Personal Leadership: Mentoring and Coaching II

Olusanya Oyeyemi

Walden University

MMSL 6660

Dr. Gina Smith

22 October 2015

Abstract

In these last weeks of this course it was made clear that inference or observation may differ from reality even though it contribute. Hunt and Weintraub inferred that, “knowing something about your personality allows you to understand an important source of diversity in the world, the diversity of personal styles (p. 159). Adding that we should keep in mind that even observation can be limited by inference and even a specific example represents a snapshot not a video (P.160).

Burke – Litwin Model Category	Change scenario-Impact as it relate to category	Purpose/Goal of change
External Environment	Maintain personal interest on the job	To retain personnel
Mission and Strategy	The Navy  freedom of the sea to maintain seagoing power	Servant leader
Leadership	Serving Followers,  and acting as a role model	Servant Leader
Culture	Modify the culture	Mentoring and Coaching
Structure	Captain, Executive Officer, Department Head, Divisional Officer, Chiefs, and First class	New innovation
System	Personnel Qualification Standard (PQS)	To enhance hand on training
Climate	Evaluation of member	Promotion
Task Requirements and Individual skill/Abilities	Enhances congruence of one’s initial career in college with the Navy profession	Stay focus and continuity in one’s career.
Individual Need and Values	Encourage more degree holders to retain their military career	Remain in Job
Motivation	Retaining one’s Career will enhances self motivation	Do more than require
Individual and organizational Performance	Consistencies	Better performance

 

Leading change in Navy will require a long process and many procedures because is a big organization. Sequel to the rank of people listed that will involve, at my prelaunch phase, I would reflect on my proposed change of making sure all college graduate employ are commission into officer not as enlisted. Employing college graduate into commissioning program and aligning, their discipline with their post will enhance their performance and commitment to the job. In self-awareness, I would re-visit my evidences in relation to performance. For instance, the attitude of college graduates that were employ as enlisted compare to those that were employed, as officers would be evaluated with data and figure of those that retain their job after ten years.

Establishing my motive that is, to maximize employee’s potentials, Burke inferred that “ the emphasis is on which motives are the more important ones for leading change…and that ambition is the ‘only inherent character trait that is essential for effective leadership ‘” (O’Toole, 1999, as cited in p. 304). Align individual needs and value with the organization’s culture, maintain the culture of the organization of one on one training by modifying it with just using college graduate as officer, for faster understanding of their responsibilities. These will establish the need to for change before the resistors, because it will give a clear vision to the change. Burke pointed out “a robust vision mobilizes appropriate behavior” (p. 312).

At the launch phase, I would involve those aforementioned executives and enlisted. Communicating the necessity of the change, how it will save the organization millions and time they spent in training officers.

The change process will be implemented gradually so that, people would not even notice when the change leaves it’s comfort zone, even with whatever associated stress the change process is still under control. I would also avoid blaming others, using people as scapegoat, and appealing to authority figures for answers (p.318), but rather exercise patient and perseverance to allow the creative idea to do their work. Here, I will apply self-control to “listen, not defensive when people come up with their own view, and display patience as mush as necessary (p.320). I would employ my buy-in attitude by matching my behavior with my words and finally make sure I have a reliable successor who believes in the change possibly a new talent or an outside professional. Burke suggested that it is better to hire from the outside or shift over from other parts of the organization (327), which has good understanding of the change and show a strong buy-in attitude.

Making a Persuasive Point

To design my persuasion plan, I will search and collect real data of enlisted sailors with bachelor degree cadre in navy for the past ten years  in comparison with number of those that retain their job till dates with the officers that join same period as well. Do the same thing by getting data of those that their career is different from their area of concentration in their bachelor degree program that still retain their job after ten years in comparison with their counterpart that maintain their professionalism of same career. These data will help me to make a realistic point in reference to facts and figure available.

In the process of gathering information for reliable fact and figures, I will also request a survey in which sailors both the enlisted and officers give their feedback on their altitude to work – only the enlisted that have bachelor degree. Develop a program that will show fulfillment differences in sailors that were employed into career same as their bachelor degree and those that were giving different job responsibility. Like History student or economics heading engineering while engineering student is heading administrative or food and supply.

In this circumstances, negotiation will be employ to address the issue. First, I will meet all the executive members one on one prior to the general debate on the issue. Showing them my fact and proof of the benefits of aligning employee degree in job placement. This is where my persuasion skill will come in, it is very easy to persuade individual than a group of people. From experience, when you meet people one on one, it shows a kind of respect, and that you cherish their opinion – meaning that you value their integrity and contribution. It is possible to win seven out of ten prior to the general deliberation.

In most cases, some of them will even tell you who to meet to properly channel your course for approval. Roberto corroborated this when he said that “a high degree of mutual respect among team members tends to enhance their ability to disagree with one another in a constructive manner. Individuals listen more carefully and give more weight to opposing view if they value the capabilities and expertise of their colleagues and if they high regard for the manner fellow team members tend to conduct themselves” (2009, p.122-123).

To address conflict at different stages, first I will brief the people working closely to the information source the purpose of my findings, second, I will use those that will benefit from the change by requesting data within their reach to buttress my point. These people will be overjoyed to be a contributor to a movement that will benefit them, and release any information within their reach. Thirdly, I will give individual that I met and are supportive roles to play at the general discussion, so that I won’t be the only one talking. Set a ground rules that we must all abide by during the deliberation, reframe opposition’s point of view instead of been defensive when confronted. Roberto inferred that “instead of rejecting their hardline position, you treat it as an informative contribution to the discussion (2009, p.125).

Genuine persuasive process will require research and investigation so that those who might have been hurt by direct confrontation during the deliberation are comforted. Such reconciliation will repair wounds to secure the deliberation from further or future conflict during implementation stage. Roberto argued “if leaders discover that some fallout has taken place after a difficult debate… They need to address those issues head on before another contentious decision process takes place (2009, p. 133). This action will assure one voice, because all that silent to avoid further confrontation may nurse a saboteurs ideas that will disrupt the whole deliberation if not recognize and take care of immediately after the deliberation.

Analyzing Groups

We can do much more with are team – Shawn Shatten. If we have this thought we will use every means to maintain harmony by resolving conflict within our working group to maximize opportunities. In the Deutsch large-group methods for dealing with change and conflict, under that method that create the future, the model I like most is future search that create a future vision for the organization. This group will search the past, present and future and set format for the action planning of the organization. They will involve stakeholder participation, minimize differences, search for common ground, self-managed small groups. Deutsch et al. inferred future search begins with a statement of purpose from the sponsors, and then everyone is asked to participate at their tables in an activity that reviews the history of the community, the world, and each person over the past thirty years (2014, p.925). The purpose of every change is to meet up with the global demand to remain in business in the competitive market and maximize profit. Whitney pointed out that “The new millennium brings with it a context of globalization and a demand for organization development processes that engage large numbers of people, on line, and in person simultaneously in the co-creation of our shared future (1998).

Under methods for work design, the model I like most is participative design. Here, the process is bottom up, where each unit will design, coordinates, and controls its own work. Management responsibility is the norm using six design principle to redesign work. There is always joy of inclusive where members have the opportunities to contribute, it usually enhances trust of fairness. McGarry inferred that the bottom-up approach in large-group method for work design assume every development organization must first completely understand its process, products, software characteristics, and goals before it can select a changes meant to improve its process (1994). This is corroborated by Deutsche et al that the underlying principle here again is that there is a great deal of wisdom and experience in the people who do the work and deliver the service (2014, p.931).

The third method is the method for discussion and decision making where a conversational process that helps a group explore an important issue by overarching theme or question to be explore. The most important thing of this model is that they listen to diverse viewpoints and suspending premature judgement encouraged. Brown and Isaacs pointed out that this method is useful in settings with potential conflict because it does not allow people to cluster in their interest group, but continually expose them to different viewpoints in a very personal and relational setting” (Deutsch,2014, p.936).

My four stage plan will look like this, preparation; I will define the purpose of deliberation, give a set rules that will guide over discussion. Second stage, I will encourage building relationship with the other party, here they will introduce themselves and make sure we have all necessary representative to ensure trust. Third, exchanging information to know each other better for better negotiation. The forth one, inventing and exploring options to give room for flexibility and “uncompromising stance on resolving the interests that motivated the negotiation (Deutsch, 2014,p.803).

Reference

Burke, W. (2014). Organization change: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

 Sage Publications, E. version.

Flaherty, J. (2010). Coaching: Evoking excellence in others (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA:

            Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2001). Primal leadership: The hidden drivers

            of great. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 43-51.
Retrieved from: Business

            Source Complete database

Hunt, J. M., & Weintraub, J. R. (2011). The coaching manager: Developing top talent in

            business (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ikujiro, N. (1988). Toward Middle-up-Down Management: Acceleration information creation,

            Sloan Management Review, 29. 3. Retrieved from Walden University Database.

Kram  E. K & Hall T.D  (1989). Mentoring as an Antidote to Stress During Corporate Trauma.

            Human Resources Management, 9, Vol. 28, Number 4, Pp. 493-510. Retrieved from

            EBSCO host database;

            http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com/waldenu?sid=google&auinit=KE&aulast=Kram&atitl            e=Mentoring+as+an+antidote+to+stress+during+corporate+trauma&id=doi:10.1002/hrm.            3930280405&title=Human+resource+management&volume=28&issue=4&date=1989&s  page=493&issn=0090-4848

Lankau M.J., Scandura.T.A., Tejeda M.J., and Werther B.W ( 1996). Perspective On Mentoring.

            Leadership and organizational Development Journal. 17.3 p.50. Expanded  Academic

            ASAP

Martyn, T and Frank, M. (1994) Top-down vs bottom-up process improvement, IEEE software

            11.4 , 12.-13. Retrieved from Walden University Database.

Showers B. & Joyce B. (2002). The Evolution of Peer coaching. Educational Leadership.

Retrieved from: EBSCO; http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com/waldenu?sid=google&auinit=B&aulast=Showers&atitle=The+evolution+of+peer+coaching&title=Educational+Leadership&volume=53&date=1996&spage=12&issn=0013-1784

Thomas, D.A. (2001). The Truth About Mentoring Minorities; Race Matters, Harvard Business

            Review

Whitney, D. and Cooperrider, D.L (1998), The Appreciative inquiry summit: overview and

            Applications. Employment relations Today, John Wiley and Sons, inc/Business. EBSCO

            host. Retrieved from Walden Database.