my apologies, firstly to myself and secondly to the leader which resides within me.
I was unable to make it to the KBAM introduction lecture which i missed due to health issues...
but i had to justify myself that i would still make it to the discussion and indeed did with some reading from the webnotes provided. To my surprise what seemed to be an interesting module turned out to be one where immense research would need to be carried out in order to come to some mature discussion stage.
i have noticed and so have a few other colleagues of mine that there is a certain lazyness in the air, colleagues are in that stage of 'getting it done now' and not following the appropriate process which is required by every individual module in it's individualistic manner.
KBAM requires a lot of background study and it is pertinent for all the members of the group or a group to mutually understand the basics underlying the concept. one should remember despite dozens of books, journals and articles there hasn't been a definite agreeable definiton of Knowledge Management. This fact means there will be further detailed, different and distinctive concepts which will we all will come to know of.
April 18, 2012
my apologies, firstly to myself and secondly to the leader which resides within me.
April 17, 2012
Looking at the academic sources to find the advantages and the situations where decision tools were used begs to think that we as students did quite a job in taking our decision making tools.
i soo much found an article which supported the coalition of Decision Tree and AHP, this was our decision regarding the selection of the location for wave riders production plant. Could this be that our mental awareness has increased during the past few months and that we have begun to analyze situations in a better and more analytical manner?
March 27, 2012
it was quite an insightful first day at the International Joint Ventures module.
Oliver quite dominantly explained his analogy that collaborations are entities which are equal and that an urge to control does come into force. he considered that collaborations are like marriages and that there comes a point where it is 'also' about control, although this was his light side to this discussion it really did put me off! but i'm glad he gave me comfort by saying, the 1st year will be a gudd year :)
regarding his argument i had something to say myself as well.
this is along the lines that not all the companies or corporations are equal and especially not in the case when firms are trying to collaborate. they are not equal in size, structure, financial wealth, technology, factors of production/service, economies of scale etc
in a case where they are equal, which is a realistic picture and does take place, they will economically seem as competitors but they would in most cases belong to different markets and would be divided...
In the case, where they are not equal.
The companies expect different things during the collaborative period, some go for brand support, otherws want economies of scale in production purposes by outsourcing their components or complete products to reduce costs. It may be in the case in order to support their CSR policy.
Some companies are big and others are small or comparatively small,at such instances obviously the shark wants to have control over the fish (collaborative process/period/task/objective/goal) but then for the fish isn't looking for control. It's objective for the collaboration was never control and neither could it be.
they are looking for things which under their grasp and which are achievable, knowledge, management practices, job training methods, professionalism, insight to shared data, brand support, growth, recognition, firm credibility etc
March 25, 2012
throughout the course of the module and the research part of the module, i came up with a very interesting concept or rather theories which fall in the situational theories of leadership. Explaining in a very detailed manner the situations where certain leadership styles apply, the contingency theory also plays a part here where situations are pre-emtively considered and the appropriate style is to to be adopted.
Now, in theory it all appeals greatly to us all but moving from theory to practicality of the conern it brings about certain limitations which have a great affect on how the application is hindered and the efficacy of the theory is reduced.
concerns surround around applicability in terms of the personality and characteristics of the leaders. Since, leaders seem to have perfected their characteristics (no matter what they are), they're personalities have been strengthned on their charactertistics and by adivisng them to change them it brings about about a resistance which is all natural.
the other concern comes up when situational leaders who have been popular due to their success are not accepted afterwards in different situations.
Now the samply people for judgement or perception are the same but still they do not prefer the personality, characteristics of the leader and most of all th actions he/she makes.
take the example of Churchill, though considered the Great Briton, he was not a successful PM when he cam in office the 2nd time in his career.
this explains the resistance of the leader to be able to change his personality or leadershp style according to his surroundings. this is natural and obvious in certain cases since the leadership style which is in him/her has been perfected because of a life time of experience and belief and to deny one's beliefs and confidence in his traits.
Last but not the least,
it in indeed a requirement of the time today for leaders to keep constantly changing their stlye according to their situations and but unfortunately still a difficult task to achieve.
March 16, 2012
in my reading i have come across a certain match between two matters the most.
These readings can be articles stating George Bush Sr. lack of vision to Donna Ladkin's "Rethinking Leadership" to my own experiences as well. I can some what say also relate to our seminars during the LE module about "how do i find out what will make me a effective leader?", "What can leaders do to motivate their followers in difficult situations?".
we considered creating a relation between leadership and many other factors, this included vision as well but now i consider that a leader is a person who has a vision and the self-confidence to see it through too...
A vision is what gives rise to the leadership in an individual, because without vision the leader (direct leader) does not have anything to stand up and state. the vision provides the uniqueness to the individual and the basis from which he/she can rise.
March 07, 2012
so we came to know about the different type of baisses also familiarized ourselves with the heuristics.
Although i suppose like us all other group members have tried to avoid the availability heuristic by making use of most difficult tools and not relying on the easiest ones (Decision tree, AHP, SMART).
But then again i would mention that un-intentionally we in our group were using the anchoring heuristic.
recall that Jeff made us reach an initial conclusion as to what we will be our decision and though this decision was'nt based on detailed analysis, we all tried our best to make use of all the analytical skills we had and reached a conclusion; apart from one group who proclaimed that they have not reached a conclusion.
according to this heuristic, i firmly believe they will not be affected by it but all us others will be to some certaine extent.
Let's see who reaches to their initial conclusion after the detailed analysis and who does not!
March 05, 2012
my regards to fotini.
She came with this random idea that if we all are making a robust decision, we all are applying the System-2 of our cognitive functioning. And thus we should all be reaching the same conclusion!!!
This seems to be true and should hold true since we all are expected to exhaust all available options, make use of all tools and reduce bias as much as we can BUT, our project and decision making has a loophole which will not make us reach the same conclusion/decision even if we think in the most process based conscious manner.
This is a point which i have on a few occasions mentioned in our team, that we have to remember the assumptions that we are using and also make sure that the assumptions are justifiable, that they seem logical enough to be considered reasonable. Since the beginning of the group study i have been trying to document all of our workings and proceedings; this will be a great help to our group memory and also assist us all in our PMA.
February 29, 2012
was it worth it?
to challenge years of leadership traits, an innate urge to stand forward and risk my reputation at every opportunity that comes my way? That confidence which kept on building itself and gained a momentum where i began to feel insulted if questioned.
Was it all worth it to take a leap forward let others judge myself.
personally if i tell you, i got all the reassurances i had of my leadership traits and the 'areas of improvement'.
Now, the real question comes into play when i have to analyze and select and apply a leadership theory to the leader of an organization in order to develop the leadership required to make the company successful.
The real question lies on which leadership theories will be applicable in this scenario, there is a possibility that there is a mix which will be used, my initial thought tells me that situational and management leadership theories can be used here but then management theories contain a major portion dedicated and geared towards employee reward and punishment. Recalling our LE module, i really want to refrain from using such motivational factors in terms of creating a group coordinated effort of management/employees.
I will definitely try to focus on creating a mix if possible during the course of my work in order to find the most suitable application which is optimal for the case in discussion.
February 28, 2012
The discussion for today included an overview of numerous biasses which arise due to certain reasons, at times attributed to individuals and at times during groups as well.
Decision making processes are affected and thus the focus of 'Robust' decision making is geared towards looking for solutions which aren't only good decisions but also have a certain significance and certainty of success in their outcome.
Although we have identified the different types of biasses and also understood that we are to reduce them as much as possible i am struck by an issue which requires clarification.
Time constraints bring about biasses in group members, who after a certain point in time will eventually want to reach a decision, which moves the everyone or certain members of the group away from the objectivity of their goals.
How do we restrict or reduce bias which arises from time constraints...
February 27, 2012
probably the only lecture i have attended in my academic life so far which has proved my wrong at soo many instances that i came to judge my own judgement.
At a point Jeff remarked that we can't always rely on our visual system, we see things which aren't there and this is such that our cognitive functioning system -1 (Intuitive system) prefers to see things and in other cases miss things which are there. . .
Another point which needs to made is that RDM as a module will focus on moving our decision making from system -1 to system -2, so that we apply more reasoning, logic and exert effort in trying to judge certain things infront of us.
It is true, that we have preconceived notions about several things in life, we make judgements out of little details which might not be, and in most cases are not, conclusive. Yet, our mind tends to look for the easy way out at times and this affects our judgement and the eventual result, thanks to Jeff for showing us how poor our visual and cognitive functioning system actually is we have all been made aware that our mind like everything else needs to be trained to see, extract and analyze information in the correct manner.
One of the many things which were a basis for further learning today includes, making one person a devil's advocate within a group so the conclusions of the group can be challenged thus creating a proof checking within the group for the purpose of re-examining the results obtained by the team. I personally have played this part by myself without letting the team members know at times and it helps a lot in gaining the required justifications and explanations which could and have been used in past group presentations.
I believe, there can be many things learned from a simply exercise that we all carried out today and that more learning is just around the corner. But then again, there is no corner, it's right infront of us :)