MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012. Portland State University. Agenda. Review & Questions from last class Javidan Article discussion Guest Lecture: Anna Young, Senior Director of Strategy and Learning- Mercy Corp Lecture Leadership & identity Change and culture
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University
Agenda • Review & Questions from last class • Javidan Article discussion • Guest Lecture: Anna Young, Senior Director of Strategy and Learning- Mercy Corp • Lecture • Leadership & identity • Change and culture • Leadership, organizations, and change • Distance Leadership
Javidan’s Model • Visionary – develop a new sense of direction • Innovator – risk takers who generate ideas • Mobilizer – develop a pool of intellectual energy • Auditor – High performance expectations • Ambassadors – understands intra/inter orgs • + • Socializer – inclusive of others • Consideration - listens • Self-sacrifice – viewed as participative • Analyzer – understands and listens
Taiwan versus Canada • Shared Charisma, ambassador, & auditor in leaders • Canadians value visionary leaders • advancement • individualistic • Taiwanese value mobilizer leaders • cooperation • belongingness • work climate
Leadership & Identity • Social identity has a significant impact in how we lead and behave as followers • Leaders that take on the group norm often gain trust from followers to work in their interest • Leaders that gain trust and identity are effective regardless of whether they are involved in group work, leaders that lack identity must be involved in group activities • Leaders that gain group identity reduce uncertainty & drive change effectively • Quote (p. 484) “..despite all the changes, the core aspects of the collective identity are maintained” • Does this work in distance leadership across borders & cultures?
Leadership & Identity • Followers with a high degree of group identity generally feel leaders with a similar identity are more fair • Leaders that strive for identification tend towards LMX leadership • Leaders with group identity are more likely to be viewed as charismatic • Entrepreneur of identity – Leaders create group and leader identity by empowerment • But… • Does this work in distance leadership across borders & cultures?
Culture and Change • Acculturation: Ability to adapt • Assimilation – adapt to dominant group • Integration – accept universalism • Separation – keep distance from host group • Marginalization – lose home culture completely • Willingness to take risks and learn from those risks • Six change questions to ask: • What are our customers telling us? • How relevant is our mission? • What are our stockholders telling us? • What are our competitors saying? • What are our employees trying to say? • Are we ahead or behind?
Culture and Change • How ready is the organization to change? • Evolutionary change? • Revolutionary change? • What is the Process of change? • Momentum – can the change stick? • Chaos during the change • Power and politics – leader’s ability to influence • Incentives / intrinsic rewards • How much is right? • 150 / 7
Culture and Change • Key is learning agility: • Critical thinking skills • Self-knowledge • Comfort with ambiguity • Comfort with risk and making mistakes • Change in practice • Certain changes cannot be controlled • Control what you can • Recognize fear • Sell the benefits • Remind group that change is going to occur
Culture and Change • Organizational Learning is: • Adapting to external environment • The willingness to adapt • Know when to reinforce and when to destruct work patters • Know when to create new work patters • Reward collective learning • Learn to rapidly utilize new learning in the org • Four types of Social units • The workgroup – interdependent toward one goal • The team – peers – specific objectives • The network team – virtual • The community – related by non-task work
Your existing system is designed to give you the results you’re currently getting. Somebody once said: - "the only person who likes change - is a wet baby". Someone else said - "No one resists change - they resist being changed“ If you want different results, you must change the system! Improvement Requires Change
Mintzberg’s Organizational Divisions Operating core: people who do the work Strategic Apex: Leadership Middle line: Hierarchy Technostructure: staff / ideas Support Staff: staff / services
Mintzberg’s Organizational Divisions • Confusion - difficulty in realizing that change is going to happen. • Immediate Criticism - rejecting change before hearing the details. • Denial - refusing to accept that things have changed. • Malicious Compliance - smiling and seeming to go along, only to demonstrate a lack of compliance later on. • Sabotage - taking actions to inhibit or kill the change.
Mintzberg’s Organizational Divisions • Easy Agreement - agreeing with little resistance, without realizing what is being agreed to. • Deflection - changing the subject and hoping "maybe it'll go away." • Silence - complete absence of input, which may be the most difficult resistance to deal with. • Each of these five parts in the chart has a tendency to pull the organization in a particular direction favorable to them
Mintzberg’s Organizational Divisions • 1. Direct setting or simple structure: relies on direct supervision from the strategic apex, the CEO. - China • 2. Machine Bureaucracy • Large organizations: relies on standardization of work processes by the techno-structure. - EU • 3. Professional Bureaucracy • The professional services firm: relies on the professionals' standardization of skills and knowledge in the operating core. - USA • 4. Divisionalized Form • Multi-divisional organization: relies on standardization of outputs; middle-line managers run independent divisions. - USA
Mintzberg’s Organizational Divisions • 5. Adhocracy • Project organizations: highly organic structure with little formalization; relies on mutual adjustment as the key coordinating mechanism within and between these project teams. – EU • In later work Mintzberg added two more configurations: • 6. Missionary Form • Coordination occurs based on commonly held ideologies or beliefs: standardization of norms. - USA • 7. Political Form • No coordination form is dominant: control is based on forming alliances. - China
Leadership & Change • The pre-launch stage: • Self awareness – tolerance for ambiguity • Motives – personal goals versus organization • Values – is it the culture that needs to be changed? • The Launch stage: • Communicating the need • Initial activities – rally around “customer” or “products” • Dealing with resistance – turf & politics • Post-launch stage: • Hold people’s feet to the fire • Deal with avoidance mechanisms – finger pointing and blaming • Take the heat • Be consistent – repeat the message
Distance Leadership • What creates distance leadership? • Globalization • Outsourcing / off-shoring • M&A • New developing markets • Content requirements • Leader communication • Intragroup communication – tasks in projects, knowledge sharing • external communication – customers & suppliers • Mechanisms – e-mail, face-to-face, travel, phone, etc • High Performance groups prefer face-to-face
Virtually through ‘linkages’ • The concept of global production network (GPN) Source: Ernst & Kim, 2001
Distance Leadership • Challenges to distance leadership: • Borders – organizational and financial • Knowledge sharing • Tacit • Codified • Decision rights • Alienable rights • What should be co-located and how should it be organized? • Culture both in the organization and the geography
Findings in Study • Geographic dispersion was not associated with performance • Leader intra-group communication was found critical to performance, intergroup was not • Leader intra-group communication in a dispersed geography was highly critical to performance • Leadership that best fosters “problem solving” by open communication
Findings in Study • Electronic groups: hard time reaching consensus and can over communicate • How do leaders foster trust remotely? • Face-to-face mtgs were far and away to most effective form of communication in geographically dispersed groups • However, informal communication was found to be just as important as formal reviews and meetings
Leadership Distance • Co-location for a substantive time at the beginning of a project has a significant effect on completion of projects • training but also culture • Aligning expectations • Cross fertilization of knowledge • Distance leadership has pitfalls: • Team members don’t know who is in the room • Mistakes are transparent • Trust again is paramount
Leadership traits in distance orgs • Transformational Leadership – in Virtual teams has been more effective do to encourage exchange of ideas • Enthusiasm, confidence, appreciation for diverse views, & looking at problems in new ways • Face-to-face teams act in a more constructive style versus Virtual teams that are defensive • The higher the constructive style, the more the teams are accepting of another team’s solution • Expertise may overcome Virtual team errors however they have a harder time becoming cohesive • Media type only effects leadership interaction style
Leadership traits in distance orgs • Leaders of Virtual teams need to develop a constructive interaction style, again supporting the need for initial face-to-face mtgs • Virtual teams are less effective if they are temporary versus long term strategies • Leaders of distance orgs must be tech savvy • In virtual teams and matrix orgs, unassigned leaders may emerge as group leaders informally
Singaporean Hospital example • Transformational leaders – charisma improves distance leaders • Hospital employees respected their distance leader more than onsite leaders • High power distance • Knowledge of leader behavior was low • Only saw high level vision, not execution • Saw local leaders as task command & control