Ordinary versus Extraordinary Organizations Order Instructions: The writer will read this article and constructively offer his criticism of the article.
The writer will use pear review article to support his points. The writer should refrain from just indicating ” he is correct or I agree” but offer constructive comments that can also contribute to the article.
Ordinary versus Extraordinary Organizations and Guidelines for Creating a Project-Based, Extraordinary Organization
Extraordinary organizations possess certain characteristics in their culture, behaviors, and performance expectations. Ordinary organizations may miss opportunities for learning, may fall in step with the status quo, and stifle innovative thinking. By contrast, in the following paragraph, I will discuss three characteristics that serve as markers for extraordinary organizations: (a) possess a learning orientation, (b) employ systems thinking, and (c) have leaders who embrace killer questions. Using these as guidelines, leaders can create an extraordinary, project-based organization.
Ordinary versus Extraordinary Organizations Learning Orientation
Senge (2006) posited that a culture of learning paves the way for an extraordinary organization. Learning can occur both on an individual and team levels. On an individual level, personal mastery is a lifelong commitment to perfecting a craft, skill, or trade, and is the cornerstone of the learning organization (Senge, 2006). Personal mastery applies to both employees and leaders. Therefore, leaders should encourage each employee in the organization to adopt a mindset of continual improvement. Similarly, leaders must also role model this behavior. Paul and Whittam (2015) found that: (a) successful leaders build their tacit knowledge; (b) leadership learning is a continuous process; (c) reflection facilitates leadership learning; (d) leadership learning is a social process; and others. These findings concur with Senge that personal mastery is most effective when leaders demonstrate personal mastery, which sets behavioral expectations and norms for others in the organization to follow.
On a team level, Senge (2006) suggested that “teams are the fundamental learning units in modern organizations” (p. 10). There are two reasons why team learning is critical. First, effective teams are able to accomplish more together than an individual could on his or her own (Senge, 2006). Second, Senge stated that individuals of effective teams grow and learn more rapidly within and because of their teams. Peñarroja, Orengo, Zornoza, Sánchez, and Ripoll (2015) concurred and found that through team feedback, teams improve group information sharing and elaboration, which is an antecedent to learning. However, Peñarroja et al. stated that trust was a mediating factor to this outcome. Therefore, leaders need to establish trust among teams first in order to realize the benefits of team learning.
Ordinary versus Extraordinary Organizations Systems Thinking
Seiler and Kowalsky (2011) argued that systems thinking is a necessary business strategy and is a way that leaders can achieve gain competitive advantage. Systems thinking is a paradigm shift away from evaluating individual components that comprise the whole (Aronson, 1998). That is, isolating problems into singular or overly simplistic cause and effect relationships. Rather, leaders who utilize systems thinking to evaluate the interactions, coordination, and relationships of components among and in relation to the system of interest (Aronson, 1998). Absent of systems thinking solutions to problems fail to solve problems thoroughly, or have negative unintended consequences (Sherrer, 2010). Aronson (1998) argued that systems thinking perspective enables leaders to address complex issues, recurring problems, and scenarios in which solutions are not obvious, making for a truly extraordinary organization. Therefore, leaders need to be cognizant of the entire ecosystem within an organization, those derived from the process, procedure, but inclusive of the people and the culture involved (Hornstein, 2015).
Ordinary versus Extraordinary Organizations Leaders Who Embrace Killer Questions
McKinney (2012) posited that effective questions lead to innovation because they fundamentally challenge long and previously held assumptions, experiences, and knowledge, which can stifle innovation. One could interpret this to mean that leaders who successfully innovate do so because they are receptive to growth, challenge, and are intolerant of the status quo. Challenging the status quo is simply about not approaching problems in a conventional manner. Instead, effective leaders help build extraordinary organizations by thinking differently about situations and circumstances (Laufer, 2012). Luntz (2011) concurred, and referred to these individuals as paradigm breakers because they refuse to accept the world as it is; they dream and embrace creativity. The business implication of paradigm-breaking is that good questions and the willingness to ask questions serves as the springboard to innovation. By doing so, leaders can think “out of the box” and be strategic about their business decisions or how they approach problem-solving. This is because the questions themselves probe for a deeper understanding of the customer, the product, and the organization.
Ordinary versus Extraordinary Organizations Five Actions to Apply
First, look for more opportunities for team learning. Personally, I enjoy learning, but I have found that much of my learning I have done has been an individual activity. This past year I had the opportunity to embark on a research project with colleagues at work. Through the experience in trying to learn about faculty perceptions about research in an institution of higher education, I have learned so much about others’ perspectives. This has been an eye-opening experience and one which I will seek out in the future.
Second, ask better questions, but also seek to understand how and why the status quo “came to be.” This extends from McKinney’s ideas but also has a root-cause analysis flair to it. I recently had the opportunity to explore a corporate expense reimbursement policy as I have been charged to lead a faculty-driven effort to redesign a professional development fund disbursement process. In seeking to better understand why the current policy exists in its current format, helped me better articulate reasons why we should consider an alternative policy. What I took away from the experience is that effective leaders need to stop and seek understanding in order to better dispel and or challenge the status quo.
Third and fourth, be more people-centered and use face-to-face communication. The first idea came from Luntz. I am comforted by Luntz’s explanation that people-centered is not the same as being a people-person. Personally, I lack charisma or a presence which naturally attracts people to me, as some people do. However, I do genuinely care about the opinions and ideas of others, so I will continue to practice this in practical ways. One way is to use Laufer’s suggestion about using face-to-face communication as the primary method of communication. I like emails because communication can occur outside the boundaries of time and space. However, there is something lost in the richness of communication. Therefore, I will make a more concerted effort to be physically present with others.
Fifth, embrace the “living order” concept more fully. Embrace the living order describes the state of ambiguity, dynamic change, and the presence of unpredictable and unforeseen circumstances (Laufer, 2012). Effective project leaders are able to function successfully despite the chaos of living order (Laufer, 2012). One way I like to make this tangible is to acknowledge (verbally or written form) that the external and internal environments, as well as stakeholders, are dynamic and that deviations from the plan are normal and should be expected. This sets the tone whereby stakeholders are not surprised or have other negative emotions about change. Similarly, I like to purposefully build in review periods and opportunities to reflect upon and make changes based on lessons learned.
Ordinary versus Extraordinary Organizations References
Aronson, D. (1998). Overview of systems thinking. Retrieved from http://www.thinking.net/Systems_Thinking/OverviewSTarticle.pdf
Hornstein, H. A. (2015). The integration of project management and organizational change management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project Management, 33, 291-298. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.005
Laufer, A. (2012). Mastering the leadership role in project management: Practices that deliver remarkable results. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Luntz, F. I. (2011). Win: The key principles to take your business from ordinary to extraordinary. New York, NY: Hyperion.
McKinney, P. (2012). Beyond the obvious: Killer questions that spark game-changing innovation. New York, NY: Hyperion.
Paul, S., & Whittam, G. (2015). The show must go on: Leadership learning on Broadway. Organizational Dynamics, 44, 196-203. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.05.005
Peñarroja, V., Orengo, V., Zornoza, A., Sánchez, J., & Ripoll, P. (2015). How team feedback and team trust influence information processing and learning in virtual teams: A moderated mediation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 48(1), 9-16. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.034
Seiler, J. H., & Kowalsky, M. (2011). Systems thinking the evidence from colleges of business and their universities. American Journal of Business Education, 4(3), 55-61. doi:10.19030/ajbe.v4i3.4113
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Sherrer, J. A. (2010). A project manager’s guide to systems thinking: Part 1. Retrieved from https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/project-managers-guide-to-systems-thinking-part-1.php
Ordinary versus Extraordinary Organizations Sample Answer
Comments and Constructive Criticism
Ordinary versus Extraordinary Organizations and Guidelines for Creating a Project-Based, Extraordinary Organization
As detailed in the material, the author subsequently depicts the manner in which extraordinary organizations posse’s particular tenets that relate to their cultures, performance expectations, and behaviors. The element of learning is constituted as an essential in enhancing the process of innovative thinking that aids in undertaking and managing the complexities of an organizations issues that require the inclusion of a systemized approach of thought in problem solving (Sherrer, 2010). It is however significant that the author of this material would have considered giving a brief definition of an extraordinary organization and the manner in which learning impacts its functions.
It is essential to consider that a systematic thinking approach remains fundamental and purely different from other forms of analysis, an aspect that needed to be distinguished in the article (Hornstein, 2015). In traditional analysis, the primary focus is drawn towards the separation of individual pieces on the elements being studied unlike system thinking that focuses on how the elements being studies interact with other components of the system since these elements interact to initiate behavior. In other words, the material needs to initiate the need and use of system thinking within an organization to establish the manner in which behavior is modeled.
The author of the material clearly gives an indication of how team learning is an integral element in accomplishing organizations objectives. This point would have been supported by depicting the role of leadership in initiating such developments within the team and the skills applied in leadership to capture an affective team spirit (Paul, & Whittam, 2015). On the other hand, the author clearly indicates the actions that need to be applied in establishing the process of learning by clearly giving a personalized example on how this is initiated as experienced in an institution. The author therefore needs to consider providing more examples and definitions in order to build this study as a strong thesis.
Ordinary versus Extraordinary Organizations References
Hornstein, H. A. (2015). The integration of project management and organizational change management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project Management, 33, 291-298. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.005
Paul, S., & Whittam, G. (2015). The show must go on: Leadership learning on Broadway. Organizational Dynamics, 44, 196-203. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.05.005
Sherrer, J. A. (2010). A project manager’s guide to systems thinking: Part 1. Retrieved from https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/project-managers-guide-to-systems-thinking-part-1.php
