Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Insights from 1/30/07
I really liked the concept of optimizing the whole. All the parts of a organization or company have to sub-optimized to be able to optimize the whole of the company or organization. If one of the parts is being optimized more than the rest, then the rest of the company will fall. It is important that all of the parts are sub-optimized. Bro. Adams talked about how this is going to be important as we begin to work in different areas within our classroom. If one of our groups becomes more optimized then the rest and utilizes Bro. Adams time, then the rest of us will not be able to get the help we need from him which will adversely affect the rest of the class.
communications in the church
While discussing communications in the church I had three insights that I hadn't thought of before.
1. The first insight I had was that as we were filling out a chart of the different areas in the church that communicate with eachother, we started by putting Home Teaching with Elders Quorum being one of the forms of communication within an Elders Quorum. Later on we realized that Home Teaching not only fit in that category alone, but in all teh categories in the whole chart. I hadn't that about one area within our church having the same form of communication with everyone inside that church whether they were kids, youth, or even the Bishop and his family.
2. Another insight I had was when we were talking about how you have to start from the inside out with communication. I have noticed so many times in different organizations where that is so true. If the person or people in the organization aren't trustworthy which leads to them not trusting eachother, there's going to be a lot of trouble with communication within that organization. I think trust is so important, especially with communications, but I didn't realize how important until we talked about it in class.
3. My third insight has to do with the communication chart we made for the church starting with the Godhead and going all the way down to primary and the other organizations in the church. I thought about being trustworthy and having trust within the church. If their was a lacking of trust anywhere in any part of the church whether it be up at the First Presidency of the church or down through the Relief Society, it could make a break in the structure of the church which would effect not only that organization in the church, but the whole church. Each part of our church is intertwined with eachother. If we fail to have this trust and communication in one part, it will effect the whole church.
1. The first insight I had was that as we were filling out a chart of the different areas in the church that communicate with eachother, we started by putting Home Teaching with Elders Quorum being one of the forms of communication within an Elders Quorum. Later on we realized that Home Teaching not only fit in that category alone, but in all teh categories in the whole chart. I hadn't that about one area within our church having the same form of communication with everyone inside that church whether they were kids, youth, or even the Bishop and his family.
2. Another insight I had was when we were talking about how you have to start from the inside out with communication. I have noticed so many times in different organizations where that is so true. If the person or people in the organization aren't trustworthy which leads to them not trusting eachother, there's going to be a lot of trouble with communication within that organization. I think trust is so important, especially with communications, but I didn't realize how important until we talked about it in class.
3. My third insight has to do with the communication chart we made for the church starting with the Godhead and going all the way down to primary and the other organizations in the church. I thought about being trustworthy and having trust within the church. If their was a lacking of trust anywhere in any part of the church whether it be up at the First Presidency of the church or down through the Relief Society, it could make a break in the structure of the church which would effect not only that organization in the church, but the whole church. Each part of our church is intertwined with eachother. If we fail to have this trust and communication in one part, it will effect the whole church.
Lessons in Leadership
Best Lessons in Leadership came from...
- NSO- I-Team Leader
- Girls Camp Jr. Leader
Best Lessons in Communicating...
- Tour guide at BYU-Idaho Admissions office
- Various other jobs I've had
- Classes taken at BYU-Idaho
Organizations Experienced
- Young Womens
- Madison High dance team
- Choir
- band
- government/debate
- EFY
- NSO (New Student Orientation)
- NHS (National Honors Society)
- From the Heart musical group
How?
- I learned that you don't have to agree with a person but you need to understand them.
- I learned that it's not just about you, you have to think of the other people before yourself.
All the Places I've Lived
- Pocatello, ID
- Blythe, CA
- Idaho Falls, ID
- Rigby, ID
- Rexburg, ID
Achievement proud of...
- Winning the We the People state competition and competing in Washington D.C.
Goals...
- Visit all the continents
- Ride in a hot air balloon
- Write a song
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
insights from class 1/25/07
While discussing within our People group, we came up with some insights that pertained not only to the Columbia case but other organizations as well.
The first insight we had was that all the people within NASA were like peas that were not in a pod. They were on there own, not helping anyone else. They weren’t working together but instead taking their piece of the pie and that’s it. If they would have communicated a little better and helped each other out, a lot could have been done to help the problems they experienced.
We also discussed out a lot of the people working at NASA were definitely motivated by the carrot or incentive for doing something in their job instead of being motivated by their heart. One example was Ham. Throughout the case it talks about how if they didn’t leave on time then there other important missions would be delayed which would affect her job and other things. All she seemed to care about was staying on schedule so she would be benefited. One part in the case it talks about how if they worked together, there was possibly a chance that they could have sent another ship up there and saved the astronauts on the Columbia. But it would have taken time and money. That would have definitely put them off schedule. So instead, Ham and others insisted that even if there was a problem, nothing could be done about it and so nothing was.
As a group we also decided that the people working at NASA are smart. They went to school and they have an education. The problem comes when all these smart people stay within their own box instead of going outside the box to work together with all the other smart people working at NASA. This again goes along with the idea of only taking their piece of the pie. If they would instead share a piece of their pie with others and in turn get a piece of other people’s pie, they would learn and communicate so much better.
The first insight we had was that all the people within NASA were like peas that were not in a pod. They were on there own, not helping anyone else. They weren’t working together but instead taking their piece of the pie and that’s it. If they would have communicated a little better and helped each other out, a lot could have been done to help the problems they experienced.
We also discussed out a lot of the people working at NASA were definitely motivated by the carrot or incentive for doing something in their job instead of being motivated by their heart. One example was Ham. Throughout the case it talks about how if they didn’t leave on time then there other important missions would be delayed which would affect her job and other things. All she seemed to care about was staying on schedule so she would be benefited. One part in the case it talks about how if they worked together, there was possibly a chance that they could have sent another ship up there and saved the astronauts on the Columbia. But it would have taken time and money. That would have definitely put them off schedule. So instead, Ham and others insisted that even if there was a problem, nothing could be done about it and so nothing was.
As a group we also decided that the people working at NASA are smart. They went to school and they have an education. The problem comes when all these smart people stay within their own box instead of going outside the box to work together with all the other smart people working at NASA. This again goes along with the idea of only taking their piece of the pie. If they would instead share a piece of their pie with others and in turn get a piece of other people’s pie, they would learn and communicate so much better.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Insights from 1/13/07
1. The first insight I had was when we learned about adhocracy. Adhocracy involves people and lots of change. A good organization will have adhocracy and will always be changing things. With adhocracy, people from all different parts of the organization will be able to move to different parts of that organization and share the information they already know with that different part of the organization. That way everbody is sharing what they know with everybody else in the orgnization and communication becomes better.
This idea of adhocracy is also practiced in our church. Someone will be called to a certain calling and they will stay in that calling for a year or so and then they will be taken out and given a different calling. Someone will have already had that calling and can help the new person going into it.
2. I like the phrase Bro. Adams said, "We're only as good as our weakest link." I think this is really important in an organization especially when it comes to communication. If we are not communicating well within an organization, then are weakest link is going to be pretty weak and that is how weak the whole organization will be.
3. The third insight I had was when we talked about scarcity. Sometimes people are so worried about themselves and getting their "piece of the pie", that they get that and that's all they get. If they would work together with other people instead of being so concernced just for your own wellfare all the time, then you would actually end up getting a bigger piece of the pie then if you had just gone for your own. You would learn from each other and each take something more from each other.
This idea of adhocracy is also practiced in our church. Someone will be called to a certain calling and they will stay in that calling for a year or so and then they will be taken out and given a different calling. Someone will have already had that calling and can help the new person going into it.
2. I like the phrase Bro. Adams said, "We're only as good as our weakest link." I think this is really important in an organization especially when it comes to communication. If we are not communicating well within an organization, then are weakest link is going to be pretty weak and that is how weak the whole organization will be.
3. The third insight I had was when we talked about scarcity. Sometimes people are so worried about themselves and getting their "piece of the pie", that they get that and that's all they get. If they would work together with other people instead of being so concernced just for your own wellfare all the time, then you would actually end up getting a bigger piece of the pie then if you had just gone for your own. You would learn from each other and each take something more from each other.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Insights from class 1/18/07
1. One insight I had was when Bro. Adams was talking about having two sides: the A side and the B side. They each want something different and there may be some conflict between them. But like he said if they do more than compromise than we get C which is both A and B coming together to make something higher. That really made sense to me. In the Columbia case I thought about how there were two teams: the Debris Assessment Team and the Mission Management Team. The DAT decided that what they needed were better photographs to analyze the damage better. The MMT on the other hand decided that there was "not much we can do about it." It was also the MMT's chairperson, Ham, that cancelled the order for the photographs the DAT needed. If these two teams had communicated better and came together with both of their ideas they could have created C or a better way to solve the problems with the Columbia. If this had happened, they possibly could have come up with a plan that would get the astronauts on the ship safely back to Earth and would have saved NASA a lot of trouble and money.
One way this idea can relate to our church is through the seperate organizations we have within our church. There are sometimes conflicts between maybe the Relief Society and Young Womens, or Elders Quorum and Activites Committee. They may both want a certain thing to happen, but if they communicate and come together, they can make something better for both of the organizations.
2. Another insight I had was the win/win graph and how on the top left hand corner we have w/l which can sometimes be ruthlessness. This made me think of the managers at NASA. They had courage, but no compassion and they were ruthless. They knew what they were wanted and at some points it seemed as if they weren't going to let anything get in the way of that. They were on a schedule and if Columbia didn't come home on time, their schedule would be messed up. So they went to measure such as cancelling photograph orders and saying that even if they're was a problem, there was nothing they could do about it. This to me is ruthless courage with no consideration.
An example that I thought of within our church was something that happened to me at girl's camp one year. The girl's camp leaders had girl's camp planned out exactly how they wanted it to happen. Every little detail, which included what we wore and every activity we did. This was unlike a lot of the other years we had had at girls camp. It was in a way ruthless. Because of the strictness of this girl's camp, some girls opted out on coming and lost this great opportunity. If the leaders had taken into consideration the girl's a little more, we could have had more of a win/win situation.
3. I also related the six C's Bro. Adam's talked about in class to the case study. I found examples of competing, comparing, complaining, criticizing, contending, and conflict in this case. One thing that I was thinking is that if there had been better communication going on during this whole process, a whole bunch of those C's wouldn't have had to be there. Conflict can be a good thing and we have conflict even with good communication. But I just kept thinking how much easier it would be to solve conflict or work it through without all the other C's being there.
In the church we find a lot of these C's also. And sometimes it ruins the whole purpose of church. I once had a Relief Society teacher who some people would complain and criticize about and a lot of the times the Spirit wasn't there when she was giving that lesson because I had been listening to these people and sometimes participating. If we would have had better communication skills and could have solved the conflict with communication instead of using these other C's, then we would have benefited a lot more.
One way this idea can relate to our church is through the seperate organizations we have within our church. There are sometimes conflicts between maybe the Relief Society and Young Womens, or Elders Quorum and Activites Committee. They may both want a certain thing to happen, but if they communicate and come together, they can make something better for both of the organizations.
2. Another insight I had was the win/win graph and how on the top left hand corner we have w/l which can sometimes be ruthlessness. This made me think of the managers at NASA. They had courage, but no compassion and they were ruthless. They knew what they were wanted and at some points it seemed as if they weren't going to let anything get in the way of that. They were on a schedule and if Columbia didn't come home on time, their schedule would be messed up. So they went to measure such as cancelling photograph orders and saying that even if they're was a problem, there was nothing they could do about it. This to me is ruthless courage with no consideration.
An example that I thought of within our church was something that happened to me at girl's camp one year. The girl's camp leaders had girl's camp planned out exactly how they wanted it to happen. Every little detail, which included what we wore and every activity we did. This was unlike a lot of the other years we had had at girls camp. It was in a way ruthless. Because of the strictness of this girl's camp, some girls opted out on coming and lost this great opportunity. If the leaders had taken into consideration the girl's a little more, we could have had more of a win/win situation.
3. I also related the six C's Bro. Adam's talked about in class to the case study. I found examples of competing, comparing, complaining, criticizing, contending, and conflict in this case. One thing that I was thinking is that if there had been better communication going on during this whole process, a whole bunch of those C's wouldn't have had to be there. Conflict can be a good thing and we have conflict even with good communication. But I just kept thinking how much easier it would be to solve conflict or work it through without all the other C's being there.
In the church we find a lot of these C's also. And sometimes it ruins the whole purpose of church. I once had a Relief Society teacher who some people would complain and criticize about and a lot of the times the Spirit wasn't there when she was giving that lesson because I had been listening to these people and sometimes participating. If we would have had better communication skills and could have solved the conflict with communication instead of using these other C's, then we would have benefited a lot more.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
3 insights from class 1/16
1. The way to get rid of fear in the work place is to replace it with love. When Bro. Adams was teaching this, I realized how true that was. We have to have love in the work place to have an effective organization because without it their will be fear. In the case study, the engineers were to afraid to say anything even though they had useful information. Because of this, nothing was done to help to fix the ship.
2. People in an organization have to have high courage and high consideration to have a win-win situation. After discussing this idea in class I also saw how it related to the case study and other organizations. Without both high courage and high consideration, you can't have a win-win situation. You can either have a win-lose or a lose-lose. And of course in an organization we want a win-win situation. In the case study there was a worker named Ham who had high courage but low consideration for the other workers. There was also some engineers who had low courage but high consideration. If both of these people could have had both high courage and high consideration, they could have worked together and there might not have been so many problems.
3. Another thing I learned in class was how to motivate a person in an organization the right way. You can butter them up, beat them up, or use control and focus. But when their personal mission colides with the organization's mission, the person in the organization will go where their heart says. That's that kind of motivation you want in an organization.
2. People in an organization have to have high courage and high consideration to have a win-win situation. After discussing this idea in class I also saw how it related to the case study and other organizations. Without both high courage and high consideration, you can't have a win-win situation. You can either have a win-lose or a lose-lose. And of course in an organization we want a win-win situation. In the case study there was a worker named Ham who had high courage but low consideration for the other workers. There was also some engineers who had low courage but high consideration. If both of these people could have had both high courage and high consideration, they could have worked together and there might not have been so many problems.
3. Another thing I learned in class was how to motivate a person in an organization the right way. You can butter them up, beat them up, or use control and focus. But when their personal mission colides with the organization's mission, the person in the organization will go where their heart says. That's that kind of motivation you want in an organization.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Columbia's Final Mission
5 questions to ask panel
1. How would you make your procedure of reporting to someone else better and less confusing so that everyone knows who they are supposed to report to?
2. One problem that I noticed was that the engineers felt like nobody cared what they said or that it didn't really matter to the people that were higher up. What problems could this cause and how could we solve this problem?
3. There was also a problem of a lot of people reporting only to one person. How could the structure of this organization be set up differently so that there were more than one person to report to?
4. How could all the committees that were set up in NASA work and communicate better together instead of each seperately trying to solve a problem?
5. It seemed like some people were more concerned about staying on the set schedule of the upcoming flights than the safety of those that were on board Columbia. Why was this a problem and what can be done about it?
5 Insights
1. One thing that was mentioned in class is how NASA has kind of a bottle neck set up. A lot of people report to one person and then that person reports to one person and that person reports to one person. One thing I learned that I hadn't thought of before was that by having an organization set up that way, it is hard for so many people to report back to one person and how it could be better distributed out. It got me to thinking why they would have it set up that way.
2. Another insight I had was about caring about your employees and not just your customers. And some points it didn't seem like the people at NASA really cared about those on the flight, they just wanted to get them back so that they could stay on schedule for their upcoming flights. Some people didn't even want to try to help them even if they thought they might be in danger just because they said there was nothing they could do about it anyways. It's important to care about your employees as well as your customers because their the ones who help the customers.
3. Another insight I had was when Bro. Adams told us the story about the employee at Nike. He made a big mistake and cost the company a bunch of money, but he didn't fire him because that employee should have learned from his mistake and wouldn't make it again. Whereas if he had fired him and hired someone knew, he would risk having the new person make the same mistake. I thought about that and how true it is and that probably happened to a lot of people at NASA.
4. One thing that was brought up was how one of the committees was trying to get extra picures of the spot where the foam had hit the ship and weren't able to because they hadn't gone through the proper procedure of requesting these photographs. It seemed like the proper procedure wasn't understood by all the people working at NASA because if it was they would have gone through the right people to get these photographs. Instead the order for the photographs was cancelled and there ended up being a lot of frustrated people. Good communication is neccessary in an organitzation in ever aspect.
5. Another thing that was brought up was that some of the people working at NASA felt like their opinion didn't really matter because the people higher up would do what they wanted to do anyways. I think this goes along with treating your employees well because if the engineer's opinion never mattered and nothing was really done about what they had to say, what's the point in them doing there work? Not only that but every single person in an organization is important and maybe if someone had listened and acted upon what the engineers had to say, the there would have been less problems with the Columbia.
-One place where I've seen the idea of treating your employees well so they will treat your customers, is at my job in the Admissions office for BYU-I. All of the employees and student employees are treated so well. We are respected and listened to. Because of this, we love to come to work and we help the office by treating our customers with that same respect.
1. How would you make your procedure of reporting to someone else better and less confusing so that everyone knows who they are supposed to report to?
2. One problem that I noticed was that the engineers felt like nobody cared what they said or that it didn't really matter to the people that were higher up. What problems could this cause and how could we solve this problem?
3. There was also a problem of a lot of people reporting only to one person. How could the structure of this organization be set up differently so that there were more than one person to report to?
4. How could all the committees that were set up in NASA work and communicate better together instead of each seperately trying to solve a problem?
5. It seemed like some people were more concerned about staying on the set schedule of the upcoming flights than the safety of those that were on board Columbia. Why was this a problem and what can be done about it?
5 Insights
1. One thing that was mentioned in class is how NASA has kind of a bottle neck set up. A lot of people report to one person and then that person reports to one person and that person reports to one person. One thing I learned that I hadn't thought of before was that by having an organization set up that way, it is hard for so many people to report back to one person and how it could be better distributed out. It got me to thinking why they would have it set up that way.
2. Another insight I had was about caring about your employees and not just your customers. And some points it didn't seem like the people at NASA really cared about those on the flight, they just wanted to get them back so that they could stay on schedule for their upcoming flights. Some people didn't even want to try to help them even if they thought they might be in danger just because they said there was nothing they could do about it anyways. It's important to care about your employees as well as your customers because their the ones who help the customers.
3. Another insight I had was when Bro. Adams told us the story about the employee at Nike. He made a big mistake and cost the company a bunch of money, but he didn't fire him because that employee should have learned from his mistake and wouldn't make it again. Whereas if he had fired him and hired someone knew, he would risk having the new person make the same mistake. I thought about that and how true it is and that probably happened to a lot of people at NASA.
4. One thing that was brought up was how one of the committees was trying to get extra picures of the spot where the foam had hit the ship and weren't able to because they hadn't gone through the proper procedure of requesting these photographs. It seemed like the proper procedure wasn't understood by all the people working at NASA because if it was they would have gone through the right people to get these photographs. Instead the order for the photographs was cancelled and there ended up being a lot of frustrated people. Good communication is neccessary in an organitzation in ever aspect.
5. Another thing that was brought up was that some of the people working at NASA felt like their opinion didn't really matter because the people higher up would do what they wanted to do anyways. I think this goes along with treating your employees well because if the engineer's opinion never mattered and nothing was really done about what they had to say, what's the point in them doing there work? Not only that but every single person in an organization is important and maybe if someone had listened and acted upon what the engineers had to say, the there would have been less problems with the Columbia.
-One place where I've seen the idea of treating your employees well so they will treat your customers, is at my job in the Admissions office for BYU-I. All of the employees and student employees are treated so well. We are respected and listened to. Because of this, we love to come to work and we help the office by treating our customers with that same respect.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
