All 26 entries tagged Le
March 29, 2012
Faking it never works!! what does that really mean? Is it a statement for that leaders are born not trained?
Doing MOC module I learned that my personality changes when I'm being given a position as a leader. I become a person who radical differs from my core values as being a human being- In other words I faked it. Normally I see myself as being a believer, where my friends see me as being crazy and really far away from reality sometimes. But when I was given a leader role I somehow tried to be someone else. Someone who tried to play the game as people wants you to play. Not a person who tries to do things different or a person who challenge the way things are. That really scares me.
We learned durng the module that we should become better at doing things instead of only talking about things. I want to be a guy who do things. Who actually make the changes and not just think about them. But if get a role where that's actually possible for me to do. A role where I have the power to actual be the one making the change. Then I change and become this "boring" playing the game safe kind of person and simply just leave all of my own challenging thoughts to someone else. This has to change!
If I truly believe in the things I say I have to be able to live them out in one way of another. It's so easy to be the one thinking about stuff and complaining (challenge) about stuff. I have to take the step forward and become a do'er and a thinker instead of just being a thinker. In other words don't fake it but just be me:D
March 28, 2012
This might sound funny, but a big topic in the Danish medias right now is about a dead dog. The dog was shoot by its owners neighbour because it was running on his private ground. He didn't do anything illegal according to the Danish law and here is why. It's legal to shot another person animal when it's on your private ground if you have given the owner prober warning before. This was done by the neighbour in fact he had returned the dog 20 times to his owners, three times to the police and also giving the owner a written and vocal warning about him shooting the dog if it run into his ground again.
People are really split in this situation. Some are calling the neighbour evil and even compare the situation by imagine that the dog was a kid. In other words making the neighbour look like a cold killer. Others are see the situation as being fair and see the problem lays at the owner of the dog instead. In fact a minister in Denmark has taken it so far to be willing to change the law so this would be illegal in the future. An argument for this that killing should never be the solution but a dialogue should have been made instead. My question is just know, how many incidents should happen before an consequence could actually happen? I mean if we assume that a dialogue have been made each of the 23 times, I think it would be all right to agree that the attempt to making a dialogue has there. Also during this dialogue process it can also be assumed that the ultimatum had been made that if the owner was not able to control his dog the neighbour would shoot it. So why are people then getting angry about this situation? is it something to do that consequences are sometimes seen as not being real? Like the rumour about " they can't fail us all" thing when submitting a PMA? If the tutor decided to fail us all because of a poor quality in our submitted work we would also get angry-right?
The tutor and the neighbour was following the rules set up, so they have not done anything wrong. The only ones doing something wrong was us and the owner who didn't take any actions, why have a dialogue about that?
This make sense following the robust decision theory due to the knowing the consequences of your actions. But it might conflict some of the things we learned in leadership about making people follow you. The neighbour clearly didn't make the owner follow is opinion and thereby failed as being a leader ( If seeing this relationship as leader follower). It can be argued that the neighbour should be more calm towards having the dog on his ground because it was a nice dog. But then again the owner should also take the responsibility of having bought a dog. So referring back to a previous blog I think this result is a clear signal on a failed follower not the Leader. The neighbour really did what he could to prevent this situation in happening, but had poor followers. Blaming the leader is therefore wrong, the one who should be blamed is the follower!!
March 21, 2012
I blogged about this before, but here i go again. I'm currently taking the module management of change. It has been one of the modules I was looking the most forward to of all my nine modules. In my previous job experience I did try to make a change in a organisation and I learned there how difficult it was. Taking management of change should therefore hopefully help me in becoming better at this.
Well what I learned until so far, is pretty much the same as I knew from the beginning. Management of change is difficult and feels like being impossible. I got the role as managing director in a simulation and therefore had the most positional power for making a change. My first thought when giving this role was therefore also " YES!! now im really able to learn how to do it", so did I succeed...NO!!
I tried to use all what I learned in my previous modules. Trying to create the robust decision together with my organisation. Really used different kinds of leadership styles for different situations and teams. But all in all these techniques requires time, time I did not have. So in that way time consuming is a disadvantages for those technique. At least that was the reason for me not using them.
We learned or was told that taken time to implement could not be argued for as being a disadvantages- Is this true? The world are running with a fast speed, so time is money. New companies may struggle with just finding the necessary capital for running business and therefore can't waste any time on a technique which takes up a lot of time before creating a result. Thinking about this, the whole thing looks like a bad cirkel? When would I ever have the time for using the techniques I learned? I still believe in the techniques and can also see the good thoughts around them. But how good is a time consuming thought in a time is money world?
March 14, 2012
Today when finishing up my leadership PMA I was wondering on my bias towards a certain leadership style. We are supposed to be objective and chose the leadership style which fits the situation and team. But what about the leader factor in this function. Are all three factors having the same weight or could it be that the leader factor had a higher one. Like a person who is quite and introvert as a person would most likely not choose an extrovert leadership style even though that was what the two other factors was signaling. So again this would lead back to the question about being born or thought to be a leader.
A bias like this would argue for that leaders personality have a significant impact on the leadership style. But how do humans get their personality? Is that something we are born with or is it more a result from social environment. Looking at society problems today personality seems to be a result from the society they live in when asking me. In my mind a person who grows up in a tough environment are more likely to develop a very direct and tough personality. A person like that would in my mind most likely become a direct leader if he got the change. Not saying anything about him or her being efficient, because that's another question.
What i am trying to say is just that choice of leadership style might not be a choice after all. That might be the case where an external consultancy would be a beneficial investment to make for a company. A consultancy would minimize this bias and thereby help in the decision to choose the right leadership style most suitable for the team and situation.
March 13, 2012
One aspect of making a robust decision is to look at the problem from several angles to get as many solutions as possible. These solutions should then again be evaluated by the different views.
When we evaluate what a effective leader is one of the main point has been that he or she should listen to every ones opinions. Would it be reasonable that effective leaders always create robust decisions, just because he views all team members opinions?
I know all different techniques you can use for getting this multi view on decisions and problems and thereby create a robust decision. But if leadership takes care of this, why use the tool at all?
I mean leadership is the answer to everything. If we have a problem in the organization one aspect will always be lack of leadership. Opposite if an organization performs well they are good at performing leadership. In other words, the word leadership always have some positive associations connected to it, why?
Is it really the case that leadership is always good and the questions is just if the leaders are efficient or not?
How critical are we actually when analyzing leadership when always associate the word with positive benefits and never negative aspects. In this reflective moment I cannot come up with a negative aspect of leadership, which cannot be argued for as being a question about the "good" or "bad" leader. Like the word democracy mostly will be linked with positive even thought it has negative aspects as well- Like voting for having a lunch break or not???
Leadership must have a negative aspect. The world is not that simple that a concept will purely be linked with positive thoughts and never negative. Would it be totally crazy to think that an efficient leader actually made a company to out of business and thereby associate leadership with a negative aspect? or would this be impossible because "going-out" of business is associated with inefficient leadership?
March 08, 2012
I heard this phrase a lot of times, the invisible leader is the most efficient or the best kind of leader. If this is true the only way you can see who was the leader would be to follow the money? who is paid for being the leader and who is paid for being a follower. Does this then define the leader as being the one who is paid or positioned to be it? The leader is not being followed directly because he or she is invisible to the followers. They therefore don't take the decision to follow the leader, but is this necessary for defining the leader? Do, leaders need to be chosen by followers before they can call them self a leader?
Some leaders might also emerge doing the process and the roles might therefore change in the team. One could start as being a leader and then end up being a follower without noticing. He still gets paid for being a leader but might work as a follower. Let's say that this is true, that doing a decision process a leader might become a follower and a new leader has emerged instead. Then leadership could be defined as being something fluid, where the role as being a leader changes over time in the team. An effective leader then changes from being a person to become a spirit or extra member of the team.
So nobody is actually THE leader but the leader is something floating in the team and then disappears again when the team work has finished.
I think this happens a lot of times when we work on our mini projects. Nobody is given the role as being the leader but emerge every time. When finishing the team work and then look back at the process different it is very difficult to see the leader. This could because one have performed the invisible leadership style, but I doubt. No what happens is that leadership is fluid in the team and changes from situation to situation. Leadership was the extra member who create the efficient teamwork and created by the team itself.
March 07, 2012
Do anyone know Kony? By the end of 2012 i hope everyone do!
I cant stop thinking about the whole process behind this event/happening where one man decided to do something about the situation. He decided to do what he could as an individual to change the situation Kony creates. In other words he choose to be a leader. The situation in Uganda was the one which made him emerge as a leader.
In a time period of 8 years he has been able to create a group of followers which made politicians create there mindset. Originally they were not found of doing that because of other interest in the world. But due to a democracy where people showed their demands, they change this interest. What does this mean?
Today a significant amount of people is connected to facebook which helps to connect the whole world in one society. I have 600 friends, mostly people from my own country of 5 mill people. A feature on facebook is to see how many similar friends you have with other people my clicking on them. It differs a lot how many similar friends you have, but lets say that its around 20% in average, it might be more or less in some situation. When I share a video or picture on my wall all my friends can see it and share it as well which create some kind of bull whip effect.
Imagine how easy it is today to get a message out in the world. Politicians dont need a lot of research on the trends in the world for what people want to be better. They can just use facebook database of videos, likes, pictures, updates etc. Facebook has improved democracy and made it posible to speed up the decision process.
Instead of only thinking national facebook has helped us in thinking International and even better global. Referring this to an organization this would be the same as going from silo to system thinking.
March 05, 2012
Do business have to be sustainable all the time? On part of excellence is to create a sustainable business, the same goes for robust decisions. In fact creating a sustainable business seems to be an overall topic to many different degrees. But what are the reason for creating a sustainable business?
Looking at it from a society perspective sustainable business will secure employment of many people and thereby create a stable and safe society. Sustainable business will therefore also secure a private family income and the ability to feed its members. In other words sustainable businesses creates a comfort zone for a lot of people.
Many companies cracked doing the financial crises and was therefore not sustainable when looking back. Those people employed in those companies was therefore pushed out of their comfort zones and needed to find a new job. In this case, being pushed out of the comfort zone is on behalf of something negative. MBE are pushing us out of our comfort zone all the time or it should be doing that. But that is because of something positive. The result for us being pushed out the comfort zone is the new learning we are facing. For those who loses their job it could be more fatal like selling house and move to another area of a country. Of course you could chose to always look at situations in a positive way, which in my mind is the best way of living, but this does not seem to be the case in the world.
Some companies are sometimes created for disturbing existing businesses in the specific industry- like small mobile subscription companies who creates a financial loss every year but attract customers. These business is not sustainable, but that's not their goal. Their goal is to create a huge customer group which they can sell to an existing larger mobile subscription company. They thereby earn money on creating a non-sustainable business.
The industry gets disturbed or challenged which creates benefits for the customer, but it is done by creating non-sustainable business. Is this bad or good?
March 01, 2012
Just read an Danish article about the success recipe for Lego. Lego is a Danish company who produce bricks for kids to play with, you probably know the brand so no need for describing it more.
The article was a interview with Lego CEO who talked about why Lego was able to grow every year. One of the reasons were the fact that Lego is private owned and thereby able to think on long term basis.
We been told over and over again that if you want to be sustainable you have to think long term. One specific aspect where companies should think long term could be the internal culture. Thinking long term will both impact the decision process and leadership performed during it. The decision process is able to use the right amount of time for creating a robust decision. Leaders are also able to challenge status quo by letting other leaders emerge in a safe learning environment. I know I might be bias in this case by not finding the current finance market sustainable when using stocks as products.
My point or thought is basically what reasons a company has to go into this stock market? Is it just a questions about the owner want to redraw his money by selling the company and therefore don't think about the future of the company? Or is it a question about finding investors in shape of selling stocks?
The only thing I can see is that when being part of the "stock-game" you won´t be able to think long term based on the Lego CEO comment. Short term thinking might be urgent and create a business which survives from day to day management, leadership and decisions. Not creating a sustainable one where leaders thinks ahead and makes the right robust decision. Who want to invest in that?
So for investors to invest in a company they need to buy stocks- as the system is today. The same stock system creates short term thinking companies. It's therefore a bad circle for a company to join the stock market. Instead of thinking smart you will work hard to survive.
February 28, 2012
What is the difference in bandwagon and democracy in a MBE team. Doing the leadership module a lot of us got the strength as being very democracy when leading. So we all had a fellow understanding of what democracy was and why that was a positive thing.
Well in my mind democracy is not always positive in fact I think it hinder the world in taking rational and efficient decisions which would benefit the world much more. Democracy could be a part of the bandwagon effect in itself. Different countries has different religions which have different rules as well. In my country we have the freedom to speech which we think is very important for having a democracy. The concept around freedom to speech sometimes runs into huge conflicts with religions of different kinds. In other words they don't seem to fit together. I will not try to argue for which one is the best or anything the only point I would make is that worlds are different.
So why is it that the world tries to implement democracy in all countries? Is it just because other "western" countries are doing it? or could it just be a bandwagon effect? Would it be crazy to think that something even better might exist?