 levels below it.  The image below shows the different levels of the Level 5 Hierarchy.

Source: Collins, J. (2005). “Good to great and the social sectors: A monograph to accompany good to great”. Jim Collins.

            The third Good to Great Principle is First Who- Getting the Right People on the Bus, Within Social Sector Constraints.  Collins explains this principle by using a story of a teacher that becomes promoted to department head.  When the teacher became department head he had the power to deny tenure.  He changed the thought of tenure from getting it if you don’t mess up to not getting it unless you do great (Collins, 2005).  He changed the expectations of tenure from just getting by and getting it to having to succeed.  The department head used his ability to deny tenure to get rid of the wrong people and open up positions for the right ones (Collins, 2005).  This is an issue in my current organization as well.  The highest level of pay is basically guaranteed to us as long as we don’t mess up and the union makes it difficult to fire under performers.  Concentrating on hiring the best people for the job is more successful than trying to motivate employees that are not motivated or are undisciplined (Collins, 2005). 

            The fourth Good to Great Principle is The Hedgehog Concept- Rethinking the Economic Engine Without a Profit Motive.  Non-profits, charities, government organizations, etc. are obviously not-for-profit entities.  They do not have a built-in success variable that for-profits organizations have.  According to Collins, the hedgehog concept is identifying clarity about how to produce the best results and maintaining discipline to say no to opportunities that do not pass the hedgehog test (Collins, 2005).  Basically what Collins is saying is that an organization should identify the best way to achieve the best long-term results and reject anything that will not achieve that goal. 

            The fifth and final Good to Great principle is Turning the Flywheel- Building Momentum by Building the Brand.  Collins says that building a great organization is like turning a large flywheel where it starts out very difficult but you keep turning and as the momentum builds it will eventually turn itself (Collins, 2005).  It is very difficult to start a small business or organization, but the more persistent you are at “turning the flywheel” the easier it gets until one day it is operating almost on its own.  I worked in an auto part factory and getting the machines calibrated correctly was the most difficult part.  However, the more we worked at it the better it became.  Pretty soon the machines would be operating flawlessly and making a perfect part every minute.  The initial push is difficult, but persistence and effort will pay off in the end.  Brand reputation is a key link to the flywheel effect for the social sector according to Collins (2005).  Collins asks the question if Harvard is really a better education than other schools, but then points out that it doesn’t matter and the Harvard reputation makes it easier for them to raise funds (2005). 

            Collins makes many good points on how to become a great organization in the social sector.  Not-for-profit organizations have challenges that for-profit businesses do not.  It is important to be able to identify the different challenges and the best ways to deal with them.  Business may be able to operate more efficiently than government in some aspects, but they also do not operate under the same constraints.  Some projects are made for the private sector while others for the public sector. 

Reference:

Collins, J. (2005). “Good to great and the social sectors: A monograph to accompany good to great”. Jim Collins.

Gender and Leadership

Source: Colorado Women's College. (2013). Retrieved from     http://womenscollege.du.edu/benchmarking-womens-leadership/

            Gender studies in leadership is something that I find very interesting.  My background as a submariner in the Navy, before the allowed women to serve on submarines, did not give me many chances to work with female leaders.  Even before I joined the Navy I mainly dealt with male leaders because they were the coaches of my sports teams.  I did not really encounter females in leadership positions until I went to work for the Department of Veteran’s Affairs after graduating college.  Since then I have worked with many women who hold leadership positions that are fairly high up the organizational ladder. 

            It is difficult to understand how there are not more women in leadership positons, but there is quite a bit of research that tries to explain lack of women in higher up positions.  It has been said that women navigate something called a leadership labyrinth which is full of challenges for women during the span of their careers (Eagly & Carli, 2007).  Women face much different challenges than men do in most organizations at being recognized as leaders.  Recent research has found some different explanations for the lack of women in top leadership positions. 

            The first explanation given as to why women are not as represented as they should be in higher level leadership positions is that women invest less in human capital such as education, training, and work experience (Eagly & Carli, 2004, 2007).  This argument does not make a lot of sense when someone looks at the education statistics.  Women earn 57% of the bachelor’s degrees, 60% of the master’s degrees, and more than half of the doctoral degrees (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2011).  It could be argued that the advanced degrees women earn would not likely put them in leadership positions of Fortune 500 companies and it may be true.  My experiences tell me that many women will get master’s degrees in fields such as teaching and nursing.  Master’s degrees in those fields usually do not have a natural career path to become a CEO or sitting on a board, but that still does not mean women invest less in human capital.

            The second explanation given is the differences in leadership styles between men and women (Northouse, 2016).  I have not noticed this as much in my personal career.  I have noticed more of a difference between the leaders I encountered in the military versus in the civilian sector.  Some studies have actually shown that the difference in leadership style for women is actually more effective in today’s society while others show that gender does not affect style at all (Northouse, 2016).  Regardless of whether or not women are more effective or just as effective, it still does not explain the discrepancy of women in top leadership positions.  The fact that women are less likely to promote themselves when it comes to filling leadership positions may have an effect on why they do not get promoted as often (Bowles & McGinn, 2005). 

            The final explanation given is that of prejudice.  There are different stereotypes of men and women that create biases and lead to expectations that men take charge and women take care (Hoyt & Chemers, 2008).  There are stereotypes of everyone and sometimes we do not even realize we have them.  Some of the stereotypes found were that men are confident, assertive, independent, rational, and decisive while women show concern for others, are sensitive, show warmth, are helpful, and nurture (Deaux & Kite, 1993).  I would be lying if I said I have not had some of these stereotypes at one point or another in my life.  Growing up my mother held most of those stereotypes and my father the others.  Being around women in leadership has shown me that there are no limits to the traits a person can have regardless of gender. 

            Organizations are starting to make it easier for women to reach the top positions (Northouse, 2016).  I have noticed this in my current position working for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Positons that are very high up are mainly filled by women.  The Regional Commissioner of the BLS in Atlanta, GA is held by a woman.  The survey that I work on is called the National Compensation Survey and the commissioner is a woman.  Even the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a woman.  These are three examples of how my organization has shown it is willing to hire women to the top leadership positions.  I just hope when it is my time to try for one of those positions they will be willing to give a man the job. 

References:

Bowles, H. R., & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Claiming authority: Negotiating challenges for women leaders. In D. M. Messick & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), The psychology of leadership: New perspectives and research (pp. 191–208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Deaux, K., & Kite, M. (1993). Gender stereotypes. In F. L. Denmark & M. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of theory and issues (pp. 107–139). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2004). Women and men as leaders. In J. Antonakis, R. J. Sternberg, & A. T. Cianciolo (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 279–301). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Hoyt, C. L., & Chemers, M. M. (2008). Social stigma and leadership: A long climb up a slippery ladder. In C. L. Hoyt, G. R. Goethals, & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Leadership at the crossroads: Leadership and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 165–180). Westport, CT: Praeger.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Table 317: Bachelor’s, master’s, and doctor’s degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, by sex of student and discipline division: 2010–11. Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_317.asp

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ethics In Leadership

This week I thought it would be interesting to explore ethics in leadership as it pertains to Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development.  An interesting method I thought of using to do this is for me to retrace my development as a leader from the time I left for Navy Recruit Training until I separated from the military and beyond.  I am going to attempt to relate different stages in my time in the military to stages in Kohlberg's model.  I will also give examples of different leadership behaviors of people that helped me grow from one stage to the next and how they relate to the model.  First I think it is best to discuss the importance of ethics in leadership and talk about little about Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development.  

The study of leadership ethics is a relatively new concept with one of the earliest writings specifically on the subject being published as soon as 1996 (Northouse, 2016).  This is interesting considering how important ethics are to being a good leader and earning the respect of followers.  Leaders have a large influence over their followers and it is important for them to practice good morals and ethics since they usually set the tone for organizational values (Northouse, 2016).  Kohlberg (1984) came up with a model to explain the different stages of moral development in people.  I believe those stages can be applied to how leaders will go through different stages in their development as a leader.  The different stages of moral development are (Northouse, 2016):

• Level 1:  Preconventional Morality
• Stage 1:  Obeying rules means avoiding punishment
• Stage 2:  Action is right if it serves yourself
• Level 2:  Conventional Morality
• Stage 3:  Makes moral choices conforming to the expectations of others and society
• Stage 4:  Makes moral decisions based on what is best for society as a whole. 
• Level 3:  Postconventional Morality
• Stage 5:  Makes moral choices based on views of what a good society should be like
• Stage 6:  Moral reasoning based on individualized principles

The first stage I want to look at is the preconventional stage.  When I arrived at boot camp my mentality was to do whatever they told me to avoid getting into trouble.  I did not have any desire to challenge the authority of my supervisors and everything I did was to avoid punishment.  At this point I was in stage 1.  The majority of people in this basic training are in this stage of moral development on their journey to being leaders in the military.  Any previous beliefs or morals were set aside in order to make it out of a very difficult time.  The second stage was the shortest stage for me while serving in the military.  In this stage I refused to conform to what others wanted me to do unless I could see a direct benefit to me.  I made choices based on what was in my best interest at the time regardless of what was expected from others and what was best for the organization.  Fortunately for me I had leaders that cared about my future and I was not in that stage very long.  

One leader that influenced me to start doing what was expected of me was my first direct supervisor once I got to the submarine.  He had a discussion with me about how he got to where he was by simply doing what was expected of him.  At this point in his career he was very young for his position and still in stage 3.  He helped me to realize that doing what was expected of me in my current position was the right thing to do.  As I grew and accepted more leadership roles I moved on the stage 4 and did what was best for my division and my ship.  Some examples of this would be working extra hours to get qualified watches to ease the workload of others in my division or volunteering to do extra work so everyone could go home at a reasonable hour.  Once I started showing the initiative to help out for the collective good I started to be given more responsibility and also more respect.  I was at the point where I had enough influence to challenge the status quo and my superiors would listen.

Toward the end of my career I started to use my influence to change the way things were done for the better.  I wouldn't have started trying to change things had it not been for a new supervisor the challenged the way we did things and made us a better division because of it.  This new supervisor went against what his superiors and subordinates said and did things the way he believed no matter the consequences.  The challenges he received from those all around him did not influence his decisions because he knew what he believed and he ended up being right.  He would challenge me to do the same and put me in situations where I could change things to how I thought they should be.  I would be more likely to not do things a certain way because I didn't feel it was right and succeeded in changing some procedures for how we did things.  

There were only one or two times where I exhibited behaviors of stage 6 during my time in the Navy. My rank did not give me the authority to act the way I believed when it came to following certain rules and procedures.  There was one time where a younger sailor in my division did something that was completely wrong and so bad he could have gotten discharged from the military.  Everyone was talking about what he had done and what was likely to happen to him because of it.  I agreed what he had done was wrong and he shouldn't' have done it, but he was provoked by others that had influence over him.  This person was not very well liked and he was not given much of a chance to succeed.  It was almost like people were wanting to find a reason to get rid of him.  When asked my opinion of the situation I stood my ground in that I believed he should be given a legitimate chance to improve.  I received push back from my supervisors and some of my best friends, but I never backed down.  Luckily for me another guy in my division who had similar influence was with me.  We knew what he did was wrong and it was against everything we had been taught, but we also believed that he deserved a second chance given the particular circumstances.  

One thing I noticed from my time in the military is the higher I went on the stages of development, the more respect I received.  I was a favorite among the younger sailors because I would take up for them if I believed in them and I would do what was good for the group.  Many other people at a similar level to me would give all the work to the junior guys to benefit them and they were not very well respected.  Displaying ethics in leadership is important because it is likely to gain the respect of your followers and they will be more willing to do what is needed to achieve the goals of the organization.  

References:

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development, Vol. 2. The       psychology of moral development. New York: Harper & Row.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand oaks: Sage Publications.