Hi, everyone! How is your weekend going? Mine is pretty good :)
Last time, I wrote "what I consider from the article from Harvard Business Review and my experience is that the balance is always important" and in the section called "Looking Beyond Your Own Need for Action" and its "Lessons for Leaders" talked about keeping the balance between leaders' needs and the ones of the team as a whole.
The author, Dennis Perkins, gives an example of the leader Vilhjalmur Stefansson. He seems he did not prepare for the voyage enough and he did not consider the options prudently. For my personal impression towards him, I didn't really understand the reason why he couldn't foresee the fact that his crews left on the ship would have died in the ice. Even though he became inpatient and felt anxious about the future voyage, I think he should not have make a decision by himself and make the other crews to follow what the decided. What I think about how the leaders should be is that leaders cannot act like a dictator, for example, not listening to others' opinions. Stefansson refused Captain Bartlett's advice when the ship was not able to move forward. I understand their conversations are omitted in the book, but they should have discussed what they should do as a whole in a team so that Steansson should have been aware of the risk that crews left on the ship could not reach safety.
Since now, I've stated some critical points about Stefansson's actions, but I do really understand his feelings. When I feel stressed, I often close the door, try to run away from the facing problems and then I tend to make a temporary decision, which doesn't really results in a good way. I realized if I, as a leader, was in panic, so would be the teammates so that at first, I would need to calm down and be open to any opinions teammates have, consider options we have carefully, and I should make a final decision as a leader. By explaining reasons with the final decision, the teammates would understand and I could make them focus on the common goal together.
I think it was good to read this book because I was able to find one of my weak points as a leader. And reading what I wrote in this post now and I found it shows how much I prefer to be a collaborative person, which is the same as the result of negotiation preference paper.
Bye!
Shiori
2014年1月26日日曜日
2014年1月25日土曜日
LE Part1: "Two-in-a-box" Leadership
Hello, everyone.
I apologize I haven't released my blog for two days as my condition wasn't good until yesterday and I prioritized sleeping early in the evening. So sorry about that. I'll catch up and match the numbers by releasing blogs two or three times in one day.
After reading the first part of Leading at the Edge, I learned how important keeping the team members' attentions toward the common goal is, by defusing destructive mood. In the book, the author raised some examples of companies in the 1900s. One of the strategies stated in the book is called "Go-Forward Plan," and it reminded me of the "two-in-a-box" leadership.
The article called "Leadership Teams: Why Two Are Better Than One," by Harvard Business Review shows an example of a company called "Fishbowl." This company provides "inventory management solution among QuickBooks users." The strategy of this company is quite unique. The presidents made pairs of employees for all management jobs. They say there is a very good point about adopting this "two-in-a-box" leadership: "More creative outcomes. We’ve chosen our pairs carefully – we align paired leaders for maximum contrast in thinking and analytical styles. For example, our product management leads include one partner who is “left brained” and one who is “right brain” dominant. One is linear in his style; the other creative. The result is a manifestation of true synergy" (Williams, Scott).
The reason why "Go-Forward Plan" reminded me of this leadership is based on my experience in an organization I belong. Now I am an executive committee member of an organization called H-LAB, which stands for HCJI (Harvard College Japan Initiative) - Liberal Arts beyond Borders. This organization provides a nine-day summer school to the high school students and they can experience some seminars held by Harvard students in a small group of people and listen to people who play active roles in various fields like politicians, CEOs, entrepreneurs, directors of movies and so on. The organization two years ago was represented by two leaders. One of them often said harsh things to everyone. He always demonstrated critical points in discussion. The other leader, on contrast, always talked to individuals and tried to cheer them up. He observed team members closely every single day, and whenever he noticed someone was acting weird because of the stress during the hard summer school, he talked to the person and motivated him/her. By having both of them, the management of the summer school in that year did go well and summer school itself became a huge success. I think they both were definitely necessary in a team. Having only a strict leader could make a great decision on the management but might cause a disquieting mood and a trouble among members. Having only "go-forward" leader could make members feel comfortable in a team but might make them lazy.
What I consider from the article from Harvard Business Review and my experience is that the balance is always important, and two-in-a-box" leadership is an easy way to balance each of good aspects of two kinds of leadership.
Williams, David K., and Mary M. Scott. "Leadership Teams: Why Two Are Better Than One." Harvard Business Review 23 Apr. 2012: n. pag. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
Shiori Asakura
I apologize I haven't released my blog for two days as my condition wasn't good until yesterday and I prioritized sleeping early in the evening. So sorry about that. I'll catch up and match the numbers by releasing blogs two or three times in one day.
After reading the first part of Leading at the Edge, I learned how important keeping the team members' attentions toward the common goal is, by defusing destructive mood. In the book, the author raised some examples of companies in the 1900s. One of the strategies stated in the book is called "Go-Forward Plan," and it reminded me of the "two-in-a-box" leadership.
The article called "Leadership Teams: Why Two Are Better Than One," by Harvard Business Review shows an example of a company called "Fishbowl." This company provides "inventory management solution among QuickBooks users." The strategy of this company is quite unique. The presidents made pairs of employees for all management jobs. They say there is a very good point about adopting this "two-in-a-box" leadership: "More creative outcomes. We’ve chosen our pairs carefully – we align paired leaders for maximum contrast in thinking and analytical styles. For example, our product management leads include one partner who is “left brained” and one who is “right brain” dominant. One is linear in his style; the other creative. The result is a manifestation of true synergy" (Williams, Scott).
The reason why "Go-Forward Plan" reminded me of this leadership is based on my experience in an organization I belong. Now I am an executive committee member of an organization called H-LAB, which stands for HCJI (Harvard College Japan Initiative) - Liberal Arts beyond Borders. This organization provides a nine-day summer school to the high school students and they can experience some seminars held by Harvard students in a small group of people and listen to people who play active roles in various fields like politicians, CEOs, entrepreneurs, directors of movies and so on. The organization two years ago was represented by two leaders. One of them often said harsh things to everyone. He always demonstrated critical points in discussion. The other leader, on contrast, always talked to individuals and tried to cheer them up. He observed team members closely every single day, and whenever he noticed someone was acting weird because of the stress during the hard summer school, he talked to the person and motivated him/her. By having both of them, the management of the summer school in that year did go well and summer school itself became a huge success. I think they both were definitely necessary in a team. Having only a strict leader could make a great decision on the management but might cause a disquieting mood and a trouble among members. Having only "go-forward" leader could make members feel comfortable in a team but might make them lazy.
What I consider from the article from Harvard Business Review and my experience is that the balance is always important, and two-in-a-box" leadership is an easy way to balance each of good aspects of two kinds of leadership.
Work Cited
Williams, David K., and Mary M. Scott. "Leadership Teams: Why Two Are Better Than One." Harvard Business Review 23 Apr. 2012: n. pag. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
Shiori Asakura
2014年1月22日水曜日
Shackleton's Saga
Hello, everyone.
It's been a long time since I posted my blog last time, and I feel very sorry about how long I haven't been writing my blog posts. I do really regret my procrastination ... so, in order to get over my bad habit, procrastinating, I decided to release my blog as much as I can, more than four posts in a week!!!
I know everyone did this a long ago, but let me begin with Shackleton's Saga. Among "Acknowledgement," "Preface" and "The Shackleton Saga," what put the most impact on me was "The Shackleton Saga." After reading the whole story (even though it was a shorten version) of long journey, I felt the same way as the author, Dennis Perkins did as he states, "Every time I relieve this story, I want to give these explorers a round of applause. I want to applaud them, not just because they made it safety, but because of the extraordinary leadership and teamwork they exhibited."
At the first time I read the fact that Shackleton himself wanted to do the journey and many people volunteered to do this with him, I was feeling like, "are you guys crazy?" but as I read through the story, I was able to imagine the great feeling that I would get after accomplishing the goal in the journey.
The most impressive part for me in this section, "The Shackleton Saga," was on the page 9, when Shackleton decided to break up with five crews and let them sail for help. Just before that, the author asks a question, "whether to stay and wait for rescue, or to sail for help. If you sail, where do you go?" Actually, my answer right after reading this question was "I have no idea," and then I realized if I were the leader of this journey, I would make all the crews die, and I would need a quick decision-making ability to be a leader in any fields.
The whole story reminded me of my one-week volunteer trip to Nepal at the time when I was a 10th grader. We raised money by ourselves and spent those money to buy things Nepalese people needed for everyday life. They definitely needed food, clothes, shoes and some stuff like toothbrushes.
We, as a team, had to work together for the whole time: carrying and sorting the huge amount of items and food, distributing them, visiting orphanages and playing with kids, going back to the shelter and get food for ourselves. We weren't able to take a bath, and we weren't able to eat food everyday because Nepalese people who were really in trouble of getting food, clothes and other necessities lived mainly in town or country sides so that we didn't stay in a hotel in a city. The condition in Nepal was not good. During the trip, some members get irritated and had some fight with team members. Some people got diarrhea and weren't able to work for a few days. Sometimes we had to make a tough decision. It was almost impossible to give items to all the people in line and we knew we had to visit other towns where people were waiting for the items we had. In that case, we had to leave the rest of people in line even though they'd been waiting for getting the items for a long time in line. They were crying and many of them were begging us not to leave. All I was able to do was to say sorry. In this extreme situation, team members were getting more and more degenerate day by day and so was I.
As compared to Shackleton's Saga, my volunteer trip is such a tiny agony experience, but this book lets me think what kind of leadership we needed at that time and how our teamwork would have been if Shackleton had been with us. What would he do?
In the beginning of this blog post, I wrote I wasn't able to understand Shackleton and those other people who volunteered to do such a painful journey, but I think I knew why they wanted to do the journey. I wanted to know what was there, in Nepal. I wanted to see the truth by myself, how Nepalese people were in trouble of living their lives. I wanted to accomplish my goal, to be a small help to those people even though it was devastatingly tiny. Although the specific motivations are different from Shackleton's and his crews', I think we both wanted to achieve something we'd never done and get something we'd never felt or thought by putting ourselves into tough situations.
Bye!
Shiori Asakura
登録:
コメント (Atom)