A633.3.4.RB _GowensBrianne_Complexity Science

The strategy of my company has undergone big changes in the past several months. Boeing is known all of the world to be one of only two major commercial airplane manufacturers in the world. Boeing is known for the quality and luxury that it designs into its products, although these benefits come at a price that, in recent years, has made it, difficult for Boeing to compete. Historically, Boeing has been able to advertise to its customers that the increased price of its products can be justified by the improved quality, customer service, and delivery commitments that far exceed that of its major competitor, Airbus. But in recent years, the tides have changed. Airbus has put a renewed focus on quality and it’s becoming harder and harder for Boeing to differentiate itself from this aggressive competitor. In response to this changing environment, a new strategy was born.

The Global Services Market

Tom Stagliano, Senior Aerospace Engineer, estimated that it costs close to $30 million per year to operate a $260 million dollar aircraft. This means that in approximately eight and a half years, the cost to operate the aircraft will exceed the cost of the aircraft itself. Keep in mind that this figure likely doesn’t take into consideration the sharp increase to operating costs as the aircraft ages. Simply put, the cost of aftermarket goods and services in the commercial aerospace industry is a serious factor in any company’s aircraft acquisition.

Airline operating costs go far beyond the staff, crew, and fuel that actually enable it to deliver customers from point A to point B. Other operating costs include maintenance, spare parts, software upgrades, data analytics, and training of pilots, crews, and maintenance personnel. These costs are often referred to as the “ground” costs, and they cannot be ignored. In fact, Boeing estimates that the market for these services could grow to exceed $3.4 trillion dollars over the next ten years (Farley, 2017).

Quite frankly, the services market is a potential goldmine for anyone who is able to penetrate it and prove themselves as a trusted partner to airlines and government agencies. Who better to fill this role than someone who knows the airplane better than any other services competitor ever could – the company who manufactured it in the first place.

The concept of providing in-service support to its airline customers is not new to The Boeing Company. In fact, Boeing has worked to increase its presence as a competitor in the post-delivery market for the past decade, starting with the launch of its integrated fleet care product “GoldCare.” With the launch of GoldCare, Boeing began marketing itself as the premium provider for aftermarket services; but this marketing came with a price. Customers perceived Boeing’s aftermarket products, training, and services to be priced like gold as well. Despite several hurdles, Boeings suite of services grew to be successful over time and reached a point where it services at least 60 customers and with over 2,000 aircraft between them (Boeing, 2017). Unfortunately, Boeing’s current market capture is only at 9%, which is insufficient considering what a huge global player Boeing could be (Bellamy, 2017).

The Launch of Boeing Global Services

Competitors in the services market have had an advantage over Boeing in many ways, including the fact that competitors have an easier time maintaining a lower risk profile. As the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), Boeing had a different level of risk – their services were directly tied to their role as the OEM. In addition, the profits and losses (P&L) as a services provider were impacted significantly by the successes and/or failures of the Boeing commercial and defence airplane production and sales divisions. The inability for Boeing to differentiate itself as a services provider from that as an airframe provider drove it to consider a complete separation of the two business units.

Hamel (1998) suggested that complete reinvention of its industry, not just its processes, is the only way for a company like Boeing to make profound change in a competitive environment. So, in late 2016/early 2017, Boeing leaders announced a shift in strategy; it would divest both the commercial and military services portions of its business and form a third company named Boeing Global Services (BGS). Before this change, Boeing maintained a separate commercial leg and defense leg of its business, and within each of these businesses it provided a mixture of aircraft and services. Following the strategy change, Boeing Commercial Airplanes would be responsible for manufacturing and delivering aircraft to commercial airlines; Boeing Defense would be responsible for manufacturing and delivering aircraft to governments and militaries; and Boeing Global Services would be responsible for providing post-delivery services to commercial, defense, and military customers. According to Boeing’s own website (2017):

“Global Services, headquartered in the Dallas area, was formed by integrating the services capabilities of the government, space and commercial sectors into a single, customer-focused business. Operating as a third business unit of Boeing, Global Services provides agile, cost-competitive services to commercial and government customers worldwide.”

As a part of this change, Boeing re-branded its services package from its previous name “GoldCare” to Global Fleet Care, attempting to revise its image amongst customers and competitors. During the recent earnings call, Boeing Company CEO Denis Muilenburg voiced a goal of growing its 9% market share in the services industry to a $50 billion businesses (Bellamy, 2017).

Feedback and Strategy Formulation

One big issues with Boeing’s change in strategy throughout the years is that it appears to be completely conceived and launched from the top down. This approach to strategy formulation aligns with a cross functional matrix organization, at best, but does not at all align with a complex adaptive system (CAS).

If Boeing were taking a CAS approach to strategy formulation, it would have a different perspective on organizational evolution, and would put greater value on employee feedback. Obolensky (2014) described feedback as a move from top down to 360 degree thinking, where “the typical one-way process of boss to subordinate” feedback turns more fluid and interactive (p. 28). Randall (2013) went on to state that one of the biggest failures leaders make is spending “copious amounts of time creating the strategic plan, often in isolation.” Employees need collaborative communication, not barking orders, in order to maximize their productivity (Randall, 2013).

Boeing is a very large company and it doesn’t have a strong reputation, in the eyes of the employees, as a company that pulses the workforce before making strategic decisions. This is one area that Boeing needs to focus on if they truly wish to embrace the CAS approach, as business experts suggest they should.

The Boeing Company in 10 Years

The launch of BGS became official on July 1, 2017 and is still in the process of being understood and accepted by the workforce and the general public. The intent of the strategic change is clear; the opportunity for growth in the services market is massive and Boeing had to do something if it hoped to become a more serious competitor. However, the approach, including the planning, communication, and initial launch of the new BGS business was confusing to the workforce and appeared to have a somewhat secretive connotation at the leadership level.

The effectiveness of these changes is still months, perhaps even years, away from being understood. Over the next 10 years, I believe Boeing truly will grow to be a major competitor in commercial and military services. After all, Boeing has the knowledge, the manpower, the global presence, and the history in the industry required to make it an absolute expert. I predict that we’ll see the BGS side of Boeing’s business make a deliberate effort to separate itself from the commercial and military aircraft sides of its business in order to gain a stronger reputation as a training and services provider. By 2030, perhaps even sooner, I predict revenues from BGS will fiercely rival revenues from airplane sales, and profits will actually exceed that of airplane sales. I hope to be a strategic leader within the Boeing company by the time it begins to realize the impacts of this move, and plan to help guide it down a profitable path to any extent I can.

References

Bellamy, W. (2017). Boeing Global Services is open for business. Aviation Today. Retrieved from

Boeing Media Room (2017). Boeing Global Services Begins Operations. Retrieved from http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-06-30-Boeing-Global-Services-Begins-Operations

Boeing News. (2017). Boeing realigns Boeing Global Services total fleet care offering with Global Fleet Care. Cision News Wire. Retrieved from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/boeing-realigns-boeing-global-services-total-fleet-care-offering-with-global-fleet-care-300475675.html

Farley, G. (2017). Boeing outlines its global services division. King 5 News. Retrieved from http://www.king5.com/tech/science/aerospace/boeing-outlines-its-global-services-division/450383648

Hamel, G. (1998). Strategy Innovation and the Quest for Value. Sloan Management Review. pp. 7-14. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/strategy-innovation-and-the-quest-for-value/

Randall, M. (2013). Employees can’t help carry out a strategy if they didn’t help plan it. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/involving-employees-in-strategizing-2013-6

Stagliano, T. (2015). How long does it take for an airline to break even on a new airplane purchase? Quora. Retrieved from https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-for-an-airline-to-break-even-on-a-new-airplane-purchase

A633.2.3.RB_GowensBrianne-Butterfly Effect

Growing up, we are often taught that cause and effect are somewhat standard and predictable. If you eat your vegetables, you’ll grow to be tall. If you study hard, you’ll get good grades. If you are kind to a friend, they will be kind in return. As we get older, the lessons change, but hold a similar theme. If you work harder than others, you’ll be promoted first. If you spend time with your kids, they’ll be well behaved. If you break the law, you’ll be punished. The contracts Law of the Conservation of Energy summarizes this idea as “the effort you put in will dictate the result you get out” (p. 71). Take small actions, and results will be small in return. Take large actions, and the impacts will be much larger. Lorenz’s Strange Attractor, or Butterfly Effect, shifts this idea to a state where small actions could have huge impact, and results are often produced in unpredictable and unconventional ways.

For humans, who are “sometimes too good” at linking cause and effect, the butterfly effect can be a difficult concept to grasp, especially for those who have not thought about how this has played out in their own life and/or career (Sullivan, 2011). I have seen real evidence of the butterfly effect at my organization, starting with two small changes that yielded big results.

Small Changes to the Contract Organization Yielding Large Results

Creating a “Selling Team”

Many on the periphery would argue that the sales person sells the product and the contract person steps in to finish the paperwork. This perception lead to a big change within my organization: the creation of something called a “selling team.” The selling team is comprised of three key individuals who are critical to completing the sale of the product. First, is the sales person, who is responsible for acquiring the customer, building the relationship, and introducing key stakeholders to one another. Second, is the marketing person, who is responsible for understanding the customer’s needs and explaining how the product can address such needs. Finally is the contracts person, who is responsible for listening to the conversations going on in their periphery and balancing the needs of the customer with the level of risk the company is willing to take. The contracts function is critical to the risk/reward analysis of every deal. Through this analysis, the selling team is able to strip costly risk items out of the agreements, resulting in the ability for the organization to reduce its price and increase its chances of capturing the sale.

Before the creation of the selling team, each of the three functions mentioned above acted consecutively instead of in parallel. The sales person did his or her part and then handed the customer off to the marketing person. The marketing person would adequately explain the project and then hand the customer off to the contracts person. The contracts person would capture the terms of the agreement and then the deal would be done. The issue with this approach is that: (1) the process took way too long, averaging around 12 to 18 months for a single sale, (2) the terms of the deal were difficult to capture because the contracts person was not brought into conversations until they were nearly complete, and (3) the relationships between each function were strained because the individuals never worked on tasks together and consequently saw each other as a roadblock. Since the creation of a selling team, the average time to close a deal has decreased dramatically, down to 3-6 months. This small change of creating a team that traveled throughout the life of the selling process together resulted in significant improvements to the sales process and therefore to the bottom line.

Diversification and New Functional Alignment

Another small change made within my organization that yielded big results was the decision to realign the contracts function to sales leadership instead of the legal department. Traditionally, contract negotiators were seen as a legal branch of the company. This perception made sense because many of the terms and conditions within the contract had a legal reason for being there. Consider, for example, indemnification, governing law, arbitration, liability (etc.); each of these are terms that are traditionally negotiated between the legal teams at each company. However, if you step back and look at a sales contract in its entirety, the legal terms only make up about 10-15% of the total contract document. The rest of the contract contains business terms like payment, delivery, price, and statement of work.

As a result of having the contract teams aligned to the legal function, all of the employees responsible for contracting for the sale of the product were lawyers. This meant that highly trained lawyers were negotiating non-legal terms and conditions. Many argued that this resulted in contractual agreements that were overburdened with risk terms, which customers viewed as costs to their own bottom line. So, close to seven years ago, the organization changed one thing – it realigned the contracts organization to a sales leader instead of to a legal one. This small change resulted in a complete revitalization of the contract negotiation function, which included a deliberate effort to remove most of the lawyers and replace them with people who understood the business terms. Today, the contracts team includes engineers, tax specialists, finance majors, insurance brokers, and expert writers/drafters. The legal function is no longer marketed as the negotiation specialists, but rather a resource for the negotiation specialists. The effects of this change continue to be felt by the entire company, as the selling process is more streamlined than ever.

Implications of Complexity Theory and the Potential to Drive Improvements

The implications of the complexity theory are fairly significant for my organization because it tends to be slow to react to change and very hesitant to put the system ahead of the individual components. In other words, the groups within my organization tend to work in silos. Each group has its own piece of the pie that it must contribute, but it rarely looks outside of its own piece to see how that piece contributes to the overall pie.

Gleeson (2013) explained that working in silos is not instinctual, rather it is a result of poor leadership. This is a serious issue in my company because many of the teams that must contribute to our organizational pie are working in an atmosphere where competition, not collaboration, is encouraged. Many of the leaders have put a value on proving other teams to be wrong, which results in a system that experiences significant dysfunction. The concept of complexity science will be difficult for my organization to grasp because it requires each team to become more invested in the other pieces of the pie. If the organization as a complete system operates in a dysfunctional manner, then leaders must fight the instinct to try and separate the functions in an attempt to identify the “weak” link. Rather, leaders at my company will have to look at the way all of the functions interact with each other in their own unique and complex way.    

One of the most common phrases I’ve heard in my team, including from the leadership, is “that’s not part of my job - the [fill in the blank] group is supposed to do that.” So how can my organization embrace the concepts of complexity theory and become stronger as a unified system? To start, leadership must start encouraging collaboration and cross training. Rather than worry that the success of one group will make the other look less effective, employees must learn to encourage and support each other on a consistent basis. According to a study published by Toren (2015), “employee productivity and satisfaction increases by 15 percent and 13 percent respectively when collaboration is formalized as a cornerstone,” so I would argue that embracing complexity science concepts may lead to happier employees and a more profitable organization in the long run.

References

Gleeson, B. (2013). The Silo Mentality: How To Break Down The Barriers. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/brentgleeson/2013/10/02/the-silo-mentality-how-to-break-down-the-barriers/#61d418ad8c7e

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2^nd ed.). New York, New York: Gower Publishing.

Sullivan, T. (2011). Embracing Complexity. Harvard Business Review, 89(9), 89-92.

Toren, M. (2015). 4 Warning Signs Your Team Is Working in Silos, and How to Destroy Them. Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/250477

A633.1.2.RB_GowensBrianne_Reflections on the Leadership Gap

Reflecting on Leadership

In chapter 1 of his textbook “Complex Adaptive Leadership," Obolensky (2014) recommended that readers take spend some time thinking about the way people view leaders today, and why this view may have changed in recent times.  

Has your own attitude to leaders change in your life, and if so how?

My attitude towards leaders has certainly changed over time. Early in my career, I was very intimidated by the leaders in my organization and I never would have considered questioning their authority or their knowledge. I used to envision leadership roles as positions that were earned as a result of some combination of (1) time at the organization, (2) accomplishments during that time, and (3) deep knowledge that could only be gained as a result of longevity.

As my career has matured, I’ve been exposed to many different types of leaders and this has helped change the way I look at people in leadership roles. If I reflect back on the types of leaders that I respected the most, factor number (1) above plays almost no role in how they became leaders. Katherine, for example, is my age, and has been doing the same type of role as me for only five or so years longer than me. She has a different educational background and a different personal background, but professionally, we are very much alike. When I worked with Katherine, she managed a team of ten people, three of which had been with the company for over 25 years each. Her abilities, thirst for learning, charisma, and passion for the people, the job, and the company she works for helped propel Katherine into a leadership role ahead of many others who had more experience than her. As a result, I am less intimidated by leaders and more quick to contribute to organizational strategies, even if I am bringing forward ideas that aren’t in the leader’s immediate line of sight.   Because of my interaction with leaders like Katherine, I see leadership as a much more collaborative role than I did when I was in the early years of my career.

Is there a changing generational trend in leadership? If so, what is it?

I started my career in contracts and procurement when I was in my early 20’s as a college intern at Eastern Washington’s Hanford Nuclear Power Plant. People spoke of the fact that nearly half of the workforce at Hanford would be eligible to retire within five years when I was first starting out. Needless to say, the work force was dominated by very tenured people, and newbies like me were struggling to gain traction.

Fast forward 15 years and things have changed quite significantly. I do believe there is a changing generational trend in leadership, and that is likely the result of the frequently changing societies in which we live. One trend I have noticed personally is the increase in the size of teams and a decrease in the size of management. Another trend I have noticed is a renewed focus on developing young people through sophisticated leadership training programs and certification. Finally, I have noticed a trend in increasing the importance that organizations put on diversity and inclusion. The increasing number of minorities who are stepping into leadership roles is evidence of this.

Why has this change occurred?

As mentioned above, today’s businesses are forced to respond to frequently changing dynamics in the economies in which they market their products and services. These dynamics have resulted in an atmosphere where agility is often valued more than longevity. Many of the leaders that I see excelling today are those who grew up at a time when the U.S. economy was experiencing some of its greatest moments of uncertainty in history. Emerging leaders grew up surrounded by highly stressed and likely emotional people who were forced to redefine their own careers as a result of economic instability. I believe younger generations may be more keen on predicting future markets and may be more comfortable with new strategies because of this. They may also be more prepared to deal with failure, and turn it into opportunity, which is an exciting leadership quality in the eyes of business owners today.

A511.9.3.RB_GowensBrianne_Course Reflections

Original Leadership Definition (Module 1): A leader is someone who has the ability to motivate and inspire others, thereby influencing them to work towards a goal.

As I reflect back on my original definition of leadership, I think about all of the ways the readings from this MSLD 511 leadership course have informed and shaped my vision of leadership. Prior to starting this course, leadership seemed like such a simple concept. Initially, a leader in my mind was just a person who stood out as the one individual in the group whom others chose to follow. A manager, on the other hand, was an individual others do not necessarily chose to follow, but do follow because of organizational hierarchies. A leader doesn’t always come with the power to make decisions, but followers often follow the direction of the leader because they are motivated and inspired to do so. Managers usually have the power to make decisions, but their followers may be acting out of obligation instead of passion. All of these ideas were present in my mind before the course began and, in some ways, they were further cemented as the course progressed. There were some key ideas, however, that changed my view of leadership and made me think more seriously about the type of leader I aspire to be.

For example, learning about the trait and skill leadership theories has made me want to put a renewed focus on working to improve traits such as intelligence and charisma. I will do this by utilizing some of the tips I learned from Antonakis' (2015), such as using hands motions during speech to convey passion. Learning about the path-goal theory has helped me recognize the value in making organizational goals clearer, and highlighting a follower’s path to reach those goals. The path-goal theory has also strengthened my belief that rewards for good performance are an effective motivation tool. The situational approach reminded me that I can be a strong leader in a single situation, but a truly skilled leader will be flexible and adapt to all kinds of different situations. These and many more of the theories learned during this course have given me a new perspective on what it means to be an effective leader. 

I still feel that my original definition of leadership is a good one, but if I could change it slightly based on what i’ve learned the last nine weeks, I would add something. I think my current definition lacks the directive quality that well rounded leaders need to have. 

According to Northouse (2016), directive leaders aren’t simply people who order others around. Rather, directive leaders help others by giving direction when followers need it. In my opinion, one of the keys to providing direction is knowing when (and when not) to do it. If a leader is too directive, they can gain a reputation amongst the team as a micro-manager. According to Blanchard (2008), a high directive/low supportive leader tells people “what, how, when, and where to do various tasks” (p.19). Being highly directive isn’t necessarily a bad thing because, like I mentioned, there is a time and place for this type of leadership. Followers like the thought of being empowered by their leaders so that they have to autonomy to decide how to do their work, but they also like the idea that a leader will step in and give firm direction when the team is unsure what to do. 

I aspire to be a balanced leader, who has knowledge about the topic I lead, am able to connect with and inspire people, and am able to make definitive decisions and direct followers on how to execute. My new definition of leadership reflects my revised thoughts on what a successful leader looks like.

Revised Leadership Definition (Module 9): A leader is someone who has subject-matter knowledge, has the ability to motivate and inspire others, provides firm direction when needed, and can thereby influencing followers to work towards a goal.

References

Antonakis, J. (2015, March). Let’s face it: Charisma matters [Video file]. Retrieved from http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Let-s-face-it-Charisma-matters

Blanchard, K. (2008). Leadership Excellence.  An integrative definition of leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 25(5), 19. 

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing.

A511.7.3.RB_GowensBrianne_Inner Work for Authentic Leadership

I have been working in the field of contracts for over thirteen years and as I reflected on this question, I realized the real-word experiences that stand out for me most are the ones that included confrontation. This confrontation usually came in the form of a face to face contractual negotiation with a supplier or a customer, and sometimes they included internal negotiations as well. Prior to face to face negotiations, I do a lot of preparing and strategizing. This process of preparing and then executing on a strategy has been extremely educational and instructional for me.

Although George discussed the importance of reflecting verbally, I find that my best reflection is done in writing (George, 2012). When I’ve had a difficult conversation or a tough negotiation, I tend to go straight to my computer and summarize the situation in an email. Sometimes I send the email to a colleague and sometimes I don’t, but the process of re-living the experience and documenting it helps me in two ways. First, it helps me vent. When I’ve been in a confrontation, I have a lot of frustration that builds up. I am very emotionally connected to my work, so if I feel that things didn’t go exactly as planned, I can get very tense. Summarizing the situation helps relieve that tension. The second way this helps me is the organizational aspect of it. I tend to like things organized and clearly documented, so I find it soothing to spill my thoughts in an email for the purposes of record keeping. Northouse (2016) stated that authentic leadership is often nurtured and developed throughout the leader’s lifetime, and reflecting via written notes is a form of nurturing for me.

Most of my reflection is done internally, but I do have a couple of colleagues that I can receive honest feedback from. There is one person in particular who used to work in my group but moved out of my group approximately one year ago. I feel most comfortable receiving feedback from him because he’s removed from my chain of command. Even though he’s removed, he has a basic knowledge of my experiences because he used to be in my group. 

I have found that I get the most honest feedback if I request it off-premise. For example, if I have these discussions with my colleagues during lunch or after work at a happy hour, they seem to be more open to speaking candidly. Alternatively, if we are eating in the lunchroom or chatting at our desks, feedback tends to be more vague. I think the obvious explanation for this is the worry that others may hear our discussions. Sometimes people are even concerned with the perception that comes with two people talking quietly to each other. There may be an automatic assumption that the two are discussing something negative about other colleagues or about the organization.

My methods of reflecting and seeking feedback have certainly impacted my leadership abilities. I believe the practice of reflecting via written notes and emails has actually helped me stand out from my peers. I recently had to travel oversees for a meeting with one of our customers and each day after the meeting, I sent comprehensive notes to my leadership team. These notes included summaries of the conversations, my general impressions of the meetings, and action items for all parties. Another colleague of mine traveled around the same time and did not send these notes. When each of us had returned from our trips, two managers commended me for taking the time to send these notes, and one manager even recognized me in our staff meeting for being so thorough. This practice has helped me gain self-efficacy, which includes the ability to recognize situations that have an outcome valued by an individual (Helland & Winston, 2005).

This method of reflecting was calming for me, but it has also helped me recognize a behavior that other leaders find valuable to the organization. Behavior, passion, consistency, and connectedness are all characteristics highlighted by George as dimensions of authentic leadership (Northouse, 2016). Each of these four characteristics are also highlighted with the habit I have created of reflecting with comprehensive notes. 

References

George, B. (2012, Nov.). Harvard's Bill George: Inner Work for Authentic Leadership [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/SmPu2LQ84ts

Helland, M. R., and Winston, B. E. (2005). Towards a Deeper Understanding of Hope and Leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(2), 42-54.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing.

A511.6.3.RB_GowensBrianne_A Leader From the Past

The first time I had a transformational leader was in 2007 when I worked for a company called Fluor Corporation in Houston, Texas. When I first moved to Houston, I started working in a group as an expeditor supporting a domestic oil and gas project. After one year, I was transferred within the company to work on a different project; this time supporting an oil and gas customer in the Middle East. Although I was still working for Fluor, I had a completely different management team since the end customer was different. My manager at this stage was a woman named Wanda.

On this new project, Wanda served the role of Material Manager, (MM) which actually meant that she was two layers of management above me. I worked as a buyer, another woman named Suzanna worked as the Procurement Manager (my direct manager), and Wanda worked one layer up as the Material Manager. I had an almost immediate connection with Wanda when I joined the group and I think it’s attributed to the fact that she was a transformational leader. Wanda initiated 1:1 meetings with each member of my team, and this was the first time I’d ever heard of such a concept. The 1:1s were held in Wanda’s office and anything was on the table for discussion. Sometimes my 1:1’s were spent solving a work problem and sometimes they were spent talking about a fun event I’d participated in over the weekend. I appreciated the fact that Wanda carved out a part of her busy day, each week, to get to know me and that she let me set the agenda for what we’d talk about. 

I believe I worked harder with Wanda as my manager because I wanted her to be proud of my performance. The more Wanda showed me that she cared about me and was invested in my own personal development, the more I wanted to show her that her faith was placed in the right person. This caused me to focus and stretch myself, which resulted in better performance for the organization as a whole. When I came in earlier than others, stayed later, and volunteered for challenging projects, Wanda recognized me in front of the rest of the team and she even worked harder to ensure that I was promoted. There certainly was an element of transactional leadership there because of the reward system involved, but even more important was the prideful feeling I got when she seemed impressed with me. 

Bass and Steidlmeir (1999) recognized that some critics believe transformational leaders are actually manipulators because they use people’s desire for emotional connections to get them work harder. I think this theory only works if we believe that employees are so deprived of attention that they don’t recognize their leader is only pretending to connect with them in order to get better results from the employees. I believe one of the real challenges with transformational leadership is the fact that it’s most effective when it’s genuine, and it’s really hard (if not impossible) to teach a leader how to genuinely want to connect with others. I believe the best transformational leaders are the type of people who honestly want to get to know their employees and make their employees feel good about being at work. 

I do feel it’s important to recognize that I wasn’t the only person who saw Wanda as a transformational leader. In fact, I noticed that the moral of entire team was better than other teams I’d been a part of in the past. Because Wanda did things like socialize with us individually and as a group, she created a connection with us that raised the motivation of the entire team (Northouse, 2016). Wanda was really good about scheduling monthly team lunches to celebrate all of the birthdays in the month, along with occasional team happy hours. There was never any pressure to participate but almost every time, the majority of the team was able to make it. One thing that really stood out to me was the fact that Suzzana, our direct manager, rarely participated in the off-site events and she did not implement 1:1 meetings of her own. I never felt she was interested in having an emotional connection with me, so I never felt invested in her success as a manager. I didn’t particularly dislike Suzzana, but I also didn’t feel motivated by her at all. 

Wanda definitely changed the type of employee and the type of leader that I am today. I learned to value the impact a transformational leader can have on my own career. The more motivated I was at work, the more I accomplished. The more I accomplished, the more I was recognized, and the faster my career accelerated. I also learned that it really is possible to be friendly with followers while still serving in a leadership or managerial role. Followers who feel empowered by their leader are more likely to make changes to their own behavior and become better overall organizational contributors (Northouse, 2016).

References

Bass B.M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing.