Sorry I wasn't in class on 27 February.
However, I do have the proposed job descriptions for the people group. It needs work!
Proposed Job Descriptions for the People Group:
People Group Mission: need input
Group Leader: Responsible for coordination between other group leaders and the instructor. Oversees the work done in the various committees. Makes most assignments to committees. Selects committee leaders.
Job Description Committee: Responsible for defining the jobs in every group. Should seek the input of group leaders when defining responsibilities. Decides how many people should be allotted to the various groups. 2-3 people.
Performance Committee: Joint venture with people from other committees but should probably be overseen by someone from the People group. 2-3 people.
Long-term Networking Committee: Sets up a method for maintaining contact with class members after the semester is finished for the purpose of networking. 2 people.
Curriculum Committee: Works with the instructor to approve curriculum and set out goals for learning in the class. Very important this semester, however, there may be less importance tied to this committee once Clark and Young becomes more institutionalized.
Relationship/Personal Threshold: need input
Knowledge Committee: Records and preserves the knowledge gained during the semester. Will then publish the information (i.e. on CD, web site, etc.) for future reference for class members.
Liaisons: Work with other groups to ensure that everyone in the group is aware of what is going on in other groups, thus ensuring that Clark and Young is a well-oiled machine.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Insights for 22 February 2007
Random thought that I wrote down during class: People can be reliant upon positive feedback without being achievement focused. As long as they receive positive feedback they will not feel the need to achieve. However, these people will not genuinely feel about themselves, in spite of receiving positive feedback. This is because they are living a double life; they are not achieving while still receiving praise for their minimal achievements. They will feel guilty about this. The better thing to do is to be more achievement focused.
I think it is important to let people set their own deadlines and standards. When they do this, they will be more committed to doing the work. The best way to do this, I believe, is through expectation interviews. An expectation interview is where a manager/leader outlines the needs, resources, and expectations that he or she has of a person. Then, they discuss how something will be completed. Then together they set goals and standards, with the interviewee actually verbalizing the goals and standards. This way, they actually set the rules for themselves and feel like it is something they are doing rather than an imposed mandate.
I cannot overemphasize the need for councils. Working in groups to make decisions is by far the best way to go.
I think it is important to let people set their own deadlines and standards. When they do this, they will be more committed to doing the work. The best way to do this, I believe, is through expectation interviews. An expectation interview is where a manager/leader outlines the needs, resources, and expectations that he or she has of a person. Then, they discuss how something will be completed. Then together they set goals and standards, with the interviewee actually verbalizing the goals and standards. This way, they actually set the rules for themselves and feel like it is something they are doing rather than an imposed mandate.
I cannot overemphasize the need for councils. Working in groups to make decisions is by far the best way to go.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Insights for 20 February 2007
I am very pleased with the way the class is going right now. I have realized that although we may not have a textbook and that things have seemed a little crazy, that I have still learned a fair amount (at least, I hope it is a fair amount.) My education usually comes in moments like blogging, where I actually have to cohesively state what I have learned. So, I have found a reason for blooging and writing information down. I learn a great deal by writing because it forces me to think. I suspect that this would apply to everybody.
I came to the conclusion that we will have to rely a great deal on each other. We have multiple committee assignments and obviously won’t be able to be present for all our meetings because we’ll be in different meetings. This will require us to be willing to share knowledge and support each other.
I also believe that we have perhaps turned ourselves into little cliques. It is good for our own group morale, but I think we could have the same feeling throughout the class. I think that we could fix this by making a concerted effort to communicate with people from other groups. As a class, I think we ought to make sure that we are all on the same page, and be open with our information and ideas. Remember, “it is only through the collision of adverse opinions that we have any chance of finding the truth.” –John Stuart Mill
Money. I am a minimalist when it comes to money in business and government. Instead of trying to see how much money we can get, lets try to see how little we can spend and still do a good job. In Elder Eyring’s devotional that we watched, he said that the University will try to do more with less money. President Clark has made similar statements. I think we ought to do our part and minimize the amount of spending we do. Seriously, I have strong emotions (nearing anger) when I see money spent frivolously by companies and governments.
I came to the conclusion that we will have to rely a great deal on each other. We have multiple committee assignments and obviously won’t be able to be present for all our meetings because we’ll be in different meetings. This will require us to be willing to share knowledge and support each other.
I also believe that we have perhaps turned ourselves into little cliques. It is good for our own group morale, but I think we could have the same feeling throughout the class. I think that we could fix this by making a concerted effort to communicate with people from other groups. As a class, I think we ought to make sure that we are all on the same page, and be open with our information and ideas. Remember, “it is only through the collision of adverse opinions that we have any chance of finding the truth.” –John Stuart Mill
Money. I am a minimalist when it comes to money in business and government. Instead of trying to see how much money we can get, lets try to see how little we can spend and still do a good job. In Elder Eyring’s devotional that we watched, he said that the University will try to do more with less money. President Clark has made similar statements. I think we ought to do our part and minimize the amount of spending we do. Seriously, I have strong emotions (nearing anger) when I see money spent frivolously by companies and governments.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Insights from 15 February 2007
Insights from 15 February 2007
Class was a little shorter than usual today, but I still got a couple of good things out of it. For one, I really appreciated Ben’s leadership style (and I am not kissing up!) I like the way that he is staying positive even when it can be frustrating. I also noticed that he doesn’t act like an arrogant dictator but rather looks for other’s ideas and support. Go Ben. Hopefully we can implement this into our own leadership activities.
I have had an idea bouncing around my head lately that has really been bothering me and I got to talk to Brother Adams about it today. My question/moral dilemma was: How can a company run another entity out of business and still feel good about themselves? Is it right to create such a stranglehold on an industry that nobody else can survive in it, especially if your sole purpose is for power or money? After talking with Brother Adams, I took away a couple ideas. Bro. Adams explained that if somebody were to focus just on beating the competition, they would lose sight of the customer. When they lose sight of the customer, their products are no longer designed for the customer but to be better than something else. Eventually, this business will fail because they no longer care about the customer. I had an idea as well. I believe that we are on the earth to help others and make others have the greatest possibility for happiness and enjoyment of their life. So, if you start up a business with the purpose of benefiting others, then your reasons for starting a business are moral and good. If you happen to make loads of money as a result of this (because your product allows people to have a more pleasurable life) that is great. However, if one starts a business for the sole intent of becoming rich, this is not moral and wrong. In this case, the focus is only upon one’s self. This is a strong case of egoism, or, just doing whatever benefits you the most.
Class was a little shorter than usual today, but I still got a couple of good things out of it. For one, I really appreciated Ben’s leadership style (and I am not kissing up!) I like the way that he is staying positive even when it can be frustrating. I also noticed that he doesn’t act like an arrogant dictator but rather looks for other’s ideas and support. Go Ben. Hopefully we can implement this into our own leadership activities.
I have had an idea bouncing around my head lately that has really been bothering me and I got to talk to Brother Adams about it today. My question/moral dilemma was: How can a company run another entity out of business and still feel good about themselves? Is it right to create such a stranglehold on an industry that nobody else can survive in it, especially if your sole purpose is for power or money? After talking with Brother Adams, I took away a couple ideas. Bro. Adams explained that if somebody were to focus just on beating the competition, they would lose sight of the customer. When they lose sight of the customer, their products are no longer designed for the customer but to be better than something else. Eventually, this business will fail because they no longer care about the customer. I had an idea as well. I believe that we are on the earth to help others and make others have the greatest possibility for happiness and enjoyment of their life. So, if you start up a business with the purpose of benefiting others, then your reasons for starting a business are moral and good. If you happen to make loads of money as a result of this (because your product allows people to have a more pleasurable life) that is great. However, if one starts a business for the sole intent of becoming rich, this is not moral and wrong. In this case, the focus is only upon one’s self. This is a strong case of egoism, or, just doing whatever benefits you the most.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Insights from 13 February 2007
Insights from 13 February 2007
From Tuesday’s class I realized that change starts with me. Brother Adams emphasized this, and I am glad he did. I have grown a little tired of the negativity that seems to exist in our class. I often will find myself annoyed with other people and our overall lack of progress as a class. However, today I realized that my negativity will get us no where. If I choose to be negative and constantly critical, nothing constructive will come about. If I choose to be positive and optimistic, then the likelihood of good things happening is much higher, even if it takes awhile. As an individual, team, or organization, our self-fulfilling prophecies will surely come to pass.
Beginning with the end in mind: The 11-year goals sheet is an awesome idea. When we know what we are working for, and we are dedicated to a cause, then it becomes easier to want to suffer now for the end goal. If we don’t have the end in mind, then all suffering that we currently go through seems meaningless and it will be easy to give up.
My final insight is to include others. Sometimes there are those that will withdraw from the group. That is not a good thing. One of my philosophies is that a society has a responsibility to itself, whether the society is a class, a business, a nation, or the world. We are put here to help others out. In lifting others, we lift our society, which in turn lifts one’s self.
From Tuesday’s class I realized that change starts with me. Brother Adams emphasized this, and I am glad he did. I have grown a little tired of the negativity that seems to exist in our class. I often will find myself annoyed with other people and our overall lack of progress as a class. However, today I realized that my negativity will get us no where. If I choose to be negative and constantly critical, nothing constructive will come about. If I choose to be positive and optimistic, then the likelihood of good things happening is much higher, even if it takes awhile. As an individual, team, or organization, our self-fulfilling prophecies will surely come to pass.
Beginning with the end in mind: The 11-year goals sheet is an awesome idea. When we know what we are working for, and we are dedicated to a cause, then it becomes easier to want to suffer now for the end goal. If we don’t have the end in mind, then all suffering that we currently go through seems meaningless and it will be easy to give up.
My final insight is to include others. Sometimes there are those that will withdraw from the group. That is not a good thing. One of my philosophies is that a society has a responsibility to itself, whether the society is a class, a business, a nation, or the world. We are put here to help others out. In lifting others, we lift our society, which in turn lifts one’s self.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Insights for 8 February 2007
The drawing relates to my second comment.
Last class was…interesting…
“Only by the collision of adverse opinions do we have any chance of finding the truth.” –John Stuart Mill, it probably isn’t the exact quote, but the general idea is there. No one person has the right idea. One person is incapable of having the whole truth. When there are two opposing views, the correct/ best answer is probably in the middle. It requires two people who are willing to work with each other and to be equally open to persuasion in order to make the best decision. Why do you think the bishops of the Church have counselors? Why does the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles meet as a council to make decisions? It is because the collective knowledge, skills, and ideas are greater than one person can possess on their own. In these initial stages of start up, it is important that we recognize that there will and should be debate. This debate need not be angry or high-spirited, but there will be people that disagree with you and that is okay. I do not have a monopoly on the truth and neither does any other person. We may have good ideas and strong opinions, but we need to be willing to change our minds if there is something better than what we have in mind.
Having said this, here is one of my ideas (open to correction!) The way the Church organizes the missions is an example of an adhocracy. If the mission president (or the Lord, really) needs a certain type of missionary as a district leader in one area, he can call him to that position. If he needs another type of missionary to serve in a struggling branch, he can move that missionary there. If he no longer needs a certain type of missionary to be his assistant, he can release him and call a different missionary. And in the Church, generally people are alright with that. But when it comes to the corporate world, many are not alright with this method because they want to remain in power, regardless of what is best for the company or community. I drew the little diagram to illustrate the communication channels of a mission. I think our little firm should have essentially the same structure. I know my idea isn’t complete and I feel like I need to sit back and think on it a bit, but I am going to post it as is with the hopes that it will improve over time.
Last class was…interesting…
“Only by the collision of adverse opinions do we have any chance of finding the truth.” –John Stuart Mill, it probably isn’t the exact quote, but the general idea is there. No one person has the right idea. One person is incapable of having the whole truth. When there are two opposing views, the correct/ best answer is probably in the middle. It requires two people who are willing to work with each other and to be equally open to persuasion in order to make the best decision. Why do you think the bishops of the Church have counselors? Why does the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles meet as a council to make decisions? It is because the collective knowledge, skills, and ideas are greater than one person can possess on their own. In these initial stages of start up, it is important that we recognize that there will and should be debate. This debate need not be angry or high-spirited, but there will be people that disagree with you and that is okay. I do not have a monopoly on the truth and neither does any other person. We may have good ideas and strong opinions, but we need to be willing to change our minds if there is something better than what we have in mind.
Having said this, here is one of my ideas (open to correction!) The way the Church organizes the missions is an example of an adhocracy. If the mission president (or the Lord, really) needs a certain type of missionary as a district leader in one area, he can call him to that position. If he needs another type of missionary to serve in a struggling branch, he can move that missionary there. If he no longer needs a certain type of missionary to be his assistant, he can release him and call a different missionary. And in the Church, generally people are alright with that. But when it comes to the corporate world, many are not alright with this method because they want to remain in power, regardless of what is best for the company or community. I drew the little diagram to illustrate the communication channels of a mission. I think our little firm should have essentially the same structure. I know my idea isn’t complete and I feel like I need to sit back and think on it a bit, but I am going to post it as is with the hopes that it will improve over time.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
BLOGGING ISN'T AS HARD AS WE TRY TO MAKE IT!
Okay, blogging isn't that hard. I had no clue what to do at the beginning of this class. I hardly even knew what a blog was. However, by just being patient, reading and perserverance, I feel like I have been able to become a successful blogger and feel fairly confident about the whole thing. It really isn't that bad.
6 February 2007 Insights- A rather revealing day
Insights for 6 February 2007
I cannot emphasize how much the level of dysfunction graph impressed me. I believe that it is very relevant to any organization. I also liked the explanations of what dysfunctional behaviors are. Whenever I begin exhibiting some of those behaviors, I can look at what is building to my dysfunction and try to rectify the problems. Also, when I see others who have the same problems, I can show empathy instead of frustration with them and attempt to help them cope with the events that lead to their frustration.
I also realized during this class period that I need to worry less about being perfect all the time, especially when I am new to something. I like the levels of progression: forming, storming, norming, performing, and then adjourning. It made me realize that when I begin a project, I should not expect to master it straight away. By knowing this, I can reduce my stress levels and teach this same concept to others.
We also made a list of all the stressors that can affect BYU-Idaho students. The list was pretty long and comprehensive. I can make a similar list for myself. By doing this, I can identify specific issues that are elevating my stress and anxiety levels. Once the identification is made, I can begin to address the issues at hand. This principle has universal application.
I cannot emphasize how much the level of dysfunction graph impressed me. I believe that it is very relevant to any organization. I also liked the explanations of what dysfunctional behaviors are. Whenever I begin exhibiting some of those behaviors, I can look at what is building to my dysfunction and try to rectify the problems. Also, when I see others who have the same problems, I can show empathy instead of frustration with them and attempt to help them cope with the events that lead to their frustration.
I also realized during this class period that I need to worry less about being perfect all the time, especially when I am new to something. I like the levels of progression: forming, storming, norming, performing, and then adjourning. It made me realize that when I begin a project, I should not expect to master it straight away. By knowing this, I can reduce my stress levels and teach this same concept to others.
We also made a list of all the stressors that can affect BYU-Idaho students. The list was pretty long and comprehensive. I can make a similar list for myself. By doing this, I can identify specific issues that are elevating my stress and anxiety levels. Once the identification is made, I can begin to address the issues at hand. This principle has universal application.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Insights from 1 February
The necessity of a purpose: I will admit to bieng slightly confused and not suer where we were really headed in the class. I wasn't angry about it, but just slightly frustrated because I wasn't sure of the expectations. However, after Brother Adams outlined the desired results for the class, I felt much reassured. I fell that once I knew what my purpose was, I have a stronger desire to work hard and to learn. I now know what I should be learning as a result of this class.
Ever since I have heard of the Stephen R. Covey's steps to interdependence, I have tried to follow them. We can be so much more productive by being in the interdependent stage. I especially like the idea of synergy-combining energy with others to create more than we could alone, or as a disjointed group. When synergy occurs, 1+1=3.
Ever since I have heard of the Stephen R. Covey's steps to interdependence, I have tried to follow them. We can be so much more productive by being in the interdependent stage. I especially like the idea of synergy-combining energy with others to create more than we could alone, or as a disjointed group. When synergy occurs, 1+1=3.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
30 January 2007
Insights for 30 January 2007
The principle of stewardship delegation is very important in providing people with a sense of purpose. On my mission, we were trained in giving “expectation interviews” which were interviews to explain the responsibilities of one’s stewardship. In these interviews, I would use the same basic format found in the steps for stewardship delegation. The principles used there can apply to the “real world” as well.
It is important to understand who has stake in the success of a company or program. When we know who the stakeholders are, then we know who is affected. When we know who is affected, then we know who we have leverage with to receive help. Identifying the stakeholders also helps us to see how interconnected everybody is. My success is dependent on others support, and other’s success is dependent upon my support. Therefore, in order for me to have optimum success, I should support others as much as possible.
To optimize the whole the parts cannot all be optimized. Therefore, parts must be sub-optimized. This is a true principle, wherever we go. To use an analogy, we could talk about a football team. A coach could spend all his time training the quarterback, and never work with anybody else. As a result, the linemen wouldn’t block, the receivers wouldn’t catch, and there would be no point to having a good quarterback. However, if the coach spread his time throughout the team, they could work together as a whole and hopefully be good.
The principle of stewardship delegation is very important in providing people with a sense of purpose. On my mission, we were trained in giving “expectation interviews” which were interviews to explain the responsibilities of one’s stewardship. In these interviews, I would use the same basic format found in the steps for stewardship delegation. The principles used there can apply to the “real world” as well.
It is important to understand who has stake in the success of a company or program. When we know who the stakeholders are, then we know who is affected. When we know who is affected, then we know who we have leverage with to receive help. Identifying the stakeholders also helps us to see how interconnected everybody is. My success is dependent on others support, and other’s success is dependent upon my support. Therefore, in order for me to have optimum success, I should support others as much as possible.
To optimize the whole the parts cannot all be optimized. Therefore, parts must be sub-optimized. This is a true principle, wherever we go. To use an analogy, we could talk about a football team. A coach could spend all his time training the quarterback, and never work with anybody else. As a result, the linemen wouldn’t block, the receivers wouldn’t catch, and there would be no point to having a good quarterback. However, if the coach spread his time throughout the team, they could work together as a whole and hopefully be good.
Friday, January 26, 2007
25 January 2007
Insights for 25 January 2007
My first insight isn’t necessarily from something that happened in class today but is something that I have realized as we have worked in this class. One of the reasons that groups or organizations can be difficult to work in is that often people will understand words or directions in different ways. For one example, we had the word “courage” on the board when talking about win-win, lose-lose type situations. Some people in the group defined the word courage in its traditional sense, meaning moral courage. Others defined it as the will to accomplish a task regardless of the consequences. When we had these differing views, it was impossible to come to a conclusion. The same problem exists whenever we work in groups. So, it is important to make sure all people in an organization have the same definition for words and directions.
Another important insight I gained is the necessity of having a clear cut mission. This mission should be something that all members of an organization can work for. Also, when people participate in defining an organization’s mission, they are more likely to put their hearts and minds into the group. I don’t feel that NASA’s employees all had a clear cut sense of mission. The overall group probably had some broad goals, but I don’t get the feeling that there was a goal that ran throughout all the company. When there is an ideal or high mission to achieve, people tend to have a new sense of energy. When this happens, the whole organization gains the energy and bonds together.
Sharing information will win hearts and minds. We are all products of what others think about us. When good ideas are shared, people can receive positive feedback. When they receive positive feedback from the people in their organization, they will feel a greater desire to work with those people and there will be greater cohesiveness. Eventually this desire to work with people can build to unconditional caring or even compassion. Then, employees will work for the aggregate as much as themselves.
My first insight isn’t necessarily from something that happened in class today but is something that I have realized as we have worked in this class. One of the reasons that groups or organizations can be difficult to work in is that often people will understand words or directions in different ways. For one example, we had the word “courage” on the board when talking about win-win, lose-lose type situations. Some people in the group defined the word courage in its traditional sense, meaning moral courage. Others defined it as the will to accomplish a task regardless of the consequences. When we had these differing views, it was impossible to come to a conclusion. The same problem exists whenever we work in groups. So, it is important to make sure all people in an organization have the same definition for words and directions.
Another important insight I gained is the necessity of having a clear cut mission. This mission should be something that all members of an organization can work for. Also, when people participate in defining an organization’s mission, they are more likely to put their hearts and minds into the group. I don’t feel that NASA’s employees all had a clear cut sense of mission. The overall group probably had some broad goals, but I don’t get the feeling that there was a goal that ran throughout all the company. When there is an ideal or high mission to achieve, people tend to have a new sense of energy. When this happens, the whole organization gains the energy and bonds together.
Sharing information will win hearts and minds. We are all products of what others think about us. When good ideas are shared, people can receive positive feedback. When they receive positive feedback from the people in their organization, they will feel a greater desire to work with those people and there will be greater cohesiveness. Eventually this desire to work with people can build to unconditional caring or even compassion. Then, employees will work for the aggregate as much as themselves.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Insights for 23 January 2007
Adhocracy- An adhocracy is when programs and projects are built on people rather than forcing people to adapt to the programs and projects. This is more efficient because a manager can get the “right” people on the bus. Skills can be matched to needs rather than requiring people to do things they aren’t equipped to do. An adhocracy also has the benefit of bringing people with different perspectives together. In the Columbia mission, this adhocracy could have proven highly beneficial. An adhocracy was created during the Apollo 13 crisis. The management of NASA formed a Tiger Team, which is a group of expert individuals from different parts of NASA whose mission was to come up with creative solutions to avert the death of the astronauts. They were able to pool their resources and knowledge to save the mission from complete disaster. In the case of the Columbia, NASA should have done the same thing.
The people who get ahead share the most knowledge- Sharing knowledge has long been frowned upon by corporate America because of our capitalist system. Those who possess knowledge have the exclusive rights to production. This system is probably still necessary in between companies, but it should not exist within a company. When information is shared, ideas can be critiqued and improved. Also, people become more versatile because they have a wider breadth of knowledge. Thus, the aggregate benefits, and everybody wins, including the person who first possessed the knowledge. The people of NASA should have felt compelled to share all the knowledge they could on the dangers of the space shuttle in order to get the greatest gain for all.
People want improvement but still resist change- There is a popular definition of insanity that defines it as “Doing the same thing the same way twice and expecting different results.” It is obvious that in order for things to get better, something has to change. In the case of NASA, they should have expected the same problems to occur with the foam breaking off of the space shuttle. It was a foreseeable problem, and they should have expected similar results every time.
Adhocracy- An adhocracy is when programs and projects are built on people rather than forcing people to adapt to the programs and projects. This is more efficient because a manager can get the “right” people on the bus. Skills can be matched to needs rather than requiring people to do things they aren’t equipped to do. An adhocracy also has the benefit of bringing people with different perspectives together. In the Columbia mission, this adhocracy could have proven highly beneficial. An adhocracy was created during the Apollo 13 crisis. The management of NASA formed a Tiger Team, which is a group of expert individuals from different parts of NASA whose mission was to come up with creative solutions to avert the death of the astronauts. They were able to pool their resources and knowledge to save the mission from complete disaster. In the case of the Columbia, NASA should have done the same thing.
The people who get ahead share the most knowledge- Sharing knowledge has long been frowned upon by corporate America because of our capitalist system. Those who possess knowledge have the exclusive rights to production. This system is probably still necessary in between companies, but it should not exist within a company. When information is shared, ideas can be critiqued and improved. Also, people become more versatile because they have a wider breadth of knowledge. Thus, the aggregate benefits, and everybody wins, including the person who first possessed the knowledge. The people of NASA should have felt compelled to share all the knowledge they could on the dangers of the space shuttle in order to get the greatest gain for all.
People want improvement but still resist change- There is a popular definition of insanity that defines it as “Doing the same thing the same way twice and expecting different results.” It is obvious that in order for things to get better, something has to change. In the case of NASA, they should have expected the same problems to occur with the foam breaking off of the space shuttle. It was a foreseeable problem, and they should have expected similar results every time.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Spiritual/Secular insights to principles from 18 Jan 2006
1/18/2006
Three insights and their secular and spiritual applications
1. Conflict without contention
In the spiritual realm, we often shun conflict because we associate it with contention. In reality, conflict is merely opposing ideas or forces. Contention is conflict, but conflict is not necessarily contention. In the church, we have great examples where conflicts (or opposing points of view) are necessary. All presidencies have two counselors to the president for the purpose of providing checks and balances. In many places, we have large councils. An example of conflict without contention comes from my mission. We, along with our mission president, were deciding where new missionaries from the MTC should serve and who their companion should be. We had watched the new missionaries all day with prayers in our hearts for guidance. At the end of the night, we sat down with the President and shared our ideas. I had firm ideas of what I thought should happen. As we discussed, though, we heard different ideas and different reasoning. As I heard some of these, my ideas changed. After about twenty minutes, we had reached our decision unanimously. The amazing thing to me was that we all had different ideas at the beginning, but we were united in the end. I might have made the wrong decisions if I had been making them on my own, but opposing points of few helped me to change my mind.
The same principle applies in a secular sense. Most of what we think, do, and believe in our lives is a result of our environment. Most children grow up to share the same political views of their parents. Therefore, I have a different perception of the world than those around me. In the Columbia mission, conflict would have helped create a solution. Too often we see conflict as criticism or an effort to undermine. Linda Ham and other top-level NASA administrators kept tight control over everything that happens. The attitude seemed to be “don’t rock the boat.” But the truth is that in rocking the boat, we’ll probably learn to make submarines. If the people with opposing views in NASA could have agreed at the outset to create a win-win solution, then conflict probably would have saved lives and the space shuttle.
2. Competition is bad
When we speak of competition, we aren’t referring to healthy athletic competition, although that too can get out of hand. We are referring to the competition that pits on person against another in order to be better than that person. In the gospel, competition is one of the worst problems that a person can have. A man may pit himself against another to become an Elder’s quorum president or a zone leader or a bishop. (It is possible for the person being competed against to not be aware of the competition.) When this happens, all pure motives leave that person’s heart. He is no longer doing all his home teaching for the love of God and fellow man, he is doing it to be recognized as someone who does all their home teaching. He no longer wants to teach people to bring salvation to them, he is teaching so he can be recognized as the best missionary. It is important that we eliminate competition out of our gospel lives in order to do all things for the right reasons.
Competition in the secular world leads people to make inappropriate sacrifices for the purpose of getting ahead. In the Columbia case study, we can see that Linda Ham was one of these people. In the case study, we read: “Ham also knew that a delay in STS-114 would jeopardize a major management goal- to launch Node 2 of the International Space Station by February 19, 2004. Management considered that goal critical for two reasons. First, Node 2 would complete the U.S. core of the Space Station. Second, NASA and the Space Station Program had faced increased scrutiny in recent years from the White House Office of Management and Budget.” We can see here that NASA was competing to retain funds from the federal government. This competition led the management to make flawed decisions. They refused to postpone flights that were potentially hazardous in order to avoid scrutiny and retain funds.
3. Ruthless compassion
Ruthless compassion goes beyond win-win. It is WIN-WIN. The quality of having ruthless compassion takes time to develop. In the gospel, this means that one is dedicated to achieving their goals, but they recognize that their goals can only be accomplished through people, and people are best motivated by love. I can find application for this in my calling. If a member of the quorum isn’t doing their home teaching, I have a few options. I could scream at them. I could publicly humiliate them in quorum meetings. I could threaten them with hellfire and damnation. Or, I could recognize that they have a problem. Home teaching itself might not be the issue. They could be painfully shy or don’t feel they have a testimony. I could take time to talk with them and support them. I could radiate the love of Christ for them. I could focus on them and their deeper issues rather than the immediate problem. I would be focused on what needs to be done (the home teaching) but recognizing that true home teaching could only be achieved through individuals.
The administrators at NASA could have used some ruthless compassion. They could definitely be considered ruthless- they were willing to sacrifice lives in order to achieve their goals. If they had applied compassion, they would have been willing to focus on the real mechanics that make the shuttle programs work. The real mechanics are the people. People are the creators of all machines, ideas, and results. Rather than focusing on the results, managers should focus on people in order to achieve results.
Three insights and their secular and spiritual applications
1. Conflict without contention
In the spiritual realm, we often shun conflict because we associate it with contention. In reality, conflict is merely opposing ideas or forces. Contention is conflict, but conflict is not necessarily contention. In the church, we have great examples where conflicts (or opposing points of view) are necessary. All presidencies have two counselors to the president for the purpose of providing checks and balances. In many places, we have large councils. An example of conflict without contention comes from my mission. We, along with our mission president, were deciding where new missionaries from the MTC should serve and who their companion should be. We had watched the new missionaries all day with prayers in our hearts for guidance. At the end of the night, we sat down with the President and shared our ideas. I had firm ideas of what I thought should happen. As we discussed, though, we heard different ideas and different reasoning. As I heard some of these, my ideas changed. After about twenty minutes, we had reached our decision unanimously. The amazing thing to me was that we all had different ideas at the beginning, but we were united in the end. I might have made the wrong decisions if I had been making them on my own, but opposing points of few helped me to change my mind.
The same principle applies in a secular sense. Most of what we think, do, and believe in our lives is a result of our environment. Most children grow up to share the same political views of their parents. Therefore, I have a different perception of the world than those around me. In the Columbia mission, conflict would have helped create a solution. Too often we see conflict as criticism or an effort to undermine. Linda Ham and other top-level NASA administrators kept tight control over everything that happens. The attitude seemed to be “don’t rock the boat.” But the truth is that in rocking the boat, we’ll probably learn to make submarines. If the people with opposing views in NASA could have agreed at the outset to create a win-win solution, then conflict probably would have saved lives and the space shuttle.
2. Competition is bad
When we speak of competition, we aren’t referring to healthy athletic competition, although that too can get out of hand. We are referring to the competition that pits on person against another in order to be better than that person. In the gospel, competition is one of the worst problems that a person can have. A man may pit himself against another to become an Elder’s quorum president or a zone leader or a bishop. (It is possible for the person being competed against to not be aware of the competition.) When this happens, all pure motives leave that person’s heart. He is no longer doing all his home teaching for the love of God and fellow man, he is doing it to be recognized as someone who does all their home teaching. He no longer wants to teach people to bring salvation to them, he is teaching so he can be recognized as the best missionary. It is important that we eliminate competition out of our gospel lives in order to do all things for the right reasons.
Competition in the secular world leads people to make inappropriate sacrifices for the purpose of getting ahead. In the Columbia case study, we can see that Linda Ham was one of these people. In the case study, we read: “Ham also knew that a delay in STS-114 would jeopardize a major management goal- to launch Node 2 of the International Space Station by February 19, 2004. Management considered that goal critical for two reasons. First, Node 2 would complete the U.S. core of the Space Station. Second, NASA and the Space Station Program had faced increased scrutiny in recent years from the White House Office of Management and Budget.” We can see here that NASA was competing to retain funds from the federal government. This competition led the management to make flawed decisions. They refused to postpone flights that were potentially hazardous in order to avoid scrutiny and retain funds.
3. Ruthless compassion
Ruthless compassion goes beyond win-win. It is WIN-WIN. The quality of having ruthless compassion takes time to develop. In the gospel, this means that one is dedicated to achieving their goals, but they recognize that their goals can only be accomplished through people, and people are best motivated by love. I can find application for this in my calling. If a member of the quorum isn’t doing their home teaching, I have a few options. I could scream at them. I could publicly humiliate them in quorum meetings. I could threaten them with hellfire and damnation. Or, I could recognize that they have a problem. Home teaching itself might not be the issue. They could be painfully shy or don’t feel they have a testimony. I could take time to talk with them and support them. I could radiate the love of Christ for them. I could focus on them and their deeper issues rather than the immediate problem. I would be focused on what needs to be done (the home teaching) but recognizing that true home teaching could only be achieved through individuals.
The administrators at NASA could have used some ruthless compassion. They could definitely be considered ruthless- they were willing to sacrifice lives in order to achieve their goals. If they had applied compassion, they would have been willing to focus on the real mechanics that make the shuttle programs work. The real mechanics are the people. People are the creators of all machines, ideas, and results. Rather than focusing on the results, managers should focus on people in order to achieve results.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
1/16/07 insights
Insights for 16 January 2007
1) I really liked the quote “the unexamined life is not worth living.” A life that is not being examined cannot be evaluated and therefore cannot be improved. A willingness and ability to take internal and external criticism is necessary for positive growth.
2) For the most part, the managers at NASA seemed to display the “control and focus” style of management. Linda Ham was apparently known for her domineering management style. In my modern political theory class, we recently talked about a relatively new phenomenon that is occurring particularly in Western nations. These governments are often greatly criticized by their citizens, but, these citizens are often the most fiercely patriotic. It seems that there is a correlation between being open to criticism and loyalty. I think this same concept could have applied at NASA or anywhere. This way, the people become self-governing and have a greater stake in their work.
3) Another subject I felt strongly about in class is that I need to start “thinging” people and start “seeing” people. Too often I only see people as a means to an end. I think this is the definition of “thinging” people. They become only objects to advance myself. Often, this comes out in negative ways- I might mock somebody to make others laugh or manipulate someone to get what I want. In order for me to become trustworthy, I need to “see” people.
4) Getting the wrong people off the bus and getting the right people on- I hadn’t really thought of the importance of getting the wrong people off the bus; and especially helping them see that they want to get off. There is a scene from the Disney movie Miracle that I think applies. The coach tells the U.S. Olympic Hockey team that he didn’t pick the best players, he picked the right players. I find this very applicable to any organization.
1) I really liked the quote “the unexamined life is not worth living.” A life that is not being examined cannot be evaluated and therefore cannot be improved. A willingness and ability to take internal and external criticism is necessary for positive growth.
2) For the most part, the managers at NASA seemed to display the “control and focus” style of management. Linda Ham was apparently known for her domineering management style. In my modern political theory class, we recently talked about a relatively new phenomenon that is occurring particularly in Western nations. These governments are often greatly criticized by their citizens, but, these citizens are often the most fiercely patriotic. It seems that there is a correlation between being open to criticism and loyalty. I think this same concept could have applied at NASA or anywhere. This way, the people become self-governing and have a greater stake in their work.
3) Another subject I felt strongly about in class is that I need to start “thinging” people and start “seeing” people. Too often I only see people as a means to an end. I think this is the definition of “thinging” people. They become only objects to advance myself. Often, this comes out in negative ways- I might mock somebody to make others laugh or manipulate someone to get what I want. In order for me to become trustworthy, I need to “see” people.
4) Getting the wrong people off the bus and getting the right people on- I hadn’t really thought of the importance of getting the wrong people off the bus; and especially helping them see that they want to get off. There is a scene from the Disney movie Miracle that I think applies. The coach tells the U.S. Olympic Hockey team that he didn’t pick the best players, he picked the right players. I find this very applicable to any organization.
Friday, January 12, 2007
1/11/2006 Columbia's Final Mission Case Study
Columbia’s Final Mission
5 questions:
Why does American society tend to focus on results rather than people?
What causes people to downplay problems in an attempt to get greater gain?
How is NASA’s operations affected by having three different locations? Does this pose any real problem?
How can government agencies improve communication between themselves (i.e. NASA and Department of Defense)?
How can the problematic bottleneck in NASA’s bureaucracy be minimized?
5 insights:
While thinking about this case, I believe that many of the communication problems from the bottom of a bureaucracy to the top could be solved by replicating the Church’s system it has for missions, which are a slightly smaller bureaucracy. Companionships report to district leaders, district leaders to zone leaders, zone leaders to assistants to the president or the mission president. One of the advantages of this system is that anyone can bypass their direct superiors to talk with the mission president. This could have helped NASA because many of those who had concerns were quieted by their direct superiors and never brought to the attention of somebody higher.
A culture of fear will never eventually produce great results. It is true that they might improve for a time or increase profits, but in the end, problems will be covered up and perpetuated until a catastrophe happens.
Perhaps a better title for manager would be “problem manager” because this is what the majority of their job should entail.
More credit should be given to the rank and file. Some leaders assume that because they went to the best schools or are making the most money that they are also the ones who will create all solutions. Leaders should focus on synergy throughout an organization.
This insight is pure speculation. Today we live in a world that is harnessed in rapid communication, from cell phones to television to e-mails. Although there is a lot of priority placed on good communication, it seems the amount of communication cheapens all the communication we have. Because of this, things that should be important can be overlooked and ignored, such as the e-mails concerning the extent of the space shuttle damage.
While I was in the Ireland Dublin Mission, I experienced and perpetuated a culture of fear. I was serving as a district leader and constantly focused on the results of other missionaries and myself. I was often frustrated with myself and others when what happened wasn’t what I wanted to happen. It was discouraging, and everybody felt it. At one point, I was moved to a new area with a larger district. I decided to make a change in myself. When a companionship called me and instantly began to berate themselves for their lack of results, I would interrupt them and ask them to tell me a few good things about their day. I would ask them how they were doing. Rapidly, there was a more positive vibe in the district. I felt more energized and happy. Results improved very quickly as well. This is where I learned that in organizations, leaders need to be coaches, not referees.
5 questions:
Why does American society tend to focus on results rather than people?
What causes people to downplay problems in an attempt to get greater gain?
How is NASA’s operations affected by having three different locations? Does this pose any real problem?
How can government agencies improve communication between themselves (i.e. NASA and Department of Defense)?
How can the problematic bottleneck in NASA’s bureaucracy be minimized?
5 insights:
While thinking about this case, I believe that many of the communication problems from the bottom of a bureaucracy to the top could be solved by replicating the Church’s system it has for missions, which are a slightly smaller bureaucracy. Companionships report to district leaders, district leaders to zone leaders, zone leaders to assistants to the president or the mission president. One of the advantages of this system is that anyone can bypass their direct superiors to talk with the mission president. This could have helped NASA because many of those who had concerns were quieted by their direct superiors and never brought to the attention of somebody higher.
A culture of fear will never eventually produce great results. It is true that they might improve for a time or increase profits, but in the end, problems will be covered up and perpetuated until a catastrophe happens.
Perhaps a better title for manager would be “problem manager” because this is what the majority of their job should entail.
More credit should be given to the rank and file. Some leaders assume that because they went to the best schools or are making the most money that they are also the ones who will create all solutions. Leaders should focus on synergy throughout an organization.
This insight is pure speculation. Today we live in a world that is harnessed in rapid communication, from cell phones to television to e-mails. Although there is a lot of priority placed on good communication, it seems the amount of communication cheapens all the communication we have. Because of this, things that should be important can be overlooked and ignored, such as the e-mails concerning the extent of the space shuttle damage.
While I was in the Ireland Dublin Mission, I experienced and perpetuated a culture of fear. I was serving as a district leader and constantly focused on the results of other missionaries and myself. I was often frustrated with myself and others when what happened wasn’t what I wanted to happen. It was discouraging, and everybody felt it. At one point, I was moved to a new area with a larger district. I decided to make a change in myself. When a companionship called me and instantly began to berate themselves for their lack of results, I would interrupt them and ask them to tell me a few good things about their day. I would ask them how they were doing. Rapidly, there was a more positive vibe in the district. I felt more energized and happy. Results improved very quickly as well. This is where I learned that in organizations, leaders need to be coaches, not referees.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Principles 1/9/2006
Principle I learned from today's class:
Matrix: I like the matrix system for evaluating an organization and how different sub-institutions communicate qwith one another and the strengths and barriers of their communication. It is great to have such a method to evaluate. Because of this, I feel that I am already going to be able to improve in my church calling because now I know where communication lacks. I can now work on improving it.
Trustworthiness: This principle is very important. It reminds me that I cannot do much to affect an organization except improve myself. As I become more trustworthy, my sphere of influence increases because more people will be open to being influenced by me. It also creates cohesion among an organization.
All things spiritual, then temporal: Dr. Covey was the President of the Irish mission in the 1960's and while I was in Ireland in 2004, he came and gave a mission conference. One of the things I learned then, and relearned today, was that all true principles are spiritual first, a blueprint of sorts. But then they become temporal and physical. We can take divinely revealed truths and apply them to temporal world situations and have positive results.
Matrix: I like the matrix system for evaluating an organization and how different sub-institutions communicate qwith one another and the strengths and barriers of their communication. It is great to have such a method to evaluate. Because of this, I feel that I am already going to be able to improve in my church calling because now I know where communication lacks. I can now work on improving it.
Trustworthiness: This principle is very important. It reminds me that I cannot do much to affect an organization except improve myself. As I become more trustworthy, my sphere of influence increases because more people will be open to being influenced by me. It also creates cohesion among an organization.
All things spiritual, then temporal: Dr. Covey was the President of the Irish mission in the 1960's and while I was in Ireland in 2004, he came and gave a mission conference. One of the things I learned then, and relearned today, was that all true principles are spiritual first, a blueprint of sorts. But then they become temporal and physical. We can take divinely revealed truths and apply them to temporal world situations and have positive results.
Monday, January 8, 2007
First Assignment
My best lessons in leadership come from:
1) My mission. Here I learned that people are more productive and happier when a leader focuses on them rather than results.
2) My family. I am the oldest of 11 children and I have had to learn aot about gaining respect rather than expecting it because of the role I am placed in.
My best lessons in communicating come from:
1) My mission. I learned to work with people, be it bishops, members, companions, or street contacts, who had opposing points of views. I learned a lot about compromise.
2) Reading and practicing principles taught. I've studied and worked at principles taught in "How to Win Friends and Influence People," Stephen R. Covey lectures and books, and Church leaders.
Organizations experienced and what I have learned:
Boy Scouts/Church quorums- the most effective learning is through experience
Stake Youth Committees- same as above
Student Government- when one person takes initiative, others follow
Visalia School District Executive Student Board- Greater involvement of people in something they should do leads to greater group happiness
Old Navy- energy attracts and enlivens others
Antique/Furniture store-everything about bad leadership
Wrestling Team- leaders have to work harder than those they are trying to lead
Ireland Mission- seek first to understand, then to be understood
Snake River Log Homes- People work best when their leaders work alongside them
I have lived in:
Visalia, CA
Rexburg, ID (my family moved here 3 years ago)
Achievements:
Something that I am proud of, and I think says a lot about me, is that I received my high school wrestling team's "Most Dedicated" award. I was really dissapointed at first because I thought I had deserved All-American or MVP. But now, I think that this really says who I am.
Industries:
I am interested in government, especially international relations.
Goals:
I would like to get a master's degree in international relations from either USC, Georgetown, or The University of Chicago.
The American hot dog is good when it is a Hebrew dog because it is kosher.
1) My mission. Here I learned that people are more productive and happier when a leader focuses on them rather than results.
2) My family. I am the oldest of 11 children and I have had to learn aot about gaining respect rather than expecting it because of the role I am placed in.
My best lessons in communicating come from:
1) My mission. I learned to work with people, be it bishops, members, companions, or street contacts, who had opposing points of views. I learned a lot about compromise.
2) Reading and practicing principles taught. I've studied and worked at principles taught in "How to Win Friends and Influence People," Stephen R. Covey lectures and books, and Church leaders.
Organizations experienced and what I have learned:
Boy Scouts/Church quorums- the most effective learning is through experience
Stake Youth Committees- same as above
Student Government- when one person takes initiative, others follow
Visalia School District Executive Student Board- Greater involvement of people in something they should do leads to greater group happiness
Old Navy- energy attracts and enlivens others
Antique/Furniture store-everything about bad leadership
Wrestling Team- leaders have to work harder than those they are trying to lead
Ireland Mission- seek first to understand, then to be understood
Snake River Log Homes- People work best when their leaders work alongside them
I have lived in:
Visalia, CA
Rexburg, ID (my family moved here 3 years ago)
Achievements:
Something that I am proud of, and I think says a lot about me, is that I received my high school wrestling team's "Most Dedicated" award. I was really dissapointed at first because I thought I had deserved All-American or MVP. But now, I think that this really says who I am.
Industries:
I am interested in government, especially international relations.
Goals:
I would like to get a master's degree in international relations from either USC, Georgetown, or The University of Chicago.
The American hot dog is good when it is a Hebrew dog because it is kosher.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)