Competencies for Today's Workforce - Critical Thinking

In a recent survey conducted by the American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) a significant skills gap was identified in addition to a lack of the following critical soft skills: communication, creativity, collaboration, and critical thinking.  Respondents also reported that leadership or executive-level skills were the number one skills gap in their organization (Pace, 2012).

Pace (2012) identified the following competencies that employees look for in their young workforce. These competencies are provided as they were reported 20 years ago, today, along with predictions for the future workforce (see table below). 

Top 5 competencies employees look for in youths entering workforce
20 Yrs. AGO	TODAY	FUTURE
Technical Mastery	Self-motivation and Discipline	Adaptability
Self-motivation and Discipline	Effective Communication	Effective Communication
Confidence	Learning Agility	Learning Agility
Effective Communication	Self-Awareness	Multicultural Awareness
Resourcefulness	Adaptability	Self-motivation and Discipline
		Collaboration

There are two discrepancies from the previous information. The first is that even though respondents identified the following skills gap lacking in their workplace (communication, creativity, collaboration, and critical thinking), they also reported that leadership training was the number one skill gap in their organization. Additionally, the top five competencies for the entering workforce do not include those missing skills that were already identified, with the exception of communication and collaboration, although collaboration was only listed in the future category. This leaves out creativity and critical thinking skills.

With nearly $12 billion dollars dedicated to leadership training in the US alone (Peters, Stephens, & Baum, 2012), there is a disproportion of training leadership related skills compared to training the required critical skills needed to complete everyday tasks. Pace (2012) highlighted that collaboration between higher education and businesses was essential to developing these skills and to assist in closing these gaps. However, examples provided were for leadership skills collaboration programs. I agree with Pace, there must be collaboration between higher education and businesses (private & public) so that the workforce employed today will have appropriate competencies and skills. Unfortunately, concentrating on leadership training will not resolve the skills gap.

Concentrating on the competencies identified above would be the best place to begin closing the skills gap between what today’s businesses are requiring and what new employees are offering. Essential in closing this skills gap is to concentrate on providing today’s students with critical thinking skills. If students are not able to think on their feet and solve complex problems how can you expect them to lead these efforts from others (through leadership training?). If businesses concentrated on demanding and hiring employees that were able to demonstrate true critical thinking skills, then, their workforce would be able to be trained to be future leaders. Higher education should be able to train their students to practice critical thinking skills through workshops and groups assignments in classrooms (group projects add the collaboration to the mix, with collaboration being one of the competencies). Teaching critical thinking skills can be practiced and taught through the following three criteria:

• Reflective scepticism.
• Identifying and challenging assumptions.
• Imagining and exploring alternatives (Martin, 1995, p. 5).

Additionally, teaching students to become self-directed learners could be easily accomplished through the following four stages presented by Grow (1991), the student’s stage is listed first followed by the teacher’s role listed second:

• Dependent - Authority Coach
• Interested - Motivator, Guide
• Involved - Facilitator
• Self-Directed - Consultant, Delegator

By addressing the competencies, rather than trying to train leaders, businesses and higher education will be able to address the skills gap more effectively. Resulting, ultimately, in a better qualified workforce for the future.

References:

Grow, G. O. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41, 125-149. doi: 10.1177/0001848191041003001

Martin, G. W. (1995). An approach to the facilitation and assessment of critical thinking in nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 16, 3-9.

Pace, A. (December, 2012). Preparing Today’s Youths for Tomorrow’s Workplace. Training + Development, 42-46.

Peters, L., Stephens, G. K., & Baum, J. (December, 2012). When developing leaders, don’t blame training! Training + Development, 59-62.

America is Still Exceptional: As Long as Others are Copying Us

You hear some critics of Steve Jobs claim he didn't invent his creations, he only made someone else's creations better.  This may be so, up to a point, but it doesn't diminish Job's creativity, vision, and innovation.  Job's, and others at Apple, made the mouse better than what Xerox was able to do.  This collective innovation process, from Xerox to Apple, provided users with an interactive computer experience that changed the computing industry forever.  The rest is history, which has led to the Apple we know and love today.

Copying American innovations is a daily occurrence in some parts of the world.  Fletcher (2010) highlighted that "piracy has made China one of the world's most frustrating markets for software companies…. IDC estimated that 79% of the PC software installed in China last year was pirated" (p. 1).  Samsung has been accused of copying the Apple iPhone and iPad with their Galaxy line of products in which Apple filed a patent law suit against the company.  Apple claims that "Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging" (Fried, 2011). 

Online attacks that targeted a number of U.S. Corporations originated at two Chinese Universities: Jiaotong University and the Lanziang Vocational School (Packowski, 2010).  Sources are not clear on whether these attacks are government driven or rampant students just playing around on their computers.  Either way, the security of U.S. Corporations and their privacy has been violated.

The examples provided above are only a few of the copyright, piracy, hacking, security breaches, patent infringement, examples that can easily be found in newspapers on a daily basis.  These examples are clear evidence that America is still exceptional, still provides innovative products, and still provides a product desired from around the globe.  One question would have to be made: What if no one wanted to copy American products anymore?  What if everyone wanted to copy Chinese products, or Japanese products, or India's products instead?  The point is simple: American products are still clearly innovative and America is still Exceptional!

Moving into the future we need to consider what needs to be done to continue our technical and innovative advantage.  Are we producing an educated work force to operate in and to move beyond the Web 3.0 environment?  Are we leading the technology summits around the globe, or are we participants.  Where are most of the technology students coming from in the next 20 years (U.S., China, India, etc…)?  Where are the most innovated students coming from in the next 20 years?  Is America positioned to be the clear leader in innovation and new technological products for the next generation?

References

Fletcher, O. (October 26, 2010). Fighting China's pirates: Software makers try lower prices to lure users away from illegal copies.  Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704300604575554701758669106.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEFTTopNews

Fried, I. (April 18, 2011). Apple files patent suit against Samsung over galaxy line of phones and tablets.  Retrieved from http://allthingsd.com/20110418/apple-files-patent-suit-against-samsung-over-galaxy-line-of-phones-and-tablets/

Paczkowski, J. (February 19, 2010). World war WAN: Google hack traced to schools in China.  Retrieved from http://allthingsd.com/20100219/google-hack-traced-to-schools-in-china/

Lewin and Historical Traces to Change Management

It is often good to trace the historical threads from where certain concepts originate.  One concept, change management, is one such concept that is worth remembering in today’s complex environment.  

Kurt Lewin is often identified as the father of social psychology with contributions to the theory and practice of planned change (Coghlan, Brannick, 2003).  Lewin added to the scientific management practices of Frederick Taylor by adding the human dimension.  This shifted managements focus from scientific management to a social-psychological way of thinking (Gilley, Dean, & Bierema, 2001). Papanek (1973) identified Lewin’s concept of job enrichment:

The worker wants his work to be rich, wide, and Protean, not crippling and narrow.  Work should not limit personal potential but develop it.  Work can involve love, beauty, and the soaring joy of creating.  Progress, in that case, does not mean shortening the work day, but an increase in the human value of the work (p. 318).

Through work from the Harwood studies, Lewin developed the following core elements to action research:

1. Understanding the interplay between the work environment and the individual worker is critical for change in organizations.
2. To understand the system, you must first seek to change it.  Lewin called this action research.
3. Wed scientific thinking to democratic values for organizational change (Gilley et al., 2001, p. 145).

The core philosophy behind Lewin’s planned approach to change focused on changing group behavior rather than changing individual behavior.  This planned change took the form of action research which can be viewed as an eight-step processes:

1. Entry
2. Start-up
3. Assessment and Feedback
4. Action Planning
5. Intervantion
6. Evaluation
7. Adoption
8. Separation (Rothwell, & Sullivan, 2005, p. 43).

Action research should be viewed as a systematic way of thinking embedded in a cyclical process of questioning, assessing, investigating, collaborating, analyzing, and refining (Schoen, 2007).

References:

Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2003). Kurt Lewin: The “practical theorist” for the 21^st century. Irish Journal of Management, 24(2), 31-37. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global (Document ID: 650633441).

Gilley, J. W., Dean, P. J., & Bierema, L. L. (2001). Philosophy and practice of organizational learning, performance, and change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Papanek, M. L. (1973). Kurt Lewin and his contributions to modern management theory. Academy of Management Proceedings, 317-322. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.1973.4981410

Rothwell, W. J., & Sullivan, R. (2005). Practicing organization development: A guide for consultants (2^nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Schoen, S. (2007). Action research: A developmental model of professional socialization. Clearing House, 80(5), 211-216. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Team Leader Performance Functions

Team leadership is one critical component to a teams success. Zaccaro et al. (2001) identified that teams are required to successfully integrate individual actions, operate in an emerging complex environment, and provide some form of team leadership to define its goals and tasks. In a previous post I identified that team members were not too concerned about the type of leadership that a team was exposed to - as long as fundamental leadership characteristics were being practiced. Zaccaro et al. (2001) concluded: "effective leadership processes represent perhaps the most critical factor in the success of organizational teams" (p. 452).

A team leaders' actions need to be designed to match the circumstances of the group - "not just any leadership action contributes to group effectiveness" (Zaccaro et al., p. 455). Burke et al. (2006) described that a leader is effective "to the degree that he/she ensures that all functions critical to task and team maintenance are completed" (p. 289). This requires the leader to continuously monitor the progress of the team, thus operating in a dynamic environment. This constant alignment of a leaders' actions to meet the needs of the group are supported by Burkes' et al. (2006) definition of team leadership: "team leadership can be described as a dynamic process of social problem solving accomplished through generic responses to social problems" (p. 289). Fleishman et al. (1991) also identified team leadership as a social problem solving activity where he provided a taxonomy of leadership performance functions that can aid a leader to better align his/her actions to match the circumstances of the group. This taxonomy consists of:

1) Information Search and Structuring
2) Information Use in Problem Solving
3) Managing Personnel Resources
4) Managing Material Resources

Information search and structuring refer to a leader's acquisition, evaluation, and organization of information pertaining to the teams goals. This first dimension, Information Search and Structuring, is composed of three subordinate dimensions: a) acquiring information, b) organizing and evaluating information, and c) feedback and control (Zaccaro et al, 2001). Information use in problem solving consist of the leader's application of information acquired for goal attainment. The second dimension, Information Use in Problem Solving, is made up of three subordinate dimensions: a) identifying needs and requirements, b) planning and coordinating, and c) communicating information (Zaccaro et al., 2001).

Both dimensions, Managing Personnel Resources and Managing Material Resources, involves the implementation of plans and solutions (Zaccaro et al., 2001). The Managing Personnel Resources dimension is composed of four subordinate dimensions: a) obtaining and allocating personnel resources, b) developing personnel resources, c) motivating personnel resources, and (d) utilizing personnel resources. The fourth dimension, Managing Material Resources, is made up of three subordinate dimensions: a) obtaining and allocating material resources, b) maintaining material resources, and c) utilizing and monitoring material resources (Zaccaro et al., 2001).

While it is not important that one single person, a single team leader, accomplish all of the functions listed in the taxonomy, it is important that these functions are completed, either by one single leader or through the distributed efforts of the team members. Listed below is the full taxonomy of team leader behaviors, provided by Fleishman et al., (1991):

Leader Behavior Dimensions

1. Information search and structuring

a. Acquiring information
b. Organizing and evaluating information
c. Feedback and control

2. Information use in problem solving
a. Identifying needs and requirements
b. Planning and coordinating
c. Communicating information

3. Managing personnel resources
a. Obtaining and allocating personnel resources
b. Developing personnel resources
c. Motivating personnel resources
d. Utilizing and monitoring personnel resources

4. Managing material resources
a. Obtaining and allocating material resources
b. Maintaining material resources
c. Utilizing and monitoring material resources

References:

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288-307.

Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leaders behavior: a synthesis and functional interpretation. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245-287.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451-483.

Does Team Leadership Matter?

I recently conducted a brief survey measuring two different types of team leadership models: external team leadership and shared team leadership. Results indicated that there was no significant difference between the two types of team leadership models. This is based on the participants’ perceptions. A brief summary of the survey is provided below.

Introduction / Background

Today, organizations rely on teams more than ever due to the complex environment they operate in. Organizational performance relies, in part, on team effectiveness and on the teams’ leadership structure. Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks (2001) stressed this point by indicating: “as many organizations move from a traditional hierarchical structure to a more team-based one, team processes have an increasingly important influence on leader and organizational effectiveness” (p. 477).

Despite the growing emphasis on team structures within the organizational landscape, Burke et al. (2006) identified that little is known between leader behaviors and team effectiveness. Zaccaro et al. (2001) indicated that little is known relating to how leaders manage effective teams: “In spite of vast literatures in both leadership and team dynamics, there are few conceptual frameworks of how leaders contribute systematically to team effectiveness” (p. 477).

Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, and Gilson (2008) identified that external team leadership and shared leadership models “hold particular promise for future research efforts” (p. 449). External team leadership relates to the influence and authority that a leader has over a team; one who is responsible for the teams’ performance, one who serves as coordinator of operations, and one who is a liaison and guide for the team (Mathieu et al., 2008). Druskat and Wheeler (2003) identified that external leaders were a forgotten group - organizations concentrated more on building teams rather than supporting external team leaders. In contrast, shared leadership refers to the distribution of leadership duties among team members. Mathieu et al. (2008) identified that shared leadership “emerges from members’ collective knowledge, skills, and abilities” (p. 450).

Purpose of the Study

This survey adds to research efforts relating to team leadership, which comes at a critical time as more organizations rely on teams to become more effective in a complex environment. The purpose of this survey is to identify participant perceptions of different team leadership models: specifically external team leadership and shared team leadership.

Findings

The major findings from this survey indicated that there is no real difference between the types of leadership models incorporated in teams. Team effectiveness does not appear to be affected by the type of leadership model that is used.

Limitations

Burke et al. (2006) identified the “examination of the conditions under which leadership matters the most is of the utmost importance” (p. 303). Future research could look at when leadership becomes an important component to team effectiveness.

Implications for Practice

This study indicated that team leadership style did not have an affect on team performance. This could hold true as long as good leadership practices are being followed. Participants had a preference to the type of team leadership that worked best for them, but data indicated they could perform in either type of team leadership model. Regardless of the team leadership model, as long as fundamental leadership practices are being performed team effectiveness should sustain, if not improve.

*Note: For full details about study request a copy in the comment section.

References

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288-307. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.20060.2.007

Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 435-457. Retrieved from http://journals.aomonline.org/amj/

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analysis using G*Power 3.1: Test for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41(4), 1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Huck, S. W. (2008). Reading Statistics And Research (5^th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson

Lemieux-Charles, L., Murray, M., Baker, R. G., Barnsley, J., Tasa, K., & Ibrahim, S. A. (2002). The effects of quality improvement practices on team effectiveness: a meditational model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 533-553. doi: 10.1002/job.154

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476. doi: 10.1177/0149206308316061

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451-483. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.