A500.1.5.RB_LloydPayneDamien

Write a 500-word (minimum) journal entry on intellectual perseverance, as described here by The Critical Thinking Community. In your journal entry, reflect upon how intellectual perseverance will be important as you progress in your studies. Consider how intellectual perseverance relates to your concept of a good leader. 

The Critical Thinking Community describes Intellectual Perseverance thus: "Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight."

A shorter definition of intellectual perseverance is that when one looks at a problem, one does it with enough rational behavior and over a long enough period of time to be able to overcome the irrationality of others opinions and those deep held beliefs of your own to achieve better insight into the problem.

In other words, intellectual perseverance is sticking with some problem that needs to be answered, and instead of quickly answering the problem, one should take the time to see all sides of the arguments both for and against, and also put aside any bias that you may already have towards the problem.  By doing this, a best possible outcome is more likely.

Intellectual perseverance for example will be very important in my studies because each and every one of the pupils on the course comes to it with an inherited set of biases and opinions on matters that will pertain to the course.  The job of the student is not merely to rote learn and receive the information through the lecturer.  I was once taught that even if I did agree with a statement, perhaps it would be thoughtful to try to think a reasons why I shouldn't be agreeing.  In that way, you can cover all the angles that make up the different approaches to solving problems or answering questions at this level.
In a real world environment - especially as leaders, this type of critical thinking is going to be just as important, and so during study is certainly the best time to be doing all the practicing!

And it is this concept of becoming a good leader that has encouraged most people on this course to take part in it.  If I remember the leaders that I have admired in the past, these have been the ones who listen, and who don't make unconsidered decisions without using some form of intelectual perseverance   There was nothing worse than leaders that brought their bases to work.  In Australia I had a boss who believed that all pommies (Englishmen) where lazy and whined a lot.  The phrase whinging pom came out more often than not.  Sadly, no matter how hard you tried to prove him wrong he was having none of it.  He wasn't prepared to see how irrational his adherence to that belief was.

I like to believe that we have installed enough safeguards into our process of electing our political leaders into office.  By safeguards I am talking about the debate process in particular and the news media interviews. While these candidates may have firm opinions on some subjects, the reason the debates are so important is that it reveals how stuck on listening to just one side of the story they may be. In addition, a one-on-one interview can reveal if they have any intellect at all!

As my studies progress, I will be absorbing a raft of new ideas on concepts on how to be a good leader.  There will be differing approaches and ideas, some of them are bound to be contradictory. I already have my own thoughts on the subject, and no doubt my own biases bought about by experiences in the workplace.  This is where intellectual perseverance will really pay off.  Good leaders are going to face opposition, some of it irrational, but some of it with salient points and facts that may sway an opinion.  A really good leader will be one that takes that extra time to make sure that whatever the outcome, it is the best for all concerned.

A633.1.2.RB_LloydPayneDamien

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

I guess my attitude towards leaders has changed somewhat - but not necessarily for the better! I believed more in the power of leaders when I was very young - my scout leader would get us through the wettest or muddiest camp out,  the Principle of my school was someone who was held in awe, and my parents knew absolutely everything that was worth knowing.  As a teenager I became more involved with politics, at least following politics, and here the image of national leaders became slightly more fuzzy around the edges. I guess Margaret Thatcher taking away the milk I used to get every day at school started that ball rolling (just search "Margaret Thatcher Milk snatcher" in Google). 

In adulthood my attitude towards politicians in particular changed.  Now I was of voting age, not only was I demanding more, I wanted to hold them more accountable.  While I would never have dreamed of holding my school principle accountable for my average grades, I would now demand that any economic misfortune in the country be accounted for by someone; and if no one was forthcoming then the Leader of that party at least was totally responsible.  If a politician behaved in a way I would find reprehensible in my own life, then they too should be held to those standards, and if that meant losing their job then so be it.  Politicians of course never help themselves - or rather, that is always what they are doing - helping themselves - to every freebie, back door payment or lobbyist's money for the next campaign they can find. Rather than representing the people, they represent the corporations who fund the next campaign, and so now my attitude is one of resignation towards leaders.  If the system is so broken, is it any wonder that a consistent 50 (ish) percent of the population even bother to vote in a presidential election, and that even fewer still get to choose who will run?  This then must reflect the apathy towards at least political leaders.  (Turnout in my grandfathers day was around 70+%, in my parents day around the 60% mark).

If we take as a starting point the attitude to those in authority/leaders as held by your grandparents, and then look at those attitudes held by your parents, and then by you, and then by the younger generation, is there a changing trend? If so, what is it?

I think in some cases there has been a change, but in many cases that change has been different for different figures of authority. Let me explain.  In the case of the police, my perception is that the respect and air of authority that they may have commanded in my grandparents day has slowly been eroded, so that now the younger generation almost holds them in contempt.  However, this is perhaps not the same change towards millionaires and entrepreneurs.  In my grandparents day, a good solid and steady job was what was held in good regard.  Working for a large steel mill in Pennsylvania for example, could come with some prestige - especially around the depression, when any job was scarce.  Today, the younger generation hold entrepreneurs in very high esteem instead.  Facebook's creator, Mark Zukerburg is seen by some of the younger generation as a god of social media, despite allegations that he stole the idea from school friends.  Tycoons like Richard Branson are held on a pedestal despite his very shady beginnings in record piracy.  It seems that respect has shifted from those in authority to those with material means or socialite type popularity.

Why do you think this has occurred?

This has perhaps occurred because society itself has moved towards an ever more materialistic society, as well as technology moving along at such a rapid pace. I think this has caused the media to create authority around personalities that then become famous for nothing more than being famous.  As a gap grows between those at the top and those at the bottom, those at the bottom change their attitudes towards those at the top - which is where the leaders often emerge from.   In my Grandparents day much of the country would never hear of a story regarding a senator in Ohio, unless they lived in that state.  Campaigns were based locally, national politics were played out over the radio and newspapers with there readership being of a certain class.  Today, social media and the 24 hr news broadcasts can cast worldwide news reports live, and keep streaming them direct to individuals phones or tablets. Perhaps this constant hunt for news has degraded the quality and increased the quantity of news - which in turn has degraded the image and attitude people have to those in these stories.

Additionally, while we live in a world with more information about leadership and leadership practices why is it that we have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders and how do you think we can close this gap?

This is perhaps the most interesting question.  Is there a gap in the quality of leadership because we no longer have the time to train and mentor the real leaders of the future?  Maybe the information available seems irrelevant in an age where a two term state representative and 1 term as a senator is enough to get you elected as leader of the free world.  Perhaps having a million followers on Twitter looks better on a today's resume than having experience in leadership - or any knowledge of it.  I believe that in a global market, and in an age of technology, this gap can only be closed by adapting leadership styles and premises to such a fast moving society, and making it more relevant without dumbing it down too far.  Today's masses cannot easily grasp a 235 page book on complex adaptive leadership, but may well digest a practical example from it presented on YouTube.

A632.9.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien

Reflect on two situations; one, in which you were extremely confident of the outcome and what your attitude was towards the subject; and second, a situation in which you would less confident or not so confident and how you felt about the situation. Based on this module's readings and this video write a reflection blog detailing the situations above and describing the role emotion plays in decision making.  Identify three emotional reactions for each scenario. 

In January 2001, after nearly 6 years, I was laid off from my first job out of University.  It wasn't so much of a company shedding excess employees - it was more of an ethnic cleansing after a merger of two companies.  Everyone in my old company was let go.  At this point in time I was not at all confident at being able to secure as good a job as that one - and emotions were running high.  First, I hadn't expected to be let go - I was young, had a great track record and was well liked in the field. Secondly, my wife had just given birth to my daughter (our first child) some 15 days before, and thirdly I had made no plans or had nothing saved for any period of time unemployed.
Luckily, the company, as part of my severance package, paid for a counselor who would help me back into the job market.  An expert in resume writing, application letters and interview technique, he at least was supremely confident that I could not only get a job, but a promotion to a better job at that.  This took some swallowing, and in fairness I did not believe a word he said.  

Together we scoured all over the UK for suitable positions and applied even when I thought I had no chance.  One job in particular - Head of Sales and Customer Service, was not only a giant step up, but it was in a completely different industry, about which I had no experience at all.  My attitude became one of resilience - if I could just hold on long enough then maybe one day I might be able to get off this ride!
When I was asked to interview for that job, I practiced daily the right answers to difficult questions about my experience, and learnt how to swing a conversation away from focusing on the negative to seeing the positive sides of how I have successfully managed many people and things - so who cares if it was in a different industry? At the interview I was no more confident than David was when he faced Goliath. My emotions were running high, a thousand emotions coursing through my body a minute - panic, inexperience, then calm, then fright, then panic again.

But somehow, these emotions may well have helped me score the job.  I must have at least appeared to be confident, which to the interviewers at least gave the impression that I was wholly capable of doing the job.  Later in life, having been on the other side interviewing candidates, you get to see the huge range of qualities in people, and then contrary to the belief of the interviewee, not everyone is as equally qualified or well versed at interview technique as you are.

After this interview and subsequent acceptance of the job, my attitude towards interviews and what jobs one could do really changed. I never became over-confident, but it is fair to say that I really believed that there was no promotion that I could not at least apply and interview for. To this day in fact, one of the reasons for doing this masters degree, is that when the time comes and the opportunity arises, I will be the most qualified person in the room.  I really believe that there is no reason that in 10 years I cannot be the one sitting in the back of the Merck helicopter and not the one flying it.

After being Head of Sales and Customer Services for a few years, a small advert in the local Northamptonshire paper where I had relocated to caught my eye.  The well known company, Avon, was looking for a regional sales manager for half of the country, based at their Head Office not 15 minutes down the road.  As a significant pay rise, much better perks and a promotion, I naturally applied.  This job would take me from being a manager of a small team in a big company to being responsible for a large team in a worldwide company - and directly reporting to members of the board.

I applied because I now had confidence.  I also armed myself with all the right information.  Where as the few colleagues I told about the job dismissed my chances out of hand as being too great a leap, I believed that I couldn't lose.  The worst care scenario here would be that I got some good interview practice that I hadn't had in a number of years.  In this case all my emotions were positive ones.  I had belief in myself, I had confidence, and I was happy to be trying out for a better life again for the family.  In addition I was proud of everything I had accomplished so far, and felt assured at my ability to convince someone in a 30 minute interview that I was the man for the job. I firmly believe that these emotions helped me greatly in the process.
As it turned out I was the right man.  The job was mine - and I must say that although I never came into contact with a single Avon product, I did enjoy mentoring and encouraging a field force of over 3000 women and some 300+ managers - right up to the point that I discovered I could be a helicopter pilot!

A632.8.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien

Create a reflection blog based on critically thinking about how the Cynefin Framework can benefit your decision-making. Consider the chart on page 7 of the HBR article "A Leader's Framework for Decision Making" and discuss decision-making in multiple contexts; include two specific examples of decisions in multiple contexts that you have made. Detail the considerations from the various contexts that influenced your decision.  Critically assess the Cynefin Framework and describe 5 ways it can provide an improved context for decision making.

Life throws at you one decision after another, it seems that not only are we constantly making decisions, but those decisions that we make can continue to effect other decisions yet to be made down the road.  That is why the Cynefin Framework can be very important - recognising that not all decisions have the same style of decision-making, and that the data about the problem will dictate the style used to solve the problem, unlike in more traditional models where the reverse is true.

Flying tends to produce more decisions than most careers.  Even before you get off the ground, there are decisions to be made about the weather, about the pilot himself (is he well enough to be flying?), about the skill set in the cockpit for the type of flying that will be done, the passenger load, the fuel load for the mission etc etc.  Those decisions often come down under the simple contexts.  If an aircraft can carry 11,700lbs of total load, and the aircraft weighs 9000lbs when full of fuel, only 2,700lbs of people can get on board at first. Two pilots are going to take up 4-500lbs of that, and luggage that the passengers carry may reduce that weight too.  Simple contexts like this are the easy stuff - so long as you pay attention.  The cliff that Snowden talks about in his presentation on the Cynefin Framework is never more apparent that in the aviation industry.

In the summer of 2005 a perfectly functioning Sikorsky S76 crashed into the East River after takeoff in New York City. On board were two experienced pilots and 6 executives from MBNA - including the company chief executive.  The weather was fine, although somewhat hot for this time of year.  The crew were experienced and the flight was routine - so what was it that made this flight "fall off the cliff" from  a simple context to one of chaos?.  The answer turned out to be complacency.  The crew had arrived early for the pickup - and since the passenger manifest had four people on board the crew decided to top off the tanks with fuel.  When the passengers turned up though, there were 6 people - and each of them had a lot of excess luggage (they had been at a conference for a couple of days).  Essentially, the aircraft became grossly overweight when loaded - and the pilots did nothing to correct it.  On takeoff, they found they did not have enough power or a favorable wind to help, and the aircraft sank downwards and hit the water. 
Additionally, the pilots did not utilize the emergency power feature (called blowaway power) that is built in to every S76 aircraft.  This feature allows the operator to pull in excess of normal engine limits for a short period to get him out of this sort of trouble.  It went unused.  What started as a routine flight, turned bad mostly due to overconfidence, poor planning and poor training utilization in the end of emergency procedures. Decisions made to not defuel, or to make two flights were not made.  The decision to take all the luggage also contributed to the accident chain, as did the filling of the aircraft full of fuel. A decision to use the blowaway power may well have transformed the chaos into a more manageable part of the Cynefin Framework. As stated in the framework - complacency leads to the cliff!

My own flying has seen me in the chaos section, when a 4ft tall black cormorant decided that he would proceed directly through my number one engine without passing go and collecting $200! There certainly was chaos in the cockpit that day - every noise, alarm and red light came on and stayed on, and, as the remaining engine revved up to take the extra stain, the number one engine simply quit and fell silent.  The Cynefin Framework has it right when it states that the order is 'Act-Sense-Respond'.  Any light or alarm in the cockpit is instantly a trigger that activates the emergency checklist memory items.  Despite the initial surprise, I was even astounded myself how quickly my brain moved to the emergency checklist items.  At this point you don't care what it was that stopped the engine, nor how it got there - you just act to keep the aircraft in the air - then secure the failed engine and carefully land the aircraft on it's remaining engine.

Chaos is something most pilots would rather avoid - mostly out of fear that you don't know how you will respond in such a situation.  Once stabilized though the process again moves to becoming simple - it's just a different but normal landing like any other plane would do for a standard run onto the runway landing!
I like the Cynefin framework in that post mortem, you can understand the decisions you made and where they fit in, but also you can see why there is so much emphasis on training - pilots can see that this is essential at the times that really matter in all but one of the contexts in the framework.

Here are my 5 ways that the Cynefin Framework can provide an improved context for decision making:

1) Leading change.  Despite the fact that you may think you know the answer of how to change things, sometimes there is no right answer, so the Cynefin Framework helps lead that change and improve the organization.

2) Helps others to discover thew answers for themselves, which then put them in a better position to do so again in the future.

3) It supports making sense of complex problems that usually exist in a business environment.

4) Rather than just supporting a single domain like other models, this framework crosses the boundaries into all issues.

5) Cynefin is not tightly constrained, making it much more useful in an everyday environ.

A632.7.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien

Reflect on the role of collaboration and getting to resolution in the process of decision-making. Rarely, if ever, do our decisions affect only ourselves. Consider the importance of getting other stakeholders involved; how can they help you make a better decision for all?  Detail a specific situation where you are faced with the decision, describe the process you went through and the outcome you were seeking. Identify 5 ways stakeholder involvement can help you make better decisions.  Did you achieve your objective?  Looking back at the decision you made and its consequence, was there anyone else that would have added value to the process? Identify 3 ways you may use this learning experience to make better decisions in the future?

My family and I have had to make some major decisions in the last 10 years, almost all of them about my career path with helicopters.  Clearly, as my wife and I were residing in the UK, with a small baby and another on the way, any decision taken at that juncture was not just going to affect me, but everyone in my immediate family, and also those in both our extended family.  The consequences of not considering everyone's viewpoint could be very serious indeed down the road.  The question of emigration was not something that I had initially suggested, though I had said to my wife that I wanted to change career paths to follow one as a helicopter pilot - I had imagined that this would all be accomplished in the UK.  My wife's initial reaction was a resounding no - I had a stable career and was providing well for the family; with two young children in the fold, changing career at this point did not seem to be the sensible option.

But I was very lucky that the wife was also a stakeholder in this decision.  While I temporarily abandoned the vision of being a helicopter pilot, she did not.  She actually researched the idea much deeper than I did, and within 6 months had formulated a plan for this vision to become a reality. 
My wife's vision of this reality was not the one that I had in mind, and so again the process started over, with her explaining how her research into piloting had shown that the USA was the best place to be for this to come to fruition.The preliminary vision needed some adjustment - the end goal (corporate pilot) was set and we embarked together on a route which indeed eventually ended up with me as a corporate pilot.

Having the wife as another stakeholder not only really changed the vision, but as we started to accomplish things according to our plans, we both knew the goals we were working towards, and could effectively work together to make those a reality.  Of course it was not all smooth sailing.  Obtaining a green card was not the simple process that we had read about, and again the two of us adjusted to make that a reality as well.  Several other decisions came our way on the way to corporate pilot.  We have had to move house to different states no fewer than 4 times, and moved house more than 9 times in 10 years.  This is something easier to do when the children are young, but as they grow up - their opinions begin to matter too, and they themselves become stakeholders.

The five ways I believe stakeholders can add value to the process are:
1) Bringing a fresh outlook to the situation - discovering things not considered on your own.
2) Reshaping a goal to be even more achievable and yet more exciting at the same time.
3) Having a sounding board to bounce new ideas off.
4) A stakeholder is just that - as invested in the outcome as you are - giving you confidence that this is no solo venture, and boosting moral and confidence on the way. Cheerleading your joint vision.
5) Helping to readjust plans when necessary for either stakeholder.

If I look back at the long process of making it to the corporate pilot, I consider if there was anything or anyone who would have added value to the process.  I firmly believe that the answer is no.  There is a reason for this.  Sometimes a decision just has to be made, and if the only two stakeholders are in agreement then something should start to move forward.  My wife's parents were a consideration, and we listened to their objections with us being over 4000 miles away in a different country.  We also listened to ourselves as we weighed up the cost of the support system we would lose by not being near the parents.  Our friends all thought we were nuts - but if we listened too much to that, we would never do anything that would challenge the status quo and not achieve our dreams.

 A green card lawyer would definitely have spelled out the picture of gloom that was ahead of us in trying to obtain a green card, but had we known these facts beforehand, I think this would have definitely reshaped the plan to training and pursuing the career in the UK.  As it happened, we did obtain a green card (against all odds, and as a great shock to our immigration lawyer) - something we are forever grateful and moved forward with.I did become the corporate pilot that we both wanted, and indeed did it in what I consider a record amount of time.  There were many firsts on the way - first Captain of a S76 at PHI in the G.O.M to only have 2500 hours, first captain to be requested to a position by an outside firm, first captain at AAG to be managed ship captain in less than 6 months and first corporate pilot at one of the top 5 firms in the N.E. with less than 10 years total flight experience.

There is an old saying that "too many cooks can spoil the broth" and  in this case I am convinced that there was no other person that would have added value to the decision, instead they would only have a negative affect, which may well have changed the whole plan in the first place.

Of course we have used a similar process in many other aspects of our lives.  We rarely make a solo decision when it affects more than ourselves.  We have proven to ourselves that a good plan, that both of us are agreed upon can bear fruit if we both work together as a team - whether that be through the power of positive thought or just the well structured step by step process that requires collaboration of all stakeholders.