Saturday, May 24, 2014

A631.9.2.RB_FodenJohn (Video Debrief)

A631.9.2.RB_FodenJohn

        Hmmmmm. Would I succeed at NeXT with Steve Jobs at the helm? Would I contribute or detract from one of Jobs’ innovative, energetic business ventures? Such intriguing points to ponder. Although I’m not a disciple of Steve Jobs and don’t own Apple products, I’m convinced Jobs was an exceptionally amazing and intriguing personality and entrepreneur. I’ve come to appreciate what is quite clear to his biggest fans. Although he would have been difficult to work with and for, he was amazing, innovative, and literally changed the world. Петренко (2012) reminded viewers that Jobs began his entrepreneurial journey by building Apple Computers when he was only 27, but was later “forced out.”  As a result, Jobs immediately began his NeXT venture. Many of his former employees followed him to start a new tech experience business.

NeXT’s focus would be to provide college students a reasonably priced, high power lap top that could process applications not yet available in the market place. These new apps would be virtual tools which would usurp the place of real, higher cost laboratory environments. Jobs was convinced he could revolutionize the way universities provided their education. Jobs continually focused on changing the world and facilitating learning opportunities.

For Jobs to succeed in such a state-of-the-art, fast-paced, technologically focused market, he required fast and innovative thinkers. The video portrayed high energy and committed innovators and teams who work best in groups and who enjoy working outside traditional parameters. NeXT and Apple employees eagerly engaged in excited and strategic discussions. They were comfortable working with technical challenges, but not necessarily operating within accelerated time/deadline or money constraints. Further, the video portrayed Jobs as surrounding himself with like-energized and innovative “free-thinkers.”

Understanding how John Foden would integrate into Jobs’ NeXT “mix” has been enlightening. This week’s assignment directed our class to participate in a NextSteps Research (NSR) survey to better understand our own tendencies and strengths as well as in what environment we would each thrive. Per its mission statement, NSR “delivers contextualized analysis of the innovation trends in our clients' industries, with an emphasis on Patents, Products, and People.” NSR developed assessment tools and invites clients to participate and then reviews responses to comprehensively analyze results to empower its clients to make sound professional decisions. NSR evaluated my personal leadership style and priorities against its Leadership Management Styles quadrant: diplomatic, logistical, strategic, and tactical. It designated my style as Confident Highly Introverted Logistical Leader.

My 28 year uniformed/civilian tenure in the military has definitely honed my Confident Highly Introverted Logistical Leader management style…which is not consistent with the fast-thinking, concepts-focused innovator Jobs embraced. NSR’s survey depicted me having some traits Jobs’ sought in his team such as “architecting” NeXT. I enjoy frequent job changes; I moved ten times in my 25 year career and served in at least 15 jobs in that period. Challenges inspire me. I am highly motivated to succeed which was Jobs’ driving trait. Although I am willing to risk security, I’m not willing to “go for it all” without an almost certainty to succeed.

However, the video emphasized Jobs desired to impact history, to “make his mark” in improving the lives of others through technology and ideas. He wanted his ideas to improve how young people learn and work in order to improve their circumstances and the world. Jobs’ outlook demonstrated he wanted to be an example for others to follow, one of service and making the impossible, possible. Like Jobs, I highly prioritize serving as a role model… improving the capacities of those in my “sphere of influence.” I commanded three units over a five-year period and enjoyed mentoring young officers to become better leaders. I learned from those senior and subordinate to me and sought to exemplify that “wisdom” to my charges. My desire is to cultivate future commanders who serve and “shepherd” their Airmen who then mentor their own young leaders.

Last, Jobs and his team embraced and encouraged diversity of thought and innovation structure. The video described how the brainstorm sessions at his off-sites conjured up, energized, and defined a plethora of possibilities via innovation and marketing. NSR reflected I excel in diverse focus changes. Competing priorities and different management levels constantly competed for my attention as commander. My current job enables me to work with military Services as well as government and private agencies in the disaster response field. I manage diverse and competing priorities everyday on how to support exercises and force development.

However, for some of the similarities in leadership style Jobs and I share, there are greater differences that would invite disjointedness in NeXT or my management style. First NSR indicated I’m motivated to look for problems rather than seek solutions. In Jobs’ priorities, aggressively seeking solutions to what users want is what drove him. In the video, Jobs’ did not want to be distracted by problems or stopped by “naysayers” or constrained by limitations. Jobs simply wanted to plow forward with what seemed to be unrealistic technical or performance expectations with accelerated times “to market”. Problems and challenges were simply hurdles through which he would drive. He did not view technological limitations and soaring market expectations as existential issues. Jobs viewed his challenges as seeking to maintain and sustain NeXT’s market credibility and position. As a result, he just wanted to drive a “stake in the ground” so NeXT development would have a clear vision and adjust its actions to meet those.

On the other hand, logistics forces me to seek out potential problems and gaps in order to avoid them or generate solutions. I must pay attention to how my units will travel, eat, work, and sleep. There are plenty of opportunities for details and support to “fall between the cracks.” I have to consider past lessons learned so I don’t repeat earlier mistakes. However, Jobs didn’t seem to mind making the same mistakes in ensuing projects as he was convinced different circumstances might lead to solutions at NeXT.

Next, I “follow the rules” and conventions because I am expected to follow task- specific guidance that supervisors and leadership offer. Also, regulations and tactics/techniques and procedures (TTPs) as well as concepts of operations and directives determine what I can and cannot do. My supervisors permit limited freedom to craft solutions, but most fixes are built in constrained rule-set coordination and collaboration. I have become overly structured as a Confident Highly Introverted Logistical Leader after 27 years of military discipline reinforcing my natural personal tendencies. It just so happened logistics and planning were my military career specialties…two areas that demanded disciplined and constrained thought.

Last, Петренко (2012) showed Jobs was eager to move ahead as rapidly as possible and his teams had to catch up with his goals. Jobs was a “big ideas” guy, but not so focused on certain small details (business) because he believed those details tended to slow his possibilities and would “take care of themselves.” Jobs was convinced his customers continuously focused on the “next thing” and didn’t want to wait for the “perfect” solution/product. Jobs admitted information technology was continuously changing. If NeXT failed to offer solutions and technologies, someone else was close behind to offer their own solutions. On the other hand, logistics and planning require more time because it relies on gathering and referencing as much detail as possible. Military leaders expect subordinates and planners to publish the most-detailed product possible. Focusing on those details directs planners to near-perfection, not “ball park” solutions.

References

Brown, D. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Larocque, T. (2014). Management assessment profile: John Foden. NextSteps Research.

NextSteps Research. About Us. Retrieved from http://www.nextstepsresearch.com/about.htm

Петренко, C. (2012). Steve Jobs Brainstorms with NeXT Team. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loQhufxiorM&feature=youtu.be

Thursday, May 15, 2014

A631.8.4.RB_FodenJohn (Reflective Analysis)

A631.8.4.RB_FodenJohn (Reflective Analysis)

We’ve all heard the phrase “It takes all kinds (to make the world go ‘round’).” Even though the world’s population exceeds seven billion, each of us is unique (even identical twins/triplets/ quadruplets). Our real differences reside in our personalities and whom we are, whether quiet or boisterous, meek or brave, obnoxious or kind, social or introverted. Our personalities engender what attracts and rebuffs us.

Despite the “infiniteness” of human capacity and personality, Cherry (n.d.) shared that Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs categorized 16 basic personality types via their Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) “test” which bases its tenets on Carl Jung’s theory of personality types. The MBTI is the most widely used evaluation to define personalities. Cherry stated the MBTI is a “self-inventory designed to identify a person's personality type, strengths, and preferences.”

Further, the MBTI is simply an indicator of personality which does not judge any one personality better or preferred than another. Cherry (n.d.) intimated MBTI empowers individuals to understand and explore their personalities such as likes, dislikes, career options, and compatibility with others. The assessment suggests personalities are based upon four scales:

·         Extraversion (E) vs. Introversion (I)
·         Sensing (S) vs Intuition (N)
·         Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F)
·         Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P)

The evaluation is somewhat valid, but not fully reliable. Cherry (n.d.) offered studies reflecting 40-75 percent of respondents received different results when taking the “test” a second time.

For me, taking the “HumanMetrics” evaluation reinforced a self-perception with respect to my preferences and actions. My personality “graded” as I(ntrovert) S(ensing)T(hinking) J(udging) which described me as “…reserved, practical and quiet. They (ISTJ) enjoy order and organization in all areas of their lives including their home, work, family and projects. ISTJs value loyalty in themselves and others, and place an emphasis on traditions.” (Cherry, n.d.) ISTJ correctly indicates my personality.

The personalitypage.com website described ISTJ as a “Duty Fulfiller.” Explanation focused on ISTJ personalities as quiet, reserved, holding a sense of duty, and a commitment to complete tasks via being organized and methodical. ISTJ have high expectations of themselves and others which originate from a strong sense of duty which may result in working long hours to complete a job. Alternatively, ISTJs tend to display reserved emotion, but place great emphasis on family and friends. Personalitypage.com concluded that ISTJ types boast tremendous potential and success for achieving their goals.

Personalitypage.com shared ISTJ characteristics supported challenging, rewarding careers which rely on commitment and thoroughness. ISTJ careers included military leaders, judges, law enforcement, business executives, and medical doctors. As ISTJ, I am reserved, yet committed to “finish the job.” As a matter of fact, most of my careers have been serving as a military leader and commander. Military demands and rigors match my personality type because I focus on mission while soliciting the followership of subordinates. I operate best in orderliness, but can adapt as necessary to overcome unforeseen challenges and opportunities.

My 25 years of military service was marked by 25 years of military leadership whether supervising 2-3 Airmen or commanding 300-Airmen squadrons. In addition to knowing and leveraging my strengths, I knew the personalities and strengths/improvements of my squadrons. I assigned people to missions and responsibilities based upon what their skills made possible. If I mismatched personalities, mission degradation ensued. In fact, I supervised two senior enlisted who suffered personality clashes and didn’t “get along” even when disciplinary action was considered. These men had to work together because their specialties and organizational requirements supported the mission. However, after a few months, it was clear the workplace had become toxic. Their subordinates “picked sides” of who they supported. I finally had asked one of the members to leave. The work environment improved following his departure. Knowing personalities in my units enabled me to assign aggressive leaders in roles where they assertively, yet deliberately mentored their charges. In fact, there were a couple of times I had to pull a couple of junior officers from leadership roles because they just “weren’t prepared” to lead.

The MBTI and HumanMetrics assessments posed circumstances and choices I experienced everyday which made it easy for me to respond and build a personality pattern. Now I’ve confirmed my strengths as well as my improvement areas enabling me to strengthen both. My profession requires me to be thorough, detail-oriented, as well as reflective and realistic. I plan unit movements and military exercises. I frequently research how many forces will be positioned and where. I need to determine how the HQ will feed and house forces as well as how it provides re-supplies. These efforts require me to plan, coordinate, and collaborate with dozens of other planners at headquarters and subordinate agencies.

Although I’m reserved, my roles encourage me to engage with professional counterparts at headquarters and subordinate units as well as with those internal to my unit. Every year, I attend three command planning conferences as well as weekly internal planning meetings to identify, coordinate, collaborate, and firm requirements and support for a 4,000-person deployment and exercise. I cannot afford to be reserved or let events get beyond my control. My ISTJ traits demonstrate that I work outside of my “comfort zone” to complete the job…otherwise, mayhem ensues with 4,000 people wondering where they’ll sleep, work, or eat. I understand my reserved nature and its limitations in my job…and simply focus on the end result (what has to get done) and not on the path to get there (which is not reserved). It’s more important for me to complete my mission in a thorough manner than to remain comfortable in my reserved nature.

I enjoy the opportunities of leadership and mentorship more than I am comfortable in my ISTJ traits. As a result, understanding my tendencies and then acting out to oppose them in appropriate circumstances enables me to assertively lead and plan major events. Additionally, I’m pursuing additional education and assertively searching for training opportunities to bolster my professional resume. ISTJ is who I am comfortable being, but not necessarily who I need to be if I’m going to lead…and that’s fine by me.

References

Brown, D. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Careers for ISTJ Personality Types. Retrieved from http://www.personalitypage.com/html/ISTJ_car.html

Cherry, K. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. About.com Psychology. http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologicaltesting/a/myers-briggs-type-indicator.htm

Portrait of an ISTJ. (n.d.) The Duty Fulfiller. Retrieved from http://www.personalitypage.com/ISTJ.html