John Wooden. Hopefully you recognize the name and instantly associate the term synergy, along with other terms such as; leadership, teamwork and winning.

For those less familiar or if you need a reminder; John Wooden was (and/or is) arguably the greatest college basketball coach of all time who led the UCLA Bruins to unsurpassed success during his tenure. Here are some key statistics; “Beginning in the 1966-67 season, the Bruins embarked on the most dominant run in college basketball history. They won seven straight championships, gaining three undefeated seasons along the way. UCLA’s record 88-game winning streak and string of championships ended in 1974, but the team rebounded the following year to give Wooden one more title before his retirement. “The Wizard of Westwood” ended his 29-year college head coaching career with a 664-162 record and an amazing .804 winning percentage, as well a record 10 national championships” (Biography.com, 2016).

What does this have to do with Synergy? In order to win at this pace for an extended period of time requires great synergy. Merriam-Webster defines ‘team’ as “a number of persons associated together in work or activity” (Merriam-Webster, 2017) and the UCLA Bruins were indeed a number of persons focused in their activity which resulted in unparalleled winning for two decades.

Regardless if its basketball or business a few key elements must be put in place to create synergy:

• A leader of a team needs to be identified. Enter Wooden, 1948.
• A philosophy and objectives have to be established (see Wooden’s Pyramid for Success).
• A leader must recruit the right players to be on the team
• Plan, execute, review. Plan, execute, review…

This is obviously a great success story and there are numerous reasons why a global organization might want to replicate Wooden’s approach to creating synergy. Based on my own experience; achieving a state of “high-performance” on a team where collectively the members have a greater level of commitment to the organization, to each other and to the tasks of the team (Moran, Abramson, Moran, 2014) is both difficult and elusive.

If Synergy; “implies a belief that we can learn from others and others can learn from us” (Moran, Abramson, Moran, 2014), then building an environment of teamwork, learning and cooperation is essential and a leader’s skill at facilitating the process for forming, storming, norming and performing (Moran, Abramson, Moran, 2014, exhibit 9.2) is arguably the most important factor. “Synergy also comes from the Greek word meaning working together” (Moran, Abramson, Moran, 2014). Put these elements; leadership, learning environment and teamwork together and you likely have the recipe for success, much like Wooden did.

Three key teachings from Wooden that could benefit most multinational teams in attaining synergy are;

“Have utmost concern for what’s right rather than who’s right”

“The star of the team is the team, ‘we’ supersedes ‘me’”

“Perform at your best when your best is required. Your best is required each day”.

Now, as a quick reality check; most MNE’s would never have the patience to wait as long as UCLA did for the success to come. Wooden’s success came back in the 1960’s and 70’s at a time where more patience was exercised, not only in college sports but also in business. Today, there is much more intensity for immediate results that organizations won’t wait for more than 3 to 4 years at the most if a team is not delivering significant results before changing course. It’s the same today for basketball coaches as well. The average tenure for a division I men’s basketball coach…3 years.

The irony; coaches with the most championships over the last 50 years had been with their respective team for over a decade suggesting patience and persistence builds synergy and wins in any market.

 

Biography.com Editors, 2016, John Wooden Biography, A&E Television Networks, http://www.biography.com/people/john-wooden-21369183

Bronars, S. 2012, Bronars Economics, Impatient Lakers and Patient Spurs, https://sbronars.wordpress.com/tag/tenure-of-head-coaches/

Merriam-Webster Incorporated, 2017

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences. London: Routledge.

Wooden’s Pyramid of Success Wooden, J. & Jamison, S. (2005). Wooden on leadership. McGraw-Hill

Which comes first, organizational learning or individual learning? “Some have argued that the question of “who” learns is a great myth in organizational learning”. (Seagal and Horne, 1997) “Organizations don’t really learn. Organizations are comprised of individual people. There is no such thing as an organization…learning simply refers to the processes of thinking and remembering that take place in any given individual’s mind.” (Moran, Abramson, Moran, 2014)

I submit organizations learn as individuals within the organization learn and therefore both happen simultaneously. The differentiating factor however, is that the organization and the individual are not learning the same thing at the same time or at the same speed. For example; I can observe someone facilitating a meeting with a small group and learn how that person; engages individuals, speaks to topics, manages time, etc.; then mimic that behavior in my own meeting. Whereas, if an organization holds a meeting (e.g. Town Hall) while it may fundamentally follow the same/similar process, could involve thousands of people, be broadcast globally, require translators and have dozens of people behind the scenes playing key roles necessary to execute such a meeting. As an individual, it is unlikely for me to observe the primary character in said meeting and then go replicate the event due on my own due to its overall complexity.

Both meeting types can be learned yet, since the larger scale of a town hall format may require dozens of people in order to execute, it is the organizations learning that makes it possible. Suppose one person leaves the organization and is replaced by someone new. It is the organization that has learned how to operate the town hall meeting and a new individual will have to learn the process and culture of the organization.

Bandura’s explanation of how people learn by watching others (Bandura 1986), also got me thinking about how I learn. If you consider basic learning styles including; visual, logical, verbal, physical, aural, social and solitary; these styles provide additional insight into how an individual might optimize learning through self-awareness. While each of us have a combination of styles, one or two are likely dominant. For me personally, I am a very visual learner (pictures, images, and spatial understanding) and a physical learner (using my hands, body and sense of touch). This ties back to the basic idea of social learning is captured in the name itself (Moran, Abramson, Moran, 2014); and arguably places a premium on the individual to be keenly aware of his/her style in order to achieve the best learning.

In “A social cognitive theory of personality” (Bandura 1999) Bandura talks about “The self-system” (aka; self-awareness) where “personal factors are very much involved in regulating attentional processes, schematic processing of experiences, memory representation and reconstruction, cognitively-based motivation, emotion activation, psychobiologic functioning and the efficacy with which cognitive and behavioral competencies are executed in the transactions of everyday life”.

These things coupled with the basic differences in cultural learning styles (Moran, Abramson, Moran, 2014) whereby comparative cultures such as European, American, Chinese and Japanese each have preferred learning styles and processes; make for a challenging yet dynamic scenario for global leaders.

Given the complexities around a single topic such as “learning” and considering a global leader must be; aware of their personal learning style; able to chart a new course for the organizations’ learning style and influence existing cultural learning styles, one might argue that it indeed takes a special brand of leadership to teach an organization to unfreeze, change and refreeze. (Lewin 1952)

 

 

Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Ed.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 154-196). New York: Guilford Publications.

Burnes, B. (2004), Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies,

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences. London: Routledge.

Seagal, S. and Horne, D. Human Dynamics: A New Framework for Understanding People and Realizing the Potential in Our Organizations. Waltham, CA: Pegasus Communications, 1997.

Diversity and Inclusion (D+I) in global organizations, require dedicated resources to cultivating the desired environment including but not limited to; people dedicated to the topic, training programs, recruiting practices and so on. While D+I may very well be an idealistic outcome, in business there is always a finite amount of resources which might define the difference between success and failure. Since resources in business are finite, what factors can cause diversity & inclusion to be factored as among the most core and critical pillars in any organization?

First, consider the argument (Moran, Abramson, Moran, 2014); “a strong business imperative can be made that companies who do not address the needs of their women employees (as well as employees of minority cultures) in terms of recruiting, promotion, and career development will suffer the following long-term consequences:

• Not being viewed as an employer of choice.

• Undervaluing top performers; therefore, not using employees’ full potential.

• Losing a competitive edge.”

 

In business terms, these are significant risks with accompanying financial ramifications. Whether right, wrong or indifferent, this is a fact and will often if not always compel an organization to take action. If you are not “viewed as the employer of choice” than you are recruiting at a second tier talent level which could impede growth and prosperity. When you “undervalue top performers” you are likely to have a higher rate of turnover than companies who focus on retention resulting in lost credibility in the market and likely, lost business.

Another way to view “losing a competitive edge” that garners the attention of an organization is by saying we are “gaining a competitive edge.” “Losing” can denote a defensive, risk management mentality whereas “gaining” can denote a more opportunistic and entrepreneurial mentality. If a company can gain a competitive advantage in the market place it usually translate into revenue gains along with other intangible benefits. In one example from Managing Across Borders, (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989) stated; “The ability to link and leverage knowledge is increasingly the factor that differentiates the winners from the losers,”.

Companies inherently want to win and see competitive advantage as the key differentiator. An example of linking knowledge and increasing diversity of thinking might be something as simple as an investment in technology which allows me to collaborate via video conferencing with colleagues in Asia, Spain and Mexico simultaneously. Bartlett and Ghoshal did however go onto state that; “It was not enough that minority perspectives existed on a management team because these perspectives could be excluded from the decision-making process by an organization’s dominant perspectives, and the rule of the majority.”

Great global leaders will commit the necessary resources and energy to implement programs aimed at enhancing the organizational culture and also view this as a core pillar of strategy. Ken Blanchard, one of the foremost authors on business and leadership once said: “effective leaders help ordinary people achieve extraordinary results” (Ken Blanchard, 2001). Strong leaders learn and develop the insights and competencies required to drive diversity and inclusion into the organizational DNA. Ironically, according to Sheryl Sandberg in her book, Lean In, “of the 195 independent countries in the world, only 17 are led by women and of the Fortune 500 CEOs, only 21 are women.” indicating that the speed at which we realize diversity and inclusion as the norm in global organizations, may be in direct proportion to the percentage of diversity of leadership. Chicken and Egg?

Diversity and Inclusion does not simply nor generally occur organically. It has to be worked on constantly and consciously which points back to my opening statement that organizations who believe diversity and inclusion are essential to their long term success; require dedicated resources to cultivate the desired environment. I’m fortunate to work in a global organization where we actually have a Chief Diversity Officer along with programs such as; D+I Ambassadors, Diversity Recruiting, Employee Groups, Mentoring and even Supplier Diversity and it is our leadership who makes the difference in the culture of our organization and in large part determines D+I success. The differences I have seen in our cultural evolution is not that I simply see more colleagues who “look” different, rather I work with a greater percentage of colleagues who also “think” different.

People whose life experiences and perspectives are different from my own, are vital to solving challenges and capturing opportunities across the globe and I believe that feeling is mutual.

 

Bartlett, C. A., and S. Ghoshal. Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Harvard Business School Press, 1989.

Blanchard, K., 2001, Situational Leadership II

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences. London: Routledge.

“Sandberg, S. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. New York: Knopf Publishing Group, 2013.”

Below originally written for Lesson 2 and incorrectly posted to a comment page;

Diverse enough?

I work on a team of 6 people; 5 women and myself; a middle aged white male. Is this diverse enough? My boss is a woman, my protégé is a young Indian woman working on a student visa, my other direct report is a German National on delegation and my two other colleagues are millennia’s. Is this diverse enough? My bosses boss is Egyptian who recently transferred back to the U.S. from Shanghai and our division President is a woman. Is this diverse enough? My workplace has a transparent diversity goal of 30% in the workplace which has been achieved. Is this diverse enough? One might argue that these metrics are benign when the reality of the business environment is measured by winning (aka, profitability), and is far more dependent on competency than diversity. According to economist Milton Friedman, “the main purpose of a business is to maximize profits for its owners.” (Boundless 2016).

If Greenberg’s premise (Greenberg, 2003) that; Global leadership is “an extraordinary capacity to unify a global workforce around a single purposeful vision, through demonstration of personal mastery, thinking globally, anticipating opportunity and using shared leadership networks”, does this not speak directly to a person’s competency to bring people together in a common cause regardless of diversity? You know what all of the people I work with have in common? We are all highly qualified and skilled in our roles and know how to get the job done. We deliver results. So I ask; is diversity a prerequisite for success or an enhancement to success based on individual competency and contribution?

News reports and popular opinion seem to suggest that the negative effects and lack of diversity in the workplace is nearly epidemic however; there is hope for job seekers. Diversity Inc. conducts an annual survey to rank diversity in the workplace. The survey; “tracks human capital outcomes and connects them with best practices utilized to promote the advancement of underrepresented groups in the workplace. And results are highly regarded by media, corporations, government agencies, academia and the public at large thanks to the exhaustive vetting of data tracking real diversity on the ground”. To be eligible for the list, participants must:

• Have at least 1,000 U.S. employees
• Submit a notarized form signed by either the CEO, the chief human resources officer (CHRO) or a corporate officer affirming that all data submitted is accurate. All data considered for DiversityInc Top 50 rankings is U.S.-based (except the Top Companies for Global Diversity list).
• Complete NOD’s Disability Employment Tracker

Furthermore; according to David A. Kravitz, professor of management at George Mason’s School of Business; “diversity in the workplace is far more complex than applying good and bad labels and often has both positive and negative effects. A potential benefit is an increase in creativity but potential challenges include an increase in conflicts and a breakdown in communication.”

I fully comprehend diversity is a significant issue in society and realize many workplaces face challenges in this area; however, I propose not only does diversity exists in the workplace, it is thriving.

• Exhibit A: My boss, top of her class at Villanova, multiple positions in the company, subject matter expert in my field.
• Exhibit B; My protégé, a Masters from Columbia, wicked smart and simply an awesome person.
• Exhibit C; My millennials, highly educated, incredibly competent in their area of expertise and never treat me different, nor do I of them.

In my role, I predominately interface with; Women, Asian, Black, etc. counterparts who are in leadership positions with Top 500 Fortune companies. These people are highly skilled and competent. Most have global experience having been in roles within their organizations over time.

In my opinion, competency is the operative term to associate with diversity. Both must exist in balance in order for success in business. Should not merit and contribution be equally considered when considering ethnicity and gender? How do you solve the dilemma of cultivating the contribution without simultaneously cultivating diversity?

Ah, the predicament of reality.

I argue that diversity is alive and well in the workplace and is vital to long term success and sustainability although; while it may be that diversity gets you in the door, competency is what keeps you there.

 

Anzaldi, J., The School of Business at George Mason University, (2014), The Good and Bad of Workplace Diversity, http://business.gmu.edu/news/862-the-good-and-bad-of-workplace-diversity/

Boundless. “The Goals of a Business.” Boundless Business Boundless, 26 May. 2016. Retrieved 28 Jan. 2017 from https://www.boundless.com/business/textbooks/boundless-business-textbook/introduction-to-business-1/what-is-a-business-22/the-goals-of-a-business-129-10246/

DiversityInc. (2017), DiversityInc’s 2017 Top 50 Announcement Dinner & Learning Sessions, http://www.diversityinc.com/diversityinc-top-50-methodology/

Goldsmith, M., Greenberg, C.L., Robertson, A., & Hu-Chan, M. (2003). Global leadership: The NEXT GENERATION. New York: Prentice Hall.

I work on a team of 6 people; 5 women and myself; a middle aged white male. Is this diverse enough? My boss is a woman, my protégé is a young Indian woman working on a student visa, my other direct report is a German National on delegation and my two other colleagues are millennia’s. Is this diverse enough? My bosses boss is Egyptian who recently transferred back to the U.S. from Shanghai and our division President is a woman. Is this diverse enough? My workplace has a transparent diversity goal of 30% in the workplace which has been achieved. Is this diverse enough? One might argue that these metrics are benign when the reality of the business environment is measured by winning (aka, profitability), and is far more dependent on competency than diversity. According to economist Milton Friedman, “the main purpose of a business is to maximize profits for its owners.” (Boundless 2016).

If Greenberg’s premise (Greenberg, 2003) that; Global leadership is “an extraordinary capacity to unify a global workforce around a single purposeful vision, through demonstration of personal mastery, thinking globally, anticipating opportunity and using shared leadership networks”, does this not speak directly to a person’s competency to bring people together in a common cause regardless of diversity? You know what all of the people I work with have in common? We are all highly qualified and skilled in our roles and know how to get the job done. We deliver results. So I ask; is diversity a prerequisite for success or an enhancement to success based on individual competency and contribution?

News reports and popular opinion seem to suggest that the negative effects and lack of diversity in the workplace is nearly epidemic however; there is hope for job seekers. Diversity Inc. conducts an annual survey to rank diversity in the workplace. The survey; “tracks human capital outcomes and connects them with best practices utilized to promote the advancement of underrepresented groups in the workplace. And results are highly regarded by media, corporations, government agencies, academia and the public at large thanks to the exhaustive vetting of data tracking real diversity on the ground”. To be eligible for the list, participants must:

• Have at least 1,000 U.S. employees
• Submit a notarized form signed by either the CEO, the chief human resources officer (CHRO) or a corporate officer affirming that all data submitted is accurate. All data considered for DiversityInc Top 50 rankings is U.S.-based (except the Top Companies for Global Diversity list).
• Complete NOD’s Disability Employment Tracker

Furthermore; according to David A. Kravitz, professor of management at George Mason’s School of Business; “diversity in the workplace is far more complex than applying good and bad labels and often has both positive and negative effects. A potential benefit is an increase in creativity but potential challenges include an increase in conflicts and a breakdown in communication.”

I fully comprehend diversity is a significant issue in society and realize many workplaces face challenges in this area; however, I propose not only does diversity exists in the workplace, it is thriving.

Exhibit A: My boss, top of her class at Villanova, multiple positions in the company, subject matter expert in my field;

Exhibit B; My protégé, a Masters from Columbia, wicked smart and simply an awesome person;

Exhibit C; My millennia’s, highly educated, incredibly competent in their area of expertise and never treat me different, nor do I of them.

In my role, I predominately interface with; Women, Asian, Black, etc. counterparts who are in leadership positions with Top 500 Fortune companies. These people are highly skilled and competent. Most have global experience having been in roles within their organizations over time.

In my opinion, competency is the operative term to associate with diversity. Both must exist in balance in order for success in business. Should not merit and contribution be equally considered when considering ethnicity and gender? How do you solve the dilemma of cultivating the contribution without simultaneously cultivating diversity?

Ah, the predicament of reality.

I argue that diversity is alive and well in the workplace, is vital to long term success and sustainability although; while it may be that diversity gets you in the door, competency is what keeps you there.

 

Anzaldi, J., The School of Business at George Mason University, (2014), The Good and Bad of Workplace Diversity, http://business.gmu.edu/news/862-the-good-and-bad-of-workplace-diversity/

Boundless. “The Goals of a Business.” Boundless Business Boundless, 26 May. 2016. Retrieved 28 Jan. 2017 from https://www.boundless.com/business/textbooks/boundless-business-textbook/introduction-to-business-1/what-is-a-business-22/the-goals-of-a-business-129-10246/

DiversityInc. (2017), DiversityInc’s 2017 Top 50 Announcement Dinner & Learning Sessions, http://www.diversityinc.com/diversityinc-top-50-methodology/

Goldsmith, M., Greenberg, C.L., Robertson, A., & Hu-Chan, M. (2003). Global leadership: The NEXT GENERATION. New York: Prentice Hall.

I happen to work day to day in a very diverse role in my company and interact across multiple industries such as agriculture, automotive, construction and consumer goods. Sometimes my work is very local and at other times, very global. To illustrate the differences in culture dynamics let’s look at two industries; construction and automotive.

Construction is a very localized industry in that each project is unique unto itself and no two are the same. Generally speaking, labor forces will reflect local culture historically employing dominant ethnicities and tend to lack diversity balance.  For example; according to the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016), U.S. employment diversity of construction workers is;

• White Non-Hispanics 54.4%
• Women 9.3%
• Black/African American 6.0%
• Asian 1.8%
• Hispanic/Latino 28.5

Since most projects have a start and finish date and change in size and scope, it is common to have a high rate of turnover between projects creating a challenge in establishing a deeply engrained culture.

In contrast, the automotive industry is largely a global enterprise with fixed assets producing a consistent product day in and day out. This factor tends to stabilize a workforce and allows for fixed programs supporting a culture which the company wants to create. As an example; Ford Motor Company President and CEO Mark Fields (2016) states; “We believe that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success. They are part of our commitment to Go Further by working together as one team, leveraging skills across the globe, valuing, including and respecting each other and, in doing so, achieving profitable growth for all”. Diversity is a strategic element of how Ford operates.

Automotive manufacturing labor diversity rates reflect the efforts by Ford as well as other U.S. OEM’s as follows;

• White Non-Hispanics 44.5%
• Women 26.7%
• Black/African American 15.4%
• Asian 4.5%
• Hispanic/Latino 8.9

While diversity balance is improving in the automotive sector, positive, reinforcing and empowering cultures aren’t always the natural result. A classic example of this can be found in the case study of the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) which was an automobile manufacturing company in Fremont, California, jointly owned by General Motors and Toyota that opened in 1984 and closed in 2010. GM took several significant actions to implement NUUMI. The fact they signed an agreement for a joint venture in the first place was an enormous statement in the world market. In addition, they sent numerous workers to Japan for training, formed the group known as the Commandos’, which meant they took highly thought of people out of roles in which they were obviously productive to move them into this strategic function.

What GM leaders in retrospect failed to do which ultimately led to the failure of NUMMI was;

• GM management had similar arrogance and created separation through class discrimination.
• Recognize that their people selected to lead a massive cultural change would need a comprehensive support system including highly visible leadership.
• Had a broader level of executive management embraced this strategy it would have more than likely changed their fortunes and avoided the sad chapter in their history of bankruptcy (Whitacre & Cauley 2013)

In essence, they were never set up for success which was proven upon their return to the U.S. and their inability due to management and union cooperation, to implement the Kaizen (Liker 2006) processes anywhere in North America. Ironically, Toyota demonstrated sincere commitment to the venture which did build a oneness and lasting relationships with these commando’s as illustrated by the 2013 return of one-time GM leader, Mark Hogan to Toyota (Toyota Motor 2013).

 

Fields, M. (2015), Ford Motor Company, Company/Diversity, retrieved from; https://corporate.ford.com/company/diversity.html

Liker, Jeffrey; Meier, David (2006). The Toyota Way Fieldbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., (2013), press release, executive biographies, retrieved from;

http://pressroom.toyota.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=3953

Whitacre, E. & Cauley, L., (2013), American Turnaround, Grand Central Publishing.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics | Division of Labor Force Statistics, 2012, Labor Force Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity Report, Washington, DC https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/race_ethnicity_2012.pdf

Hello fellow World Campus classmates….I’m a late add to the class.

My name is Doug Brown and I live in Western North Carolina with my wife, 6 horses and 3 dogs. Professionally I am a senior sustainability manager for a Fortune 100 company and while I never envisioned myself in a sustainability role having spent the majority of my career in business development, I am really enjoying the challenge. I’ve had the good fortune travel extensively for my job throughout North America and across the world…sometimes as a tourist, others immersed in the business culture. I’m celebrating 20 years with my present company and have had a wonderful and varied career holding leadership roles in sales, marketing and of course, sustainability.

I’m pursuing my degree in Organizational Leadership because I believe it will fill in the gaps between the successes that I have had; and the ones I would still like to have. Over the last chapters of my career, I would like to do two things; leave a legacy of accomplishment and; help other to leave one of their own.

There are so many great leadership quotes as demonstrated by each of you in your profiles so I will share this one from John Maxwell; “Smart leaders believe only half of what they hear. Discerning leaders know which half to believe”. This quote speaks to directly to wisdom. Wisdom is generally refined over time however; it is never too early to become a great listener.

I have 4 amazing kids each building their own lives today in; Michigan, Utah, Florida and Illinois and hope that we gave them the tools necessary to succeed both personally and professionally. So far so good, everyone seems to be a positive contributor to our society and doing well.

I mentioned earlier I have 6 horses. My wife is a professional trainer and I am an avid horseman…this is a full time lifestyle as horses are a 24/7/365 commitment which some of you may know. What’s important for me to share with you in relation to our course topic is; that my most profound lessons in leadership come from horses. They are a herd (team); each one has their position (role) in the herd; their very lives (success/failure) depend on each fulfilling their responsibility; and they are masters of non-verbal communication which is often neglected in human interaction yet arguably as important the spoken word.

I try to ride as often as possible which is sadly not often enough. “No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle”. ~Winston Churchill.

Cheers!