12.6 Initiate or not?

In Chapter 7, Cheney et al. (p.190) they talk about the leadership style of those who "initiate" and those that show "consideration". According to the study that was conducted by Ohio State University in the 50's and 60's, they found that there were two important dimensions of leadership: initiating structure and showing consideration. When you stop and think about these styles, it would seem to most people that showing some initiative would be something you'd want in a leader. And yet, the book focuses on Mr. Tindall, owner of The Warehouse (in New Zealand) and his style of leadership. He says, "my job is to try now and nurture the leadership in the company and the well-being through our 'people come first' philosophy and make sure it goes right through the organization..." His consideration approach exemplified that he card for the feelings of his followers and creates a sense of belonging. The books states that you need to be a very good communicator to be successful in both of these styles. I believe that a leader that employs the consideration approach should be mindful of the vision and the importance of the contributions of the employees. This type of leader would not be one that micro-manages every event, project, or memo that passes through the administrative staff. This leader needs to be nurturing and meeting with the people (followers) that make the company 'great'.

12.5 Leadership Revisited

In this mornings' Mercury News, Palo Alto police chief to retire, Friday November 21, 2008, the end of a long career in law enforcement came to end. I'm sure that Chief Johnson had not envisioned this sort of a departure when she started her leadership in 2003. From their web site ( http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/depts/pol/default.asp ) you find their 'welcome statement from the chief' and it says, "The Palo Alto Police Department is committed to providing exceptional public safety services and taking a leadership role in building community partnerships." According to Cheney et al., chapter 7, Leadership Old and New, p.202, they state that many times leaders "do not take them (vision statements) seriously enough."

In the Mercury News article they report that Chief Johnson, in response to the controversy, was preparing an "action plan" that included monthly meetings with citizens and the chief, along with regular community meetings between police officials from both the city of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. This plan will be left for the next chief to implement. In chapter 7 Cheney et al., says that "if you create one (vision statement), take it seriously, use it, relate important decisions to it, and act consistently with it."

I believe had the Palo Alto police department been adhering to their vision of 'building community partnerships', they might have had a different reaction by the community. Maybe the regular meetings with the chief and the community would have resulted in a less volatile reaction. The community might have understood what the chief meant because they had been in communications with her over many years and might not have resorted to protests in the streets. We might have seen community leaders stepping forward to remind the citizens that "this chief" has been very attentive and responsive to their concerns. I don't know if the community leaders offered any support for the chief. However, the media coverage over this public relations disaster never showed this side of the controversy.

The positive outcome of this communications flap will now result in an attempt by the new administration to create a closer relationship with the community and their leaders. At the end of this controversy the 'vision' of building stronger community partnerships may be realized. Will the new leader adhere to their 'vision' or will a new 'vision statement' be created? Only time will tell.

12.4 More on Transparency

I just received an email on my iPhone regarding the Obama transition team. David Plouffe, Campaign Manager, asked me to make a donation to the Obama-Biden Transition Project. My previous contributions to the campaign have kept me in the email and text communication apparatus. The email goes on to say that in the past, the process of transitioning the new president has been secretive and funded by DC lobbyists. The 'change' message continues with they are "going to do things differently". According to Cheney et al., page 323, Dimensions in Change, the book talked about the degrees of change. The book goes on to talk about philosopher Gregory Bateson's first and second-order changes. This election for 'change' is an example of what Bateson says is "when the entity (the presidency) becomes something fundamentally different than it was."

In the email Plouffe talks about differently, and makes the case that he needs some money from me instead of the tried and true sources of lobbyists and corporations. And he ads that since I made a contribution during the campaign, they will need my help in order to build a "more transparent and open government", and they need to rely on a broader group of people to get this done. I clicked on the email link and I as brought to a page where I needed to type in my name, address, employer, my occupation, phone number, along with the amount and my credit card number. I was looking for the transparency in all of the previous contributions I made. Over the past few months I have read about the large numbers of donations being raised by Obama's campaign. I was curious to see if I could see where my money was going. The only glimpse of transparency I could find on this particular page was this: "As a condition of receipt of appropriated funds under the Presidential Transition Act, the OBAMA-BIDEN TRANSITION PROJECT must publicly report the source, date, and amount of every donation. The PROJECT will also publicly report the city and state of residence, and employer of each donor." I guess I need to ask myself, does it really matter to me where the money is going? I can only hope that the people in-charge of the campaign are doing a very good job. They managed to help elect a junior senator from Illinois with little or no experience to run the country. They seem to be creating leadership that the country was destined to embrace. Are we going to be part of the 'process' and interact with the decisions being contemplated? Are we going to give our opinions on the cabinet selections? So far, these decisions are being made within the transition team. Maybe some transparency in who they team may be considering for cabinet positions would have been keeping in line with the new 'change' this campaign has promised.

12.3 Constitutive

I'd like to stay in Chapter 7, Cheney et al. (p. 192) and talk about the Constitutive Approach. According to the book, the constitutive approach suggests that individuals that are considering to be leaders should become familiar with the socially constructed nature of things, events, and ideas. They also say, that they should try and influence others' constructions or interpretations. It suggests to me that what they are saying is that these 'leaders-in-training' should be socially skilled at being perceptive. That is, that they should be mindful of how things are and what people think and how they might interpret things. It would appear that if this 'leader' hasn't done so already, that he/she would have to go through some sort of crash course of being socially aware. Since the book describes this approach as a skill then how are these leaders building these skills? Are they reading books of contemporary social issues? Are they attending plays that focus on the plight of immigrant? Are they meeting with their local charity organizations and volunteering? Are they surrounding themselves with people that give him/her a perspective on what is 'really happening'?

12.2 Marketing and PR

Over the last 2.5 years I have been educating the managers within the Personnel Unit of my organization to look at Marketing all the time in order to save money. Prior to 2004, the organization would spend money on fliers that said, "Join the Winning Team". Someone would create a new logo, add new bright colors and then send them out to colleges and job fairs. I was brought in at the beginning of 2005 to look at some of the ideas for an upcoming event. I attended the meeting with the confidence that I would be able to offer my opinion without repercussions. What I experienced that day (at the meeting) was a dysfunctional array of ideas and unprofessional materials for publishing. I spent the last 30 minutes of the meeting explaining that the organization had an "identity". That we had a history that allowed us the confidence to compete with any organization in our field. I offered my opinions that showed how these messages and colors were conflicting with the organization's brand.

By the end of the meeting we collaborated on a new slogan that would be used for years to come (still in use today). I developed a Style Guide for all members to use when creating any documents for public outreach. We then proceeded with a new marketing campaign that coincided with the new slogan. We are now on a better foundation for getting our message heard.

12.1 Be a devil advocate

Lately the news about the automobile manufacturing crisis has made me think about the unintended consequences of employee identification (p.117, Communicating Identity, Cheney et al). A majority of the employees that keep the car companies running are union employees loyal to their company and their history. The automobile has brought many conveniences to Americans over the last 80 years. American car companies experienced years of profitability and the employees identified with the pride of creating machines that were romanticized in print and movies. The sounds of large engines burning fuel and screeching down the highway were a symbol of success and status for many years. When the nation experience the Oil Embargo in the late 70's the American car companies had to retool and think about making smaller cars. The Japanese car companies were already making small fuel efficient cars so they began to outsell the domestic models.

Did the strong employee identification with the American car companies allow them to see that they needed to change? Were employees strong enough to challenge their companies' vision for building the right automobile for the future. Were they thinking of harnessing alternative fuels to eliminate the effects of volatile oil prices? The oil crisis (hostages) was resolved, the price of gas came down and the car companies sighed with relief. That was over 30 years ago. We have read stories of the automakers scrapping vehicle designs that relied on alternate fuels and consumed less fuel. Now they want a bailout? A loan? Who was questioning their values and practices? Someone needed to be the "devil's advocates".