Inculcating

Inculcating has several different meanings: Teaching, Instructing, Coaching, Training, Indoctrinating, Instilling, and Impress upon. At least part of the point in the vision, mission and value statement is to encourage some types of values over others, focused on achieving the mission, and directed toward some vision that the entire team can support, hopefully enthusiastically. While inculcating is most associated with changing someone or something through persistent instruction may sound like nagging (some say project managers must know how to nag), if the lesson is important to the organization’s success consistency is our only hope of achieving the change we desire. The same is true for our communication, if we want open and safe communication, we must reinforce the organization’s value for communication and demonstrate or model this behavior. Words will not matter of the actions run contrary. The same is true of the actions only match when it is convenient or when the actions come with some consequence. The true test of leadership and perhaps character, is behaving in accord with our values even when it comes at a cost. There are many inhibitors to communication and words that promote a defensive, aggressive or a strong positional authority. This approach to communication run contrary to helping inculcate the desired behaviors (hard to imagine the vision statement that matches). There may be times when it is strong language or exercising positional authority are required, however, this should be done with explanation You should ask, “How do you not use your positional authority and yet maintain it for times when it is required?” All of this must balance being responsible to the people whom we are leading and for the efforts we are managing.

One of the interesting definitions of inculcating must be teaching. This teaching should focus on things like the mission, vision, and values statements of the organization with a slant towards critical and creative thinking associated with processes and procedures of the organization. Teaching also applies to any continuous improvement efforts the organization has underway, perhaps more so. In that we mean that we should promote our people and our organization to always be seeking to make the next thing: people, job, procedure, process, and project, better. This constant improvement based upon the mission, vision, and values statements of an organization is the exact meaning of a learning organization and the quintessential part of organizational development that lasts. Patience and communications are required for teaching, it should clear that commanding is not teaching.

We intentionally develop the organization’s culture to create an environment in which there is a high degree of repeatability, and to ensure the organization is successful. The organization sets the behavior expected from the employee and the values the organization believes are conducive to good stewardship of the organization while ensuring the learning and individual growth. To be sure, the organization is not static, but will require adaptations over time. The principles the organization attempts to instill in the employee does not mean check the brain at the door.

Knowledge Sharing

Let us not delude ourselves. We all know that knowledge sharing is important to the health and growth of teams and organization development. All we must do to verify this is conduct a search on the computer about “Knowledge Sharing” and we will see hundreds if not thousands of articles. We can also look at the more effective organizations and see that they share knowledge in a more productive manner, ’[hen why do we not share knowledge freely if we know it can only help our organization? I am sure we have all heard the adage that “Knowledge is Power.” It is this very reason why it does not commonly flow as it should. In the book “Tribal Leadership” they refer to this as phase 3: I’m great you are not.' This zone is about personal accomplishment and feeling let down, high personal goals and/or standards but feel others do not have these same standards or goals.1 This either comes from a lack of goal sharing or knowledge sharing sponsored from a sense that they can only rely on themselves;[1] therefore they control information in a manner that sustains this model. The irony of this is that without the sharing of knowledge these individuals will obtain a plateau based on time and can progress no further/ It is when those people realize that sharing this knowledge and allowing others to develop, they themselves and the organization will develop more and be able to facilitate higher objectives.

Highly performing people, like those commonly selected for or are in management positions, are very susceptible to the pitfalls of assuming they are the hardest workers, and few can perform at their level. They think they must control information (Knowledge) as to not overload others. There is also a darker side of this where some control this information to secure their position of power. This could be from a sense of insecurity in their position as well. Either way this position is self- defeating in that it is seen by others as office politics and creates negative experiences for everyone involved. And as we discussed using the leadership equation these negative experiences demotivate personnel and create the next generation of stage three leaders. The question is how do we not promote or how do we get past this stage three? The answer to this is as varied as the people who go through it, but there are some key areas we could concentrate on, such as a strong values statement that promotes development of self and others to a higher level and a lack of concern of position or power, both of which are key to stage three. The higher level of development we speak of is in the form of collaborative and creative thinking. This model plays against the standard training model in that it is not the conformist or

those that adhere to the standard outline and consistently yield the desired answer, but those who are able to develop their own answer commonly working as part of a team for overall improvement for the tasks at hand.[2]

Management Changes over Time

Everything changes with time including what is considered good or effective management. According to a paper written by Ellen Van Velsor and Joel Wright for the Center for Creative Leadership the five most important competencies over the last 20 years have changed in a rather dynamic manner.[2] Whereas 20 years ago technical mastery, self-motivation and discipline, confidence, effective communication, and resourcefulness were the top five, now the top five are self- motivation and discipline, effective communication, learning agility, self-awareness, and adaptability and versatility.[2] As you can see the dynamic has shifted in such a manner as to appear to desire a motivated individual with good communication skills who can learn about numerous topics quickly versus an individual who is technically savvy, self-motivated, and confident with less communication skills. This shift should not be surprising in that we have seen a shift in society toward the group dynamic and away from single point source. This can be considered good or bad, but either way it is what we have to work with and will assuredly change again in the next 20 years. The point that we as managers need to draw from this is we must stay in tune with these changes as they develop because they will affect how we are to manage our people and even more so how we will help their development and that of our organization. Also, as the people who are aligned to this current model become supervisors and managers the information, they will need to assess the overall health of projects and the organization will change.

Habits are something that we all contend with both good and bad. As we discuss the changes in management and how we manage, one of the items we must address is “Habits.” While by the definition of a habit it is a constant item, it would not seem to fit within the arena of changes if we look further into how habits play into an organization we would see that habits are the cause of the majority of cyclic change. When we determine an item or action that needs a change we are in all actuality addressing a habit that has been developed by either our people or our processes themselves. As we all know and have had to deal with for both our own habits and those of our organization it is easy to fall into allowing a habit to return after we have facilitated a change to said habit. This is a natural function of how our brain is designed to make space for new information and decrease response time to items it has defined as routine (Habits). However, that is exactly why we must work harder to change and maintain changed those items that have become habits. Another word for habit is routine and while most organizations view routines as a cost savings and an asset they, as with most things, come at a cost. And that cost would be a natural resistance to being changed.

  • [1] Logan, D., King, J. P., & Fischer-Wright, H. (2011). Tribal leadership: Leveraging natural groupsto build a thriving organization. New York: Harper Business. ! Logan, D., King, J. P., & Fischer-Wright, H. (2011). Tribal leadership: Leveraging natural groupsto build a thriving organization. New York: Harper Business.
  • [2] Van Velsor, E„ & Wright, J. (2012, October). Expanding the Leadership Equation DevelopingNext-Generation Leaders [WHITE PAPER, Center for Creative Leadership],
  • [3] Van Velsor, E„ & Wright, J. (2012, October). Expanding the Leadership Equation DevelopingNext-Generation Leaders [WHITE PAPER, Center for Creative Leadership],
  • [4] Van Velsor, E„ & Wright, J. (2012, October). Expanding the Leadership Equation DevelopingNext-Generation Leaders [WHITE PAPER, Center for Creative Leadership],
 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >