Picture
Old 8 step change model
  • Step 1 - create urgency – (This I find touches base on creating a need to change or providing reasoning for doing so)

  • Step 2 - Form a powerful coalition (Selecting the right team to carry out the change)

  • Step 3 - Create a vision for change (Developing a vision for 3 - 5 years depending on the scenario itself whilst also ensuring that the vision is achievable.)

  • Step 4 - Communicate the vision – (Utilising an array of tools to communicate the message to those who need to hear it. I have heard that at times when unconcering groups overhear what another group is doing it causes tension and so forth thus I think it is critical that communication only be made to those select few.)

  • Step 5 - Remove obstacles – (Removing what’s necessary)

  • Step 6 - Create short term wins (I take it that this means that at each milestone everyone has a few beers)

  • Step 7 - Build the change – (Developing the change of how it is going to be)

  • Step 8 - Anchor the changes in corporate culture (Slowly phasing in the change)

Revised 8 step change model
  • Step 1 - Increase urgency (Increase awareness that something that needs to change. I think this is actually more logical than creating urgency? Creating would mean creating a problem?)

  • Step 2 - Build the guiding team (A bit different from a powerful coalition however I would agree a guiding team sounds more realistic)

  • Step 3 - Get the vision right (Now this I don’t agree with, it takes years to know if the vision was ever right in the first place. I understand that Kotter may have of assumed that people were going to know his existing model but for those that didn’t this part doesn’t make any sense.)

  • Step 4 - Communicate for buy in (This sounds more logicial in that it wouldn’t just be the vision that would be being told but rather it could be story telling about other things.)

  • Step 5 - Empower action – (Now this sounds more damaging and down to business than removing obstacles. )

  • Step 6 - Create short term wins (I don’t blame Kotter for letting this staying)

  • Step 7 - Don't let up (I would assume this means creating strategies to not make the change crash but if so that is just the same as step 8. Perhaps it should have of been only a 7 step model with this step removed?)

  • Step 8 - Make change stick
 
Picture
Today I was intrigued to look further into some theories to see if I could find any that were applicable to a leader for the moment, i.e. situational. I came across one having googled situational leadership theories and found one called situational leadership. It got me interested as I have had this thought played out in my head before that when a situation does arise, it should be scripted so that it could be done with minimum fuss. I know this, sounds like a crock but I think this theory could work but to know whether or not I will assess it.
  • Telling/directing – I interpret this means who will a leader get to do relevant jobs. This is a bit complex as I believe another assessment needs to be done then on character profiling rather than just issuing out the job to so and so. So maybe this part is flawed or would be rather time consuming to select the right person to tell.

  • Selling/Coaching – This is something which was discussed in one of the lectures, how it is a leaders role to coach his followers and sell the story. Again this is related to character profiling. You can’t just tell anyone or can you? Perhaps with coaching backing it would work, i.e. selling the idea.

  • Participating/supporting – Who will participate? This is more or less in line with the first two. Perhaps this shouldn’t even be here?

  • Delegating – Um isn’t this the same as telling someone something?
Ok this theory is worth nothing. I believe the theory should have of read:
1. Know what the situation is / clarify it.
2. Determine who would be best to handle the situation based on a character profile.
3. Direct the tasks accordingly / Coach the task to the followers to ensure they know what is going on.
4. Follow up / review what is going on. Make sure your role as a leader is valid and you are adhering to your responsibilities.
 
The ERG categories of human needs, believes that leaders have the following various needs:
  • Related needs – Needs relevant to problems. I.e. a need for comforting etc or a need for resources to complete relevant goals.
  • Existence needs – Needs which are relevant to exist. I.e. whilst one is leading they need food shelter etc.
  • Growth needs – This is much in line with the same need in that a leader also needs resources to grow. As they also need support.

Picture
 
This particular theory elaborates on some of the things which I have already found about leaders, i.e. in that some leaders are already adapt to cultural practices and have gotten to experience many relationships with various cultures.

This theory is a bit more detailed than that however in that it looks at the following:
  • Head / cognitive –how to speak to others from other cultures. It recognises that head gestures and relevant cognitive ways are required to communicate.
  • Body / Physical – This is in line with what was discussed in one of the lectures whereby in some cultures there are certain handshakes that need to be made or a business card needs to be placed on a certain part of the body. i.e. in Japan it is formal that the business card be placed in the top pocket of a shirt and not in the back pocket as this shows you are honouring the person or respecting them.
  • Heart / Emotional / Motivational – This deals with certain emotions which are and aren’t allowed to be displayed in given cultures.
I think that this theory is quite valuable to know as here in Australia there is always an interaction occuring between different cultures.
Picture
 
Picture
Ok so today I again have looked at some theories and I believe this should be taught at a post graduate level. It is the competing values framework by Quinn and Rohrbaugh. It deals with four models which I will do my best to interpret:

• Human relations model – How a leader interacts with followers.

• Open systems model – How an openness can be developed within a group. Specifically it looks at strategies for how this can be done. This reminds me in some ways about Socratic Dialogue in that it is also an open system for how interactions may take place.

• Rational goal model – Devising goals which are rational and which can be achieved. It sort of reminds me about SMART goals in some way. Perhaps there is some correlation between these two.

• Internal process model – How a leader can develop processes to work internally within his / her group.

I find that although this framework is called competing values it is not in many ways. Rather it really should be four unique models and then developed further. I think overall this model is more valuable than the others which I have discussed in that easier to use. I assume that this is because these ideas can be worked on flexibly rather than adhered to strictly.
 
I was looking today through 12manage and found an interesting leadership theory which I thought would be a good idea to include in today’s journal. The theory looked was based on centralization and decentralization. It had mentioned that centralization was a good way of giving power where it was deserved, i.e. in terms of giving power to others to be able to make decisions.

I thought about the applicability of this within a working business environment and can see that it is already utilised so thus it must surely work. It also gave a briefing about how there is a uniformity attached to it in that it is a low risk option. This I am not so sure about. Yes it may work because power is given to someone is deserving of it but wouldn’t this mean that others would then seek it also? In a way it defeats the purpose of even having a leader although I could see how it could work in a small working group.
 
Daniel Goleman introduces 6 leadership styles which he believes a leader may fall into. These leadership styles made me reflect on some of my earlier entries on how I am trying to formulate myself into a better leader. His leadership styles made me realise that there are some things which i have been negligent to.
  • Visionary leadership - I acknowledged this to be important but wouldn't classify myself to have of made it an important attribute to have.
  • Coaching style - I have also neglected this as I admit my experience is limited and as such I perhaps am not the best person to be coaching others. But I can see that maybe this is not the case and some of my own accumulated knowledge does have a lot of barring and meaning to others. I base this on past work experiences where I found that people who I worked with were negligent to certain things that I was able to see and identfy. Perhaps if I had more courage back then I would have of said something.
  • Affiliative leadership- Promotes harmony. Friendly. Empathetic. He/she boosts moral. Solves conflict. - I think that this is what my friend Simon was saying, i.e. a leader working with his people. I acknowledge that this is something I now believe in and as such will take it on myself to implement.
  • Democratic leadership - Superb listener. Team worker. Collaborator. Influencer. - A superb listener I may not be but I find I may be close to it, depending on who I am talking with. A team worker as mentioned previously I need to get better at and as such should be a personal focus of mine. A collaborator and influences I can be although this depends on the situation. Now reflecting on this I admit it's wrong to be negligent to these things and not use it all the time. As I leader I must do this to succeed.
  • Pacesetting leadership - I have been ignorant to this and haven't even thought about it but this style does make sense. Things do need to go at a relevant pace to reach desired outcomes. I found this to be the case at my previous place of employment where my leader was complacent in doing things in a certain timely way. It worked I must say and it kept things from tipping over.
  • Commanding leadership - This one for me is a tought one and perhaps it is why I have neglicted it. Respectively because I am not a commanding person, my approach varies. When I am hard hit or my temper goes high I can be commanding but not at all times. It is something I try to avoid to be as it generates bad reactions from those who I do lead. Perhaps I am wrong and this is not the case rather I should be commanding as that is what leadership entails and thus I must bite the bullet and accept it as a responsibility.
Overall I think my aim should be to demonstrate an affiliative and democratic leadership style although I acknowledge at times I may need to switch depending on the situation. These styles have definitely given me something to think about and acknowledge more so as to what I should be doing rather then just doing what I assume. So in essence "YES" I will do my utmost best to think about these styles and utilise them willingly.

These leadership styles have made me question though, are people aware that they are using x style? For me I believe that I am not but instead I act on the situation instead accordingly. I wonder if there would be any difference if I recognised what leadership style would be suited to the situation? I think I mentioned this in an earlier entry however I am now thinking about it. The only thing that would stop me from utilising this approach is the time factor and whether or not it would entail more i.e. would I need to stick to a certain script when performing this style or would it be something that I let happen naturally?

This thought has now gotten me thinking about leading change and how that can be done through different images, i.e. director, navigator, coach, interpreter, nurturer, caretaker. Perhaps styles, images and frames could be combined for a given situation?