A631.5.3.RB_MedleyKim_George W. Bush: Glorified or Vilified

    George W. Bush: Glorified or Vilified        

            A simple sixty second ad, presented by EveryAppleAd (2012) and featuring a collection of crazies, misfits, rebels, and trouble-makers such as: Einstein, Dylan, Branson, Lennon, Ono, Edison, Ali, Gandhi, Earhart, Hitchcock, Henson, Picasso, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Martin Luther King, Jr. asks viewers to consider how those who would not accept the status quo brought about change and “pushed the human race forward”. According to Yukl (2013), “In a turbulent environment in which organizations must continually adapt, innovate, and reinvent themselves, leaders must be flexible enough to learn from mistakes, change their assumptions and beliefs, and refine their mental models” (p. 153). Curiously absent from the short commercial are images of U.S. Presidents.

            While reflecting on the task at hand, memories of the 2000 Presidential campaign came to mind. Both auditory and visual images came rushing back while considering competencies leaders must adopt once they have reached the height of their career. Certainly in the political world, the achievement of being twice elected as Governor of Texas followed by two terms as President of the United States would qualify as reaching the height of one’s political career. The campaign of 2000 was all about the economy. Television and radio ads presented the U.S. economy as analogous to that of a red engine light on a car’s dashboard; and, absent an overhaul, followed by continued maintenance, the economy, just as a car engine, would fail. George W. Bush ran an effective campaign and planned to be an economic President, not a war-time President. September 11, 2001 forever changed those plans.

            Yukl (2013) describes a “three-factor taxonomy” of certain skills: technical, interpersonal, and conceptual identified as necessary for “effective leadership” (p. 148). Many considered if George W. Bush could even spell or pronounce interpersonal much less communicate in a clear and concise manner; yet, as he stood atop smoldering rubble that was once the World Trade Center and lifted that infamous bull-horn to his lips, he demonstrated capabilities few had anticipated and a leadership style that has historians scratching their collective heads to this day. In an interview with Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute, presented by Fahri Guner (2013), insight from the former President provides an understanding as to how he acquired added skills in order to achieve that which many considered impossible at the time; he helped a nation begin to heal. As former President Bush explains to Robinson, a part of his core belief embraces the notion that “people want to be free”, the road to democracy is often times bumpy, free societies will yield to peace, and that our nation’s previous view of foreign policy, stability in the region is acceptable, was no longer applicable in a post 9-11 world (Fahri Guner, 2013). Bush’s core principles demonstrate, and he is able to clearly articulate, why the decisions he made after 9-11 were founded with “good judgement, foresight, intuition, creativity, and the ability to find meaning and order in ambiguous, uncertain events” (Yukl, 2013, p. 149). When human life is defended, we become a better nation.

            This way of thinking was seen with his African AIDS relief initiative known as the “President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief” (PEPFAR) (Fahri Guner, 2013). He viewed a child who had lost his or her parents to AIDS ripe for the picking of any terrorist organization seeking to recruit those who believe their life is hopeless (Fahri Guner, 2013). Yukl (2013) describes conceptual skills as those that incorporate analytical, logical, conceptual, inductive, and deductive reasoning skills. Bush reasoned that a nation “to whom much is given” could wisely invest $15 billion to stem the pandemic spread of AIDS, while measuring results, and providing for a democratic method whereby Africa would develop its own methods of addressing AIDS (Fahri Guner, 2013). By most accounts, his vision was a success. Another program did not receive good historical views; yet, its concept has had far reaching implications.

            “No Child Left Behind” has been hailed and denounced since Bush left the White House. Returning to a central question, “Does the human condition matter?” offers an understanding of the both interpersonal and emotional intelligence skills the former Commander in Chief attained while serving (Fahri Guner, 2013). When a Texas Geography teacher expressed his dismay with his students and explained to then Governor Bush the students could not read, Bush understood that in order to become a reformer and reform the school system, accountability is the gateway to any organizational change. In Texas, the simple measurable goal became to have children reading on their grade level by the time they reached the fourth grade. Measuring became a critical component before awarding seven percent of state school funding. This had a trigger effect felt in states like Florida, Indiana, and Louisiana while innovations such as online schooling and school voucher programs offered parents a way to provide the standard of education they wanted for their child. Today, the Bush Institute offers a way for parents to compare their school district with other districts across the state, the country, and the world (Fahri Guner, 2013). Of the many skills Bush demonstrated throughout his eight years, it is his emotional intelligence, “the ability to recognize moods and emotions in others” and to “channel emotions into behavior that is appropriate for the situation, rather than responding with impulsive behavior” that is, in this observer’s mind, his greatest and most lasting achievement (Yukl, 2013, p. 151).

            Listen to any speech from the former President about our nation’s Veterans and see if your own emotions are not touched. Returning to the smoldering pile at the base of Ground Zero, those words are just as clear as they were nearly fifteen years ago, “I can hear you, the rest of the world can hear you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon”. He got it then and still gets it today. He realized the danger and sacrifice he would ask of our military. One of the missions of the Bush Institute is “serving and honoring those who risked their lives to extend freedom to others” (Fahri Guner, 2013). Bush hosts an annual mountain biking event for our country’s wounded warriors. He and former First Lady Laura Bush have often shared stories of visiting with young men and women who had returned to Walter Reed. That same heightened sense of empathy is still audible in his voice as he tells the story of Major Gay, a professor from West Pointe, a wounded Veteran who rode 62 miles with only one leg as there was not any prosthetic device that would work with a bike available to him (Fahri Guner, 2013). Bush, not only adopted many of the skills outlined in Yukl’s (2013) taxonomy, in many respects he embraced them. For many who doubted this man’s intelligence and capabilities during the 2000 Presidential campaign, it is hard to imagine any other person leading us after that clear blue sky day in early September. Whether glorified or vilified, Bush realizes how his genius is interpreted must wait for the annals of history to determine; but for those who watched, he achieved what few believed he could; he wept with us, prayed with us, cared with us, and above all else, he led us. 

References

EveryAppleAd. (2012, Oct. 18). Apple Think Different ad (1997). [Video file]. Retrieved from

            https://youtu.be/nmwXdGm89Tk

Fahri Guner. (2013, Nov.). Uncommon Knowledge President George W. Bush On His             Presidency and Life After the White House. [Video file]. Retrieved from

            https://youtu.be/9M1N4Ji-GHI

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. (8^th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

A631.3.3.RB_MedleyKim_Feedback: Our Mirror on the Wall

Feedback: Our Mirror on the Wall

           “Magic mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of all?” is the immortal question of fairytale lore presented by Rey (2015) and recognized by children of all ages across the globe. Whether the words are spoken by an evil queen, or a villain from other films, as long as the one prompting the question receives the answer, “You are the fairest one of all”, all is well; yet, once the slave in the mirror speaks the truth and identifies another as the one most fair, changes occur with the original one seeking “the truth” (Rey, 2015). Questions are asked. Soul searching takes place. Often, plans are developed with a prime focus of removing the object that has created the negative feedback, thereby restoring order to the individual’s universe. Although the business world provides an avenue for removing obstacles, the dismissal of workers, a plan to dismiss everyone that provides negative feedback would not be effective organizational management; hence, students, managers, and future leaders must reconcile both positive and negative feedback in order to, as Brown (2011) observes, “improve relationships between teams and increase effectiveness” (p. 303).

            

          Brown (2011) defines one such tool designed to offer feedback as “the organization mirror” (p. 303). Feedback, defined by Cianci, Schaubroeck, and McGill (2010) as “information about past behavior or, more specifically, information about the accuracy, adequacy, or correctness of decisions and actions” (p. 132), should be given “as soon after the work activity as possible” (Brown, 2011, p. 321). As Brown (2011) proffers, once feedback is given it should then be matched with goals so that a positive performance outcome may be achieved. Absent goals, feedback will not and cannot affect performance. Returning to the evil queen, absent her goal to become and remain the fairest in the land, the retort from the slave in the mirror would not have affected her performance throughout the remainder of the film. As Poortvliet, Janssen, Van Yperen, and de Vliert (2009) theorize, sharing information may be viewed as “hard currency” by those seeking to follow aspirations and ambitions “in social achievement situations”; yet, achievement extends beyond simple performance goals (p. 198).

            

          As outlined by Poortvliet et al. (2009), feedback has different effects and implications based on whether or not the goal is either one of mastery or performance. Those who seek mastery goals seek to develop competence and gain skill. Those who simply wish to outperform others, follow performance goals. Feedback is an exchange of information and as such requires social interaction with “exchange partners” (Poortvliet et al., 2009, p. 198). Those pursuing mastery goals, when given positive feedback, view their partners as “allies” and are more apt to share information; however, bad feedback causes a hesitancy to share until such time mastery has been achieved (Poortvliet et al., 2009, p. 198). In contrast, individuals who wish to outperform others, see their partners as “rivals”, will share information if the exchange increases the chance to outperform, and will withhold information if the negative feedback, once disclosed, would facilitate the performance and achievement of a rival (Poortvliet, 2009, p. 198). Additionally, Poortvliet et al. (2009) concluded those who seek mastery goals will modify the information exchanged, demonstrating benevolent motives, while those pursuing performance goals will “modify their information to sabotage their exchange partner’s task performance” (p. 205). With either scenario, setting the goal is demonstrated as critical with regards as to how feedback affects performance.

            

          Brown (2011) observes the response of companies to the demands by workers, “particularly from younger workers, for more frequent feedback” (p. 321). Cianci et al. (2010) posit the goal adopted, mastery or performance, or a combination thereof, establishes the framework as to how workers receive feedback and “interpret, evaluate, and act on” the information (p. 131). They also note performance goals are impacted with how performance levels have been either well defined or undefined (Cianci et al., 2010). As noted by Brown (2011), a divide exists between that of older and younger workers with regards to the level of feedback that is requested. Younger workers want more and older workers want less. Brown (2011) ties this to the “Gen Y [those born after 1980] (p. 322). It would be interesting to explore a subsequent tie now being demonstrated with local television commercials that question the “everyone gets a trophy” generation, those who need instant recognition and gratification, regardless of skill. Muis, Ranellucci, Franco, and Crippen (2013) briefly explore this in the classroom setting and conclude based on the goal selected, mastery or performance, students either “increase effort or revise tactics” to address negative feedback for mastery goals, or, students pursuing performance goals “perceive negative information as evaluative or judgmental” (p. 572).

            

          “Magic mirror on the wall…” What if the evil queen had taken the feedback and increased her efforts to be a more caring soul rather than interpret the information as judgmental and set about to remove Snow White as the obstacle to her performance? The slave in the magic mirror, one must suppose, told the evil queen the truth she wished to hear, every day, for fear of her wrath. When faced with the truth, she cannot process it. Is this why today’s youth need constant and immediate feedback? Have we sugar-coated and skirted the truth for fear of hurting feelings? On a personal note, this writer has often told her own children and students the truth, even when it was not requested. Feedback does provide for increased engagement, either through an engagement with one’s self, or with others; feedback begins conversations, often times long overdue. Feedback allows for questions to be posed, other answers considered, and plans, other than removing the object of the feedback, to take root and come to fruition. Absent her goal to be the fairest in the land, the mirror’s feedback falls on deaf ears. Understanding goals and how feedback affects the goals and the persons seeking to achieve those goals is an important lesson for leaders.

References

Brown, D.R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (8^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cianci, A.M., Schaubroeck, J.M., & McGill, G.A. (2010). Achievement Goals, Feedback, and

            Task Performance. Human Performance, 23(2), 131-154.

Muis, K.R., Ranellucci, Franco, G.M., & Crippen, K.J. (2013). The Interactive Effects of

            Personal Achievement Goals and Performance Feedback in an Undergraduate Science

            Class. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(4), 556-578.

Poortvliet, P.M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N.W., & de Vliert, E.V. (2009). The Joint Impact

            of Achievement Goals and Performance Feedback on Information Giving. Basic &

            Applied Social Psychology, 31(3), 197-209.

Rey, N. (2015, Nov. 22). Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs – Main Title/Beginning HD. [Video

            file.]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5dSbJ5YIcvw

A631.2.4.RB_MedleyKim_Team LT2: Week Two All is Well

Team LT2: Week Two All is Well

Yukl (2013) describes virtual teams as those whose members are located across separate geographic locations, seldom meet in a “face-to-face” setting, if ever, communicate through e-mail or by using other forms of technology, form a “cross-functional team”, on a temporary basis, in order to complete a “specific task” (p. 261). Such is the case with team “LT2”, a virtual group with members assigned to it for a temporary, nine week span, by Dr. Daryl Watkins of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. As explained by Dr. Daryl Watkins (2016), “Leading High Performance Teams” is the continuation of the course titled, “Organization Development”. Whereas the first half of the course provided for individual students to review and submit answers for certain case studies; the second half creates teams, asks teams to review cases studies, and submit a final assignment that represents the talents and contributions of individuals blended to form a collective response. The team charter and its completion is the first assignment and from this certain information critical to a successful team may be gleamed.

Although Team LT2 will rely on both structural and technological strategies to effect the change needed to bring individuals together in a way that forms a high performance team, Brown (2011) increased morale and motivation are realized when the “vast untapped resource” of “human assets” is both recognized and incorporated (p. 178). Team LT2 began to uncover its list of talents with the completion of the team charter. As Brown (2011) notes, developing a team is done with two goals: the team’s agenda and how the team will complete its agenda. The team’s first task, completing the charter, began with one team member’s use of initiating and suggesting (Brown, 2011). The task was initiated by posting the entire instructions. The way to complete the process was suggested, based on that team member’s past performance with other teams. Based on the subsequent posts from fellow teammates, it appears the suggestion did not require any elaboration; however, when one group member asked if others still had to complete the charter, the entire group list was posted so all would know which members still needed to complete the charter. Brown (2011) states a virtual team comes together when “a common purpose and objective” is shared by all members (p. 263). As each member completed his or her portion of the charter, the initial leader returned to that of a follower as a new member emerged as the leader who would have the responsibility of submitting the assignment.

Brown (2011) chronicles six steps for developing a team. Team LT2 initially met through a discussion thread designed to be a group check-in. Following that, the initial meeting for the charter was set up as a separate discussion thread. The instructions established the goal. Each member completed his or her portion, renamed the file as the next sequential version of the charter, posted the document in the group files, and indicated in the group discussion thread their charter section had been completed. The completion of the charter is a fairly simple task; however, it cannot be completed by one person, as such, cooperation was high with Team LT2 because “sharing of information” was a must in order to achieve the first group task (Brown, 2011, p. 300). Quite honestly, completing the charter has been an easy task to complete with prior groups. Unfortunately, the cooperation and collaboration so eagerly demonstrated and welcomed, will soon turn to competition and conflict. Factors outlined in the charter, identified as the barriers that could inhibit successful completion of group assignments: failure to communicate and to check discussion boards regularly did not occur this week; however, one group member has already started looking ahead and has asked for feedback and group consensus regarding the creation of a group chat using GroupMe and linking us all through our cell phones. It will be interesting to see what feedback is provided and what decision is made. Team LT2 spent one week on the charter. Brown (2011) summarizes “Intergroup Development” as, “The major objectives of intergroup interventions include a better way of working together, increased recognition of interdependence, less competition, and more collaboration” (p. 305). Hopefully this group member is not the only one to read these words.

References

Brown, D.R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organizational Development. (8^th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Watkins, D. (2016). Welcome. In Announcements – My Courses @Embry-Riddle. Retrieved from

            https://erau.instructure.com/courses/35269/discussion_topics/468745

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. (8^th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.