I found the format for the chat a little disconcerting. When it was time to have my ‘say’ about the issues in the case study, I felt intense anxiety at how fast everyone’s comments were flashing up. I wanted to read them, not only to learn but also to make sure I wasn’t doubling up or saying something totally off the wall compared to what everyone else was saying but it was just too fast. So, I had to just look quickly at my notes and put up a short comment.
Where to from here:
If given the chance in the future, I will try to have something ready that I can just cut and paste quickly.
Case Study 3 – group post
I tried to utilise the strategies for leadership that I felt were important, not in terms of me being the leader, but in terms of what it would take for us to work well together as a group. I wanted to take the time at the beginning to get to know each person in the group.
However, the resulting responses (and almost entire lack thereof) showed that the other members of the group (bar one and myself) did not want to or were not able to take the time to offer any information about themselves. They seemed to simply want to either 1. make it known that they expected us to pick a leader off the cuff (supposably them?) or 2. appropriate time and responsibilities based on their external commitments.
I suppose I went wrong by oversharing or putting nearly everyone off in the way my ‘about me’ was worded in the link to my blog page. Perhaps getting to know each other is seen as a waste of time when everyone else simply wanted to ‘get down to business.’
Overall, I was left feeling out of sorts. As if I’ve missed some social cue, or misread the situation and am now outside the group. I feel as though I’ve set myself apart, rather than made sure I led from the middle, as I had hoped.
Where to from here:
For now, I will let it go and hope for a better result next time. Maybe I will just start smaller with simply a few sentences about myself and hope that others feel comfortable sharing more as we go along…
REFLECTIVE: “Derive happiness in oneself from a good day’s work, from illuminating the fog that surrounds us.” Henri Matisse
(Matisse n.d.)
Free image provided by Simon Matzinger on Unsplash.com
It is amazing to me how we all grow up getting used to the amazing structures of the past without acknowledging their significance in our present. Much like the ancient buildings showing through the fog in the image from Simon Matzinger (above) so are the structures of organisational, managerial and leadership theory from past and present all around us.
If we don’t take the time to reflect on and recognise the structures that exist and influence our actions, we are but living in a fog. Thus, I’ve spent a lot of time and brain energy this week on the subject…and as I peer into the fog of the history and research, I fear I have but scratched the surface.
I’m not alone in my experiences of poor leadership/management/organisational structure. I’m sure many of us in our mid 30’s and beyond have some war stories to tell…in my very first officially paid position in a grocery store, the front end manager and his assistant stole nearly $40 000 from the company (which became evident in the scandal that erupted when I accidentally took home a pack of $1 bills in my apron and nobody noticed until I turned it in the next day). Was this because they lacked the necessary leadership ‘trait‘ of integrity but it was assumed that they had that trait when they were hired? Was this because of the organisational structure being ‘divisional’ (Kokemuller, 2017) without actually any vision or sharing of vision?
I had quite a few retail positions in my youth. In one position, I worked in a bookstore and the manager was passive aggressive and controlling, possibly anal retentive…he would put dusting skills into our performance appraisals as a critique and used a texta to draw outlines of where he wanted the office supplies to go. Everyone on staff was very friendly and hard working and we all just managed ourselves and the store with very little need for input from him. Was this because of his leadership skill or ‘traits’ and lack thereof? Was he in an environment that called for a ‘transformational’ leader but he was stuck in the ‘autocratic’ leadership mindset? Did he have a lack of control over us that made him feel irrelevant?
POWER: “Part of the task of the leader is to make others participate in his leadership. The best leader knows how to make his followers actually feel power themselves, not merely acknowledge his power” … “Leadership is not defined by the exercise of power but by the capacity to increase the sense of power among those led. The most essential work of the leader is to create more leaders” Mary Parker Follet (in Janse 2019).
In my office worker years, I learnt that I am good at being an office worker, in that I can do the work to a very high standard. I can type and shuffle papers and find quick and cost effective solutions to most any problem. I watched as many of my white, male colleagues received promotions despite the fact that I was doing the same job much better than they had been. And, oh boy, do I hate the lack of humour, the dearth of beauty, the monotony and, most of all, the sense that I was not doing anything that improved the world. Why are offices so often designed in the ‘divisional’ (Kokemuller, 2017) way? Why do people who socialise really well receive promotions when people who do their jobs really well remain in those positions – is it because some people are perceived to have more ‘statesmen’ ‘traits’ and that makes them more suited to leadership positions? How actually important is it to be able to do the job of the subordinate well prior to or while being a leader of that subordinate? Is it part of being more efficient within the ‘scientific‘ management theory?
When I became a teacher (in the Australian education system), my first impression still rings true: schools try to mimic what they believe business structures to be like. A parody of sorts. A reproduction. However, there is one key difference in the business structure of education: our shared goal to improve outcomes for the children at our schools, and indeed, thus improve the world. We shouldn’t limit ourselves to the machine or divisional organisation structures. We have it in our capacities to aim for the ‘professional’ and ‘innovative’ structures (Kokemuller, 2017). Let’s lead the way for business, not the other way around!
VISION: “The most successful leader of all is the one who sees another picture not yet actualised. (They see) the things which are not yet there… Above all, (they) should make (their) co-workers see that it is not (the leader’s) purpose which is to be achieved, but a common purpose, born of the desires and the activities of the group” Mary Parker Follet (in Janse 2019).
I’ve been told, at various times in my teaching career, that I got my degree the ‘easy’ way or ‘through the back door’ by doing an early childhood degree. I sometimes hear little snippets about where I should be placed within a school because of this also…as if I am not capable of working with older students because my university training 12 years ago, despite the fact that as a casual teacher I’ve worked with ages 3 to 14. Even in the first case study for ETL504, I was curious why one of the ’employees’ needed her degree specialisation to be pointed out. Was it because we have to treat early childhood trained educators differently because they aren’t as clever as the rest? Is this part of the bureaucratic and ‘divisional,’‘machine’ organisational structures, or are we identifying the early childhood specialisation as a means to create a ‘professional’ structure (Kokemuller, 2017)?
APPRECIATION: “Unity, not uniformity, must be our aim. We attain unity only through variety. Differences must be integrated, not annihilated, not absorbed” Mary Parker Follet (in Janse 2019).
As written in my previous post on this blog (see below) entitled “Creating a Collaborative Climate – The Triple C’s” on the 21st of May 2019, we are expected to collaborate when so much of the stuff behind the scenes or ‘beneath the fog’ isn’t set up effectively. The amount of control we have over the organisational set up is limited, those old buildings have been around for too long and are stronger than one person. However, we can work on building a collaborative climate within those organisational structures. In addition to the items listed in my Triple C blog post, I would add team building to the list.
INVENTION “Conflict is resolved not through compromise, but through invention” Mary Follet Parker (in Janse 2019).
Team building is something in which office human resources managers are proficient and schools would do well to take note of their advice. Trust, communication, conflict resolution and productivity are increased when team building occurs (Al-Bakri 2017). In my Triple C blog post, I recommended and I still recommend that instead of ‘meetings’ where information is disseminated, we could host ‘yarning circles’ as recommended by The Salvation Army (Worthing, 2018). While I am not promoting and am not religious, I respect the ideas recommended and would love to host a staff yarning circle in my library with my team. I’d also like to investigate team building activities such as those provided by beyond the boardroom or other companies in Australia.
Until then, here is my previous blog post on workplace climate change:
Janse, B. (2019). Mary Parker Follett. Retrieved from toolshero: https://www.toolshero.com/toolsheroes/mary-parker-folett/
Kokemuller, N. (2017). Mintzberg’s five types of organizational structure. In Hearst Newspapers: Small business. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/mintzbergs-five-types-organizational-structure-60119.html
Matisse, H. (n.d.) Henri Matisse Quotes, BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved from https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/henri_matisse_140869
